User talk:YoungForever

This is YoungForever's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

		Unnecessarily complicated Gears Award
		This award is given in recognition to YoungForever for accumulating at least 150 points during each week of the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the MOS:TVCAST does it say that their last names cannot be mentioned? I read the entire thing and didn't see a reason for my edit's removal. ESPECIALLY, if it's reliably sourced? If it's about the "on-screen credits" of the series, they don't list character names for main cast members or guest stars.... ACase0000 (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:TVCAST, All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source. They are credited with first names only and that is their common names. It is fake wedding invitation created by the characters for the TV series. It is not a press release nor an article written by a staff member. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again... NO character names are Credited on-screen for main cast and guest stars! The credits don't say "Nicola Cavendish as Connie", they just list the actors name. And as for the article It was written by Netflix staff and they own the rights to the series. Fictional characters cannot write their own wedding invitations, you should know that. Series staff members wrote it. ACase0000 (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Connie is her common name and her surname is not part of her common name. Again, it is a fake wedding invitation by Melinda Monroe and Jack Sheridan as stated on the fake wedding invitation. What part of a fake wedding invitation you do not seem to understand? It is not a press release nor an article written by a staff member, it is just a fake wedding invitation with questions to answer. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to talk to BaldiBasicsFan about not assuming that every animated show was subcontracted instead of co-production without solid proof, even over at Template talk:Infobox television. Nothing worked. It's been difficult to watch any of my favorite animated shows because of this and I don't mean watching the articles on them. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already talked to them in the past, please see User talk:BaldiBasicsFan#20th Television and Warner Bros. Television. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I added the message because season one was missing episode summery's, whys that wrong? I mean maybe the episodes should now be moved to a new page because of that rule you mentioned "an article should not have both an episode table with summaries and a prose plot summary." but the season one episodes should still be written and that's why I put that message. Anthony2106 (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony2106: It already have a prose plot summary. Also, it is not enough to split the article FYI. Please see MOS:TVSPLIT and Wikipedia:Article splitting (television), it states an article should be 50kB to 60kB of readable prose or 50 and 60 episodes to warrant a split. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't put the message because of it missing a season plot summary. I put it for the missing episode summary's. Are you not meant to use that warring message for episodes like that. Would that mean I taged this wrong? Anthony2106 (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what "an article should not have both an episode table with summaries and a prose plot summary" means. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

So I noticed that you have edited to changed the 18-49 ratings in the ratings tables from the recent season's shows from two digits after a decimal to just one digit after a decimal. while, I understand that this is the norm since pretty much the beginning but it was useful when 18-49 ratings regularly hit the doubles digits. But the days of shows achieving even a 1.0 18-49 rating are long gone, so don't you think it would it helpful that we list the rating as 0.24 rather than simply 0.2? ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 12:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common and standard practice. I see nothing wrong with that, especially when style has a been established already. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]