User talk:U-Mos

Archives

2007: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Indagate (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello UMos. I have noticed you have split the 38th series of Casualty into four separate articles. You never discussed such a big change to the Casualty series articles - it would have been nice to know what you were thinking. There are a plenty of active editors who could have joined in such a discussion. These are themed episodic blocs or mini-series within the main series. I do not think we need four separate articles for one season since there are already so many lists. Here are some sources confirming that the number of seasons has not changed. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Rain the 1 21:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I saw this as more overdue than controversial. It's clear from the BBC websites, including iPlayer, that the episodes since the format change are now considered and primarily disseminated as distinct series, so these articles would only sleepwalk further into confusion by continuing to arbitrarily enforce season groupings (i.e. the BBC aren't going to tell us when 'series 39' begins and I don't think Wikipedia should make that assertion independently - the series 38 page looked set up to do so half way through the next story arc regardless, which is pretty troubling). Pretty much every source also exclusively refers to a certain arc, so it's immediately far more clear what material is referring to where - and easier to add in secondary material and ensure consistent coverage. As I couldn't see any evidence of routine discussion in any Casualty article I went ahead and followed WP:BRD. Regardless of naming conventions (I followed WP:TVSEASON), I certainly think that the story arcs are more notable and article-worthy than larger seasons, by a long way. U-Mos (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you moved them. I agree that it became confusing since the official website dropped the numbers. Those catch up services Sky, Amazon, Plex and Apple are still using overall series numbers. I just do not think it is correct to decide that a television show now has more series numbers. I understand that for this reason you split them. There are Digital Spy articles which describe them as miniseries. I definitely think at the very least they should be titled according to the miniseries name. "A History of Violence" should be "A History of Violence (Casualty)" and not Casualty series 41. Then the lead would state "A History of Violence is the fourth miniseries of the British medical drama television series Casualty, and forms part of the overall 38th series." In addition, I feel like I should have started our discussion at a Casualty talk page. Would you be willing to move this conversation so far to Talk:Casualty series 38?Rain the 1 11:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey UMos. If I had have seen seen Chelsea's article first I probably would have restored the list entry too. There are some issues on the page, using sources like Yahoo which are just copy news features. Backtothebay, Facebook etc and issue. Also the prose is a little off like "Chelsea can be seen as" and other things like that. If it is to stay would you be able to make some changes as I'm on holiday ATM and can't do full editing. Otherwise it could be best to restore it incase it gets tagged. There have been so many instances of it recently. :( Rain the 1 11:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I only had a brief look but that's understandable - though I err on the side of encouraging editing through improvement/discussion in general. The rationale given was lack of attribution so I just addressed that for the moment. I'll take a look at the article when I can; if it's unsalvageable I'd advocate an AfD discussion rather than reversion so at least pointers for the future can be given. U-Mos (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We should probably work to improve it then. I have information from additional Inside Soap interviews and features I could use too. I am unsure if the user will listen to suggestions for improvement as I've previously contacted them and received no reply. As I am sure you've seen on the 2024 list each edit needs copy editing.Rain the 1 11:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning up Chelsea's article. It exposed that the information was copied and bulked up with fansite additions. The use of the same reference numerous times was shocking. I did not notice the extent and now I can certainly see user DDOOL's additional reasoning about more content for restoring the list entry. I copied over what I already wrote since Fluffycat345 rewrote it in an in-universe style and caused reference layout issues. I will add more to it and we can decide if it should remain.Rain the 1 08:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you are keeping an eye on the Neighbours credits. Sam went from being listed as a regular, to a guest, to a semi regular - With Harold, JJ, Dex and Nell. I am sure Vic was listed recently too with Harold!? They are all over the place and so confusing, right?! Do we need a semi regular table, or is that definition still regular no matter what capacity or is ir recurring. The lowest table just guests?!Rain the 1 21:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a separate table is necessary, especially as the middle category isn't consistently distinguished. They seem to just like to group them together some of the time - Sam was in the same episode as JJ and Nell the last time we saw her I think, so a good test will be when she appears without them. U-Mos (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how reliable they are. Today Sam was listed on the regular page without a gap, but they are in alphabetical order and she was oddly placed last. Also I dropped the ball with Gavin Bowman but I did recall that David story and found him in that episode as "Dr. Bowman". I cannot find the other appearances though about Finn and David being hit by the ute. Do you think they are accurate?Rain the 1 18:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I just updated the Neighbours 2024 "others" list and found another confusing occurrence. I added a police officer played by Angela Johnson. She appeared as a police officer just two months ago but had a different name.Rain the 1 19:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added Sasha who is in July's spoilers with Kiri on the basis it is continuous. You removed it because it was unsourced. So I have added Tess with a source and you moved her with the new source because it is continuous. Do you want me to update the sources each time the characters dip in and out the show?Rain the 1 13:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raintheone I think it makes sense for currently off screen characters to have a source to prove their role is ongoing, yes, though it doesn't really matter if that's on the year list/character article instead I guess. For Sasha, I haven't seen any source for his return, and did do a search before removing him. Where did you get that information? U-Mos (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will make sure a source is included for gaps like Sasha and Tess next time. I did think more about Sasha would have surfaced from reliable sources but DS and Inside Soap are focusing on other stories. BTTB and the Ramsay Street site obtain spoilers and episode photos in advance. They both included pictures of Sasha and Kiri at his Ministry from upcoming episodes. It is a shame they are not reliable for inclusion.Rain the 1 17:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Space-Time Telegraph Volume II, Issue I — July 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who Okay–ooh. New teeth newsletter. That's weird... Hello! Welcome to the first regenerated issue of The Space-Time Telegraph, the official newsletter of WikiProject Doctor Who. We hope it finds you well in your safe travels across the Whoniverse! This newsletter was founded in 2008 and seemed to get lost in the time vortex quite quickly. Thanks to the Doctor dragging Sutekh through the time vortex and bringing life by bringing death to death (yeah... I'm a little confused too), it seems to have regenerated. The writing staff hopes to bring you future editions quarterly. For this first edition, we have created an updated version of our mailing list that includes any active editors who previously had their usernames included in our participants list. If you do not wish to receive future editions, please remove your name from the mailing list. If you no longer wish to participate in the project, please also remove your name from the participants list. I think that's enough about the newsletter for now. Let's dive into interesting things happening within the Doctor Who side of Wikipedia. Geronimooooo..... Big Spike in Productivity During 2024, the project has scored 8 GAs, 2 FLs and a GT, up from last year's 4 GAs and a GT. Several additional things are in the pipeline, with a bunch of things currently having been nominated with some mix of OlifanofmrTennant, TheDoctorWho, and Pokelego999 having their names attached to them. Allow me to look into the nominees. Series 14: As of July 18th, every single episode has been sent to GAN, with "Boom", "73 Yards", and "The Devil's Chord" having made it to GA. 2023 Specials: Early in the year, as part of trying to not lose the WikiCup, Ollie sent "The Star Beast" (still salty about the move) to GAN. It was reviewed by frequent collaborator (fly high) of hers, but failed. She then fixed it up and sent it back where it passed. Later "The Giggle" was expanded and sent to GA, followed shortly by "Wild Blue Yonder". WBY received help by JustAnotherCompanion, a pretty fresh user. This other companion chose not to be listed as co-nom. A page was created for "Destination: Skaro" and quickly got GA status. The Daleks' Master Plan was also sent to GAN by Rhain. It passed to join Rhain's other First Doctor content, being the fourth season three article to get the green check. Peter Capaldi: The filmography and newly created awards of Capaldi were both sent to FLC and passed. Capaldi's main page was sent to GA, though due to some minor incompetence on the part of the nominator it was failed. Proposals to the WikiProject A recent proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who suggested potential improvements and suggestions for the main page of the project, as well as discussions about the project overall. The proposals are as follows: The Task Forces section should be removed due to inactivity in the Torchwood Task Force, and a lack of significant interest in creating further Task Forces. The freenode channel no longer works and should be removed due to most discussion taking place on site. Due to the low quality of Lungbarrow and Jubilee despite being sample articles, these articles should either be removed as samples or improved. Additionally, the "sample device" has a very small application field, and should be removed from the sample articles section. An updates infobox should be included, similarly to those used by Wikipedia:VGCHAR. Radio Times's Doctor Who sections should be included in the references section due to their benefits for the project sourcing wise. The Deletion Discussion archive should be removed, or have work invested in updating it, due to its lack of updates. If you feel you have any thoughts or suggestions on these matters, or on any other matters pertaining to the project and its main page, feel free to chime in the ongoing discussion. Discussions of Note A move discussion is currently underway on whether or not Doctor Who series 14 should be moved to Doctor Who season 1 (2024). The discussion also involves conversation on a few other adjacent articles. If you have an opinion on the matter please read over the discussion or leave comments. Contributors TheDoctorWho (talk) Pokelego999 (talk) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]