User talk:Amaury/2018/July

2018 Archive Index: January • February •  March •  April •  May •  June •  July •  August •  September •  October •  November •  December

Warning for disruptive editing
Hi Amaury,

You and are not the only subjects to "that shall be nameless's" WP:HOUNDING and WP:HARASSMENT. Every article I ever edit, he is there. I am sure he does that to everyone whoever has disagreed with him before. P.S.: Please ignore the Section title, I am trying to hide this from you know who. — Lbtocthtalk  03:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Any chance you can point to a particular article or two? It'll help to appraise the circumstances, etc... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This one is the one he was causing trouble Examples of hounding (these are some of the T.V. series that I watch and I am sure he does not watch at all):      — Lbtocthtalk   04:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing evidence of hounding – remember, today's WP:AWB thing hit all WP:TV-related articles on the MOS:U.S. issue. However, I find that you were completely correct in your argument at Talk:Gotham (TV series), and were also backed up by all other editors who commented... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * When he doesn't get his way, he uses personal attacks. 99% of the time he is not civil in discussions. — Lbtocthtalk  05:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Stuck in the Middle (TV series)
I noticed in the last two weeks, you changed the section titled "Characters" to "Cast and Characters" for Bunk'd, Bizaardvark and Raven's Home. For the first two of those, it was because of the introduction or exit of some characters effective with their new/current seasons. Well, after seeing this addition to Aidan's description at SITM, plus noting Rachel's (Ronni Hawk) departure after season two, I'm thinking that article needs to go to "Cast and Characters" as well. I could do that right away if that's ok. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Go for it. That and "Cast and characters" is generally preferred for live-action series from what IJBall has explained. "Characters" is more appropriate for animation. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To follow up and explain a bit more, when it comes to live-action series, the way explained it to me a long time ago—I think when he partially reverted me when I converted to the "Characters" format at I Am Frankie—is that basically the focus is more on the actors or equally divided between the actors and the characters they portray, whereas for animation, where the "Characters" format is more appropriate, the focus is essentially on the characters. You're not actually seeing actors portraying them, you're just hearing the actors' voices, if that makes sense. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The other place a 'Characters' list would arguably be the better choice is when the characters are much better known than the actors. That basically only applies to "superhero" shows (which, ironically, look to go with 'Cast and characters' listings pretty consistently on Wikipedia), or shows featuring really well-known characters (e.g. a Lord of the Rings TV series built around Frodo or Bilbo, or a Star Wars TV series built around Han Solo or Lando Calrissian or something). Basically, it's rare – in the case of most TV series, the actors will be much better-known than their (new) original characters. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Might as well ping to this as well... Anyway, I just wanted to say that I really liked Stuck in the Middle's series finale – while I thought it started slow, it finished really strongly at the end of the episode. It may have been one of the best "sitcom series finales" I've ever seen, actually – they really seemed to pull together what this show was about in the Third Act. Also, really glad that they got Rachel and Ellie back for the finale – having these two there was crucial, and the finale wouldn't have worked nearly as well without them... Anyway, that's my $0.02! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this on his talk page as well, but my favorite part was the end with Harley and Ethan, where Ethan tells Harley she's not only his BFF within the Diaz family, but also outside of the family. The feels! Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Amaury did mention that on my talk page, too, but I'll respond here. I, too, liked Ethan's comment about his being Harley's BFTF, and extending it beyond the family. Rachel's coming back was so important for the occasion, and having Ellie and Aidan, too, made it a great ending. Harley still managed to make her grand entrance for her quince very special, despite needing to come up with something after the box with her original grand entrance stuff got lost in transit. (Did Harley forget to secure the box in some way after putting it on top of a taxi? Like bungee cords or ropes? Oops, though probably understandable with the time constraints she was dealing with to get to the venue.) Definitely a great finale, which I liked even more after a second, third and even fourth viewing of the episode. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Amaury/sandbox/Double Dare (2018 game show)
I've moved your Draft to User:Amaury/sandbox/Double Dare (2018 game show) (without leaving a redirect behind) – the original title was obviously a typo! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I dunno. They could be setting kids up on double dates there... Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Deadline Hollywood
Hi Amaury,, and ,

Do you guys know where does it said the Deadline is changing to Deadline Hollywood? I cannot find it under the archives of WP:MOS and MOS:TV. I notice various editors are using AWB to change Deadline and deadline.com to Deadline Hollywood. — Lbtocthtalk  21:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's always been Deadline Hollywood, it's just that the way the website is formatted, Deadline is the only part in the URL and tab title. I used to use Deadline for the "work" parameter for the longest time until it finally clicked with me that it was Deadline Hollywood, thanks to IJBall and the fact that there's an article on it here with Hollywood in the name. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So, Deadline Hollywood is the correct parameter as Deadline is only half of the title? — Lbtocthtalk  21:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's correct. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Amaury. I guessed some editors are only using half title without realizing it since the url is deadline.com. I used to think Deadline and Deadline Hollywood were interchangeable, I thought it was more of the consistency of the format on the each individual article. — Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  22:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Raven's Home
Hey I know this edit was a while ago and I'm 100% not upset that you reverted it, I'm coming here in good faith to discuss why I did it. I personally don't care whether the article says related or preceded by. But just so you know the article's lead states: the series is a spinoff and sequel to That's So Raven, the List of episodes page also states the same thing in the same place of the lead. On That's So Raven the infobox uses the followed by parameter. The reason for your revert was "not a sequel" so just wondering: Should it be changed and applied consistently? The Doctor Who (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you meant to link an edit on Raven's Home as your link goes to a Big Brother diff. In any case, with regard to the parameter, this is unfortunately an area of a lot of disputes, just to put that out there. On the main question, Raven's Home is definitely more of a spinoff. The sources, including press releases, I think refer to it as both a spinoff and a sequel, but the latter isn't really correct. A sequel would involve virtually the same cast, save maybe some additions or removals without it being a complete overhaul, the same setting, etc. That's not really the case here, however. As we have sources calling it both, we should probably pick what's more accurate and update the lead accordingly to reflect that. I'll ping, , and  to this discussion as well as we've also discussed it before a few times. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 23:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah you're correct I meant to link to this revision. I was typing this quickly, also noticing that I forgot to add a section header, sorry about that. As I said I don't care which way it goes I just think whichever way it goes should be consistent. Most noticeably the parameter on That's So Raven should be changed to related. The Doctor Who  (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You know my position on this – I think the parameters preceded_by and followed_by should be merged into related_to at Infobox television so we stop having endless arguments about this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Right. Although the main question here is whether this is a spinoff or a sequel. I'm on the spinoff side. It's pretty much the same scenario we had at Talk:Girl Meets World, where it was also concluded that it was a spinoff. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 00:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a side note I'm noticing the same issue there. On Boy Meets World almost every mention of Girl Meets World is referred to as a sequel vs. Girl Meets World where its relation to Boy Meets World is referred to as a spin-off of Boy Meets World. Once again I personally don't care which way it falls but as consensus has been determined at the discussion linked to above it should be applied to both Boy Meets World and Girl Meets World not just the latter yes? The Doctor Who (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Girl Meets World should be referred to as a spinoff on the Boy Meets World articles for cross-article consistency. I'll also ping to this discussion as they also participated  in that Girl Meets World discussion. I don't know if they've watched Raven's Home or its predecessor That's So Raven, but they should be able to be additional help for Boy Meets World, if needed. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 00:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. I don't remember specific details, but my recollection is that the bulk of WP:RSs refer to both Girl Meets World and Raven's Home as "spinoffs" rather than as "sequels". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I haven't watched That's So Raven or Raven's Home, though I took a glance and both articles and did a bit of research on both series, and would agree it should be labeled a spinoff rather than a sequel. Both series have a very different list of cast/characters, and the focus of the series appears to be much different than the original, and thus I don't think it would be appropriate to label it a "sequel." I have seen all of Boy Meets World as well, so I'm happy to be of additional help for that if you need it. All the best, Katniss   May the odds be ever in your favor ♥  15:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * FTR, there is (at least) one WP:RS that does refer to Raven's Home as a "sequel", so that term should not be removed from the article entirely, IMO. Maybe don't use it in the lede – but it shouldn't be purged from the article either... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably best added in the Production section somewhere, stated in just the right way. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've fixed the spin-off and sequel issues at That's So Raven, Cory in the House, and Boy Meets World The Doctor Who  (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Jodie Sweetin
I guess you beat me to the revert, but that IP has been improperly using the "partner" parameter in the infobox. The template instructions indicate it's used to denote "unmarried life partners" and the IP is inserting a recent fiancé (with an engagement lasting less than 2 years) for that entry. I'm almost tempted to RPP this article (as the IP is dynamic, v6/64); this had indefinite semiprotection for most of this decade. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Page protection is probably the way to go at this point. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Tangled: The Series
Be careful of any edits from User:NINJA863827 ‎at this article – basically disruptive editing, and should be reverted if they do it again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Double Dare (Nickelodeon game show)
It doesn't seem like the split will be happening, can the banner be removed from the main Double Dare page? Magitroopa (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you need to go back to Talk:Double Dare (Nickelodeon game show) and propose either a LoE or "season" article for revival. If they want to keep the "main page" dedicated to all versions, because that's what they do for game shows generally, that's fine. But they don't even have a LoE article for the earlier versions, and there's zero reason not to have one for the 2018 version. FWIW, this time, I'll support such a page, as I shouldn't have to go to your Sandbox in order to find out basic info on the revival... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Farm-Fresh eye.png You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Double Dare (Nickelodeon game show). &#x0020;,, and . Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest adding as much secondary sourcing as you can to the Draft, to buttress the case for notability. Especially anything that covers the 'Production' aspects (or perhaps focuses on celebrity guest appearances – you'll have to ignore the Teen Mags on this front, though...). A quick look through the Draft article template makes it appear that this kind of thing is probably out there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As you commented on the last one that failed, do you have any opinions on this one way or the other over there? IJBall requested a WP:REFUND for List of Figure It Out episodes per his comment there. Since he and I are a couple of the support, the main issue is figuring out the best way to handle this. A "List of Double Dare episodes" page or "Double Dare (season 1)," etc. pages. If the latter, we have to then figure out how to further handle that since it's only season one of the revival. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 14:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn
I'll be honest with you – I'm never going to watch this one, so you might as just tell me what they did, either here or via E-mail... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Fun-spoiler. It's discovered in the end of the episode that Dicky shipped himself to Australia. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So, who did they "replace" him with? (And how many episodes has the "replacement" done?...) And has there been any followup on this? 'Cos they need to explain why he's absent from the remaining episodes! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Jonah Hwang as Britt (guest star), a foreign exchange student from Australia. So far, just "Quadcodile Dundee" (411), but he's in the promo for Saturday's episode—"House Crushing for Dummies" (412)—as well. At the beginning of "Quadcodile Dundee," Mae asks where Dicky is and Ricky answers with that he's probably still watching the toilet flush. After Avery expresses disgust, Nicky then elaborates and tells Avery it's not what she thinks. He goes on to say that ever since Britt told Dicky that Australian toilets flush the other way, he's been in the bathroom trying to make the water spin backward. Mae and Miles then agree it sounds about right for Dicky, but Avery still expresses disgust and Dooley just quietly listens. If you are ever in the mood, the episode can be found here. It just requires a provider login. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Bunk'd
Related discussion: Bunk'd from June 2018

Here is one more back. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow – they let Peyton List (The Younger) direct an episode?! Is she even 20 yet?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Peyton List is indeed 20, a little older than Karan Brar, who directed "Finders Keepers, Lou's a Weeper." Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Peyton List (actress, born 1998)
You have this one watchlisted, right? (I have Peyton List The Elder's article watchlisted, but not this one...) Next time Bigs7 tries to change the portrait image here (I'm pretty sure they're the same editor that has done this in the past...), could you or please revert? There is a mistaken belief among some editors that the "most up-to-date" portrait photo MUST be used, but there is no such "rule", and portrait image quality should be chosen over "recentness of portrait photo"... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Already watching for a long time, yes. Same goes for the other two in our group. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 07:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool. Then please just make sure that nobody tries to slip a "portrait image change" in there, without a really compelling reason... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess we all oversaw it. I failed, though... :x Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 07:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * One editor removed the image link altogether earlier, but gave no explanation for the removal, so I reverted. Wasn't aware about which photo was preferred, but I will keep a closer eye on any photo change in the future. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Amaury/sandbox/Bug Juice: My Adventures at Camp
Your draft looks like it's now ready to go. Dunno if you want to move it to WP:Mainspace now, or wait a few hours until the show actually premieres. I have not tried moving myself yet, to see if the redirect can be overwritten, but if it can't just let me know and I'll do the WP:Page mover thing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for the premiere. I guess my wording under Production wasn't as bad as I thought. I feel dumb forgetting Zap2it, though. I actually noticed it last night, but I didn't want to fix it and potentially edit conflict with you had you started working on this last night. Also, psst. You forgot the dash in the infobox. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 14:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, around the time of premiere (I believe it's 7:30 EDT, which is 4:30 PDT) I might be at work, and unavailable to do the Page mover thing – if so, you should probably hit up WP:RM/TR if needed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Depending on how long you work, I can also take care of it shortly before you leave or after you get back so if problems do arise, you're right there and who I'd rather ask. (Due to privacy reasons, feel free to email me such details.) Also, because I'm actually willing to discuss things rationally, you wouldn't mind if I changed the TFC reference back, would you? It's how I've always done it and it makes it super clear it's an episode guide as just "listings" could be a variety of things. Now, obviously, just because it's how something's always been done doesn't mean it sets some sort of precedent such as "I've done this perfectly, so never touch this again" marker and the like as that would be surely fall under own-type behavior. Never hurts to ask and explain the reasoning behind it. I mean, look, where I was a while ago with wanting Characters format when character description were present. And look where I am now thanks to you. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 14:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My issue with the previous format for TFC source is that "Bug Juice: My Adventures at Camp Episode Listings" is actually not the title of the page. The closest thing to a title is the "BUG JUICE: MY ADVENTURES AT CAMP (DISNEY)" under 'About this show'. Even looking at the url, it's showatch/bug-juice/listings/. So "Bug Juice..." is the "primary" title, and then "Listings" (e.g. "view all related listings", so not "episode listings") is the subtitle. This is how I've always handled TFC column sources for episodes tables on my end... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are such a sticker. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 15:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean, "stickler"?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . Yes, that. Also, magic time? Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 15:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * On it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed most of the revival information from Bug Juice. I don't think I removed too much or too little. Feel free to followup with further tweaks to the original series' article, if necessary. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There should be a (short) separate section on the revival (basically, just one or two sentences, with a source or two), with a Main linker to the new article, added at the bottom of the article. But that's about it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Company parameter in Template:Infobox television
So, this edit from Geraldo caught my eye, esp. the contents of the hidden note, and then I checked the documentation for Infobox television, and sure enough it (now?) says, "The names of the production company or companies that funded/organized series production." (emphasis mine) I dunno if this is a recent change, or I just never noticed it before, but this is very clear – even if a producer's "vanity card" is included at the end of the credits, we should generally not include them in the company parameter (even if a source mentions them!). So they really need to be one of the primary funders for a TV series (which is generally going to be just Disney Channel or Nickelodeon... I think?). I believe that this means we've gotten a lot of these wrong. For example, I doubt any of the three companies listed at Andi Mack should actually be listed, based on this. Ditto at least one of the companies listed at Best Friends Whenever... I'm going to ping to this discussion, in case he has any advice on how to proceed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's a version from 2011. Same wording. Anyone who produces the series is who we should list as a production company. When you have something like "It's a Laugh Productions," it's 100% evident that they produced the series. In other words, whenever there's "Productions" at the end, like discussed here a while ago, that's 100% proof that they produced the series. When that isn't present, however, such as "Schneider's Bakery" and "Go Dog Go", research should be done. In both of those cases, both of those are production companies and are included, it's just not clear as there's no "Productions." That's why, unless there's "Productions" at the end, we shouldn't just add every company listed at the end of the end credits and research should be done first on the unclear ones. That's when it gets wrong as we could be listing a company that didn't produce the series and is just someone's name. Geraldo and I had a discussion about this a long time ago, where he mentions something about that. People just get their names on there, but didn't actually contribute to the series. I think it was on my talk page, but I can't seem to find it, so maybe not. Here is a related discussion on my talk page, though: User talk:Amaury/2017/August. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 15:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's more than that – clearly, It's a Laugh Productions and Schneider's Bakery should be listed, as they are the entities that are primarily "organizing" the production of the series. But a lot of these other ones are just 'vanity labels' for the Executive Producers/Producers (regardless whether "Production" is in the name of the label or not), and as per that hidden note at Dynasty (2017 TV series), we shouldn't be listing those, as those people are already listed in the Infobox. So, what I'm saying is, it looks like MM Productions and Horizon Productions probably shouldn't be listed at Andi Mack, and possibly Dipthong Productions shouldn't be listed at Best Friends Whenever... I'm really hoping Geraldo comments here, to provide some guidance on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit you pointed out that I made was just reverting to something that was previously in the article. The issue of including vanity labels is somewhat contentious and I assumed the note that was removed reflected consensus in that article as illustrated by this edit by who might have more to say in the issue. I think it is a reasonable interpretation of the infobox instructions as the vanity labels can be considered as subcontractors as is indicated should be excluded from the list in the instructions. The problem is identifying and pruning based on only having the end production credits as a source and trying to figure out the relative roles. So far, given no other information and evaluation including anyone with production in the name is the first pass default. If a company is listed that actually is a subcontractor and we can show that, the instructions would support removing from the list and we probably should with a hidden note explaining why. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I have one possible way to figure this out – search: [production company] site:variety.com in Google, and see if anything comes up. It's a Laugh Productions and Schneider's Baker come up multiple hits in regards to multiple series – definitely legit (as I already knew). Horizon Productions comes up as mentioned in an article on Andi Mack, so it looks like it should be listed in the infobox there. However, nothing substantial comes up for "MM Productions", so I think that's a vanity label. (I was unable to get anything for "Go Dog Go", because it's too generic, but I suspect it's a vanity label too...) And Dipthong Productions is only mentioned in a single article devoted to Emmy nominations (for Dog with a Blog, so I'm on the fence on that one...). IOW, I'd go with – if it's not mentioned in the article's sourcing, it shouldn't be listed in the infobox, regardless of whether it's listed in the end-credits or not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Often the trade publication articles announcing a series will explicitly mention the production companies of the writers/creators/EPs, which is basically what we are talking about, as in Outlander/Jim Kohlberg's Story Mining and Supply Co and Dynasty/Schwartz and Savage's Fake Empire. However, it can get complicated: Sid Gentle Films, which produces Killing Eve, is controlled by EP Sally Woodward Gentle, but seems to be more of a traditional production company based on the BBC investment and other sources discussing the company. Similarly, Bad Robot Productions started as J.J. Abrams' vanity company but has apparently expanded to the point where it develops and produces projects with our without his direct participation. Bad Robot is noted as a production company in several articles for Abrams projects, like Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, Alias, and Lost, but also for things he does not appear to be directly involved in, like Infinitely Polar Bear and What About Brian. — TAnthonyTalk 20:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK,, that leads to a question then – as (Schwartz and Savage's) Fake Empire is explicitly mentioned in the source along with CBS Television Studios, then why isn't is included under company in Dynasty's infobox?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Most actors/writers/directors/producers in the industry who make over a certain amount of money are incorporated; Fake Empire is the company to which Schwartz and Savage's paychecks would go, but it doesn't really "produce" anything beyond their own contributions, and doesn't contribute financing to the project, which tends to be one of our criteria. IMO that's a vanity company that shouldn't be listed. However, I see there may be an inappropriate element of interpretation required in enforcing such a restriction, so we may have to include any company mentioned in a source this way. — TAnthonyTalk 21:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep. Otherwise we're second-guessing Variety, and that's WP:OR. (Also, the infobox documenation says "financing" or "organizing" – we don't know how much contribution Fake Empire's "organizing" contribution is...) Note: I have no intention of editing the Dynasty article over this – I'm just trying to figure out what our "standard procedure" should be on this. And it seems like the "standard procedure" should be – go with what sourcing says, not who/what is credited at the end of the end-credits. --IJBall (contribs • talk)
 * I think it's more than that... Basically, any company that produces a series should be listed there per the aforementioned linked to discussion. The best and most accurate way to tell if a company produces a series is by the credits, and it's no different than using the credits as WP:PRIMARY sourcing for, say, the executive producers. If a company in the credits has "Productions" in it, such as Nickelodeon Productions, then it 100% means they produced the series. Now, and this is where the bigger problems comes into play as we've discussed before, if a company doesn't have "Productions," then, again, research should be done to determine if it's a production company or not. Vanity labels, I would think, are only for companies that aren't production companies. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 22:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not that simple – this is one of those reasons why WP:Secondary sources are generally preferred over WP:Primary sources. The above discussion is correct – a significant number of the "end cards" at the end of the end-credits correspond to "vanity labels" that do no real work on the aspects of "production" – they're just an extra paycheck for the show's producers (in the same way that "producer" credits for TV series actors are just an extra paycheck for them, and represent no real "production" work on the actors' parts)... Based on what the infobox documentation says, we should only list those entities that are verified by secondary sources as being actually involved in the production, and not just "vanity labels". The end cards in the end-credits do not reliably tell us that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, but that's only if there's no "Productions" in the company name in the end credits, no? At that point, we would do some additional research. For example, Horizon Productions is just displayed as Horizon in the credits, so doing some research led me to The Futon Critic, which has it as Horizon Productions under "Studio Information." Go Dog Go Productions is displayed as just Go Dog Go in the end credits, but from some research, discovered it was indeed a production company. Basically, if it contains "Productions," then a company is clearly a production company; if it doesn't, then it may or may not be a production company, and that's when we turn to secondary sources and do further research. Maybe I'm missing something here, though. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 23:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not quite. I work in television, I'm incorporated, and my corp has "Productions" in its title. But I am not a production company, I'm an independent contractor with a corporation, and I would not expect to be included in an infobox in the context we're discussing. In television (as opposed to film), the executive producers are usually writers with creative control rather than producers in the "secure financing/approve payroll/order camera equipment" standard sense of the term. Writers/directors/producers may be given end credit cards for their companies as part of their contracts, but it does not fully inform us on the extent of their involvement. I'd like to think that any valid production company would be mentioned in secondary source, and I can accept the inclusion of such a company which I otherwise might consider a vanity credit (as in the case of Dynasty) but which is noted in a source. I do understand the argument, though, that if the credits are good for cast order, spelling of names and characters, and other info, they should be good for production companies. In the end, it is probably not a big deal to include vanity corps that are clearly credited. — TAnthonyTalk 00:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a little different though – cast credits are usually the only "comprehensive" record you will find on such things. Yes, sometimes secondary sources will report some (guest/recurring) cast info, but often they don't. Also, credits ordering comes straight from the contracts negotiated with the actors, and again often there's no other record for that. I view TV show crediting in the same way I view system statistics for rail systems from the operators – even though they're WP:PRIMARY, they're best sourcing we're going to get for this kind of info... However, as we've discussed, the same does not apply to production cards in the end-credits – for that, the WP:Primary sources are actually somewhat "not reliable", so we're a lot better off going with the WP:Secondary sources... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Bug Juice My Adventures at Camp Logo.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * IOW, you need a "low(er) res" image for this. If you have an image editing program, it should be possible to do this (you basically just "force" it to shrink the file size, which will lower the resolution...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The bot's already taken care of it, though I'm knowledgeable in resizing with Paint as I have a lot of forum avatars. I used to use images from Zap2it which would be small to begin with, but that's no longer an option since the layout change as they're no longer good quality, and it was too early at the time for it to be listed on DirecTV. The one I found, from Disney Channel's YouTube, was the only one I could find that was from a good source that wouldn't cause issues. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 03:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

iCarly
Speaking of iCarly, I'll be proposing my "season 7 solution" (e.g. to Geraldo) soon. I probably need another week or two before I'm ready to tackle it, though.... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Shimmer and Shine
OK, so you seem to be the resident Zap2It expert. Something has come up at List of Shimmer and Shine episodes – Zap2It has the season #2 premiere as "June 11, 2016" (right now, that being used to source the Canadian air date, not the U.S. one). However, both Futon Critic and THR have the season #2 premiere date as June 15, 2016. So, is it likely that this is another example of Zap2It having the date "wrong", and just never bothering to correct it? Or it is possible that "June 11" actually is the Canadian premiere date, and that's what Zap2it is really listing?... I'm just curious here – I'm not sure there's much I can do, regardless of what your answer is! Anyway, TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Zap2it gets early info and often never corrects it, especially once it's aired. It could be the Canadian date, a placeholder date, etc. Go with The Futon Critic. They're way more up-to-date and such. The only times I've seen mistakes from them are with June 30's Star Falls still being listed at 9:00 PM instead of 8:30 PM after that last-minute change and one of the S3 Girl Meets World still being listed as November 25, 2016, instead of November 18, 2016, which is actually correct on Zap2it. In other words, very rarely does The Futon Critic not update something. See this discussion that I've mentioned a few times over the last two years: Talk:List of Austin & Ally episodes. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

List of The Dude Perfect Show episodes
Honestly, IMO, this should just be merged back The Dude Perfect Show. There's simply not enough content there to justify a separate LoE article. Heck, even a third season of it won't justify a separate LoE with what's in that one right now. Also, The Dude Perfect Show needs more content anyway. Where I'd put the LoE content is right after the 'Production' section... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OMG! Stalker! Now, see, that one actually makes sense since it's not a scripted series and will likely never have episode summaries. And since you asked so nicely... ✅ Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 03:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Look how smoothly that went. Feel free to scout my sandbox for possible others. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

List of Figure It Out episodes
Do you remember if List of Figure It Out episodes looked like this before it was deleted?... If so, I can see why it got deleted at WP:AfD – that's not nearly enough sourcing to justify keeping as an article... If we're going to get a Double Dare (2018) article going, it's going to need to be a lot better sourced than that, so it'll be "unchallengeable". That's why I'm thinking that focusing this on a "season" article over a LoE article is probably the way to go here – if a viable "season"-type article can be created, it can't really be challenged on notability grounds. So the question really is – is there enough sourcing about the new revival to meet notability requirements? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. It's how I knew that it had been on air before and found those episodes. Before that, I just thought the 2012 version was an entirely new game show. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Big City Greens
Why does the word "animated" come first sound better? I don't see that for articles of other cartoon series like Star vs. the Forces of Evil, the Ducktales reboot, and Big Hero 6: The Series. It makes it sound more awkward and inconsistent than anything. ExplorerX19 (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Nickelodeon renewal news
Dude, big renewal news, here – looks like Knight Squad and Hunter Street both got renewed... I'm too busy to do this myself right now, so feel free to do the honors!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Pear Source just shared the tweet with us in the Nickelodeon GC. On it with proper sourcing. Is it okay if I scream real loud? Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Grr at Knight Squad. I demand a later extension like The Thundermans and Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn got. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)