User talk:IJBall/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Former executive producers

Trying to clean some stuff up at America's Got Talent currently... I checked the opening credits of the latest episode ("Live Finale Results" on September 23, 2020), and was able to confirm that Simon Cowell, Sam Donnelly, Jason Raff, Trish Kinane, and Richard Wallace were all listed as EPs. Only one currently listed in the infobox that wasn't listed in the episode is Rob Wade. Searching about him, I found this which says he was an executive producer for the show, but clearly isn't anymore.

That got me wondering, and I found the premiere episode of season 7 from 2012 on YouTube (here), and found that there were several EPs listed that were not listed as an EP on the latest episode from September 2020- specifically the names Cecile Frot-Coutaz, Ken Warwick, and Georgie Hurford-Jones. Even looking at season 1, episode 1, that has someone named Nigel Hall as an EP, and at that time current EP Jason Raff was a co-executive producer. And this is all only looking at the credits of 3/15 of the already-aired seasons... I'm sure there's plenty others too.

Can't think of any Nickelodeon shows in recent years that had something similar to this other than The Loud House, but A. Not sure if that's even formatted correctly and B. That's only listing 2 EPs, much less than what I'm trying to clean up. Basically, what should be done here? Template:Infobox television doesn't offer anything other than that executive producers are listed in the parameter, and don't think MOS:TV offers anything regarding this other than MOS:TVCREW, but I'm talking about the infobox, not a separate background/production section.

So essentially, for a show like AGT heading into its 16th season this June, should all current and former EPs be listed in the infobox, or just the current ones? Magitroopa (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: I would say that if it's a moderate list (5–10), you might still list them in the Infobox (original EP's first, and then later EP's in order of being added to the credits, with no years or seasons listed in the IB). If it's more than that, I would say you only list the current EP's, and then you link to the 'Production' section for the rest (yeah, contrary to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, but OK in an exceptional case like this – I've seen similar things done for long TV show cast lists), where, in sentence form, you list/mention the show's various EP's over the years. (Finding secondary sourcing for all of the EP's, esp. when they were added to the credits, will be very tough, and may not be possible.) That's my $0.02. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Raven's Home

[1]:

"Critical response" is usually the header. IJBall - April 19, 2021 at 5:40 AM (PDT)

However: User talk:Amaury/2018/May#Cleanup project for MOS:TV articles

Either is probably OK, though as 'Critical' is actually pretty much "Critical reception", either that or 'Critical response' seems redundant to me in the same way 'Main cast' as a heading under 'Cast' is redundant, so I personally largely prefer just 'Critical' as the subsection title. IJBall - May 12, 2018 at 8:08 AM (PDT)

What a hypocrite. Amaury • 20:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I've come to think that a 'Critical' subhead under a 'Reception' section header is insufficient – it should probably be 'Critical response'. If there's only a "critical" section (with no subsections), then it should be called 'Critical reception'. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Whose Line Is It Anyway?

Did some work on this article within the past 24 hours or so, and for part of it I had cleaned up the awards/nominations section from this to this. According to a user on my talk page, I seem to be doing things wrong and they claim that rowspan should be used and now they've changed some stuff and it now appears as this. Isn't rowspan an MOS:ACCESS issue? I don't want to revert, I'm sure they'll claim I'm the one in the wrong... Thoughts? Magitroopa (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: I've reverted, and then edited in a way that uses rowspan responsibly in the table.... The answer to your other question is "no" – WP:ACCESS has walked away from the issue, because "screenreaders" have gotten more sophisticated, and WP:ACCESS has no interest in pushing for anything controversial. So now it's basically the Wild West in terms of 'rowspan', with rowspan obsessives pushing for it even when it makes tables virtually impossible to read in some cases, versus those of use who either don't want rowspan used at all or who want it used sparingly (generally, me). However, it is worth noting that MOS:ACCESS still says "Web accessibility is the goal of making web pages easier to navigate and read. While this is primarily intended to assist those with disabilities, it can be helpful to all readers." So the overall goal is still readability, and (excessive) use of rowspan can still be opposed on general "readability" grounds. Also, if a table hasn't had rowspan for years, and then somebody suddenly adds it, it can be reverted on the grounds of WP:STYLEVAR. (Unfortunately, that doesn't apply in this case...) Anyway, that's where things stand. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

You're reverting to incorrect formatting. You should look at the other articles dedicated to someone's awards. You will clearly see the proper formatting. Anybody will tell you how it's formatted is wrong. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know it's wrong. Plus, even if there was a discussion, you wouldn't get consensus to that being right. You link the edition to the year not the award. You link to the award not the year/edition. It's standard and basic formatting. So leave how it was fixed. Don't tell anyone to not revert when you've reverted yourself. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

You are completely making stuff up. First, see WP:STYLEVAR – there is no "established style" for this. Second, see WP:OSE – many, many article have content that is either incorrect or wrongly-formatted: what other articles do has no bearing on whether it is "right" or not. What you are pushing for is basically just your personal preference. Third, you have been reverted by two different editors, so it's clear that your preferred way does not have consensus. At that point, you should discuss. But as you seem to be one of these editors who insists "I'm right!" as a first recourse, I'm guessing we're not going to get that... Regardless, take the discussion to the article talk page, where it belongs, not here – so please don't waste your time at this page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies- I didn't want any problems to arise, but was a bit confused on the 'fixes' themselves: I know you've cited MOS:ACCESS in the past, and was mostly looking for confirmation/denial (not sure if that's the word I'm looking for...) on if I was correct. I checked the MOS:ACCESS talk page archives for more info, and had seen a little bit from the past discussing essentially what you stated about screenreaders.

Feel free to step out of this, don't want you to get more involved than you'd like... Thanks for the info regarding it though, much appreciated. Magitroopa (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I probably will. But I am with you that this issue should actually be discussed, and a consensus reached – what this editor is claiming is either not true, or is true only in certain instances that do not apply to this article specifically (e.g. the thing with linking from the 'Year' – that is only done in specific instances, not generally). But I get the strong impression that this editor is not interested in discussion, compromise or consensus. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Side Hustle (2)

Why this even exists is beyond me, but it clearly shouldn't. It's clearly all formatted wrong overall, for one thing. Add: The first draft was created before I can make it while I was editing. is complete bullshit as it makes it sound like they were trying to make it themselves, but I had already created mine within minutes, while they were trying to create theirs. I created mine back on February 24, 2020; they created theirs back on November 7, 2020, so it's not like I just barely edged them out, I clearly beat them on creating the article by months. Amaury • 16:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a way to request deletion immediately. I see it'll be eligible under G13 (abandoned drafts) in about a couple of weeks if no one edits the draft during that time. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I have WP:G13'ed it. I actually wanted to WP:A10 it, but Twinkle wouldn't let me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ultra Violet & Blue Demon

Just updated User:Amaury/sandbox/Ultra Violet & Blue Demon to with more information that was released on March 11, 2020, and on January 21, 2021. Amaury • 08:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

iCarly (upcoming TV series)

Should this really even exist in mainspace? There is no definitive premiere date. There is not even any approximative premiere date. As such, it seems to be apparent it fails WP:TVSHOW. Ping Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968 as well. Amaury • 07:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Not clear-cut – someone is going to claim the 'Production' is sourced enough. Frankly, I'm just thankful it's at this title, and not at iCarly (season 7) (and I'd strongly oppose any attempt to move it to the latter, for a bunch of reasons)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 11:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

List of Disney Channel series

@Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: For what it's worth: [2] They make mostly WP:OSE and slippery slope arguments. Amaury • 17:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out if it was ever PROD'ed or AfD'd before; if it was, then it's not eligible for PROD. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

PRODs are useless – if you disagree, just remove the PROD tag. That's it.... I do have one question, however – How is this article any different from List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel?! Isn't it basically just a duplicate of the latter?! If so, then, yes – it should be merged/deleted... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never understood the difference. Amaury • 18:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I know I don't do much Disney Channel editing, but saw this and wanted to make you aware if you hadn't seen yet- PROD was removed and nominated at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Disney Channel series). As for the 'List of programs' vs. 'List of Disney Channel series' questioning, seems like that is answered in the 'about' templates at the top of each article:

• List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel: all programs that were broadcast on Disney Channel
• List of Disney Channel series: programs that were originally broadcast on and produced at least partially by Disney Channel

Make of that what you will... Magitroopa (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I have !voted "merge and redirect" to List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel. I honestly can't conceive of any other justifiable outcome. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)  I have voted — YoungForever^(talk) 13:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Secrets of Sulphur Springs

This is partly on me, because I haven't been keeping up with television, but I still created my draft (User:Amaury/sandbox/Sulphur Springs (TV series)) on May 12, 2019, which was edited as recently as January 1, 2021, while the now existing article was created way, way later on January 17, 2021. Can anything be done? Otherwise, I'll just treat it as an article cleanup and do what I've done when I've gone through and cleaned up articles like Austin & Ally or Liv and Maddie, which may be the better choice here, anyway, since it's easier for to work on a page I created or an article I'm cleaning up in a sandbox page—like when I was going through the Kickin' It and Lab Rats articles and cleaning them up—since my page is way behind where the series is currently at. It's difficult for me to work around messy formatting, which isn't necessarily the case here, though it was the case for articles like Austin & Ally, but still, and it's why I started doing my cleanups in sandbox pages and basically making the articles from scratch, only copying and pasting things like episode summaries, like I did with Austin & Ally. The one exception was Kickin' It, since when I went through and cleaned it up, I also wrote summaries for every single episode since the summaries that were there either sucked or were copyright violations. I did a similar thing when I went through Lab Rats and cleaned up its pages. The difference there was summaries that I thought were salvageable, I rewrote a tiny bit; otherwise, I just removed them. However, AJFU was kind enough to take care of those I removed and even expand on the ones salvaged. So I may just go with the second option I made, as I don't know how difficult trying to get my page there so the "true" creation date appears in the article history would be. Figured I'd still post here, anyway, since I already wrote all of this. Amaury • 18:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I will note I haven't watched this series (yet). Amaury • 18:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

At this point, probably not, as the other article has existed for months. Your one option may be to ask for a WP:HISTMERGE – but in this case, I'm not sure the request would be granted (it might be, but maybe not). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair point. I realize drafts are more noticeable, but I've given up on that since people keep tagging them for deletion. Not my fault Nickelodeon and Disney Channel go a long time without news on newly ordered series. Amaury • 18:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

User NoobMaster01

Been having problems with this editor on Spider-Man (2017 TV series) since March 22 with slow-motion WP:DE, and it's probably better if someone uninvolved files a report, because it's getting annoying. Amaury • 20:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Not likely to be filing any reports today, but it should be filed – looks like they've tried to add this more than 4 times over the last few months. And it's totally unsourced WP:OR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: Either of you interested in filing/willing to file a report? Amaury • 21:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to note that this is still an issue. IJBall, are you filing reports today? Amaury • 19:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Work is busy for me over the next week – not sure when I will have time, but assume not for the next 48 hours. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

How dare you work!! Amaury • 20:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Television channel

I noticed your comment at Talk:YTV (Myanmar) about the use of TV network vs. TV channel. I've been eyeing this as an issue too. There are still dozens of articles like Pick (TV channel), and I feel like the original change to deprecate was written from a very American perspective—i.e. an environment where "network" and "channel" are almost fungible terms when they shouldn't be.

I'm trying to figure out what a change could look like in practice (along with some other changes to NCBC, mostly to codify stuff that's come up in RMs in the last few years and my broadcasting disambiguation priority order).

I know what distinguishes a station from the other two categories:

• Strong association with a particular broadcast TV transmitter
• Generally serves a specific local area
• Are often in countries with television systems patterned off the American model

But I'm not sure how to define a "network" beyond being on a network of broadcast transmitters (and not in, say, a Freeview sense).

Any thoughts? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: The issue is that WP:NCBC guideline has basically been primarily re-written by one editor (because it's low-profile guideline that most editors don't know or care about, even those with a WP:TV focus) with very specific views on the "network" vs. "channel" issue that are not necessarily universally widely shared or accepted – their view is that "channel" is an obsolete term. It's not. (Though it is true that the American entertainment press and cable press releases do tend sloppily to call everything a "TV network" these days, but on WP:ONUS grounds I don't think we should be bound by that, as there's lots of other stuff the entertainment press gets wrong as well...)

Anyway, I think are two legitimate definitions for "TV network", 1) a network of individual television "affiliate stations" that together broadcast common programming under a "network label" (this definition is very American, or at least North American, "specific"), or 2) several (broadcast or cable) channels that together operate under common labelling (e.g. the BBC, the Lifetime cable TV channels, etc.) Otherwise, IMO, if it's an individual cable TV broadcaster (e.g. something like Bravo, or AMC), it should be labelled as/disambiguated with "TV channel", not a "TV network"... That's my $0.02. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

That rewrite is coming up on now 8 years standing with very few substantive changes and a large number of affirming RMs. Now, even more than 8 years ago, many of the entities you cite like Bravo, AMC, etc. have increased their number of content channels (particularly streaming), such that they are even more solidified as networks. Many of us grew up calling their customer-facing output "channels", and its hard to rewire our brains from that. What is very clear is that Wikipedia articles on these topics are written to cover a higher level. We don't generally write about individual customer-facing outputs like bravotv.com, or the Bravo app, or Bravo's cable/satellite channel.... we write about the overriding brand name and programming controller (aka network). In short, "channel" is not an obsolete term, but rather it is deprecated because its a word that doesn't match what our articles actually cover (or should cover). -- Netoholic @ 12:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

None of which changes that this is basically one editor's opinion, and involves a guideline that pretty much no one else pays much attention, or gives much thought, to. And the RM's don't prove anything when basically people are just quoting "as per guideline" that has been already (re-)written – they are assuming that it represents an actual "consensus", when in this case I doubt it does. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

When I mention RMs, it's mostly on the call sign naming side. It used to be accepted practice to have articles titled like "KXBR (defunct)". In 2019, it was pointed out to me that this probably violated the MOS, which kickstarted a chain of RMs affecting more than 100 pages (Talk:KCLA (Arkansas) was the largest). I wrote a whole essay (User:Sammi Brie/Radio naming) to explain the disambiguation priority order. I still can't shake the fact that "network" doesn't fit intuitively as a descriptor for a lot of articles, especially in non-US contexts. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: Callsign-based naming of station articles is definitely complex and you've done some great work cleaning it up. As for the other issue, there is still a place for (TV channel) in certain narrow uses, which is why we haven't outright fully deprecated it. Its just that most articles are properly contextualized as (TV network) because the controlling brand actually outputs multiple channels of content (most often their broadcast channel(s), their website, streaming app, etc.). -- Netoholic @ 21:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Co-starring and featuring cast members

Are co-stars below guest stars? Is featuring the lowest level in terms of crediting level of cast members? I know that we do not include co-starring and featuring cast members normally on television series articles because they are background actors. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

For American TV series that have multiple "tiers" of crediting, what you say is true – it's main cast > guest stars > co-starring > featuring. Often, "guest stars" aren't explicitly credited as such – they are simply the cast that is "credited" after the main cast in a TV series' episode's opening. If "co-starring" and "featuring" are listed that way, it's generally only in the episode's end-credits. And, generally, on Wikipedia, we only list "guest starring" level cast, as "co-starring" and "featuring" are too low crediting/too minor roles to include. (E.G. Even if someone appears in multiple episodes, we generally don't include them under 'Recurring' if they are only ever given "co-starring" crediting, and especially not if they are just given "featuring" crediting – "featuring" roles are little better than "extras" in terms of role importance: they may only have one minor line of dialogue in an episode.)

Now, there are plenty of exceptions to what I've just said – even in American television, there are plenty of TV shows that don't have separate "co-starring" and "featuring" crediting: they just have one tier of guest crediting. And everything I just said does not necessarily apply to non-U.S. TV shows – in non-U.S. contexts, "co-starring" may actually be equivalent to "guest star" crediting, for example – so with non-U.S. shows you have to check and maybe ask around. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I mostly watch American TV series, some British and Canadian TV series. I was asking "co-starring" and "featuring" on the end credits. If I remembered correctly, Elijah B. Moore as Wade on Legacies is credited as co-starring on the episodes he appeared in which were multiple episodes. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Correct – the Wade actor has not actually been credited as a "guest star" on Legacies yet (unless that happened in tonight's episode). That is why I purposely have not added him to the 'Recurring' section yet – and, if anyone tries, they should be reverted (unless and until Wade is actually credited as an episode "guest star"). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Hell's Kitchen season 20 article move

I know you said you usually avoid these sorts of reality TV articles, but was wondering if you'd be willing to help move User:Magitroopa/sandbox/Hell's Kitchen (American season 20) over to Hell's Kitchen (American season 20). There's currently a redirect there, created by myself about a month ago. The premiere date was announced then, but I was mainly waiting for the cast to be announced before converting it from a redirect to a season article. Now with the cast announced (and now listed on my sandbox page), was hoping you could help move it over now.

If you're willing to, I'm fine with whatever is best/appropriate, which I'm assuming the sandbox would become a redirect (based off of what was done at User talk:IJBall/Archive 34#Nickelodeon's The Astronauts). If not, then would love to know where to go to request/get assistance with this. Either way, thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I can get to this, but it will be later today... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Magitroopa:  Done. I'll leave it to you to change links to point towards the new article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Glitch Techs

Please keep an eye on this and the IP in general. There appears to be no official announcement, and it hasn't been a year yet. Courtesy ping for Magitroopa. Amaury • 18:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe Geraldo Perez has been watching this article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Kickin' It question

Is this a good source to put on the article for Kickin' It? Just curious.

Source: https://www.filmaffinity.com/us/film320053.html

It actually mentions Poor Soul Productions as a production company which produced that show.

Also it has actually been in old edits of the article before it got removed, such as this revision.

Don't know if my source is actually reliable though, but please check it for proof.

TheRavineStudios (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheRavineStudios: Based on it's "About" page – [3] – I'm pretty sure it runs afoul of WP:USERGENERATED, which means it's no good as a source for something like this... And I still get back to – if reliable secondary sources like this and this don't find Poor Soul important enough to mention, then it's not important enough for it to be mentioned on Wikipedia: "produced by It's a Laugh Productions" looks sufficient in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Alright dude, I gotcha. That's most likely the same case why the article for Raven's Home is missing Entertainment Force, November 13th and Institute for Individual Education and some other similar articles like that. TheRavineStudios (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Congrats!

Congratulations for having 104,000 edits! That's a lot. ChannelSpider (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Transformers: The Last Knight‎

Please keep an eye on this. Persistent disruption related to WP:NOTBROKEN. I've already given the IP a warning. Amaury • 16:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Works with Carlos Girl

Hi IJBall. About my edit that you reverted — I was trying to see how to make sense of "Works with Carlos Girl", which on the face of it makes no sense at all. It is a direct quote of a line spoken by Barney. In flowing text it is easy to realise that "works with Carlos is a compound modifier, but in isolation it looks odd. Would it then not be better to switch the order of the words to Girl who works with Carlos? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: It should be whatever is listed in the credits. The film's credits will probably have to be checked. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Jack Griffo

Hi. Not sure at all what you mean about verifying the middle name. There are literally tens of thousands of biographies on Wikipedia, many of them featured or good articles, and this is the first time I have ever heard of adding sources to verify the middle name. Can you explain? Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised that I have to – it could not be more clear: all bio info at WP:BLP's should be sourced. This is pretty much non-negotiable. Why would middle names or full names not be included in this, esp. when the middle name is not widely known or used? I'm shocked that this is even a question. Any BLP GA or FA that does not do this is frankly wrong. Now, in terms of Griffo, his social media covers this as per WP:ABOUTSELF and is a completely legitimate source for this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Disney Channel

Finally fully caught up, other than Sulphur Springs, but I'll get to that later. At some point, I also wanna watch all of Pup Academy, but Disney NOW took it off. I only watched the pilot. Now for Nickelodeon and then the broadcast networks. Amaury • 22:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

On Nickelodeon, I am now fully caught up with Henry Danger and Power Rangers: Beast Morphers. I still have Danger Force, Tyler Perry's Young Dylan, Side Hustle, and The Astronauts. As well as the latest season/saga to date of Power Rangers, which is Power Rangers: Dino Fury. Amaury • 02:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I've seen most (all?) of Side Hustle (I actually like this one quite a bit!) and Danger Force (not nearly as good as HD, esp. early HD, and it feels like it's trying too hard, but it occasionally works, and I quite liked "Monsty"). I've seen most Drama Club (but I'd rather those two do more Betch!!), and I'm saving most of The Barbarian and the Troll for later. But I'll be busy at work for at least this week, so I don't have much time for things... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

List of Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn episodes

IP is being disruptive over a simple hyphen in the title of a season one episode. Actually, they placed a hyphen in another episode's title from the same season a few days ago, which was OK after I verified the sources on it. But now for their current edits, they are going against the sources (well, except for Zap2it which I explained in one of my reverts [4]). Anyway, I've issued a warning for edit-warring (3RR), and next time they do it should result in their being taken to WP:ANEW. Pinging Amaury as well. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: I will say that I intentionally had had "The Quad Test" because the hyphen makes no sense there. Amaury • 18:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Amaury: Filed edit warring report Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:67.87.118.126 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: ). MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Saved by the Bell

Hi IJBall. I went ahead and blocked 207.47.182.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) per your AIV report since it's clearly block evasion. However, I have to wonder... aren't they technically correct about the punctuation error? Looking at the history of the Saved by the Bell article, it seems like this has been reverted countless times per WP:BANREVERT, and I have to wonder whether it is worth the effort. Part of me feels that we should just let the LTA take the "win" here and hopefully we don't have to deal with them on this article again. Mz7 (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mz7: No, they're not, because date ranges don't have commas, and it would be nonsensical for them to have them. IOW, "May 18, 2020 – May 18, 2021" doesn't translate into "May 18, 2020, to May 18, 2021" – it makes no sense. But, regardless, MOS edits are consensus edits (with notable exceptions to all MOS's too), and this IP has been edit warring against consensus on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, since this seems like a somewhat controversial issue, I'll defer to your judgment, but IMO the use of the comma here is not nonsensical, especially since it has precedent in other style guides: see MLA for example. The specific MOS section you linked isn't exactly unambiguous on this question, either (it only discusses en-dashes). On the other hand, if it is true that I am disagreeing with an established consensus, then I will defer to it, as I said. Mz7 (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I stand by what I said – that commas are nonsensical in date ranges – but if I think of it, I may just reword these ledes to preempt any further disruption from that IP. It would be trivially easy to reword the sentences in these ledes to something like:

California Dreams is an American teen sitcom television series that aired on NBC. It was part of the network's Saturday morning block, TNBC, premiering on September 12, 1992. Created by writers Brett Dewey and Ronald B. Solomon, and executive produced by Peter Engel, all known for their work on Saved by the Bell,[1] the series centers on the friendships of a group of teenagers (shifting toward a multi-ethnic makeup beginning with the show's second season) who form the fictional titular band. The series ran five seasons, airing its final episode on December 14, 1996. The series featured 40 original songs performed by the band throughout the show's run, primarily written by Steve Tyrell.

IIRC, we ended up doing some things similar to this to thwart the LTA vandal Orchomen. When work dials down next week, I'll give this a shot... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, excellent. I like this solution as well. Mz7 (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Zombies 3

As soon a release date comes out, let me know, if you can, if I haven't already gotten it—I'll be keeping a close eye on it as well—because I'll move User:Amaury/sandbox/Zombies 3 to mainspace immediately. Mine was clearly created first over Draft:Zombies 3. I know drafts are more visible, as I mentioned before when I queried you about Secrets of Sulphur Springs, but I'm done with those because they're always being marked for deletion since Nickelodeon and Disney Channel programs don't typically have a lot of information released between initial announcement and a premiere date announcement—outside of some casting announcements after the initial announcement for TV films, but those are way closer to the initial announcement—and that's not my fault. Honestly, I understand why these draft guidelines exist, but it should be at least a year, if you ask me, before a draft is assumed to be abandoned. (And, regardless of time, you can clearly tell a draft is not abandoned when you see the user who created it is clearly making many other edits.) Amaury • 18:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Best guess? – February 2022, based on when the first two movies were released. Disney probably won't make it official with some kind of annoucement until this Fall... You might want to add a {{Merge}} tag to the Draftspace version. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

On another note, my sandbox page for the film is now fully up-to-date and built up. Amaury • 19:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I have added the {{Merge}} tag to the Draftspace version myself. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, it could just go. There's nothing in there that's not on my page, and mine is formatted properly/neater. And sorry on Legacies. I completely missed the IP's version contained the DE from the other user. Amaury • 20:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

User TheRavineStudios

Really need to keep an eye on this user. Nothing but disruptive editing. I'm calling them the production companies vandal from now on, since they self-admitted to being those IPs that were blocked. Just Roll with It, which is having its own issues with users and IPs claiming May 14 was the season and series finale, is one play they've now started being disruptive. Ping {{U|Geraldo Perez}] and MPFitz1968 as well. Amaury • 07:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Properly ping Geraldo Perez. Amaury • 07:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I've now issued two final warnings to this editor. One for their disruption on Bella and the Bulldogs and one for blatant—and long-term—harassment of other editors. A report, if you agree and have the time—as it probably shouldn't be by me—should be filed if they disrupt again—or even now, if you feel it's appropriate—especially since they're basically block-evading. I don't even remmber which IP it is anymore since they've used so many, but I don't think the IP is blocked anymore, but it was when the account appeared.

I also note that they joined and made all of their first edits on December 22, 2019, before going all quiet for years after only one day of editing. Then the account suddenly becomes active again on May 12, following the IP's block, which, again, they self-admitted to it being them. Something is fishy here, even putting aside the IP stuff. And they are clearly still abusing privileges by editing logged out. This also includes 2001:8003:1C6E:6200:5D18:16AA:9F8A:5EEB, 2001:8003:1C6E:6200:D77:8DFB:B10F:5FD1, and 2001:8003:1C6E:6200:39EE:EED5:CD93:63EC, which spammed messages regarding "missing" production companies on my talk page, your talk page, and Geraldo Perez's talk page using three different IPs, which are obviously all the same person. I also feel like 2001:8003:1C6E:6200:E93E:8F20:B46A:5158 might be related. See here. Interaction report: [5]

On a side note, thank you, Starforce13 for properly formatting the information on Just Roll with It. Amaury • 21:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem, Amaury. Yeah, we'll need to keep a close eye on them and if it's clear they're the same account using multiple IPs to evade blocks and keep edit warring without a proper discussion, they may also qualify to be reported for sock puppetry/abusing multiple accounts. — Starforce¹³ 00:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

List of Sam & Cat episodes

I’m surprised that the episode guide for this Nick show still has its own page which should not have existed to begin with unlike its two predecessors. Single-volume series should not have their own article like what occurred over here way back in 2016. Yes it also happened before to the Thundercats reboot. Thanks for listening.

67.81.161.226 (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

See this: Talk:List of Sam & Cat episodes#Merge with Sam & Cat – 35 episodes is a borderline case (to be clear – it's about "number of episodes", not "seasons" per se), but in this case I was on the side of leaving things be, as the episode summaries for this show are on the long side, and merging the list of episodes back to the main article would seemingly unbalance it. IOW, this is kind of an exceptional case. So, there has been a discussion, and there wasn't consensus to merge. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Michael D. Cohen (actor)‎

I know you're already watching this, but Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968, I may need more eyes here due to slow-motion disruption. Regardless of whether someone is transgender or not, you are not "assigned" sex/gender at birth. You are either born female or male. (An IP actually had it right for once and correctly fixed that back in early April, because I never noticed it.) How you choose to identify later down the road if opposite from what you were born gender-wise if transgender is completely separate. That would be like me saying "I'm assigning this newborn as a baby alligator that was just born from this adult dog." Obviously, adult (female) dogs can only give birth to puppies, so it would actually be a baby puppy. Amaury • 15:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt but "assigned sex at birth" is the formal/common/preferred term. It's well detailed and sourced in Sex assignment. Transgender community uses AFAB (assigned female at birth) and AMAB (assigned male at birth), not "born female" or "born male". — Starforce¹³ 16:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

School of Rock

Never saw the film—that I know of—but this is still sad, nonetheless. Amaury • 21:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Raven's Home et alia

@Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: Will need more or closer eyes on this and related pages. Had our first person try to claim the series is over, based on the "book-end" of the fourth season finale. Their words and their quotation marks. Now, I have no idea what the hell that means. And we have nothing confirming even the season finale, in any case. PS: On another note, IJBall, I really hope The Astronauts is renewed based on that cliffhanger-like ending. It seems very likely considering Nickelodeon specifically referred to that last episode as the season finale. Amaury • 15:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added a hidden note, a la Coop & Cami, to the last_aired infobox parameter at the article, stressing that a source, if any from Disney, must be present in the article per my edit summary ([6]). MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Why were my changes undone?

I spent some time researching the characters in Dark Skies, adding many that are missing from the list of real life characters. What was the reason you considered this "Unnecessary Changes" and "Vandalism" (twinkie tag). Are additional Real Life Characters such as Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, and Howard Hughes that unnecessary that they should not be listed? Or Timothy Leary is allowed on the list but not Jerry Ruben?

Please explain. I thought relevant edits to can be made to Wiki pages by anyone with extra knowledge pertaining to the article. When did this change? This reversion has happened multiple times to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltp (talk • contribs) 14:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Waltp: I have again undone your changes. Sorry I didn't respond before now, but I've been busy... The problem with your edit is 2-fold: 1) you are adding "extra" unnecessary, and frankly purely WP:OR details about guest cast (or, at least, are adding them as parentheticals, which is a no-no), and, 2) you're adding minor, non-notable, and frankly WP:INDISCRIMINATE, guest cast. Guest cast sections are not an excuse to include every person that has ever appeared on a show – only the truly notable guest actors and guest characters should be included – i.e. those that were credited as full "guest cast" and those that had significant storyline impact, not minor guests who maybe showed up in a single scene in an episode sometime. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

So you are saying that 1) by watching the original video, reading the IMDB page, and Wikipedia itself I created original research (WP:OR) by correlating the information and that research is bad. Then where did the original character list come from? I see no other references directly cited. And the fact that I put the character's occupational influence on the story in parentheses make it a bad entry? 2) WP:INDISCRIMINATE??? So Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Ed Sullivan are indiscriminate? Not notable? If it wasn't for Ed Sullivan 5 characters on the list wouldn't be there. I'd call that significant. And a full episode on the Watts Riot could not have been done if it wasn't for impact of Lee Minikus and Simon Rodia.

I simply added a 16 people that are real that were not in the list who had an impact on the plot and history. I did NOT add the entire cast. Go to IMDB for that. Is that REALLY beyond Wikipedia's guidelines? I also feel my "parentheticals" helped explain how and why the characters had impact on the plot. They aren't an afterthought. And I sorted the list so wouldn't a jumbled mess like it is now.

Happy Sunday

Please do not add or change content, as you did at User talk:Amaury, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Amaury • 18:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit to Michelle Borth

I based my edit regarding New York City on MOS:OVERLINK, which says, in part, "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked: ... locations (e.g., Berlin; New York City, ..." Perhaps you consider the Borth article to be a "particularly relevant to the context" exception. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm just going off standard practice – which is to link cities, but not states and countries, for birthplaces of BLPs – and the fact that NYC is linked to in the article prose itself – it doesn't make any sense to link to it in the article prose, but not the IB. So either it should be linked in neither instance, or it should be linked to in both.... Honestly, in a case like this, I don't see the harm in linking even cities like NYC and London, regardless of what the guideline says. But if others have a problem with that, they need to remove all links, not just the ones in the IB. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree about being consistent in infobox and text. I had overlooked the link in "Early life and education". I have now removed both. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I restored the state to the IB – again, the standard format for that is "city, state, U.S." (basically, WP:USPLACE). New York City isn't "special" in that regard. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The documentation in Template:Infobox person indicates that New York City is special in that regard. The guidelines for the birth_place parameter contain the comment, "Omit unnecessary or redundant details. For example, it is not necessary to state: New York City, New York, United States when New York City, U.S. conveys essentially the same information more concisely." I don't plan to go back to change it again, but you can see that I was not making an arbitrary change when I did that. I like to follow style guides as much as possible. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Cooper Barnes

Except for administrators, obviously, it is now protected from being created for one year. Another sock showed up yesterday and created it. Amaury • 22:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Coop & Cami Ask the World

Need eyes on the LOE and Just Roll with It as well. Amaury • 15:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

New message from Aviator006

Hello, IJBall. You have new messages at Talk:Steven R. McQueen.
Message added 15:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello there IJBall, I'm Aviator006, I have seen you assessing BLP articles and I would be interested in your assessment of article I have updated significantly recently, to see whether it is good enough to be a B-class article or things to improve to get there. Please let me know whether you have the time or interested in reviewing it, thank you for your help in advance. Aviator006 (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Drama Club

I've only got two more episodes of Side Hustle and then I'll be fully caught up with Nickelodeon. For all intents and purposes, I'm still fully caught up with Disney Channel, I just need to watch the latest episodes of Bunk'd from Monday onward. Then it's on to the broadcast networks, minus Fox and The CW. (Although I am interested in Riverdale and may purchase it at some point.) I'm still contemplating on getting and watching Secrets of Sulphur Springs. Likewise now for Nickelodeon's Drama Club. Is it good? Is it just another regular Nickelodeon series (something like Henry Danger or The Loud House) or is it more of a "special" series, if that makes sense? Amaury • 20:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Drama Club comes from Monica Sherer and Madeline Whitby, the creators of Betch. Stylistically, Drama Club is similar to Betch (same "mockumentary" style), though Betch was targetted at young adults, where Drama Club is definitely targetted at tweens and young teens. But they are similar – the character of Mack strikes me as a thinly-veiled stand-in for Madeline Whitby (and it wouldn't surprise me if Darcy is a stand-in for Monica Sherer)... Anyway, I enjoyed Drama Club (though not as much as Betch) – however, it's also a "hit or miss": some episodes, like the finale and "Slumber Games", really work; other episodes don't. Similarly, I really liked some characters – esp. Gertie; other characters I didn't think worked at all – particularly, the adult character, Mr. Sniffet. So, I'd recommend it, but I can't guarantee that you'll like it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Scarlett Estevez needs an infobox.Arek333 (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Please review MOS:INFOBOXUSE – it is long-standing policy that infoboxes are not "required" at articles, and one should only be used when there is enough info to actually justify summarizing in an infobox. This article is not there at this time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Jennifer Lawrence

Hi there! I noticed you reverted my edit on List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence regarding the lead image change. I just wanted to discuss with you why you think that the current image is better than the one I used. I'd love to know your opinion on this. I'd appreciate your response. Thanks! Film Enthusiast (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss this – the article's Talk place is. If you want to change a portrait image, you try to demonstrate consensus for that at the article talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeking consensus. I don't have a preference for using either image, I was simply curious to know the reason behind your reversion. Film Enthusiast (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Basically, it has to do with image composition – the current image is better on this score: neither image is as "straight-on" a photo shot as I'd like, but the other image is off from the side, and taken from a little above (from a weird angle), which is even worse than the current image. Also, subject's hair is more natural in the current image. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

My apologies and thanks

As you wrote in your recent edit summary on Scarlett Estevez, "people really need to read MOS:REFPUNCT all the way through". I had not seen that section until now. I have always edited with the erroneous understanding that citations go outside the closing parenthesis. Thanks for pointing out that section of the Manual of Style. I will try to remember it in the future. I apologize for my error.Eddie Blick (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Teblick: Just so you know, the reason that was a little "snapish" is because it's one of my pet peeves, and it keeps coming up. It seems that even a lot of experienced editors don't know about the "parentheses exception" in MOS:REFPUNCT... Anyway, that edit summary was directed more at Wiki in general than you specifically. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your adding that explanation. I like to know Wikipedia's style rules and apply them as much as possible. I regret that I had not learned that rule before. I'm in my seventh year of working on Wikipedia, and I'm still learning.Eddie Blick (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:Disney Channel co-productions

I just reverted an undiscussed page move here, though at least for right now, I'm not going to bother with a mass revert of their disruptive edits. I did revert on The Lodge, though, which is the only reason I found this move in the first place since the series page is on my watchlist. Amaury • 08:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Ratings

Hey IJBall. Since Showbuzz Daily is no longer providing ratings, which website should people start sourcing for TV Ratings? kpgamingz (rant me) 18:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Considering that ratings are not something I've remotely paid attention to for several years, I can't answer this question. I believe one or two alternatives were suggested on WT:TV though. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I realize people consider it WP:NOTRS, but Spoiler TV seems trustable, so maybe an exception can be made. I compared the ratings for a few days between it and Showbuzz Daily, and they matched exactly. They just take a while longer to post broadcast finals and cable. We also have Programming Insider, but they're either no longer posting finals and cable or also just take a while. The only "issue" with Spoiler TV is that they only post the top 100 rather than the top 150, like what Showbuzz Daily was doing. Although perhaps if someone asked them to start posting the top 150, given the situation with Showbuzz Daily, they may be willing to start doing it. We also have The Futon Critic, but they stopped posting cable in 2014 and only post broadcast and still do, as far as I know. Amaury • 02:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez and Starforce13: Do you guys have any thoughts on this? Since I posted that, they are now, as of the ratings for May 31, 2021, doing the top 200, potentially as a response to Showbuzz Daily no longer being in play, which is even better than the top 150 Showbuzz Daily was doing. As I mentioned above, I compared a few days of Spoiler TV's ratings to Showbuzz Daily's ratings—before the issues happened that led to this unfortunate outcome—and they match exactly, so I trust them. And given the circumstances, I think an exception can be made. Amaury • 16:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no opinion – I think WP:TV needs to weigh in. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Amaury: Please Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#U.S. TV ratings sources. Spoiler TV should never be use for episode listings for titles, directors, and writers (I am pretty they got the info from IMDb most of the time or other user-generated websites as official press releases have not been released yet at the time when they list them.) and entertainment news as they sometimes based cancellations, renewals, and etc. by hearsay and rumors. There also a tab on the website to "Submit Scoop" which means anyone could submit them. I am not sure about Ratings, but TV Series Finale (even though the website is still a questionable source) maybe a better source than Spoiler TV as TV Series Finale does have a staff whereas SpoilerTV is completely fan-operated. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

This is tough. On the one hand, SpoilerTV ratings are usually accurate - I've followed the site for a few years. But on the other hand, the site is heavily fan-generated content, and allowing them could open a can of worms, with editors trying to use some of their ridiculous articles to source other content on Wikipedia. TV Series Finale is unreliable as well and they don't post ratings consistently. It's usually just a few random shows or days. So, using them would be spotty at best, which doesn't really solve the problem.— Starforce¹³ 18:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Starforce13: Yeah. That's a good point. Like with some other guidelines or policies here, we could restrict it to certain conditions. So we could say that Spoiler TV is allowed to be used as a source for ratings only, since those definitely aren't fan-based like other parts of the site, and nothing else, in a similar fashion to how IMDb does not meet WP:RS requirements, but is completely okay to use as an external link. Amaury • 22:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

References

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SamStrongTalks (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Raven's Home

Potentially good news: [7] Amaury • 07:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Egg sucking tips?

Hi - I'm sure I don't really need to tell you this, but asking someone whether they're daft isn't exactly within the spirit of WP:CIV. I know talk page discussions can be frustrating, but that sort of rhetoric isn't going to make the discussion run any more smoothly. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 14:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

They aren't going to "run smoothly" with an edit-warring editor, regardless. (Esp. one who took to the Talk page to ignore the very relevant discussion on that same Talk page.) So, no – no apologizes in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

IJBall, I know that they never run smoothly with edit warriors: I've just got done telling them that their reports at AIV were inappropriate, and if they continue in this vein I'll block them. Regardless, comments like that are literally counterproductive: they make it harder to resolve the situation. If I arrive at a talk page and see one person being disruptive, and everyone else being polite and professional, a block is a very easy call. If, on the other hand, I see experienced editors are throwing borderline personal attacks at someone, and that person gets frustrated and starts edit warring, the lines are a lot more blurred. I'm not asking for an apology, I'm just saying that it's genuinely easier all-round if you resist the temptation to make comments like that. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 19:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Mygurgle45

I'm sure you're keeping an eye on this editor, particularly at H2O: Just Add Water; starting to border on disruptive at the very least. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, based on their talk page, they do have some warnings of level 3 or greater from you and Amaury in the last year or two. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I would say if they try to undo any of your recent edit, they should be reported. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I have now given them a level 3 warning for disruptive editing, after they made this edit, adding last names to several supporting characters, which are not in the credits. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

High School Musical: The Musical: The Series cast table.

Why is this not allowed? Cast tables are never ahead of the television series section on any other article I have ever seen. And it is a reboot. 2001:BB6:52B5:D400:5C93:6A7C:7957:57E7 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This is my one and only response here – any further discussion should go to the Talk page. 1) No cast tables for any TV series that have run *less* than four seasons as per MOS:TVCAST. 2) The TV series is not a "reboot" – it's all new characters and setting – so it's not even a "spinoff": it's more like an adaptation of an existing work (keeping only the title, really). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Nickelodeon Productions page suggestion

I have a question, do you think we should actually give Nickelodeon Productions their own page? I mean their animation studio Nickelodeon Animation Studio has already got one, so I'm thinking why not give the Productions counterpart their own page too. And if you click on the link to Nickelodeon Productions, it just redirects to the standard Nickelodeon page.

TheRavineStudios (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably. Nickelodeon Studios should be about the actual physical studio (and set), and Nickelodeon Productions should cover the production company itself, separate from the TV channel. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks dude. I'm actually open to what you suggested. TheRavineStudios (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: You should ping Amaury and Geraldo Perez if they are open for the page idea. TheRavineStudios (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

It's less about that, and more about whether the proposed article meets WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY. If it does, no one can really object. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh. I'll see what we can do. TheRavineStudios (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Sarah Lancaster

How is my contribution disruptive? The information on Sarah Lancaster's page is incorrect. She has two children not one. I provided a link to her instagram page announcing the birth of her second son, (Redacted). If you do not like how I edited the page, then do it yourself. Here is the link to the announcement. https://www.instagram.com/p/BP2paZWgYaz/ I have not seen any other media sources about the birth, but perhaps she and her husband decided to keep it quiet. But why would you leave the information on the page incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30a:2c26:df0:b07d:ed87:c1:4d9c (talk) 06:47 am, 9 July 2021

You clearly didn't carefully read the edit summaries I left. As you seem unwilling to follow direction, I will correctly add the information. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Sofia Carson Daytime Emmy Nomination

Are you positive? It's also listed on her IMDB page. I have another reference. http://cdn.emmyonline.org/day_44th_nominations_v05.pdf

For some reason, I'm not able to copy it to the awards section, so I used another one. Just scroll down to the "Special Class" section, her name is listed among the nominees for being a "backstage host" for the program.

On page 44, she is listed last, as the "(backstage) host", but the award is for the program itself, which usually goes to producers or the executive producers not to everyone involved in the program. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand that she was a host. But the host of a "Special Class Program" or "Variety Special" is also given the nomination/win. See Neil Patrick Harris, Ryan Seacrest among others. Why would her name be listed at all?

Because they listed everyone involved in the program – doesn't mean they all got Emmys. And she was one of three separate hosts. Regardless, this is not a notable award to list for her in the Awards table. May justify mentioning in the prose, but only if her name is mentioned in a secondary source for this. If you disagree, you need to take it to the article's Talk page, and establish consensus there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The only people listed are the producers and the hosts, because they're the ones who receive the nomination for the program, there are many examples of this. And I believe this is a very notable award for her awards table, much more than a teen choice award. I'll try and straighten it out within the talk page as you suggest.

Nicole Eisenman

Going to need more eyes here. Amaury • 19:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

This has been a consistent kind of vandalism lately. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Melanie Scrofano

Hi, please help explain the changes to the Melanie Scrofano page. She has two children and the links I've submitted over the time are all deemed inappropriate. We are not always allowed to record interviews or conversations with her like at conventions so video is not always available. But she's also posted pictures with her boys in her Instagram if that can be used. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsrcda88 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nsrcda88: It can't be, as explained on the article's Talk page, because an Instagram picture like that with a title "my family" is far too vague to establish that both children are hers. As per WP:BLPPRIVACY, Scrofano is allowed to not broadcast the details of her family life, including how many children she's had. As it is, we can't do anything about this until we get a Reliable source reporting that she has given birth to two children, as explained on the Talk page. Editors have been looking for such a source for years now, and so far no one has come up with anything more than vague Instagram posts and WP:YOUTUBE videos which don't qualify as WP:RSs... Any further discussion should go to Talk:Melanie Scrofano (and will be removed from here). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, will try again to look for another source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsrcda88 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

About your comments on my rename requests

I chose to name the episodes that way because of List of Pokémon episodes (seasons 14–current), and I made a rename request for that page to say "present" instead of "current". It is however too late to change the rename requests since the template is already on the main page. However, I can make rename requests for all of those pages to say "season" rather than "seasons" when the current discussions are over. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Blubabluba9990: I wouldn't worry to much about it – if "my way" carries the day, we can easily go back and put in move requests (probably just via WP:RM/T) for ones like List of Pokémon episodes (seasons 14–current) that are "incorrectly pluraled". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 17:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Dilshad Vadsaria was born in 1976 – several friends know her from college

Please consider revising page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:202:a5d0:d519:54cf:685e:bf1f (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"Friends know her from college" doesn't work as it's WP:OR by Wikipedia standards. If the current sourced content at the article is incorrect, then we need a new Reliable source in order to correct the information, as per WP:V. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Spider-Man (2017 TV series)‎

Need more eyes here. With no official word, we wait one year. Amaury • 19:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

San Diego Trolley

You deleted 17 of my edits on the San Diego Trolley page. I am an employee of the system (several years), with intimate knowledge of its workings, history, rolling stock, etc. Whatever your current "sources" are that are causing you to consider my contributions as questionable are, THOSE sources are incorrect. I pride myself on this system and am a proud employee of it, and I enjoy sharing what information I'm permitted to share.

Please undo your deletions and restore my contributions. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motoxkid (talk • contribs) 17:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Motoxkid: A couple of points. First, as an employee of MTS, you are likely considered to have a Conflict of interest in editing articles related to your employer, so I would urge you to look at the link I've given to the WP:COI section and read it over to avoid any issues. Second, the hallmark policy of Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability (see also WP:5P2), and all changes or updates must be sourced in order to verify the information – if no sources exist for that, we are stuck with the sourceable "out of date" version of the info (as per WP:Verifiability, not truth).

My advice is, in this specific situation, is to go to Talk:San Diego Trolley and start a discussion on the things you think are incorrect and out-of-date, and then other editors can possibly look for updated sourcing to verify the requested changes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This is entirely too difficult and troublesome to even bother with at this point. I'll just leave the article alone and let it contain a considerable amount of inaccurate information. I tried, but clearly this Wikipedia thing is not for me - my time is too precious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motoxkid (talk • contribs) 17:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Motoxkid: A quick note to the Talk page is really all you need to do. More experienced editors can work with that and look for updated sourcing. Try not to be discouraged by Wikipedia's "rules", and feel free to ask others for help. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)