User talk:Drovethrughosts

Orphan Black prodcodes and eps

These are sourced per the ISAN-IA database as the season five ref state. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking on ISAN.org for Orphan Black and I see no mention of these production codes. I'm assuming you mean ISAN.ca, which is only available if you have an account. Regardless, these aren't production codes, they're unique identifiers like ISBN for books. Production codes are assigned by the production company and appear in the end credits of episodes. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I just wanted to add that (if it's relevant), in the article for Production code number, at the bottom of the article under "Code formats", it states that "A number of Canadian and Australian produced shows use the ISAN format, which is burned-in on the end copyright slate." -- Alex^TW 13:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never seen those types of codes before. Have you seen ISAN codes used in articles? Is this an accepted practice? Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Though there may be more that I'm unaware of, as I don't normally meddle with production codes, two that I can list off the top of my head are Shadowhunters and Killjoys. I've seen no issue with them before; it may not be a common practice, but that's probably because not many series use it. -- Alex^TW 13:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

see ISAN-IA public search. Also root_part clearly states that this is derived from the production code and denotes production order. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Also that field is included to show the production order, not the exact internal, privately defined number format. May be someone should rename it prod. order and not code. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not see where you are finding these codes. I'm looking at entries for specific episode and there is no (for example) "224086-1". All I see is the ISAN numbers (such as "0000-0003-6B56-0009-E-0000-0000-W"). Also, is there a reason why season 2, episode 2 does not have a code? Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

ISAN prints codes in ugly and annoying to read hex format, as stated on the commit 224086-1 is in cleaner and clearer decimal form. 224086 = 0x36B56. As for the the missing code, Temple Street Productions which submits them, has a habit of screwing up. The end slate for that ep had the code zeroed out. The shows Being Erica and Killjoys, they have in error created new root codes for new seasons. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this all seems very complicated, confusing and unnecessary. The fact is, these "codes" are nowhere to be found in the source provided. How you're extrapolating "ISAN 0000-0003-6B56-000D-6-0000-0000-J" into "224086-13" is beyond me. The missing code is "ISAN 0000-0003-AA96-0000-7-0000-0000-G", so why cannot that have a "224086-??" code? The fact that the episodes all off by one after the missing code is also odd. An episode cannot just not have a production code. This is all why this should not be included. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

No it's not hexadecimal is base-16 and decimal is normal base-10. ISAN just stupidly use it in printable form, because they defined it for a binary barcode and just carried it through to the printable form. They are off by one because stupid Temple Street never assigned a code to that one ep. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Back again. I find myself agreeing with Drovethrughosts. Do you expect everyone to be able to convert between the two to verify the information is correct? Yes, there may be a way to extract the codes from the ISAN number and convert it to some production code, but if the code is not explicitly stated in the source without any conversion required, then the source does not support the code(s) that is/are being added. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 02:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Going by what you are saying, you would have us use the bloated and confusing ISAN hex format. And it's a basic fact that base-10 numbers are the most readable and relate better to humans. Hexadecimal notation is only practical for coding. Also all other prod. codes are alpha numeric base-10. And no one needs to convert to hexadecimal unless they want to use the limit ISAN-IA public search system. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, here's my final opinion on this matter. I just checked my Orphan Black Blu-rays, and these ISAN codes are in the end credits (something I didn't know). This makes me fine with the codes being included in the article. However, there needs to be a note in the article explaining how the ISAN codes are turned in the shortened codes, because there is no way an average reader (and that includes myself) is going to understand where those numbers are coming from. Secondly, the missing code: if all codes after that are wrong then this is a problem. What I don't understand is that season 2, episode 2 "Governed by Sound Reason and True Religion" has an ISAN number (0000-0003-AA96-0000-7-0000-0000-G), so why cannot it not have a 224086-?? code. I asked this before and you didn't answer it. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

My guess is Governed by Sound Reason and True Religion was supposed to be 224086-12, but got missed in the numbering, so I would suggest using 224086-12a and 224086-12b for the other as the production company will not correct it as it would require them renumbering the later eps. as for the hex to decimal change, something like "Production codes are in decimal form for uniformity with other codes". 124.197.3.196 (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand that 0000-0003-6B56 = 224086 (using an online hexadecimal to decimal converter), but I don't understand how the second half of the ISAN code equals a number (1 to 49). I really want to understand this if it's going to stay in the article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

0000-0003-AA96 is the root of 224086; 0000 is the part or prod. code of zero; 7-0000-0000-G is the version which can be ignored. So root-part is 224086-0. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

After doing a bit more analyzing and research, I understand it fully. Do you have any further knowledge why "Governed by Sound Reason and True Religion" has a different style ISAN code though; it uses AA96 while all other episodes have 6B56. What would be the best way to explain it in the article? As I'm not a fan of just leaving it blank. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed 0000-0003-AA96 is 240278 and it seems to be the same screw up that happened with first ep from season three of Being Human. Muse Entertainment created a new root for "It's a Shame About Ray" and it's never been corrected. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added a note about the ISAN details. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

copied this discussion to article talk page. You may remove it from your talk page. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian has taken upon himself as usual to remove the note you suggested we add. I leave it to you handle the situation as I'm fed up with him. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll have you know that I don't follow every discussion on the site; I'll copy my post on your talk page here: While I understand that your additions concerning ISAN Production Codes are in good faith, I recommend discussing them before you re-implement them. As I explained, the content is unnecessary technical that the regular reader who passes through the article would not require knowledge of, nor would they understand it in the first place. Do you expect them to understand what a "assigned root ID" is? Not everything needs to be included in an article; if it is necessary, then it should go under the "Production" section of the parent article for the main series. -- Alex^TW 10:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Adding on, to the IP editor, false accusations such as this, stating that the "user is just trolling", that will get you nowhere else other than an administrative noticeboard in a report against your edit-warring and personal attacks, which violate WP:EW and WP:NPA. -- Alex^TW 10:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You are trolling right now on this user's talk page and seem to be stalking user's contribs. And the note needs to be on the article it relates to, especially when inconsistencies with the numbering are present. and details of "assigned root ID" are provided with ISAN article link. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

So, I assume that you have no intent to discuss this civilly per WP:CIVIL? I checked your sources, and the source does not provide anything relating to the assigned root ID, or the number 137959, making it entirely your own original research per WP:OR. Again, I repeat: the content is unnecessary technical jargon that the regular reader who passes through the article would not require knowledge of, nor would they understand it in the first place. Therefore, it is not required. At all. It does not elaborate on anything within the article. If you continue to edit-war, you may find yourself reported and blocked against any editing. -- Alex^TW 14:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Mac's categories

Hi User:Drovethrughosts, do you know if the categories on Mac (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia) are correct? The categories I'm confused about are:

• Category:Fictional drug dealers, on the show they say he did this in high school and presumably doesn't anymore
• Category:Fictional American people of Irish/Scottish descent, He's part owner of an Irish pub and a radical Roman Catholic, but his surname "McDonald" is Scottish in origin and found in both countries

Categories he might belong in:

• Category:Fictional bartenders, he part owns/runs a bar but doesn't serve behind the counter
• Category:Fictional preachers, he preaches his Catholic beliefs to everyone, but it's not a job
• Category:Fictional karateka, probably not, he pretends he knows it and does made-up karate moves often

Hope you can help, )--Theo Mandela (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It's supposed to be a surprise

You left me a thank you notification for your nomination at Editor of the Week....which I much appreciate. Problem is, you should not have known about it for another seven weeks by which time it would have (and still will be) seconded and move up the Queue and be awarded about late August. . We have been clerking the Editor of the Week award for many years and only rarely does the intended get "wind of it"! I'm curious to know....Did I accidentally ping you? Anyway, let me be the first to congratulate you (seven weeks early). Thanks for all you do! Buster7 (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Buster7: Yeah, I got a notification for it, which brought me to this page. Sorry if I spoiled the surprise for myself, haha. Regardless, it was still a surprise...just a bit early. Thanks, I really appreciate the kind words and the recognition; it means a lot! Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Twin Peaks titles

You removed my edit for TP S3, where I added titles for ep1-13. Why do you not consider them to be titles? Even if you would rather call them "descriptions" they're short enough to serve as titles. There are precedents: http://welcometotwinpeaks.com/news/twin-peaks-part-9-10-11-12-titles/, http://www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/twin-peaks/247520/twin-peaks-new-episode-titles-revealed Kraps (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The fact is, they are not official episode titles, they are descriptions. Yes, I agree other sources sometimes use the descriptions as "titles" because it's easier than referring to them as "Part 1" or "Part 6", which is more vague. Regardless, use the talk page at the article itself to raise any concerns you have. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Illyria(angel).jpg

⚠

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

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) 17:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your work on television articles. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Drovethrughosts has spent years daily working at improving the quality of WP's many and varied television-related articles such as The Walking Dead, The Office, and 24...just to name a few. He is finely attuned with the established standard and structure of the TV medium and Wikipedia's episodic TV articles, templates and images. He states; "I'm a huge television fan and consider it my favourite medium of entertainment." Mentoring and educating other editors is challenging...to say the least, especially in an Arena that draws new inexperienced editors and fans by the droves. He knows the importance of clear, precise descriptions and responses. Like one of the TV shows he writes about, he tailors his message to his audience.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Lepricavark (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)