User talk:IJBall/Archive 24

Discussion at Talk:Kirby Buckets
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kirby Buckets Perhaps you can do a better job at explaining the reasons why. Last I checked, though, that's not how it's done. (And I myself avoid images, anyway.) Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think is better versed in the relevant guideline... But, yeah, I think there's something about stuff like this should only be used at List of characters-type articles... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Another project
When time permits, I have a good project for you. Go through the talk pages of the articles here User:Amaury/sandbox and (re)assess article classes (stub, start...), etc., especially those of newer series. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 03:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Knight Squad
Guest stars: As we know, this series, like most Nickelodeon series, doesn't list the character names of the guest star actors. A while ago, you ended up adding parentheticals as a temporary solution; however, as you noted in a discussion, that works better when each episode summary mentions all of the guest stars. Over at Talk:List of School of Rock episodes, one of the ideas you mentioned was: 1) A 'note' at the top of the 'Episodes' section which lets readers know that character names are not included in the episode credits... That I think would be the best solution. Have a visible note at the top above the table that states something along the lines of "credits do not show character names; therefore, character names shown are the WP:COMMONNAMES," and then the rest works no different than other series. For example, we'd have "Lizzy Greene as Shadow Ghost" in the episode summary.

Notable guest stars: Over on the New Amsterdam discussion, you mention the following ...if a 'Guest' section is done, it should always list the episode(s) the guest actor appeared in (to meet WP:V), either by episode title, or by something like "episode #2.12". For the case of that article and similar articles, I can agree with listing the episodes the notable guest star actors appear in because those articles are the under the general "law" of "plot summaries are only for plot" nonsense by "some editors" who think guidelines are top-down rules. However, in the case of other series, like Knight Squad and Lab Rats: Elite Force, it actually doesn't seem necessary to list which episodes notable guest stars have appeared in, because the guest star actors are down in the episode summaries, so that meets WP:VERIFY. We don't list which episodes recurring guest stars appear in, and they need to pass WP:VERIFY just the same, so notable guest stars—again, in cases like this where they're noted in the episode summaries—don't really need to have their episode appearances listed, either, in my opinion. So at least in the cases where we've got the notable guest star actors noted in the episode summaries, having just "Fred Grandy as Wizard Hogancross, the greatest wizard in the land" or "Hal Sparks as Davenport" is just fine, in my opinion. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 00:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a little leary of the first suggestion – I think the way we're doing it now (with the parentheticals in the episode summary) is still the best way to handle this. I wouldn't object if the consensus at the Talk page went along with what you're suggesting. But it wouldn't be the way I'd prefer to do it, because it's implying something that isn't the case – that the credits are supplying the name.
 * On the second, I would much rather that we leave it as is – I am for listing the episode appearances in every 'Guest cast' section there is to encourage it being done more widely. Yes, I know that at Knight Squad we're also listing the guest cast in the episode summaries, but there are plenty of articles that don't (and plenty of editors who will object that we do it that way), so I'd rather leave the episode titles included in the 'Guest cast' section. (The only reason we don't do that with 'Recurring' cast is because it would end up becoming a very long (in some cases) list of episodes – that said, I actually think we should still do something like that, as "hidden notes", even with 'Recurring' cast...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On the latter, another reason I brought it up is because of the "(extra)" that you put in your summary here, which means, and you acknowledged this in your response above, WP:VERIFY was already being met. Now, for Knight Squad, I wonder if it would be better to just go the "(episode(s):)" route. After the character name, and then followed by the bio, if one is present. I still think the format looks neater if it's just the episode titles in parentheses, such as: Hal Sparks as Davenport ("The Rise of Five", "Holding Out for a Hero"). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the only reason you want the "episode(s)" label is to make it clear that the listed titles are episode titles, but I think that part's already obvious. In any case, I can compromise and deal with the "episode(s)" label. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 03:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer keeping the "episode(s):" label because it makes it clear, even to people "skim-reading the page" what those parenthetical titles refer to. This is also something I likely wouldn't revert if somebody removed them, but it's my preference that they stay... But, again, the reason I'd prefer the 'Guest' cast section be left this way is that this is the way it's supposed to be done at most TV series articles (but often isn't being done) – e.g. well, there are many, but let me pick on List of Black Lightning characters (see the 'Guest stars' section) as just one such example, where no episode titles or numbers are being included (so how am I supposed to WP:VERIFY them?!)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On a side note, interesting scheduling tonight.
 * Henry Danger: 8:00–8:28 PM
 * Cousins for Life: 8:28—8:56 PM
 * Knight Squad: 8:56–9:30 PM
 * Nickandmore! stated it's a move by Nickelodeon to retain viewers, though not exactly sure how that works. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The networks believe these little "timeslot scheduling" games work, but I don't think anyone else is convinced that they do. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's even more problematic because Knight Squad's ratings will be split. Four minutes on Nickelodeon and 30 minutes on Nick at Nite because Nielsen is dumb and thinks NAN is a separate network even though it's on the same channel. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Double Dare
User:Amaury/sandbox/Double Dare 2018

Looks like there's an identical situation to Lip Sync Battle Shorties. On The Futon Critic, "Blue Whales vs. The Flossinators" (July 18, 2018) and "Hot Tamales vs. The Stylish Ones" (December 26, 2018) are listed as #126, while "Dominating Duo vs. Blast from the Past" (July 9, 2018) and "Relentless Goats vs. Purple Pandas" (December 28, 2018) are listed as #127. There are 40 episodes for the first season, and the February 1 episode is the 40th episode, the season finale. We are missing production codes #121 and #124, and, at a guess, it seems probable that those would belong to two of the December 2018 ones. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 22:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Max & Shred
I haven't searched since our discussion, but never hurts to try again. I've to get to class, but if you want to see if you can find anything that supports Canadian, too, a la Make It Pop, that'd be great. (Although in Make It Pop's case, it is fully Canadian.) Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The Conners
Originally, I thought D.J. was absent in last night's episode, but after skimming through it after having watched it, he was only in one scene: Becky's party, where he was drinking beer and "talking" to Geena. (The talking where you can see their mouths moving, but there's no actual sound. I know it's something many series do.) He was also there when Dan and others arrived to the party, but it was still the same scene. So D.J. had no lines at all in the episode. Have you ever seen that for a typical comedy series? I know I've seen it for series like Backstage or Degrassi, but not a typical comedy series like The Conners. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 08:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's rare. It's possible that a scene with the character actually talking was cut as the episode was edited... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On a kinda sorta related note, do you agree with this? How is she notable? Despite ABC and Disney Channel both being owned by Disney, to keep lists from getting too much, I think we should restrict it by network. For example, Rowan Blanchard would be notable if she appeared on another Disney Channel series. But just appearing on a series on another Disney network, I'm not so sure. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See if anyone else reported on that... If someone did, it's probably notable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to the discussion
I kindly invite you to the discussion in Talk:2016 Taiwan presidential election to decide whether to include the term "Republic of China" in the election infobox and the lead section as it is the official name of the country. Thank you. Lmmnhn (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Waterfront TV series
I just happened to see Articles for deletion/Waterfront (TV series) a few minutes ago. I never saw the article, and I know that the discussion is closed. What puzzled me is that I get the impression from the discussion that the program was never broadcast ("Another non notable 'cancelled before airing' TV series ..."). While CBS may have not have shown Waterfront, the program had 76 episodes in syndication, according to Hal Erickson's Syndicated Television: The First Forty Years, 1947-1987 (page 47). The last sentence of the entry about the show says, "Waterfront's deft blend of action, family values and song kept the property afloat in reruns for over a decade, a fact that delighted and enriched its longtime distributor MCA."

Perhaps the program doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards, but I thought you might like to know that it was broadcast, in contrast to one participant's comment that it "never saw the light of day". Eddie Blick (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Waterfront mentioned in that book must be a different Waterfront. (Is a year mentioned for this one? There's this show from 1954...) The Waterfront that was deleted is a show in which 5 episodes were apparently produced (c.2006) for CBS, but which never aired. It's quite unusual for a show to get 5 episodes produced and have none of them reach air. That's why I'd like to check to see if this one got enough coverage to merit an article, despite not technically meeting WP:TVSHOW... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The one you linked to from IMDB is the one I had in mind. I apologize for my error. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Shawn Mendes – Personal life
With regard to speculation about his sexuality, Mendes stated, "First of all, I'm not gay. Second of all, it shouldn't make a difference if I was or if I wasn't. The focus should be on the music and not my sexuality."[105][106][107]

Is him stating that he is straight really all that notable? For one thing, that statement just kind of jumps into it; there's no "introduction" of sorts that says something along the lines of "due to X happening, Shawn Mendes has stated Y." In other words, why is that just being stated out of the blue? What happened that led to that statement? In any case, as we know, just because something passes verification and comes from a reliable source doesn't necessarily mean it should be included, per WP:VNOTSUFF and WP:UNDUE.

Obviously, I get it. It sucks when people make assumptions like that. From doing a small amount of research a while ago, it seems that one of the reasons the rumor was started was because of this voice, which is of course wrong since that's stereotyping. There are some homosexuals, male or female, who will dress up in certain fashion, adjust their voice to be a certain way, etc., and we can certainly say that there are some things that are more common within the gay community, but that does not mean that everybody who does that is gay. There are plenty of heterosexuals who dress "flamboyant" and such. I honestly don't care who anybody is attracted to. If they're a nice person, I will like them. Add: It would be totally different if this were someone coming out of the closet and announcing they were gay, bi, or any other non-straight sexuality, but that is clearly not the case here. Although that's not something I really "agree with," so to speak. "Coming out" shouldn't really be a thing in this day and age, in my opinion; people should just be attracted to whomever they want to be attracted to. We don't have people "coming out" and announcing they're straight and then posting that they stated they're straight on here. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 07:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on this? Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 19:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really. First, I really dislike Mendes as an artist. So there's that. Second, when I edit BLPs, I usually make a concerted effort to avoid the sexual politics stuff. So I really don't have an opinion on whether or not this should be included – I usually let other editors hash this stuff out... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I had no clue you disliked him. In any case, I'll ask Geraldo and see what he thinks. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As an artist – I dislike his stuff. As a regular guy, he seems OK. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh. Certainly not a troublemaker like Jake Paul. Or like Justin Bieber a few years ago—he's turned his life around from what I can see, just like Britney Spears. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Milo Manheim
Is the latest edit defining? I'm trying to think if this is akin to not calling Breanna Yde an Australian or Australian-American actress and instead just an American actress, as was agreed on the talk page, since all of her major work is as an American. So here, since Milo's major work is as an American, he would be an American actor, not a Jewish or American-Jewish actor? Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is one of those ones I have no idea about. It could be a WP:BRD situation... I don't know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thoughts? Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 05:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nationality context in the intro sentence looks correct and that was the issue with Yde. The category looks to be sourced in the article. Jewish is an ethnicity and is OK for categories and somewhat expected, just not for the intro sentence. Iffy for defining but his mother is in the same actress category. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The Loud House
We really need to do something about the characters section. As I suggested somewhere—I'll have to see if I can find the discussion later—for animation, I think it would just be better if we focused solely on the main characters, as this is just getting messy. The question is, how do we go about it?

PS: You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. This seems to be one of those situations where the first episode was a pilot, so we should go by the crediting and crediting order from the second episode onward. It's not a series I personally I watch, and I don't know if it's one you watch, either, but still thought you might be interested. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 13:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am, but not interested enough to tangle in MOS:TV about it – that editor made a mistake in bringing it there: they should have discussed that at the article's talk page... As for The Loud House, post to the article's Talk page expressing your concerns – if not one responds, you can take that as a sign that you can probably cut the extraneous material. Failing that, a LoC article can be spun off... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Addison Riecke and Maya Le Clark
An editor (first an IP, then registered an account) attempted to remove the redirects for both these actresses from The Thundermans to give them their own articles, one of which (Maya Le Clark) I restored to a redirect. Another editor restored the redirect for Addison Riecke, but I am questioning where that redirects to. Talk:Addison Riecke also shows a mini-discussion about whether she is notable yet to warrant an article; I'm thinking The Thundermans is still her only significant role, though I don't know about this series A Girl Named Jo. MPFitz1968 (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Riecke also co-starred in the 2017 remake of The Beguiled. Despite that, I very much doubt she meets WP:BASIC, even if an argument can be made that she may technically meet WP:NACTOR... But Le Clark is definitely not notable yet: she was barely "starring" on The Thundermans, and she's a child actor with no other notable credits. Bottom line: I think redirects are justified for both, though I'm now going to take a look at Riecke's Talk page, and possibly leave a comment there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A Girl Named Jo is a series on the Brat YouTube channel, where Addison Riecke is one of the main cast. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 15:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I retargeted Addison Riecke to The Thundermans – while she may be main cast on A Girl Named Jo, there's no way it's better known than The Thundermans... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Edition names
Hey IJBall just a question here about the naming of the Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Edition articles. Do they need to be moved? I don't think they do since season one and season four were named by their season number while the second and third seasons were given the subtitles Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Edition Plus and Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010 respectively. Based on your comment at the move discussion for the first two main seasons I'm thinking a move relating to the Teen Edition would be a consistency argument as well. What do you think? --  Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    02:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * First, I don't think these require RM's – I think they can just be boldly moved. Second, if sources confirm that Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Edition Plus was actually the name of that one, then I think it's fine where it is. In the case of Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010, I would check to see whether "2010" was actually part of the title or not – if it wasn't, I would simply boldly move it to Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The third season is subtitled "Teen Clash 2010" so it doesn't need to be changed then. Their two celebrity seasons is also named correctly so they doesn't need to be moved. This just leaves the Israeli version and Big Brother articles should be done. --  Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    16:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

An invitation to discussion
I kindly invite you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Knight Squad in January
Nickelodeon needs to get their shit together. They aren't even promoting Knight Squad for January. Even the combined promo is just Henry Danger and Cousins for Life. The only "promotion" it has is the "coming up next" during Cousins for Life. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's usually a bad sign – when nets stop promoting TV shows, it's means they've given up on them. I would not expect a season #3 for this show... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nickelodeon is still tweeting "don't miss an all new Knight Squad on X," but nothing on-air. Cousins for Life is not really doing any better. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I still say – if a network isn't actually advertising for a show on the network itself, then they've abandoned it. I have no idea if Nick will renew Cousins for Life (I imagine they might at least give it a "short" season #2), but I think all signs point to them not renewing Knight Squad again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what I like about Disney Channel. They don't care so much about their ratings. Actors are contracted for three seasons, with further seasons requiring contract renewal. And, actually, supposedly Wizards of Waverly Place was renewed by Disney Channel for a fifth season, but that was eventually overturned because, for one reason or another, David Henrie no longer had interest in the series. Notice he did not appear in Alex vs. Alex. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 19:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

108.53.173.148
Need your help with this IP. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 00:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ping so they're aware as well – looks to me like a lot of dubious WP:OR edits, with some constructive edits to add links mixed in... I've reverted where I feel it's appropriate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Th issue here is it's WP:OVERLINKING since Nickelodeon and Nickelodeon Productions link to the same place, such as on Cousins for Life and Legendary Dudas. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

And blocked, but only for 12 hours. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs )`
 * And they came back to immediately the same WP:DE. I've already given them another Level 4 UW – if you see them continuing to do this, send them back to WP:AIV, please! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Genre vs Country in films
What do think should done with these films? Leave the genre or change to country?


 * Stolen (2009 documentary film) (Australia) vs Stolen (2009 drama film) (American)
 * The Messenger (2015 documentary film) (Canadian) vs The Messenger (2015 horror film) (British)
 * The Aggressives (documentary film) (American) vs The Aggressives (South Korean)
 * The Connection (2014 documentary film) (American?) vs The Connection (2014 action film) (France-Belgium)

--Gonnym (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, Atlantean (documentary series) "is a quartet of documentary films and accompanying book" - without the books I'd have done Atlantean (film series), but now I'm not sure. Any thoughts? --Gonnym (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The first three? – No question: go to "(year country film)" as the better, more WP:RECOGNIZABLE disambig. choice – e.g. Stolen (2009 Australian film), etc. (The originals wil still exist as redirects as well.) The fourth, I think I'd leave where they are (as "France-Belgium" and the uncertainty of the doc. film rule out going to "(year country film)" disambig. IMO (though I'd maybe create those as redirects?...)). For the last, I think I'd still go to Atlantean (film series) – you can always add a redirect at Atlantean (book); the alternative would be Atlantean (franchise), but that seems less than "WP:PRECISE" in that particular case... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 06:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I Am Frankie season 3
Not an official announcement nor an official outlet channel, so of course can't use it, but I don't doubt Carson Rowland's words, and we'll probably be seeing something official soon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6Vxgg_eALc Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 10:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ^ Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 10:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Adult Swim (UK & Irish TV programming block)
Adult Swim (UK & Ireland) - how would you do the country names - Adult Swim (UK & Irish TV programming block) or Adult Swim (Irish & UK TV programming block)? --Gonnym (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on all sorts of precedents, it should be moved to Adult Swim (UK and Irish TV programming block). Hope this helps. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton and WP:MINORS
Are her kids really notable enough on their own to be identified in the prose according to policy? What makes her kids more notable on their own than any other celebrity spawn?--Fradio71 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My answer is "no" – names and exact dates of birth for the minor children of celebrities, any kind of "celebrity", should not be included except in those cases where the children are somehow independently notable, as per WP:MINORS and WP:BLPPRIVACY. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Raven's Home and List of Raven's Home episodes
Will likely need you there. Editor who can't read notes. Add: Edit warring warning has been issued. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 19:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ping and  as well. Between yesterday and today, I'm at my limit. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I’ve added the episode count of ravens home season 2 which was 22 and the last air date since there are no current episodes being aired as of 2019. The last episode of season 2 Keepin it real was aired on November 30, 2018 so I don’t see why that needs a reference when there is a reference on the episode page.i don’t agree with my edits being reverted. Tnays20 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because that's a WP:SYNTH – you didn't actually add a source that confirmed the Nov. 30 episode was the "season finale". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If I can find a source that says the nov 30 episode was the finale episode then can I edit the page without changes being reverted. Tnays20 (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I found an article on tv line that says Raven’s Home was renewed for a third season I continue looking for articles to verify the second season has concluded. Tnays20 (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a perennial issue with TV shows on Disney Channel and Nickelodeon – their "season finales" are rarely advertised as such or reported as such independently. WP:NOHURRY applies in this case – eventually, Disney is likely to advertise the "season premiere" (i.e. the premiere of "season #3") of Raven's Home, and when that happens, then the articles can be updated accordingly. But, in the meantime, they need to be left as is, if there is no sourcing to verify that the Nov. 30 episode was the "season #2 finale"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Fuller House
It's since been changed to something else by Fradio, but this was wrong. If anyone needs to read, it's them. As for the new source, Spoiler TV, first, I'm not sure if it's WP:RS, and second, episode count is controlled by the network, and Candace Cameron Blue is not the network nor the showrunner. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 23:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Knight Squad...
...is over. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 19:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That is actually not definitive (i.e. can't really be used at the article)... But, yeah – I was not expecting another season of this one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Any chance you can post to Talk:Knight Squad and point out that this tweet can't really be used to indicate the show's end, because it's from and unverified account and he never comes out and says that the show has been cancelled?... Best to nip this in the bud, as we've already got IPs trying to use this tweet at the article... Thanks. (And if you can't get to it, I'll try to do it later today...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

RE: User:Mickeydee15
You're the one being "disruptive". Seems if it's not your way, it's not right. Interesting..... Mickeydee15 (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Try again. You're the one who has already been blocked more than once for disruptive editing. Second, I am not the only one who has complained about your editing on this front. Third, I've quoted the relevant guideline to you multiple times. Meanwhile, even your own edit summaries make clear that you're editing on a WP:ILIKEIT basis, not on the basis of any policy or guideline. If I were you, I'd quit while you're behind... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I will be ignoring all future messages from you. Keep on leaving them, I really don't care ....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.92.9 (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ergo, disruptive editing. Which will get you blocked. P.S. Thanks for unmasking your IP address – it will make it easier to track your attempts at disruptive editing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Fast Layne
I think I may have reverted this content before, but I don't remember. For once, this has nothing to do with a user, but rather the content itself. Do we care what allegedly happened beforehand, especially considering there's no article from Deadline Hollywood on the matter, or do we only care about what it was like when it was ordered to series? (How it was prior to that last edit.) Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 15:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I just looked at it, and the source used is TVLine, which is almost as good as Deadline. The production people match up to those on the current project, so it looks to check out. The only thing that would be useful is a source indicating why they dropped the specific "Herbie" connection, but I'm guessing no source on that exists. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Explain something to me
Why do we care how tall someone is? Like, why is that a parameter to begin with? Next we'll have people trying to insert weights. Age is fine as are locations they were born and currently reside in, though I could see people make the argument "Why do we care where they live?" Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 19:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Heights are actually potentially of interest in the case of actors (and prob. dancers too), IMO. But the vast majority of editors don't agree, and remove that info as "trivial". Correct heights for people are also notoriously difficult to reliably source... Anyway, heights are considered relevant bio info in the case of models (and maybe some others), which is why the parameter is kept. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation style
What are your thoughts of this style of disambiguation: Inazuma Eleven: Ares no Tenbin (2018 series), Jack Horkheimer: Star Hustler (1997 season) and Star Gazers (2018 season)? --Gonnym (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thoughts:
 * In the case of the first, the video game hasn't even been released yet so I don't see how it can be at the base title of Inazuma Eleven: Ares no Tenbin!?! I think an WP:RM is required to figure out what the title of both articles should be...
 * In the case of Star Gazers/Jack Horkheimer: Star Hustler – either it's the type of TV show that doesn't justify episodes lists at all (and this looks to me to be the kind of show where episode lists are basically WP:INDISCRIMINATE info!), or they should all be merged to a central List of Star Gazers episodes article, and converted to redirects. They absolutely should not be standalone articles IMO.
 * That's what I think on these. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Managed to miss the 'ping'. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

NCTV series vs program
Ok, so tell me what change we need to make so that you'll stop trying to move anthology series to (TV program). I get that the definitions are always going to be fuzzy and sometimes confusing, but I think you know better and the evidence is that we name anthology shows as (TV series). So you tell me what you think needs to be done to stop this butting of heads. Do you think nature documentary shows like Life on Earth (TV series) are programs over series? How is a true crime documentary show any different? You seem to always quote the self-contained with little connection to other episodes, other than title, format, hosts, and other on-air personalities line a lot, so how can we make clear that it doesn't apply to anthologies? -- Netoholic @ 05:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I've already said that I have no interest in pursuing a change of "(episode) anthology series" like The Twilight Zone to "TV program", as they've been referred to as "anthology series" going back to the 1950s... Those are fine staying at "TV series".
 * Life on Earth is not an example I'd use (as I consider that one really more like a "miniseries", and would actually support moving it to Life on Earth (miniseries)) – the better examples are Nova (TV series) and Nature (TV series) (or Wild Kingdom), and documentary programs of that ilk – those I feel strongly are TV programs under NCTV (esp. Nova) as each episode is a standalone topic. "Science" is too tenuous a "narrative theme" to qualify a show like that as a "TV series" IMO. Similarly, any interview or "news" type show, like 60 Minutes or Dateline is rightly a "TV program" according to NCTV. So are TV shows like Unsolved Mysteries – also "TV programs". As per my reading of NCTV, even shows like Kitchen Nightmares or Gordon Ramsay's 24 Hours to Hell and Back are properly "TV programs" because each episode is a "standalone topic or subject".
 * As to your question, I am actually quite satisfied with NCTV's current formulation that shows with continuing "story elements" and "characters" are "TV series", and shows with standalone episodes are "TV programs" and do not feel that this formulation needs to be changed as it's pretty clear-cut, and recent RM results have affirmed this IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Forget that NCTV exists for a minute - would you agree that the world at-large considers Nova and Nature to be a "TV series" rather than "TV program"? -- Netoholic @ 05:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not really relevant. Popular press and media are incredibly imprecise in terminology, and throw words around with pretty much no thought to their meaning – we see this time and again, for example, with "miniseries" vs. "limited series" (which is why some of us want to deprecate use of "miniseries" as a disambiguator now, because it has become almost a meaningless term, thanks to a sloppy press and disingenuous TV studios and networks...). The TV press will variously use "TV series", "TV program" and "TV show" to describe anything (dramas, sitcoms, reality shows, documentaries, anthologies, game shows, news programs, etc.!). I consider this to fall under WP:ONUS – we are not required to use the same terms that some sources use to describe TV shows, esp. in terms of disambiguation – like the MOS, we are allowed to come up with schemes on Wikipedia that work best on Wikipedia... And, as per our current definitions set up in WP:NCTV, Nova is rightly a "TV program" because each episode is a single, solitary topic, with nothing really carried through from episode to episode. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It IS relevant in that we should strive to make our naming convention match general reader expectations. The current wording seems to be leading you (incorrectly, in my mind) in the direction of wanting to rename hundreds of articles and dozens of categories. That points to fundamental mismatch and needs to be addressed. So please, forgetting our current definitions - what does the world most often describe NOVA and Nature as - TV series or TV program? -- Netoholic @ 05:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite simply, what you are advocating is that we should simply eliminate "TV program" for use in NCTV disambiguation (or should only use it for single-airing TV shows) in favor of pretty much always using "TV series". While that is certainly a justifiable viewpoint, it is one that I do not agree with, and would not support, as I do not think it is accurate – I think the way "TV series" vs. "TV program" is currently set up in NCTV makes a lot of sense, and the definitions for when to use either of the two is very clear-cut. In simplistic terms, it basically boils down to "scripted/fictional" = "TV series"; "non-fiction" = "TV program" (most of the time) – I like this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's now how I would proceed. Now please answer the question about how the world generally defines NOVA and Nature. -- Netoholic @ 05:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Then I have no idea what you want to do then. When do you think "TV program" should be used?! Because it's not clear to me... At least limiting its use to single-airing TV programming, and calling everything with multiple episodes a "TV series", would make sense. Otherwise the current formulation makes sense.... And I've already answered that question – it doesn't matter how "the world" defines NOVA and Nature: as far as the world is concerned, any TV show with "multiple episodes" is a "TV series"... or a "TV show"... or a "TV program"... or any of the above... Anyway, I don't think there's much more light to be gained in a conversation about this on my Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't want to discuss this on your talk page, but you're willing to fight this on individual RMs for the next few years?  Have you looked in the documentary categories?  Editors for years have shown proven desire to use "TV series" (based presumably on the sourcing), so your recent crusade is bucking a VERY big and long-term trend. -- Netoholic @  06:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But "my crusade" has actually been backed by recent RM results, because I'm actually following what NCTV says: "standalone episodes" = "TV program". Regardless, you and I talking about this on my Talk page is unlikely to solve anything, as actually changing NCTV will require a wider discussion among editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Request: Change a Voice Actor's Filmography Guide
A duet of admins specifically those of Anarchyte and Cambridge Bay Weather had rejected the request of having a very well-known voice actor/actress filmography's guide getting its name change. As what Amaury said on the now archived KC Undercover discussion, you and Geraldo Perez have a familiarity with filmographies.

The VA in question is a dual Canadian/US citizen who goes by the name of Tara Strong. (formerly known as Tara Lyn Charendoff) You may or may not be familiar with her voicing work. Due to the massive amount of roles both animated and live action a filmography guide for her has already been created.

So instead of being named Tara Strong filmography, change it into List of Tara Strong Perfomances. Additionally, opening sentence should be transposed into "Canadian-American actress Tara Strong has done voice work for numerous animations and video games and has performed in various live-action productions" rather than "Tara Strong is a Canadian-American actress who has done voice work for numerous animations and video games and has performed in various live-action productions."

Although you're not a sysop, this has to be a given for us. Please accept the name change.

That's all,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Nickelodeon
Maybe this will boost ratings. As it seems, while it could just be a lucky break, it seems that Nickelodeon is gradually rising, at least in its Saturday prime time. Well, see, for example, Saturday's ratings. And for Knight Squad that's what it was getting even with promotion. I imagine it could have gotten another 100K or so viewers had it been promoted normally rather than just the "tonight" or "coming up next" blurbs during Henry Danger and Cousins for Life. Sans "End of the Knight – Part 1", the Knight Squad January ratings were the same as back in September–October, with regular promotion. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Henry Danger and Cousins for Life even beat yesterday's The Loud House, which usually does its best when it's at 5:00 PM for its weeks of premieres. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Henry Danger
FYI. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 01:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, as per WP:NOHURRY and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ping you guys as well as I may need you. Even if the site is reliable, it's a mess to navigate through, the information isn't just right there. For this reason, I feel it is best to simply wait for The Futon Critic and/or Zap2it to update. I've referred them to the talk page, per WP:BRD. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You wanna explain? lol
Here. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 00:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No idea... What article were those warnings for? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Overall warning. See their contribs. Articles include List of Mech-X4 episodes, List of Game Shakers episodes, Coop & Cami Ask the World, List of Bunk'd episodes, and List of Andi Mack episodes. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 00:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Rowspan
Do you have any links to the discussions where it was mentioned (by someone who knew what they were talking about) why rowspan shouldn't be used in the middle of a table? --Gonnym (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There have been lots of them – probably more than I can remember. But just searching my Talk page archives for "rowspan" should get you some hits. The other major place that it was discussed (and ultimately ignored by members of WP:DISCOGRAPHY and WP:POPMUSIC) was Talk:Sabrina Carpenter discography.
 * My $0.02 on this is that it is clear that WP:ACCESS needs to be updated to make the problems with 'rowspan' (and 'colspan') in tables spelled out explicitly (currently the issues are just "implied") – it's just that somebody has to take the first step and either do it and make the changes to WP:ACCESS, or hold an WP:RfC on the issue. But, obviously, there are a number of WikiProjects, most notably WP:DISCOGRAPHY, that are simply burying their heads in the sand about it and ignoring this issue, thus putting them in violation of Wikipedia's non-discrimination policy. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Dcapellj.
This user has shown up again. Pretty sure they're WP:NOTHERE. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 22:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure they'd be considered WP:NOTHERE. But I think a good case can either be made for WP:CIR or WP:DE. Keep an eye on them, and if you think you can build a solid case, it probably needs to be taken to WP:ANI. Will ping for their thoughts... P.S. The whole Schneider's Bakery article has always been a complete mess IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to edit much and most edits look to be good-faith although he does seem to have issues with Schneider and continued addition of defamatory content should get him blocked. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * IJBall and : User talk:Dcapellj.. (Link to SPI.) Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

List of Mighty Med episodes
Could I get some more eyes here, please? (, .) Check the history; the problem is evident, and it just recently came off a semi-protection. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * When it happens again, request protect and note the immediate resumption of what led to last protect. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Andi Mack
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Andi Mack. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Henry Danger – "Thumb War"
The Futon Critic has changed the production code from 899 to 413/421. Normally, we'd handle that with an en-dash to show it's two or more sequential episodes merged for presentation (for example, 401–403 is episodes 401, 402, and 403); however, this case is different as having 413–421 would imply that the episode is production codes 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, and 421, which isn't the case, it's only 413 and 421. So I've done this for now: List of Henry Danger episodes; however, if you think slashes would work better or have something else that would work better, by all means, but I don't think the standard en-dash practice is appropriate here for the reasons stated. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This has come up once before, on some other show – can't remember which one – might have been iCarly (yep: "iDate a Bad Boy")... Anyway, I'd do that as either "413/421" or 413, 421". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, if we have a source with a double-length's original production code(s) rather than the special production code used to show it was merged for presentation, it's better to use that, right? For example, we're using 113–201 for Andi Mack over 299. In the case here, Copyright Office has all Knight Squad season 1 episodes listed here, including "A Thief in the Knight." Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In general, for prod. codes – use the onscreen prod. codes first (e.g. Legacies has those at the very end of the end-credits, but many shows do not show prod. codes in the end-credits), then the U.S.C.O. numbers, then whatever The Futon Critic has. At least, that's my opinion – U.S.C.O.'s prod. codes are "better" than Futon's. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I will add that, then. The only problem with USCO is that doesn't seem to be as good with Nickelodeon production codes as with Disney Channel/XD production codes. With Disney Channel/XD, all you have to do is search "Disney [Series Name]" and it'll pop up since everything is consistently listed as "DISNEY [SERIES NAME]," but that's not the case with Nickelodeon for unknown reasons. For example, all you do is search for "Knight Squad," not "Nickelodeon Knight Squad" or "Nick Knight Squad." And in some cases, that doesn't work. "Henry Danger" yields nothing and "Game Shakers" only has some season 1 production codes—ditto I Am Frankie. So for whatever reason, it's not that well organized or complete for Nickelodeon series. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Sophie Simnett date range
I’m confused about you reverting my edit on Sophie Simnett, because on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:DATERANGE it says that 2016–17 would be correct as the years are consecutive. I’m in no means trying to start another edit war but I’m simply confused. Surely 2016–17 is correct? – Joesimnett (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And what about when it's not "consecutive years"? IOW, what if The Lodge had run from 2016 to 2018? IOW, does it make sense to have a mix of dates that are "2016–17" and "2016–2018" in a Filmography table? Even worse is when people try to mix "1996–98" and "1999–2002" (the latter of which has XXXX–XXXX as the required style) type date ranges in Filmography tables. IOW, while consecutive "2016–17" style is "allowed" in some circumstances, that doesn't mean it's "required"... Bottom line: "XXXX–XXXX" is the "preferred" date range format under MOS:DATERANGE and there's no reason for Filmography tables not to follow the preferred "XXXX–XXXX" style... Also, "2017–" – i.e. open-ended date ranges – are definitely not the preferred MOS:DATERANGE style – these should always be in the form of "2017–present". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Shuga Naija
Hello,

Your move of Shuga Naija is not appropriate and you should have gotten a consensus before doing that. First of all, seasons of television series have a regular naming format on Wikipedia and that is: "Series (Season X)". While the third season of Shuga was very popular as "Shuga Naija", there's still the need to conform with this existing format.

Ultimately, the last season of Shuga (the 6th season) was also dubbed "Shuga Naija". Therefore, there's also the important need to differentiate these seasons. Kindly, revert the article back to the former title. Thanks.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The move was appropriate. I endorse it. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's just say, the article was tagged with Category:Television articles with incorrect naming style for a legitimate reason. – Care to chime in here?... But, yeah – the former title was incorrectly disambiguated as per WP:NCTV, and if it was titled Shuga Naija, then it doesn't need additional disambiguation, as no other article currently has that title. If an article is created for season #6, then we can correctly disambiguate both articles (as per WP:NCTV) at that point.... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The article was titled Shuga (season 3): Shuga Naija which is not how we disambiguate. It is either Shuga (season 3), Shuga: Shuga Naija or Shuga Naija. If each season has a name, then depending on the name style for all seasons, it can be either Shuga: Shuga Naija or Shuga Naija, if they don't have a name, then Shuga (season 3) should work. But either way, the current title is still better than the previous one. --Gonnym (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The interesting question would be what to do if season #6 is also "Shuga Naija", and it also gets an article. In that case: Shuga (season 3) and Shuga (season 6) would seem to be the way to go (with redirects), though I suppose Shuga: Shuga Naija (season 3) and Shuga: Shuga Naija (season 6) could be possibilities... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Both good options, but again, under WP:NCTV it is clear that the title of articles should be the same, regardless if one (or two) seasons have a specific name. So if the other 4 seasons don't have a name, then a regular (season x) disambiguation should be used, with redirects for the other titles. --Gonnym (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So if you want to open a WP:Requested move on this, it looks like there would be support to permanently move the article to Shuga (season 3), but there would be no support to move it back to Shuga (season 3): Shuga Naija. If you feel strongly that it should be at Shuga (season 3), feel free to open a WP:RM on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Game shows
Is there anything stopping us from changing the articles at Category:Television game shows with incorrect disambiguation? If there isn't anything and you aren't planning doing those, let me know as I'll just start moving them. --Gonnym (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Right now, there is nothing preventing us from clearing out Category:Anime film and television articles using incorrect naming style (except for some of the OVA ones here, which aren't straightforward) and Category:Television game shows with incorrect disambiguation. Ditto with moving any incorrectly named "talk shows", as that's still correct disambiguation. Some in Category:Reality television articles with incorrect naming style and Category:Television channel articles with incorrect naming style can be moved, but others are probably going to need some WP:RMs (and I'm swearing off doing those for now...). Meanwhile, on Category:Television articles using insufficient disambiguation, I'm just waiting for some of those new shows to actually start broadcasting before moving them (and two others may require RMs...).
 * The problematic one is Category:Television news program articles using incorrect naming style, as there seems to be no consensus and lots of conflicting ideas on how to handle "TV program", and I see no solution on this issue in the immediate future. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I totally missed your response here! I'll go over them this week and see what can be kicked out fast. Any chance you can move The Defiant Ones (documentary) to The Defiant Ones (miniseries)? That title currently redirects to it so I can't move it. --Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Mostly took yesterday off, so I was just getting to this now, but it looks like Netoholic already moved it to The Defiant Ones (TV series), and while that's debatable, it's not worth me launching another RM over. So I guess this is taken care of... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Fradio71 again
Previously discussed here: User talk:IJBall/Archive 23

My concerns and suspicions regarding this user are growing more and more, now that they've showed up at Crashletes, another article I edit, to make an edit which incorrectly changed parameters, which I reverted here. And it's not the first time, either. See here, where they basically reverted you, IJBall, for all intents and purposes. (If you Ctrl + F in my contributions for the username, you can see where else I've reverted them and why.) Here is an interaction report, for what it's worth. Don't know if anything really stands out there or is enough for any sort of report (yet!), but figured I'd provide it, anyway. They joined November 29 last year and have already been blocked twice, once on January 10 and once on February 7, with that first block being modified to revoke talk page access. I'll ping and  as well, as while I don't think anything can really be done at this point, we definitely need to keep our eyes on them, in my opinion. Am I perhaps a little wiki-paranoid about any user like this? Maybe. However, after dealing with Orchomen for as long as we have been (note the tense I chose there as I imagine they'll be back once the current range blocks expire to cause havoc until the range blocks are renewed again), I am suspicious of a lot of users like this nowadays, randomly or suddenly showing up at articles we edit. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 08:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit violates WP:CITEVAR. From what I've seen, Fradio71's edits look to be generally constructive (e.g. changing ref URL's from http to https), but they're are not without mistakes. Others edits are changes which are arguable... At this point, alarm bells aren't going off on my end. But someone like Orchomen sometimes takes a while before their socks' true natures are revealed, so you can't always tell. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, as it wasn't clear in my message, I wasn't actually suggesting this user to be Orchomen, just that thanks to Orchomen, many users make me suspicious now. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 03:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's one of those edits. Absolutely no reason to revert that. Even I can tell when an IP is genuine edits, and I'm someone who reverts a lot of IPs without question. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Lucy Fry - She’s Missing previously Highway
Hello from London!

Hi there, my name is Adam Stanhope and I am one of the Executive Producers of the Film She’s Missing previously titles Highway directed by Alexandra McGuinness.

We have been going through Wikipedia and IMDb changing the Highway title to She’s Missing so that after the films premier at the Dublin International Film Festival people will be able to find out about it.

I notice you have changed this back to Highway. I am sorry we do not contact you first before making these changes and if that caused offence.

If you need refenerence I suggest you look at IMDb which lists the film under it’s new title and also the Highway wiki stub which was changed to also make this change known.

We are on the verge of launching the film and we are keen to have as much information correct as possible. I wonder if I could ask you to change it back to She’s Missing.

Thank you very much Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.104.32.6 (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't use IMDb for this. However, referencing something from the Dublin International Film Festival, if it is set to premiere there, would work as a source for a film title change. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Editmaster4
Probably time to warn this user. Maybe you can get the point across. It's fairly clear why they made that edit, but I'm starting to think that edit summaries should be mandatory for mainspace pages. Without an edit summary, it just looks like WP:DE. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 23:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your turn: . Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 00:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree or disagree?
. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reverted – that's not anywhere near 10 sentences of prose, so it's still a WP:STUB. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of Andi Mack episodes
Could use feedback from you and over there, because there's a user who believes that the spelling of a title is so important it needs to be mentioned, when it's obvious why it's like that from watching the episode. And even if you didn't watch the episode or don't keep up with the series, titles can be whatever the producers or whoever comes up with the titles want. They don't have make sense or be grammatically correct. No responses do not always mean no objections, especially when there was pretty clear opposition from both myself and to begin with. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 15:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You know what I like about the entire Power Rangers series?
See if you can figure it out. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 03:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

*phew* (again)
All caught up in terms of information for now. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 19:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

"Disruptive" IP
This IP could probably use a stern warning from you now. Looks to possibly be the same one you reverted a while ago on Cousins for Life and has generally been a problem for anything in general, such as Knight Squad. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Left a warning at their Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

All That revival announced!
Here.

This is another one like Double Dare and Bug Juice that should receive a separate article. I'll create a draft at college later and we can go from there. Add: Are You Afraid of the Dark?, too! Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 15:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there any support for this "eleventh season" business?! – e.g. . I find this kind of thing very tedious – when shows come back years later, and call it the next "season" (e.g. The X-Files, Will & Grace, Twin Peaks, etc.). It's not that: it's a completely new production, and should be treated as such, and not as a "continuation" of the original series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Wonder Park
I noticed your editing this a bit. I did a pass through the article and fixed a few things, mostly unsourced credits and someone insisting on adding minor roles. Most of my edits are getting undone for no given reason and I don't want to edit war. Could use more eyes on this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually followed you to that article. Definitely the editor adding the directors without proper sourcing is being disruptive. (The one adding the additional voices isn't even in the ballpark of being right either.) If I remember, I will glance over there from time to time to see what's happening. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

"New" users
Not strictly about the series, but These are the kind of users that make me suspicious. I'm not saying it's anyone in particular, as it could very well be a sock, but of someone we've never dealt with before. However, look at their edit to that The Goldbergs season article. There's no way a new user is that familiar with guidelines/policies. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 19:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Saw your post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television and had a look at Articles for deletion/Last Man Standing (season 7) within and noticed the nominator's name, which I raised in my OP above, as well as the other user who commented: CaptainDanger25. So I figured I would let you know my thoughts on them. I wouldn't necessarily say they are socks of each other and I can't really officially accuse anyone of sockpuppetry without evidence, of course, but these are the types of users who strike me as suspicious, those that clearly name themselves after some sort of entity like a TV series. In other words, fan accounts. In my experience, almost all of them end up becoming problematic. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 01:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did think his familiarity with Wikipedia was more than suspicious, especially that he had Twinkle at after only a handful of edits. That and the first response other than mine was from a relatively new editor too. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I was already investigated awhile back and my account came out unrelated. My account at the time was Bigteddy1 and it became compromised because the user that attacked me hacked my account and I couldn't get it back. --CaptainDanger25 (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That much is true. So it turns out that NickBubbleBuddy is a confirmed sock of, and they're both probably confirmed to be , like a lot of socks recently as it happens. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)