User talk:Alex 21

Is a bot going to be used to change any articles affected by this change? I noticed it breaks now on episode tables. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@GalaxyFighter55 Could you please link me some examples of where they're breaking? All templates should be working at their proper capacity. (You may just need to WP:PURGE the articles; please confirm if this works.) -- Alex _talk 04:29, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@GalaxyFighter55 Nope, disregard, I forgot one small thing (only section headers with references were broken). Apologies! All templates should now be working at their proper capacity. Thanks for the heads up! -- Alex _talk 04:35, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

No problem! Honestly, I thought it was just a coding change issue that was going to be addressed later on by a bot which is why I asked. lol GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:South Park Season 27.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alex, I was wondering if it would be possible to give Riarutaimu a warning about their radical changes to the editing and formatting of the Welcome to Derry article. Although I've tried to explain everything as clearly as possible in three edit summaries, it often happens that users like me are ignored, and I think he'll try to revert to his previous style. And besides, with all due respect, I find his excuses for changing the format very weak, because having references in the middle of the text makes it more difficult for me and other users to add and edit information. As for the footnotes, that seems like another excuse that's completely untenable. Basically, when I was adding their information, it took me a while because I couldn't easily find references with those footnotes, which I find even more confusing, with a surname and date that are more tedious to locate. And I also think it's an excuse, since he complains a lot about the list format, but he only adds the references he wants to the text, leaving most of them as they are. And he's the only one complaining about the format, when all the other editors of this article and others who follow these formats have no complaints. As I said, both the list format and the footnote naming convention are implemented in many articles, and I see them in a variety of them, even if it's just the footnote naming convention. All this is in case you can warn him not to change a format that has been in place since the article's creation, without any consensus or just because he feels like it. Marco camino 10 (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Marco camino 10 I understand; thank you for maintaining the style within the article. I would recommend linking Riarutaimu to WP:LDR and WP:LDRHOW on the use of list-defined rereferences (plus the documentation at {{Use list-defined references}}), as well as WP:CITEVAR and MOS:STYLEVAR for maintaining the already-established referencing style within the article: When more than one style is acceptable, it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. Unjustified changes from one acceptable, consistently applied style in an article to a different style may generally be reverted. -- Alex _talk 20:16, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have posted these are their talk page. -- Alex _talk 20:17, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, it seems like he couldn't care less, as he has tried to restore his version again. I would suggest—as I noted in the edit summary—that if he does it even one more time (given that he has no valid justification and is simply acting unilaterally because he feels like it), he should be reported to an admin. Marco camino 10 (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is not "radical" to use in-text formatting like almost every article rather than creatring a giant list of references with names such as "PennywiseDerry", "AndyWriting", "BarabaraS1King", "StoryS2Writing". Name-date is just standard naming convention used in academic referencing systems like Harvard and Chicago. If you tried to name references with a random collection of words in any other context, you would be correctly seen as a joke. I simply will not use list-defined references because I have self-respect. They make the editing article inaccessible and unnecessarily longer because the reference has to be defined and invoked separately. I could write a book on why list references cause more problems but I know you won't care and will dismiss them anyway. Riarutaimu (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

First of all, don’t have the audacity—after starting an edit war—to then show disrespect, especially when the practice in question is actually quite common. Secondly, as both of us have already explained to you, there is no single "correct" format; the current one, which has been in use since the article was created, does not cause any actual and real errors. The fact that you personally find it absurd or a joke is beside the point. If there isn’t a genuine problem, try to reach a consensus—but stop fueling an edit war over something that only you are complaining about simply because you find it more complicated. Honestly, just adapt, as the rest of us have done. And I repeat: it doesn’t matter whether you personally find something absurd—that’s entirely subjective—the point is that if there is no actual error, you cannot simply take it upon yourself to completely change it without consulting others. And keep your disrespectful remarks to yourself. Marco camino 10 (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

It shows a lot about your character that someone simply editing is starting an "edit war" but the most active (and aggressive, miserable, antisocial) editors undoing it without justifiable reason, refusing to engage or comprimise, making threats and being hostile somehow isn't participating in an "edit war". There are things you literally cannot do with list-defined references like edit a single section of an article and add a reference or even see and verify references because they cannot be shown in the edit preview window since they are defined outside of the article section. Editing is being made harder for no reason because a small group of unemployed antisocial editors with too much time on their hands insist on using their favorite niche reference formatting and bullying anyone who has self-respect. Riarutaimu (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is incredible how you keep harping on the same points. Just because you find editing difficult, that doesn’t mean it’s a universal problem for everyone else. And yes, you are the one who started an edit war; as early as yesterday, Alex reverted your edit because you completely disregarded the established format and removed references from the list to the without any reasonable explanation. When I restored them, you simply reimposed your own preferred style—justifying it by claiming that editing is "too complicated" and that the footnotes are "absurd." That is your grand justification. But let’s return to the official Wikipedia policy: if an acceptable format exists that doesn’t cause errors, you cannot simply go around changing things to suit your own personal preference. So yes, this is what is known as an edit war. And naturally, I am going to warn you about a potential report, given that you are categorically ignoring what not one, but two users are telling you. What kind of action do you expect us to take, then? Marco camino 10 (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Again, you smugly dismissed concerns because they went over your head. Do you not think that list-defined references are your own preferred style that you insist on imposing? There is a really simple solution to this that you cannot seem to comprehend: just leave the references alone. You can use LDRs if the same references are being invoked a lot but not every reference needs to be in a giant list with random names if a reference is only used once. Riarutaimu (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Look, this will be the last time I respond to you here, as you keep repeating the same thing over and over. The article uses a clear format—also contrary to your claim that I am "imposing" it (even though I didn't even initiate this format in the article)—and it causes no actual issues within the article. Furthermore, you are literally the first person I have seen in years complain about this method; therefore, also at least in this instance, it is not a widespread problem among users, and you cannot simply change it however you please. As with everything else, when starting out on Wikipedia, you must learn to adapt to the various editing styles and formats that may exist across different articles. You cannot simply decide that something is "too difficult" and unilaterally change it to suit your own preferences. I strongly suggest that you stop including disrespectful remarks in your edit summaries—and stop offering justifications that lack any real substance—and instead focus on learning how to edit, how to communicate effectively with other editors, and, as all of us have done, how to adapt and learn. Marco camino 10 (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Again: Read WP:CITEVAR / MOS:STYLEVAR:

• Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change.
• The arbitration committee ruled in 2006: "Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike."
• Sometimes, the MOS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance. When more than one style is acceptable, it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change.
• Edit warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is disruptive and is never acceptable. Unjustified changes from one acceptable, consistently applied style in an article to a different style may generally be reverted. Seek opportunities for commonality to avoid disputes over style.

Deliberately ignoring these will result in you being involved at WP:ANI and/or WP:AN3. -- Alex _talk 21:54, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alex, although I know it's still a little while before the split for Welcome to Derry is more justified, it's not that far off now I think (as more information about the writing, casting comes out, and when the episode table for the second season is added). After all, it's already over 97.000 bytes, and since yesterday, I've been working on the drafts for both seasons. I also plan to create a sandbox version of the article after the split today. I'm mentioning this in case you could give me your feedback, as we did when we split the live-action One Piece series. As I mentioned before, the split is still a bit premature, at least until a few months from now when information about casting, writing, filming, and other aspects emerges and is added to the article. Therefore, I'll keep updating the sandbox I create today with any new information that needs to be added, and you're welcome to edit it if you want. As with One Piece, when we believe it's time for a split, I'll ask about it on the talk page beforehand. Thanks in advance for anything you can do, and best regards. Marco camino 10 (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alex, I'm just popping in again to let you know that I've finished the Welcome to Derry sandbox, and it's here User:Marco camino 10/sandbox/2, If you're able and, of course, want to read it. Unless you have any other suggestions, the only section I'm unsure about is the "Writing," as I might have made it too short. All that's left is to expand the "Casting" section of the first season's draft. It's currently just a short paragraph from when the actors were announced, but I think it need an update with their respective roles and add roles of actors who were revealed during the season and are also relevant. Marco camino 10 (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2026 (UTC)Reply