User talk:IJBall/Archive 12

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Callmemirela  🍁 talk 16:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: iCarly
It's been a while now, and there have been no oppositions, so I'd say we're good. (Essentially just like seeing if there's any opposition to splitting an article to an episode and/or character list, but this is, of course, a little more complicated.) It's just a matter of updating however many inbound links there are, I just don't know how any articles they're in. I would guess just the main article, but I don't know. If it is just the main article, though, that's something I wouldn't mind doing manually like when I really cleaned up Liv and Maddie. If you guys would find it helpful, I can start working on the renumbering and other clean-up for both the parent article and the episode list in a sandbox and then simply copy and paste if we're happy with the end result. Pinging those who voted on that discussion on the episode list talk page: and. Nyuszika has AWB. Also pinging if he's interested. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 01:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can help with updating the inbound links with AWB if you give me a list of every changed episode number. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a list of what would be changed:


 * On a semi-related note, iCarly clearly had five seasons as evident by the production codes, but we have seven seasons being listed. Season three is season two, season four is season three, season five is season four, seasons six and seven are season five. I vaguely recall Nickelodeon advertising the series weirdly, but I don't remember. Season two makes a little sense because of the number of episodes, but still. If I'm correct, the logical thing for Nickelodeon to have done would have been to have a total of five seasons and just balance numbers out. For example, seasons two–five could have had about 14 episodes each. Nickelodeon's production orders for iCarly's seasons are also crazy and inconsistent, wow!
 * Season 1: 25 episodes
 * Season 2: 45 episodes
 * Season 3: 13 episodes
 * Season 4: 11 episodes
 * Season 5: 15 uploads episodes


 * A standard season, production-wise, is at least 20 episodes, with 13 and 14 sometimes being seen, but, like, 11!? Anyway, once we sort all this out, it might be worth visiting the number of seasons. Unless there's something that supports the seven seasons, we should have five seasons or, at the very least, all the season five production codes together, making six seasons, and that's actually how it is on Amazon. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would leave the "seasons" as is, unless strong sourcing is produced for doing something else. Nick did do strange things with this show – and as the Victorious experience shows, Nick is very willing to split a single "production season" into two separate "aired seasons". I'm sure Nick did similar things with this show... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair point. And yeah, no, I don't doubt that networks do that, especially with how long season two of iCarly is. Even with that, though, vendors like Amazon match how networks air their episodes because they get their "orders" or feed directly from the networks. For example, Nickelodeon chose to split season two in half with one half as season two and the other half as season three, and Amazon matches that as seen here and here. The complication that comes into play here is that Nickelodeon supposedly split season five in half, giving us seasons six and seven, but with that case, Amazon doesn't match as the 13 15 season five episodes are all under season six there. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, the latter point can be brought up at Talk:iCarly. But I'd also take a look at the archived discussions there, and see what the previous discussion was regarding this "season 7" thing. If that really does turn out to be some kind of arbitrary decision to make a "season 7", we can merge "season 7" back into season 6... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅: Talk:List of iCarly episodes. From the archives I looked at, nothing was conclusive on the matter. Inviting you as well as, , and to the discussion. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What's "15 uploads"? You mean episodes? nyuszika7h (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops. I got mixed up with YouTube. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 14:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Date vandalism IPs
What other articles have they targeted? I'd be willing to watch those as well. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 19:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * All I can tell you is that I've noticed a lot of date vandalism over the last week – there has been a substantial uptick in it lately. It's hit a number of articles I watch – both TV series articles (esp. "kids" shows & cartoons), and WP:FILMBIO articles – too many to have kept track. I can only tell you for certain that List of Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide episodes has been under date vandalism attack for a long time – when I cleaned up the article back in March 2016, even then the airdates had been under attack, and I had to correct some of them back then: e.g., --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Common form of vandalism also discussed at User:SummerPhDv2.0/KIDSTVDATES. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Bunk'd
Obviously, this is Wikia, but based on an earlier comment of yours, it sounds like it's possible for Cameron Boyce to return and be starring. It's also possible for Lincoln Melcher to be promoted to starring. Why Disney Channel and cast and crew haven't really announced anything yet is beyond me. I'm sure something will be announced—hopefully—but from reading comments on that Wikia article, it wouldn't be the first time there was a silent renewal on Disney Channel. For example, Mickey Mouse being renewed for season four was apparently not really announced. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 00:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't believe this one is renewed until I see it in the mainline press or until I see a Disney Channel promo for season #3. As for Melcher, I hope they don't promote him – I didn't feel like Griff added anything to the show. They'd be better off promoting, Hazel (though she's better in smaller doses...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a hit and miss right now. There was that casting call back in March, and that site I linked to with that information is a reliable source, but like Geraldo mentioned, that's just the crew being hopeful and the rug can still be pulled from underneath their feet at any time. However, from reading the Wikia, which I know is not reliable, so I'm only taking what's on there with a grain of salt, casting started on June 14. I don't know if that means that there was another casting call or if it means that they actually started the auditions then.


 * As for Griff, I personally don't mind him and find him to be a nice addition to the series. And now following the events of "Dreams Come True," I can see him getting some real character development in the possible third season with being a part of Xander's family now. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 01:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Cameron Boyce
This might be an okay edit for once, but I see a lot of MOS:CAPS issues. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, they didn't switch column order or violate MOS:ACCESSIBILITY, so I'm inclined to let it slide, though it's dubious that these tables should include singles (or albums) that haven't charted yet... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I somehow missed this reply. Any thoughts? Should we remove the singles since they're not charted yet or leave them be since they'll likely be charted soon. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 05:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, at Booboo Stewart, there is a WP:ACCESS violation. I have a feeling it may be that IP. Yay. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Reverted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Kostas20142 (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Assistance needed
I could use some help at K.C. Undercover. Regardless of what's right or wrong, they were challenged and now they need to discuss. They can't keep trying to essentially stonewall their changes. They were reverted once by and myself this morning and now me again and they are clearly not getting it. (Pinging, too.) Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 01:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to revert, though I did remove the tag from the 'Plot' section as I feel that it's unwarranted. However, I did comment about this at the Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Whatever you feel is best, it's appreciated. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 01:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll never understand people. The IP randomly pops up yesterday with their only edits being to K.C. Undercover, yet they have no interest whatsoever on watching the series, so why even bother going through hassle? I don't know if you saw their latest reply, but they certainly had attitude. In any case, I'm certainly open to adding a bit more like we did on Liv and Maddie. What do you personally see as being worth adding? You mentioned you thought what they added was relatively okay, but could be worded differently. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 23:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The lede of a TV article should just contain something on the premise – something along the lines of K.C. becoming a (teenaged?) spy after she discovers her parents are spies too. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

sierra mcclain
hello, can you explain me why have you deleted my whole edit on this page, she is recurring onfox's hit tv show Empire (17 episodes) since 2016, she played a main role in 2 movies (Daddy's Little Girls/Shrink), she also guest starred in 2 tv shows (Section Genius/House of Payne) I want to mention that is also a part of the band Mcclain, they sang for disney movies. Judor92 (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I could refer you to Talk:Sierra McClain for IJBall's reasoning on this one, particularly that she did not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Also, note that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, i.e., simply being part of a notable music group doesn't necessarily make its individual members notable. BTW, that discussion IJBall mentions over on that talk page refers to User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 10 (an already archived discussion). MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Madison Hu
http://bizaardvark.wikia.com/wiki/Madison_Hu – Beastmaster1994 (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikia is user-submitted content just like here and is therefore not a reliable source. Wikipedia is the same way, except there are more strict guidelines and content must be reliably sourced. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 00:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikias are not reliable sources (WP:NOTRS) as their contents are WP:USERGENERATED and are not verified, nor have editorial oversight on user contributions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: Jasonnguyen2606
I could use another eye on this user. Your typical non-vandal problematic user who I suspect has a language barrier and who thinks series "need a distributor." That's all well and dandy, but without a source, we can't include that, and the network a series airs on does not make it that series' distributor. This has been a long-term issue that's been going on since I started working on television series articles back in 2015—and it was probably going on long before then—and I know has dealt with and reverted this in the past. Recent articles they've hit are Beyond and Famous in Love. Articles like Andi Mack and Raven's Home were also hit in the past. Also see their previous warnings, which are mostly from me, but still. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So far, this looks to be low-key. I know this whole distributors thing is something that keeps coming up – I know has more experience with and is more knowledgeable about this, and IIRC what's he said is that a lot of times these distinctions between conglomerate subdivisions is negligible/not important... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The original distributor is the network itself as broadcasting it is distributing it - generally we don't note the network in the distribution attribute. Digital content, home media, syndication, foreign distribution is more complex and people usually fill in the distribution attribute with whatever they think is common for the network but don't seem to want to back it up. IMDb looks to be using an extract of what is on IMDb Pro for its company credits and is likely correct if verification is needed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Famous in Love categories

 * OTOH, I think the issue with the cat's at Famous in Love may be worth discussing – Category:Television shows set in Los Angeles does seem to me to be "defining" for that show. I'm less sure about Category:Television programs based on novels/Category:Television programs based on American novels, as I'm not sure how closely this show follows the novel, but both The Lying Game and Pretty Little Liars contain those categories so my guess is that it's applicable in this case as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If the category is in the article there should be some article content that back the category. If a show is based on some novel that should be in the article with details, referenced as needed. I would expect setting to be documented in some source to back it up as well, unless it is very commonly understood that the show is set in some real location. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Author info and the novel on which the show is based on is mentioned twice – once in the lead, and then again in the 'Production' section (where it looks to be sourced). So I'd say that category does apply... On the Los Angeles thing, I'd have to go through the sources used, and I can't do that right now as I have to run errands today. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * On the categories, for reference, Joey did already start a discussion on the talk page explaining why they are defining here. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: Pittsburghmichaels and The Thundermans
They don't seem to be as persistent as others, but might be worth keeping an eye on. Four times—or, technically, three if you want to count the first two as part of the same thing—they've tried to pull this bullshit of The Thundermans being over. See, , , and , the latest one. Production of the fourth season wrapped up on July 28, but there are still a lot of episodes to air. We're not even halfway through the fourth season, but they seem to be under the impression that a hiatus on new episodes seems to equal a series being over. They've also being disruptive on Best Friends Whenever and Bunk'd. (The former is without a doubt over, but without an official announcement, we must wait; the latter is likely renewed.) Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 22:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I forgot you've left them a message before, so this probably comes as no surprise to you. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 22:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not disruptive, yet. But if they keep at it, it may cross that line. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

High School Musical (franchise)
See Antonia Armato for a brief description of the contribution made to the franchise. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Summertime ratings
I don't understand why summer is the worst time for ratings. (See my latest contributions.) Broadcast networks know this and don't have any premieres in the summer, at least with series like The Middle. With kids off from school, however, you'd think there'd be more viewers. Nickelodeon struggled last summer and the summer before that as well, ironically, particularly in July, but it had The Thundermans leading the night, so it wasn't quite as bad. Even Disney Channel, which got screwed over by Nielsen's change last fall—more on that later—on Friday did better, but that's because of Raven's Home. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 13:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * People were trained for upwards of 50 years not to expect "original" programming during summer. So, culturally, things developed such that people didn't expect "good TV" during summer, and knew to plan to do things other than watch TV. By the time the broadcast networks wanted to change that (and that's only been in the last 5–10 years), it was too late – even when they programmed "original programming", people generally wouldn't watch "new" shows over summer (or they might sample it, but would not stick with it). The same seems to be true (though to a lesser extent) with cable TV. I'm guessing only things like Netflix do well over summer... The bottom line is the networks recently tried to "program" original stuff over summer, and they felt like it "failed", so there won't be much original stuff aired over summer (at least, not "scripted" programming which is all I care about – I basically don't watch reality TV or game shows, myself) – this summer, it seems like even cable has partially adopted that approach as well and is also programming less original material over summer. I don't expect this pattern to change, unfortunately. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * With networks knowing this—at least I hope they do!—hopefully networks like Nickelodeon and Disney Channel take that into consideration and don't look too much into their summer ratings and more at their fall–spring ratings. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 14:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Even Disney Channel, which got screwed over by Nielsen's change last fall—more on that later—on Friday did better, but that's because of Raven's Home. I meant to follow up on this the same day I posted it.


 * Anyway, something I've learned is that every year in the fall, Nielsen, the ratings company, makes a change to its sample size, though I don't know if this is an overall change or only a change for some networks. I'm guessing the bigger the sample size, the higher the numbers, and the smaller the sample size, the smaller the numbers. I don't know if it's always on the same date or whatever, but for 2016, I'm guessing the change was made sometime in mid-November as that's when Disney Channel's numbers really started dropping as you can see with Liv and Maddie and Girl Meets World. (I say "really" because 2016 overall was lower than previous years, but it didn't really get that bad until the fall. Early 2016 still had good-ass ratings. Like, look at the series finale for Austin & Ally.) Now, yes, people also attributed Disney Channel's ratings "depression"—which is kind of still going on, but I guess it's in recovery—to people boycotting Disney because of the possible cancellation of Girl Meets World even though at that time its fate was unknown and parents boycotting Disney because it's doing the right thing and trying to get caught up with the times and be more open to LGBT-type content. (Remember the whole fiasco with a Star vs. the Forces of Evil episode back in March and the Beauty and the Beast film, also back in March?) The majority of the reason for the ratings decline is likely Nielsen's change, however. If an episode were going to receive something like 1.86 million total viewers, boycotting would likely only have such a minuscule effect on it in that it would be something like 1.82 million total viewers instead, which isn't that big of a difference. Some people like to believe that Nielsen's change was in favor/benefit of Nickelodeon and that's the only reason it started winning. While Disney Channel only won in 2015, marking history as Nickelodeon was winning year after year until then, Disney Channel's overall numbers always seemed higher because, apparently, Nielsen's change in fall 2014 was in favor/benefit of Disney Channel. I'm not totally sure how all this works, but Nielsen will be making another change this fall that should make Disney Channel see more friendly numbers on a consistent basis again. And hopefully Nickelodeon's numbers stay consistently good as well, like before July. The only reason July was bad is because of the "summer curse," as mentioned earlier.


 * Now, you might be wondering, "On average, we used to see numbers of 3.0 to 4.0 million total viewers for both Nickelodeon and Disney Channel, even during the summer. Why is around 1.5 million total viewers or more now considered excellent?" And that's true if you just take a look at shows like iCarly, Victorious, Sam & Cat,, Liv and Maddie in its earlier times, Girl Meets World in its earlier times, and Disney Channel's older shows like Good Luck Charlie. I don't think that has so much to do with Nielsen's changes as it does with the times we're in. The best analogy I can think of is currency inflation. What does a dollar buy you now compared to what it bought you, say, 15 years ago? 15 years ago, maybe it bought you 10 pieces of candy, whereas now, maybe it buys you three pieces of candy. (Note: These aren't factual numbers, I just made them up for the example.) It's the same with ratings. Cable and satellite subscriptions are likely more expensive than they were a few years ago, which means there are less people tuning in to watch, so all networks have to lower their standards/bar on what's considered good ratings. Of course that's only one possible reason as there are a plethora of reasons, some of which can even go hand-in-hand. Anyway, demographics are looked at more than total viewers, but just for example's sake, on children's networks like Nickelodeon and Disney Channel, 1.5 million total viewers now is probably the equivalent to 3.0 million total viewers in 2014. Other children's networks like TeenNick, Nicktoons, and Disney XD are exceptions. They are higher up in the tier of cable and satellite packages which not everyone can afford, so there are going to be different numbers. On Disney XD, the equivalent to 1.5 million total viewers is probably 0.5 million total viewers. It has managed to get 1.0 million total viewers or more, but that's on very rare occasions. (One episode of Lab Rats managed to get 1.4 million total viewers on Disney XD which for the more open children's networks like Nickelodeon and Disney Channel is considered to be good.) TeenNick and Nicktoons, from what I've seen on Showbuzz Daily, can hardly get past 0.3 million total viewers. So yeah, different times. The numbers for what's considered excellent, good, mediocre, bad, and very bad were different in 2014 compared to now.


 * I'll ping since you and him are the two people I've discussed ratings the most with. I'll also ping  and  in case they're interested. When you have the chance to read this—I realize it's kind of long—I would certainly be very interested in reading your thoughts to all of this if you have anything.  Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 19:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a relevant article that might be of interest: . I've also collapsed the previous reply since it is kind of long. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting... nyuszika7h (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to add, one of the users on Twitter explained how the sample size works. (Thank you!) A larger sample size doesn't mean higher numbers, it just means more accurate numbers. A smaller sample size means less accurate numbers, and if just one person changes the channel, it can make a big difference as changes in the sample can really affect the ratings. The example I was given is the human population is 10 million people; of those 10 million people, 10 people are selected for the sample. If five people watch Disney Channel, that means five million people are watching Disney Channel. However, if just one person changes the channel and watches Nickelodeon instead, Disney Channel loses one million people and only four million people are watching Disney Channel. If Nickelodeon has one more fan, it gives them more viewers. Another random sample could have two more Disney Channel fans, making it biased toward Disney Channel. A large sample size means a smaller change to the numbers when people tune out, and a change like that could actually drastically change numbers. For example, Disney Channel has been receiving one million viewers on some of its series, but with a larger sample size, it could drastically increase to 1.6 million viewers, and it's likely what we'll see come fall. Nickelodeon will potentially see an increase as well. For example, Raven's Home's episode on Friday could have received 1.8 million viewers instead of the 1.2 million viewers it received. (K.C. Undercover and Bizaardvark could have seen different numbers, too, of course.) And, of course, the 0.6 million more viewers seen above is just an example as it could be as high as one million more viewers—Raven's Home could have seen 2.2 million viewers. It can vary from being 0.1 million more viewers to being one million more viewers, but you get the point. Disney Channel will very likely see an improvement. Right now, it seems like Nielsen is using about 20,000 families to predict ratings for about 200,000,000 families, which is a very small sample. That means one family carries about 10,000 families, so, again, just one tuning out to watch a different network can really affect the ratings. As you know, Disney Channel's ratings used to be consistently stronger than Nickelodeon's for years until it went down in fall 2016. That's when Disney Channel really went south as that's when Nielsen made its last change, but we started seeing lower numbers, like, back in May. For example, a K.C. Undercover episode in May last year received only 1.12 million viewers. Although the ratings decline before fall 2016 was from the general decline in ratings all networks were seeing. The sample size is also explained here on Showbuzz Daily, I believe, under TV Basics, but it's among other information—and explained differently—so it can get overwhelming and confusing. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Raven-Symoné
I may be wrong here, but I don't really see the drop in ratings notable enough to mention (see history). First of all, that's to be expected and has always been the case when a series premieres following a big movie event, such as Austin & Ally, Liv and Maddie, Girl Meets World, and Bizaardvark, in that the second episode takes a significant drop. Second, the article is about Raven, not her series, so mentioning ratings there is just superfluous. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 14:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes – ratings info should not be including in an actor article. That kind of thing would belong only at Raven's Home, and even then only if it's a particularly notable circumstance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I get some help, please? Now they've falsely accused me of vandalism and started a discussion about me out of spite because they're not getting their way when they're the ones who are failing to follow WP:BRD. Pinging and . as well. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 00:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Removing that altogether is the best choice, I agree. Personally, I was able to at least understand including the premiere ratings, but it didn't make sense to go anywhere beyond that since they're already reported on the series article. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 01:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

TV banners
Regarding this; these are character articles, not articles about performers or personalities. As elements of TV programs, I would think they would be covered by the project?— TAnthonyTalk 19:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As you know the project's MOS includes guidelines for character articles.— TAnthonyTalk 19:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm just going off what is actually said at the WP TV banner template, namely "This template is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborate effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. (emphasis mine) – it doesn't say anything about characters (and it certainly doesn't say anything about actors, etc.) AFAICT, only the Game of Thrones character articles have been tagged with the WP TV banner – I haven't seen any other character articles tagged that way, and in the case of GoT I personally don't feel WP:TV would apply regardless, as those are originally literature characters.

Now, it might not be a bad idea to have a discussion about this at WT:TV – for example should 'List of characters' articles be covered under the WP TV banner like 'List of episodes' are, or not? (I personally don't necessarily have a good answer for that, though I lean toward including LoC articles – and I see that you point out that the MOS covers those, so they'd probably be covered). But there is no question that the WP TV banner has been applied too liberally to a number of articles over time, and I'm trying to pare the use of the WP:TV banner back to its proper focus. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I agree that WP banners tend to get "overused", mostly because editors want to "claim" articles. And I'm not worried about these articles being overlooked for improvement, because they fall under the ASOIAF project and, well, nothing GoT-related suffers from a lack at attention, LOL. I do believe some other TV series character articles are tagged to the project, but it's probably an inconsistent situation. So I guess I was wondering if that issue was directly addressed somewhere or not. It is definitely worth a discussion to clarify the scope of the TV project when it comes to characters. My view is that if the project is seeking to standardize the format of types of articles, which it seems to be doing with characters and lists of characters, they should be included. — TAnthonyTalk 19:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, it has not, and my latest activity is simply me being "bold!" – an effort that has been made easier with the revival of tools such as WikiProject Television/Popular pages‎.
 * On my end, I feel pretty solid in removing the WP TV banner from all actor articles (these are all already covered under WP:FILMBIO anyway, so including the WP TV banners for TV actors is redundant, and inconsistently applied to boot). The character articles are probably a little fuzzier (though I personally feel that articles covering individual characters don't need to be under to WP TV banner...). The one wrinkle here are the WP TV "sub-projects" like the ones for The Flash, Glee, Dexter, etc. All but the first of these is pretty much moribund anyway. But I'm not sure how to handle The Flash sub-group, especially when you consider that TV shows like Lost, Firefly, Awake and I think The X-Files had full WikiProjects (and banners) of their own dedicated to them... So I'm wondering if The Flash should get its own dedicated WP rather than being a 'sub-project' under WP TV... It's this last bit that should probably be discussed at WT:TV... But anyone who wants to should probably start a discussion about what the proper focus of the WP TV project/banner should be at WT:TV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: 65.32.209.48
Guess who's back!? Our date vandal! Yay! /s Hopefully another admin like Widr comes by ANI and decides to block, but until then, I could use an extra eye. Thanks! Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 22:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Bunk'd characters
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Bunk'd characters. It's only fair since you invited me to a discussion, right? This is also at Talk:Bunk'd, though I'm not sure why the discussion was posted in two different places. Anyway, as you told me, size is mostly irrelevant as it's more about the main characters having more than a short description and several recurring characters needing descriptions. Talk:Famous in Love: But when you start getting longer than that, or there start to be recurring characters needing their own character summaries, that's when it's time to start thinking about spinning-off a 'List of [..] characters' article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 03:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think I quite said that, or if I implied it I didn't mean to – article/section size definitely is a factor in deciding when to split. Length of the individual character summaries would also be a factor. And probably the length of time a show has run (i.e. the number of seasons) would be a factor too (e.g. you probably wouldn't want to split out a LoC page for a 2 season show in anything other than exceptional circumstances...). So, in the case of Bunk'd, a merger should probably be considered. Dunno about K.C. Undercover, as that one is now up to 3 seasons – for that one, you'd want to look at total length, total number of characters (with summaries), and the length of each character summary... Now Famous in Love, being a soap opera which usually have longer character summaries, may be a better candidate for a LoC article split-out at some point down the line... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder if that also brings List of Stuck in the Middle characters into question, then? List of K.C. Undercover characters is currently at 4,999 overall characters. All 17 characters listed there have summaries. For the summary lengths:




 * That's including all characters seen in source mode, such as the anchors and references. However, I'm not including the headers. Another thing to probably look at is if all of the non-main characters are actually recurring. In this particular case, I think they pretty much all are, but it can never hurt to double-check. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, 5Kb is on the small side – I think I'd be inclined to remerge that one too. Recurring character summaries can always be shortened, if necessary... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Stuck in the Middles character list should probably be merged, too, then as it's only 4,225 characters, whereas the character lists for Lab Rats, Liv and Maddie, Mighty Med, The Thundermans, Girl Meets World, Henry Danger, and Backstage are at 38,566, 40,140, 47,585, 8,798, 29,489, 8,176, and 8,077 characters. I can take care of the merging tomorrow, then. And looking at my sandbox, that rules out a character split for Best Friends Whenever and probably I Didn't Do It'' as well, but the others definitely qualify for splits. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the first three are definitely justifiable as separate LoC articles – no one will be challenging those ones. GMW is more borderline, but I doubt anyone will really want to see it merged... The other three are dicier. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For The Thundermans and Henry Danger, I only did that as per your recommendation here because you're awesome! And Backstage is about the same as those in length. I've removed Best Friends Whenever and I Didn't Do It from the "Character Splits" section of my sandbox linked above as they only came to about 3,400 and 5,200 characters. As for the remaining three that I feel qualify, Austin & Ally comes to about 7,500 characters, Dog with a Blog comes to about 11,300 characters, and Jessie comes to about 17,500 characters. Note that I'm just rounding these to the nearest hundred (eg, 7,492 -> 7,500) as I'm only including the lead, the characters, obviously, and the References section with just the reflist part, but not categories and other changes/clean-up that are typically done during a split. Austin & Ally is probably one of the "dicey" ones, though with a little copy-editing and the like, we could probably reduce it down enough, perhaps to I Didn't Do It's level, that it wouldn't need a split. Dog with a Blog and Jessie definitely do need one, though, as I personally can't see the size being reduced drastically even with copy-editing. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 05:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. All merged., would you look at my redirects and see if any improvements could be made? You seem to be an expert in that area. I just left very basic redirects. See , , , , , and . Thanks! And thanks, , for fixing the anchor point for the redirect placed on List of Bunk'd characters! Derp. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 15:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Tags added as appropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Learned something new
Back nine order and Front 13, Back 9. Apparently standard seasons are at least 22 episodes, not 20—give or take one or two, though—for example, The Middle. Sometimes the initial order is 13 if they're not sure how the series will do, especially the first season, and then they order the rest later if things go well, but sometimes they order all episodes at once, whether it's 20, 22, what have you. It sounds like Nickelodeon and Disney Channel used to do that, but now it seems like Disney Channel, at least, has been doing weird orders. For example, Andi Mack's season one production order was 13 episodes, and it was never extended like is usually the case, but it sounds like season two may have 20 production episodes—21 airing episodes since episode 13 from season one will be the season two premiere. Weird. School of Rock's first two seasons had an order of 13 episodes, though I'm guessing there's an unaired pilot somewhere as season one only has 12 episodes which is evident by the missing 101 production code, yet season three was ordered 20 episodes. Weird again.

Also, this seems like a nice trope for Best Friends Whenever. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that "back 9's" aren't always actually a "back 9" – sometimes they're "back 7", "back 5", or for especially dicey series "back 3" (I'm pretty sure this is what Code Black (TV series) got one or both seasons). And, in rare cases, "back 9's" can be supplemented by additional episode orders that can get a show to 23 or 24 episodes. ([sigh...] I remember when shows like Melrose Place still got 30-episode seasons...). Also note that "20 episodes" is pretty standard for cable series on channels like Freeform – The Lying Game definitely had a 20-episode season IIRC, and I believe Shadowhunters' second season is too. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * On a really quick unrelated note, why are people always in such a rush? and  You know, it doesn't have to be done right away. It can wait until it's been a year for all time zones. It will be August 13 in 11 minutes for Eastern time, so I'm not going to bother, but still. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 03:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn
What do you think about this wording? It's actually no different in context, but sounds a little clunkier, personally. Whether we use, but they or ; they, it means the exact same thing. The semi-colon just takes the place of "but." They previously changed the "they" there to "who" (see my revert), but I don't think their logic in the edit summary is quite right. Who and they make perfect sense in that structure, and like I mentioned, the change they just did really made no difference in the general context of the message. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 22:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Kill the word "they", and I think the new wording is actually better than the old... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops – misread it: go back to the old wording, but kill the word "they", and it's better. [add:] Actually, "...but who must work together..." is probably best. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha. What a lot of typing to end up with the change I made to begin with! At least it's consensus based! ThxCraic Den (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't right to me with the "who," but meh. No biggie. But yeah, that's how things sometimes work out. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 22:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons
Might need some eyes here. I'm not as heavily involved in this, but there's been a constant back and forth on this with IPs. The Fairly OddParents, for some strange reason, was moved to Nicktoons with the first episode of 2017, and even reruns aren't airing on Nickelodeon; as such, the template should only show how long it ran on Nickelodeon and not stay as being present like the change an IP just did. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 15:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd advise starting a Talk page discussion about this at Template talk:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Ella Anderson
Geraldo and I could use some additional support at her article. I don't think semi-protection nor an ANI report are justified yet, though this Baby user has added unsourced information a few times now. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Warned twice, now – if they persist with adding unsourced bio info, a report to WP:AIV would not be unreasonable... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Cook PVI by Senate "class"
Any advice on where would be a good place for a table showing Cook PVI by senate class? I was asked for this by a couple of people looking at the 2018 election as they could not find it elsewhere ... Tks! LondonYoung (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Possibly at Classes of United States Senators would be the place to start. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Tks for the response. I thot about that before editing, but it seemed less appropriate.  LondonYoung (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say it'd go better at the latter. The Cook PVI article really needs to be simple, without much detail. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Raven's Home
Could you keep an extra eye on Raven's Home for a while? Thanks. This is the second time this user has done this, and the first time they didn't even bother to use edit summaries. (See page history.) Secondary sources before the series' premiere had different people listed for those roles, but now that the series has premiered, if the on-screen credits are different, then we use those as they're the authoritative and primary source. The other parts of their edits were overall not useful/improvements, in my opinion, such as removing the Plot section. I hesitate to warn because they appear to be a good-standing editor, but if they do it again, then I very likely will issue a BRD warning. Pinging and  as well. Hope your guys' weekend is going well. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 23:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering about "Developed by: Jed Elinoff & Scott Thomas" in the Infobox. Is there any sourcing support for that? There's clearly a source indicating that they're the show's EP's, so that's fine. But for "Developed by", I'd like to see some sourcing confirmation. Also, from my reading of the documentation at Infobox television, it seems like either "Created by" should be used, or "Developed by", but not both. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Some series I think separate them or something, such as here with Raven's Home and other series like Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn. There is primary sourcing. Skip to 3:18 here: Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, it's at 3:28. Fair enough. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since we're on the subject, you know how we have the creator(s) in the lead? Should the developers be of equal importance and be mentioned there as well for the series that have them? Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering where the "creator" stuff is from – I just checked refs #1 & #2 and couldn't find it... Assuming that's verifiable, yeah, I'd put the "developers" in the lede too, as they are actually credited in the show's opening, whereas the "creators" don't appear to be... I'd aslo add the "creators" to the 'Production' section (sourced). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean from before the series premiered? Here. I removed that once the series premiered and I updated the infobox to include the on-screen credits. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What am I missing? I'm still not finding a source that mentions "Michael Poryes and Susan Sherman", and they aren't included in the show's opening credits, are they? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * At the very end of that article: "Raven's Home" was created by longtime writer/producer partners Scott Thomas and Jed Elinoff (Disney Channel's "Best Friends Whenever," Emmy nominees for "R.L. Stine's The Haunting Hour"), and is executive produced by Thomas and Elinoff, and Raven-Symoné. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're asking. For the series' credits, if you watch 10 more seconds from the time stamp you mentioned above (3:28), you'll see that creators are there as well. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it! Wasn't expecting to see that after the "Directed by" credit – I think that's unusual: usually the "Created by" credit is much, much earlier in the credits, IIRC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL, do you mean after "Developed by"? "Written by" and "Directed by" followed "Created by." Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. "Created by" is usually in the main opening credits (i.e. with the main actors) – it's usually at the end of that IIRC. Meanwhile, "Directed by" is usually the last credit listed in every episode. That's why I'm surprised "Created by" is listed after that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not? Although yeah, "Created by" is usually at the end of the opening sequence. The order for Raven's Home is: Executive producers -> Co-executive producer -> Produced by -> Developed by -> Created by -> Written by -> Directed by. Are you trying to make me crazy? Anyway, I think it's like that for almost all series sans the "Created by" which is usually at the end of the opening sequence. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

List of Mighty Med episodes
Pinging, , and as well. Something to keep an eye on and temporarily watch if you aren't because someone tried that thing again. (See history.) And in case they try again... Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * They've now left me a message on my talk page, but I'm not completely following the point they're trying to make. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, already watching it. I'm not always that active with keeping an eye on my watchlist nowadays though, sorry. :P nyuszika7h (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahahaha! —  Wylie pedia  23:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)