User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Grappling with whether singer JoJo is notable as a songwriter

I've been questioning whether that's a notable profession for this singer, and whether it should be listed in the lede of her article, especially since the bulk of her overall success was quite early in her career, around 2004 to 2006, when she was a teenager, and she had few if any credits of songwriting, namely on her first two albums, JoJo and The High Road. Her later albums/projects have shown more writing credits for her, but accompanied by other writers on most of the songs. The problem has been that the article on the singer hasn't been demonstrating enough to establish songwriting notability, though some recent edits to the article (in the last couple of hours) are trying to correct that. But is it enough? (One of latest sources cited seems to talk about JoJo as a songwriter, and goes in depth a little with one of her recent songs, but I'm not sure whether that establishes enough notability to put the profession into the lede of the article.)

I will definitely say that classifying her as a singer-songwriter is absolutely wrong; I've been seeing edits to that effect and there were categories about that, which I removed about a couple of weeks ago.

I do have a topic on the talk page of the article, and if you and/or IJBall could check out the state of the article regarding this, I'd appreciate it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Will make note that her songwriting credits are under her real name - Joanna Levesque. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: I think that it is marginal. Singer-songwriter, however, is definitely out. You raised the issue in the article talk page and people are working on adding article content to justify it as a notable occupation. This isn't like a lot of articles where songwriting credit means just contributed ideas to the actual songwriters a bit, she actually wrote some songs by herself, lyrics and music. Close enough to leave it in, in my opinion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

And, yet, there are plenty of editors who will insist that if you "sing" and "songwrite", your are a "singer-songwriter", no matter what. Clearly, plenty of editors either don't know what the term means, or don't care... On my end, I don't know about JoJo to have an opinion. (It's not like I like her music!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Shake It Up Season 3 Cast

Can you stop being jealous of other people doing a better job than you are when it comes to doing a really good job when it comes to doing CAREFULLY done research and RESPECTFULLY CREDITING THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR WORK? Like do you have a better photo? If not then leave the edits not only I make, but everyone makes alone. 😡 Keenlyme227 (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Keenlyme227: Commons does not permit non-free-use images. See C:COM:LICENSING and the message on your Commons user talk page that explains it. Wikipedia doesn't permit copyright violations in pages. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

How is it free? I gave the company credit. It’s not copyright. Like I said before, if you don’t like the image then go find another one. Simple. Keenlyme227 (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't like the image as it is owned by Disney and the license statement you have on Commons doesn't reflect the strict copyright restrictions Disney has on their images. Disney never releases anything under any sort of Creative Commons license. Never. Stop adding it to Commons and on article here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

all the images used on this that are owned by companies. Now stop being a jealous person and find a photo that suits the show. If not, then shut up and get a life. Keenlyme227 (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Owned by others and not properly licensed for use on Wikipedia means we can't have them in articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP actor images question

Geraldo, I know that portrait images at actor articles cannot be of the actor "in character", but what about other images at the article? Must they all be "non-character" images? Or can some of the images at actor articles be of the actor "in character"? (This is in regards to this edit.) Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: For an acting section image, person in character looks very appropriate assuming free-use image being. used. Only issue is the caption should make it clear that this her portraying a character and identify that character. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Your use of rollback

Regarding Special:Diff/1160437735, the information is supported by the source at the end of the sentence.

Unfortunately, I'm seeing many uses of rollback that don't conform with the appropriate guideline. Apart from noting the criteria for using standard rollback, there are other important paragraphs in that section, especially the last one. Examples that don't seem to comply with the guideline from the past few days include Special:Diff/1160330076, Special:Diff/1160315912, Special:Diff/1160221178, Special:Diff/1160220110 (this one was self-reverted), Special:Diff/1160013569, Special:Diff/1159958324, Special:Diff/1159958303, Special:Diff/1159879354, and Special:Diff/1159719886. If you are invoking the fourth criterion (that you were reverting a user in violation of their block), that isn't clear to me.

It's worth noting that as you are an experienced editor, the reasoning behind a revert may be obvious to you, but it may not be obvious to the user you're reverting (or other people – hence this conversation). Please be more careful when using rollback and when reverting in general. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense – as per usge, IP made a change without explaining it. As per WP:BURDEN, if the source supports the change, WP:BURDEN says the editor should explain that. Second one, IP editor made an unexplained unsourced change to genres – genres should always be supported by sourcing. Etc. These look to be WP:BURDEN reverts. There is nothing wrong here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: Usually I rollback per guideline item 5 with messages on the user talk page. General issues I watch for are MOS:NOPIPE violations, unsourced BLP changes, and genre changes. There are some problematic ranges I watch and have left messages for on some IPs in range and assume that is sufficient. I will be more careful in the future to give proper messages as needed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yuka Masaki

My guess is you didn't go to university sense you can't read properly and you can't have to audacity to respect other people's culture. Why are you vandalizing the page now if it was from 2011? Like really? Do you even listen to Japanese Pop? If not I will ask my friend who as worked on that page forever to keep watch and let me know via text message if you do that again. 172.116.29.35 (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding unsourced bio info, particularly birth info, violates Wikipedia policy specifically WP:BLPPRIVACY. Don't give a specific birth date without a reliable source supporting it. When you do add a source verify that source actually exists. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Here is the link to the Japanese Wikipedia. Now leave this page alone: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9C%9F%E5%B4%8E%E3%82%86%E3%81%8B — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.116.29.35 (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikis, including this one, cannot be used as reliable sources. If there is a reference on another wiki project that gives the info, use that as a reference and include it in the article here, but the wiki itself can't be used as a reference. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.universal-music.co.jp/masaki-yuka/biography/

Happy? Now leave this page alone please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.116.29.35 (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

You could have added that originally and there wouldn't have been a problem. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Question

Is there a place/noticeboard somewhere where you can put in requests for name changes for poorly/incorrectly named image files? E.G. I'm guessing File:The Crucifixion- Brittany Ashworth.jpg is a bad file name?... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: Information on how to get files renamed on Commons are at c:COM:File renaming Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, it took me a few minutes to figure it out, but I've tried putting in a file name move request for this file – no idea if it will be accepted or not. We'll see... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Beakman's World

Please check recent IP edits here. They seem to be violating WP:NOTBROKEN (they are definitely violating the template documentation by adding years), and they are insisting upon adding another division of Columbia here which I argue is too trivial (likely just a name change) for the IB. But I'll defer to your judgement. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Showbuzz Daily

https://showbuzzdaily.com/articles/some-unfortunate-news.html

We still have this: https://www.spoilertv.com/2023/06/tv-ratings-for-sunday-25th-june-2023.html The problem is not everyone believes this is WP:RS. I actually agree with that, with the exception of the ratings, as those come directly from Nielsen, just like they do with Showbuzz Daily. However, when technical issues brought down Showbuzz Daily last time and SpoilerTV was about our only source for extended ratings info, people argued that because the rest of the site is WP:NOTRS, so are the ratings, even though those come directly from Nielsen, and the site even says that.

So, I think the best thing to do here would be to remove the ratings tables and columns from shows that are still airing when a season cannot be completely filled out with ratings info, and also because ratings don't even seem to be that important now, given how low channels like Nickelodeon and Disney Chanel are doing, compared to a few years ago, when they were easily doing around 1.5 million on average, and before that, around 2.5–4 million, like during the Sam & Cat days and early Girl Meets World days. The tables would just look too weird with permanently showing N/A or TBD, knowing they will never be filled out. So, for example, on Raven's Home, the ratings section for season six will be removed both from the episode table and the ratings table on the parent article since it won't have complete ratings info for the season. Honestly, for shows that are still airing, at least, I would argue to remove ratings entirely since ratings are not really used any longer to determine renewal—like, apparently, NBC is not going forward with Magnum P.I. after only one season on NBC (total of five), which it rescued from CBS when it was canceled, even though in the current ratings climate, its ratings are considered good, though this stupid writers' strike seems to have played a role in the decision. Pinging IJBall and MPFitz1968 as well. Amaury • 20:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

69.154.130.19

I believe it's time to report this IP to WP:AIV – I just left the second Level 4 WP:UW that has been issued to their Talk page in the last 48 hours. And checking the edit history at Jet Jurgensmeyer shows they've been engaged in a much longer pattern of WP:DE there. And they've been blocked previously as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: Blocked Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Ha! I guess it was one year ago, not 48 hours!! But glad that I was right to speak up about this one, seeing as they just started up the same pattern as before their previous block. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Superhero crossover television shows

Geraldo, can you assess this cat, and determine whether it is a valid cat or should be taken to WP:CfD or not?... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: It doesn't look defining for any of the shows listed. Pointless unneeded category. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree. It should be taken WP:CfD, but I'm not a CfD guy, so it will have to be someone else... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Done Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Keith L. Williams and The Astronauts

Are the basics met here? WP:BASIC and the other one I can't remember off the top of my head right now? Ping IJBall and MPFitz1968. Amaury • 15:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Amaury: Might barely get a pass on WP:NACTOR based on his movie and TV roles, but I could find no more than one source currently listed in the article that could satisfy the more important BASIC notability guideline (from a Dallas TV station, KXAS), with something a bit more in-depth than his projects. Possibly more could be found. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Amaury: Close enough for now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Toy Story#Voice cast

Unless you care to make a stronger case, per your revert edit summary, I revert your revert because:

1. LOL. The redirect links "* (Toy Story)" only work, now, because I repaired List of Toy Story characters with {{visible anchor}}.
   Apparently a previous editor removed section/anchors to implement * bullet notation.
2. With a touch of OCD, I changed Toy Story#Voice cast links because they were a mixture, so as to be consistent, at least, within the cast section.
3. As a second reason to alter the cast links to be more direct, please notice that BrookTheHumming (Ctrl-F and search contributions for "Toy Story") has been removing [[Category:Toy Story characters]] from "* (Toy Story)" articles.

WurmWoode^T 06:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@WurmWoode: In the guideline WP:NOTBROKEN is the instruction "Shortcuts or redirects to embedded anchors or sections of articles or of Wikipedia's advice pages should never be bypassed...". That is what you were doing and why I undid your edit. Fixing the deleted anchors in the list article is all that should have been done and that fixed the issues with the links in the redirects being broken. The category should not have been deleted from the (Toy Story) character redirects either. This all started when some IP decided to remove the section headings from the character article, something I missed happening, or I would have reverted that immediately. The simplest fix would have been to revert that major change to the list article that broke all the inbound links. Having table of content entries in the list article for each character name is a better way of organizing for usefulness. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

1. Thanks for the WP link.
2. Example of earlier TOC— overly long and deep? Could this be the reason of converting to * bullet??
3. Unless operating under multiple users/IP, some IP reveals a shortlist of handiwork.
4. Since BrookTheHumming deleted the Category from the "* (Toy Story)" articles:
   1. Is said editor operating under some authorization, protocol, or project?
      e.g.: is Category:Toy Story characters to be deprecated??
   2. Is said editor to be warned, stopped, inhibited? By whom??
   3. Is Category:Toy Story characters to be restored to each affected article? By whom??

WurmWoode^T 22:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@WurmWoode: I disagree that the old TOC was overly large. The IP is transient/dynamic using the range Special:Contributions/2600:1001:B100::/40 basically too large to block. The category Category:Toy Story characters is being used for character articles such as Woody (Toy Story) and is a valid category. The (Toy Story) redirects of that form are also acting as placeholders for potential future articles at that location and should have that category as well. Removing it from the redirects was a good faith editorial choice I disagree with. As for reasoning, you'd have to ask that editor who as far as I know is just someone interested in this topic space working to improve it as most of us are. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Birthday, but no birth year

Hi, I was wondering if someone's birthday has a reliable source, but no source anywhere for the year, is it okay to put just the former down? Kcj5062 (talk) 07:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kcj5062: There isn't much value to have just the day and month in the article, even if well-sourced. The year part is the key important information that gives the age of the person. WP:BLPPRIVACY reinforces the importance of the year. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Vpab15 (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Beyoncé

Can you please remove Bianca Lawson who is incorrectly labeled as her sister from Bey's infobox? 166.194.204.11 (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Kelly Rowland

I asked this of someone else but got no response. Can you please give me your thoughts?

An edit regarding Destiny's Child sales was recently made to Kelly Rowland's page to reflect group sales of 100 million according to an alleged 2012 press release from Mathew Knowles but on the Destiny's Child wiki and other sources, it says the group has sold more than 60 million as of 2013. While 100 million would definitely be more than 60 million, I don't think it should flat out say 100 million, if it's not exactly that, but I also don't want to edit war so should I just leave it alone? 166.194.204.11 (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The info is sourced but both references are press releases and both "correct" as say over an amount. What is stated in article should mention the "over" part though, not imply an exact amount which the references don't support. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, so should I change the number in the other section of Kelly's page with the more than 60 million amount so they can match with your current edit? Or is both technically correct as long as it says more than or over? Whoever changed it didn't change it on the Destiny's Child wiki so I'm guessing that can stay as is. 166.194.204.11 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No reason to change unless you want to, both are correct and it is a minor detail. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Albert Tsai

It's been there for a while, but is the Chinese name stuff in the infobox relevant? In the same manner that Breanna Yde is an American actress—not Australian or Australian-American—and what should be mentioned in the lead since all her acting has been in the United States, while still mentioning her Australian background in the body prose further down, does the same apply here? Albert Tsai is of Chinese descent, based on his last name, which can certainly be mentioned in prose, but is it relevant in the lead and infobox? He was born and lives in America, so is an American by all accounts. Not just in terms of acting, but overall. His parents may have likely been born and originally from China, but he was born in the United States and lives here. Amaury • 23:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Amaury: In the case of Tsai, the Chinese name "Cai Cheng'en" written in Chinese characters isn't sourced in the article and I have no idea where that came from. He was born in the US and his birth name and official name will be American. He might have a Chinese alternative name. All the Chinese stuff in the infobox looks like unsourced original research. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I have removed everything from the infobox per your WP:NOR statement above and mentioned it on the talk page: Talk:Albert Tsai#Chinese name and mentions in infobox. Amaury • 23:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Academic titles

Hi. I noted your revert and would like to discuss it here please. Thanks! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:The Storm Before the Calm#Euro label

@Geraldo Perez: Share your thoughts regarding the album if you wish to. 2001:D08:2921:840C:887C:5DE1:6261:76AE (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Tenzing Norgay Trainor

Might need more eyes here. Still does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:BASIC. Ping MPFitz1968 as well. Amaury • 17:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Two references to his famous grandfather to establish link to him, and one reference just supports having an acting role. Don't see any significant coverage of him as a person, and no significant acting roles. Notability seems to be depending on who he is related to, not what he himself has done and that is not a valid reason for an article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Doubt and questions.

Hello, I hope you are well, I see that you follow me a lot in each issue, what do I do, that is why I have the confidence to ask you, Mon Laferte article was edited so that it only says "Chilean artist", and the excuse for doing so is that she has legally had Mexican citizenship for less than a year. But there are artists like Aya Nakamura (French citizen) who also obtained her nationality a short time ago and their articles are the same, unlike them, Mon Laferte has lived in Mexico for more than 15 years, although he has notorious activities in Chile, in Mexico she debuted as an artist and most of her artistic life is in Mexico, what can be done in this article? Bogartlipa1989 (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bogartlipa1989: A lot of this is judgment calls. What should go in intro sentence is primarily where notable activities occurred. If notable activities happened in two countries, both should get listed if there is a strong link to the country. If ethnicity or birth country is important to notability it generally gets mentions later in the lead, but not in the intro sentence. Also don't link country names or nationalities. See WP:OVERLINKING. I lightly watch your edits as there have been some issues in the past, generally most are OK now and you seem to be taking more care. Some other editors disagree when you make correct edits, but such is Wikipedia. MOS:CONTEXTBIO is sometimes contentious as to what it means and some editors don't like changes to existing articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:LTA/TVFT

I just learned about this yesterday. Can a range block be done here? Amaury • 18:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Amaury: Too many distinct ranges. Special:Contributions/102.158.128.0/17 is already blocked. Special:Contributions/102.158.0.0/17 has been blocked in the past. Best that can be done is reestablish the range blocks as vandalism occurs on individual IPs in the range. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Michael Paul Chan

I created an SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YUEUE to help you out about the IP block evasion on that article, since AIV is not really the kind of place to report most kinds of sockpuppetry.

Cheers! — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Geraldo Perez!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The Bureau of Magical Things

I may require more eyes here regarding WP:COPYVIO concerns. Ping MPFitz1968 as well. Amaury • 08:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Erin Sanders

I don't know what to make of the edits made here and here. There is some unsourced content and also referring to this actress with masculine pronouns in some places. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Those are weird edits. Looks like a non-English speaker getting mixed up on pronoun usage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

User Poladipo

Pinging MPFitz1968 as well. May need more eyes with this user. Keeps WP:OVERLINKING to things that do not need to be linked: common words. They are linking to things like, well, "words," which should not be linked, and it's becoming disruptive now. Amaury • 17:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Kim Possible reboot

Reliable sources such as Entertainment Tonight and E! have been discussing rumors about a Kim Possible reboot. Entertainment Tonight (ET) and E! are considered reliable. All you guys should've done is research and then provide a source on Wikipedia instead of reverting my edits. But no. I told you guys, i don't know how to provide a source on Wikipedia. 2601:196:4A01:D770:C2D7:843C:BB8F:C998 (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The information message I dropped on your talk page gives the instructions for how to add references. At a minimum wrap the URL of the reference in ref tags. <ref> url </ref> Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Katrina Law and Tracy Spiridakos

@Geraldo Perez Hi, I was wondering if either you or @Amaury could keep an eye on these two articles? Both actresses don't have a DOB listed as there's no reliable source, many other sites have a DOB listed for them, however there's other info online such as what year they graduated high school or college(with legit sources as they were published by the schools themselves) and the DOBs other sites have don't match up to their high school/college grad year which makes it very likely that those sites are incorrect.

Their high school and college info are cited in the article and there's been discussions on their talk pages about their DOB and there's even a hidden note saying to check the talk page before putting in DOB. I have a feeling editors(particularly IP ones) are just gonna ignore that note and put in either unsourced or poorly sources DOBs and not understanding WP:BLPPRIVACY. This has happened before. IJBall would often revert those edits, but he's not around anymore. Kcj5062 (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kcj5062: I'll watch them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

About the number of episodes for TAoJN,BJ

Hello, Geraldo Perez. I'd like to thank you for undoing my edit on The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius. But the number of episodes made for it is inaccurate. The page says it has 55 episodes, but it has more episodes than that. Shawnlongboi (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Shawnlongboi: The episode list is what that count should reflect. If some are missing they should go in the list first. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh. I see. Shawnlongboi (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

IP 2806:104E:10:B45:475:18F1:FD00:7361

You understand IP ranges WAY better than I do, and this is clearly socking. Could you please report this as a range? Thanks! Amaury • 19:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Amaury: Range is Special:contributions/2806:104E:10::/48. At least 3 /64 subranges have been or are currently blocked including the last edits today. I reported the larger range so hopefully the block will be expanded. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Lab Rats (American TV series)

I might need a hand here. User trying to add every category under the sun here. I've directed them to the talk page. Ping MPFitz1968 and Magitroopa as well. Amaury • 20:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Tony Dalton parents

How am I supposed to add a reference for his parents names 202.82.195.253 (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

See article at Help:Referencing for beginners Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Michelle Yeoh

See my edit (if it hasn't been reverted by her agent). Martindo (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Martindo: I replied on the article talk page. Note in article said discuss before changing. Your issues were addressed in the discussion, thus the compromise of the footnotes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

They weren't addressed. And the Talk thread certainly doesn't seem conclusive enough to warrant a fierce warning about changing sloppy usage promulgated by Hollywood Reporter, which smacks of cultural imperialism. Perhaps we can call in some arbitration? Martindo (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Martindo: Then fix the footnote if it isn't clear. Don't replace words with your interpretations that no source uses. What was in the article before you changed it, was what was sourced, and a footnote explaining usage of a US centric term the sources used. Discuss before making major changes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Uh, if it was a "major change" why did you label your revert a "minor edit"? It's a murky issue and I urge you to read the link I sent forCrazy Rich Asians (film) that I posted in Talk. It really is best if you just cut the note, because it sounds convoluted as if trying to defend Hollywood Reporter's usage. Apparently, this inaccurate (and offensive, IMO) generalization appears in English-language media in other countries, so (a) you win, (b) there's no longer a need for a note to deny WP:systemic bias. Martindo (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Martindo: The problems you identified were recognized thus the discussion on the talk page. I was one of the people who found the use of "Asian descent" jarring as used, particularly in an article about a non-American subject where we should attempt to have a more non-American centric perspective. Other editors, likely not from the US, pointed out that the information added was factually wrong when normal plain meaning was applied to the term as opposed to what is basically an American jargon usage. We are constrained in using WP:reliable sources for information, though, and other attempts at wording changes resulted in people constantly changing things to what they thought were improvements. The compromise that most people accepted was use the terms as sourced, strongly supported by WP:V policy, and add a footnote to explain that it was American jargon. My original footnote was just to add the link to Asian people § United States as explanation of American usage. The Hollywood Reporter information was added as further detail and explanation and isn't defining of American usage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

As I said in my initial post on Talk, the "descent" issue is misdirected. As you note above (and the Note contorts itself trying to address), this is due to US obsession with race. Malaysia has its own media in English, and they repeatedly refer to "first in Asia" in terms of GEOGRAPHY. That's it. No twisting oneself in knots like American touchiness about identity tags. See for example WP:RS newspaper https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2023/04/899049/michelle-yeoh-brings-oscar-her-hometown-ipoh This link is much more significant than Hollywood Reporter, more reliable (except for film release dates), supports the WP:systemic bias movement, and obviates the need for a special note. I recommend using this (or similar if you want to Search NST's web site for "Yeoh Oscar") instead of Hollywood Reporter, then cutting the note. What do you say? Martindo (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Martindo: Ignore "Hollywood Reporter" it is only used in the footnote for further info on how words are used. Look in the main article and the list of references at the end of the paragraph with a number of reliable sources basically supporting "first Asian" wording. Also the statement "first in Asia" is also factually wrong based on what is normally meant by "in Asia". Strictly speaking that means in the entire continent of Asia. This was discussed in the talk page. Way the article currently is keeps it as referenced and explains the American centric view of the "first". Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed you'd read the NST article and see that I sloppily paraphrased this:

"Tan Sri Michelle Yeoh, the first Asian to bag the Oscar, brought home her prized trophy to her family in Malaysia."

which clearly refers to "Asian" as a geographic identity tag. So it's definitely a usable source. Go ahead and add it or replace HR as you see fit. You seem most motivated to keep this page up to standard. And frankly, I find making a full reference with title, author, etc. onerous.

I suppose the deeper issue is whether it's systemic bias to assume a note is required to explain another country's use of English specifically to an American audience full of identity baggage. Best wishes. Martindo (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

AlloCiné

@Geraldo Perez Hi. I don't know if you've heard of this site before, but there's an editor that keeps using this as a source for a subject's DOBs. I checked more into it and it doesn't seem trustworthy. Because it has the incorrect info for some actors. For instance, it has Laverne Cox's birth year listed as 1984 and her true birth year(1972) was revealed years ago[1]. It also has John Leguizamo's birth year listed as 1964. Which I'm certain you know is not the correct one as I see you often revert edits on his page whenever someone changes it 1964[2]. What's your opinion? I think I did ask about this once over at WP:RSN, but I didn't get any replies. Kcj5062 (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kcj5062: It does have an article for the company so that gives it some credibility. Info on news and movies is likely good. Bio info is dubious to me as the article had awritten by statement that looks a lot like what IMDb does for their bios which we can't use as dubious fact checking. Basically the bio I checked on Cox was written by someone who is not AlloCiné, they are just posting some else's content. In my opinion I'd say it is not a reliable source for bio info, particularly bios written by likely contributors. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Category:Henry Danger

Is this and the subcategory really necessary? At the very least, they should be discussed before adding. There just aren't enough links for them to be useful. We need at least a dozen (12) links for a category or template to be useful. We had the same issue when people were trying to do Template:Girl Meets World, which was eventually deleted per the process I started at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 13#Template:Girl Meets World. I would urge that a deletion discussion should be started on these ones as well, honestly. Will ping MPFitz1968 and Magitroopa as well. Amaury • 20:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the necessity for a category. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

If you're interested: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 28#Category:Henry Danger. I don't know if I need to do one for the subcategory as well, so I'll just do this for now. Amaury • 08:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I tried getting this Template:Dangerverse deleted awhile ago and didn't work. Maybe this would be better suited. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I added it to the template page, lets see what happensMagical Golden Whip (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The Fairly OddParents

There have been some IPs restoring the "picture_format" parameter to the infobox. Both that and the "audio_format" parameters were removed per discussion here. May need more eyes in case this keeps happening, and will ping Amaury about this as well. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC) @MPFitz1968: Added to watchlist. Amaury • 22:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

LTA from Brazil. Restoring those parameters is sort a honeypot to catch disruptive editors. See also Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters. It should stay empty. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Atlantis: The Lost Empire

I noticed my edit on this film's Wikipedia page was reverted because the edit in question was unsourced. I find this rather strange as that edit referred to the fact that this was Walt Disney Animation Studios' 41st film, and nowhere else on that page was that fact listed. Furthermore, all other Wikipedia pages on films made by the studio list what chronological number they were made in, almost all of them without citations. I'm not even sure we need a citation for that, anyways- it's simple process of elimination. Their previous film, The Emperor's New Groove, is listed at #40, and their following film, Lilo & Stitch, is listed at #42, so it only makes sense that Atlantis is #41. Please explain why you felt a reversion was necessary and I will add the edit back with a proper citation, or please let me undo your reversion and leave it at that. ArcadeZeus (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@ArcadeZeus: We can't use Wikipedia articles directly as a source of information for other Wikipedia articles. See WP:USERGENERATED for reasons why - links to other articles are explicitly called out as excluded. Any information that needs a reference must be sourced in the article itself. Other articles generally have good references for the information they contain and practice is to use those same references when adding that information to other articles.

List articles are user generated. What goes in a list is sometimes contentious and sometimes the list is incomplete. Order information is therefore dubious as to being correct if taken from a list article. Firsts and major milestones are generally well-sourced and generally notable for mention in the lead of their articles. If it isn't a major milestone for the studio it generally isn't something that is defining for the article and shouldn't go in the lead anyway.

Disney and Pixar stuff listing order of production is not the norm for film articles. we generally don't see things like the 24th film by Paramount Pictures or MGM Studios, for example. Mostly because this order information is considered trivia. For some reason editors of Disney and Pixar movies got in the habit of adding that to article. It generally doesn't belong unless it is a well-sourced major milestone. I generally remove it when I notice it unless it has a good reliable source showing it as being a notable milestone. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Wilson Mbomio

Looks like this was moved from a draftspace, but I'm not quite sure if it meets WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC. I do note a few major roles (main cast), but I don't know how many major roles are "required" for someone to be notable. Ping MPFitz1968 as well. Amaury • 16:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

More than one at a minimum. If this article were discussed at AfD I'd expect a keep decision based on the roles and sourcing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to talk page

You are invited to this discussion about the move of The Expendables 4. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The Expendables 4 move review

Hi, thanks for your contributions. A quick heads up: when commenting in a move review, you should disclose that you were involved in the requested move discussion. See WP:MR. 162 etc. (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought I did. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Frozen FAC

Hello I am nominating Frozen (2013 film) for FAC. You are a significant contributor to that article so I would like you to review it for its FAC. Thanks. Wingwatchers (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Max & Shred

Max and shred has 34 episode aired on tv but 5 are unaired that were released on I tunes 47.4.246.214 (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Add them to the episode list with references. The count in the infobox must match the number of episodes listed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know how to do that but I can send you the link of the episodes on iTunes with the titles 47.4.246.214 (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

If you don'f feel comfortable adding the info to the article itself, start a topic about this in the talk page of the article. List the information you believe should be added and why you think it should go in the article, and include a url to a web location that supports the information item. This may be a bit contentious as generally the scope of a TV series season list is for episodes that were broadcast as that season. Episodes that weren't broadcast may work better in a separate list outside the season ones. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Alr I did is it fine if you can help out I put the link with the episodes that are not added to the wiki 47.4.246.214 (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll watch for a bit to see if there are objections or if someone else adds the info. I'll consider adding it if nobody else does it first. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate it and I will let you know the rest of the episodes did air in canada 47.4.246.214 (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I left the link with the additional episodes 47.4.246.214 (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

So are you gonna do it or not @Geraldo Perez 47.4.246.214 (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I plan to add the unaired eps to the list. Just haven't got around to it yet. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok thank you@Geraldo Perez 47.4.246.214 (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok thank you@Geraldo Perez 47.4.246.214 (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I added to the list. Check if it is OK. Also fill in the writers and directors if you can get those from watching the episode. Create short summaries if you can summarize the episodes you watch. Don't copy the teasers from iTunes or other places. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hollywood Stargirl

Hi. I see you deleted the reference to "musical" film. However, there are some "musical drama" categories. Should those be removed? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: It was added by a LTA editor who adds that to pretty much any film that has any sort of music in it based on his WP:NOR personal opinion, nothing else. I removed the related combo categories as they don't belong either. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, cool. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

John Huston and other related articles

I've seen you revert probably more than four times; please do not revert any further, as you might potentially violate the three-revert rule. Thank you. 64andtim (talk to me) 05:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@64andtim: See WP:3RRNO #7 - "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." My reverts are based on that and don't violate 3RR. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, you might consider reporting to this noticeboard instead, and thank you for letting me know. 64andtim (talk to me) 05:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I have reported to WP:AIV. Info added is defamatory to a living person and shouldn't be the articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Understood. 64andtim (talk to me) 05:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you please explain your reverts, for example this. Materialscientist (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Basically he is degrading an adopted person by reclassifying her as not related. Sort of demeaning to the person involved. That edit you linked to is probably OK looking at it as just removed a non-notable person from the infobox. I will undo my reverts for that one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Noisey2021 and Zoey 101

I've reverted this user multiple times at Zoey 101, for reordering the main cast (against the MOS:TVCAST guideline about those added to the main cast later in the series), and I saw your revert for the same thing. They have received a (softer) form of the edit-warring notice on their talk page after the latest reinstatement of their edit. I'd be keeping a close eye on any further restorations by this user, and report when necessary. I will also ping Amaury and Magical Golden Whip to keep an eye on this. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Numbering the Disney animated features canon

For many years it was standard to number the films. But you are saying it is trivia now. Why?? Does Disney itself consider it trivia?? Georgia guy (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: It has always been trivia except for the major milestone films. This isn't done for any other films from the other major studios, there is no reason Disney should be special for this. Usually when the ordinal matters it is significantly covered in multiple sources. Being first or second is generally significant. When something like this shows up in the lead of an article, isn't in the body of the article, and has no significant secondary sourcing in the article anywhere giving the information and also showing why it is important, it generally doesn't belong. What Disney thinks about this information doesn't really factor into what should go in an article.

I addressed some of this at User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 32 § Atlantis: The Lost Empire when another editor asked a similar question. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Warner Bros. Pictures Animation

Do you know what's going on? Is it another case of a bunch of man babies being upset? I don't think semi-protection is warranted yet, but I'll be happy to apply it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies: All I see is well-sourced information being removed without a valid justification. Multiple IPs looks like something external to Wiki is driving this. A protect looks like a good idea. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. User:VHS99, can you make an argument for your edit? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

iCarly (season 6)

There's an IP that appears to be removing a portion of the episodes in this season article ... and I'm assuming they want it to go into a seventh season article. I remember some discussion about this, where the current state of this article (with everything to the series finale is there) is the consensus, but am not sure when/where the discussion took place. In any case, the IP is being disruptive and more eyes are needed. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Some talk about this at Talk:List of iCarly episodes/Archive 4. There is no Season 7. IP is being disruptive. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Jacob Tremblay

Can you please remove some non-notable names (with the exception of Emma Tremblay) from {{Infobox person}} per WP:BLPNAME. 103.159.196.129 (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Geraldo Perez, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 01:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

School of Rock and The Villains of Valley View

I am going to need more or closer eyes here. Thanks! Ping MPFitz1968 and Magitroopa as well. Amaury • 09:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Amaury: Not 100% certain, but if this is mainly in regards to the recent IPs such as 1.157.62.240 and 27.33.111.126, they both (at least to me) appear to be block evasion of 2001:8003:1D9D:3B00:0:0:0:0/64. Also looks like there might be some other related IPs like 203.222.157.62. Magitroopa (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: I think more than likely the named account MManville simply contribution stalked me after I reverted them on Laura Ingraham to attempt to "prove" some sort of point that they're a defender of Wikipedia guidelines and policies—to put it that way since my other edits don't concern them at all—but it's still a little suspicious. Amaury • 22:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Genre warring by 108.28.147.160. Thank you. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Alexa Nikolas

I'm going to ping MPFitz1968 as well. Please take a look at the talk page, specifically, sections #10, #11, and #12. I can't tell if there's trolling going on here or if this is a fan and/or hater obsessed with this or both. To be clear, I'm not saying Nikolas' allegations aren't true or anything like that, as the sources being used are reliable. I honestly don't know. This is what will be figured out in court, if it comes to that. I'm talking more about how KlausUlrich is acting. The way they're talking comes across as them being a fan of Nikolas and a hater of the other person, at least to me, and we do have issues here like that with any celebrity. Like, they're not just adding the info with a proper explanation, they appear to be obsessed with it. Then this random Tiredelf user who registers today and suddenly shows up and agrees with KlausUlrich in talk page sections #10 and #12, asking me for my thoughts as well, is suspicious and raises a flag in my head. I can't say with 100% certainty they're a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, because I have proof, but it just seems suspicious.

At one point, I restored the WP:STATUSQUO version here due to mass changes with no consensus, but KU restored a lot of it later, and I'm not going to get into an edit war with them. Then KU tried to get the page deleted earlier today, which they mentioned on talk page section #12, where they also accused the administrators here of being bad, but it was appropriately declined.

If you guys want and/or are willing to comment with something, that would be appreciated. I just can't think of anything, nor do I know if I should be taking this seriously or not with things like their lame attacks on admins. Amaury • 02:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I've been watching. Also saw the discussion on the talk page. So far I just want to see how this plays out. I can see the issue with balance and the response to allegations is reasonable to have in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess I didn't respond to this. Oops. I don't really disagree that it's okay to include, as, like you said, it's reasonable as long as it's balanced out. My issue is more with the user's conduct and then the other user randomly appearing and agreeing with the other user, as noted above. That's why I didn't revert again, but when I did revert, it was more than just that, as also noted above. Although earlier today another user did restore my version. Besides my initial revert, I'm going to also see how it plays out, like you are, and just leave it alone. Amaury • 22:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards and Teen Choice Awards

A user has recently removed the images that were previously in the infobox on both articles, claiming that they fail WP:NFCCP #1 ([3] [4]) Is this accurate, and if so, is there anything that can be done or other image(s) that could be used for the two articles? Magitroopa (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Magitroopa: I don't even understand what they mean by their edit summaries. Fails whatever, and then that the images are available on Commons? Makes no sense. And, in any case, it looks like the proper attribution for non-free use is listed on the image page: File:2017-teen-choice-surfboard.png. Same for the other one, so I don't understand this user's claims. Amaury • 09:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: There are images that include the surfboard at C:Category:Teen Choice Awards. c:File:Lucy Hale Backstage at Teen Choice Awards 2011 (2).png shows it in full. Likely could use that image in the article as an illustration of what the awarded board looks like. As for the Kids Choice Awards, images are on commons in the context of the show showing the logo which is the only copyrightable part of the image. c:File:Charli D'Amelio at KCA 2022.jpg shows an awardee holding the blimp. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)