User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Happy New Year, Geraldo Perez!

Happy New Year!

Geraldo Perez,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 23:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 23:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Tiera_Skovbye.jpg

Is this image legit? It looks like a copyvio to me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: Deleted as a copyvio. Originally from photoshoot at https://www.behance.net/gallery/74329399/Teira Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of Disney Channel original films discussion

Just curious if you have any thoughts on the discussion at Talk:List of Disney Channel original films#Black Arrow Missing?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

iMeet fred

I think Zapit is incorrect on this issue. I did a simple search and other guides including IMDB are stating the 16th. I also went back a few years and we indeed have the 16th at one point as well, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICarly_(season_2)&oldid=937715490 in addition the edits her explain the 16th https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_iCarly_episodes&diff=271328680&oldid=271325565 Magical Golden Whip (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Magical Golden Whip: Zap2it is a good reference. It is one of the better sources and it is the column reference. Likely the old data was changed to conform to it. If IMDb is different, that may be the source of other articles using that data. If reliable sources have conflicting data when need a discussion on what to use. Is there another somewhat contemporaneous program guide you found that could replace Zap2it as a column source. Not sure things like iTunes and such are better. The diff you used shows that reference as supporting the title. Sometimes original airing date doesn't match what was planed so I tend to give Zap2it a lot of credence. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The Futon Critic would normally be good to defer to for this, but unfortunately, it only has episodes from the last three seasons (3–5). And even then, not all of the third season. Amaury • 19:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: I did have [1], in addition to the itunes source that was added when reverted. Having a hard time finding promos. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

This may not be much of a help. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix6k-UGePfUMagical Golden Whip (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this may work, https://twitter.com/LucasCruikshank/status/1215490168 @MPFitz1968: tagging you too. This is the best I could dig up.

Social media for info not directly about the person posting it is generally discouraged as a reference. As are contents on unverified YouTube accounts. Something posted by the network on their outlet would be best. I don't like using iTunes as a source for dates when we have other more reliable sources. Copyright office says episode was published on the 17th per product code column reference which is another conflict of a very reliable source. I think copyright office may be based on UTC so may confirm the 16th as US airing date. Might use it and iTunes date together as a reference for the 16th. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The film in the Promo Spectacular! does support the film date. Wayback machine isn't working very well by going with old links. The reference here [2] was Nick's website. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately the link looks dead and webarchive says need a flash player to see the contents. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

You removed accurate information for no apparent reason.

Please restore the entry for the birthdate provided for Christopher Henchy. 2600:1007:B002:3EDC:0:4F:84E5:3401 (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I gave a sufficient reason - see Special:Diff/1132085210 and WP:BLPPRIVACY. You added the info - see WP:BURDEN. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Descendants 3

Geraldo, is this edit appropriate? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: No. That is going beyond the purpose of navboxes in my opinion. Topics are loosely related at best. WP:NAVBOX. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Reverted, at all three Descendants articles. I did not check the edit history to see if this editor is doing this elsewhere, but it might be worth checking. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Tina Knowles

I was thinking about adding the info about the actual spelling of her birth name to the article's personal life section in an effort to keep people who clearly don't bother reading the reference from vandalizing it. Do you think that would help? I know you get tired of changing it back, lol. 166.198.161.6 (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a good idea. A brief mention after her parents are mentioned as to why her last name is spelled differently than theirs is interesting info. Might help prevent people from changing it to what they know is correct against her own words as to why it is different from her parents and older siblings. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I added it, not sure if my wording is wiki sanctioned or not, you can amend it if you like. Now if this doesn't stop folks from "correcting" it, I don't know what will. But we'll definitely know for certain that they are being obtuse and vandalizing it on purpose. 166.198.161.6 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Pronouns (Summer Walker)

Does wiki have an official rule on gender pronouns? Because on Kehlani's page I see they/them still being used, but on Walker's page I see the pronouns they/them have been reverted back to she/her, by a user who apparently considered the use of they/them "sexist vandalism" so I'm a little confused. 166.198.161.6 (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID and MOS:NEOPRONOUN are the appropriate guidelines for most of this. Basically use what the subject has stated they want used except use singular they if they want to use a neopronoun. Otherwise go with what the subject wants. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Got it. Honestly, going with what the subject wants seemed most logical to me but I decided to ask just to be sure, I didn't want to get into an edit war. 166.198.161.6 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Coco

I would like it if you refrain from undoing my edits of Coco being a musical film. It's because the movie has 7 songs (Remember Me, Much Needed Advice, Everyone Knows Juanita, Un Poco Loco, El Mundo Es Mi Familia, La Llorona and Proud Corazón), they are totally enough to make a musical film. PickleAndPeanutFan (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@PickleAndPeanutFan: I remove because it is unsourced as such and as it is not a musical film - see that article for what that means. It is a film with music in it but not to the point it makes it a musical film. Also see Talk:Coco (2017 film)/Archive 1#Not a musical where this was discussed before for this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Marino13

Just leaving a public record with another long-time Wikipedian about my concerns with this editor. As per User talk:Marino13, I've given this editor earlier warnings about article creation, and unattributed WP:SPLITs, but this last thing with Under Wraps (2021 film) and its draft is really, really sketchy... Basically, please just keep an eye out here – they don't seem to be learning from past mistakes, and if they keep down the path they're on, the ultimate destination may need to be WP:ANI. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Romeo Miller

There is a particular user who keeps adding film credits from IMDB to his page under the year 2023 which can not be verified, because even on IMDB, there are no release dates for these films mentioned. I tried to compromise by listing them under TBA but this user keeps changing it back without providing any source, and I don't want to edit war. 166.198.161.70 (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Generally any film that has not been released needs a reference that is not IMDb. After release the film itself is a published reliable source as to its existence and content. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, well, I'm glad you edited it because he or she might take your word over mine. Thanks again. 166.198.161.70 (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

174.235.32.0/24 range

Geraldo, I think this range sports one of our problematic IP editors. For instance, I think you and I have seen this kind of edit before, and it's nearly always accompanied by other problematic editing. For example, I just had to revert all the edits made by 174.235.32.72 today. It doesn't look like they edit often enough for a block to do any good. But I suspect this range should be monitored... FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: Looking at the range it looks like the .72 IP is the only problem right now. .118 was active last May. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, some time, someone can explain to me the difference between 174.235.32.0/24 and 174.235.32.0/22!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: First includes 174.235.32.1 to 174.235.32.254 (254 hosts) Second includes 174.235.32.1 to 174.235.35.254 (1022 hosts). Just a larger range. IPv4 § Addressing article has all the gory details. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Reverting of List of awards and nominations received by Michelle Yeoh

I see you reverted my edit attempt to WP:SPLIT Michelle Yeoh's awards and nominations into an article of its own, List of awards and nominations received by Michelle Yeoh, and the grounds of it being "undiscussed and unnecessary", please view the Michelle Yeoh talk page, where I have argued why the page is in need of a split.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelloveslennonstella (talk • contribs) 05:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Samuelloveslennonstella: Give it more than a few days for people to comment. Also splits are based on article size, not on how important a person is so they deserve a separate article. I commented on the talk page and oppose the split for size reasons. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)‎

Question about character articles

Geraldo, do you have idea how to handle character names at character articles? MOS:LEADBIO likely doesn't apply, and MOS:CHARACTERS (which is actually for books and novels) provides no guidance on how to handle character names (e.g. in the lede). The issue here is how to handle a character who is known by a full name, but the more "common name" is a shortened form of the name. To be clear, both were used on the show in question on multiple occasions, so there is no question in my name that the full name should/must be mentioned at least somewhere in the article. It was not before. Another editor is removed the full name claiming only the "common name" should be named. The article in question is Nelle Benson. I'm going to also ping Livelikemusic to this discussion – while I don't think they watch General Hospital, they are definitely familiar with daytime soap opera articles (incl. character articles) in general... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: I think treating it like we do real people is appropriate and is a good model to follow. Common name which is most likely the credited name as the article title, and full (legal) name in intro sentence if known and sourced. Common name used for rest of article. For a character article it is appropriate to give more info than is needed for a character list where only the common/credited name should be mentioned. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: I do watch General Hospital, and I am going to state this — including "Janelle Benson" is more trivial than vital to that article. Janelle vs. Nelle would simply be Nelle winning, as in all credited appearances (including ABC's online website), the character was referred to as "Nelle Benson." Not to mention, full [legal] names are not always... sourced, and are most likely fancruft-type information. The only character I can recall calling Nelle by "Janelle" was Chase (full-name Harrison Chase), because that's how he knew her when they were involved, as well as when anyone was investigated Nelle's background pre-Port Charles. But Nelle was what she was referred to, including majority of sourced content within the article. I feel like MOS:LEADBIO would be messy, especially with American soap operas, due to how often characters marry/re-marry. Take Erica Kane for example — her lead was, at one point, ridiculous when it mentioned all of her martial names, which is why I believe it was concluded the common-name was the safest route to go. That would be like Carly Corinthos mentioning Caroline Benson in the lead when Carly rarely goes by Caroline, except for mention by Luke, etc. She doesn't use Caroline, so mentioning it would be... trivial. livelikemusic (TALK!) 06:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: Then where do you mention this information? I'm going to go as far as to say if these soap character articles are not including info like "Janelle Benson" and "Carly Roberts" (which I believe the name she went by when she came on the show; "Caroline Benson" is a little more trivial, though that her given name is "Caroline" should certainly be mentioned somewhere), then they're doing it wrong.

So if doesn't go into the lede, then where does it go? I definitely disagree that including names that characters are referred to fairly regularly (at some point during their time on the show) is "trivial". The way we handle this at non-soap articles is if it's a very infrequent mention, then we don't include the name. But if it's non-trivial, we list by the credited name (when applicable) and mention other names (or forms of the name) in the character summaries. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: They would go in {{Infobox soap character}} under the "alias" parameter. From my POV, based on watching General Hospital, including "Janelle Benson" is null for the lead, as she was introduced as "Nelle," and continued to be referenced as Nelle in published sources, like Soaps In Depth and Soap Opera Digest. As mentioned, "Janelle Benson" was infrequently mentioned, aside by Chase and those from her past. livelikemusic (TALK!) 06:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: Which means it wasn't "infrequently mentioned" – Chase pretty much exclusively referred to as "Janelle", so it wasn't some kind of "trivial one-off" mention. (Several of the soap sites include her full name as well, so it can even be sourced.)

But the bigger problem is infoboxes are supposed to summarize content already in the article (prose), as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. In other words, content like this should not be in just the infobox. If standard practice is to put info like this just in the infobox, this is another thing they're getting wrong at the soap articles – it should be mentioned in the article itself as well, at least in the character summary (if nowhere else). (I also quibble with calling that infobox parameter |alias= and opposed to |other_names=, but I'm probably not going to the infobox talk page about that...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: Feel free to revise what I've done at Nelle Benson. As long as the full name is mentioned in the prose of the article somewhere, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE (and I'd argue WP:Readers first as well) is satisfied. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

List of Hunter Street episodes

Geraldo, what is the range for the disruptive IPv6 editor at this article? We either need a range block here, or we need semi-protection at the article. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: Range is Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:DC49:3600::/64 and he just resumed from a 1 week range block. Reported, now blocked for 2 weeks. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Moviefone

Do we think that Moviefone can be considered a reliable source for bio info? I have no idea where they are getting the info from, so it probably makes it "sketchy"?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: Seems to have a good reputation overall so likely good for bio info too. RSN had nothing questioning that site. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

2600:1007:B135:B7C4:5096:2D1:FC34:B258

None of these edits look good – lots of ignoring "names as per credits". And unfortunately it looks like they've been editing for several days (e.g. this is from Jan. 27). This looks like it may warrant a mass rollback. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Considering how prolific (and bad!) this one has been, I would keep an eye on this IP, as I bet there is no chance they don't resume with this when they come off the block. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B100::/40, the containing range, was previously blocked for a month for this. Reported range as resumed, now on 3 month block. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

File:Rebecca_Rigg.jpg

This is another one – Do we really think this is "own work"?! I'm guessing not, and it's a WP:COPYVIO of some sort... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: That one I believe. It has EXIF data from a iPhone camera in the Metadata section - most pro images use better cameras. Could have stolen it from someone else, I guess, but I think he really owns the image. Could not find any copies on net that didn't come from Wiki projects. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Did the metadata have a date? I couldn't find a date attached to that photo. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: In the EXIF - "Date and time of data generation 21:08, 5 December 2018" matches with what is in image summary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: The EXIF viewer on Commons extracts the data from the file and displays it at the end of the page. You can also get the data by using https://exifinfo.org and giving it the image location. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

IP vandal who removes names from bio articles

Geraldo, have you come across the IP vandal who removes names from bio articles/WP:BLPs before? They're now operating at 95.55.138.130. As I don't think they were operating at this IP before, they must be using a range. I know they've been blocked before... Anyway, this will need a mass rollback, and an almost certain block. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: From Russia, wonder if Russian grammar is leaking into how they write English. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, they have been prolific – this IP's edits is hardly the first instance of this kind of editing. That's why I was suggesting checking the range... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: I did check the /16 range. Shows up occasionally along with lots of other editors making reasonably good edits. Likely has a number of other Russian ranges that gets used and the edits are noticeable. I couldn't identify a narrow range block that would just target that one editor with little collateral to others. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Input

Hello, Geraldo Perez. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television.
Message added 03:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would be great to hear your input. Thanks. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

2???

Then why is the title Frozen II on the article? What guidelines are yall using for this page? GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@GalaxyFighter55: That was based on a move discussion and a determination Frozen II was the WP:COMMONNAME. Frozen 2 and Frozen II are both used by Disney and other reliable sources so both should be mentioned in intro. Also, as spoken, it is "Frozen two" Someone incorrectly changed the cite titles of references from Frozen 2 to Frozen II to not match the actual source titles (likely with a wholesale find and replace over the article), but checking the links shows Frozen 2 used for most of them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Well ok then, thanks for an explanation at least.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Morena Baccarin

Could you please take a look at this? I would like to remove "Brazillian" from the lede for sure, but I'd like you to take a look at this, and maybe render your opinion, first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. I don't watchlist this one, but maybe someone ought to, as there's no doubt someone is going to try to change that back, or add "Brazillian-born"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Short descriptions

Short descriptions are supposed to be short, with the recommended maximum length being 40 characters. They are not intended to be all-inclusive or cover every major aspect of the subject. Skyerise (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Question

Do we think this is OK?... I would argue that linking to the TV series page is enough, and also linking to the LoE articles is overkill/WP:OVERLINKing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: No per WP:EGG. There is no reason to expect those destinations when a number is linked. Linking the TV series page is sufficient. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey!

whenever I edit, you always assume that the stuff mentioned are unsourced. Can you please explain why? 2600:8801:3:D800:54F0:237E:6C6A:D5D3 (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure, it is because you didn't provide a source. Not providing a source saying where you got the info means it is "unsourced". Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the stuff provided IS source material, and yet you keep reverting. And, you also keep reverting obvious grammatical errors, which is completely irritating. I think you need to realize that I've been on hthis platform since 2006, and I've always getting booted because of this.--2600:8801:3:D800:54F0:237E:6C6A:D5D3 (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Take advice, provide sources when requested, and don't restore erroneous content. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

You're the one who always commits an edit war. It's people like yourself who treat innocent contributors the same way nazis treated jews during World War II. Maybe, you need to take your own advice. I really expected better from this dead-end site you call "reliable." 2600:8801:3:D800:54F0:237E:6C6A:D5D3 (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I said unverified accounts on YouTube are not a reliable sources, I made no claims about anything else although WP:RSNP gives some examples of what can't be used. Adding incorrect info is not fixing mistakes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide

What do we think – is this WP:UNDUE, or not? (I could certainly argue it falls under WP:ONUS/WP:UNDUE. And it almost certainly doesn't merit a separate section, regardless...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: Looking at the source, it isn't really about this specific series, this is just one episode in a series of podcasts that happens to focus on this series. Not really related to the production of the series or the series itself, this is a separate project by different people. Doesn't belong in my judgment. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

You were right according to the template

I'm sorry about that, but also it was technically still wrong as ViacomCBS banner name didn't happen until later in November 2019. It was still just Viacom in August. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@GalaxyFighter55: I noticed you fixed it to match the template instructions for distributor name to be one that existed at the time. That was my main issue. I would prefer nothing at all be there if there is no sourced mention in the article to support it though but I generally let that slide if it is plausible for the time and production. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: But if we're being honest it's not technically wrong to put Viacom Media Networks as the distributor because that's what it was at the time, the ViacomCBS merger did not officially close until December 2019 and they never renamed anything officially for the merger until November of that year. As for my initial edit, I was unaware it needed to strictly follow the company name of the time of release and for that I am deeply sorry for the rudeness I may have presented. I hope you may forgive me.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@GalaxyFighter55: I'll trust your judgement and research on this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Thank you, also here's some info & citations. The remerger wasn't even disclosed to the public until August 2019, realistically that's a dead giveaway regardless of the later info.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@GalaxyFighter55: Good info. Also I perceived no rudeness at all. I should have been more clear on my initial revert what my issue was. I am glad to see you looked in to it and found the template guidance. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Well in retrospect when I went back and read my own reversion sentences I did kind of feel like an asshole in the way I approached you, regardless of whether my edit was right or wrong. I'm a better person than that, and I really regret how that transpired. I'm glad we're on good terms.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Family Jr.

I heard Family Jr. is own by Wildbrain so can you check on it?~~ MLJ 657 (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@MLJ 657: According to https://content.wildbrain.com/uploads/2020/12/WildBrain_Factsheet_Email.pdf it is. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Jenna Ortega

Hello good time Regarding the issue of canceling my edit in Jenna Ortega's article, I disturbed you. I added that signature with the source This signature photo is available and verified in Anbar and is also used in Persian Wikipedia on his page. Mojtaba (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@تنهاوناشناس: Origin of image is https://seeklogo.com/vector-logo/357008/jenna-ortega uploaded by someone identified as Creativearts. Anyone can create images and assert they are something without any proof. This in not a reliable source. There is no trace back to anything Ortega created to verify this is her signature. Also other wiki projects definitely are not reliable sources for anything. Each wiki project has their own criteria for what is acceptable and acceptance on one does not imply acceptance on another one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I've searched the entire internet and can't find any sign of this signature being approved by Ortega

Thank you for taking the time to respond Mojtaba (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Rob Nagle

Does this meet WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC? I'm not sure on all of the references' reliability, either. 21% of them are from some site called Playbill. Noticed it due to an edit on List of I Didn't Do It episodes. Amaury • 09:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Amaury: Looks like it meets both. Playbill is a good source for theater acting info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

IP block question

Note: I'm not complaining here!! But... 82.46.63.220 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) just got blocked for 2 years. They had no previous blocks that I can see. Were there any previous blocks in this IP range?... I tried to look, but couldn't figure it out. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: No blocks but messages in talk page show a pattern that goes back a long time. I expect he was blocked for 2 years because of the large number of dubious edits starting in 2020 and a judgement that a shorter block would be pointless. Also check the edit filter log for the user, that shows a lot more dubious stuff beyond what is in the talk page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked IP 82.46.63.220 looks to be back at Christa B. Allen as 92.239.205.156 – Thoughts on what can be done about this?... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: Same location, same ISP, likely same person. Not a lot of activity yet on that IP. I reported to AIV as block evading, but they may just say not enough activity to block. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

And, blocked! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Brianna Brown

Editor with a likely WP:COI has tried to add two images to this article lately that I am quite sure are WP:COPYVIOs – Could you please check the images, and tag them if they are indeed problematic? Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, if they are WP:COPYVIO images, you may want to leave a message on their Talk page explaining the issue (as you understand how image stuff works on Wikipedia way better than I do!). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: Images were from her IMDb page. Was tagged as COI on her page and it looks like it is really her as identity was verified. Already has copyvio notice on talk page, I added two to her Commons page. She should get her publicist to release a free-use image for us to use. She doesn't own the images on IMDb. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there any chance you can explain that last part on their Talk page? I am out of my depth on this, esp. the part about "get[ting] her publicist to release a free-use image for us to use", as I don't know the process on that (and an Admin told me once that I didn't understand that process, as it's not done through WP:ORTS apparently, so I'm not even sure who the "publicist" would contact about it...). Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: The information is on her Commons user talk page already in the deletion notifications. FYI - see C:Commons:Volunteer Response Team for process. It gives ways for a photographer to properly license an image for free-use and prove it if challenged. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, the message you left on their Talk page was helpful – they shouldn't have any excuses now, if they want to follow up on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Ben Savage

Going to need more eyes here. I'm almost a member of WP:WPE&R, and it's standard practice there that you're not a "politician" until you actually win and serve in office – simply running for office isn't enough. Lot's of IPs don't understand this and are adding inappropriate content to the article. Ping MPFitz1968 as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Multiple IPs violating WP:NOTBROKEN

Geraldo, just a heads up that I am seeing a lot more editing against WP:NOTBROKEN from IPs over the last couple of days – one IP is hitting Charlie's Angels (2011 TV series), and another roving IP is at Liza del Mundo (and other articles). I haven't checked to see if they're the same editor, but I'm assuming it's two different editors doing this. Worth keeping an eye out... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: A lot of editors are just not aware of NOTBROKEN and MOS:NOPIPE. They think they are doing the right thing by piping those links. The ones that are an issue are the ones who ignore messages pointing them to the MOS telling them not to do than and persist anyway. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Which is what both of these IP editors did – ignored my edit summaries on WP:NOTBROKEN. I wouldn't have bothered you if it was just a one-time thing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: I generally drop a warning about not following the Manual of Style on their talk page referencing MOS:NOPIPE {{uw-mos2}}. I report to AIV if they continue after the final warning for this. 50/50 chance they get blocked. I have found many IPs are not really aware of edit summaries, they don't do them, they don't look at them. I am monitoring the IPs though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

20th Century Games

I'm only asking this because you did turn the page into a redirect before an IP editor reverted it back, but why do these IP users (or user, it could be someone hopping) believe 20th Century Fox Games is a real company, because there is no such thing. I have been improving the page with more sources and stuff like that, but I could believe this may still not be enough for a division that only functions as a licensor. What would you think? Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@LTPHarry: I originally reverted per Onel5969 "Not enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG or WP:VERIFY". I don't think an article is necessary as most of the information is at the former redirect target and anything extra that is sourced could be merged there. IP doesn't know what a division of a company is as opposed to a subsidiary. May need to take it to AfD if the IP insists on removing the redirect to turn it into a protected redirect. I wish we didn't allow IPs to create articles out of redirects to get around the restriction on creating articles in main space. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I think a mention in the Fox Interactive and/or FoxNext pages would work out better. Luigitehplumber (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@LTPHarry: The target could be refined, but the page was originally created as a redirect and should have been left as such. I didn't restore the redirect as it looked like you were addressing the GNG issues but I still don't think this article is needed even if better sourced. I suggest restoring the original redirect and getting it protected so IPs can't recreate the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright then. I'll request it for protection. Luigitehplumber (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, you beat me to it. Luigitehplumber (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@LTPHarry: Also note that Draft:20th Century Games exists. Also protect was declined, next step is AfD. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright then, good luck on that as well. Luigitehplumber (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

"Name remover" IP vandal is back

"Name remover" IP vandal is back at 178.70.133.113 – going to need a mass-rollback, and a reblock at WP:AIV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television status update

Geraldo, I don't suppose you've been following the discussions at Template talk:Infobox television, but the consensus is now to remove the |distributor=, |preceded_by= and |followed_by= parameters from {{Infobox television}}. On balance, this is a good thing, as all three parameters, especially |distributor=, are WP:DE/WP:VAND targets, and are not really important enough info to maintain in the infobox. (I fought removing the |related= parameter as I think it (still) has value, and hasn't been abused like the others.) Anyway, just making you aware that one of the usual IP WP:DE targets at TV articles is being removed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: Thanks. I've been watching. I'm considering reopening the discussion about removing |picture_format= and |audio_format=. It was discussed about a year ago and there seemed to be fairly strong support for removing them, but the issue died out. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Bob the Builder

I have heard a few rumors of matteel, redoing Bob the Builder under the original designs, if this does happen can the new show be under the original and the article started back up or will a new article need to be created? I know we need official conformation, but trying to just plan and see how to handle this if/when it is announced as editors are going to be added it to the original show and won't fit on the 2015 page. Thanks. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Magical Golden Whip: I don't know how this will be handled based on not having any detailed information on what they will be doing. Likely will be a new and different show and should have its own article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Kelly Overton

It's looking like I'm going to need help with an IPv6 range block at Kelly Overton – right now up to a Level 3 warning at the latest IPV6 address, but they don't look like they are likely to drop this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Just did it again, after you left a Level 4 warning. I'll let you take it to WP:AIV, because you can figure out the range block stuff. But clear WP:BLP-violating here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: Special:Contributions/2804:14D:CE82::/48 reported and blocked for 1 week. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Sir?

@Geraldo Perez, I cannot stress this enough, you have to stop reverting the obvious grammatical errors. as said fixed errors should never be reverted as you keep on doing, especially here. As for the source in hand, yes, I agree that there is no source, that's because a citation was already noted, and for the record, I wasn't the one who did it. So if you do want to revert, just get rid of the citation, but not the entire article that has obvious grammatical errors. You can use the article's own talk page instead if you want to discuss about it. Thank you. 2600:8801:3:D800:392D:6A89:9758:7463 (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

They weren't grammar errors, just different ways of wording things. I restored most of it as meaning not changed. Current status of a project must be sourced, I removed the outdated "as of" info. Generally don't put links in direct quotes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Naturally, Sadie

May need back up here – disruptive IP at the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The Ruff Ruffman Show

Moved to Talk:The Ruff Ruffman Show § Episode table

Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Bunk'd

FYI, see my latest contributions. Ping IJBall as well. Amaury • 03:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox Starring Credits

I figured I would post here instead of doing a back and forth on edits as that just gets to be unproductive. The standard I have used and always referred to when listing cast members in the infobox (and as listed in the template article) is listing the actors found in the poster's billing block. I have never seen anything listing any distinctions between those who are "starring" and those who are "supporting" but rather if they are listed then they are included. For My Wild Irish Rose and Laurel Canyon, you cited to the DVD front covers of each but the standard listed solely discusses the billing block which of course has more names. It also mentions alternative approaches via consensus. If there an alternate methodology that has been determined by consensus, I am happy to refer to that also. Again, not looking to get into edit wars but looking to clarify as well as make only productive edits on articles. Happy to discuss further. Cheers! Orafat (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Orafat: All the credit related infobox attributes should list people with that specific credit. Starring is a specific meaningful credit and only people who actually get that credit should be listed. The billing block gives the names of the major cast, not all of whom get the actual "starring" credit but those people will be in the billing block along with people who have significant roles but a lesser credit. Infobox instructions say "In general, use the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release as a rule of thumb for listing starring actors". It doesn't mean that everyone listed is a starring actor, just that the information is there in the billing block. Older film were very strict on who the production considered starring and who they didn't, more modern ones give starring credit to most people with a significant role. In the billing block the starring actors may be tagged explicitly as "starring" or they may use a taller font to distinguish the starring actors from the non-starring ones. Most of the film articles you added names to were correct before your changes as only the starring cast was listed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Joshua Bassett

@IJBall and MPFitz1968: I need more eyes here. If they revert again, please file a report to WP:ANEW. This likely fan thinks it's their personal mission to defend him from I don't know what and refuses to do things properly and discuss on the talk page to gain a possible consensus. The fact that even an admin reverted them and then they reverted the admin speaks volume about this user. Amaury • 20:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Yikes

Please see Talk:Nick_Jr._Channel#Requested_move_25_March_2023 – This seems like a bad RM decision based on a very lightly attended RM discussion. I find it implausible (in the extreme!) that the so-called programming block is more notable than the TV channel, and almost no TV channel is at an article title like Nick Jr. Channel. I would advise a followup WP:RM here, though it will be rather pointless unless more people participate in the discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Brenna D'Amico

Hello Geraldo Perez, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Brenna D'Amico, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Previously deprodded; not eligible for speedy deletion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenna D'Amico Was a deletion discussion that resulted in the delete decision. Not an expired PROD. Is tagged on the article talk page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

That discussion's result was draftify, not delete. The article was then moved to Draft:Brenna D'Amico, which was later deleted as an expired draft; expired drafts are allowed to be recreated by anyone for any reason, so this did not qualify for G4 on the face of it. In addition, G4 is for recreations that are virtually identical, and this recreation is not, not even a little bit, though you wouldn't be able to see the deleted version. Third, the article was PRODded here and that PROD was removed here; articles where a proposed deletion has been declined are not eligible for speedy deletion (maybe excepting copyvios and attack pages). If you would like to discuss deleting the new article you will have to start a discussion at AfD. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Sheba halpin

Having a lot of problems with this editor – creating obviously bad BLP articles that fail WP:BLPPROD, circumventing both WP:AfD and previously created drafts. Something is going to need to be done here. Ping Amaury as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: The BLP PRODs that the editor is basically ignoring and not sourcing will end up being deleted. Not worth moving to draft space unless they do get the PROD removed. You'd think they would get the message that creating unsourced articles won't be tolerated, but I get the feeling we are working with someone who either doesn't understand or is just being disruptive on purpose. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: I reported to AIV for unsourced BLP info. Blocked indef. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Does Tessa Netting not qualify as an WP:A7? Or is there enough info there that it (barely) passes A7? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: Article has an assertion of why notable so A7 would be iffy. Up to admin who handles it if tagged A7. BLPPROD will end up with it deleted. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

As you can see Tessa Netting was A7'ed, and Kylie Cantrall will probably be BLPPROD'ed (and, if for some reason it isn't, I will move Draft:Kylie Cantrall in it's place...).

But somebody actually added sources to Jenna Davis (it's still a terrible article). I don't think the subject passes WP:NACTOR, but now it will likely have to be AfD'ed. If you decide to do that, please let me know. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: It is marginal for both NACTOR and GNG based on what is in the article. At least two significant roles and two references with some significant coverage. AfD would be iffy and likely result in a keep. Article can be cleaned up. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: In case you missed this - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Davis (2nd nomination). I didn't notice the obvious WP:G4 that it should have been tagged with in the first place. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I've voted in both AfD's. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

2601:547:CC00:4620:367C:96BE:7B7D:6008

Generally unhelpful edits from this IP. I've come across them before. They don't seem to be paying attention to reversions. May require a mass-rollback.... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: I reported Special:Contributions/2601:547:CC00:4620::/64 to AIV based on the last talk page warning and previous block on the range. They didn't think the edits warranted a block. I have been watching this IP for while. Most edits are plausibly improvements to articles with the occasional bad one. Mechanical rolling back them all would be inappropriate as each edit needs to be examined. That is more than 1000 edits since the last block. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Also appears to be the same IP editor operating at 208.10.141.162. I don't see how this edit – which they've done twice, including after your AIV report I believe – can be viewed as anything other than unhelpful. I definitely think that both of these IPs (ranges?) now need to be blocked – this is textbook WP:DE which is occasionally inching dangerously close to vandalism. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: Editor needs a final warning before being reported on the next occurrence which should be a blatant and obvious DE or similar. After having a previous block should get a longer one. Like the other IPs range being used (and it is the same person) the edits are plausible attempts at improvements mostly. DE, not explaining what they are doing for any edits, and not collaborating is the main issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The main issue is repeating the same kinds of edits after being reverted (multiple times!) – that is literally textbook WP:DE. It may be a WP:CIR issue, or may be a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue, but either way a continued pattern of bad editing after getting reversions and warnings is WP:DE... I'll keep an eye on Legacy – I have now edited that one in a way similar to the IP's edit (but better), so if they try their same edit again, it will be clear that it's pure WP:DE/WP:OWN/WP:EWing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Update: 208.10.141.162 was blocked for a week, yesterday. But 2601:547:CC00:4620::/64 is still editing. (The latter's editing is a little bit better, but they are still doing Filmographies partially incorrectly IMO.)

Interaction Report doesn't seem to work for IPs, but I'd be very curious to know which articles these two IPs have in common, to check to see if they are the same editor or different editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Johnstown is 60 miles from Pittsburg so could be a home and office location for same person. Different ISPs too. Not conclusive based on geo locations, but plausible based on nearness. I have been watching the IPv6 for a while and edits appear to mostly be OK with some variation in quality. If there is something stronger indicating block evasion could be reported for that. Need something like same edit in same article to call that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Update

The IPv6 editor is back at 2601:547:CC00:4620:D39:29A4:230B:671D – making the exact same kind of disruptive edits (e.g. removing valid wikilinks and words from Filmography table) at Jess Harnell that got themselves blocked the first time. I would advise sending back to WP:AIV for resuming the same kind of edits after release from block... Also, if you want to compare the IPv6 edits to 208.10.141.162, the latter also edited Jess Harnell. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Listen Up (TV series)

May need more eyes here for a little while. Sketchy IP making changes (some of which are clearly incorrect) without explanation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Living with Fran

Need more eyes here – based on this editor's previous history, they aren't likely to drop this, and will likely be cruising for a block. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow! Not only is user still at it at the article, but they actually removed this topic from your Talk page! I almost think they should be reported for a block now, just based on this action. But, at the very least, I'm requesting a reversion now at the article, so I don't get trapped in a WP:3RR situation. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Cat question...

Geraldo, the article Doomsday (2008 film) is included in the category Category:American post-apocalyptic films. But it is, at best, an American co-production, and is probably not an "American film" in any meaningful way at all. So, should this film be in Category:American post-apocalyptic films, or in the more general Category:Post-apocalyptic films category?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: The other countries are listed in the genre categories so American should be listed too for consistency as that wouldn't be making judgements of importance. However, it is a multi-national film with no defined single national identity noted in the lead so really we shouldn't be listing any nationalities in the cateogories and move everything to the related higher level non-national level categories. Doubt that would be accepted by other editors though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

An American Girl: Grace Stirs Up Success

An IP (two addresses in the same /64) has twice inserted undue weight in the article, by asserting the film as Olivia Rodrigo's acting debut in the lede, which might also be unsourced (even though it probably is Rodrigo's acting debut). [3] I have reverted the edits twice, which also show a more minor MOS:DATE problem. Could use a couple more eyes on the article in case this continues; courtesy pings to IJBall and Amaury. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Dunno if that would be "ledeworthy", but if actually sourced to something decent it would arguably belong in the article (and would certainly belong in Olivia Rodrigo as well, though I no longer watch or edit that article...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

OTOH, I would certainly strike the parenthetical sentence – it's unsourced, and almost certainly not relevant/WP:UNDUE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Camila Cabello

She has Mexican nationality since the year 2000, it is easy to verify it by looking for her curp as the quote says, she considers herself Mexican-Cuan, and even lived a large part of her childhood in Mexico City Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez She even has her unique registration key (CURP Clave Única de Registro in spanish), this key is only given to those who have Mexican nationality, therefore, if she has this key, then she is Mexican.

If you think this is false, go tohttps://www.gob.mx/curp/ and see for yourself.

https://twitter.com/MoonshineTeam/status/1305931188272541704/photo/1 Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Aurelio de Sandoval: See MOS:CONTEXTBIO and why that is not relevant to what goes in the intro sentence. It has nothing to do with why she is notable and where all her notable actives occurred. Early life section is the place to give details about ethnicity and ancestry. Basically she moved to the US as a child, started her career in the US, and all her notable activities were in the US. It is not a question about her having Cuban nationality via birth and Mexican through her father (who finally got around to registering her) but she has done nothing of note in either country. She is proud of her heritage is all her statements mean, it doesn't change the facts of where her notable career is. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Aurelio de Sandoval: See also discussions about this issue at Talk:Camila Cabello/Archive 1. The major thing most commentators got wrong factually is about when she got Mexican nationality. By Mexican constitution she has Mexican nationality automatically via birth to a Mexican parent, not from the point where her father registered her foreign birth with Mexico so Mexico officially knew about her. It is a bit of a hassle to get registered, mostly to collect the required proof documents. Some discussion, I am not sure of the facts for, that Cuba cancels citizenship for people who get American citizenship. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The Fairly OddParents character article

Good afternoon. I have plans to continue the edit war on that article as soon as the protection is lifted. To add even more fire to the equation, I will plan multiple user accounts instead of multiple IP accounts to keep up the pace. Alright? Vicky and Crocker do not belong in the "main character" list. They belong in the "Villains" list. Simple as that. Until the protection is lifted, hope you and the others enjoy the rest of your Spring and upcoming Summer. Take care and goodbye for now. 63.143.201.229 (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You're posting this now, 6 months before protection expires?! Don't you have anything better to do with your time?!... And you already lost a talk post discussion on the topic – you're better off quitting while you're behind. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall:, shut up. I'm already aware the protection expires six months from now. I was just letting this n i g g a know of my upcoming plans once the protection expires later this year in October. And no, I never lost anything because there was no valid sources to prove that I was wrong. Anyways, like I said before, take care and goodbye until the protection expires and then it's war all over again. 63.143.201.229 (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Jenny McCarthy Wahlberg

A user is currently in the process of converting all the [[Jenny McCarthy Wahlberg]] links to [[Jenny McCarthy]], claiming that this does not violate WP:NOTBROKEN and MOS:NOPIPE. Not sure what to do at this point, as MOS clearly says otherwise, and 'Jenny McCarthy Wahlberg' is how she has been credited throughout the entire run of The Masked Singer. Magitroopa (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

And then followed by edit summaries like this... sigh... It may already be resolved now, but just to be clear, this is a case where MOS:NOPIPE applies, correct?... Unless I'm somehow misreading it entirely. Magitroopa (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: There was no WP:piping being done at all as far I am aware so NOPIPE is not relevant. The only issue is what is the credited name at that point and that should be what is in the article, nothing else. The redirect takes care of getting to the article on the person. NOPIPE applies to inappropriately adding a piped link to bypass the redirect and has nothing to do with what is displayed in the article. MOS:TVCAST is the guidance to this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I tagged the redirect as an alternative name to make clear that piping to bypass it should not be done. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Name removal vandal is back again

Now at 92.100.146.118 – will need a report to WP:AIV and another mass rollback. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Ricardo

@Geraldo Perez, hey Geraldo, I only changed the Mexican and American for Mexican-American, the correct way, and I added 2 references missing - [4] yet I was reverted, why ? 2806:105E:14:8EDE:E54D:A95F:7D1:DDF8 (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the talk page about the issue. Mexican-American is an ethnicity description meaning a type of American, he had notable activities in both countries so the proper way of describing him is highlight both countries equally and not subsume the importance of his Mexican past. See MOS:CONTEXTBIO for what goes in lead. I didn't revert the last addition you made, but too many cites in the lead are discouraged per. MOS:LEADCITE, so check the body of the article and add anything that is needed there. 23:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Based on this revert, you automatically think that two movies count as a theatrical franchise, when they aren't, which is WHY I removed Garfield from the section. Please source it before you keep reverting. Thank you. 2600:8801:3:D800:1D52:E314:9D94:E8B9 (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The reverts were for the unnecessary and inappropriate additions to row headers in a navbox. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Babar (TV series)

Need more eyes here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

This reversion

Not sure what's wrong with my edit. I tried to fix the infobox. Thedarkknightli (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Thedarkknightli: Template:infobox person/doc instructions prefers nationality over citizenship for the infobox which is why I reverted. Minor issue but it didn't need changing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Danielle Savre

Am requesting backup at this article – disruptive editing from (fan?) editor who refuses to discuss. I even left a warning on the Talk page, with a request to discuss, and it was ignored. I'd prefer not to be the only one reverting here. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: I don't think she should be listed as a singer either for similar reasons. I don't have a problem with sourced info on things she did, but nothing of note came from either activity. I edited the article to cut the fluff, and dropped a note on the article talk page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I have commented at the Talk page already. I have left "singer" alone at the article because of the separate section, but I now notice that it too seems to use only primary sources – I would actually support removing that entire subsection (and that as an occupation) unless some secondary source coverage of Sweet Obsession and Trinity can be located. Feel free to make this point on the Talk page as well... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Look here

Your revert on the article for the 2011 film, The Sitter (as shown here) was unnecessary. There was no opinion as the article needed more expanding. Please do explain, HOW was it opinionated? 2600:8801:3:D800:F5E0:6601:E9BC:C6E6 (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You added an unsourced personal opinion "flop at the box office". You continued to add that opinion and refused to provide sources to back it up. As in which source stated what you asserted. You also need to look at WP:NOR, which is policy, and was mentioned in the revert message and on your talk page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

List of California Dreams episodes

May need back up here – IP editor changing the episode order (and I think getting the airdates wrong). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Kathleen Barr

Hey Geraldo, I was wondering if you could answer my question. Why is an infobox pointless for Kathleen Barr now? Because I don’t see any issue to not include one, the reason why I’m asking is because every other actor/actress articles have infobox in their articles, why not Kathleen Barr. Because it doesn’t make any sense for me. I know her birth date and place needs sources and everything, but it doesn’t mean it has to be removed all together. If you could respectfully answer my question on why it has to be removed now, I will kindly respect your reasoning. Thank you. 50.79.191.241 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes goes over some of the reasons, it is an essay - some editor's opinion, and I don't agree with all of it. Not every actor has one either, just when it has enough information to be useful as a summary and editors think it adds value to the reader to have one. It is an editorial choice to have one or not. In this case the article is short and the infobox just repeats what is in the opening phrase of the article (name and occupation) and first entry of filmography (first notable activity year). It adds no value to the reader and just takes up page space. If it had at least sourced birth info, I personally would consider it useful at that point as age would also show up, but other editors would like to see more than even that to support one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

While that may be an essay, the WP:ARBCOM decision Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Use of infoboxes is directly relevant – The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. – This is restated at MOS:INFOBOXUSE, which is an actual guideline.
There is no requirement that infoboxes be used at any article, so an editor wanting to add one doesn't mean one should automatically be accepted at an article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Sabrina: Friends Forever

Sabrina: Friends Forever should not be an article – it contains a single Tertiary source, which do not even contribute to notability. Effectively it is unsourced (and an WP:ALLPLOT violation). Any relevant content should be merged to the section on the film at Sabrina: The Animated Series, and it should be converted to a redirect.

Separately, what is going on with the episode numbering Sabrina's Secret Life?! The 'No. in season' column should just be removed from the table, and the overall episode numbers renumbered from 1 to 26, as per broadcast order! If someone has the prod. codes, then put those numbers in that column, not in the "overall" column. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Apple & Onion

Claimed to be "British-American", but I see no evidence for "British". Initially pitched to "Cartoon Network Development Studio Europe", it was ultimately picked up by Cartoon Network Studios, which is American, and which is the only studio/company listed at the article. So what makes it British? As far as I cant tell, no one in the UK put up money for it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: Nothing makes it British. I looked over the edit history and British was added in 2019 with no justification and somehow not caught then as an unsourced change. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Ha*Ash Nationality

I don't understand your logic, first you say that Camila Cabello's birthplace doesn't matter because most of her career is in the USA, and then you say the opposite with Ha*Ash, that like Camila, most of her career is like that, but in Mexico. Billboard and various media named them as a Mexican-American duo, and they have called themselves that several times, make your reasons seem credible duh Bogartlipa1989 (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bogartlipa1989: I started a discussion on the talk page of the article and explained there. It is more than the birthplace and nationality of the members that support their being an American duo. Other sources like identifying people by ethnicity - Wikipedia generally doesn't. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Wow, what a professional response. Anyway, I won't edit it again to avoid losing your mind with your amazing answers, huh Bogartlipa1989 (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bogartlipa1989: I assume you read what I wrote at Talk:Ha*Ash § Nationality of duo then. I prefer to continue any discussion in context there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Jaz Sinclair

Hi,

If her birthday is not July 22nd, please correct it in the July 22 wiki page. That's where I found that information.

As far as her birth name, I would have thought it was Jasmine based on the information shown in that article. That's my fault.

Thank you. ParXivalRPT (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@ParXivalRPT: You can't use other Wikipedia articles as a source of information - see entry at WP:RSPWP. You can use their references. Everything that needs a reference should have a reference in the article and that includes most bio info. I couldn't find anything in that article that supported a birth date or name. List articles tend to get their info from other articles so this tends to get a bit circular if you use a list article for information. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Another image question

I'm assuming this image from IMDb is not kosher? Another editor has now added it twice to Sarah Grey, after I reverted the first attempt. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: Definitely not. Blatant copyright violation. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Super Wings

I'm seeing a lot of bad editing at this article (IOW, bad editing at a "childrens TV series" article, in the same ballpark as WP:KIDSTVDATES, etc....) – possibly the LoE article too. You may want to add it to your watchlist. Ping FilmandTVFan28 and Magitroopa who also seem to edit this article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be a bunch of similar edits/issues coming from 2600:4041:5708:4000:0:0:0:0/64, 173.77.213.169, and 203.185.197.39 right now. All 3 WHOIS show differing locations, but all doing similar 'related'/'see also' edits that may need some rollback/reverting.

Just as a few examples... [5], [6], [7], and [8]. Magitroopa (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

203.185.197.39 has been adding a lot of bad/WP:NOTDEFINING categories to multiple articles – may need a mass rollback, and probably a block as they are already at Level 4 UW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox of Victorious

The infobox of Victorious lists 2 supervisor producers and a consulting producer under the 'producer' parameter – those should not be included in the infobox, correct? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: Only people with the exact title producer, or produced by should be in that attribute. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Jatyrent2

Continues trying to circumvent the proper WP:NPP/WP:AfC process. You can choose to handle this how you want. Personally, I'd probably be arguing for a block by now – it's not like they haven't already been shown how to do this properly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Olivia Hussey

She was born in Argentina, has an Argentinian father and spent her early years there. Clearly her Argentinian heritage is part of her identity. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: See Talk:Olivia Hussey § A British actress??. MOS:CONTEXTBIO is fairly clear that since all her notable activites were in England and nothing notable at all was done in the seven years since birth that she lived in Argentina, she should be described as an English actress. Her life before becoming notable is well-covered at Olivia Hussey § Early life. Her Argentine heritage as part of her identity, if it is to her, is not really relevant in any way to why she is notable. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

List of iCarly characters

I reverted a couple of IPs in the last few hours who were removing the section headings for the main (and recurring) characters in the article, and replacing it with just simple bullet-point prose for each character. This seems too radical a change to the article without at least some talk page discussion and a consensus for the revised format. Will need more eyes in case this continues; pinging IJBall and Amaury as well. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: That editor pops up periodically with different IPs on that topic. Doesn't appear to be interested in discussing the significant changes to the article format he persists in making. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Is this the same IP as the Thomas The Tank Engine vandal, or is this another vandal that also edits that suite of articles?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Sicario: Day of the Soldado

Any chance this one is on your watchlist?... Please note that she is credited as "Isabela Moner" for this film (and that is also how sources refer to her), not as "Isabela Merced", so any attempts to change her name to the latter should be immediately reverted. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Zoey 101 'Bullying' section

FWIW, that section is virtually the definition of both WP:UNDUE and WP:GOSSIP, and is filled with crappy and insufficient quality sourcing. It has devolved into a worthless "She said, she said" argument. (For example, I still can't tell from any of that if Nikolas left the show, or was let go/fired, though I have always suspected the latter....)

That section should be massively trimmed (I would simply remove the entire second paragraph), and all the bad (esp. WP:YOUTUBE) sourcing should be removed. However, I suspect doing so will generate substantial "pushback", even though those opposing trimming that would not have a leg to stand on. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: Looks like teen girl drama each accusing the other of bad behavior and an impartial witness said none of it was true. Well-sourced accusations, but no proof of anything except bad blood between some people on the set, fill the section. Should reduce the section to just a few sentence overview. The details are trying to stage a trial on a Wikipedia page. Unfortunately fans love this stuff. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing in the first paragraph is mostly OK, except for the final two sources – TMZ and WP:YOUTUBE. The third paragraph has just one or two decent sources (Billboard), though now there is WP:NEWSWEEK, so that's no good either, and I wouldn't use Buzzfeed for anything like this. But the middle paragraph has no good sources at all, and so definitely needs to go. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: Your judgement on this if you choose to fix it. I'd be more inclined to drop the whole section or leave a one sentence summary about tension on set. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I have trimmed back the section (as best I could – I needed to leave some context), and retitled it, and left a comment on the Talk page about it. But I do not watch this article, and do not intend to – if this get reverted, or someone tries to restore the bloat, other article watchers are going to have to deal with it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Brighton Hall School

Hi Geraldo, please refrain from removing the Brighton Hall School category on other articles. Their attendance is verified, often by the school itself. See the links I've added at Jason Bateman and Noah Cyrus or Brighton Hall School.--User:Namiba 17:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Namiba: Add the sourced article content before or when you add the categories. When I check new categories I check the article too to see if they are supported. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle

I've started a talk page discussion here that you might be interested in... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Star vs. the Forces of Evil

@IJBall and MPFitz1968: I suspect this edit is wrong. Is one of you able to check how they were credited in that "Conquer" episode? If they were credited as Sabrina, then the edit needs to be reverted as per MOS:TVCAST. Just like when J.J. Totah changed their name to Josie Totah, it remained as J.J. on Jessie as that is the name they were credited as there. The past doesn't change. Likewise for Champions, though the incorrect name was snuck back in with this edit. Other edits adding a hidden note saying they were credited as J.J. were later done, but I don't like that. It should be J.J. there as well. If one of you wants to revert, as per the talk page discussion that was ignored, have at it. Anyway, credited names from before a name change, if someone undergoes one, should not be changed. So, for example, if someone comes out as transgender at 20 and changes their name from A to B, that's like saying their 1–19 years as A never existed. Like, they were just born as 20-year-old B. Amaury • 02:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID basically says name changes related to gender changes are retroactive to birth and override sourced previous names used at time of any credit or activity in Wiki articles. Most of the issue is with a subject's article where extra care is required. Notable previous names are permitted mention in other articles as parentheticals or footnotes. I would like to see reliable secondary sources supporting a name change before we act on it, though, and without a bio article on the subject, that reference needs to be in a every article where a change is made. Usually don't see secondary sourcing if the subject doesn't have an article. Unverified social media doesn't meet the WP:ABOUTSELF requirements as a reference.
MOS:GENDERID does conflict with MOS:TVCAST so if there is an issue it should be discussed on the article talk page. Generally I'd go with TVCAST unless someone makes a fuss. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding secondary sourcing and the reliability of Cotugno's social media: although the account technically does not have an official Twitter verification, both the bio for Cotugno published onto the Penguin Random House website, and this interview with Cotugno by Comicocsity, directly confirm that @arythusa is Cotugno's Twitter account. Both of these should reasonably be considered as "reliable third-party sources for their Twitter handle" as described in WP:TWITTER-EL, and thus should meet WP:ABOUTSELF requirements. – Jamie Eilat (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jamie Eilat: If an unverified twitter message is used as a reference, need to attach the support source that confirms it valid as part of the cite. The reference needs to be in every article where the name differs from the credits as published credits are primary absent a source that gives conflicting info.
Reading Cotugno's message there are credits for "S. H. Cotugno", the name on the Twitter account and books published, and "Sabrina Cotugno" for existing TV credits and IMDb for now. Cotugno would like people to use "Sage" for everything going forward. "From now on, please refer to me as .. Sage" would sort of indicate Cotugno doesn't require retroactive changing of existing credits but was also asking about how to update IMDb to reflect the new name.
For a person with no Wikipedia article I would prefer to keep the names to match the credits and not make an issue of a name change on a topic where this is not really the main point of the article and there isn't a strong assertion that the person involved wants the retroactive changes to be made, such as considering the old name a deadname. Some people like Caitlyn Jenner have directly stated that she has no problems with Bruce being used for past things and based on Cotugno's message I'm not sure what Cotugno wants to be done with past mentions of old name. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Talk:List of Star vs. the Forces of Evil episodes § Name change of Sabrina Cotugno Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Ariana Greenblatt

As far as I can tell, nothing has been improved on this article, literally, other than a category addition or two; therefore, it's still not ready for mainspace and should not have been moved out of draftspace. Ping IJBall and MPFitz1968 as well. Amaury • 08:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Amaury: Possibly meets NACTOR - I do recall watching 3 films that she's in (well before 65 came out) - but the lack of sources to establish the notability (either NACTOR or BASIC) is a problem. From recent AfDs I've seen (Olivia Sanabia, Lauren Lindsey Donzis), if there's not significant coverage across plenty of sources to establish notability, then it likely won't survive in article space. MPFitz1968 (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Amaury: Likely has enough roles to meet NACTOR. No significant coverage in secondary sources, just mentions related to roles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Need IP range for 2403:6200:8814:3F74:A037:D1B9:4E46:B5A5

Geraldo, what is the likely IP range for the editor at 2403:6200:8814:3F74:A037:D1B9:4E46:B5A5? This an IP editor, apparently from Thailand, who is both a prolific WP:FILMOGRAPHY rowspan violator, as well as a violator of "names as per credits". I would like to see if they've edited since April, and if so what articles they might have hit... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: Range is Special:Contributions/2403:6200:8814:3F74::/64 Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hasn't edited in a month. But at least the WP:BLP edits are generally problematic. I didn't even look at the film article edits, but I'd worry about editing against "names per credits" with this editor. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Another one

Geraldo, I have another one – What is the likely IP range for the editor at 2600:8801:8C17:E400:D8F9:1A7E:D7A:D75? I would like to make sure this editor isn't hitting other articles aside from Jace Norman. Thanks --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: Special:Contributions/2600:8801:8C17:E400::/64 Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)