User talk:IJBall/Archive 29

Cree Cicchino‎
Here we go again. Going to need you there and co. Amaury • 18:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Rodolfootoya12 Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I should take another look at Draft:Cree Cicchino‎ now she is main cast in a second series. This is a long weekend, so I'll try to take a look at it soon, and see if it should be sent through WP:AfC... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Kamp Koral
This redirect is going to need to be deleted or something with your magic if we want to move User:Amaury/sandbox/Kamp Koral there when we have a more exact premiere date available without much problems. Amaury • 18:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can do this, but I'd rather do it later... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this really ready yet? Not even approximate premiere date yet (so prob. doesn't meet WP:TVSHOW right now), and I took a quick look around and there's been no news on this published since June 2019... I can easily move it, when it's time. But I'd say it's not time yet... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not time yet. But I'm saying that that redirect should be deleted as to not cause problems for when it is time and an exact date is announced, as mentioned above. Amaury • 04:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a big deal in this case – I will just swap the redirect to replace the draft in your userspace... This was a bigger deal in the case of Zombies 2 because the redirect in that case had been there for a long time, and pointed to an article other than the one we were creating. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Candace Cameron Bure, MOS:ACCESS, and your alternative at WP:DISCOGSTYLE
This follows up the discussion from User talk:IJBall/Archive 27

Another IP (or group of IPs) is at it again, with MOS:ACCESS-violating rowspans, and edit summaries including "merging" this and that, "no vandal required", "We don't need to see it multiple times", etc. My summary for the revert of the edits from the second diff was pretty clear. Time for a report at WP:RPP?

Also, looking back at the original discussion, you brought up WP:DISCOGSTYLE, where you presented an alternative form of a discography table. I saw you added that in May, but another editor reverted it nearly a month later, and brought it up on that talk page. Don't know if you saw that or not. Clearly an impasse between the discography project and their compliance with accessibility guidelines. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * First, yes – report it to WP:RfPP: this is clearly one of the (many?) IP 'rowspan' vandals, and they will not quit and will not listen to policy (they don't care). Second, yes, WP:DISCOGSTYLE is clearly an example of a (bad) WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and they are pretty much immune to suggestions from "outsiders" on this point (at least the current example doesn't completely violate MOS:ACCESS, though it's only a matter of time before somebody fully reintroduces it there IMO...) – I never saw any proof of the claim that "the project decided that songs should go first [ages ago?]", and even if it had, that doesn't mean that the old practices are correct, or that they shouldn't be revised or that there shouldn't be an "alternate style" as I added. My guess is that WP:DISCOGSTYLE will continue on in WP:LOCALCONSENSUS "bubble" until somebody hauls them before WP:VPP and forces the wider editorship of the project to take a look at their practices. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Report filed at RPP . MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Please note that the IP in question is almost certainly editing while logged out – so please keep an eye out for edits from Mickeydee15 as well. If Mickeydee15 keeps this up, I do think this it is worth going to WP:ANI for, for an indef, as they've been at this for years, and clearly have no interest in following MOS:ACCESS or listening to what other editors tell them. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please let me know if there's any further WP:DE from Mickeydee15 – if there is, I definitely think it's time to file that WP:ANI report, esp. after this little gem from today... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * AIAV failed because the declining admin is one of those admins. Amaury • 23:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a long-term disruption – AIV & ANEW won't get it done in this case: we need an Indef from ANI. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would go ahead and do it now. I can't. Off my break in a minute. Amaury • 02:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd rather wait – if they pick up again tomorrow, I think that's evidence enough to file a report... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You have more patience than I do. Amaury • 16:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Now it's time, but I'm on mobile and can't. Amaury • 23:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A proper WP:ANI report takes time, and are a pain in the butt to do. I'll try to get one done in the next 24 hours, unless beats me to it... But the key here is to show that this is a long-term pattern of WP:DE – it's not recent: it's been going on for at least 2 years, if not longer. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Amaury • 16:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Please keep an eye out for Dsayer014 – very similar editing pattern to Mickeydee15 and other IP's I've seen editing recently, so I have obvious... WP:SPI-type concerns. TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Another interesting fact – all of the IP's in question, incl. the one mentioned in the thread in my Talk page archives that MPFitz1968 linked to at the top, are all Bell Canada IP's, geolocating to near Montreal. IOW, there is no doubt in my mind now that this is all the same person. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * IJBall and - I could be wrong but  would appear to be the same person as above ? .... They really do appear to be on some sort of crusade.... – Dave | Davey 2010 Talk 20:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's Mickeydee15, though they clearly are performing similar types of edits... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, Not going to lie I was going to file an SPI but rather glad I didn't now :), Okie dokie many thanks, – Dave | Davey 2010 Talk 10:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Winx Club: NOS (Nickelodeon Original Series) or a Co-Production
After 4Kids contract ended with the Italian bred cartoon series about teenage fairies, Nickelodeon picked up the rights turning all of season one into three hour long special events which aired on the dates of 27 June, 1 August, and 18 September 2011.

Season 3 premiere as regular episodes which aired between the dates of 14 November and 19 December I believe, while seasons 4 and 5 were released on 6 May and 2 September 2012 respectively.

For a very brief Nick Jr. in spite of it having a Y7-FV (fantasy violence) certificate aired a few episodes of the latter season sometime in late July 2015. And after this happened, it went off the air and a Netflix series premiered on 4 November 2016.

Despite being aired on Nickelodeon more often, is this considered more of a co-production since the studio Rainbow SPA (previously SRL) is Italian or an original series?

Ceasing transmission,

47.16.146.238 (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not IJBall, but I can answer this for you. Like TMNT, the Winx reboot (starting with the specials & season 5) was an in-house Nick Animation Studio project, aka an original series. Viacom (Nick’s parent company) bought out Rainbow SPA’s studio division (30% of the company, the rest is publishing and merchandising) so the two Viacom studios could work together on the production. So the short answer is yes, it’s an original series in the same vein as TMNT 2012, since Nick/Viacom produced it after buying the franchise. 2600:1000:B07E:CA8:55AC:E399:D0A0:F665 (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, 2600:1000:B07E:CA8:55AC:E399:D0A0:F665! I'm not particularly a Nick "expert", so I didn't know this (certainly not the details)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The Casagrandes
Need more eyes. Dumb fans of the series who know how nothing works. Amaury • 00:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No matter what, Draft:The Casagrandes has precedence. I'd keep pointing to the draft in the edit summary of the reversions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that this Deadline article indicates the show is to premiere in October. With that, I think it meets WP:TVSHOW and the draft should be moved to mainspace. (Yes, the draft still needs additional work. But I think this series meets TVSHOW now.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ – I've moved the Draft to mainspace (it clearly had precedence: the original Draft was created a year before the redirect was...). The article still needs a lot of work. But it's unjustified to keep it out of mainspace at this point: it clearly meets WP:TVSHOW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no exact premiere date, though, so WP:TVSHOW is not met. This wasn't about whose article to use, it was about no exact premiere date being known. The plug could still be pulled. Amaury • 03:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly what WP:TVSHOW says, though – "...in most cases, a television series is not eligible for an article until its scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network (for instance, it has been announced at a television network's upfront presentation as being scheduled and advanced to series)." (emphasis mine) Let me give you a concrete example – God Friended Me was created on May 11, 2018, when CBS picked up the show for the 2018–19 TV season, as per . However, at that time, there wasn't an exact "premiere date", and I doubt it was even known if God Friended Me would premiere in Fall 2018 or in Mid-season (early 2019). It wasn't until July 9, 2018 that God Friended Me got an exact premiere date, as per . The point of TVSHOW is that just a pilot order is not enough to qualify for an article – it has to actually be "in production" as a series, and have some kind of premiere date penciled in.
 * The point is, we just need an approximate premiere date. "October 2019" is more than good enough, esp. as that is coming directly from Nickelodeon, and meets the "scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network" benchmark. Even "Fall 2019" would have been good enough. Where things would get sketchier is when all we have is a "will premiere sometime in 2020" kind of date – that may or may not be good enough for TVSHOW, but I'm usually leery of shows that only have a very approximate premiere date penciled in... Bottom line: The Casagrandes easily meets the notability criteria by this point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I need your help with AlbForLife4. Amaury • 15:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A good chunk of that last edit was actually benign (e.g. the stuff inside the hidden notes), but they've been warned multiple times by multiple editors for this kind of stuff. If they keep it up, I don't think an WP:ANEW report will work, so it may need to be taken to WP:ANI... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Street
I'm pretty sure that technically counts as WP:OR, no? We know Zap2it's wrong, but still. Amaury • 01:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah – I think it meets WP:V, which is the standard. It may technically be a WP:SYNTH, but this is clearly a situation that falls under WP:IAR – leaving the titles out, when it's clear what they are and when they will air, doesn't serve to make the encyclopedia better. P.S. My cable schedule guide confirms that "Siblings" is airing on Sept. 9, etc., up through "Moms" on Sept. 17, so... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

KNDO NBC
So... we've still been without FOX 11 since February, if you recall, and now we're out NBC as well as of this morning due to the owner removing the channel for some stupid reason. Probably some more stupid contract stuff. NBC has New Amsterdam and Manifest!! Grr! Amaury • 15:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fox has cancelled all of the shows of theirs I used to watch – The Orville, Lethal Weapon and The Gifted. IOW, I wouldn't miss it... The only NBC show that I watch regularly these days is The Blacklist. (I'll probably check out Zoey's Extraordinary Playlist for Jane Levy, but it doesn't even show up until mid-season.) I used to watch Chicago Med regularly, but I lost interest when they let Rachel DiPillo go... In general, I'm hurting for decent TV viewing these days – programming on the broadcast nets, and especially on basic cable, is in a (steep) decline these days, and I don't feel like the streamers are adequately filling the gap...  --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * With Henry Danger probably ending after this season, Nickelodeon better get their asses in gear and order a ton of new live-action comedies like Disney Channel did a while ago. All we have after Henry Danger is All That, and it won't even be paired with anything once Henry Danger ends. Amaury • 15:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Sydney to the Max
Recently added categories are WP:NOTDEFINING and have been reverted... again. The middle school one definitely isn't. A series having scenes in school does not make school a defining point. Amaury • 16:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood credits
Hello. So I'm guessing you're just looking at IMDB. However, in the closing credits of the actual film, the Manson Family members names are in quotes. So, if the idea is to do it exactly as they're credited the quotes need to be there. I hope you understand why I've added them now. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That is contrary to what people have previously reported about the credited names. Regardless, names should be recorded exactly as they are credited in the film. And there is no need for a redundant link in the 'Notes' column. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Dead URL
FYI,  is deprecated now. See Template:Cite web. For how long? I have no clue. But it's now. Now, in cases where we know URLs will go dead or technically dead—for example, Showbuzz Daily comments that disappear after two weeks—we would put  and then just change it to "yes" when the time comes to use the archive link as the default URL. I'm not sure how we'd do that now, though, as I don't know if  is a thing. Amaury • 15:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was incredibly poorly handled, even if you agree with the changes (and I'm not sure that I do)... You should ask your question there – somebody should be able to answer it (and if they can't, then the change doesn't have widespread support or understanding, and shouldn't be implemented!!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think many editors are even aware of of this, including myself, as I seen many are throughout Wikipedia are mostly still using . —  Young Forever (talk)   16:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, at the bottom, it says to use  if the url is not dead. —  Young Forever (talk)
 * I'm assuming the latter is redundant in many cases, and you can simply leave out  parameter... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think most editors wouldn't even bother to use  parameter anyway if the url is still live. —  Young Forever (talk)   17:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * After this, I began fixing  to   here and there using AWB. And then, a bunch of other veteran editors started to change   to   as well suddenly. Lol. I guessed a lot of veteran editors weren't aware that   is deprecated until someone mentioned it. —  Young Forever (talk)   05:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Amaury • 15:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Any ideas how to...
...reference a fact sheet on WDTP? It has the premiere date for S2 of Coop & Cami Ask the World, but there's no direct link for it. It just opens a popup when open it, not an actual new page. Or should we just wait for something else to be posted? Amaury • 15:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You cite the "base" webpage, and then include the date of the Fact Sheet or P.R., and then possibly include additional information (parenthetically). For instance, when citing the U.S.C.O. database, in the ref's Title parameter I always do something like: "Public Catalog - Copyright Catalog (1978 to present) - Basic Search [search: "I Had Three Wives"]". You can also always add additional info to the ref outside of the cite web template – I do that too (e.g. the U.S.C.O. database ref at I Had Three Wives). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think USCO does have direct search links, but they don't always work or stop working after a while. Anyway, tried this. Amaury • 15:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello ,

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
 * Backlog

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
 * Coordinator

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for  making  the occasional  mistake while  others can learn from  their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
 * This month's refresher course

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
 * Deletion tags

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
 * Paid editing


 * Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
 * Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent  enhancements to  the New Pages Feed and  features in the Curation  tool, and there are still more to  come. Due to the wealth  of information  now displayed by  ORES, reviewers are strongly  encouraged to  use the system now rather than Twinkle; it  will  also  correctly  populate the logs.
 * Not English
 * A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
 * Tools

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Ricky Garcia
This is heartbreaking. Amaury • 01:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As an update, from what someone posted in the Twitter chat I'm in, it looks like Ricky Garcia's former manager is currently manager for Shailene Woodley. I don't personally know of her, but she needs to end her contract with that manager before he gets any ideas. I mean, an adult having to deal with that is already bad, but a child growing up and having to deal with that is even worse. How could someone do that to a child? It's upsetting and absolutely sickening. If it weren't against the law, I'd find and strangle him and throw him in prison for life. Amaury • 02:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hilary Duff
Got an IPv6/64 removing a valid reference about the reboot of Lizzie McGuire, which is scheduled to run on Disney+ sometime after it launches (premiere date unknown at this time). Need more eyes at the article; pinging and. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If they do this one more time, ask for page protection at WP:RfPP. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Will do, but I also have reported the IPv6 at AIV, requesting a /64 range block. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've sent it to WP:RfPP – hopefully they'll be more reasonable there. Add: FTR, I'd look for a better source for that, though – I'm sure Variety or THR have written this up... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up (pings to and ): I just filed an SPI report for the user most recently editing the article (adding back the reboot to a filmography table). Two other accounts beginning with "Andrew" that edited the article in the past couple of weeks were blocked on sockpuppetry grounds, and I found it leads to this investigation (based on the block explanation for one of the blocked accounts). Any additional user beginning with "Andrew" who edits the article is now immediately suspect per WP:DUCK, and should be dealt with accordingly. MPFitz1968 (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Request – User:Amaury/sandbox/The A Girl
Move to draftspace with no redirect, please? Amaury • 23:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Ella Anderson
I'm going to need more attention there. I agree that Fanlala isn't the best of WP:RS—I even mentioned that when I brought it on Geraldo's talk page that I cleaned up the article—but discussion is ongoing and WP:STATUSQUO remains. I'm at my limit now, so I can't continue to deal with this editor's WP:DE myself. Amaury • 02:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

List of Coop & Cami Ask the World episodes
No idea why a non-free tag was added (maybe a mistake?), but there are no issues, and I've removed it. Amaury • 21:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's Go Luna!
Looks like they're running new episodes for the entire week. HalfShadow 20:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I just hid the episodes that have no listed air dates. But the article has no column source for air dates anyway, so there's nothing (currently) at the article that can verify upcoming episodes. Until that changes, future episodes shouldn't be listed... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Streetcar vandal
Saw this. The 78th coming of UrbanNerd maybe? Hwy43 (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know who the originator is, but an IP with 50.* address (IIRC) has been at this for... at least 2 years? – It's always the same: something to denigrate Toronto's streetcar systems so it doesn't count as "light rail" or as the highest-ridership light rail system in the U.S. and Canada... We may end up having to semi-protect articles again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Compare the edit histories of the 50.* IPs with those of the sockmaster and the puppet accounts. Further compare this language with first paragraph here. The patronizing tone in the message reverted from your talk page fits the well-documented brand of uncivil behaviour applied to talk pages and edit summaries of the sock, puppet accounts, and IP socks since 2009. Hwy43 (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Could one of you set up a report at ANI? I think this should do it.  Cards84664  (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * it is an WP:SPI that is the way to go, and I would be thrilled if someone else was to initiate one after doing the last few. In the meantime, I hate to defend this bully, but why are you deleting referenced info from Green belt and Greenbelt (Ottawa)? Hwy43 (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That isn't really a proper reference on Green belt, no link or ISBN number.  Cards84664  (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Where is there a requirement to have a link or ISBN? Also you have not conveyed any of this in your edit summaries. Hwy43 (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I assumed that was common sense. As for Greenbelt (Ottawa), I confused that with Green belt. I'd help you set up an SPI, but I think the prior complexity with this one is far above what I'm used to dealing with, sorry.   Cards84664  (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

SpongeBob and Henry Danger
Those are really the only things holding up Nickelodeon now. See 7 and 11 here. Even The Loud House has dropped. See the episode list. And Nickelodeon overall, even though it's also dropped, is doing a lot better than Disney Channel, which can barely break 600K. At least with its live-action series. Its other series are doing even worse. I wonder why. Amaury • 05:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Nickelodeon original series
I'm going to need you there, probably. This idiocy again. Amaury • 20:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So, what is the proof that Nick funds the show, in this case?... I agree that if Nick funds it, and Nick shows up anywhere in the credits, even as the final production company vanity card, it counts. But if there is no sourcing to verify that Nick funds it, and the end-credits don't include Nick, then it probably doesn't belong... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Dilshad Vadsaria
"No undue line spacing" Why? It make NO sense to have it in this format especially when it comes to actors who haven't been appearing in a show for years. I mean several actors and the shows also had it this way such as Paget Brewster (in Criminal Minds), Joshua Leonard, Will & Grace, to name a few so I don't see the reason to fight over this.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The way Paget Brewster's table is done right now is dead wrong – it's simple, you don't introduce line-breaks into Filmography tables: each row should naturally be one line wide. That's it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "The way Paget Brewster's table is done right now is dead wrong – it's simple, you don't introduce line-breaks into Filmography tables: each row should naturally be one line wide. That's it" No it's not, YOUR the one who's "dead wrong". Having the filmography tables and years on the actors pages to be naturally be "one line wide" (e.g. 2005-06, 2011-13, 2016, 2018) does NOT work that way. I don't see the reason to just constantly justify and have it in this format. You're the one who's making an WP:IDONTLIKE--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless, you are making changes, which means you need to demonstrate new consensus for them. And your "Because WP:ILIKEIT, my-way-or-the-highway" attitude is unlikely to generate that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. Paget Brewster's table is in fact double-wrong, because of the way it's formatted is forcing use of 'small font' which violates WP:FONTSIZE as well... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Says the person who has the "WP:ILIKEIT, my-way-or-the-highway" attitude on having it like this (e.g. 2005-06, 2011-13, 2016, 2018) all because it is "one line wide" naturally.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, you've made your point. Stop WP:BADGERING me at my Talk page please. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Amaury • 19:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

New message from Agentdoof
Agentdoof (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Sasha Pieterse
Got an editor who is making questionable changes to the "Awards and nominations" table ... first unexplained removal of content, as well as a maintenance tag pointing out no sourcing, then MOS:ACCESS-violating changes with rowspan. Also is linking to the wrong Family Affair TV series (Pieterse was in the remake of the original 1960s series that happened in the early part of this century). MPFitz1968 (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reverted them at other PLL actress articles for similar things, including violations of MOS:HEADCAPS at Ashley Benson. What I advise we do is assume good faith here, so I would urge you to leave a message at this user's Talk page explaining why you reverted them at Sasha Pieterse (you're generally good at this!). Then, at least, we will have established a legitimate benchmark in this case going forward. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Boyz Crazy
There are tons of unsourced trivia/fancruft taken from Gravity Falla wiki database which of course cannot meet reliable sourcing at all and never will. They should all be erased from history and ping your partner in crime. Do NOT let this happen to Tourist Trap or Take Back the Falls, otherwise a protection might be required.

Goodbye,

47.16.146.238 (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll ping to take a look at this. Just glancing at it, it doesn't have enough legitimate content for an article, and should likely be converted to a redirect, IMO... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I converted it to a redirect. Basically just a detailed plot summary and lots of fan related info. This is what Wikia is for. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The Casagrandes (characters)‎
I've converted this to a redirect as it's WP:TOOSOON for a character list. When and if the time comes, though, the current title is incorrect and should be "List of The Casagrandes characters." Can you move it to that location without leaving the current destination as a redirect? People are idiots and know how nothing works here on Wikipedia, as the move wasn't even attributed correctly. And yes, I know that sounds mean, but with the exception of my Wikipedia colleagues—included therein are you, Geraldo, and MPFitz—a few other users not listed there, and administrators, I am totally fed up with people here, users and IPs alike, and have lost all patience. Amaury • 05:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I should not move it without a redirect in this case, but I can move it to the correct title. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like I will need your help with Knowledgekid87, as they're another dumb fan who knows how nothing works. See List of The Casagrandes characters, List of The Loud House characters, and Template:The Loud House. Amaury • 13:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Am I going to have to take this to WP:ANI per WP:NPA? This isn't how WIKIPEDIA works,if your edit gets undone then you discuss and achieve consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See my edit summary: it is way WP:TOOSOON for this – the show hasn't even premiered yet!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see: Articles for deletion/The Casagrandes (characters), the result was a keep. The characters also SHARE TWO UNIVERSES, as in they are also present in the Loud House. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This could be handled like The Adventures of Kid Danger, where List of Henry Danger characters serves as information for it. List of The Loud House characters can serve as information for The Casagrandes. Also, the result of an AFD is irrelevant, especially when there wasn't an overwhelming amount of keeps. Amaury • 13:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It was split out as its getting its own series anyways. The characters are already established having appeared in at least 5 episodes of The Loud House. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that that AfD result was not binding. The best course of action here would be to start "building" a detailed "character" listings either at The Casagrandes or at List of The Loud House characters, and split later. But a LoC article for a show that doesn't even exist yet is incredibly inappropriate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No it was not binding, but you are not providing any policy related argument against what is presented there. The article is built up from their appearances in The Loud House, and is ready for the new show. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't matter. There have been no characters that have appeared in five or more episodes in this series. Their appearances on The Loud House are irrelevant. Get rid of your fan bias and learn how Wikipedia works. That would be like saying Nathan Kress' appearances on iCarly count as part of Sam & Cat. Hint: They don't. Amaury • 13:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Again stop with the personal attacks or I will take it to WP:ANI, stop assuming bad faith. Provide relevant policy like you do in discussions on why this list isn't needed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh, sure I do: try WP:SIZESPLIT. The "article" was well short of the length benchmark suggested for "splitting out" a new article. Ergo, it is WP:TOOSOON to split. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I will merge the information back into the main Loud House character article then. Thank you for discussing in a civil way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * After the series premieres, I would think seriously about moving the character information to The Casagrandes, as it probably belongs there in the near-term... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, my initial move was because fans kept adding the info in the Loud House characters which bloated the list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Need more eyes. Continued WP:DE. Amaury • 13:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And again, looks like I'm going to need assistance. Continued WP:DE and WP:OR. Amaury • 13:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ping and  as well. Add: I'm not going to just revert the admin's latest edit, but that is the standard TV format and doesn't need to be sourced, per WP:BLUE, etc. Amaury • 14:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Or more like WP:PRIMARY. Amaury • 14:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking it's time for a report at the appropriate venue, though it probably shouldn't be me. Amaury • 07:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Nickelodeon Productions
See here. They can't even bother to format it right, so I don't know how to vote on it. Amaury • 16:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Now fixed: link. I'm going to wait to see how that one develops before voting... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Your question: "Who keeps doing this?! - Just SPELL IT OUT."
... in your edit summary here — that was me. I'm aware of MOS:US and please be assured there was no intention to be "too informal". Respect goes both ways, also there's no need to WP:SHOUT. Thank you. Wakari07 (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As per WP:COMMONALITY, you should just spell out "United States" and "United Kingdom" in most cases (even MOS:U.S. implies this). This avoids the whole "US" vs. "U.S." issue (and, to be clear, many Americans consider "US" to be incorrect in most contexts). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

U.S. -> American and UK -> British
As you know, disambiguation by country for US and UK has changed—for example, Lab Rats (U.S. TV series) -> Lab Rats (American TV series). Should that not also mean that similar things also follow suit? For example, episode tables like at List of Raven's Home episodes. Should it not be American viewers (millions) instead? Amaury • 04:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, for tables and such you can still use "U.S." and "UK" (for brevity's/conciseness' sake). We changed article title disambiguation on this score on the grounds that "consistency" was more important that "conciseness". But that doesn't necessarily apply to non-article title content. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The Substitute
Not sure what should be done regarding this Nick series...

To sum up the problem, two episodes each aired for Jace Norman and Lilly Singh earlier this year (one main episode, one "Revealed" episode). However, the series wasn't yet a 'full series' at that time. Fast forward to the end of August, and it was announced that the show would be getting a full series pickup of 10 episodes.

The first problem is regarding to two "Revealed with" episodes- should these be listed or no? Not sure if you've watched any of the episodes, but I would think this is equal to Henry Danger's "Henry Danger: The Musical" vs. "Henry Danger: The Musical Sing-A-Long" where the second one is the same thing but with a little something added on. In this case, I'm pretty sure the "Revealed with" episodes are literally just the exact same episodes as its sister episode, but with, "Pop-up bubbles" that, "feature show trivia and behind-the-scenes secrets". I would think then if we were to follow the same thing as HD, these two episodes should not be listed, or should somehow just be mentioned in the article than having them included in the episode table. Also worth noting that later on, Futon Critic updated and now list "(R)" next two the two Revealed episodes, indicating they seem to believe it is basically just a rerun. (Production codes are also the same as the original but with a "B" at the end.) Final thing worth noting is that Amazon/YouTube does not list the Revealed episodes, only the original ones.

The second problem is regarding the two actual episodes- should these be listed in the same table as "John Cena" and future episodes, or should the Jace and Lilly ones be moved to a separate 'Specials' section and have John Cena be the start of the first season? The press release mentioned about the 10-episode pickup, with the 'series premiere' in October (being the "John Cena" one that just aired tonight) It also later states the Jace Norman and Lilly Singh episodes as the first and second specials, but I'm not sure what the exact Wikipedia procedures would be to do.

Sorry for the long message, would just love to know how to tackle this as it is now a full Nickelodeon series. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The "Revealed" episodes definitely don't get separate entries. I doubt they're even notable enough to mention.
 * On the second question, I'm inclined to leave them in the "season #1" table for now. There can be a discussion about this at the Talk page, but I think there's nothing that really labels the two earlier episodes as "specials" (as per sources) that are distinct from the rest of season #1... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

ANI (mentioned)
Hey IJBall, I've taken them to ANI and obviously have mentioned you, Many thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 16:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for letting me know. While I probably wouldn't have the time to file a report, I may have enough time to look for evidence. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The Rolls from "Burke's Law"
... but at least it's 'sourced' now. : ) Cheers! Shir-El too  17:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sadie Stanley
Starklinson is at it again. Ping as well. Amaury • 07:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of List of The Tribe characters for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of The Tribe characters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of The Tribe characters until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. &#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The Substitute (American TV series)
With the John Cena episode now having aired, what do we update that last sentence to in the Production section, tense-wise? I want to say "will guest star" -> "would guest star," but I don't know if that angle is correct anymore per this. Amaury • 16:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would go with "...it was announced that John Cena would guest star in an episode..." P.S. As you probably know, I agree with Magitroopa that those "Revealed with" episodes don't belong in the episode table. Now, that doesn't mean that can't be mentioned – if there's any WP:RS coverage of them, I think they can certainly be mentioned in the article's prose. But I do agree that they don't belong in the episode table... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, so "would" is different than "had been," like on Sydney to the Max. Amaury • 16:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Amaury/sandbox/Kamp Koral
Need you to move that to draftspace, with no redirect. Also, unfortunately, Kamp Koral and now, as of today, Kamp Koral (TV series) exist as redirects, the latter of which is unnecessary disambiguation since there's nothing else with that title, so it's going to make things harder to move when the time is appropriate. (I just redirected the latter since it clearly does not meet WP:TVSHOW.) More idiots who don't know how anything works. My draft clearly has precedence. Amaury • 16:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sick today – can you try asking at WP:RMTR? If an Admin takes this, it shouldn't be much trouble... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's okay. I can do it. I'll just have to request deletion of the sandbox link, which will then be a redirect. To clarify, moving my sandbox to draftspace isn't an issue. What's going to be an issue is moving it to mainspace in the future when the time is right because idiots don't know how anything works. And, man, that's several people now who I know who are or are getting over being sick. Amaury • 16:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * How are we feeling today? Amaury • 14:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Better. My brain was kind of fuzzy yesterday. But I'm feeling better today – just tired. Add: My main issue now is that my laptop is on the fritz, and I will probably have to take it in. This may impact my Wikipedia editing somewhat in the near-term... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Agentdoof
Aw, look at that. That's another annoying pest (see List of Henry Danger episodes history) out of the way. Amaury • 23:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree. Had to report Doof for disruptive editing, was editing satellite spacecraft pages, reverting newer sourced information and reverting to the variant with false information. Only one he was justified in reverting was page name due to me being unable to find a source for that, eventually found a FCC filing for the names and renamed again. Showed a lot of ignorance. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
When you get a new laptop, I would recommend making this an article to fix. It's got the same problems that List of The Loud House episodes originally had. Fan idiots who don't know how things work and are ordering things by production codes rather than by air dates. Add: And MOS:BOLD violations, among other things. Amaury • 18:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Bunk'd – Hazel
According to the Wikia, she returns in "Inn Trouble." So I believe that would change her thing to "(seasons 1–2, 4)." Amaury • 16:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, though probably more accurately as "(seasons 1–2; guest, season 4)"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * An IP just added the "guest" part, but I fixed their addition to conform with the above . MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Candi Milo
You may kindly wish your buddy Geraldo or yourself to remove the date of birth for this ChalkZone and Teenage Robot cast member, some webpages like MyAnimeList or Behind the Voice Actors which the former isn't a trustworthy site while the latter may or may not meet reliable sourcing mention a birthday of January 21, 1966 making her 53 years old. FYI You tube isn't that trustworthy anyway.

Regards,

47.16.146.124 (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Luigi1090
I'm having suspicions here... And they have a talk page full of warnings. Amaury • 13:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Worth keeping an eye on... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

ANI
Interesting. Tell me more: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Watching my contributions, as they admit to, regardless of the reason, is stalking/hounding. Virtually all of the stuff they brought up is everything that Ad Orientem already warned me about a while ago. Amaury • 03:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Mackenzie Foy
You struck down my edit yet saying it wasn't sourced, despite it being sourced in the career section. I added the necessary filming infortmation to it, but I honestly don't see why reverting my edit was remotely necessary. Rusted AutoParts 21:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You just deleted it again despite it being sourced. Don't erase sourced content to remove the rowspanning, Rusted AutoParts  21:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The fact that the movie is now "in production" (i.e. filming) was not sourced. 2) You added a MOS:ACCESS violating 'rowspan' edit that I am quite sure you have been warned about before, and should never have added in the first place. Now that you've added the source, you can restore the film to the table, but not the MOS:ACCESS violation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Which I have done. I also added the filming source right before you erased it the second time. Rusted AutoParts  21:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is what you should have done in the first place, rather than blindly reverting – you should have added the source, and restored it to the table, in a single edit. Also, you once again did not use TableTBA which I am quite sure I've discussed with you before. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're speaking to me as if I need to remember every single one of our interactions and feeling emboldened to scold me like a child. I'm not going to stand for that. Sourcing the filming hasn't appeared to be a prerequisite before with her other credits, aside from The Conjuring, why kick a fuss over this one? You could've easily sourced it yourself if it mattered so much, but alas, we're here at this pointless squabbling. It's restored and sourced, so this discussion is now complete. Rusted AutoParts  21:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Except the source you added did nothing of the sort – it did not show filming had commenced! I have switched to a Deadline source from today that does confirm that. Note that this is a requirement for adding future roles to WP:FILMOGRAPHY tables, as per WP:CRYSTAL (and WP:NFF). I have noticed that several editors are incredibly cavalier about this, adding films to Filmographies with no verification from sourcing that production has actually begun – anyone, myself included, is fully justified in reverting such edits as per WP:BURDEN, and as per WP:FILMOGRAPHY & WP:CRYSTAL. So, if you want to avoid future reversions from myself and others, please make sure that you have the correct sourcing lined up to verify future roles (and that such future projects are actually in production) before you add such roles to Filmographies. This is not some outlandish requirement. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I grabbed the wrong source. Apologies. But seems as though you have sourced it now. Something you could’ve done from the get go if you wanted the filming sourced, but let’s not push this further. I will ask where the filming sources for Interstellar and The Nutcracker are if for this article it’s mandatory to source the filming. I make sure to source the films articles with the filming sources to match up with NFF. But whether a rule of thumb is implemented on an article is hard to follow when it’s different for just about every article whether it gets enforced. Rusted AutoParts  21:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Required for future (i.e. unreleased) roles." (Again, see WP:CRYSTAL.) Already-released roles should also be sourced, but they are generally already sourced in BLP article prose, and don't need to be explicitly sourced in the Filmography (too). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You are very much correct, and reading back through this I was just being an irritable dick. I’m sorry for that. Thank you for enforcing the guidelines when I didn’t remember to. Rusted AutoParts 21:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Ava Kolker
KarenHeart appears to be Starklinson 2.0. (And to clarify, I mean another editor who acts the same. I'm not making any sock claims or raising any suspicions in this case.) Amaury • 13:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's just too many articles to WP:AFD... This is another one that looks "OK", but when you look closer you realize the refs are almost certainly all "passing mentions" not "in-depth coverage". So it would need to be AfD'ed, and then it would have to explained over and over that, "No, the subject does not meet WP:BASIC..." And then half the time the other voters will just ignore you anyway. So, not worth the trouble... These days, I'm focusing my efforts on this front on older WP:BLPs that don't past muster, because those usually can get deleted at AfD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed bad sourcing from this one, but the article is a mess – it reads like bad PR, and may actually be an example of paid editing, judging from the looks of it. I'm not going to clean up all the WP:PEACOCK, but somebody needs to go through this, and cut out all the promotional nonsense. And an Admin probably needs to check out this editor to look for evidence of paid or promotional editing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I can do it when I get to the college today. I have no classes today and am just working in the library for five hours. (It's basically free time since I'm just there to answer questions as they arise and keep things neat. lol) Amaury • 14:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ping our other BLP expert as well. Amaury • 14:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It slides by under NACTOR, 2 major roles. Would likely be kept if sent to AfD. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What are the two "major" roles? Girl Meets World was just a recurring role. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I misread the article, I thought that was a major role. Doesn't meet NACTOR then as only one major role. Should be taken to AfD as TOOSOON and for lack of significant independent coverage as well. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * IJBall and : Cleaned up now, though now it seems pointless if we're just going to AFD it. Although I suppose we could draft it as well. Amaury • 17:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * She has a major role upcoming according to IMDb. Two interviews in article is only significant coverage and both publicity for roles. This one would be iffy at AfD as discussion will be whether or nor GNG met with the sources given. It should really go to draft space to incubate with redirect left to one significant role. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

All That (season 11)
So I've just done some digging through the credits of each episode to get all the important credits in a Google Doc. There are several things that I'm not sure if they should/should not be listed in the article in any way, here's what I'm not sure on:
 * Directed by- Not sure if this column should be included in the episode table, like how other shows (Henry Danger and Cousins for Life for example). There are way too many writers on each 'episode', which is why I didn't list them all out. There's also the problem that AFAIK, the 'episodes' are simply titled by "11##" (same for prod. codes, and the prod. codes are always the same as the title), and some skits are filmed in a separate week from when they were filmed (for example, script might be titled "Week 1106" and a skit from then might air on episode "1109")
 * Featuring- I think (?) this would be fine to have in the cast section. It's a sketch show like SNL, so I guess the rest of the 'featured' members can be added on.
 * Special Guest Starring + Guest Starring- There should probably be somewhere that it's listed, but not sure if it would be better under the cast section or in the summaries of each episode. There are some that are definitely worth mentioning (Kenan, Kel, Josh, Kevin Kopelow, etc.), but then not sure on some like the V.O.s or people like Mercedes Lomelino, who doesn't even have a Wikipedia page.
 * Co-Starring- This credit is (currently) only listed in the credits for one episode, "1108". Not sure what role Hans Holsen played in the episode (or what role he played that deserves to be labeled 'co-starring' in a show like this anyways...), but he is one of many writers for the show, being listed as one for "1101" (not sure if there's any others, but he's a writer for at least one episode).

Bit weird with the series on Nickelodeon in particular, especially since it's a 'revival' of a former series, but we're now able to get things like all these credits and viewership ratings for episodes, in comparison to seasons 1-10 which doesn't list any viewership whatsoever. Final thing I'm not sure on is one new cast member, Aria Brooks. It was announced today that she'd be joining the cast and that 13 additional episodes were ordered. I've included info about her joining in the 'production' section, but for the cast list, I added her onto the main members, but giving her a note of when her first episode is. Not sure if this is fine, but I'm basing it off of SNL articles, which has some people's first/final episode (example here for Kate McKinnon). Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Another problem is back, being the whole 'season 1'/new show vs. 'season 11'. I feel the original discussion never really reached a proper census on what should be done, and now we have some new info, being that Nickelodeon's recent press release refers to it as the 'first season'. I would say we can then change the articles to an entirely new series, but then there's the problem that the production codes still contradict the 'first season' thing entirely. Magitroopa (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Prod codes is just one way to establish a "season", but I'd hardly consider it conclusive. What really matters is how WP:RS, both Primary sources and Secondary sources, refer to it – Do they call it a "revival" or a "reboot" of All That? Or do sources predominantly refer to it as "season 11"?... But, I agree that a deeper discussion needs to be had about this either at Talk:All That (season 11) or at Talk:All That – depending on how that goes, then a followup WP:RM discussion can be held. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For this show, I would say "Co-starring" should not ever be listed, as the crediting level looks to be too low. "Featuring", I think I'd only include if they are truly "recurring" (e.g. 5 or more episodes, roughly...). I would think all "Special guest stars" should be listed, and I'd think that notable guest stars should be listed as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
It needs to be said - your work towards the main article regarding the television series The Tribe was much needed. It seems like an editor has recently been on a deletion craze against anything linked to this television series. At least you decided to put in the work to prevent any more pathetic prods, AFD etcs...<b style="color:blue;font-family:Times New Roman">Rain</b> <b style="color:green">the 1</b> 21:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am working on a cast table for The Tribe article (I am currently watching through series 1–3, which I did not see before, and will then do some "spot checks" on the casting for series 4–5) which will replace the sort of "mess" that the current 'Cast' section is. I will then probably work up a draft of a new "List of The Tribe characters" article to see if a new version might pass muster. I also eventually intend to look more at the main TV series article to see if that can also be improved... But it will take some time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That said, there are a number of WP:BLP articles of The Tribe cast members that likely do not meet notability requirements for biographies (e.g. WP:NACTOR), and which should be sent to WP:AfD. That's also on my informal list of things to do... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The BLP articles are not the best and I created some when I joined Wiki in 2006 and never improved them. Most are not notable as they haven't had any further roles so I was not surprised they were nominated for deletion. I did think it was a shame about the list of characters being deleted because I thought more could have been done. I am glad you are taking going to try and create a new version.<b style="color:blue;font-family:Times New Roman">Rain</b> <b style="color:green">the 1</b> 14:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)