User talk:TAnthony/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Talk pages

Most importantly, TA, I want to thank you for your wonderful efforts to improve redirect categorization! Just so you know, it is customary to add project banners only to talk pages that have already been created for another reason. So edits like this are covered at {{WPRED}}, where it states, "Note 1: While the above talk pages are eligible to be tagged with this banner, they should be talk pages that already exist." Thanks again for your help with redirects and other improvements!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  20:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Interesting, I have not seen this condition before in other WikiProjects. Though I suppose since WikiProject assessments don't really apply here there are no concerns about skewed statistics. I've now read the template documentation but I'm not sure of the reasoning behind the limitation of use. Have you considered how the uniform use across the talk pages of relevant templates and categories can assist the Project in organization, mass changes, notification of new creations and even just giving you an accurate count of items relevant to the Project? I imagine this has been discussed, and I have no horse in this race, but just a thought.— TAnthony^Talk 21:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this stems from the guideline, specifically WP:TALK#CREATE. So since talk pages are not to be created just to place the {{Talk header}} template on the page, the same reasoning goes for project banners. The only reasons to create a talk page are either to begin a discussion about how to improve the subject page or to install a template about a deletion discussion and its outcome, such as keep, merge, etc. That's the community consensus regarding the creating of talk pages.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Just thought of another reason to create a talk page – one might create a talk page, for example, for a sandbox page or a template documentation page, and redirect it to a main talk page. This is done to centralize discussions.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Valerian and Laureline for Star Wars

Hey! @Garnhami: was interested in adding something about similarities between the French comic Valérian and Laureline, and I suggested it be added to Star Wars sources and analogues. I know the article for the comic has references that look RS to establish that a comparison has been made (see the second sentence under the In other medua section) and Garnhami has a couple of other sources, one of which is an interview with the comic author, discussing it. Generally, based in a lookover of the sources, it seems reasonable to me to include on the sources and analogues article. I'm stuck on mobile, so I'm not as much help as I'd like to be, and Garnhami indicated on my talk they'll have to find some time in the future to write a couple of sentences. But, I thought I'd reach out to see if you're available to help in the endeavor? If not, that's absolutely fine. I just worried about sending Garnhami out without support, though I'm quite sure it'll all shake out well. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC) ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll see if I can write a few sentences on this the next few days. I am not really a star wars expert (nor a valerian expert) so I'll have to see how I have to write it. I'll put the few sentences here so you can check it. But feel free to already write something yourself. cheers,

Garnhami (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Block on user:Williamelyse

I noticed the user came in and messed with your page. I reported it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism so hopefully there'll be a block soon.

I've had it happen to me (even had threatening emails through my personal website) and personally I've found it's best not to engage vandals on their talk pages except through standard vandalism templates. Obviously, it's frustrating and you need to decide how to address it yourself (and you were well within your rights to do what you did), but I thought I'd let you know the behavior has been noticed and wheels are turning in the administrative sphere.

Thanks for your diligence!

--KNHaw ^(talk) 21:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: User has been blocked. --KNHaw ^(talk) 21:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

White Princess

Thank you for correcting the mistakes - I just noticed that I had the wrong episode and went back to change it but you had it already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMcGady (talk • contribs) 23:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Catholic Integrated Community

Hi,

as you were recently correcting my first article Catholic Integrated Community by 'added uncategorised tag using AWB'

I would like to kindly ask you: could you help me to get this category "box" at the end of the page? I tried several times and read all instructions, but it won't appear.

Thank you!

Paddy Pillow (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I fixed the category and did some citation cleanup. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 20:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you very much, TAnthony, for cleaning up my article Catholic Integrated Community!! That's great.

Paddy Pillow (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Rebels template

I noticed Template:Rebels was just created, and I'm not well-versed in templates, and for some reason I think you're better versed in them. But, I'm not sure of the appropriateness of certain aspects of it, like how many characters are listed in it, many of whom are just occasionally appearing rather than significant. And a lot of that media seems to me to be rather not actually Rebels related. It has a rebel in it, but it's not Rebel. And, stripping everything else out, I'm not sure if a template is needed to navigate between essentially seven articles. But, anyway, that's my gut feeling but I've only kind of dabbled in navtemplates. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@TenTonParasol:: I did a little cleanup, including renaming the template {{Star Wars Rebels}}, removing some items which I don't think are directly related to the series (Rogue One and the Thrawn novel) as well as Leia, who (to my knowledge) only appeared in one episode. I'm not a regular viewer though, so I don't know about many of the other characters, though I'm guessing that Lando and the droids are some who don't belong.— TAnthony^Talk 18:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Mm. If one-offs or like, only a handful of appearances, really don't belong, I'll go through and weed them out. I wasn't sure exactly if they needed to stay or not. But, thank you for the clean-up and the clarification. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

AWB request

Hi, TAnthony! As somebody with AWB, I was wondering if you might be able to help me out with something – as per this discussion, I (necessarily) moved Hunter (U.S. TV series) to Hunter (1984 U.S. TV series) yesterday, which has left a number of articles pointing to the former which is (as of now) a redirect back to Hunter (disambiguation). Is there any chance you could use AWB to help me out here, and update the articles pointing to Hunter (U.S. TV series) to link instead to Hunter (1984 U.S. TV series)? If you could, if would be greatly appreciated on my end! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Consider it done! — TAnthony^Talk 12:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Got another one...

So, I had to move Murphy's Law (TV series) to Murphy's Law (UK TV series) – any chance you can perform your AWB magic on this one too?... Thanks in advance! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. But it may take a little while for the transclusions of {{Colin Bateman}} to disappear from What links here.— TAnthony^Talk 14:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate {{Redirect category shell}}s

FYI, almost all double-{{R}} #Rs now have {{Redirect category shell}}s on them, so you'll definitely need to add some code to your AWB scripts to append to the existing RCS templates, and save this as a fallback. I'm finding these periodically as I'm doing my own error-checking.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

TD & FF

Hey there! I thought I'd ask you for two favors! :)

1. Would you be able to take a look at the reverted synopsis for the Total Divas episodes? I had been accused - falsely, might I add - that they were in copyright violation by another user. However, I clearly re-worded sentences and phrases to avoid that. I've asked other users but they either didn't respond or decided to just let this user have it and re-add the synopsis manually, whereas I don't take lightly to users who change everything and think they are in the right no matter what, and they fail to see reason or compromise.
2. Regarding the infoboxes, the use of stating how many seasons or movies that cast members/producers/directors have been in for that project is redundant and should not be mentioned in the infobox, right? On the Fast & Furious page, they had - in small font - next to each personnel how many movies they had starred in/edited/directed. I was just looking for some guidance on that subject seeing as my edits had been reverted before for no reason given, so I thought I'd ask around and see if I'm in the right or wrong.

Thanks for your future help! :) MSMRHurricane (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hello TA. I saw this and wanted to ask if this is true for all uses of the template. If so it sure will be convenient. I have seen back and forth edits over which style of these to use and that can be solved as well. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 20:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Yes, {{reflist}} is now fully responsive, and it will actually ignore existing column parameters. Cleanup/removals (like my edit) will probably be done en masse by a bot.— TAnthony^Talk 05:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm always behind on finding out about these technical changes so I do appreciate you bringing me up to speed. Cheers and have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 05:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, TAnthony, very much for saying that my efforts to improve and expand the article Elijah Daniel successfully demonstrate that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DIFF.

Especially during this trying period of time, I really appreciate your being so willing and kind to acknowledge the hours upon hours of research and writing that I've recently put into this.

Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: No problem, some editors have a tougher threshold for notability than others, so it's important that we all join in the discussion. However, in trying to bolster the article you may have slightly overdone it, and some of Anonpediann's criticisms about trivia and sources are accurate. It seems like the article may survive the AfD, but if it doesn't there is probably a worthy article in Trump Temptations itself.— TAnthony^Talk 14:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That would be more research for me for the other topic for a later date. Sagecandor (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

SFM Entertainment article

Please monitor the SFM Entertainment article as someone is making unhelpful edits. Thank you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Roose Bolton Picture

Hello TA

As a new contributor, I would like to know if it could be possible to use the Roose Bolton's picture you uploaded for the french translation of the article. Thank you for your answer :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dauvdelateci (talk • contribs) 15:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please don't split other users' comments

I'm not interested in getting into another drawn out debate with you at Talk:Ramsay Bolton, but could you please stop inserting commentary as far up the thread as you could possibly hope to get away with? You may not technically be refactoring my comments (although what you did last time I posted here and not on WT:ASOIAF was), but twice now you've drawn the discussion up rather than down the thread, and it's really not helpful.

I did not want to respond directly to or get into a back-and-forth over your COMMONNAME argument (put simply, I think you are wrong: COMMONNAME applies to topics like Jiang Jieshi where there is one very common name and one obscure name; cases like Ramday where any reader familiar with the topic would likely be aware of both names are not covered by COMMONNAME), but I addressed it in an addendum to my OP comment anyway. You then inserted another comment above my addendum.

It is really difficult to discuss things with you when you do things like this; I only happened to notice your comment by random chance.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussions sometimes get broken up in threads, and sometimes it makes sense to me to reply after the comment in question if making a specific point. It's not the end of the world if you or anyone else "misses" a comment, but it's harder to understand what I'm talking about if I'm referring to something said six inches up the page. I follow comments on talk pages by history/diffs and I don't usually have an issue keeping up.— TAnthony^Talk 23:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Listen, that may have come off as snarky, didn't mean to mislead or confuse in that discussion.— TAnthony^Talk 23:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's fine. I just don't like my comments being broken up or recontextualized without me being notified.

By the way, could you not invoke WP:NOR in contexts where it is not appropriate to do so, as you did here? Primary-sourced based arguments in favour of one policy-justified title over another is not "original research", even if you think it is based on in-universe, as opposed to real-world, reasoning. It's not quite the same thing as this, since the article change I am arguing for is not removal of content but rather switching one title for another, i.e., neither adding nor removing anything. If more people made the claim you did, though, I would probably be inclined to add something about situations where the proposed change is net-neutral rather than for removing something.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

A primary-source based argument for an article name is, for example, noting that the novels refer to Eddard as "Ned" most of the time. The frequency Bolton vs Snow references in the books may be helpful as part of the bigger picture. But much of your initial argument was debating the in-story validity of the legitimization, how Tommen's own legitimacy affects who calls Ramsey what ... these is all your personal suggestions and conclusions. These might be (sort of) helpful in copyediting article content but we've already established that a topic's common name is determined by how it is referred to in reliable sources.— TAnthony^Talk 13:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. And how is any of that a violation of WP:NOR? The comments you were referring to were made on the talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I never called you out as violating the policy, I suggested that your argument was in-universe/OR .. meaning that the conjectures you were making about why the character should be called Snow were based on your own interpretations of story and not a reliable source making a similar argument. It may be relevant to note/track Martin's usage in the series, but you lost me at the legitimacy stuff, etc. That said, I can see that even though the Google News results favor Bolton, Snow and Bolton are probably more-or-less equally common. I don't really care either way, and I'm open to changing my "vote" if I can get a better understanding of why you prefer Snow.— TAnthony^Talk 00:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Family trees

Hi. As you may know there's has been a request submitted for deleting the family trees and it's still continuing here. I thought you might still have something to say in order to defend your opinion. It's somehow necessary to convince the others to vote in favor of keeping them. Keivan.f^Talk 10:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Reflist

In this edit you removed a parameter with the edit summary: References: Correct unknown or deprecated {{Reflist}} parameters (the template is now responsive) using AWB. You are making large numbers of these mistaken edits and I'm asking you to stop now.

The column width in reflist is not deprecated, and the documentation states:

• Unnamed parameter (must be the first one if used): the minimum width for each column of references, typically in ems. Syntax (for example) |30em

The template is coded to give editors the opportunity to set the minimum column width most suitable for the article in question and your edits are removing their implementation without good reason. Please roll-back your fait-accompli. --RexxS (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I know. I'm basically removing |2 and |3. I'm specifically not removing |30em, although this matches the default set by {{reflist}} and is therefore unnecessary. I have indeed arbitrarily been removing |25 or |35 because the difference from 30em is negligible and seems arbitrary. But I see you yourself added 35em to Heliox recently, for example. I can't really see why, but it seems important to you, so I'm glad to take some of these customizations out of my run. It sort of defeats the purpose of responsive columns to tweak them unnecessarily but I understand that I may not see the specifics in some articles and shouldn't assume.— TAnthony^Talk 19:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The default for responsive is equivalent to setting |39em not |30em and that's a big difference on a wide screen, and is a long way from "unnecessary". In any case, that's not your call. Now, please restore |25em and |30em and any other widths you've removed because editors – not just me – set them for a reason. The template with a minimum column width set is just as "responsive" as the default template, but different reference styles will display optimally with different widths. You are forcing a "one-size-fits-all" solution on articles and you need to revert yourself before I take you to ANI. --RexxS (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: Where's the documentation that you're reading that says 39em? And if that's documentation, what about the code? So far as I'm aware, the current default is 30em. s--Izno (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought so too. But I totally support preserving all editor-set widths as RexxS suggests.— TAnthony^Talk 20:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: What makes you think there's any documentation? See Template talk:Reflist/Archive 29 #Responsive. When I did those experiments in March, I found by trial-and-error that "On a vector skin it transitions from 1 to 2 columns at around a window width of around 1290px; from 2 to 3 columns around 1795px window width; and 3 to 4 columns around 2300px. Monobook is similar. That's roughly equivalent to setting colwidth=39em, which is rather wider than we seem to use commonly." I haven't done any tests since then, so I can't say with any certainty that it hasn't altered. But I am absolutely certain that <references responsive /> doesn't allow any variation from the width it's set to, unlike {{Reflist}}. --RexxS (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: I just checked Godville where the output of &ltreferences responsive="1"/> is presently 30em. In phabricator also and the change from 35 to 30. --Izno (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: Thanks for checking that. TheDJ suggested that the default was 35em back in March as you can see from Template talk:Reflist/Archive 29 #Responsive, but it didn't match my experimental value then. Hopefully it has now settled down. I apologise for not knowing that the value had changed since its inception, but I think the fact that the default has not remained at a fixed value actually makes my point. --RexxS (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: The responsive addition was 35em to begin with. I wonder if your experimental testing might be affected by some factor of font-size or font-selection being applied somewhere else. Regardless, <references responsive /> doesn't allow any variation from the width it's set to, unlike {{Reflist}}. is true at this time (perhaps not forever), so a variance from a reflist with 30em sizing should probably not have its custom column size removed. 30em probably can have its sizing removed, since that was a direct response to a comment I made (or I made in joint with some other unknown persons) on phabricator. --Izno (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: I can only tell you what I found when testing and as I reported on 17 March 2017 – that I had to use {{Reflist|39em}} to match the transitions of <references responsive /> in the same place at that time. If you don't believe me, that's up to you. Since I have no confidence in the devs sticking to any particular value, I still don't recommend removing even the 30em sizing, in case they decide responsive should be 25em tomorrow. --RexxS (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Re:EmmyExpert

You should probably take a look at WP:OWNTALK. He has every right to remove an ANI notification. Please don't construe this as support for him. John from Idegon (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

He removes every comment on his talk page immediately after receiving it, I only saw the ANI myself because I happened to catch his talk page at the right moment. I thought I'd give the many editors who have been interacting with him a few minutes to see it, as I don't think he's "cleaning" his talk page in good faith. But whatever.— TAnthony^Talk 04:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

JONS REAL NAME

• http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-06-29/has-this-game-of-thrones-fan-figured-out-jon-snows-real-name

(The13thdoctor (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)).

Thanks for your message. "Jaehaerys" is noted within the article with a citation to the supposedly leaked info from Empire. This still does not warrant a change in the character's name throughout the article. The Radio Times article you've provided above is speculation at best, but still would not back up the extent of your edits. Thanks again.— TAnthony^Talk 15:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

KioWare

TAnthony - Thanks for adding the uncategorized tag in the KioWare article. Can you take a look and see if I've fixed it properly? I deleted the note (Uncategorized) as I added a category, but I want to confirm that it is correct. Thanks! Lboniello (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Lboniello

Aegon Targaryen listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Aegon Targaryen. Since you had some involvement with the Aegon Targaryen redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Character tables

Hi there, I have a question in regards to table formatting, over on the Gilmore Girls page, a user claims that character descriptions are meant to be present in the table on the main page, yet I find it completely redundant as each main character already has a biography on separate pages, and on other character tables, there are no descriptions since it's just unneeded in most cases. Also, I claim that characters should be ordered by appearances, rather than their status', would you agree or are they in the complete right? I can't find any rulings this other user is claiming, yet I want to avoid getting into an edit war. Any help would be appreciated, thank you! MSMRHurricane (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Polderhoek

Greetings TAnthony, I've never seen {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} before, I've been using {{notelist}} does it make any difference? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Thanks for the message. No, {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} mimics the default configuration of {{notelist}} so they're basically interchangeable.— TAnthony^Talk 22:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hello, User:TAnthony, hereby this badge is awarded to you just in recognition of your helpful works here in English Wikipedia. Thank you so much. The Stray Dog Talk Page 17:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Bitcoin Magazine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bitcoin Magazine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted, or merged with Vitalik Buterin. I notified you as you have contributed to Buterin's page.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Magazine 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. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Outlander

I think that you don't search informations. Aren't fan pages, ok good but you are wrong. Ely201093 (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Jon & Dany (Nephew/Lover) : Apologies & Arguments

Hello there, TAnthony ,it's the guy who keeps making the (nephew/lover) edit on the Daenerys Targaryen wiki page. My most sincere apologies for not looking over your multiple messages regarding my edits and for never providing an edit summary, but I'm still getting accustomed to this whole article editing process. In fact, I just made an official Wikipedia account a few moments ago. However, I would like to argue against my edit continually being excised and listed as "redundant info". The reason you provided as to why in your original message doesn't make much sense considering that on the Jon Snow wiki page, Daenerys Targaryen is designated as both the character's lover and aunt whilst also having her name already listed twice in the box, under relatives and significant others. My repeated attempts to make that minor alteration to the Daenerys Targaryen wiki page was simply me trying to fix, what I saw as, a glaring incongruity between her page and Jon Snow's. Isn't consistency and up to date information something you strive for on this website?

Thanks for your time and patience! I hope this message reaches you and I await your response. I'd like this resolved ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.134.253 (talk • contribs) 22:04, September 28, 2017 (UTC)

75.141.134.253 (talk · contribs) and @Sluvy7: Thanks for the message, I figured you weren't seeing the edit summaries or talk page messages. I didn't notice that this was in the Jon Snow article as well, but it is also incorrect. I'll have to look back and see when it was added. The point is, the relationship mentioned should match the parameter title, and "relatives" is not the place for lovers to be listed. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 22:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Reaction Engines Ltd

Thanks for your proof reading of this article, I'm about a month in to the process of updating it, SABRE (rocket engine), Skylon (spaceplane) and HOTOL so style edits may be a little premature. They're appreciated at any time, of course, but as the text they're applied to may be rewritten or discarded quite soon your time might be more constructively spent elsewhere. I'll happily give you a ping when I'm done. Stgpcm (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Soap Opera Years

I have noticed that you have reverted several pages of soap opera characters due to the infoboxes with the years next to them. While they are apprecaiated, it has been noted by other users that the new changed in the years (i.e Tina Lord's article with reverting Andrea Evans (1978–81, 1985–90, 2008, 2011) to Andrea Evans (1978–81, 1985–90, 2008–11) it would relieve clutter and the duration part of the article would clearly explain that Evans appeared in 2008 and 2011 and that no other actress appeared between both stints. Jester66 (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jester66: I should point out that per the update to MOS:DATERANGE months ago, full years are always used in date spans (2008–2011 and not 2008–11, unless it happens to be two consecutive years like 2010–11). So I'm not sure that replacing a dash with a comma (2008, 2011 vs 2008–2011) really declutters anything, but it does encourage confusion, as I noted in my edit summaries. Did I miss something at the Soap WikiProject talk page? This really seems to go against common sense and basic MOS practices, I haven't seen it done, and I don't think it would fly across WP at large. Can you point me to where any discussion may have occurred?— TAnthony^Talk 02:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@TAnthony: It started happening around 2013 and 2014, starting with the Scott Baldwin, Laura Spencer and Dorian Lord pages. The pages for the UK soaps are currently doing this. Jester66 (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Which means, like it always does in the soap articles, two editors think something is a good idea and populate every article of their favorite soap with it LOL. Or like, the 150 family parameters now in the infobox. You know I love your work and dedication, so please don't be offended when I say that I feel a pang of disappointment every time the soap Project diverges further away from the standard TV MOS. But I suppose that is why I pretty much stopped watching soap articles.— TAnthony^Talk 03:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

OMG the infobox has a |breed=?? LOLLL — TAnthony^Talk 03:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars novel article that you authored

Anth, I'm looking for a SW novel article that you had written. I don't remember the title, but it takes place during Luke's training on Degobah with Yoda. I don't want to edit the article, but am interested in the topic. Do you remember the title? I would appreciated it.

I also saw Mark Hamill last September at FanExpo Canada. He reads Wikipedia and I wanted to ask him what he thought about some of the SW I authored and others with me worked on, but they cut the question line short. Anyways, I'm hoping that you remember the title. Much appreciated.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@NadirAli: I think you're probably remembering Star Wars: Heir to the Jedi. FYI, I, Jedi is an older novel with a similar topic.— TAnthony^Talk 15:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I found it. Apparently it's a short comic book and there's no entry for it. I hope to do one later. But thanks for these titles. I should also check those out.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hawthorn Ridge

Thanks for removing the |abbr=on}} it's reminded me to be careful when copy-editing articles in Word. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem! I did make sure it wasn't a new parameter I didn't know about, but one of my ongoing cleanup tasks is to police Category:Pages using reflist with unknown parameters.— TAnthony^Talk 15:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Images

Hi, I noticed you tweaked my Great Run medal images. Many thanks. I am still really confused how imagery works and the different copyright options. Would I be able to ask your advice?

Also the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_North_Run image was used in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_North_Run article and has been resized. It now comes out as stretched. How do I correct this in the article? RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@RoyalBlueStuey: No problem, and please feel free to ask for my assistance anytime. Image copyright issues can be very complicated, I get confused myself in some instances. As far as the image rendering issue, this is common after a resize (your browser is confused between the old and new versions of the image) and is easily remedied. To the right of the "View history" tab at the top right of the article window should be a pulldown called "More". You want to select "Purge", which will purge the cache for the page in your browser. You may have to do it more than once, and you may also have to purge the cache on the image page itself. Also just refreshing the page with the browser itself will work. It should also eventually fix itself if you're unable to get around to purging manually.— TAnthony^Talk 14:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Morales (The Walking Dead) picture

Hi User:TAnthony, just wondered can you get a season 8 image of Morales (The Walking Dead) for the article's infobox please? Something like this [1], cheers. Theo (edits) 16:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done.— TAnthony^Talk 18:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Great job TAnthony! Thanks loads for that. Theo (edits) 20:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Your message

I am not making any edits. Vandalism? Not sure what you are talking about. I'm trying to use a template to create a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrelalves2013 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Billie Lourd

please don’t assume that I was the one making edits under an anonymous IP to Billie’s page. it wasn’t me. I’ll change it back to the way that you had it, if you haven’t already. I haven’t spent 11 years on wikipedia so no, I don’t know everything I should. I’m sorry for the inconvenience Hurricane Seth (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hurricane Seth: Thanks for your message. I do assume, because the edit summaries sound like you, and are conveniently reverting me. But I don't even care as much about the Billie Lourd format as I do about your behavior as an editor. I've been trying to get you to discuss the issue rather than just reverting to "your way". I'm sorry if I've come off as stubborn myself, but this is a collaborative environment, and when we are challenged we have to discuss. You don't have to revert yourself at the Billie Lourd page, but I'm going to seek some clarification on this issue from other editors. If it comes down to editor preference, we really should not be going back and forth on this, it is very disruptive. Thanks again.— TAnthony^Talk 01:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@TAnthony: again, i’m sorry. I’m a new editor and it’s my fault for being unprofessional. let me know about the correct format. thanks.— Hurricane Seth^Talk 02:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

help with articles

hey, you're clearly better at this than me. so can you tell me what I'm doing wrong and why you're getting so upset about it? Hurricane Seth (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hurricane Seth:: I appreciate your willingness to discuss and learn. For the record, I'm not upset with you, and though I have been doing this longer, I don't think I'm better than you or anything like that. My issue is that this is a collaborative environment; sometimes we "get our way" and sometimes we don't. One of the hardest things to get used to can be accepting other people's edits to your work, and to articles you have contributed to in a significant way. Another is seeing something "wrong" in an article but having to leave it alone indefinitely because a discussion is happening, or consensus has gone against you. But it's a give and take, you leave some things alone that you may not like, knowing that someone else is doing the same to your edits. In the absence of specific guidelines, in a dispute it's up to editors to find a solution everyone can agree on, or at least accept grudgingly. The format of Billie's credits is obviously very unimportant in the scheme of things LOL. But ideally, you want two tables and an episode count, and I want neither. For the moment I'm willing to compromise on one or the other. Neither of us "owns" the article, and neither of our opinions is more valuable than the other. It's fair for me to respect your opinion and give you something, and fair for you to respect mine and give me something. I'd like some time to look into things, not to find "the correct way" (which may not exist), but to see if there is any previous discussion or FA articles that might convince me to change my mind. So we both should be acting in good faith: I make a timely effort to either convince you with evidence or accept your argument, and you let the article ride until I can. It's not going to kill anyone to leave the article the way it is.— TAnthony^Talk 01:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I would thank you and not me

No. Thank you. It was you who came up and said, this is a cluttered and crowded layout. It was you started doing something about the mess. And, a lot of that mess was originally put in there by me. So, I only followed your lead. BTW, I checked the history, and it looks like you have been protecting the article from quite some bovine excreta for quite some time. Salud. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

AWB code

Hello, your AWB code is malfunctioning. Its adding image has rationale to templates where the parameter already exists, which then causes a duplicate template parameter error. Can you fix the code please - Try the "IF" option in Advanced Find and Replace - Thanks. - X201 (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I usually catch when that happens. It looks like in this case the templates did have the parameter itself without a "yes", but my run should have just added that instead of the entire template. Thanks again for the catch.— TAnthony^Talk 15:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Miscellaneous film character

You re-added the "Miscellaneous film" option to the {{R from fictional character}} template on the Doof Warrior redirect. This usage of the optional parameter is contrary to the documentation for the template which says "An optional unnamed parameter, |1=(name of work), may be used to supply the name of the fictional work that includes the character." So the only proper usage of this parameter by the documentation seems to be "{{R from fictional character|Mad Max: Fury Road}}". Why do we even have Category:Miscellaneous film character redirects to lists? Doesn't seem to be any value. What determines if a redirect lands there? Seems like every character redirect would qualify. What's its purpose? Jason Quinn (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jason Quinn: Sorry, I didn't realize that you had purposely removed it, I just police the redirect categories periodically. I think the intent of the hierarchy under Category:Fictional character redirects to lists (as well as episodes, elements, and locations) is to have every redirect categorized in some way. There are currently about 13 franchise subcategories under Category:Film character redirects to lists, so any redirects that don't fall into one of them go into Category:Miscellaneous film character redirects to lists. Obviously unlike TV series, many standalone films won't have enough characters/redirects to warrant an individual category. The misc film redirects could be just kept in the template default category Category:Film character redirects to lists, but after awhile it's hard to tell which are new and should be further categorized, and which belong there.— TAnthony^Talk 22:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There may actually be a few subcats deserving of creation here though, like for Jurassic Park, Mad Max, and others that seem to currently have multiple character redirects.— TAnthony^Talk 22:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, consider creating some subcategories here: Category:Comics redirects to lists. Ꞷumbolo 22:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: Actually, the redirect template {{R comics to list entry}}, which populates that category, doesn't currently support any kind of categorization.— TAnthony^Talk 22:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, TAnthony. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Energy sword

Fyi, the problem seems to be a peculiarity of the Wikipedia mobile app. The mobile app brings you to the start of the sword article, and that appeared misleading as the link text is "energy sword". Thanks for caring. --dealerofsalvation 20:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Retconned characters/actors

There is a difference of opinion as to whether actors that portray a retconned character, who was originally believed to be another character, should still be considered portrayers of the original role. Days of Our Lives did it with Roman Brady/John Black in 1991, One Life to Live did it with Todd Manning/Victor Lord, Jr. in 2011, and General Hospital just recently did it with Jason Morgan/Andrew Cain. Each of the former characters were introduced with a specific actor in the role and written out at some point. New actors stepped into the roles, billed as recast, and later, each of those recast were re-written to be entirely separate characters, who thought they were the originals. Should the actors that were introduced as a recast still be considered as one of the actors to play the original role? For example, the Todd article lists the recast Trevor St. John as still having portrayed Todd, an editor has done the same thing with the Jason Morgan recast, played by Billy Miller, but the Roman Brady page does not list Drake Hogestyn as one of the actors to play the role. Do you have an opinion, or any advice on what should be done? --Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 17:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nk3play2: Yes, I'm familiar with these examples and I definitely think, for example, Hogestyn should be considered an actor who portrayed Roman. The lead of the Roman Brady article seems to note this, and the situation is explained well in the Casting section, but Hogestyn is just not in the infobox for some reason (he should be). Is there a discussion happening somewhere? This is a good example of how real-world perspective shapes the format and content of an artice. At the time the "replacements" played the roles, they were recasts. Story retcons are notable but they don't nullify reality.— TAnthony^Talk 16:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

No there isn't a discussion happening, but I felt an edit was about to ensue and I wanted to avoid it. Thanks for your input. --Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 18:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

My message on Star Wars

Tanthony Why did you delete my edit on Star Wars? My edit was from official sources about Kathleen Kennedy doing more films about Rey,Finn,Poe and BB-8 set after Episode IX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RonBond007 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I intended to clean up your addition and format the citation properly, but the url you provided as a source doesn't seem to work, and I was unable to find the article you were citing.— TAnthony^Talk 05:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hevon article tagged for unreliable sources?

I developed an article for Devon Hamilton and Hilary Curtis, a pairing on The Young and the Restless that was just recently tagged for unreliable sources. I've reviewed it myself but I know I could be biased. Is it possible you could review the article and tell me which sources you feel are "unreliable." The most questionable portion of the article could be the "Reception and impact" because in addition to critical analysis, it also includes fans reaction. It's a bit lengthy, so whenever you have time would be fine. --Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 19:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nk3play2: I'll look thru the article when I get a chance, but I just took a quick glance and I'm guessing that livelikemusic is talking about Femfilmrogue, which is a blog and may be non-notable. Also Hevonnation.com seems like a potential fansite, and the urls appear to be dead. I recognize most of the other sources you're citing, though I'm not an expert on some of the newer soap sites. I think you know this, but I usually avoid citing any writing from a blogspot page, and if I come across a website I've never heard of I'll do a wiki search for other articles which may use the domain, and if I find a few I'll assume it's somewhat reliable. I did a search for "Femfilmrogue" and only found it in the couple article and the individual Devon and Hilary articles, which I assume you added. The article looks awesome though!— TAnthony^Talk 19:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

GoldenPath (Dune)

Hi. I would like to draw your attention to the comment I have made at Talk:Golden_Path_(Dune). I don't really have sufficient knowledge to edit the article itself, but I think the issue is important, and I see you have raised it before. Thank you. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-free use rationales

Hi TAnthony. It seems that you are using AWB to review whether a non-free file has a non-free use rationale. I'm not familiar with how that works. but you might (if possible) want to go back and double check the files your reviewing to make sure no erors are being made. I'm bring this up because you reviewed File:Andes Technology logo.jpg as having a non-free use rationale. This file, however, is only being used in the draft namespace which means that it clearly does not satisfy WP:NFCC#9 or WP:NFCC#10c; in other words, the uploader added a non-free use rationale template, but the rationale is clearly not valid per WP:JUSTONE.

As the copyright license says:"To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an 'appropriate' rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template." There's no way this rationale can be seen as 'appropriate' for this use, so the |image has rationale= should not have been changed to "yes". FWIW, I've come across you making the same "error" before for a different non-free image with the same NFCC#9 issue and perhaps there have been others as well. While this is not the type of error that is going be the end of Wikipedia, it is something which could avoided by actually taking another second or two to check where the file in question is being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks for your thoughtful message, I'm very embarrassed. I won't bore you with my process, but every time I do one of these runs, I seem to invariably make errors like this. And yes, it is the reliance on the automation made possible by AWB that is causing it. I always say I should stop doing it with AWB, and then here we are LOL. In any case, I've just deleted my settings file for this task to make sure I can only do this manually moving forward. Thanks again.— TAnthony^Talk 15:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Re-Tyler Christopher (actor)

It wasn't Days of Our Lives' credits that credited Christopher, it was NBC's credits themselves. Also, per Soap Opera Digest, he was in the December 29 episode, not a body double. Not trying to start some stupid ass shit, just wanted to explain where I was coming from with my edits is all. :-) Hope your New Year is going well, as well! livelikemusic talk! 00:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting a favor

Hello, TAnthony.

At the beginning, I would like to thank you for removing the image I had added to the infobox in my article Velvet_(novel). At the time, it was a draft; and you clearly explained that the article had to be moved to mainspace first before any fair-use images could be used. The article is now ready, but it needs to be "reviewed by someone else other than its creator" as the box at the top says. Could you please review the article for me?

Thanks a lot.

Angevilish (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I have made some formatting and general copyedit, it is well written. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

"Reverted Good Faith Edits"

Why is ""? the policy on wikipedia? It's not correct grammar. At least, "?" is correct grammar in every English course I've ever been in. Which user can I contact about this policy. Note: I'm suggesting that punctuation is grammatically correct within a preceding set of quotations. Any help would be appreciated, thank you! Sleyece (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sleyece: Thanks for your message. The MOS employs "British style" punctuation as opposed to "American style", which can take some getting used to for Americans like us! The basic idea though is that punctuation should be inside the quotation marks only if it is actually part of the quotation, which is not the case in your edit. The nuances of this are explained at MOS:TQ. You can certainly comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, but I should warn you that there is little chance off this being changed. Thanks!— TAnthony^Talk 00:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now. I appreciate it. Sleyece (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTUSA

...is a policy that has absolutely nothing to do with the links at APEC China 2001, where your edits have now been reverted twice. Kindly do NOT violate WP:3RR with your automated housecleaning mistakes. Reformat the links, if necessary, to keep it from being picked up by your bot but do not remove them, pending some consensus supporting your edit. — LlywelynII 09:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: Thanks for your message. I apologize if my edit summary was misleading, but per WP:Overlinking, the US need not be linked at all, since it is a commonly known location. In good faith, I'll leave the first instance alone, but it certainly should not be linked three times in the same article. Thanks again.— TAnthony^Talk 13:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

And BTW, I wasn't even close to violating WP:3RR, perhaps you should better familiarize yourself with it.— TAnthony^Talk 13:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Assuming you do change the links again, this will be the third time I'll have reverted your edits. That is precisely 3rr, so kindly just adjust the links to whatever avoids setting off your bot and leave the page alone, or take it to the article's talk page. It's an article about an international agreement at a pivotal moment in American history, and readers shouldn't have to search up and down the page to find more because you have chosen to monitor this particular bit of MOS policy. (And for what it's worth, even though it has nothing to do with this page, thank you for your time elsewhere keeping the pages in line.) — LlywelynII 14:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: It has to be more than 3 times within 24 hours for it to actually be a violation. I'm not sure what you're not understanding here, but per MOS:REPEATLINK you should not be linking the same thing three times in an article. Per WP:Overlinking, you should not be linking United States AT ALL. These are not obscure MOS guidelines.— TAnthony^Talk 15:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to thank you for correcting the US/USA I wrote. English is not my mother tongue and I was not sure what was best. Yours Judith Sunrise (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I have another question. In the Rubik's Cube-Article there is a long list of world records. The United States article is linked for every single American-owned world record. Should all the links but the first be removed? Judith Sunrise (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Judith Sunrise: No problem, MOS:NOTUSA is sort of an obscure guideline that a lot of editors don't know about. And yes, those repeated mentions of United States should be unlinked.— TAnthony^Talk 17:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I unlinked them (as well as multiple mentions of Poland and Autralia) Judith Sunrise (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI

((Div|2)) works fine. It's just the "cols" (in quote marks) that is problem. I see you changing a lot pages and adding extra markup where you don't need to. Just letting you know, maybe save you some of needless effort. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 17:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Fixed column functionality still works, but dynamic/responsive column widths are preferred for accessibility reasons.— TAnthony^Talk 17:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bring this up again, But I'm still finding pages that used to have lengthy sub-lists divided into 2 or 3 columns are now a single long column. This is after you (maybe others as well?) have changed the ((Div col|"cols"=2)) to ((Div col|colwidth=30em)). I know "cols" doesn't work anymore, but why are these lists going from 2 or 3 columns back to 1? (Honest question, I don't know if some decision was made somewhere prohibiting multiple columns. If so, could you please point me to it?) Meanwhile I've been changing the "colwidth=30em" to either ((Div col|2)) or ((Div col|3)), where appropriate, and usually restoring lists back to their multi-column state. If there is no reason not to, could you try to leave the list with it's original number of columns if you're updating a "div col" template? It would be appreciated, and save a little work. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 14:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I took a look at Aircraft carrier (the article you edited right before your comment above), and in the version I changed to 30em, I see three columns. I'm not sure why you're seeing one, unless you're looking at the page on a smartphone or something. No decision was made to prohibit multiple columns, it is just preferred for that function to be responsive/dynamic, since what may look good to you in 2 columns may or may not be good for other readers on different devices.— TAnthony^Talk 23:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed this post now (ping was off). I'm not seeking to prohibit multi-columns, I think they're preferable. They fill up what is otherwise large open gaps of whitespace on the page and reduce any unnecessary length to the page. I primarily edit on either a pc/42" monitor or 17" laptop, and occasionally on my smartphone, but I just came here from Virginia-class submarine where the 30em template left 1 long column the page, on all 3 devices, but now shows multi-cols when switched to ((Div col|2)). I'm not trying to start a whole thing here, just figure out which is the best template to use and why some users may be seeing the same content differently. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 21:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

That's really weird, because in Virginia-class submarine I see four columns at 30em and three columns at 35em. You have varied devices, so I wonder if there's something set weird in your settings? In any case, I stopped the automated changes on this awhile back.— TAnthony^Talk 23:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "settings" you're referring to (do you mean WP preferences?) As for the Virginia class, I was referring solely to the two, relatively small lists under "Block VI" and "Block VII". With 30em, they were both aligned as a single column down the left side of the page, leaving a lot of open space down the right. With div|2 they are now 2 small columns (1 per each Block list) side by side. No gaps. I don't see how those two lists could be divided into 3 or 4 columns. Definitely something odd there. - ^theWOLFchild 23:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that section of that article looks better as two columns, but that could be forced using 50em or something. It is just very weird that you are only seeing one column when {{div col|colwidth=35em}} is in use. I'm not aware of a specific item in preferences that would cause that. Are you using a special skin?— TAnthony^Talk 00:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope, everything is standard. Nothing special in my wiki prefs and no unusual adjustments on any of my devices, like screen resolution, etc. Dunno what the deal is. Just wanted you to know that when I change those templates, it's not to be nit-picky, I'm seeing a real need for the change and an improvement after. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 09:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Your AWB edits

AWB fixes like this edit strike me as cosmetic. WP:COSMETICBOT allows for fixing "egregiously invalid HTML" even if it doesn't change the output of the page, but I'm not really sure how that qualifies. The volume of your edits is pushing you into the realm where bot policy applies, so please keep this in mind. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks for your message. I've been operating under the belief that "correcting" column rendering makes "a difference to the audio or visual rendering of a page in web browsers". In many cases, the templates have been constructed without |colwidth= and with the editor-specified em width as the first unnamed parameter (presumably under the assumption that this template works exactly the same as {{reflist}}), and as you know this doesn't engage the intentional width. That said, in the edit you called me on, though the unnamed parameter syntax is deprecated, the template actually renders correctly because the "cols" parameter is allowed for and left blank. I do skip as many (or more) articles as I change for various reasons, but I'll refine my script further to eliminate trivial edits. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 23:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Minor edits

Further to the above, could you please label your many small or near-invisible formatting edits as "minor"? They are of no interest to the vast majority of other editors, so the courtesy of setting the "minor" flag would allow the rest of us to filter them out when searching. Many thanks, this would be a big help. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Re AWB

My apologies; you left a link to the AWB on the Glencoe Massacre page and I've read through the AWB guide but I still can't figure out what it does or how to use it. Usually I'd just play around with it until I figured it out but I notice the instructions mention 'USe only for good' so I'm hesitant to take that approach. Suggestions?

Thanks in advance.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Robinvp11: AWB is a great way to automate redundant tasks because it cues up each article and can make the edits for you, based on your pre-programming, and all you need to do is check and confirm each edit before you execute it. However, you need to have a specific, non-trivial task that needs doing. In the case of Massacre of Glencoe, I was using AWB to empty the maintenance category Category:Pages with missing references list by adding the appropriate missing templates to the articles in that category. AWB also makes its own pre-programmed technical corrections (fixing links, punctuation, number format, etc.) called "genfixes" that it will apply as you use the tool. However, it is against AWB policy to run the tool just for the sake of making genfixes, as they are cosmetic. Do you have any specific tasks in mind?— TAnthony^Talk 19:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Berlin Station edits

Thnx Anthony,

This was my first attempt at an edit and when I started, I suddenly realized I was not logged in, so I copied the whole page content from the edit window to my PC and pasted it back after I was logged in.

I intended only to add content, however, my actions would have seemed like I removed the current content.

My edit was to add text to Eps, 5, 6, 7.

Sorry for any inconvenience.

Regards,

Hugh Ellens Sydney, Australia Pheanixx (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The Force

Users do not update the section of imdb where I got the information about Max Page. If there was another source for this information, I would have found it. You can't use a source for information it doesn't have. However, this section of imdb can be considered reliable.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: I don't know of any parts of IMDb that are not user-updated. And you are obviously using this page as a source for the date. Adding episodes and attributing actors to episodes is a function that users do, I've done it myself. There is no reliable source establishing that a) that episode number aired on that date, or b) Page was actually in that episode. I'm not formally challenging the date, but it should perhaps be reduced to just "2009" since we can't be sure. In any case, There does seem to be a bit too much biographical information on this actor in the article about a commercial.— TAnthony^Talk 20:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

You are correct. There is no guarantee he appeared in the episode. But the information from that part of IMDb comes from official sources. As for the amount of detail, I created the article on the actor, and at the time I wasn't aware of IMDb not being considered reliable, or perhaps that had not become a problem here. Later, I discovered the article on the commercial, which I had not known about, and not having seen his soap character mentioned lately, realized Max Page might not be WP:NOTABLE and redirected to the article on the commercial after moving the content I thought was appropriate.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I just went ahead and took the date out since you said that was too much detail. I thought it was important at the time, but maybe it isn't.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

RE: Altered Carbon Recurring Cast Order

It definitely wasn't listed in credits order before, so I was just trying to order it in a logical way in lieu of that. There isn't really a "credits order" in the episodes for recurring cast as far as I could tell.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcul4u998 (talk • contribs) 19:48, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

I initially was not going to revert you because I wasn't sure if the list was in exactly the "correct" order, but episode number order is definitely deprecated so I did after all.— TAnthony^Talk 20:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

SW Aftermath edits re: Empire's End

Yo boss, is there any reason to include the release date for Star Wars Aftermath: Life Debt in the Empire's End article? The other articles for the trilogy only include the release date for the specific book. And while we're discussing it, generally, any ideas on consolidating the trilogy's publication/release/impact sections as they're almost all copied verbatim for each book's article? Manwok (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The articles actually mention all publication related info up to the specific novel's release; the section in Aftermath doesn't reference a publication date for Life Debt but does note its title announcement, which occurred around Aftermath's publication. The section in Life Debt includes all of this, plus that book's publication. When reading about Empire's End, it seems important to know the publication dates of the previous novels. Further, publication dates for all three novel;s are rightfully covered in the lead of all three articles; as the lead should always be a summary of the article's individual sections, the reader would expect to find the other books mentioned as well within the article.— TAnthony^Talk 17:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Playbill non-free images question

Hi, I noticed you fixed some of my uploads of playbill covers (thanks for that!), could you explain how I should upload them properly in the future? I am adding images to musicals' infoboxes, and I wasn't sure what categories/licensing playbill covers fall into. Thanks! ElfLady64 (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@ElfLady64: Hi, thanks for your message. Playbill is a magazine, so if the image is an actual Playbill cover using the this magazine licensing template with the embedded category will put it in the right place:

{{Non-free magazine cover|image has rationale=yes|category=Fair use Playbill magazine covers}}

If the image is the cover of a generic theater programme, they have historically been considered non-fiction publications and tagged with a book template instead. However, I've noticed that Category:Non-fiction book cover images is very full, and contains a mix of theatre programmes, sporting event programmes, etc. I've created a new category for generic theatre programmes, so please use this code when uploading non-Playbill programme covers:

{{Non-free book cover|image has rationale=yes|category=Theatre programme cover images}}

Thanks again! — TAnthony^Talk 22:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that's very helpful! I'll go back and add other images I've uploaded to these categories. ElfLady64 (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Deadline

Please stop unilaterally changing all mentions of the website Deadline to italics. Not even Deadline itself refers to itself in italics, as demonstrated on its About page. You made a unilateral change to Wikipedia's Deadline with no editorial consensus, no move discussion, no RfC, nothing. If you want to bring this up as a title change, please follow procedures. Wikipedia operates on consensus.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Deadline's About page has nothing to do with our MOS, in which we italicize major publications.— TAnthony^Talk 04:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

First, this is a trade website, not a major publication. Second, such a major change requires consensus. You can't decided unilaterally that you personally don't like something and so you're going to change it without discussion or consensus. Like any other editor, you can call for an RfC or a move discussion. That's the proper way to go about it--Tenebrae (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Calm down, I made a bold edit to Deadline Hollywood, and started a preliminary discussion, and no one chimed in. There are already hundreds of instances of Deadline.com, Deadline, and Deadline Hollywood being italicized intentionally or by accident, my changing some more has made hardly a dent in the 5000+ transclusions, but it has apparently called attention to the discussion. Cool.— TAnthony^Talk 04:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Just want to say thanks, that you're working so collaboratively and collegially on this issue. That calm, logical manner is the essence of a good Wikipedian, and I wanted to express my appreciation to you. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Ha, I was actually going to leave a message on your talk page as well. Sometimes a blunt comment may read as cranky, but I try to be calm and collaborative and reasonable. I don't want you to think that any disagreement we may have on this title format issue translates into any negative feelings toward you on my part. I can be opinionated, but honestly I don't have a particular investment in any outcome of the Deadline discussion.— TAnthony^Talk 02:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral notice

A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, an article whose talk page you have edited, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Requested move 11 March 2018. It is scheduled to end in seven days.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

When may I remove orphan tag

Hello,

When I was create Rachael Maurer article I forget to link back other wikipedia pages. Now I have added related other wikipedia pages into the article. So When the orphan tag will be remove from the header section of the article. Could you please guide me. Mauricebrownuk (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mauricebrownuk: The issue is not the number of links in the article, it is the lack of links to the article from others. When few or no other articles mention the topic, it may indicate that the topic is not notable. To this end, someone has initiated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachael Maurer.— TAnthony^Talk 15:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox images

From User talk:Film Enthusiast

Hey there. The fact that you have been replacing the infobox images of various celebrity biographical articles with "more recent" ones has attracted the attention of a few editors because your editing pattern is reminiscent of Emmy Expert, an editor who has been blocked for disruption. This is a newly-created user account that has been editing many of the same articles with the same behavior. Emmy Expert has repeatedly used IP addresses and new sockpuppet user accounts to continue their disruptive editing. You can look at the current investigation and the archived cases for a little more info. The intent is that this editor be blocked from performing image-related edits, but he/she is unable to stop coming back and replacing dozens of images at a time because they are "more recent".

I'm sorry if you're not Emmy Expert, but in any case I should explain why his/her editing was a problem. While there is no explicit prohibition to updating images, it is usually done when the new image is an obvious improvement, like better clarity or a better angle. Being "more recent" is not necessarily a good reason to replace an image. If this was common practice, watchlists would be clogged with unnecessary changes. Further, as you noticed at Jessica Chastain, dramatic changes in high-traffic articles should be discussed first, especially because the existing image has probably already been agreed upon by consensus. It is also always best to explain with some detail in your edit summary why you consider the new image to be an improvement. I reverted several of your changes, but I also kept some which I thought were an improvement for other reasons, or at least not completely arbitrary. I'd advise you to avoid undiscussed image changes for the foreseeable future if you'd like to keep using this account. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 00:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand now. I would also like to clarify before anything that I am not Emmy Expert. Up to now, I was not even aware of his/her actions or results. Thank you for giving me a better understanding on this issue. Whenever I plan to update an image, I will now make sure to discuss the issue first on the talk page, that way we can come to a consensus. Thank you for understanding TAnthony. Film Enthusiast (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Sock of Emmy Expert

Hi, do you think this new user is a sock of Emmy Expert? Suspiciously similar editing activity of updating images in multiple articles. Would really appreciate it if you'd take a look. Thanks! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Also pinging JuneGloom07, who had launched a previous investigation against Emmy Expert. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: I definitely do think this is an Emmy Expert sock, and I've reported it.— TAnthony^Talk 17:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate it. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination

What's going on TAnthony? It's the King Gemini. I hope you remember who I am. I know we got off on the wrong foot when I first became a user on Wikipedia, but we came a long way and we called a truce and became friends. Well anyway, I hope all is good and well with you. I know we haven't spoken in a while, but I'm here to ask a favor: I'm trying to get nominated to become an administrator and since you and I are friends, I was hoping that maybe you could nominate me. You don't have to give me an answer right away. You can take your time and think about it, but I hope you say that you'll nominate me. I hope to hear from you soon, friend. The King Gemini (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Deadline formatting (let's try this again)

Hey TAnthony! So since the RM discussion has closed for keeping the article title at Deadline Hollywood, would you mind going through the MCU articles to change links to this name as I had mentioned previously? I'm not sure where the whole "publisher"/"work" usage ended up, so maybe to start, just change the link names, not the parameter names? Again, pretty much all the articles in question are linked in {{Marvel Cinematic Universe}}. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks so much! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Working redirects are fine per WP:NOTBROKEN, so changing the thousands of links to Deadline.com en masse may be considered minor/unnecessary and so not an appropriate task for AWB. However, I'm going to do this MCU run (about 114 articles, some of which are not linked to Deadline) to see how many citations I come across using |publisher= instead of |website= or |work= for Deadline. This will inform how I might proceed (or not) with further Deadline link changes. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 16:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting those edits on the GoT characters. I was dreading having to do them myself! TedEdwards 17:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Well thank you for doing yours with an edit summary, I was feeling a little lazy and just used Twinkle to roll them back ;) — TAnthony^Talk 17:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Commander William J. Marks

I added 2 links from the article and one to it from William Marks disambiguation. Hope this is enough to prompt you to remove the multiple issues, deadend and orphan tags? Thanks for calling this to my attention.Slipandslide (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Gap in non-free wizard

Hi, I notice you're doing a lot of work setting up {{Non-free book cover|image has rationale=yes|category=Non-fiction book cover images}} by hand. I created the file using the upload wizard, and it plainly could add these parameters given the information available to it. Perhaps you might communicate with the author(s) of the wizard to achieve this, if indeed (as it appears) you believe the parameters you are adding are necessary for some reason. Just my tuppence 'orth. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Rfassbind. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Aquagirl (Tula), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Rfassbind – talk 01:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

R from fictional element

Hi, TAnthony. For its optional parameter, {{R from fictional element}} wants the name of the work, not the type. This is for proper category sorting and for allowing an optional category to be made to group elements that point the same work (which would show as a red link if not explicitly created.) Jason Quinn (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jason Quinn: Thanks for your message. That's fine for characters and episodes, but there are exponentially less elements per work than characters, often just one or two. I created Category:Star Wars element redirects to lists and others, but I see no usefulness in creating maintenance categories for one or two entries. If you want an rcat for every work, fine, but the documentation makes it clear that you should actually create the category, not leave it as a redlink. Thanks again.— TAnthony^Talk 14:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

In that case, if you don't want to create the category, seems like the optional parameter should not be used at all. By default redirects without the parameter sort into Category:Fictional element redirects to lists. What is your motivation for having the parameter be "Film"? Jason Quinn (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to clear Category:Fictional element redirects to lists using subcategories, as leaving a series of one-shots in that category makes it increasingly difficult to know which redirects have been examined for categorization and which are new. In some cases after placing redirects into one of the "media" categories, like Film, I've gone back in and created a subcategory by work. That can always be done by anyone, but there is nothing intrinsically incorrect about categorizing them by medium. No one else seems to be actively maintaining these categories, but I'm not creating extra work for others who may choose to categorize further.— TAnthony^Talk 14:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Now I understand what you are doing but I disagree with the strategy involved. You are sorting the redirects by type based on the parameter for the name of the work. I believe the better approach would be to modify the {{R from fictional element}} template to add a new third parmeter (perhaps a named parameter like |media= or |type=) for this purpose that sorts into a category like Category:Film fictional element redirects to lists rather than Category:Film element redirects to lists. The currently strategy is not logically sound and a category collision could occur if a fictional work were to be released with the title "Film". Jason Quinn (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

ACTUAL AGE OF AUTHOR LEIGH BARDUGO

Hello, TAnthony. My authoritative, reliable reference for Ms. Bardugo's birth date being April 6th, 1975 starts with but by no means ends with a simple google search of her name. The top right of the results page confirms her age. Also, I attended 3 of her birthday parties myself when were were kids! The 2nd confirmation refers to her University graduation class Yale 1997: Yale's own alumni 'where are they now' page that profiles successful alums featured her under the headline Leigh Bardugo '97 (I was also a student in that same graduating class). Look, it boils down to this - I know her personally, and I'm certain of her real age (not 35 like she tries to tell the world online, which is a lie). Beyond my personal knowledge, I have verified reliable references that confirm it. Please stop interfering with my corrections, and be part of the solution. When you remove my accurate corrections, you undermine your role as a moderator and i think you should ask me before you take such changes down. when you take them down first, you serve to mislead users and promote lies. Whether I footnote it or not, the onus should be on you or her (you might be one and the same) to offer a more-reliable birth date, not to delete the one I supply. There's nothing controversial about her age. what's controversial is YOU deleting any reference to dated milestones that might suggest she's not 35. That's a lie, and I will not stand for it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.67.222.221 (talk) 16:44, April 26, 2018

A Google search is not a reliable source for her birthdate (and the results which you describe appear to be from an earlier revision of the Wikipedia page, which is unsourced and therefore unreliable). Neither is your personal knowledge of her age. I have no obligation to "ask you first" before removing potentially controversial, unsourced information from the biographical article of a living person. And yes, a person's age is usually considered controversial for our purposes, especially if, as you suggest, her self-stated age is not consistent with her probable actual age. If the Yale alumni page notes her as a member of the class of 1997, that's great, please cite it in the article. I should note that her graduation year cannot be used to infer her age, however. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 16:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the Yale citation, but as I said, the Google search doesn't work for a birthdate.— TAnthony^Talk 17:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a mop reserved in your name

You are a remarkable editor in many ways. You would be a good administrator in my opinion, and appear to be well qualified! You personify an administrator without tools, and have gained my support; already!

--John Cline (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Dynasty preemption notes

They came from newspapers, such as on newspapers.com and from Toledo Blade.2600:6C50:7006:400:1541:C156:4D34:A295 (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

No One (Game of Thrones)

Hey there TAnthony! I was just browsing through articles of Game of Thrones episodes and noticed that all of them have a picture in their infoboxs, except one; No One. Would you or someone you know be able to get a picture for the infobox, Thanks. The Optimistic One (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The Theory of Everything (2014 film)

Hi, you seem to have added some duplicate website parameters in this edit. I've fixed it now, but I figured I should let you know. An Owl Called Josh 🦉 (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@An Owl Called Josh: Thanks so much for catching that, I've been trying to look out for it because it has occurred a few times, but I usually catch it before I make the edit. This one is especially embarrassing because there were multiple errors, I must have totally had my eyes off the road that time haha. Thanks again.— TAnthony^Talk 16:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The Royals Recurring Role Edit

Hello, I noticed that you updated Hansel von Liechtenstein's character description and got rid of the fact that he is Queen Helena's secret son. Any idea where that information came from? I originally found it yesterday and am also curious how you got a hold of the fact that I knew I seemed off. Taylerlinb (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I didn't research when that got added to the article but it's obviously someone trying to be funny.— TAnthony^Talk 19:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like an IP added it here and no one noticed.— TAnthony^Talk 19:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Deadline Hollywood

I appreciate you updating so many of these. However, I thought I would mention that switching to |website= is not required... the whole discussion over "Deadline.com" vs. "Deadline Hollywood" pretty much rendered that moot, plus |website= is an alias for |work= in {{cite web}} (all cite templates, actually) so it's just change for change's sake. If anything, switching to |website= would have been more appropriate if consensus had been to keep calling it Deadline.com. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the message. I'm only changing parameters to |website= when there are other changes also being made, basically Deadline.com to Deadline Hollywood. Most of the time this involves changing |publisher= anyway, which as you know doesn't italicize.— TAnthony^Talk 03:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Fictional Characters

Sorry. I need more information about this. Is fiction always addressed as if it happened in the present? Do we add it for characters who's backstory happened beforehand. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. The concept is covered in places like Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction and WP:FICTENSE, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas#Tense. Past tense is OK for backstory, but we avoid "deceased" or "divorced" etc. in infoboxes because characters are of course alternatively "alive" or "dead" or "divorced" at differet points in the story. Plus, fictional characters are not real people and their articles should not be written like biographies of real people. I will say that I'm only actively watching a few of the GoT characters, so I can't say that all of them are currently following guidelines.— TAnthony^Talk 01:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll sort out the problem with the GoT characters. The Optimistic One (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@The Optimistic One: I am saying we should not be using "deceased" to refer to characters in the infobox, I'm not sure why you are restoring that to various articles.— TAnthony^Talk 04:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I only done that for the characters who died before the events of the novels/show. The Optimistic One (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

My bad. Misinterpreted the "Past tense is OK for backstory" part. The Optimistic One (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Angels of Music

Hello, TAnthony. Got a couple questions for you:

1.) Did you compose the list of references to fictional characters in Kim Newman's Anno Dracula?

2.) Have you kept up with Newman's work? I am looking for a similar list to his newer collection The Angels of Music.

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.202.24 (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. No, I have made no contributions at all to the "Characters from fiction" list. I have also only read Anno Dracula, and no other works by Newman (as yet).— TAnthony^Talk 14:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Lee Orphan Article Issue

Hi, Andrew Lee (Magician) got mentioned here Asia's Got Talent (season 2). Could you please review it once and remove the orphan message? Seckol (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:AWB request!

Hello TAnthony! I have an WP:AWB request – could you please update all of the links that go to At the Movies (U.S. TV series) to At the Movies (1986 TV program)? I need to convert At the Movies (U.S. TV series) into a redirect to At the Movies (as there are 2 U.S. versions, At the Movies (1982 TV program) being the other...), but I'd like all the links to At the Movies (U.S. TV series) updated to the new article location first... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, will do shortly.— TAnthony^Talk 15:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall:  Done to all files and mainspace articles.— TAnthony^Talk 15:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Another WP:AWB Request!

So, I just had to move Rush (2014 TV series) to Rush (U.S. TV series) for necessary disambiguation from a 2014 Kenyan TV series of the same title, and so had to convert Rush (2014 TV series) into a redirect back to the diambig. page, Rush. Any chance you can work your WP:AWB magic, and fix all the incoming links to the U.S. TV series?... Thanks in advance!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done — TAnthony^Talk 21:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Filming dates for Dynasty episodes

Hi. I have the filming schedules for two episodes. Is it okay to include them in the episodes list article?2600:6C50:7006:400:1541:C156:4D34:A295 (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

How were you planning on including them, this is not something we usually put in an episode table, I would expect to find it in an individual article about the episode. But even if it could be mentioned in prose, I'm not sure that this info on 2 episodes out of 200+ would really be notable in context, and also I'm not sure if a production schedule can be considered a reliable source since it is not readily available. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 14:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

But I won't object if you want to add it in the way you've added the preemption info, although eventually someone may come along and challenge some of that as an improper use of the episode summary parameter.— TAnthony^Talk 14:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Your nice edit at the Silence film

Last month you made a nice little edit at Silence (2016 film). Today I noticed that another editor appears to have made a long sequence of edits expanding the plot there well over WP:Filmplot length limit. Since that editor does not seem to ever answer Talk page could you glance at the article and possibly do a rollback to restore the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Though it's too long, I prefer the writing of the updated entry, as it removes some of the editorializing that was present in the previous version. Instead of just restoring the previous version, I've tagged it for a trim. A rewrite would be better handled by someone who has seen the film and can better determine what is important and what is not. Thanks again!— TAnthony^Talk 21:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Article Maria Marshall

Hello @TAnthony:, starting to write the article Maria Marshall, I can see that you created in 2006 a redirection from Maria Marshall to the article Robert O. Marshall. My problem is that Maria Marshall is a very important British artist sharing nothing with Robert O. Marshall or his wife (Maria), and I think Robert O. Marshall's wife doesn't deserve a wikipedia page. Could we cancell the redirection as a disambiguation is not necessary? All my very best, Philippe49730--Philippe49730 (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree, consider it  Done.— TAnthony^Talk 14:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. Very best, --Philippe49730 (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Article Lester W. "Cappy" Burnside

I appreciate your much-needed edits on the Lester W. “Cappy” Burnside, Jr. article. I've edited before, but this is my first attempt at a full article from scratch, and I'm learning as I go. I did the "ref name" changes yesterday after reading help pages. Your corrections certainly simplified that and showed me how to do it properly. I also learned from the other corrections. Thank you. I am trying to add a section every couple of days. Thanks again! (Mountaineer 17:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC))

Leigh Bardugo photo

Hi Anthony,

I am writing from New Leaf Literary and Media on behalf of Leigh Bardugo. She has requested a new Wikipedia photo. I changed it this morning and I see you have restored the old photo. Please respect Leigh's wishes and refrain from restoring the photo again. NLLedits (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@NLLedits: Thanks for your message. Unfortunately, the photo you uploaded was deleted (not by me) because it is copyrighted, and you did not establish that you own the copyright and are granting permission for its use here, or the copyright holder has done so. The photo in use (File:2018-us-nationalbookfestival-leigh-bardugo.jpg) was uploaded to Commons by the copyright holder, who is publishing it under a license allowing Wikipedia to use it freely. Copyrighted (non-free) images without such licensing cannot be used for living people, period. Please see WP:NONFREE for the full guidelines, and let me know if I can assist you in any way. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 20:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@TAnthony: Thank you for the context! Leigh owns the copyright and asked me, as her representation, to upload the image to her page. I have to figure out how to express that on the image page so that it is not deleted.NLLedits (talk)

@NLLedits: It's not too complicated: go to the Commons Upload Wizard, and choose "This file is not my own work". Add the text in brackets {{subst:OP}} to the Source box. In the fine print you'll see a link to Commons:OTRS, where there are instructions for Leigh to send an email granting permission etc.— TAnthony^Talk 20:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@TAnthony: Thank you! Just reuploaded in that category, had Leigh send an email to permissions and clarified in the description the copyright. Again, we appreciate your help.NLLedits (talk)

Great, I'm glad that worked out.— TAnthony^Talk 21:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The Five Mrs. Buchanans

What's your opinion of this this change? On my end, I feel that it's a WP:TONE problem unless it's directly pulled from a quote from a source... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's too much.— TAnthony^Talk 21:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR

Hi TAnthony. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Minor user rights can now be accorded on a time limited or probationary period, do check back at WP:PERM in case this concerns your application. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Lourdes 08:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Afc granted

And I've also added you to the list of active reviewers at Afc. Thanks for volunteering. Lourdes 08:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Dynasty (season 2)

Hi TAnthony, I am not sure why would you changed the titles to italics just because you want to. As far as I know, we are suppose to follow the MOS. It has always been using single quotations for TV series articles as follow on the links. — Lbtocth^talk 17:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Lbtocth: Um, what? TV series titles are always italicized per the MOS, which is applied by adding 2 apostrophes before and after. I'm not adding double quotation marks, I'm not adding quotation marks at all, the titles will just show in italics in the citations. Citation titles are not quotations, and anyway even in a direct quotation we would italicize the show title whether the source does or not (see MOS:CONFORM). I'm not sure where your single quotation rule is coming from. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 17:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I am referring to reference source titles. Not T.V series articles themselves. I am talking the italics in the citations. The links themselves for the titles are not italics. — Lbtocth^talk 18:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm still confused. We should be italicizing show titles in mainspace, period, across Wikipedia. I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "The links themselves for the titles are not italics" ... I understand that TVbytheNumbers.com uses a single apostrophe to denote show titles in their article headlines, but per MOS:CONFORM we follow our own MOS. Is there a guideline I'm unaware of that requires single quotation marks, or requires that we ratain the formatting in a source when it contradicts our MOS?— TAnthony^Talk 18:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I am bringing up a discussion in the Wikiprojects. — Lbtocth^talk 18:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Origins

The info you erased on "Origins" is out of line because the title makes it clear that it is about Robin's origins as Batman's sidekick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thando Nkosi (talk • contribs) 18:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Thando Nkosi: Hey, thanks for your message. Episode plot summaries need to be about 200 words or less, so we can only include the most significant plot points, as well as additional information that may help the story to be better understood. I watched the episode and thought that the Robin flashbacks were not as important as other events in the episode, so I cut them when I pared down the overlong summary. Also, how it was described did not seem accurate to me; I saw him be taken in by an unseen Bruce Wayne and act out by stealing a Porsche, but nothing about "Bruce Wayne adopting and subsequently introducing him to vigilantism." It also seems to me that the flashback descriptions were added to all three episodes to basically show that flashbacks are an ongoing device, but this plot material should fall under the same content rules as the rest of the summary, in that they may be important to the episode or they may not. Finally, though it may seem obvious that the title "Origins" relates to Dick's past, that is technically your unsourced interpretation, and even if the episode had been called "Amy Rohrbach Is Dead", that bit of plot info may not have made it into the summary, because it was a blip. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 18:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@TAnthony: At the end of the flashbacks, Bruce tells Dick that he can teach him how to use his pain or something along those lines that suggests the beginning of his life as a crime-fighting hero, but I guess I see your point about it's importance in the grand scheme of things. Thando Nkosi (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The summary is actually now shorter than 200 words, let me think about it and I'll try to add something, which of course you are free to copyedit. Thanks again.— TAnthony^Talk 19:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done — TAnthony^Talk 19:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

IP: 96.255.207.143

Well, aren't we having an interesting time with this IP's edits to the Poldark (2015 TV series) episode summaries? I contemplated reverting the whole first batch, then you got in and fixed the bleeding wounds to I didn't. But there are just too many corrections needed, and the edits are too wordy; I'm not convinced he/she has a grasp on how to write a summary. (Vent, vent!) I finally got busy and removed the last of the edits made, so we're back to the original versions. I don't think I removed anything new you added; forgive me if I did!! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 03:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Drmargi: I really didn't add anything, I was just trying to fix typos and weird wording in the recent edits. I'm glad you reverted it all, I didn't realize it went back that far!— TAnthony^Talk 04:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, there was quite a string of changes, and some diabolically bad spelling/grammar. I think we've got it where it should be now. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 06:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Fictional character redirects

I'm working through Category:Redirects from fictional characters and removing things that aren't actually fictional characters. Is there a risk of them being re-tagged by your AWB runs in the future? I'm not sure what metrics you were using. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Xezbeth: Thanks for your message. No, they will not be retagged. My original AWB runs cleared the parent Category:Fictional character redirects to lists, funneling redirects into subcategories. Obviously I mistagged some so sorry if that has created more work for you. Now I really only watch the category for new additions. BTW, you probably already know this, but the redirect templates {{R from fictional element}} and {{R from fictional location}} may come in handy.— TAnthony^Talk 17:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Merrin Dungey page edit

I don't understand why you removed my edit of Merrin Dungey's page. The image I used is already in use on another Wikipedia page referencing a character she played. If it's usable on that page, why is it not usable on her page? Xeroxoul (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Xeroxoul: Thanks for your message. If you take a look at WP:NONFREE, you can use a non-free photo of a person in a fictional character article, but you cannot use one in the biographical article of a living person. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 17:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

CHuck Wendig

Hi, sorry I did not add a citation source for my information.

Would this be enough?

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9zp70b/update_on_chuck_wendig_and_soy_wars/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:5000:7F4:3457:7F4F:DD89:627 (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

An unsubstantied Reddit post isn't a reliable source, especially when levelling claims like this against Wendig and involving content as potentially inflammatory as the involved. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Your work on the Dune articles

Hi, TAnthony. I just wanted to thank you for working on the Dune articles and for not overlooking the prequels / sequels even with their status in the fanbase. If I was familiar with how to work on book articles productively, I would be helping. Someday! Anyway, thanks. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 01:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

response Star Wars Resistance editing and blocking from editing

"Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia." -WIKIPEDIA

Adding information about public opinion is NOT DISRUPTING. It is not harmful in any way. Actually it improves the article, by broading the scope. So this reasoning is complete bullshit.

If my edit was Disruptive editing, than anything that does not fit an agenda could be labeled Disruptive editing. That is called censoring! And that is not how Wikipedia suppose to work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

"Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view!" -WIKIPEDIA

Adding public opnion to the article, if that differs from critics "opinion", is exactly what NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW is.

I added something and this Wikicontributor12 deletes it saying: "Not needed here" What the fuck is that for an explanation? Then he says: "This section is only about the critical reception. Not audience reception. Look at the Star Wars Rebels page." This is bullshit. The title clearly was RECEPTION. And not CRITICAL RECEPTION. So it could include public reception.

And then comes in this Matt14451 (Matthew Fieldhouse) and lies his ass off: "Feedback from viewers aren't needed at all" "Wikipedia doesn't include the opinions of the general public, only notable critics." It is a lie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Last_Jedi#Audience_reception

"User-generated scores on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic were more negative, achieving ratings of 45% and 4.5/10, respectively"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shawshank_Redemption#Cultural_impact

"It has been the number 1 film on IMDb's user-generated Top 250 since 2008 ..."

So this attempt to block this content I added is clearly more like censoring in North Korea. It is quite obvious that this guy is who doesn't wanna see that for any reason other than quoted, and lies, and lies, because he is a LYING LIAR WHO LIES. Not someone who should be given any responsibility.

You say IMDb is not a reliable source? Neither is Rotten Tomatos! Nor any media nowadays. Proved by Star Wars The Last Jedi where the gap between opinion of the professional critics and the public was mindblowing. No way that there could be any other explanation that it was propaganda by the critics. Critics are not reliable anymore.

Neither are polls are reliable. I did several. We were told in advance what to say. I even had to lie about myself to create a diversity for the poll. This is today's controll over reliable sources! So don't talk about reliable. The only way to determine what is reliable is to read what people write, no matter if it is a critic or just a viewer.

Identifying reliable sources? Go to Sweden. Or Norway. Or Wikipedia I thought. Not so sure anymore.

If you delete information from wikipedia based on bullshit reasons, like what just happened, Wikipedia becames unreliable too.

So you got me blocked from editing for 31 hours on completely bullshit reasons. BTW you can't really block anybody who has any basic knowledge of I.T. Just delete cookies and force ISP DHCP. Done. Unblocked. Takes 2 minutes. I could've edited any time I wanted, but I did not want to because I am not the one who is the disruptive here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.247.0 (talk) November 29, 2018 (UTC)

@178.164.247.0: Your "disruption" actually had nothing to do with the content you were trying to add; you were blocked because multiple editors explained to you in edit summaries (as I did, on your previous IP talk page), why your additions violated policy, and you continued to try and add them instead of starting a talk page discussion on the issue. As far as reliable sources go: Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are reliable sources because their ratings are generated from reliable critic reviews, not fan votes. I appreciate your passion, but your ranting edit summaries and comments completely fail to address what we are actually telling you. Yes, perhaps viewer opinions should be considered more, but current policy does not allow for them here, for the obvious reasons that they can be misconstrued, or inappropriately influenced. IMDb results, for example, collect the opinions of voters on only that particular site, and we have no way of knowing if and how that translates to the viewer base at large, even ignoring that fact that individuals could vote multiple times under different user IDs. You say that "the gap between opinion of the professional critics and the public was mindblowing", but I don't know how you can possibly know that ... are you simply comparing IMDb to Rotten Tomatoes? Gauging the reactions you've personally seen in other places online? Surely you understand how this is skewed. You cited the Last Jedi article as "proof" that we "lied" when we told you that we don't include public opinion, only critical reviews. As I explained in my previous comment, viewer reaction can be used if it is substantiated by a reliable source; in the Last Jedi article, the statements regarding viewer reaction/polls were attributed to Deadline Hollywood, Mashable, etc. The presumption is that reliable sources will only report on quantifiable, confirmed viewer reactions and reliable polls. I'm not familiar with Postrak but it seems like direct citations to their poll might even be allowed, as they are a respected poll company.— TAnthony^Talk 15:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Response:

"Your "disruption" actually had nothing to do with the content you were trying to add"

Still the content was removed for no good reason, whitout any discussion, without any reasonable explanation. And there was no disruption at all. I quoted the rule from the page.

"you were blocked because multiple editors explained to you in edit summaries"

No, they did not. That is not an explanation that "it is not needed here"! That is not an explanation that "This section is only about the critical reception. Not audience reception.", when it is clearly a lie, as I proved with evidence. So the only thing I got from them was arrogant censoring, a lie, and then a threat that I will be blocked, because of "disruptive editing", which according to the quoted rule, I did not do. So that does not explaine a bit how it is disruptive what I did. Clearly it was just a fabricated bullshit by 2 arrogant idiots.

"continued to try and add them instead of starting a talk page discussion on the issue"

I don't have to start any discussion. The editor who remove the content on bullshit reasons has to explaine himself, more than just saying "it is not needed here", or the bullshit he lied after that.

"As far as reliable sources go ..." "viewer reaction can be used if it is substantiated by a reliable source"

But once an already deemed reliable source established another source as reliable, others can use it too. I looked up the Shawshank Redemption page, for confirmation before using IMDb as source, and that established it as reliable source via Vanity Fair. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shawshank_Redemption https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2014/09/shawshank-redemption-anniversary-story

Vanity Fair used it as a source, and Wikipedia used it. Therefore IMDb is a reliable source. So if anything, those idiots Wikicontributor12 and Matt14451 should have said that IMDb is not acceptable and point to a link where Wikipedia lists acceptable sources. They instead acted like some arrogant nazi censorship.

"viewer opinions ... can be misconstrued, or inappropriately influenced"

Same as critics. As you can see looking at Rotten Tomatos, which leads to your next item.

"You say that "the gap between opinion of the professional critics and the public was mindblowing", but I don't know how you can possibly know that"

Open:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_last_jedi/

Critics score 91% vs. Audience score 45%

Don't have to be a genius to see the obvious here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.143.22.213 (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

AWB and USA

Hello! Just a heads up, you might want to check the regex you're using on AWB to do MOS:NOTUSA fixes; this edit changed the link target to United States while still leaving everything after the pipe as "United States of America". It also unnecessarily removed a pipe trick, changing [[deductible]]s to [[Deductible|deductibles]]. Cheers, cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 14:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I missed that USA half-change, and I've corrected my file. The pipe change, though, is one of AWB's preprogrammed genfixes. It's not the sort of thing we would use AWB for on its own, only with real accompanying edits. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 15:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:The Flash episode redirects to lists has been nominated for discussion

Category:The Flash episode redirects to lists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

SW7 as "soft reboot"

Season's greetings. Thank you for presuming good faith in my edit and for maintaining the page on TFA. However I think that this could be a matter that we could discuss :)

First of all, I disagree with your comment that "reboots are generally remakes". Of course reboots can be remakes to establish a new continuity, but "soft reboots" are a different concept. Soft reboots occur in the same continuity, but the authors prefer to invest on new elements to say a new story rather than developing further the previous story, while previously prominent elements are now briefly appearing or mentioned in the background. I think the new trilogy is a good example of this.

G.I._Joe:_Retaliation is also a soft reboot according to its article (this time sourced), as it occurs in the same continuity as Rise of Cobra, but focusing on different elements and protagonists.

If you google for "force awakens soft reboot" you will see that there are some discussions about the movie's nature as a soft reboot. I am not saying to use these as a source, only that it is observable.

Perhaps we can agree on this before a legitimate source is found, if one is really necessary (although I think the creators seem to promote the new movies as sequels and not admitting their soft-reboot nature). Γαλαδριήλ (talk) 13:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The Durrells

Hi there, would like to apologise formally for the little typo I made earlier Saxonvsjones (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but you just added the program to the 2019 series end category, but series 4 has yet to air and there is no source that the program will be ending.— TAnthony^Talk 22:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Contesting release information about You (TV series)

Hi TAnthony,

I wanted to discuss your recent edits on the You page. You've reverted my edits as you mentioned that the second season of You has not yet premiered on Netflix. However, this particular issue doesn't seem to warrant much attention on the Designated Survivor page. On that page, it shows release information about the third season, similar to my previous edit on the You page. Could you please clarify to me about the Wiki policy surrounding this issue? If you can send me a link to that policy that clearly addresses this issue that I have raised above, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks and I hope to hear from you soon.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designated_Survivor_(TV_series)

Elainasla (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Elainasla: I don't know what's going on at Designated Survivor, but we don't list episodes that have not yet aired in the infobox per MOS:TVUPCOMING and WP:CRYSTAL etc. The future network for season 2 is noted within the text with sources, but it has not happened yet, so should not be in the infobox. Also, the international broadcasts on Netflix were much later and again, we don't note repeats, or everywhere a show is aired, in the infobox. The worldwide Netflix release seems notable within the article because the original airing was only in the US, but keep in mind that per WP:TVINTL we do not just list every place that a show appears.— TAnthony^Talk 17:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, in an edit summary you said:

As per MOS/TV Wiki policy, the information about the Netflix release of the series needs to be presented in this category

Even if we have a sourced airdate for a season finale episode yet to air, we list it in the Episode section but we do not put in the infobox. I'd like to see the guideline that you think rationalizes putting a future occurrence in the infobox. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 17:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

My intent

My intent was to overall provide higher quality — and clearer — images for the Amanda and Fallon Carrington articles. I'm sorry if that intent did not come across, and if you'd ultimately prefer the original images to be put that, then I'd have zero objection to that. livelikemusic talk! 00:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: Thanks for the message, you beat me to it. I respect your work as an editor and hope I didn't come off as possessive of these articles. I realize now that I just didn't like the Pamela Sue Martin image you uploaded, and it kind of colored my reaction to the changes. In any case, I've kept your Catherine Oxenberg image, cropped and lightened your Karen Cellini image, restored a cropped version of your Emma Samms image, and replaced the Pamela Sue Martin image with another. Please let me know if you have any objections or suggestions. Thanks! — TAnthony^Talk 00:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@TAnthony: I respect your work as an editor, as well, so when I say your edits I did feel the immediate need to reach out and explain my intentions, especially in response to your questioning of portrait vs landscape images. My intentions were to purely provide higher quality captures to bring a clearer representation to the characters — especially for Samms, Oxebnberg and Cellini. Am I a fan of the new PSM image you uploaded? Meh. Do you know which episode it is from, as it's the same episode of the original image you uploaded? I have remastered copies of the series I could try and maybe make a clearer capture to match that of the others? It must be your favourite Martin episode, lol! livelikemusic talk! 00:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Ha, you know I think I like her best in the pilot in that black and white dress ;) Honestly, I prefer the simple long hair look of the earlier episodes over the weird hairstyles she had in some later episodes (she never really had Dynasty-worthy glam 80s hair like the other women did). I can't really pinpoint what's "wrong" with the one you uploaded, but I must admit it looks a little better on my big screen than it did on my MacBook Pro Retina display.— TAnthony^Talk 00:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Haha. Admittedly, I must agree that Fallon's hair always was in the "fail" department after the first season, and, yet, I did love Martin in the role so much. Let me load up the pilot episode and see what I can do! And, haha, thank you! I'm sure it does look different on a larger screen than it does a smaller one! livelikemusic talk! 01:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@TAnthony: Are you sure that capture is from the pilot? I just combed through and the dress looks nothing like it and she has a necklace on... I can try and screengrab one of the actual pilot dress, regardless! livelikemusic talk! 01:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Nevermind; found it! The capture comes from after, when she's with Culhane in the bathroom! Haha. Check the new upload now! livelikemusic talk! 01:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: Looks great!— TAnthony^Talk 02:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

What software are you using for your captures?— TAnthony^Talk 02:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@TAnthony: No special software. A quick edit in my editing program to re-crop it and re-size it, and that's it! livelikemusic talk! 03:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Template: R to section

I noticed this edit of yours. The way I understand it, {{R to section}} should be used for redirects to sections about the redirect's topic, like Black Moon (car) does. Outland (film) § Plot, while also giving information about PDE, is not about the substance as such. Paradoctor (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Paradoctor: I tend to consider {{R to section}} (and {{R to anchor}}) as technical, meaning that the redirect links to a section of another article, period. But I know the documentation does refer to the section of a page in which the subject is mentioned. So if the Plot section does not actually mention the car, then I think the redirect should simply go to Outland (film) and not specifically the Plot section.— TAnthony^Talk 19:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

"if the Plot section does not actually mention the car" Umm, you mixed up two different redirects here. To clarify:

• Black Moon (car) goes to Black Moon Rising § Car
• polydichloric euthimal (PDE) goes to Outland (film) § Plot

The issue for me is that the car has its own section on Black Moon Rising, whereas PDE is just one of many elements of the plot of Outland. I read a section [...] on the subject to mean that the section has to be dedicated to the subject, rather than have broader scope, as is the case for PDE. It looks like I'm not the only one.

For now, I resolved this particular case by using {{r to anchor}}, but I expect that this issue will come up again sooner or later. Meanwhile, happy editing. Paradoctor (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The template itself displays This is a redirect from a topic that does not have its own page to a section of a page on the subject, but the documentation says Use this rcat to tag any redirect in any namespace to the header/subheader of a section of a page in which the subject is mentioned. I think you may be nitpicking, since this redirect does link to a section of another article that mentions the subject (thanks to you adding the name of the drug of course). Also, I would argue that the tracking category Redirects to sections is useful as a basic maintenance category but is way too large to be used as, for example, a means to determine articles that need to be created ({{R with possibilities}} is more useful for that), so it seems unnecessarily futile to restrict its content on a technicality. That said, in most cases I'm fine with you changing or removing whatever redirect templates you don't like. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 22:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you please be more careful...

When you moved You (novel, 2015) to You (Kepnes novel), your edit summary said you were doing so "...without leaving a redirect (Proper disambiguation for a book)". The wikipedia's policies and guidelines are very complicated, are growing increasingly complicated, can be ambiguous, or contradictory, and are in a constant state of flux. You may be correct that the name I chose did not conform to a guideline.

But why would that justify not leaving a redirect?

Redirects are one of the great strengths the wikipedia has over plain old web pages. On plain old web pages a webmaster can change a url, by just a single character, and break all kinds of other people's web pages that link to the old url. However, the WMF software makes sure the wikipedia's wikilinks don't break, when article names are changed.

This is defeated when someone moves a page, with incoming links, while suppressing the creation of redirects. I linked to the original name 23:21, 23:22, 23:27. You moved the article at 23:37.

Could you please be more careful? It may not matter too much whether or not you leave a redirect, when moving an article that has no incoming links. It results in confusing redlinks when there are incoming links.

Related -- your edit summary to this edit "No one coming here will be looking for the other book..." -- sorry, I don't think you gave this sufficient thought.

Disambiguation is required when articles with similar titles can be confused. That is what we have here -- two articles with similar names, both on novels, published around the same time. Your implied suggestion that no reader is going to arrive at the article for the other novel, without realizing there are two novels? It is naive. This is precisely when disambiguation is necessary. Believe it or not, this is not the first time I have had to disambiguate novels with the same name.

Yes, this is a long note. Why so long? Because every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment. Geo Swan (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The ability to move an article without leaving a redirect exists for cases like this, when for example, the disambiguation is malformed. There is no need for such a redirect, no one will ever need to use it. I updated all the links to the moved article, so I'm not sure what you're objecting to, except that someone else messed with your work. I am well aware of the usefulness of redirects, I create some every day, but Teh Wizzard uf Ahz does not need to exist as a redirect because it will not ever be used. As far as your excessive hatnotes, if you're going to link to a TV series about Kepnes' novel on a page for another novel that has nothing to do with it (when the Kepnes novel is already linked there in a hatnote), you might as well add the entire contents of You (disambiguation). Also, when an article title is disambiguated, it eliminates the need for some hatnotes, because people looking for a specific topic are less likely to go to a topic that has a largely different name. Finally, I resent your condescending tone, I really don't need an editor who makes such basic errors lecturing me on how to edit here. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 05:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)