User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 15

Leo Dooley
Handle it the same way as User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 14? Pinging and  as well. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 14:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I almost Notability tagged myself that one this morning, before I realized it was only a few hours old. I suggest giving the editor a few days to try to add independent sourcing to that. But if they don't do that soon, it should be converted to a redirect to List of Lab Rats characters... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A move to draft space to let the creator improve it and a redirect to the place with the most info about the character should work in this case. I strongly doubt that there will ever be enough out-of-universe content to support that character article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and move it to Draftspace, but I won't create a redirect, as doing so can potentially complicate moving the article back to Mainspace, should it ever qualify... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you create a new redirect after moving the article without leaving a redirect to the moved location, I think, but I'm not sure, with only a single entry in the edit history you can overwrite it with a move back. A non-controversial move over a redirect with a more complex edit history is usually fairly easily done with so isn't a major issue but it is more of a hassle. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can. But as soon as an IP edits that redirect even once, then you have to go through the whole thing (or use WP:RM/TR), which I do find to be a significantly greater hassle... In any case, I've moved the article to Draftspace – I agree that it will never find enough outside sourcing to qualify as an article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Geraldo, now we have a problem – the creator of this article moved it back to Mainspace (after making no improvements to it). What do you suggest we do? I will not move it back to Draftspace myself a second time (though another editor such as yourself is welcome to). But it is clearly not suitable for Mainspace... Pinging as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Geraldo has moved it back. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 13:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The Adventures of Kid Danger
Did you scroll down? They're listed unnumbered below "Popcorn Monster/Game of Drones." Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't scroll down enough, I was expecting it to be numbered. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's because they're placeholder dates as Zap2it doesn't usually go out that far for Nickelodeon. That and animation episodes in general are really messy on Zap2it. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Any thoughts on...?
Geraldo, do you have any thoughts on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)...? Before proceeding on a course of action on this, I'd like to hear your thoughts as well... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, based on your answer there, I will move at least the TV season article. I'll take a look at the others to see if they should be merged or not... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, the TV season article has been moved as per WP:NCTV, and cleaned up some. In looking at the four "internet season" articles, there is not enough content there to justify standalone articles – I'll go ahead and merge those back to the LoE article, and convert them to redirects. Not sure exactly when I'll get to that – maybe some time later this week... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Andi Mack - Cyrus Goodman
It is mentioned in one of the sources, but is there any relevancy to including the fact that Cyrus is also the first gay middle schooler? Honestly, what relevancy does grade level have? I would think the most important fact here is simply that Cyrus Goodman is the first gay main character on Disney Channel. As we know, just because something passes WP:VERIFY doesn't necessarily merit inclusion as we discussed at Talk:Bella and the Bulldogs/Controversy.

I previously removed it when I removed the overlinking, cleaned up the cite formatting, etc., but rather than the other user simply re-adding the sources they thought were useful, they decided to copy and paste the earlier version of the entire section and then remove some sources, thereby also reintroducing the improperly formatted citations. (Essentially, they reverted my edit manually.) Instead of removing that "middle schooler" portion again, I figured I'd ask here. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 13:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about overciting now, that can be fixed in a cleanup later after things have settled down. May just fix the cites that got broken on the overwrite. If first gay middle schooler is referenced in more than just an advocacy site reference, it may be notable, but it looks like piling on trivial side effects to the main point. Editor choice on inclusion, one of those things that needs to be discussed on talk page if contentious. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've already re-cleaned up the cites, actually. But yeah, I agree that it seems to be trivial, but I'll personally leave it alone for now myself. If anyone else feels different, I'll of course have no objections to it being removed. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 14:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I dislike that first sentence added by User:Pontificalibus – it crosses the line into WP:PEACOCK or WP:POV, IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It could be toned down a bit and still communicate the main point. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Descendants 3 redux
As per Deadline Hollywood on May 21, here, "Production on the live-action musical; is set to begin shortly, Disney Channel said." So, just a head's up that this will (need to) be moved to mainspace soon. Pinging as well... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Official tweet indicated production began on May 25. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Jake Short
Need additional eyes. Thanks! Pinging the usual and  as well. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 01:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Letterboxing
Hey, I've writing to you regarding many of your edits on American mainstream TV channels. I've been in the States from time to time, usually for visiting my family living there (I'm from Latin America, Peru specifically) and I always got time to tune up to pay-TV networks on different providers.

As I said this, letterboxing does occur on SD feeds of various TV networks. Broadcasting companies usually downscale their own HD feed (as they now broadcast natively in either 720p or 1080i) and add black bars on the top and bottom of the screen to fit the common 4:3 aspect ratio of old TVs (usually CRT ones). This is still happening for most TV networks, as I myself tested the SD feeds I received from source on different providers (AT&T, DirecTV and Frontier) and its image ratio is only altered when changing the DVR's picture format settings from "automatic" to "crop 4:3" or "add black bar on the sides"

This is common for the US and Canada, and used to be common for Latin American channels. Most digital cable operators in Latin America use ATSC for internal channel encryption (such as VTR in Chile and Claro TV in South America as a whole on cable only) and they do support letterboxing, either from origin or by tweaking the channels themselves. This is also the case for cable operators using DVB-C (such as Movistar TV in Peru, Cablevisión in Argentina, SuperCable in Colombia and izzi in Mexico, among others). However, at least in this part of the world, TV networks are now distributing their SD feeds in 16:9 widescreen with no additional downscaling, as they were already doing in Europe. This is opposed to the current trend in the US, as far as I can see (with the exception of additional-subscrition international channels, such as BBC America, TV5 Monde or RAI Italia, as an example).

I'm clarifying this situation due to this edit you made on Teen Nick. I hope you understand. --Bankster (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a 16:9 TV and have never seen letterboxed content on either HD or SD channels - it would be obvious as it would be both letter boxed and pillar boxed on display if anything was actually transmitted in letterboxed format. Content is generally broadcast SD 4:3 or SD/HD 16:9 without bars on the tops or sides as far as I've observed, and the TV itself adds the top or side bars as needed to keep the aspect displayed correctly. 16:9 SD content fills the 16:9 TV and the same content is displayed letterboxed on the 4:3 TV. 4:3 content is displayed pillarboxed on a 16:9 TV. This is all done by the TV as needed. Most of this is my observations on my own TV and my TV may be doing more processing than I am aware of to display content properly. I would like to see something in a reference somewhere that describes or gives more details as of 2018 where most TV sets sold are 16:9. Sending 16:9 content letterbox seems a bit strange if someone is actually doing it. It is possible, I guess, if a network has both a HD and SD feed it may letterbox the SD feed as a convenience as likely only people with 4:3 TV would watch that feed. I would like more data. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Normally, most TV sets wouldn't alter the original images they are receiving from set-top boxes unless these are manually modified from either the TV or DVR settings panel. This leaves most 4:3 letterboxed feeds from source to be broadcast stretched on modern screens, and most 16:9 widescreen channels to be shown compressed on CRT sets. At least in my country, CRT sets were phased out in favour of widescreen TVs. The only mainstream network in Latin America to still air letterboxed content on a continental level is Discovery Channel and its sister feeds, such as Discovery Kids or Investigation Discovery as of 2018. --Bankster (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Steven0306
As we've all come across them now, just a heads up about this: User talk:AussieLegend. Letting and  know as well, of course. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 14:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hotel Transylvania: The Series
Other than the blatant copyright violations, is the source being used for the episodes a reliable source? See this edit. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 14:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sítio do Picapau Amarelo
Sítio do Picapau Amarelo needs to become a disambiguation page, yes? Searching "Sítio do Picapau Amarelo" in the search box brings up over half-a-dozen disambiguated options, so it sure seems like a disambiguation page is needed here...

(Meanwhile, I'm going to go ahead and move the two live-action TV series to the correct titles under WP:NCTV...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't think any of them would be the primary for the topic so a disambig page at that location looks like a good idea. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, if you don't get to it first, I'll try to get to it in the next 24 hours... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ – converted Sítio do Picapau Amarelo into a WP:Disambiguation page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Descendants (film series)
This was just created, but I'm wondering: is it relevant/needed? Pinging and  as well. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 14:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SMALLCAT would seem to apply here but it is marginal. Likely would need to be taken to WP:CfD for a deletion discussion to get a definitive answer. (Put a colon in front of "category" in the link to prevent putting the talk page in the category). Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Descendants 3 needs more eyes on it
As it says. Pinging as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Already watching it myself., how about you? Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 22:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Added to my watchlist now. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Raven's Home episodes
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Raven's Home episodes. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

List of Happy Tree Friends episodes update
✅: content merged back to List of Happy Tree Friends episodes. So hopefully you'll just have to watch this single article now for the IP date-vandal... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Ratings
Hi Geraldo Perez, I am going to ping &  as well. In terms of ratings, why do some T.V. series round to nearest 2 decimals while some do not round it at all and just use the 3 decimals the original sources? I couldn't find any archives on which one is the correct one to use. — Lbtocthtalk  19:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Because of how they are generated, I don't believe TV ratings can be reported with a "precision" of greater than 3 significant figures. So most TV articles seem to stick to 3 sig fig's for ratings figures – e.g. "1.26 [million]" or "0.736 [million]". Now, editorial discretion could allow for those figures to be truncated down to 2 sig fig's, but I can't say I've really seen that done... What definitely should not happen is reporting ratings/viewership figures to more than 3 sig fig's... FWIW, that's my $0.02. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're referring to episode tables, right? The proper way is indeed to use two decimal places as there is simply no need to for the level of precision three decimal places gives. Movie list articles, such as DCOMs, even take it a step further and only use one decimal place. A 2.576 million would be 2.6 million, for example. But for episode tables, stick to two decimal places. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am referring to the episode tables.
 * I hope you don't mind, but as I figured this question was coming from somewhere, I took a look at your recent contributions. Is your question in regard to another editor saying three decimal places if under a million at Cloak & Dagger (TV series)? (, that would be related to what you said about significant figures, but you're right, we don't go by that.) If so, they're mistaken. As far as I'm aware, that statement is not stated in any guideline. It's always been the general consensus the two decimal places is sufficient. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically what said and consensus of the editors for a given article. 3 digits of significance is reasonable to report, more than that is somewhat unnecessary as the main point of viewing number is how this compares with other episode in the series and other shows. That ends up with 2 digits after the decimal and 1 before for most shows. Once a ep list is established with a precision it should be left alone unless a consensus is obtained to change it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, & Yes, exactly what I am talking about and see this as a somewhat on going argument on various T.V. series between various editors. Feel free to stalk me on my recent contributions. Hahaha. Lol. Generally, I seen most are 2 decimals points in terms WP:CON. Although, some people tend to argue about that for the sake of arguing. However, if it has been established already, "it should not changed until a consensus has been reached". — Lbtocthtalk   21:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Question on Infobox television and 'distributor' parameter
Geraldo, exactly how is the distributor parameter in Infobox television supposed to be used? Is it supposed to list every "historical" distributor? Or just the first one? Or just the first one and the most recent one?!...

I ask, because I'm looking at Coronet Blue, and I'm thinking there's no way the distributor entry in Infobox television is supposed to contain a "laundry list" like this... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This again, eh? From past discussions, the distributor is supposed to be for DVD releases. The network itself is also the distributor, but we don't include that per the aforementioned DVD releases. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The names of the original distribution company or companies means to me only the original company and as named at the time. Not updated by changes in company names and not augmented by subsequent distribution outlets after original run is complete. Generally the original distribution company is the first airing network which is assumed. I can see augmenting that with the original company selling the series to home media, international distribution and to syndication. If the company is not named in the credits, I would like to see it named in the article with references. A lot of editors seem to make unsourced assumptions although IMDb is generally correct in their company credits so I somewhat trust them when I check. If it is a laundry list it is excessive and likely trying to keep up with all changes after release. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks – at Coronet Blue, I've trimmed it back to just the first one listed (which is unsourced for now, but I have no reason to doubt that it's correct, if this show was released on VHS back-in-the-day...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts?...
Is this edit valid under WP:BLP or not? To me, it doesn't seem to verify the claim... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * She says she is Irish which generally means she is an Irish national and doesn't mention being American even though born in the US. Likely in context of statement she identifies as Irish and may or may not actually be Irish or of Irish descent. I rephrased statement to state exactly what she claimed with no interpretation of what she may have meant. Always the best way, in my opinion, to treat primary sourced material not back up with secondary sources. Let the reader make of it what they will. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

List of PJ Masks episodes
The editing at this article is consistently problematic – multiple IP editors adding either unsourced content, or performing likely vandalizing. Do you think it's worth it to apply for long-term semiprotection or pending changes protection?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am now Geraldo. (Not really.) Long-term semi seems best now. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been protected before for this. I put in a request at WP:RPP. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Next DCOM: Freaky Friday
I just added that to my watchlist as it has very little watchers. ,, if you're interested as well. A premiere date was just announced 16 minutes ago. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Added. Current version looks sufficiently sourced – looks like they've done a fine job with it.  --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was me. Previously, there was only the Broadway World source. I added the Deadline Hollywood source which contained more credits. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Rayne Scott
One more disruptive edit from them like at The Fairly OddParents, and I think it's time for a report. They've had more than a handful of chances. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * More edit warring than vandalism. Doesn't agree with requirements, can't wait a month, knows he is right. I initially reported to AIV, changed my mind, and dropped an EW message on talk page. If continues AN3 is next. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I just reverted them at Family Guy, and it appeared to be borderline disruptive/vandalism from the edit. Didn't notice the level 4 warning already, as I had issued them another level 4. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

HT3
Listen, man. MRC did not produce HT3. Its not real. Why aren’t you people even listening?! That source has no proof from what i saw and what i saw was that that new poster has shows who produced it or not. B-Master2018 (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The poster is not definitive for production credits, the actual credits in the film will be. So far we have a reference which we believe is a reliable source. If you disagree then start a conversation on the talk page of the article that uses it and explain why you think it wrong. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * They both are the same! The production credits are the actual credits! And your reference you got is not a reliable source. B-Master2018 (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

List of Raven's Home episodes - Template:That's So Raven navigation box
Would you consider this navigation box acceptable on the episode list? Recently added last night. Pinging to this as well. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see the value. For navboxes there should be some some strong tie between the articles. The main Raven's Home article looks appropriate for the navbox but I see little in the episode lists of the two spinoff series that warrant navbox use. The episode lists don't mention the other shows as far as I am aware. See WP:NAVBOX and the pointed list therein. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ and encouraged discussion. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My mistake I should've discussed first. In most television templates I see episode lists of spin-off's are included but in all respect those are usually franchise navbox's not show specific. Just off the top of my head: Template:Chicago franchise, Template:Hawaii Five-O, and Template:NCIS television. So I understand why it was removed. Thanks The Doctor Who  (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Mass template changes
I wouldn't have noticed this, except I watch Template:Disney Channel Original Series. Template:Disney XD Original Series, and Template:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons. This user last night went through and mass changed the order on many templates, changing it from "former, current, upcoming" to "current, former, upcoming." Now, I'm sure the order was "former" first for a reason, and from what I could see this user mass changed them with no real discussion. See all edit summaries with "Makes more sense to have..." What are your thoughts on this? Definitely seems like a wider discussion should first be held on something of this scale. Will ping as well if he has any opinions as well as. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 14:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My take? Definitely a series of "bold" edits that merits discussion before "finalizing". I'm not sure I have an opinion one way or the other, but others might. Because this involves multiple template-navboxes, probably the best place to hold a discussion like this would be WT:TV, I think... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I somewhat agree with the reason given for the reordering, and he did give a reason for the edits. Nothing was removed or added, just the current section moved to the top. Unless there is a MOS reason I am not aware of, I see no problems with the changes. Most likely to be clicked links moved to the top where they are easier to find. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

List of Andi Mack episodes
Geraldo,, , I may need you guys there. A user randomly showing up again and arbitrarily removing absences and claiming MOS:CAST is a rule. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 22:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, they don't seem to be 100% clear-cut "good faith," either, as they have warnings. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 22:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I do recall a long, drawn-out discussion about the absences thing at WT:MOSTV (probably this one Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 6). Will take a while to read thru; what I remember is that it was pretty clear to remove the absences counts (that have appeared at the beginning of season sections in LoE articles, as well as cast lists in season articles) but having the listed absences within each episode was pretty split. I just have a feeling another long, drawn-out discussion about this is gonna pop up over there. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hopefully not. This happened once before there last year, except guest stars were also removed and nothing followed. Hopefully nothing follows this one, either, and it will never be brought up again. It was bad enough with Girl Meets World and K.C. Undercover when people tried to push it there. Luckily, this doesn't seem to happen too often with the series articles we watch. I was completely fine with removing the tallies at the top as it's not only WP:FANCRUFT, but it also falls along the same lines as listing the episode count for cast members, something that used to be at Girl Meets World. However, it's like Geraldo said the last time on the talk page of List of Andi Mack episodes, absences are connected to guest stars. It all comes down to who the major principle actors were; if a main character is absent, then they presumably weren't a major part of the story. Presumably because the actor could have also been sick or something. We note it because mains are always in the opening and are therefore always assumed to be present in all episodes. Also, the whole line that people keep quoting with regard to health issues, etc. does not explicitly state, in writing, that we can't list general absences. All I get from there is that it's one reason we may list absences. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 22:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Mass addition of Category:Sitcoms without laugh tracks
Is this a WP:DEFINING category? This user created the category at 10:53 AM and started mass adding it to articles, including some of the ones one or more of us watch, such as 100 Things to Do Before High School, Zoey 101, Kirby Buckets, Malcolm in the Middle, Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide, Star Falls. Walk the Prank, and many more. Pinging and  as well. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ping and  as well. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think this is a characteristic of sitcoms that amounts to nothing more than trivia for readers, who are looking for more than that kind of thing when finding out what a sitcom, or any television series, is about. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If the article makes a big deal about it it could be considered WP:DEFINING. On the ones I checked and reverted, no mention was made of that fact. It is trivia and WP:OR personal observations, some minor artistic choice that is unremarkable to most reliable sources. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Crossover trivia
The same user that we are addressing in the last topic regarding the sitcoms without laugh tracks category is also adding trivia about characters appearing in other series, particularly those from Nickelodeon, under a section called "Crossovers". I've already reverted at Sam & Cat, Henry Danger, and The Thundermans. Crossovers need more than simply characters appearing in another series; other elements like settings and storylines common to the two (or more) series involved are more likely to be classified as crossovers. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This was meant to be posted in the main discussion above, but I edit conflicted. xD, Geraldo, with regard to the crossover additions they added, I see they've asked a question here regarding that: Talk:Nickelodeon. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 19:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Contribute to the discussion he started. I've made my points there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Does WP:TVCAST apply to more than just cast?
Just want to make sure I'm correct here. This would also apply to all credits, right? The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. For example, Dworkingham Productions was added as a production company for The Thundermans' fourth season. I have it listed at the end in the infobox even though it's listed before Nickelodeon Productions on screen. Likewise, for the new Raven's Home production company in the second season, I have Done Deal Productions listed at the end even though it's listed before It's a Laugh Productions. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 15:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The logic for keeping things in credited order over the entire series should still apply to all credits. The article covers the entire series and not just the last episode aired. It avoids reordering based on personal evaluations of importance and the belief that the latest episodes are somehow more important than earlier ones. Cast credits are more subject to this so get more attention. Same reasoning should apply to all credits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thank you kindly. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 19:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Benjamin Flores Jr.‎
Need a hand there with persistent addition of unsourced content. Saying it's sourced elsewhere does not count. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 23:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Raven's Home awards
I can understand it at Andi Mack because of the awards being for the gay storyline, but is mentioning the awards in the lead of a typical sitcom/comedy, like here, really needed? Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like had a look and reverted. Thanks for looking into it, Michael. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really lead worthy unless wins, then it might be worth putting in lead. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

List of Steven Universe episodes
Excuse me, Steven Universe's 5th Season Reunited episode will be a special 22-minute episode, counting as two. Source: https://www.toonzone.net/forums/threads/cartoon-network-july-2018-premiere-info.5667021/

Red the Doctor Q.I (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See the talk page discussion about this: Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion moved to talk page of article in question. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Although the contents of the discussion seem be ignored for some reason. Maybe others can contribute as I seem to be talking past two other editors who don't get the point. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!
I was confused until I saw your edit summary on the FOP parent article. On the LOE, you said they, so I was scratching my head thinking, "Well, if the IP broke it, shouldn't my edit have been right?" I think you meant to type you? As in I broke it. Ahahaha! Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 22:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Descendants (film franchise)
Geraldo, yay or nay?... Most of the current sourcing looks to be just for the soundtracks, and not for the film series, so I'm dubious about it right now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See how it develops. It is more (franchise) as has more than films so (film franchise) is a bit misleading. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That can be dealt with either a WP:BOLD move, or a WP:RM, so I'm not worried about that. I just want to make sure that this merits a separate article. It probably does, but the current article is insufficiently sourced to demonstrate that right now IMO... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think sourcing is marginal but sufficient to start. A lot of primary source info from films and novels. Article does pull together a bunch of related material so I think it is reasonable to have as an article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are probably aware, but the discussion at Articles for deletion/The Incredibles (film series) seems relevant. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on that, I have WP:BOLDly moved the article to Descendants (franchise). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons
Looks like there's an edit war going on between Tapper930 and BoogerD. What's the best course of action in a case like this? For clarity, 3RR itself has not technically been reached, though we know that doesn't necessarily mean not edit warring. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A discussion has been started on the talk page. RPP for edit warring if the discussion doesn't go to the talk page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Issue with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series)
Geraldo, I've run across an issue at List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series) episodes and related articles that I'd like to run by you...

Right now, the 'Series overview' table, etc. list the following order for the seasons of this show: Season 4 (2005–06) → Season 5: Ninja Tribunal (2008) → Season 6: Fast Forward (2006–07) → Season 7: Back to the Sewer (2008–09). Now, if you base this purely on airing order, this is obviously nonsensical: "season 4" debuted on September 10, 2005; "season 5" debuted on February 16, 2008; "season 6" debuted on July 29, 2006; and "season 7" debuted on September 13, 2008. Clearly "season 5" and "season 6" should be flipped, if we go by airing order.

Now, there's background on this. I don't know if this is an "official site", or a blog or wikia-type site, but this archive page from this site explains some of the background on "season #5" – it was #5 in the production order, and was originally (partially) released via Comcast OnDemand in 2006 (and much earlier versions of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series) (season 5) do include these OnDemand release dates), but we don't "count" that for official "air dates" in LoE tables anyway, and even this site acknowledges that this "season 5" is actually "season 6" in terms of the proper airing order of the seasons.

So, what I'm wondering is – Is this issue worth tackling? (as it'll involve more that just the LoE article, and will involve moving two separate 'season' articles for this show...) And, if so, how?... Or is it better to just leave this situation well enough alone.

TIA. And no hurry on getting back to me with your thoughts... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like a lot of work, I'm not sure it is worth it. If you do choose to put the seasons in airing order it would be best to start a discussion topic on the main series talk page with pointers to any page that will be affected to at least see if there are any objections to a reorganization. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The Loud House spinoff has received the green light
I've gone ahead and created a draft here: User:Amaury/sandbox/Los Casagrandes. , . Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Quickly create a redirect at Los Casagrandes to (?...) before somebody beats you to it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was already created back in March somehow. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 19:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, luckily, the redirect is a single-edit affair, which should mean it can be overwritten when necessary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Sky Katz
Just a heads up. Page was created on June 26, though I didn't even realize it existed until an editor linked to it six minutes ago on Raven's Home. It's already tagged with a PROD tag, and the editor who linked her on Raven's Home tried to save her page with... wait for it... a Wikia "source"! Pinging and  as well. This one is definitely a WP:TOOSOON one. No questions about it. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Let the WP:BLPPROD play out. If it doesn't get deleted, convert it into a redirect. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A BLPPROD tag is on this one, and the creator an editor attempted to satisfy the one-source requirement for the BLP, which was a Wikia page. I reverted it promptly as not being a reliable source. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:NICKELODEON marked as "Inactive"
WP:NICKELODEON was recently marked as "Inactive". Do any of us want to do anything about this? ? ?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Counterpart (TV series)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Counterpart (TV series). If you have any opinions on the matter, any feedback would be more than welcome. Check the article history for context. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 03:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

And...

 * There's also a discussion at Talk:Blue's Clues that you may be interested in. It's basically in the same vein as the earlier Double Dare, and especially the earlier Bug Juice, revivals discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

IP 24.118.105.84
Caught them at Legendary Dudas and then noticed the same disruption at other articles. Also noticed you've reverted them before. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

AIV reports for IP ranges
Please do not report a whole IP range when one IP Address is doing vandalism. Just report that one, explaining the case as usual. Very seldom and only in extreme cases will a whole range be blocked. -- Alexf(talk) 22:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The range was just off a 3 month range block for the same vandalism. Blocking a single ip on a highly dynamic IPv6 is sort of pointless. In the vast majority of cases ISPs allocate a full /64 range to a single person so a range block in this case would be appropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. -- Alexf(talk) 23:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Emily Alyn Lind
Geraldo – I believe you've been looking for a source to nail down this BLP's age. Well I've got one for you – this Glamour profile of the three sisters from 2017: --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * We already are using a dated source that gives their ages a time of publication. A more recent source would be good to use but still won't give more than estimates. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct – this doesn't give an exact DOB, just an "age as of date"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We should use the same one for all the articles to be consistent. Right now the Glamour source is used in one and Celeb Baby Scoop on the others. I'll change to match when I get a chance. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes – I certainly think Glamour is a higher quality source, and it's also more recent... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Jess Ransom has two kids
Geraldo - I hope all is well. I updated Jess Ransom's page to reflect that her and Ben Wilson have two sons. I noticed that you changed this back to one son. I am a family friend of Jess and Ben and I am 100% positive that they do indeed have two sons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevRyanM (talk • contribs) 17:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This information still needs a reference that others can check to verify. We can't take your word for it. As a WP:BLP we need a verifiable reliable source for personal bio info about article subjects. If you can find a reference we can check to verify, than the change would be supported. So far we have one reference and that supports one child. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Benjamin Flores Jr.
Pinging as well. I'm not sure I exactly agree with this edit from our "friend." Seems it was removed purely from an I don't like it basis, in my opinion. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Flores is fairly far down the cast list. However, his role did generate some press coverage. Arguably, it isn't lede-worthy. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a judgement call subject to consensus as to what is important enough to be in the lead section. Looks pretty minor to me to. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd rate this particular role as more than "minor", but less than "major". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Henry Danger season 5 revisted
User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 13

Seems to be "official" now. Not official-official as there's nothing on Deadline Hollywood et al. However, this and this were posted on Instagram today, and while we can't actually insert anything in the article right now since they're not verified accounts, I don't doubt their legitimacy. Pinging and  as well. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Sean Ryan's Fox's account is verified,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perry Buzzboy (talk • contribs) 02:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Even so, I don't consider that enough to add "Nickelodeon ordered a fifth season of the show..." to the article. I want to see an actual announcement from Nick on that. So, for now, I would leave any mention of this out of the Wikipedia article. If a fifth season is being filmed, we'll get a proper source for that soon enough... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be best if there were an official announcement. If something were to be added to the article the best would be a statement that several actors reported working on the first episode of season 5. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Would this work for you guys, https://www.instagram.com/p/Bk-vkuuhtQo/?hl=en this is from Jace. Perry Buzzboy (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Same issues as before. Basically another actors stating they are working on season 5. We could add that actors are working on the season but still look better for the article to wait for a secondary source or an official announcement. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Double Dare revisited
User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 14.

Nickelodeon seems to be considering this a brand new, separate series as Zap2it and my DirecTV guide, which I suspect may get its info from Zap2it, is showing S1 E1, S1 E2, et cetera. And even the press release from April 25 seems to say that. Unlike Figure It Out which Nickelodeon seemed to consider as continuing the game show, with the two seasons it ran for being considered fifth and sixth seasons. This isn't an official tweet, but it explains what I'm saying better. As such, this may mean an independent article is warranted, and I've created a sandbox version here: User:Amaury/sandbox/Double Dare (2018 game show). Pinging {{U|IJBall}] and for their thoughts as well. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 05:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I hate it when I mess up on pings: . Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 06:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure if that means the concept from Nickelodeon's original version is gonna be different. The only thing I remember from watching in the past is that thing called "slime". Since it is Nickelodeon, I just have a feeling they aren't gonna get rid of the slime. If it is completely different in concept, it will be at least the third different game show with that title. Until I subscribed to Amazon Prime, I wasn't aware of that one that aired in the 1970s on CBS (which starred a much younger Alex Trebek). I have watched a few of those episodes, BTW. I have made note that the present article for the Nickelodeon one is making mention of its revival, saying it started on June 25. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on what to do with the revival, but I've had problems with the Double Dare (Nickelodeon game show) article for a long time, in that it's a good article, but is incorrectly named (as is Double Dare (CBS game show)) under WP:NCTV – those should be at Double Dare (1986 game show) and Double Dare (1976 game show). I just have never gotten around to putting in a WP:RM on these... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I think they should either all be in the same article assuming it is the same game with different instantiations, or all separate articles that refer to each other. I'd prefer the separate article route treating them as separate series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the 1970s one, with Trebek as host, is completely different and doesn't resemble at all Nickelodeon's game show. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If it is a completely different game it doesn't belong in a single article. It looks like the Nick versions are the same game so the most that looks reasonable if going with the single article is just the Nick versions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, production codes for June: User:Amaury/sandbox/Double Dare (2018 game show). Also, I'd prefer the separate article route treating them as separate series. I agree, Geraldo. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Aah! So this is appropriate: Double Dare did so well. Disney Channel and Nickelodeon's live-action scripted series can't relate. See here. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I would open a discussion about whether the three versions should have their own articles at Talk:Double Dare (Nickelodeon game show). I dunno enough about this to have an opinion – maybe the first "revival" belongs at the original article, and maybe the "new revival" doesn't, but it's going to take people knowledgeable on the subject to figure it out. Though I bet there will be some "pushback" against splitting because it's a WP:GA – yet another example of how GA's/FA's distort the editing process... (Meanwhile, maybe one day I'll get brave enough to open up a WP:RM on the article, esp. if you successfully split-out the 2018 version!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Talk:Double Dare (Nickelodeon game show). I don't know how well I started out the discussion, so if there's anything more in-depth from you guys that you could provide, that would be more than appreciated. In the meantime, IJBall, and anyone else, please feel free to add or create sections with anything else relevant to my sandbox page: User:Amaury/sandbox/Double Dare (2018 game show). Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 03:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I've added the split tag to the Double Dare article. Also, for the first revival, the title is literally Double Dare 2000, so in a way, it's like a new title, similar to Bug Juice: My Adventures at Camp being a new title. In regard to length which is a reason Geraldo supports the Bug Juice split, between the original Double Dare series and the first revival, it was seven years. However, between the first revival and the second revival, it was about 18 years, about the same as between Bug Juice and its revival. If you want to compare between the original Double Dare and the second revival, about 25 years. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 03:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Another revival: Bug Juice
This one being for Disney Channel. The series premiere is on July 16 at 7:30 PM. The difference here is that Disney Channel is advertising it as Bug Juice: My Adventures at Camp. I will go ahead and create a sandbox sometime today just to have it there. Pinging and  as well, of course. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As per Double Dare, it looks like this will be handled at the main Bug Juice article. However, I think it needs to be folded out under its own section, possibly entitled 'Revival'. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it should be a separate article based on the time elapsed with a mention in both articles to the other to give some content. This should be discussed on the talk page of the series, though, to get agreement. A WP:SPLIT proposal may be needed if combined article goes on too long. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not against a Split discussion at the Talk page, but based on the discussion at Talk:Double Dare (Nickelodeon game show) it seems like common practice for game shows is to bundle everything under one article... The one thing that might advocate for a separate article in this case, aside from the time elapsed between versions, is the "new title". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like consensus will be against a split then. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Geraldo,, , here is the sandbox: User:Amaury/sandbox/Bug Juice: My Adventures at Camp. Also, both the original and revival Bug Juice series are docu-series, not game shows, if that helps matters. Bug Juice is like Jagger Eaton's Mega Life from the genre. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That would make a difference. The game show precedent wouldn't apply. Still need the SPLIT discussion if want this to stick though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Geraldo,, , ✅: Talk:Bug Juice. Like with Double Dare, please vote and/or provide any feedback if you have anything to add. Thanks.


 * Also, Geraldo, I get the feeling that even the "game show precedent" isn't an actual standard practice, more something that just started and that's just what people went with. I don't even see so much as an informal essay on game shows. For example, double-length episodes being incorrectly counted as two episodes when they are sold as one. That gets started that way on some articles and other editors, not realizing how it actually works, just seem to blindly follow the incorrectness. For example, iCarly and Victorious, which have since thankfully being fixed, or List of Big Time Rush episodes and the parent article, which I believe IJBall still has plans to fix.


 * A better example would probably be the Power Rangers articles. Take a look at List of Power Rangers Dino Charge episodes, for example, where the Halloween and Christmas episodes are incorrectly listed at the bottom and being labeled as specials and not being counted and ordered appropriate by air date. And if you look at The Futon Critic, they have regular production codes (521, 522). And that's how those episodes incorrectly are with all the Power Rangers seasons. They're still part of the series, they just really don't have anything to do with the overall plot. A cadre of editors have unfortunately developed their own way of doing things and are largely ignoring MOS:TV, even more so than what we normally see. And that's probably what has happened with game shows as well. Unfortunately, in the case of Power Rangers, it's probably not worth it to pursue unless you are really passionate because the change of counting Halloween and Christmas episodes would have to be retroactively applied to 20+ seasons, and not only on the episode lists, but on the parent articles as well to update the episode count. And while I enjoy watching the series, this happens to be one series whose articles I don't watch or maintain. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 19:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Will you be voting at Double Dare and Bug Juice, or do you not really have any particular opinions like IJBall? The Bug Juice one already has some strong support, but still, just mentioning both. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 15:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No opinion on either. I may have followed Double Dare (Nickelodeon) a little in its early days - think it ran in syndication at some point and appeared on a local broadcast channel (at a time, during the 1980s, when my parents didn't have cable or satellite TV) - but didn't care that greatly about it and didn't follow any of the later versions. Bug Juice I can say I didn't follow at all. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This was posted 57 minutes ago by Deadline Hollywood. The first season will have 16 episodes. Zap2it has also updated and added the series to its database with episode titles and air dates for all 16 episodes. The Futon Critic is currently still out-of-date, with only having episode titles and air dates for the first two episodes and episode air dates for the third and fourth episodes. Since consensus is for splitting, I will be doing that soon; however, in the meantime, I'm sure my draft could use some copy-edits, so you and Geraldo, please feel free to take a look and copy-edit where you think it's needed before I split it: User:Amaury/sandbox/Bug Juice: My Adventures at Camp. Thanks! Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Bug Juice: My Adventures at Camp
The revival article is live now: Bug Juice: My Adventures at Camp. More watchers would of course be welcome. Pinging as well. The series doesn't premiere until 7:30 PM, but didn't see any issues with going ahead and updating the tenses to present tense earlier. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Rugrats reboot
Pinging and  as well. I'm loving all this relaunch news! I may or may not raise this on the talk page, but first, what do you guys think? Again, like the previous two, within the same article or a separate article? See the Variety article here. It is planned that the series' original creators will be returning as executive producers. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Should be a separate article in my opinion based on the significant amount of time. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Geraldo,, and : Looks like a discussion was already started by Harmony yesterday here: Talk:Rugrats. I've gone ahead and commented there that, based on length, it should be a separate article. That and because of how it's being treated. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 13:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

List of Mario television episodes
Geraldo, is there any reason for this article to exist?! Or should the three episode tables simply be merged back to the three respective Mario TV series articles?... TIA for your thoughts on this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind me chiming in as well. Wow! Yeah! This is definitely unnecessary since they're entirely different series. That would be like having a single List of Zack & Cody episodes page, with episode tables from both The Suite Life of Zack & Cody and The Suite Life on Deck. Ugly! Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 01:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a bit of a legacy article created a while ago and expanded. I see no reason to have episode lists for three separate series in the same list and each list is short enough to be merged into the respective series article. Needs a WP:MERGE proposal discussion, though, before doing anything. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep – I was already thinking of making it "official", and doing the WP:MERGE proposal. But, based on past experience, if nobody comments in a couple of weeks, as is likely, I'll be merging... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation
Look, in trying tk be nice but MRC is not part of HT3: Summer Vacation. I watched the movie and there was no logo that has MRC. You need to have this wiki some creative freedom and let the people do what they want. 107.77.199.58 (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We work based on what is referenced in reliable sources. If you have an issue with well-referenced content and think the source is not a reliable and the information wrong, bring it up for discussion on the article talk page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What about the Sony Pictures Animation page? 2600:387:1:811:0:0:0:6F (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you check a reference, and you may need to go back to an archive copy near the original access date in cite if the info is transient, and the information is not in the reference, remove it with an edit summary that states you have checked the reference and the data is not supported in the reference. Alternatively add tag next to cite used. Either way don't remove the cite if other info is still being supported by it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

How to deal with rounding fives?
So the standard practice here for viewership data is if it's four or less, it doesn't change (round down), and if it's five or more, round up. For example:
 * 1) 1.661 -> 1.66
 * 2) 1.662 -> 1.66
 * 3) 1.663 -> 1.66
 * 4) 1.664 -> 1.66
 * 5) 1.665 -> 1.67
 * 6) 1.666 -> 1.67
 * 7) 1.667 -> 1.67
 * 8) 1.668 -> 1.67
 * 9) 1.669 -> 1.67

From doing research, zero is not counted for rounding purposes and is truncated since it has no effect on the previous digit at all. This is where the issue comes in from the aforementioned linked to article. We've got four items not changing, but five items rounding up. Problem with always rounding up fives? Rounding up more often than down, leading to a positive systematic error according to that article—whatever that is.

Here is where it gets more complicated, specifically when it comes to using Wikipedia's calculation function. When the viewership data was released for July 8, 2017, we saw that the third season premiere of School of Rock received 1.025 million viewers. When inserted into the episode table on the LOE article, that was accordingly rounded to 1.03. In the ratings template on the parent article, under the viewers3 parameter, it was appropriately inserted raw as 1.025, and look what it came out as for the average: 1.02. Now, this is gets even more confusing. Doing the math for the first season of Raven's Home, the raw average comes out to 1.495846153846154. (Notice the 1.495... part.) That rounds to 1.50, and even the Wikipedia calculator is rounding that to 1.50 instead of 1.49 as can be seen here. Why? Why would Wikipedia's calculation function round 1.025 to 1.02 instead of 1.03, but round 1.495846153846154 to 1.50 instead of 1.49? I just don't get it. I guess this is probably why we just go with always rounding up fives... so it's not complicated. But still, it's nice to understand complicated stuff.

Pinging and  as well for thoughts. I know we probably all left this back at school or college, but... Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 22:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I remember from physics to round down if the 5 is preceded by an even number, and round up if the 5 is preceded by an odd number. This was assuming nothing followed the 5. (If something non-zero follows the 5, you always round up, like 3.2451 rounded to the nearest hundredth is 3.25.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem with viewership data, where the last number is 5, is we don't know whether it's rounded or not for one thing. If we assume the data to be rounded, it could be a lesser number precision-wise than we see (e.g. 6.215 ... in millions ... could be 6,214,787 ... in which case it would be rounded to 6.21 in our tables), or it could be a greater number (same example, but instead, 6,215,130 ... which would round to 6.22). We can't make any assumption which side the more precise value lands, as the source doesn't state it more precisely, so we must use the precision we are given (6.215 rounds to 6.22). MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The article Rounding has a lot of good info about the many ways of rounding numbers. It appears the rounding functions in wikipedia round the exact .n5 down but .n5+(anything at all) gets rounded up so 1.4950 gets rounded to 1.49 and 1.4958 gets rounded to 1.50. The exact 5 is exactly half way between but anything even slightly above that 5 tilts the balance up. Wiki math is not rounding to even on the exact 5, it is rounding to zero on the exact 5. In the School of Rock example you gave 1.025 rounds to 1.02 but substituting 1.015 rounds to 1.01 not 1.02 which would happen if wiki followed the round to even practice. In calculating the average this is one of the reasons to use the best precision we have and round as the last step as we are unlikely to get the exact 5 issue to show up there unless only 1 item in the average. In the viewing tables we have been rounding up on the exact 5. I guess both would be valid but I think most people are familiar with the round up practice and would object to rounding down. Depends on how you were taught in school, I was taught to round up on the exact 5. Its major advantage is you only have to look at a single digit past the ones you want to keep to decide whether to go up or down. With the exact 5 goes down method you need to look past the 5 to verify it is the exact 5 or not. A bit more complicated in practice. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So, using that exact five method you mentioned: 1.445 -> 1.44, but 1.45 if 1–9 after the 5. For example, 1.4453 -> 1.45. I can see how that can get crazy and why we'd just do 1.445 -> 1.45 since you just have to look at the five and that's it. Also, with regard to your last few sentences starting with the major advantages, from that aforementioned article, is that what this is basically saying, just in different wording? The two rules for rounding numbers are ... and Round 5's to the nearest even digit -- up or down as needed. Emphasis mine. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 01:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of the way wiki math does it is correct and why a simpler look at just the 5 is easier for humans to use when rounding manually. As for the other various possible methods look at the Rounding article. A lot more rounding methods than just two. is one way and I thought for a while that was what wiki math functions were doing, tested it a bit and found wiki was using . I was taught . In all cases this applies to the exact half (.n5) issue. Anything even slightly more than exactly half (.n5+) gets rounded up in all the methods. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Futon Critic
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Futon Critic. Inviting as well. I'm fairly sure they get their info straight from the networks which don't usually have the information public. It's no different than using Showbuzz Daily et al. to source viewership data which Nielsen doesn't make publicly available as it's "all about the money, man..." Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 15:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Strawberry Shortcake (2019 series)
I am sorely tempted to take this article to WP:AfD in an attempt to Draftify it. There is sourcing that verifies that DHX Media acquired 100% stake in the property. Sources c.2017 claimed a TV series would be produced. But there's been nothing more in two years, and there's no evidence that production has started, and certainly no mention of an airing network or a projected premiere date. IOW, right now, this looks to pretty clearly fail WP:TVSHOW (and WP:CRYSTAL) to me... Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Looks like it was abandoned. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Articles for deletion/Strawberry Shortcake (2019 series). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Shanna's Show
Here's another one. I have a theory: if you search for a series in Variety, and you come up with nothing, that's basically a priori proof that a TV series is non-notable. Sure enough, this one generates no hits in Variety. As it's not just a "children's TV show", but "a series of 'television shorts' for children", it seems likely that this is non-notable. So, is it worth WP:AfDing?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't appear to meet GNG. Might try a PROD first for this one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, worth a go!... Might get to this tomorrow. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ – I've WP:PRODed both Shanna's Show and Shane's Kindergarten Countdown, both for the same reasoning. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

List of Shimmer and Shine episodes
Geraldo, could you please keep an extra, extra eye on this one for now? I've gone through, and cleaned it up, and improved the sourcing. This allowed me to correct all of the season #1 prod. codes (most of which had been erroneously changed to a numbering scheme that matched the broadcast order), and most especially the season #2 premiere date, and the dates of a couple of recent episodes. It's clear that date vandals have been targeting this article, and some of their vandalism got through in previous edits... TIA. Add: Also, I've added something to the Talk page that you may want to take a look at... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

iParty with Victorious
I've noticed IPs changing the episode and/or season number for this episode of iCarly over the last few weeks, but especially during the last few days. More watchers needed on this article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Raini Rodriguez
Pinging as well. I'm going to go ahead and put this here now, given who it is. See my recent edit there. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Stuck in the Middle
You and both already watch this and its LOE, right? The parent article especially could use some extra attention today. Season and simultaneously series finale is today, but not until tonight at 8:30 PM. Like with K.C. Undercover, the best course of action is to wait until it's aired both in the East and West Coasts before saying it's ended. I've already had to revert one edit adding the end date to the parent article. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 14:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * May want to watch List of Disney Channel series and List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel for the same reason. I know I reverted at both articles already, at least twice at one of them. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Sheriff Woody, Buzz Lightyear and Jessie (Toy Story)
Hello,

Recently I have noticed on those three pages that multi-IP addresses beginning with "2601:8a:501:50e6:" have been edited to include names belonging to the Family part of the character infoboxes. 1) I don't know where they came from, and 2) this has been removed by me as that would be unsourced content. I also believe that this is made-up by the IP addresses used by this anonymous user/s. Iggy (Swan) 20:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/2601:8a:501:50e6::/64 has been blocked for this before but it was in March. This is one person fairly obviously. Also ISPs generally allocate IPv6 IPs a /64 range to individuals with actual IP used changing each time the person logs into their account. If people were watching should have been blocked on the next edits after that block expired. Best way to handle this now is to warn about dubious unsourced invented content on each IP used, add a multiple IP warning to each and show in aggregate that the IP has been sufficiently warned. Then request a range block mentioning the old block on the range. Need to raise the issue at WP:ANI and be able show the pattern. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

IP 24.118.105.84 revisited
User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 15.

They're back and have been reported to AIV. In the meantime, please keep an eye on them as well. Thanks. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

List of Handy Manny episodes
It goes without saying that the "season" articles for Handy Mandy are totally unacceptable (i.e. no content aside from a very sparse episodes table), and should be merged back to the LoE article. I will get to that when I can... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Season articles have no content that is not just the episodes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Contents of the "season" articles merged to List of Handy Manny episodes (and also cleaned up). I also boldly redirected an "episode" article back to the LoE page as well, as the content at the "episode" article did not justify its notability as a standalone article (and it was created by a hard banned user! to boot)... My next project, if I ever get to it, would be to try to verify the airdates of the episodes for this show. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Ciara Wilson (revived topic)
I'm about 100% certain to WP:PROD this one when I get some time. Subject is not notable under WP:NACTOR (WP:TOOSOON), and article was created by WP:COI-banned editor. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In what I consider to be a WP:BURO-y move, after successfully getting this article WP:PRODed, it has been revived after a suspicious IP request at WP:REFUND, and immediately taken to AfD – Articles for deletion/Ciara Wilson. Just so you know... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Kayla Maisonet
Just wanted to get second thoughts on this. I just reverted these mass category additions to the article as not WP:DEFINING. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * None of those were mentioned in the article either WP:BLPCAT is sufficient justification for removal. Also editor has history of adding unsourced bio info to articles, this is another example. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Andi Mack - latest episode not on Amazon
The most recent episode to air on Disney Channel, "Buffy in a Bottle", is not listed in the current season/volume over at Amazon. It is, however, listed at iTunes. The release date to both sellers was within hours of its airing on Disney Channel, in the early hours of Tuesday morning (July 24). As I have the current season pass over at Amazon, I contacted a representative sometime on Wednesday (July 25) who said that it's likely a technical problem concerning the content provider (Disney) and was assuring me that it would be available soon, but so far, it's still not in the listing. I might get more suspicious if the next episode, "Keep a Lid on It", also doesn't show up there. I wonder if there are any contractual issues between Disney and Amazon that might be keeping "Buffy in a Bottle" from being available (which would be odd, as I haven't seen any other episodes from other Disney Channel series be withheld - the most recent Stuck in the Middle, Bizaardvark, Bunk'd and Raven's Home episodes that came out this week are all listed). MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Since it is up on iTunes and not on Amazon and both are sales outlets it is likely a technical glitch as Amazon says. I can see no reason for this to be deliberate. People buy seasons in advance on Amazon, they are entitled to get what they paid for. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Buffy in a Bottle" is now up. Although "Keep a Lid on It" isn't and that should have also been up seven minutes ago at 12:00 AM. It feels like episodes from July 23 onward are being delayed by a week, on Amazon, anyway, as you mentioned iTunes was fine. Add: "Keep a Lid on It" is on iTunes as expected. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 07:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I get e-mail notices when a new episode pops up. The one for "Buffy in a Bottle" came in right after 1:00 am (US Mountain time, which is midnight US Pacific time). Usually, I'd see the e-mail for a new episode at just after 3:00 am the day after it had aired, so it's got a little while from the time of my post ("Keep a Lid on It"). The "Buffy in a Bottle" delay was pretty unusual; all the other episodes for Disney Channel's other live-action series, which I mentioned above, came in pretty much on schedule at Amazon. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: "Keep a Lid on It" is now up at Amazon. Got e-mail notice about that one in the last few minutes. MPFitz1968 (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yay! Now you can catch up! I was sitting there wondering last week: "Wait, why did Michael get the summary for Stuck in the Middle, but not Andi Mack?" Then I saw your message here the other day and then knew why. Spoiler: You'll love the episodes. Hope that I didn't give anything away. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Accepting vandalism
Why did you accept this edit? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't see it as vandalism but as an editorial choice. Basically alt text that doesn't really give any useful descriptive information about the image other than what could be considered obvious for an infobox image. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would encourage you to see WP:ALT, which reads in part, "However, the only situation where blank alt text is acceptable is where such images are unlinked, which is rarely possible." It is not acceptable to remove alt text from non-decorative images. Accessibility is not an add-on or bonus feature but a requirement. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)