User talk:IJBall/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30

Template:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons‎ and Max & Ruby

Do you have the Nick Jr. channel? Can you record an episode of Max & Ruby and then when you get a chance just see if the Nickelodeon title card is at the end? Because if it's there, the series should be listed in the template, a la Crashletes and Jagger Eaton's Mega Life, both of which someone tried to remove a long time ago. See history of the template page. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I may be able to pull an episode of this off the Nick app. But I can't get to this until later today, or possibly tomorrow morning... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Some more here when you have the chance to confirm if you're up to it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
That's too many for me to confirm (though I suspect the removals are correct...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. Were you able to check Max & Ruby? Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Update

@Amaury: OK, I've checked the Nick app (via Apple TV). The bad news is that Max & Ruby is not included in the selection on the Nick app (sidenote: neither is Jagger Eaton, whereas Crashletes is definitely listed), so I can't check on it. My guess? It's probably OK to assume that it's not a "Nick original" series, but I can't confirm...

I've checked the other three series – PAW Patrol, Rusty Rivets, and Top Wing – all three definitely are Canadian productions (in that the shows obviously originate in Canada, prob. for the Canadian market); however, the first two have a "With the participation on Nickelodeon" credit near the end of the end-credits, and all three have the Nickelodeon production card at the very end of the credits. To me, this suggests all three probably qualify as a "Nickelodeon original series", and that that edit should be reverted.

On another note, Template:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons‎ is still out of control, and desperately needs to be WP:Split into 2 or more different templates. I've had previous discussions with Gonnym about this, but somebody needs to take the plunge and just split this sucker (starting with a split for "Current" vs. "Former" Nick series)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

What about upcoming? Also, should the two below upcoming be removed entirely? Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Amaury: 'Upcoming' can be left with the "current" TV series template IMO... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not much help here. I'm in the 'burn with fire' camp when it comes to these nav boxes. --Gonnym (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Cousins for Life and Draft:Scarlet Spencer

@Geraldo Perez: I just moved the latter to draftspace. Fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: Does Nick do anything like Disney does with their TV show bios?... Anyway, I've cleaned up the Draft... But, yeah - there's not anything there that justifies an article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
You mean akin to Walt Disney Television Press, which gives us last names and such? As far as I know, no, which is a shame. Unless there's an official site out there I'm not seeing with this info. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: Somebody just submitted that one sentence/one source draft to WP:AfC. What a joke. If I hadn't already edited it, I'd reject the AfC submission myself. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your contributions to Draft:Ruby Rose Turner. Do you think it is fit to be an article? Jake The Great!📞talk! 05:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jake The Great 908: No – as Amaury told you, the draft currently meets neither WP:NACTOR nor WP:BASIC, and that is unlikely to change in the near-term (e.g. over the next year) IMO. See also: WP:TOOSOON. It's possible that, in a couple of years, Turner will be notable enough for an article. But, as of now, she has only one "significant" role to her name, and no significant mainstream media profiles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
You deserve it! Jake The Great!📞talk! 07:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand nothing...

IJBall, please tell me what is unusual here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'm missing it – what am I missing?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Bubble Guppies. Look at its last new episode. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah – I think the short answer is: the "rules" are different for pre-school-type shows – they don't have to follow a "regular" season/renewal pattern. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Lab Rats (U.S. TV series) -> Lab Rats (American TV series)

Was there something I missed? Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes – this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk shows list of season episodes

What's your opinion on yearly list of episodes articles of talk shows? Here are two different shows as examples List of The Late Late Show with James Corden episodes (2018) and List of The Late Late Show with James Corden episodes (2019), and List of The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson episodes (1963). While I'm sure a "season" article can be made for these, talking about the various production aspects, unique guests, controversies, "firsts", stand-in hosts, etc, these articles almost never do that and just list the episodes. I'm in the opinion that these should be all merged into a regular list of episodes article. --Gonnym (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I'm of the opinion that talk shows should never have list of episodes/episode listings, basically as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE – certainly never for any daytime talk show, and probably not even the late night shows like The Tonight Show. They are WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and worse than that they are probably pretty much unsourceable (and thus unverifiable, esp. for something as old as 1963 episodes of The Tonight Show!) There are websites (or, at least, there used to be...) whose main thrust is to list the guests on the late night talk shows. IMO, that is a function for websites more like that, or for Wikias, than it is for an encyclopedia such as this one... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Since this is systematic, what do you think is the best approach to this? A regular discussion at WP:TV or a RfC? --Gonnym (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Warning you ahead of time that there is unlikely to be consensus to do anything about this, I would probably advise starting a discussion in WT:TV, to see what the opinion there on the matter is (e.g. to gauge if there is any consensus to remove these? and, if so, whether it would require an RfC or not?...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Henry Danger and Game Shakers

Take this with a grain of salt, of course, but you know the rumors about Schneider's temper problems and such that were rampant—and still are somewhat—upon the news about him parting ways with Nickelodeon coming out, right? From a Wikia post, apparently Schneider was upset with Nickelodeon firing him—which of course no source mentions the word firing, just parting ways—that he gave them a choice: cancel Henry Danger or cancel Game Shakers or there would be consequences of some type, I guess. Just something interesting I read. I have doubts that it's actually true, though, or at the very least, not as extreme as it sounds. You may also remember how I mentioned a while ago that both Henry Danger's fourth season and Game Shakers' third season were given an order of 20 production episodes, but Henry Danger ended up with 22 production episodes for the fourth season and Game Shakers ended up with 18 production episodes for the third season. The claim being thrown around was that the two episodes Game Shakers lost went over to Henry Danger, but that's just another unsourced claim. And whether it's related to the also unsourced ultimatum claim is unknown. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I personally believe the claim that Nickelodeon actually effectively "fired" Schneider is true. (Now, as to why they fired him, I really haven't a guess...) But I don't believe Nick said "Cancel one show or the other" – I fully believe that Nickelodeon saw the "quality" of the S3 episodes of Game Shakers, and cancelled it all by themselves. (Now, I can believe that Nick may have said, "You know our 40 episode order for your two shows? – Well move two of those episodes over from Game Shakers to Henry Danger..." as I'm sure Nick realized that HD was a much better bet than GS was, at that point.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
But I don't believe Nick said "Cancel one show or the other" Just a small correction, but I said it was Schneider who allegedly gave Nickelodeon the choice of which series to cancel because he was upset for being fired, though I would imagine Nickelodeon, just like any other company—TV or non-TV—actually owns the rights to any of the series they air, not the creators. Otherwise, a series like Knight Squad could have gotten more episodes for the second season and more seasons if it were up to the creators, but since Nickelodeon owns the rights... Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Hunter Street (TV series)#Requested move 9 June 2019

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hunter Street (TV series)#Requested move 9 June 2019. @Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: This one looks like it will be simpler than Lab Rats. Amaury (✉) 16:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

On a related note, what is going on with reference #7? There's an error, but it's not immediately obvious what it is. See Hunter Street (TV series)#References. Amaury 16:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Fixed it – there was a hidden character at the end there... Actually, that may have messed up the emoji, but I don't know what else to do. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Emoji is still there. All good. Amaury 16:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Amaury: Look closer – compare the emoji at the article now to the one that's in the Tweet: it's a different emoji. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Could always take out the emoji altogether. Amaury 16:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

How is it that...?

Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, and even broadcast networks continue to decline in ratings, yet news channels like Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN are still doing okay—in fact, they've gone up in general from 2015–and HBO Prime is actually significantly rising year-to-year. For example, while I don't watch it, Game of Thrones. Its series finale set records in both key demos and total viewers. I read something somewhere that ratings for, I think, Nickelodeon took a hit back in the 90s and again in, I think, 2013 or 2014, but later rose again and recovered. I mean, ratings have to rise again at some point, right? Are we ever going to see 2M+ for the kid networks again? I mean, anything's possible, they say, but this point, it seems like the chances of that are less than 1%. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

"Time shifting" – you can't "time shift" the news. But nobody is watching much else "live" these days... Except for "event television" – that's sports, and stuff like Game of Thrones. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Nickelodeon has made the dumbest move ever and moved regular premieres of The Loud House to 11:00 AM on weekdays this week. Monday: 0.72 million. Tuesday: 0.68 million. Something tells me they regret that and will be changing that back to 5:00 PM at some point. I never thought I would see the day with The Loud House that low. Amaury 13:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Liam20102195

Indefinitely blocked.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not their first time doing this. See my contribs; their contribs. Amaury 13:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: Considering they were reverted by Magitroopa at So Awkward, and by you at Sydney to the Max, and have already gotten a warning this month by Davey2010, and have been previously blocked multiple times, this looks to me like a vandalism-only account, or at least a WP:NOTHERE account. Based on that, the next time, they do anything that is not kosher, I'd report them to WP:AIV and seek an indef – this account is already on incredibly shaky ground, and seems to have learned nothing from their time editing here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
[1] Amaury 14:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP using rowspan against MOS:ACCESS on Candace Cameron Bure, Jodie Sweetin, Andrea Barber, etc. (Full House stars)

I've now seen them doing it twice at these articles (ex: [2]). And I probably saw additional MOS:ACCESS issues in these articles prior to their edits. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: As the IP has now received two "final" warnings (one from me, and one from you), I would say the next time they do it, they should be reported to WP:AIV (and then to WP:ANI, if this fails...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On a side note, a thought came into my head about the rowspan/colspan issue, but I have a feeling this has been attempted before with unsuccessful results. I know in sortable tables, when clicking on a column to sort, at least sometimes, the rowspans are ignored and the cells appear as if no rowspan were there. Is it possible that something like that could become a preference setting so that the rowspans and colspans are ignored as far as the spanning goes, if the user wants it that way, but the intended text is in every cell in the nonspanned version? Or has that been determined to be technically unfeasible or impossible? If you could refer me to any related discussion about this, or have thoughts of your own, thanks in advance. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No idea. I suspect it's beyond the capability of simply HTML, etc., but I don't know for sure... Beyond that, though, I find the use of 'rowspan' to be a "because WP:ILIKEIT" kind of edit (i.e. no basis in "policy"), and personally WP:IDONTLIKEIT from a purely aesthetic point of view, so I'd not be in favor of anything that would actually "encourage" (further) unnecessary rowspan use... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Reported IP at AIV after another disruption at Candace Cameron Bure (their edits, report at AIV). And I've reverted three times in the last 24 hours, so I'm taking a break there. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Already blocked by Admin Ohnoitsjamie. This is very good, because with one block on their record, it will be much easier to get successive blocks later when the IP (inevitably) takes back up their WP:DE on this... If another IP shows up at Candace Cameron Bure doing the same, please let me know as I don't have that one watchlisted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
That IP is back again and doing the same MOS:ACCESS-violating rowspans at Candace Cameron Bure ([3]). I'm getting the feeling this is gonna be Sabrina Carpenter discography all over again. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968: I've rereported the IP at WP:AIV and asked for a longer block. Another option is WP:RfPP, though I'm not sure that will be granted unless this one shows up editing from other IPs... Aside from that, this shouldn't be like Sabrina Carpenter discography – the problem there was that a disruptive and irresponsible editor was then backed up by longer-term editors who should have known better but ignored everything they were told on a WP:OSE/WP:IDONTLIKE it basis. (And I've subsequently added to WP:DISCOGSTYLE in an attempt to prevent that from happening again...) In this case, the IP will not get that kind of support, and a post to WT:FILMBIO will actually produce other editors who would solidly be against what this IP is trying to do here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968: And blocked for 2 weeks. Assuming they come back and do it again after 2 weeks (hopefully after 2 weeks they will have forgotten about Wikipedia editing...), we then may want to consult with a friendly neighborhood Admin on what to do next – the next step may very well be WP:RfPP instead... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

A Move Request from Draft:Family Reunion (2019 TV series) to Family Reunion (2019 TV series) and then to Family Reunion (TV series)

Hi IJBall,
Can you move Draft:Family Reunion (2019 TV series) to Family Reunion (2019 TV series), and then to Family Reunion (TV series) (Note: Family Reunion (TV series) currently being redirected to Family Reunion (film)) without leaving redirect? The Draft was previously moved from Main article to Draft last year. The series is set to be released on July 10, 2019 with a reliable source. — YoungForever(talk) 15:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm... This is complicated. I guess I can move the redirect at Family Reunion (TV series) to Family Reunion (miniseries) (definitely more accurate), and then execute the other moves... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Family Reunion (miniseries) redirect is more appropriate for Family Reunion (film) as it was four-hour film, not much of TV series. — YoungForever(talk) 16:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

External Links problem

Information icon Can you please explain what's wrong with the Instagram and Twitter link in external link section of Katherine McNamara page. You reverted my edit. May be I don't know some information. --- Ajairapara 18:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

He did explain: WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Amaury 13:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

List of The Thundermans characters

The latest edit there reminded me of this, but I'm planning on going through this, just like I did with Henry Danger to add truly recurring—and remove those who aren't—as well as notable.

These are who I personally think are notable, based on List of The Thundermans episodes, including of course other Nickelodeon stars from other Nickelodeon series. Past that, do you agree or disagree? Who else should be added?

Amaury 16:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That looks about right. You might want to double-check if Owen Joyner ever appeared on this show. Also, I would include Jada Facer... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, yeah. Owen did appear. I must have overseen him. Amaury 17:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Should we base Dana Snyder's listing order under recurring based on his literal first appearance or his first appearance as a guest star (5 total guest star), when he first appeared in his human form? (He's appeared in pretty much all but one episode.) If the former, do you know who appeared first in the first episode him or Cherry? This is somewhat similar to Jessie's Mr. Kipling, though in that case, Mr. Kipling was never really credited. Amaury • 19:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I would go with the first appearance of the puppet/Snyder as a voice actor, which was the pilot. But then I would go with crediting order – so if Snyder was listed before Whitby in the credits, list him first; if she was listed first, then list her first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Cherry was first, then, since he would have had a featuring credit, and "featuring" comes after "guest starring." Amaury • 19:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey, if a title or general quote ends in punctuation and it's something we would usually follow with a comma, we don't use a comma, correct? So it would be In "Thundermans: Banished!" blah blah happens or In "This Looks Like a Job For..." blah blah happens not In "Thundermans: Banished!", blah blah happens or In "This Looks Like a Job For...", blah blah happens Amaury • 19:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what the MOS says on this, but I agree with you. For example, I've seen stuff like, "...Awkward.". or "...Sledge Hammer!"., and there's no way that can be right. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I got the recurring section done. See here. Although it does partially "revert" this edit since she only appears in three episodes, and even more, she is only guest star credited for one of them. It could maybe be argued she could be listed under the notable section I haven't added yet, but she is definitely not recurring. I've also removed Madison, who's also appeared three times, and Dark Mayhem who isn't even given guest or co-starring credits. I think he's a featuring credit. He could probably be listed under notable, but definitely not recurring? IMDb shows seven appearances, but four with Omid Zader and three with Jamieson Price. I think one is the voice and the other is the human body when we see his body (in costume). One of those is the same episode between the two people, so more like six "appearances." Amaury • 20:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Dark Mayhem is one of those who I wouldn't necessary give a separate "section" to, but it a character who should definitely be mentioned somehow/somewhere – the actor who "plays" him isn't important (though the actor who voices him may be...), but the character actually is important to the series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The question becomes: Where do we mention him? This one is complicated since it's on an LOC. It isn't a simple case like Young Ray, Horse Face Guy, or Slobwick. We can't just mention it at the bottom of the recurring section or whatever since it would make it seem like, in this case, he's part of Allison's bio. Amaury • 20:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
We have tended to do a "Notable guest cast" header for the section, but in this case it should maybe be "Notable guest cast and characters" – then we could include Dark Mayhem. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: There's at least one more "notable" to include: James Hong, a long-time versatile character actor, who played Gideon's grandfather in (at least?) two episodes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Feel to get that started with Dark Mayhem. I won't be back on my desktop for a few hours. Amaury • 22:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, Eric Allan Kramer from Good Luck Charlie was also in a couple of episodes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Notable section added, but I'd held off on Dark Mayhem for now, because there is still that issue that the solution above doesn't actually fix. He was never been credited with a guest star credit, only a featuring credit, so regardless of whether the section is called "Notable guest stars" or "Notable guest cast and characters" doesn't fix the issue since he's never been credited as a guest. Amaury • 03:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The point is, if it's "Notable guest cast and characters" then it's not just about actor crediting – it's about character prominence/notability. And I'd definitely argue that Dark Mayhem was a notable character for the show, not just appearing in multiple episodes, but actually driving the plot for the good part of a season (or more)... So I'll probably try to add Dark Mayhem in the next few days. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The other thing I'm noting – with the way you've set that up, a simple "list" makes more sense for that section than separate sections for each, as, right now, there's not even a character summary to go with any of those... Just a thought. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh. According to the Wikia, first appearance was "Phoebe vs. Max: The Sequel," so will be listed before Harris. Amaury • 04:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
That's just short-term. I'm sure Starforce especially will fill in a lot of summaries when they see that's been added. Amaury • 04:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
We'll see. But while this way is done at other LoC articles, it's a WP:OSE kind of thing, and I'd argue that even at LoC articles, the 'Guest cast' section should usually be presented in "simple list" format rather than "sub-section" format. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Discussion can be moved to the article's talk page, with a link to this discussion, if you so wish. Amaury • 04:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Henry Danger and The Adventures of Kid Danger

I just reverted someone who added a totally WP:NOTDEFINING category to both articles. There are absolutely zero LGBT elements in either of this series. The only theory I can think of as to why it was added is because Frankie Grande is a guest star on the series, who is openly gay; however, that does not make the category defining. The character Frankini himself has not been shown to be gay—or any sexuality, really—and even if the character were gay, it wouldn't be enough for the category, as he is only a guest star. Amaury • 17:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

User talk:115.64.28.145

CLOSED
My talk page is not the place to have this discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We need to do something about this IP-hopping sock. Their latest edit involved them striking out my comments, when it's not their place to do so. (That's only done in the case that the comment is from a confirmed sock.) I did not see that they also added a comment in that edit, but that is beside the point. Amaury • 03:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

And your most recent edit was removing my latest comment. Again, look up dynamic IPs. You'll get it. 115.64.28.145 (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
And now we can also add WP:HOUNDING, WP:HARASS, and WP:STALKING to your resume. What else should we add? Amaury • 03:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Back up your claims. (All of those shortcuts are one and the same, just fyi) 115.64.28.145 (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The fact that you've shown up here is proof enough. I'll be happy to report you at the appropriate venue and call for a block of all your IPs. Amaury • 03:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Everyone's contributions on this site are public. Are they not allowed to be viewed? 115.64.28.145 (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
There's a difference between viewing and stalking. It is not simply a mere coincidence that you posted here literally one minute after I created this section. But keep it up. You're just digging your own grave. Amaury • 03:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, because I knew you would take it elsewhere. Everyone has a right to know if they're being talked about. Be careful of WP:BOOMERANG, though. 115.64.28.145 (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dan Schneider (TV producer)

Pretty sure this is WP:NOTRS? Amaury 17:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it is – that is the website for the main newspaper in Cleveland (I think it's the Cleveland Plain-Dealer...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Outside of TV series seasons, do we include dates in section headers? For example, Career (1901–present). Amaury • 01:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It depends – if it's just a simple generic 'Career' section, then no. But if the career section is long, and requires subsections, then how it's handled at, say, Amy Adams (a WP:FA) is fine... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Dakota Lotus

Barely any content, and look: Already submitted for review. Add: Also, look at the history of Coop & Cami Ask the World. This user has somehow changed names, as take a look at my socking revert from Saturday and what name it has. Amaury • 15:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

An IP becoming a named account isn't actually "socking". But I agree that this editor doesn't understand notability guidelines at all, as the Draft isn't even sourced (but would still fail WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR even with that) and will absolutely be rejected at WP:AfC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The random and seemingly quiet name change from KaidentheDancingLobster29 -> LitnessInLit still seems odd. Amaury • 15:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I've left them an L3 warning. Amaury • 15:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Untitled scripted space series in the works at Nickelodeon

User:Amaury/sandbox/Untitled scripted space series. Amaury • 17:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Living with Fran

  • Actor Branden Brent Williams.

Thank you! I confused the link with another sitcom "Will & Grace". I'm looking for links, let me know if it is enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross kramerov (talk • contribs) 03:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ross kramerov: The source can't be a Wikia – they are all WP:NOTRS. In addition, I wouldn't add anyone to the 'Guest' list unless they already have a Wikipedia article, and are thus "notable". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@IJBall: Thanks. I'm working on the wikipedia article about the person and I would like to add him later to "Living with Fran". Please, let me know if these two links match the guidelines(for the future record):
Both the articles mention Brenden as Duane, the musician. I can find more links if necessary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ross kramerov: Before trying to create an article for any WP:BLP, you have to make sure they are notable in Wikipedia terms – that means you need to review WP:BASIC, and WP:NACTOR and WP:NMUSICIAN. IOW, just because somebody has appeared on television, and/or has performed in a band, doesn't mean they are notable enough for a dedicated Wikipedia article. I would advise creating the article in WP:Draftspace first, and then submitting the article to WP:AfC when you think you have added enough content to the article to meet WP:BASIC, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@IJBall: Thank you! I will start with the links to meet the Notability before any draft.

Coop & Cami Ask the World and 80.65.227.168

Our little socker is back and I'm dealing with them on List of The Thundermans characters. I've also got another IP over on Coop & Cami Ask the World, and I have suspicions that's also Orchomen. Their IP doesn't locate to the UAE, but their edit seems to fit Orchomen's MO. What are your thoughts? Amaury • 19:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: They've followed up on the talk page, so it may not be Orchomen after all there. You're more than welcome, of course, to provide any feedback you have there. Amaury • 19:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Premise section

My premise copy-edit may need to be copy-edited a little more, because I'm not so sure how well mine reads, though it's a little better than before. Amaury • 04:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Bunk'd

Just as an FYI, we did agree on that wording here, and I made that change here accordingly. I just think the current wording is a little clunky. That's just my opinion, though. Amaury • 15:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I still think the current wording is necessary. If you want to change/revise it to the suggested "...reprising their roles from Jessie...", I have no problem with that. But I think it needs to be made clear that those 3 are from Jessie, esp. now that they're gone. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
esp. now that they're gone That I can agree with. PS: Magitroopa has raised a valid concern on my talk page, if you're interested. Amaury • 15:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Knight Squad

The show was CANCELLED. What is your PROBLEM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.134.156 (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

There is not a WP:RS that reports that – that is required on Wikipedia. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
His problem is that Nickelodeon has not released an official announcement on the series' fate. That's his problem. Amaury • 18:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
How is it not reliable when it was literally all over the internet and the cast confirmed it themselves? https://www.j-14.com/posts/knight-squad-canceled-cast-posts-goodbyes-for-series-finale/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.134.156 (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
J-14 is WP:NOTRS. Amaury • 18:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
So the creator on twitter confirming, and the cast's tweets confirming the show has ended, you all are just going to ignore? Nickelodeon does not announce all of their cancellations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.134.156 (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
And neither is the casts' social media accounts. It needs to either come officially from Nick, or from a verified social media account from one of the showrunners – don't blame us because the showrunners don't have verified accounts, or because Nick doesn't announce this stuff. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please learn how to indent. First, the cast members don't speak for the series. The decision to renew or cancel is up to the network. Second, the creator's Twitter is unverified and, in accordance with our guidelines here, cannot be used. Amaury • 18:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

List of Andi Mack episodes

I know how you feel about this, but the episode list doesn't contain the content that "irks" you, so maybe you'll be more willing. I don't expect you to actually add it your watchlist, but could you just keep one eye open on this? The Futon Critic says 20 episodes for the third season, but that contradicts the production codes that we have since we have a production code of 321. And notice that there's no 318. According to a Tumblr post from Joshua Rush, with all that cuts that took place to edit out Ham scenes, one full episode was cut, and the current yet-to-air episodes won't be how they were supposed to be when they air. (What's unclear is if we just totally lost one episode or if all of the content cut equaled about one episode worth of content and what was not cut was spread out within other episodes.) The problem is that we have no official announcement to confirm this. As such, I feel it is best if we hold off on actually adding the number of episodes until the season finale airs. Amaury • 16:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

My guess is that, yes, they basically "recut" one episode (#318) into another (different) episode (#321) (likely with scenes that were filmed later). That has happened before (see Hannah Montana, esp. its LoE page, as something similar happened to that show...). Beyond that, I still intend to steer clear of all things Andi Mack, so I would suggest posting to either the LoE or the main article Talk page about this issue, and get a discussion going... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Hannah Montana was the one about Oliver's diabetes, right? It was originally, I think, a first season episode that ended up airing as a second season episode? I think parents, who got an early viewing, were upset with something in the original for some reason. Amaury • 16:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Talk:List of Andi Mack episodes‎#Season 3 finale. Amaury • 18:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Charts and soundtracks

What do these types of sites use in regard to the work and publisher parameters? iTunes, etc. See, for example, Austin & Ally references 7–15. Using iTunes, for example, should those be work=iTunes, as they currently are, publisher=iTunes, or publisher=Disney Channel and via=iTunes? Amaury • 21:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It's absolutely via=iTunes – it's just the website you get the songs from; it would never be work=iTunes, as the works are not original to iTunes/Apple, but to the artist(s). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Likewise for the other ones in that reference range I provided? Amaury • 21:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
For charts references like Billboard, etc., I would treat it the same way we treat TV ratings publishers – I'm assuming that info comes from others, not themselves, so publisher= would seem to me to be more correct than work=, as the latter again would imply that it was an "original" work. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I would treat it the same way we treat TV ratings publishers Although that one does seem to vary. The Futon Critic is publisher because it's republishing (select) ratings. Showbuzz Daily, TV by the Numbers, etc. are work since their charts are original, made to be unique to the site, per our discussion at User talk:IJBall/Archive 18#Work parameter vs. publisher parameter in references. But in this case, for music charts, publisher does appear to be more correct. Amaury • 22:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
This should be correct. Feel free to fix anything if I got it wrong. Amaury • 22:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit to Freaky Friday 2018

 – --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Jack Griffo and List of The Thundermans episodes

Why You Block Me For it IJBall Kira and Jack Who performed the Theme Song of the Show thundermans RuthSmith95 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuthSmith95 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@RuthSmith95: Because, 1) you are ignoring WP:BRD and are WP:Edit warring, and 2) you are putting that information in places it doesn't belong – that info is only relevant at The Thundermans article, in the 'Production' section and in the infobox. It's extraneous information the places you are adding it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Why you are try to ignoring my Question at all RuthSmith95 (contribs • talk)
I answered your question – you were edit warring (and ignoring WP:BRD), which can get you blocked. However, if you don't escalate this any further, nothing will happen. (Whereas if you revert a couple more times at Jack Griffo, you may get blocked...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

As per Amaury's revert, we may need a secondary source for the theme song info. This will need to be looked into before the theme song info can be added back... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Bigawesome2000

What are your thoughts? 79% of their edits have been to articles I regularly edit, with an account creation date of June 18. Amaury • 00:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

They need to do something objectionable – if they don't, there's no concern. However, editing a Gumball article gives me pause, as there's a lot of (long-term) vandalism at those articles... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Game Shakers

I've gotten caught up with Cousins for Life, All That, and Game Shakers. Just have the last two Henry Danger left. Man, I am pissed. The season—and consequently series—finale of Game Shakers, despite not actually being the last episode produced, left us on a total cliffhanger. Ugh! Amaury • 23:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere on the internet, while it was a "cliffhanger" it was a totally inconsequential cliffhanger! (IOW, the fate of the game company being up in the air, or Double G telling Triple G that he couldn't work at Game Shakers anymore, would have been a true cliffhanger...)
But I'm super glad they got Tanner Buchanan back as Mason for that one... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. Although at the same time, it didn't even feel like a finale—neither season nor series—and just felt like any other episode. Amaury • 02:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Reverted Edit

Hi. I'm just writing to let you know that I changed Emma Lahana's date of birth to say June 27, 1984. It says that on her IMDB page and noticed it didn't say it on Wikipedia. Since her IMDB was already a listed source I didn't link it to the page. I'm not mad or anything. I'm just explaining why I made my edits. ScottStephenJones (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@ScottStephenJones: IMDb is absolutely not a reliable source, esp. for WP:BLP bio info – please see WP:RS/IMDb and WP:Citing IMDb... In general, exact WP:DOBs for celebrities and such should not be added to a BLP article unless they are widely available in true Reliable sources, as per WP:BLPPRIVACY. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for letting me know. ScottStephenJones (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Mech-X4 and List of Mech-X4 episodes

What do we want to do here? Just keep reverting idiot IPs and accounts? Because I dunno if disruption is high enough that requests at WP:RFPP will be accepted. Amaury • 19:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Once or twice more over the next couple of days and I think a request to WP:RfPP is warranted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Kim Possible film

@Geraldo Perez: If you guys are still watching this, I just reverted the latest edit here. I don't have a full understanding, actually, of how Rotten Tomatoes and other review sites work, so a talk page discussion is probably best.

On an unrelated note, shouldn't the title of the article be Kim Possible (film) per WP:NCTV? There is no other article or film with that title, and while I did see the talk page, this is unnecessary and pointless double disambiguation, despite what people say. Amaury • 20:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: I'd leave the rotten tomatoes info in phrased more neutrally. Basically give the information that 6 out of the 6 reviews on the site were positive and not summarize what it means. This is generally in film articles although the review count here is low showing some lack of interest in it. As for the name, there where 3 KP films, 2 with natural disambiguation but still the 3d one is not THE film as implied by that disambiguation. Kim Possible (film) redirects to content that discusses all 3 which looks appropriate here. That section needs to be updated though with more current info on the 3d film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello IJBall,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Silver Line/ infoboxes

Problem is, the info soon becomes obsolete (the previous one was it by 4 years, and wrong) – but the casual or uninitiated reader will believe it's current. 151.177.57.24 (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It's the job of editors to update infoboxes. But putting something like an "as of July 2019" into an infobox is generally not done – infobox are simply supposed to be a quick summary of the info. More detailed info such as "as of July 2019" belongs in the aritcle's prose. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I understand that. But that presupposes a professionally run website/encyclopedia that can be relied on to be regularly updated. Wikipedia isn't. So how serious is it being inaccurate because of a practice that doesn't fit realities? 151.177.57.24 (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOHURRY. Wikipedia is meant to be more of an archive after the fact. There is no rush to stay immediately up-to-date after any event. Amaury • 14:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Not any event, no. But public transport timetables are a naturally fast-moving sort, and there are still all the casual or uninitiated readers. Perhaps they should just be banned from infoboxes if there is such opposition to dating them? 151.177.57.24 (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Thundermans/Archive 1#Jed Spingarn

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Thundermans/Archive 1#Jed Spingarn. Since you're more involved with BLPs, figured you could provide more in-depth knowledge there. Amaury • 19:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Justthefacts

This is about the editor themselves. I've just reverted them here and here due to their continued lacking in using edit summaries. (Plus, they weren't really changing anything, they were just bloating paragraphs with more words that meant the same thing.) But this is an overall problem that they have with all articles that they edit, in that very rarely do they use edit summaries. They've been "warned" before about this: Here, here, and then once more, unless I've missed anything else, here by me. Shortly after I left my "warning," Mathglot left a message on my talk page thanking me for doing that, providing actual statistics on how often they don't use edit summaries. They also had concerns that Justthefacts may be displaying symptoms of WP:OWN. Looking at their talk page history shows they've also been involved in edit warring before, though I don't know if that's really relevant to his particular matter, though it does show they're a little problematic. The lack of edit summaries, in my opinion, is starting to border on WP:DE. With three calls to use edit summaries appearing to go ignored, I'm not really sure how to proceed with them. It's one thing to not use edit summaries on your user or talk pages or even on the talk pages of other users or pages if you're just making a reply, but edit summaries should always be used on live articles. Amaury • 15:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Meant to ping Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968 as well. Amaury • 15:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@Amaury: I could say more about this, but first I need to understand the venue: why are we on IJBall’s Talk page for this topic? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Descendants 3, and WP:RPP

I saw your comment over at WP:RPP, and I was adding one myself but an edit conflict occurred, probably because of your comment being added. Anyway, I've requested the article be given full protection, after seeing at least a couple of extended-confirmed users add info about Cameron Boyce's death to the article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

No objection – this has gotten completely out of hand. Let's hope they don't protect the wrong version... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel

You want to take a look here and see what happened? Somehow my edit screwed up the current table. Amaury • 01:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Oops. Never mind. I just forgot a vertical pipe. Amaury • 01:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Just Roll with It

Have you given this a try? Thoughts? And, MPFitz1968, just like with other series premieres, the first episode is available free on Disney Channel's YouTube here if you want to give it a try. Amaury • 23:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: I haven't seen a full episode of this yet, but I've seen part of one. My take-away was that I was disappointed with how the "foghorn" portion worked – I assumed that would work more like how the "bell" worked on an old summer TV show called On the Spot (2003 TV series) – forcing the actors to immediately "improv" to the changes – but instead there's a massive layoff where first the audience "votes" (and the options are kind of dumb, or at least the kids in the audience choose the dumbest one...), and then they "set" something up. I really don't like that – it makes the show feel "artificial" (and I don't like the "behind the scenes" segments during the "layoff" either)... It's too bad, because something like On the Spot for the Disney/Nick set is actually a good idea (like a hybrid between a regular show, and All That). Hopefully someone will pursue that concept... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Your revert

Just so you know, I see your revert as total bullshit. You invoking status quo on an article you've never edited in your life, that has multiple issues and minimal activity is laughable. Don't be the editors we hate and impose your preference on others. There is absolutely no way I'll even get a discussion started on this forgotten article and you know it. --Gonnym (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I just did: Talk:Constantine (TV series)#Unproduced episode and the episode table. You made a bold edit, and I reverted – it's as simple as that: there's no added context to this. The previous way this was handled was the way it was at the article for at least a year. I have never seen an unproduced episode included in an episode table, and I think doing so is a horrible idea. My guess is that if you polled the question in WT:TV, the opinion would similarly be against doing so. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

urbanrail.net

I started a discussion at WP:RSN#urbanrail.net as to whether that site - which we reference over 1000 times, should be considered a reliable source. I'd be interested in your opinion.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Jeremybyrd1989

You may wish to add List of Mech-X4 episodes, Walk the Prank, and List of Walk the Prank episodes to your watchlist as well, if they're not already on there. Amaury • 16:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Typo Team#followup/follow-up/follow up

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Typo Team#followup/follow-up/follow up. You may be interested in this since this is akin to spin-off and spinoff, which, as we know, you prefer the non-hyphenated version. Amaury • 13:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: And Talk:Just Roll with It#Vote winners. I can maybe see some readers finding it interesting, as with main cast absences, but it seems kind of trivial to me and far less notable than absences. Amaury • 20:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Cousins for Life

@Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: More eyes probably wouldn't hurt here. Amaury • 00:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

iCarly season articles

I'm noticing an IP changing the n-dashes used in episodes with multiple production codes to the horizontal rule (example: [4]). Looking thru the histories of these articles, I saw that earlier this year, you were restoring the n-dashes because of someone from more than two years earlier using the horizontal rule. I remember something coming up about this on the TV project talk page, though I didn't follow the discussion much.

At the moment, I'm leaving the IP edits alone, but I doubt it'll stay that way. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes – please revert whenever you see this: hr's are actually worse in WP:ACCESS terms, and nothing requires their use at all, so they should be removed whenever they aren't necessary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

SpongeBob's Big Birthday Blowout

How exactly would the listing in the table on SpongeBob SquarePants (season 12) be done? I've been reverting the edits adding "254–255" as the overall episode and "13–14" as the season number, as there is no proper WP:RS for this. I've also added a note on it that this may not probably be known officially until we have the remaining season 12 production codes. My question is actually regarding the production code for it and how it should be listed. As seen in the table already, "No. overall" lists the production codes ("242a", "242b", "243a", etc.) However, Futon Critic lists the production code for Big Birthday Blowout as "893". Not exactly sure how it would work in regards to this, as List of Henry Danger episodes just lists the production codes (897 for "Henry Danger: The Musical", no. overall actually counts each episode without a and b), but in this regard, the leap from 251b (or whatever it may be) to 893 does not seem right. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: I would advise listing it in a separate section, under 'Special' – see, for example, List of Hunter Street episodes or List of I Am Frankie episodes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
IJBall, the way The Futon Critic does productions codes for SpongeBob is really confusing. For example, season 12 has 26 episode, yet "Senior Discount" is shown as production code 251B, when it should be something like 12xxB. Amaury • 21:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm basing the 'Special' designation less on the prod. code, and more on what I understand about it – that's it was more of a (Nick) "special", and less of a "regular" episode... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
On another note, one of the disruptive users in question is Colgatepony234, who is one of those users who wants to count double-length episodes as two separate episodes. Amaury • 21:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@IJBall: I've separated it from the main table now. Seeing this discussion, yeah, it's a bit weird with how SpongeBob specials work- "Truth or Square" is apparently seen as being part of season 6, and "Atlantis SquarePantis" is seen as being part of season 5. With the weird production codes of 893 vs. ###a/###b, it does actually look/seem much better separated from the main table, but if WP:RS later changes this, I'm sure it can easily be added back to the main table. For now though, it seems much better as it is now. The main episode list page also displays it well. Magitroopa (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Amaury: Completely slipped my mind- there are countries that airing airing it as "SpongeBob's Big Birthday Blowout, Part 1" and "SpongeBob's Big Birthday Blowout, Part 2". However, the US is not one of those countries. Zap2it also lists it under the three different parts: Part One, Part Two, and the full thing together. This may be where the "two separate episodes" comes from. Magitroopa (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

All That/Henry Danger crossover

Saw your edit here and just wanted to help explain it- Zap2it lists it in the description of episode 5, and a promo for it released earlier tonight towards the end of tonight's episode. So not sure if the two sources (one being a promo I recorded) meet WP:RS, but it is indeed a thing happening. Magitroopa (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I believe it. But, as per WP:CRYSTAL, all future (broadcast) content needs to be explicitly sourced. (Once it has aired is a different matter.) If Nick has a promo up for this on their official YouTube channel, that could be used as a source... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Miranda May

@Geraldo Perez: Here we go again. Every single source is WP:NOTRS. Amaury • 02:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I've converted to a redirect to Bunk'd. I advise we all watch this now, in case somebody tries to restore anything like what that was... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Blood & Treasure

Don't worry, not questioning the revert, more to say that something like this doesn't really need consensus. If something is wrong, as is the case here, we don't need to consensus to make it right. That would be like leaving Famous Birthdays in as a source for BLPs just because it was there for a while instead of removing it per WP:NOTRS. Amaury • 07:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly – This is a "consensus" situation. While you and I think MOS:TV is clear on this, it's not as clear to others. I'm not expecting there to be a consensus to leave the pilot listing as 2 episodes (esp. if other WP:TV regulars lake a look at this one...), but there's no harm in leaving the version previous to my changes until that consensus can be shown... --IJBall (contribs • talk)
How was it listed from the very beginning? Amaury • 07:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
It was listed as two episodes until I changed it. That may be because Futon Critic, et al. originally listed the pilot as two episodes (I'm not sure, as I didn't check that until the other day)... But, now, all of Futon Critic, Zap2It, CBS All Access, and Amazon are listing the 2-hour pilot as a "single" episode (and CBS originally aired it with just one set of credits, with no "break" between episodes). So that was the point I was trying to make on the Talk page – continuing to list it as two episodes is now actually contrary to sources. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually, scratch that – it was original listed as one episode, as of this May 20, 2019 edit. So the case for continuing to list it as two episodes is much weaker. I think if a third editor shows up supporting the change back to one listing, we can restore my edit (provided we add back to director/writers for Part II, which I missed doing...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Which is precisely why I'm a firm believer here that formal consensus discussion can basically go screw itself here, but I guess we have to wait. But if CBS All Access, Amazon, and iTunes all list it as a single 85-minute video rather than two separate videos, that's proof enough. An actual case of episodes being shown back-to-back are things like the series premiere of Andi Mack or the series finale of Lab Rats as Amazon and iTunes there have two separate 22-minute videos. Add: Well, if it was originally listed as one episode, then it should be reversed again since that's the status quo. Amaury • 07:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll be taking this article off my watchlist in the next day or so if this Zuko editor doesn't continue their disruption; if they do, it's straight to ANI or ANEW. YoungForever can do what they want. Since I don't watch this series, I don't really care. Amaury • 16:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Big City Greens

I don't even know what this was trying to accomplish, as they totally messed up the production codes, for one. Amaury • 05:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Replacing the U.S.C.O. source alone was egregious enough IMO... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IJBall/Archive_27&oldid=1153566669"