Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 3

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< May 2 May 4 >

May 3 edit

Template:16TeamBracket-Compact-Archery5-Byes-with-Third edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and redundant to {{16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis5-Byes-with-third}} Frietjes (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:6TeamUSASA edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this is actually a 7-team bracket, and now replaced with {{7TeamBracket}}, so it's no longer needed Frietjes (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:7TeamBracket-4Rounds edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:NHLBracket/2 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:2016 NPSL national playoffs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I merged this with the article so it is no longer needed as a stand-alone template Frietjes (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:2016 NPSL South Central Conference playoffs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I merged this with the article so it is no longer needed as a stand-alone template Frietjes (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:CPL Playoffs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:2016 NPSL South Playoffs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:2010 IFL Playoffs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:1999 BFL playoffs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:8TeamBracket-Best of Five Playoffs with Third edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:64TeamBracket-with-3rd edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:NFLPlayOff edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Taekwondo-RepechageBracket edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Georgia Tech COE Navbox edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three links... not enough to navigate per WP:EXISTING. Could easily be be merged into {{Georgia Tech}}. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Game of Thrones background colors edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete for now. It is clear that these templates were created in good faith and to correct what the creator felt was a serious error in the way series colours are handled. Examples were given of similar templates/situations (e.g. {{rail color box}}) that could be implemented as a coding alternative and as a minor point of precedent.

However, the sheer scope of WP:TV needs to be taken into consideration, and if this sort of template is to become bog-standard for all television series then it needs to be done (properly) for all series; articles can't just randomly be chosen for one colour box scheme while others are chosen for a second or third variation because individual editors feel their way is "right." WP:TV has done a fairly good job in standardizing articles in their purview, and they should continue to do so. In other words, I encourage an RFC to be held to determine the future of episode list colouration. Should that outcome be that the colours should be put into a template, then these templates can obviously be undeleted and/or recreated without prejudice.

In the meantime, though, the overall consensus is that these templates should not be used at this particular point in time. Primefac (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand that the template was created in good faith, it i completely unnecessary, given that the colours are not set to change at all with accordance to MOS:TV (bar Season 7), and it introduced technical jargon such as this that newer editors may not be familiar with. -- AlexTW 00:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it is completely unnecessary

Help:A quick guide to templates states that "templates are Wikipedia pages created to be included in other pages and usually contain repetitive material". Such repetitive material is the background color of a TV season. For example, the background color of the first season of Game of Thrones is being used in 3 articles (Game of Thrones (season 1), List of Game of Thrones episodes and Template:Game of Thrones ratings). If someone wanted to change that color, he would have to go through all three of this articles and make about 20 edits. This template shortens the proccess to just 1 edit, through Template:Game of Thrones background colors.

it introduced technical jargon [...] that newer editors may not be familiar with

the colours are not set to change at all

I believe you have answered your own question. Though, i do not believe this to be a "technical jargon", we could always leave a hidden note that would explain to the users where they would have to go to make the change they wish, in the shortest way possible. __Radiphus ( T • C )__ 05:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can also see how this works with the recently created Template:Rick and Morty background colors and Template:Fargo background colors. __Radiphus ( T • C )__ 06:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for listing those as well; I would add those next two templates to the deletion discussion. You may be an experienced, which would explain why you do not think that it is technical jargon, but would you truly expect a brand new editor to the site to understand what it means? If you do indeed need to add a note, this further supports the fact that it is technical jargon, and it then begins to do more harm than good. Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should be.
Per MOS:TV, Once established, colors that meet WP:COLOR should not be changed arbitrarily without discussion, which my statement of "the colours are not set to change at all" is based on. There is absolutely no need for templates such as this with that fact in place. I will also be linking the WikiProject Television here to add their views on this unprecedented activity for television series' articles. -- AlexTW 07:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with AlexTheWhovian on this. Our television guidelines generally serve us well on matters such as these. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm a bit confused - why does it need to be easy for new users to change if they aren't supposed to be changed? I suppose I like that it centralises all colour management to one location - would make it easier to monitor for those that care about such things. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it may not need to be changed, does not mean that we need to introduce unnecessary and complicated technical jargon into multiple articles. If this was the case that was needed, would you propose that we do it to every television article? If not, when why just this one? -- AlexTW 08:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this options is the way the editors who edit those articles choose to manage it, I'm support that. If other editors want to manage it another way, I support that. I suppose that means I support not having a rule here. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, does this circumnavigate the checks done within the templates and modules that check whether the colours conform to WP:COLOR, and add them to Category:Episode lists with non-compliant line colors and such similar categories, or not? That is, if I put a non-compliant colour in one of these new "all-encompassing colour templates", would the episode list and table templates still check these colours? -- AlexTW 08:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would work. I don't know a bad colour to be able to test. Dresken (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the the editor would rather edit-war over a multitude of articles to force their contributions into the articles. This is opposed to WP:BRD, where they made a WP:BOLD edit that has not been required in the many years that the television series' articles have existed, they were reverted, and they should have waited for this discussion to conclude and to gain a WP:CONSENSUS for their own edits. I find it in bad faith that they would prefer push their own edits, rather than discuss with editors of the WikiProject Television. -- AlexTW 12:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the internet... Alex, you are the one that reverted 9 perfectly working articles, that i spent so much time working on, without asking anyone. Please let this discussion play out and most importantly, allow the moderators to observe the use of this template. I don't have anything to add in this discussion. __Radiphus ( T • C )__ 12:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the repeating I must do... "This is opposed to WP:BRD, where they made a WP:BOLD edit that has not been required in the many years that the television series' articles have existed, they were reverted, and they should have waited for this discussion to conclude and to gain a WP:CONSENSUS for their own edits." Does that ring a bell? Unless you are unfamiliar with editing here on Wikipedia... In which case, welcome to the site, we hope you enjoy your stay! See how the editor refuses to discuss the disputed content, but wishes for their forced edits to remain in the article with absolutely no consensus to do so. Seems like the very definition of uncollaborative to me. -- AlexTW 12:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What i see is that you have no good reason to get my template deleted, and you are trying to divert the discussion by saying what i bad person i am. Please note, that WP:BRD "does not encourage reverting", (like you did to my edits) and WP:DRNC asks you "not to be a jerk against boldness", (no comments). __Radiphus ( T • C )__ 12:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to start off with, there is no need for the template. If there was, if it was truly necessary to "reduce the repetitiveness" because it is apparently such a burden, do you not think that it would have been created years ago? All this does is introduce jargon that is unnecessary to an article. I'm not being a jerk - I'm restoring articles to a usable state, hence the reverts. Members who follow the WikiProject Television and the Manual of Style/Television have been notified of this discussion. -- AlexTW 13:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm restoring articles to a usable state

Please explain how the article is not usable after my edit. I told you how my edit improves it...

do you not think that it would have been created years ago?

So, you 're saying the Earth is flat? __Radiphus ( T • C )__ 13:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Technical jargon. Unnecessarily complicated syntax. And yes, the Earth is completely flat, I believe it, I've seen the edge! And unless you plan to do this for every television article, which you would require WP:CONSENSUS for, then it makes no sense to just do it for three topics. -- AlexTW 13:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i am planning to do this for every television article. That's why i have edited Game of Thrones, because the series has attracted many editors and it will be easier to spread, once a consensus has been reached. __Radiphus ( T • C )__ 13:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Creating thousands of colours template is simply unnecessary; perhaps you should have started a discussion to gain consensus before you created the templates. -- AlexTW 13:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the reasoning of AlexTheWhovian. The templates were obviously created in good faith and took effort, but I feel it's a bit over-the-top and unnecessary for something so simple. Do we really need to create a template to transclude six digits of information? It's just unnecessary, makes the edit window more clogged up and the extra code just adds more unneeded kB to the articles. If we do this, then why not turn every bit of information into a template and transclude it (sarcasm)? I really applaud the effort it, it's just overkill for something that is really simple. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why not turn every bit of information into a template and transclude it

Because letter A does not always have to come before letter B, so that it might have made sense to transclude the word "AB", but those 6 digits you are referring to (the color code) have to be the same when needed (see the Game of Thrones (season 1) example above). There are times when users change the season's background color, but they forget to change the LineColor, the ratings graph color, etc. That's what makes this template necessary. __Radiphus ( T • C )__ 13:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Giving it more thought and reading your reply, I do see the merits a bit more. From my what I saw (from my watchlist), it's just the list of episode articles getting transcluded to, which seemed like a lot of work for one article. But, I guess, if the colors are being transcluded to multiple articles (the main article, ratings graphs, etc.), it's probably worth it. I'd say I'm 50/50 now. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but convert to simple switch statements to avoid the clumsy LST syntax. This is just like {{Rail color box}} and the entire series of "Foo color" templates for rail operating companies. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in theory, I think this might be a positive endeavor, at least for television series with multiple seasons and inclusion of the season color in multiple locations. But then again, I don't see it being an issue of simply going through and manually changing each instance as necessary. If anything were to progress, regardless of the outcome either way for this discussion, I think a new discussion should be held at the TV project talk to gain more opinions from the wider TV project community on potentially implementing this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The entire thing seems a tempest in a teapot. Yes, I agree that centralizing colors for standardization is cool. I don't understand the negativity towards such an endeavor: once someone has gone through the hassle of setting it up, it seems an easier maintenance solution--far better than hand-editing a score of articles as needed, if needed. Jclemens (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that from a techie perspective, the standardization is cool, but given season colour is a) unlikely to be replicated in more than a handful of articles (above we have the example of 3) and b) is unlikely to change frequently (generally there's an initial colour that is changed once official promotional materials are released), and add to that the fact it adds another layer of complexity for non-technical editors who might struggle with the proper use of templates that call templates, I don't see it adds enough benefit to continue with this kind of approach. If making repeated changes (say to line colour values) is so onerous (i.e. if people aren't willing to use search-and-replace functionality), then maybe we should look at having the line colour values from episode row templates inherit the colour from the episode table or section they are in, which would do more to reduce the need for multiple colour edits if a season colour changes. (I have no idea if this is technically possible but it has definitely occurred to me it's annoying that you have to specify line colour in each episode entry). And while anecdotal, I have rarely seen season colour mismatches and have even more rarely seen them last more than a day. In short, it tends towards a missile to kill a fly style of approach. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The templates (all three listed) now use non-free media unnecessarily, specifically the DVD covers, which are only meant to be used once and in the season articles, further supporting my decision for delete. It's a pretty layout, sure, but does not make them anymore valid. -- AlexTW 09:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, it was still currently an WP:NFCC violation to include these images (irregardless of this discussion taking place or existing). They have since been removed at all three templates. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCC criteria No.7, for using NFC on the English Wikipedia: "One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article." If anything, seems to me like using NFC —that qualifies as fair use— more than once, is something to be encouraged. To the adminstrator who will decide on the future of these templates: please sort out this dispute as well, as i wish to revert to the previous edit. __Radiphus ( T • C )__ 15:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How's #9, then? Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. This is actually what you were pointed to ([1][2][3]). It's also interesting how you won't revert the above editor after they reverted you, and yet you did for me ([4]), after having no consensus to perform either edit. -- AlexTW 15:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time for you. __Radiphus ( T • C )__ 15:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How unfortunate that you do not wish to be civil, simply because I proposed the deletion of your templates. How disappointing of you. -- AlexTW 15:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How ballbusting of you, acting like you own Wikipedia. __Radiphus ( T • C )__ 15:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that your personal attacks are going to make this discussion neither faster or easier, nor will they support you in your arguments to keep the templates. Do remain civil during discussions. -- AlexTW 15:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I told you before, all you 've been doing is diverting the discussion, with things like this:

It's also interesting how you won't revert the above editor

Goodbye, Alex. __Radiphus ( T • C )__ 15:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have given my arguments for the deletion of the template already. Are you planning on leaving? Does this mean a close to this discussion, do you plan to no longer contribute to it? -- AlexTW 15:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Radiphus: This is not a dispute. Non-free content must be avoided in articles and replaced with free content if at all possible, and can not be included outside the mainspace anywhere. For lack of a better phrase, you added the season posters to these templates for a simply visual element without a purpose. Also, if the purpose of these tables are simply to transclude color hex numbers, why do we need images? That is very much against NFCC #9. If anything, seems to me like using NFC —that qualifies as fair use— more than once, is something to be encouraged this content isn't fair use and a very concerning statement from yourself. Using the same piece of non-free content is definitely not encouraged. Also, both you and Alex can be viewed as trading personal attacks, so please remain civil to each other and other editors. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you added the season posters to these templates for a simply visual element without a purpose

The reason those posters where added, is because of this MOS:TV guideline: Colors for the seasons are often selected based on the series logo, DVD artwork, or for other reasons. I think it makes sense to have both the poster and the color next to each other, so users can make sure those guidelines are being followed. After reading your response, i am not sure i can support the claim that this consists fair use, although i'd still like some clarification from an administrator, as this is a template we are talking about and not an article. __Radiphus ( T • C )__ 16:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Irregardless, an administrator does not need to comment on this. There is no leeway in regards to NFCC #9. You are trying to use non-free media in the template space, outside of the article mainspace. Simply put, you just can't do that, period. It would be the exact same if you were trying to add images to the user or draft spaces, and why categories that are used for non-free images have to have __NOGALLERY__ added to them so the thumbnails of said non-free images do not appear. An administrator (or frankly any other user) would tell you the exact same thing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm making my opinion for these be "delete" at this time. A larger discussion should take place within the TV project to determine if there is any merit in templates such as these, and if so, how and when are they used and created (ie, a series with only 2 seasons and 1 or 2 articles using the color [main page and LoE] would not need this). So until these concerns have been discussed in a larger discussion, their use on with these three series should be restore to current consensus and convention. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And here is the reason why the seasons' color management should be centralised somehow: at 18:00 UTC today, a user removed my Rick and Morty season 2 color LST in List of Rick and Morty episodes and Rick and Morty (season 2), but they forgot to change the season 2 color in the the ratings graph (current state at 18:51 UTC). __Radiphus ( T • C )__ 18:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you did notice, and you would have changed it as well. That's all we need. Wikipedia is not a one-editor-do-all site, it's a collaboration, so if someone misses something, you help by fixing it for them. Pinging Grapesoda22 as the above editor mentioned, which should have been done first. -- AlexTW 23:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_3&oldid=1136066667"