User talk:IJBall/Archive 37

Big Time Rush (group)
I'm close to asking for extended-confirmed protection of the article at WP:RPP, in light of all the recent edits about them planning to reunite, either unsourced or sourced to primary sources (namely, verified Twitter). Quite a bit of disruptive editing in the past 24 hours specifically on this. Will only be a partial solution, as at least one editor in the bunch is extended-confirmed, but all the rest are short of that. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, a "tour [potential?!?] announcement" on social media is vaporware until it is actually confirmed by someone independent of the band. (Like, are dates even booked yet?!!) Short of that, it smacks of WP:PROMO and WP:CRYSTALBALL violations. Ping to this conversation, so he is aware as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am aware but stopped watching per 3RR so not tempted. I agree, until it is covered by reliable secondary sources, it is just plans and expectations. It might be covered in the article as such with primary reliable sources as support but with the proper caveats about it only being considered. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Haley Tju
What do you mean, "names per credits"? RobThomas15 (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly what he says. Names per credits. It's not a difficult concept. Amaury • 14:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Add: See any of WP:FILMOGRAPHY, WP:TVCAST or WP:FILMCAST – it is literally right there in each MOS's language. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Programming lists
Hello, long time no chat! I wanted to ask you something regarding WP:TV; is there a guideline regarding the inclusion of programming lists on TV channel articles? I'm sure there are many examples, but in this case, I just found the list on BBC Entertainment and it's a mess. I seem to remember seeing a guideline saying that programming lists have no place on Wikipedia, but WP:TVS/STDS seems to recognise them as fine. I'm not sure if it perhaps falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE? – DarkGlow • 19:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, there is no guideline, and I'm not even sure if it would fall under WP:TV or WP:TVS(?). I will say this: usually when such lists are included, they include only those shows actually produced by the TV network in question – they usually are trimmed so they don't include every show "broadcast" on a TV network (or, at least, should be trimmed thusly)... So, if that list is short (or zero?!), as I assume it would be for BBC Entertainment, then it's probably OK to include it. But, for a long-time TV network like CBS, you would almost certainly need a separate list-article like List of programs broadcast by CBS (and it's likely a whole separate issue as to whether that should be List of programs broadcast by CBS, or whether the WP:SCOPE should be changed to List of CBS original series...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Johnny Test
Not watching the series myself, but I've seen you make at least one comment about splitting out an article for a new series rather than a new season, as was discussed at Talk:Johnny Test. Was checking out the 2021 series article, and it looks like a user decided to move the page themself, despite the proposed split that was discussed- looks like the page's previous history was deleted after Johnny Test (season 7) was deleted and despite the article being back at Johnny Test (2021 TV series), the talk page is currently at Talk:Johnny Test (season 7). Anything that can be done to cleanup this whole mess?... :/ Magitroopa (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's two or three ways to handle this, but this "easiest" is simply to put in a request at WP:RM/TR – it should maybe go under 'Requests to revert undiscussed moves'. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now put in a WP:RM/TR about this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Shenae Grimes
Hello there, It's been a few years since I've edited Wikipedia and I'm trying to get back into the swing of things. Can you explain to me what was wrong with my sources for the Shenae Grimes page? I thought they were all pretty good sources and some of the only ones I could find where she discusses where she went to high school and talks about her family life growing up. Please explain to me why they're not reliable sources? I just want to hear what you have to say. FrozenIcicle (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * trnto.com doesn't even look to be a "media/press" source – the "about" page at https://trnto.com/about-trnto/ makes no mention of editorial oversight (or structure) or how they are even getting their info. It does not look to me like it can be trusted at all. WP:BLPs demand very high source quality for anything attempting to verify any bio info (among other things, there are legal reasons for this) – anything that isn't a very strong reliable source should not be used in a WP:BLP article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay fair enough. I'll keep my eye out for any reliable sources on Shenae Grimes. Like I said it's been awhile since I've edited Wikipedia. I'm just trying to get back into the swing of things. FrozenIcicle (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

My Babysitter's a Vampire (TV series)
I would appreciate more eyes on this article. Got a disruptive editor falsifying info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Editor is definitely concerning – looks to mostly be an WP:SPA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Geraldo and I was reverting this editor myself today on Lip Sync Battle Shorties and Disney Fam Jam. They are blocked now. Amaury • 02:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * . ^ Amaury • 02:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

There is something suspicious going on here, with all of the category creations. Amaury • 18:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A lot of those categories were added by me and he is using that as a template going forward in adding others. What he was doing was changing names based on ownership changes where what should be happening is the old name becomes a subcategory of the new name category to avoid WP:CATVER issues. He seems to be doing that so it is a positive development. Also he has started communication with me on my page. Still not completely there, but improving. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I was talking about them creating multiple new category pages in a short span of time, such as here. whcih I find suspicious, given they've already been blocked for this. I will trust your judgment. Maybe I'm cold-hearted, but with all the disruption we've all dealt with, I've lost faith in a majority of edits from IPs and random users here. I only trust a small portion of edits. Amaury • 18:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Biggest problem originally was mostly failure to communicate and ignoring guidance. People who immediately delete talk page messages and refuse to interact tend to be hard to work with and annoying. The 24 h block and following some of the examples I did to try to fix the problems he created seems to have improved things a bit. I am still watching but am a bit more hopeful. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

User Chase Pancake
Really need some help here with his disruptive user, who uses one or two word summaries to make unnecessary edits that actually don't improve things. Quite the opposite. Only warning given. Today is the second time they popped up. I dealt with them or someone else making the same edits a few weeks ago. Amaury • 06:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User now indeffed. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * TPA will likely need to be revoked. Amaury • 07:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Olivia Rodrigo
FWIW, like you did a while ago, I am removing this from my watchlist now. I'm not dealing with this shit anymore. It's clear people want it to be wrong, when sources, as reliable as they otherwise are, don't know their definitions very well. Amaury • 02:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Your Revert on Bonn Stadtbahn
and your section on my IP's talk page on "unconstructive edits" threatening an edit ban

The section above the one I edited has the Stadtbahn line numbers in bold. Why that should be different in the subsequent paragraph and it's worth reverting twice (I thought the site had not registered the edit, hence did it the second time) AND writing on my IP's Talk page beats me. Either do it one way or the other consistently on the page, not once bold, once not. Don't know about how to make sure you see a response if I answer on my page, hence writing here. Feel free to delete this and the entry on my talk page. It's all pretty irrelevant anyway. 2003:F1:707:E201:415:730:2BEE:6E12 (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a Level 2 warning – you're two levels away from being in danger of a block. The problem is you ignored the MOS:NOBOLD rationale of my revert, which was the problem... I will remove the bold from the section above that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I understand what happened and why, it was just a shock to get such a message for inconspicuous wannabe-improvements (cause I didn't know there were such rules for bold marking etc. - I just edit with reverse-engineering of the formatting, since I only do it occasionally). Hence this strong response. Thanks for being an active contributor! 2003:F1:707:E201:415:730:2BEE:6E12 (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Andrea Bogart for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrea Bogart, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Andrea Bogart until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Christy Carlson Romano edit 2
The Second edit wasn't vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.160.90 (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was – I gave you a Level 4 warning for Disruptive editing, and it was that, as I already warned you about violating WP:MINORS (also: WP:BLPNAMES). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

List of Backstage episodes
Are you able to tell what was changed here? I really hate these edits, because it's impossible to see what was changed and if it should stay or not. So currently Wikipedia highlights the section something was changed in as yellow for the previous version and as green for what it was changed to. I think it would be more efficient if it only highlighted the change in those respective colors rather than the entire block the changed item belongs to. Amaury • 21:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It was a comma (removal). And let me put this this way – removal of a comma (like this) is not worth reverting. If it's "wrong", it can/will be fixed later. The only "comma" stuff I am reverting on sight is the insipid "...January 3, 2003, to March 12, 2004..." type of thing, because putting a comma inside a "date range" like this is nonsensical. (If necessary, I will just reword something like the above to remove the "date range", and thus the objectionable comma!) But, in general, "comma warriors" ("pro" or "con") are not worth dealing with, so I just ignore them... And, yes – the "version" editor thing is very bad at showing simple changes like this, or addition/removal of a single space in a block of text, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Halsey (singer)
I basically just reverted on a WP:NOHURRY basis. It's the only guideline I can think of. The only places it's already August 27 would be Australia and Japan, I believe. Maybe only a handful of others. However, as this person is an American, I feel we should wait until it is August 27 in the US. The closest one would be the East Coast or those with Eastern Time, where in 15 hours and 8 minutes, it will be August 27. Amaury • 15:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Since when do we have to wait until it is August 27 in America just because the subject is American? As soon as an album has been released in the world, Wikipedia can be updated. This would be like saying that if an album by an American artist was released in Japan two days earlier than the rest of the world (which has happened), we can't say that it's been released on any of the articles until it's been released in America. Please point me to a guideline or a policy that states we have to wait until it is midnight August 27 in the artist's home country. Oh wait, you literally said "It's the only guideline I can think of." Sounds like you didn't need to revert me at all? I'm not hurrying, either—the album is already out in quite a number of countries, including most of Australasia. I don't see how it's hurrying to update Wikipedia with a fact. Edit: Just for posterity, it's pretty obvious I informed Doggy54321 about this revert.  Ss  112   16:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with Ss112. The album is already released in multiple territories, including big music markets such as New Zealand, Australia, China, Korea, and Japan. Reviews will be coming out in the next several hours as the album is released across Europe and Africa. Once the album is released in the UK (in seven hours), reviews will start pouring in, because the UK has a lot of music publications writing reviews. Yet, you want to wait until the album reaches the Americas (in twelve hours) before updating the pages? That doesn't make sense at all. No one is hurrying to update Wikipedia. Update: the singer has confirmed that the release is local in this tweet. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 16:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC) (updated 18:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC))
 * Yeah, I agree with this too. The closest policy is MOS:TIMEZONE which states that dates should be based on the timezone of where the event took place. Since it was first released in Australia, then the dates should follow that timezone, even if American time is behind. If a notable American died in Australia, would we say they haven't died until American time catches up? I think not.— Starforce13  16:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A death, in my opinion, is completely different. That aside, the best comparison I can think of is an air date for a television series episode. Let's say an episode of Young Sheldon scheduled to air in the US on September 23 airs a week earlier in Canada on September 16, for whatever reason, which has happened with television programs. Under original air date, we would still have September 23 since the US is the country of origin. We can then add a note stating it aired a week earlier in Canada. Here are some lengthy discussions on that matter: Talk:Elena of Avalor/Archive 1 and Talk:Max & Shred. I feel like it's the same logic here, but that's why I came here. For a second opinion. Or, I guess, opinions now. LOL Amaury • 16:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes, for TV episodes, it's definitely the country of origin that matters because shows tend to be heavily tied to the original network/country of origin... and other countries/networks can even air them out of order. That's part of the reason we ignore episodes released early on VOD or TVEverywhere apps. So, that's easy to choose a consistent date/timezone. But for other events, that aren't necessarily tied to the subject's country of origin... it gets tricky. Celebrities, especially, do a lot of notable things outside their home country. For example, if Chris Hemsworth does something notable in LA about the MCU, we just use LA time, not Australian time even though he's Australian. So, I think it plays more into the event-timezone area (MOS:TIMEZONES). But yeah, it's not all black and white - especially when someone is reading something that happened on a future date without any timezone context .— Starforce13  19:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Still can't do much without concrete proof
But seems awfully fishy that they've just randomly popped up again. Amaury • 17:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Warped!
Pinging as well. Haven't gotten around to checking/cleaning up the article myself, but was just created by the same editor who recently had multiple edits reverted on Tyler Perry's Young Dylan. Also don't know how much of the article is actually accurate- checked The Futon Critic and Deadline Hollywood, not sure where they are getting it but AFAIK no release/premiere date has been announced (no idea where the October 16, 2021 date is coming from... possibly this???). Magitroopa (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Does it pass WP:TVSHOW? Maybe/probably (though I'd like to see more than just a Deadline Hollywood source, effectively). Is there any support for a "October 16, 2021" premiere date in the article? – Nope. That should be removed from the article, until it is properly sourced... Beyond that, I'm neutral on moving it to WP:Draftspace in the meantime. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Just Add Magic (TV series) and Aubrey K. Miller
There is an editor who is updating the name of the actress to include her middle initial, which goes against MOS:TVCAST (the middle initial in her name is clearly not in any of the credits I've seen on this TV series, or Austin & Ally or Sam & Cat). Also, they attempted to re-create an article on the actress, over the redirect currently pointing to the TV series. A draft currently exists at Draft:Aubrey Miller, though I remember a draft article on the actress with her middle initial that has been G5 deleted. (She still does not pass any notability standards in Wikipedia.) Thirdly, I noticed an IP was vandalizing the three AfD articles of the actress, which have been restored. Please keep an eye on this situation; I will also ping and. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Stratoshift could be a sock, esp. considering their short edit history. Best course of action is to try and figure out who this is a sock of, and then report to WP:SPI. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

How do you put a notice in the redirect about a draft article being available? I wanted to do that for the Aubrey K. Miller redirect, but also another redirect I just created, also pointing to Just Add Magic ... Aubrey Miller (which is how she's actually credited in that series, and others). The draft article again is Draft:Aubrey Miller. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You use R with possibilities – I just did that at Aubrey Miller. Unfortunately, I don't think you can do this when the names are different, so it won't work for Aubrey K. Miller. When that happened with a userspace draft once, I think I put a hidden note in the redirect... One option would be to try to delete the latter redirect, or at least take the issue to WP:RfD... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Taylor Swift
I have given both of the editors here an EW warning now. If one or both of them should revert again, it's probably time to go to WP:ANEW. Amaury • 18:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I ended up retracting my warning for Bettydaisies as I miscounted their reverts. I have, however, submitted a report for Mirrored7 at ANEW, if you're interested in commenting. Currently second to last report. Amaury • 17:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

User Joeyconnick
So, after he tried to pull the alphabetizing shenanigan on the Katherine McNamara page, he's doing it on the Victoria Justice page as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Justice&action=history

He's been reverted by another editor, who also cited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works#Filmographies.

When does Joeyconnick get a warning? 👍 136.49.32.166 (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Honestly, neither format is worth fighting about, but neither is worth changing from an established style for either. I would start a talk page discussion on it, to see which formatting version has consensus support. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Deadline
Dude, what are you talking about? Deadline's writing quality is poor, and they mostly just parrot press releases. The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and EW are leagues better.136.49.32.166 (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's such an atrocious publication that after sending them numerous corrections, I just stopped reading them. 136.49.32.166 (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Personal opinions on source quality is irrelevant – nobody here thinks Deadline isn't a WP:RS. Indeed, it's one of the most used sources for stuff like this on Wikipedia. That you don't like them is of no consequence. And there is no need for you to comment further on this here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And IP blocked. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Username meaning
I want to know what your username actually stands for. Oh and it's been a while since I used Wikipedia but I won't be active alot here as of now. TheRavineStudios (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I am under no obligation to explain that to anybody. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for your messsage. Didn't know what FWIW meant at first, but I looked it up and it means "For What It's Worth." TheRavineStudios (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

List of Big City Greens episodes
Feel free to restore anything you feel actually belongs, as I know you'll do it properly, but for the most part, it's trivia and unnecessary:. Some of it was added by our problematic user here. I don't know when the rest was added. The articles are on my watchlist, but I don't keep too close of an eye on them. Amaury • 18:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Days of Our Lives: Beyond Salem
Hi! Can you tell me where you found the official cast listing in regards to supporting and guest? I watched the first episode and I'm not seeing what you added. For instance, all I see in the opening is "Special guest star Lisa Rinna". I didn't see any of the cast listed in the end credits either. Thanks! Partyclams (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I simply watched it on Peacock. Unlike "regular" DOOL, this series has "opening credits". I can't remember exactly when they happen, but it is several minutes into the episode – in episode #1, the "opening credits" came immediately after Austin came into the room with Anna and Carrie. Those in these "opening credits" need to be considered the "main" or primary cast of this series. Everybody, all together, are listed in the end credits. One interesting note: Peter Porte is credited in the main credits of ep. #1, but AFAICT does not appear in ep. #1... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I watched the opening credits too. That’s very interesting. Should Lisa be listed as a “guest” since that’s how she’s credited in the opening? Partyclams (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah – this is a Heather Locklear on Melrose Place crediting situation – IOW, for this limited series, Rinna is still "main cast", but with "special" billing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I uploaded the title card for the show to the page but I guess I didn't source it enough as it was just deleted. Are you good at uploading images by any chance? I still have the screenshot. It really should be in the infobox for the page. Partyclams (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not good at this stuff. There are certain rules, like I think title cards need to be "low-res" images. But I'm not the one to help on this – you'll need to track down someone more knowledgeable about images and copyrights, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Sofia Carson
Ping as well. and I are likely going to need help here. Amaury • 17:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed the article temporarily from my watchlist. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * IP should be reported (to WP:AIV) – clearly WP:NOTHERE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

New rule
How do we mean if we wait for 2 years, instead of a year after the show has finished airing the last episode with no source of a season renewal or a cancellation, and then we remove the show from the list?

110.22.13.38 (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That's not what I said, and you know it. Dash & Lily at least has not been officially cancelled, and it has not been a year yet. Don't remove shows like this from the list. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

A Cinderella Story: Starstruck
Can you do A Cinderella Story: Starstruck since it's been released last June, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.22.208 (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Users BrickMaster02 and TheRavineStudios


With regard to the former, it's edits like those with swear words that make me question whether this user actually has the competency to be here. It's not the swearing itself that's the problem, because I couldn't care less if someone swears as those words don't offend me, it's the user and the way they're doing it that makes me suspicious. They just created a user page, claiming to be autistic, but I don't know if I buy it. I think they're only doing it to try to excuse their behavior. And even if they were, it still wouldn't excuse their behavior. As for the latter, I continue to be suspicious of them as well. They keep showing up at more and more articles that I watch. Doesn't seem like a coccineous. Whether or not one or both of them are socks, I cannot say with certainty, but I don't believe they're completely innocent. Amaury • 01:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * On a mostly unrelated note, I'll let you asses the latest edits at Just Roll with It, as I've already reverted a few times, as per WP:DE. (We're also having issues with IPs persistently adding an end date, but that's another issue.) It's been a long time since I've worked with episode tables, but putting that aside, it seems awfully strange that this user suddenly shows up here. Remember, this is the user who created the "L Is for Love" article, one of the LGBT-themed episodes of The Loud House. It was later deleted after being nominated since it wasn't notable enough to be a standalone article. Needless to say, this is another editor I don't trust. Add: And, regardless, now is the time for them to follow WP:BRD, just as with the first user mentioned above at Side Hustle, where even though I agreed with the edits themselves, since you challenged it, they should have followed WP:BRD. They ended up giving up, but yeah. I am done with these "editors." Amaury • 01:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with standardizing the aligning of column spacing in episodes tables between seasons. That edit shouldn't have been reverted, as they explained what they were doing. I've had other issues with that editor before (primarily in Filmography tables), but that edit was OK... As for the first two, they'll just need to be further monitored. BrickMaster02's editing has approached WP:DE/edit warring on occasion (and seems unwilling to start discussions), and if they don't get that under control, they will get themselves in trouble. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello ,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our  Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but  there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software. Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (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 • 19:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Just Roll with It
I'm not at my computer right now. Can you submit a protection request, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaury (talk • contribs) 03:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ – semi-protection request at WP:RfPP submitted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Dilshad Vadsaria
Is it okay to put in 1999 for her college graduation year. Because I looked at both of the sources that were provided and the second one is a University Of Delaware Class of 1999 yearbook and her picture is among the students that graduated that year. Here's the link

file:///C:/Users/Lenovo/AppData/Local/Temp/1999_03_Seniors-2.pdf

If you scroll down you'll see her picture on page 73. Sorry I'm not sure how to make the link clickable.

99.21.95.87 (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Bottom line: I don't think this is an appropriate source (likely violates WP:BLPPRIMARY), even if it were somehow put in the form of a link usable for an inline source (and it definitely isn't now, as your link is useless to anyone who's not on your own computer). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

== There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ==

--Coconutyou3 (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion open at Talk:Baywatch
Add your two cents. Yes, the last part of it was directed at you. Oh and Drmies wanted it sourced because I didn't get to it right away. So I did that. You might want to know what trivial means. Considering what I've outlined, it's not trivial in the least. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Danger Force
Going to need a hand here. Got someone who is being disruptive and keeps breaking things, despite warnings. has already reverted them once. Amaury • 20:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seen this, but frankly other editors like seem to have it handled. But this recent editor seems very suspicious (basically an WP:SPA) and is giving off strong sock vibes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Your comment
What exactly was wrong here? The formatting I had is exactly how it is formatted autofilled in the cite web template.--141.157.254.24 (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to pay attention to how other refs are formatted, in terms of date and author, as per WP:CITESTYLE and WP:CITEVAR. Also, it's Deadline Hollywood, not just "Deadline". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly I think calling them "Deadline Hollywood" is outdated. They've been simply Deadline for far too long. At least as far back as 2016 one of the cited articles on Deadline's own site just calls itself Deadline, see: "Deadline Turns 10". And again, if the autofill just calls Deadline Deadline, there's a reason for it. I think this might be something in need of a long overdue review. In addition "Do it right..." for a mistake that was not a mistake is rather condescending and unnecessary a comment--141.157.254.24 (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It was a mistake – you used Euro date formats for an American subject in an article where 'mdy' date format had already been long established. But I now consider this subject closed for further discussion here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Legacies
Check Pepsi9072 for the logos for Legacies because season 3 has the two logos changed their names 85.255.236.197 (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter – we go with the first credited names: i.e. those used in season #1. This is covered under WP:NOTBROKEN. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant for season 3. So check Pepsi9072 My So Called Company/Alloy Entertainment/CBS Studios/Warner Bros. Television (2021) get it? 85.255.236.197 (talk)
 * No, you don't get it – it is irrelevant to the TV series and its infobox that one of the production companies changes its name during the course of a series's run. The wikilink to that production company article will still take readers to the correct article where they can read about any name changes if they are interested. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It is credited in season 3 go to YouTube and type in alloy Entertainment 2021 to see if your right. 85.255.236.209 (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Participation in a signpost interview
Hi IJBall, hope that you're well. I was wondering if you'd be able to participate in a Signpost interview in your capacity as a contributor to WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers? I am enthusiastic about these interviews because they help remind other Wikipedians about the passionate and diverse group of volunteers that edit Wikipedia, and into the many discussions and editors that inhabit our space, nooks and crannies. If you had time to even answer a few questions here (User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject actors and filmmakers interview draft) I'd be very grateful :). Tom (LT) (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Tom, busy with work these days, but I will try to take a look. No promises, though. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Another suspicious one
Per your previous statements, all we can do is keep an eye on them, I know, but just FTI. Amaury • 07:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

As The Bell RIngs
I will change it. You know that “Shadow” Isn’t the theme song to the show. I have the proof with the link to the YouTube video. Stop being such a hater and be a team player. If you mess up with my edits one more time, I’ll report you.

As The Bell Rings theme song: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5iyu9Jt3qo0&feature=youtu.be Wandavisionvixen101 (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * That's not good enough – you need an actual source stating what the theme song is (and who performs it). At a minimum, if you are citing the credits from the show itself, you need to include a timestamp to the exact point in the video that that credit is shown. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Then explain the show Henry Danger? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Danger

Honey please practice what you preach and live in reality. This link I sent you is relevant and you’re mad because I have good evidence when it comes to my research and you don’t. Where is your proof when it comes to the theme song? Let me know, but until then I have the proof and truth. You have lies and denials. :) Wandavisionvixen101 (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Does "As the Bell Rings" even have "credits"? I don't think it does. Henry Danger does. If it does, then you should have no problem producing the timestamp to the exact point in the video that that credit is shown. If you can't do that, WP:BURDEN and WP:V is not met. So, can you produce a timestamp to the exact point in the video that that credit is shown? Yes or no? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Disney XD
I wonder if it's going to become defunct and be removed from air. There is now literally no current or even upcoming programming on it, unless there's something upcoming I'm unaware of or premieres of some Disney Channel programming will be moved there, like with Mech-X4. I don't see a point in a reruns only channel going forward. Then again, Boomerang is reruns only, from what I know. Amaury • 05:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it almost certainly will be. (Disney has already axed this channel in most international locations.) And on that thought, once that happens, I think the two 'Disney XD original programming' templates should be merged. But I'd rather wait until the cable channel does get shut down first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the other difference with Boomerang is it was created as just for reruns of old Cartoon Network programs, like Looney Tunes and Tom and Jerry. I do wish Disney Channel/XD had something along those lines to show older programming like The Suite Life of Zack and Cody—and its spinoff—like what Nickelodeon has with TeenNick and Nicktoons. Amaury • 17:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The Suite Life of Zack & Cody
Need more eyes here. One of our disruptive users is at it again. Ping and  as well. Amaury • 18:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:YoungForever § List of Legacies episodes
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:YoungForever § List of Legacies episodes. &#x0020;I know you also watch the TV series. Can you give a third opinion when you have the time? Thanks. — Young Forever (talk)   07:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't watch the series, but I don't know what they mean by the crediting being reversed. In any case. their argument is nothing but original research. We list names and order them per the credit order shown on-screen. So if on-screen we see produced by -> written by, that's how we order it. (That's why I would be in favor of some modifications to the episode table code so the written by column is first.) Amaury • 16:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with your first point. (I don't think the episode table format needs to be changed, though.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My point is that teleplay is credited first and story is credited second on the on-screen credits. I even double checked the episodes. — Young Forever (talk)   16:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We are agreeing with you – both Amaury and are saying "follow the credits order". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Right. That's what we should follow. Someone claiming we shouldn't follow that because the credits are reversed—whatever that means—is just, again, original research. However, that's about as much as I can offer. I don't watch the series, so I don't really have much interest participating in an official discission on the matter, just posting my thoughts here. IJBall is correct on your talk page that this should be discussed on the article's talk page, though that's more on the other user, not you. Amaury • 16:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just one question: if the credits are not reversed (in your opinion), why is the director credited as last? shouldn't they be credited first, before writers, EP, producers, casting, etc.? My point (and the industry's point) is that if you have an opening sequence the cast is always listed first from most important to least mimportant, while the rest of the credits are the opposite of what would happen if they were closing credits (e.g. the closing sequence of Scenes from a Marriage). This is not original research at all, it's just the order in which cast and crew have been credited for decades. For instance, if you wanted to properly list the executive producers (say in the template), you will see THIS on screen chronologically: 1) Gina Girolamo, 2) Leslie Morgenstein, 3) Brett Matthews, 4) Julie Plec, but the credit order is reversed, and that is why Plec must be listed first, then Matthews, then Morgenstein, then Girolamo. The same should apply to the writing credits, the closest to the director is the most important (story), followed by the third (teleplay). It's so obvious to me. The credit order of any American opening sequence/credit list is not chronological (from casting onwards), but is reversed.--TheVampire (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything you said is original research. Credit order is according to the the on-screen credits of the first episode of the TV series with new crew members added at the end, not how you think it should be. It has always been like that among TV series. As IJBall said, take it to the Talk:List of Legacies episodes to discuss it, not on other editor's Talk as this is about the article itself. — Young Forever (talk)   21:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Signpost interview update
Hi IJBall, I'm hoping to get this published in this month's edition. Would you have any time to contribute to even a few answers? Thanks I hope! (User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject actors and filmmakers interview draft), Tom (LT) (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

IP 108.35.217.152
This IP just recently came off a year-long block on October 18—well, for me, as it would be October 19 for the Central and Eastern time zones—and has gone back into disruptive editing today. Amaury • 20:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ping as well. But I too have noticed a lot of additions of Category:Television series about teenagers to various articles lately. For my money, I think this entire cat should be taken to WP:CfD for deletion, as I can't think of a series where this cat is "defining" enough to merit its use. Instead, IPs like this one are trying to apply it to any TV shows with any teenaged characters. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Now at 85.255.237.77. Or, at the very least, making virtually the same disruptive edits. Amaury • 23:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also take note of 85.255.237.95. The IP above is actually much closer to this one, but I still have my suspicions. Amaury • 23:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Now at Special:Contributions/185.69.144.238. Amaury • 00:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Whining to admins to get you "indef blocked" definitely seems suspicious. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Now using yet another IP. See my talk page. Not at my PC. Amaury • 12:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And now at yet another IP. Wow: Special:Contributions/213.107.67.127. Amaury • 06:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have issued a warning on that latest IP's talk page for personal attacks in an Mech-X4 edit summary . And I've also monitored recent activity on your talk page, with another IP restoring content you removed and warning that you'll be blocked. At some point, a report at ANI (or AIV) may be necessary. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've already filed a report at AIAV. Amaury • 08:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

About WP:NONAME and WP:BLPNAMES
Per those guidelines/policies, we aren't supposed to reveal the names of non-notable children in the prose of an article. I just made an edit over at Michelle Branch, after an IP revealed a name, and noticed that sources supporting one of her children do reveal the name of that child in the title and URL. (I'm pretty sure this will be the case at many different BLP articles, even with the children's names suppressed in the prose and infoboxes.) In terms of citing sources, we should try to make the information about the source as complete as possible, which includes the title and the URL (for online ones), even if the source reveals the name in the title/URL. Just an observation, but had me curious regarding any other policies, or discussions about this. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is often the case – sources like People cavalierly put minors' names in article titles and even in URLs. As far as I am concerned, that doesn't change our own mission statement(s): news outlets can do whatever they like, but we are not a news outlet and are not bound by whatever they do. IOW, this is clearly an WP:ONUS situation... Bottom line: I am solidly in the camp that we should not be putting names of minors and non-celebrities in articles on privacy grounds and on the grounds that this kind of info does not really contribute to the notability of our article subjects. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi
Hi IJBall, I would like you to check WP:REFPUNCT on the article of Jen Psaki. It's for all articles or for none. As for me, as I stated, I'm not going to contest edits... but I don't understand double standards. Thank you. Kindest regards. CoryGlee (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * First, WP:OSE – the fact that some guidelines are not properly followed in some articles has no bearing on whether guidelines should generally be followed at other articles or not. Second, it depends what the sourcing is used to support – if the sourcing is used to just support a date-of-birth then it belongs inside the parentheses (as per MOS:REFPUNCT); if it used to support both the full birth name and the DOB then it should likely go outside the parentheses; and if the sourcing supports the full name, the DOB, and the primary/notable occupation of the individual, then it should actually go at the end of the article's first sentence. I am assuming in the Psaki article that the three sources are being used to support both the name and the DOB – if only 1–2 of them are supporting the name, and the other 1–2 sources support just the DOB, then they should be split up, with the relevant ones put at the end of the full name, and the others put inside the parentheses for the DOB. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101
Your comments would be appreciated here. Amaury • 00:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ping and  as well. Amaury • 00:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. IP blocked two years. Amaury • 02:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Cuomo Prime Time
I'll start this off with saying I do watch Fox News and don't watch this or the network, really, other than some clips here and there on YouTube just to see what's said, though I am overall not a fan of CNN (or MSNBC) at all, though that's beside the point. I only got curious and looked up the article given the recent events.

I don't expect you to do anything here, this is just more of a general question. Given recent events, Chris Cuomo is currently suspended indefinitely. A user made edit; however, their claim that the program is canceled is false, so shouldn't it still be "is"? The anchor is currently suspended. The program and anchor, while they go together, are two separate things. Nothing is stopping other CNN anchors from filling in for him while he is on indefinite leave, much like what Fox News, and I would assume MSNBC as well, does when anchors take days off for holidays, appointments, and other things. Now, if things change and Chris Cuomo ends up fired, that would be a different story. I am aware that news programs don't follow the traditional things and things like MOS:TENSE are ignored, but I think that's when a program is actually canceled. There has been nothing announced about the program itself here, just that its regular anchor has been suspended. Amaury • 00:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the show's current status (and I'd bet there has been no official announcement), WP:TVNOW applies in any case – "is" is correct here, whether cancelled or not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The source would be this, which includes this: A second hour of "Anderson Cooper 360" will air in Cuomo's place on Tuesday night. Although that's only about tonight, but is probably what it will be like for the time being, followed by the regular two hours of Don Lemon Tonight. I think that's what was done, anyway, before Cuomo's program premiered. Also, then I guess every single news program article is doing it wrong, because on any given news program I look up that no longer airs among the three major networks, I see past tense everywhere. Add: This is another one, but from a non-CNN website. Amaury • 00:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The first verb is "is", but everything else would be past tense – e.g. "Cuomo Prime Time is a news analysis show on CNN and CNN International, that was hosted by CNN journalist and news anchor, Chris Cuomo, and aired from [x] to [y]..." Etc. That's if the show is cancelled. But I don't see in those sources anywhere where cancellation is confirmed. Likely will be later, but is not confirmed now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Likely will be later, but is not confirmed now. Holy shit! You're psychic! Amaury • 05:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Disney Channel original series
Should we be adding upcoming television series—or even series in general—that contain no links to anything because there are no articles? Or, at the very least, no drafts? There are a few series here with no links, including one added today. Amaury • 04:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The guideline regarding navigation templates says to avoid entries not linking to an article, per WP:EXISTING. I do see the entries in question pertain to future Disney Channel series, and it has me scratching my head, but I don't think the guideline should be ignored here. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And I just noticed Disney's Magic Bake-Off is listed under current series, but there's no article about it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I left that one since it has been airing, just has no article. Not sure what to do. Amaury • 07:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The navigation template is meant to help readers navigate between articles and is not a substitute for a list article. If there is no article to link to, there is nothing to do. The list article, I'd assume, has those series listed already. Gonnym (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is true – there are not supposed to be any "non links", and Red links are supposed to be used sparingly, as per WP:NAVBOX and WP:EXISTING. However, editors have not be following the guidelines on this at the network (and streaming?) programming templates for a long time, so I would guess trying to break them of this habit is likely to meet resistance. Any effort against this practice is most likely to be successful if it's focused on removing the "upcoming" TV series non-links from these kinds of templates. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Just Roll with It
Wanna weight in? Amaury • 23:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope. But all the previous points apply, and this is almost certainly the same WP:DE IP user. If they start reverting again, let us know... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now put a Level 3 WP:NPA warning on the Talk page of one of the IPs. Also note that at least one of those IPs has outed themselves as Special:Contributions/Peacerocker07, so you may want to keep an eye on this account. If they keep it up, they will need to be reported, though I don't know where, as WP:SPI doesn't want to handle IP "log out" cases, I don't think WP:ANEW or WP:AIV apply, and I consider WP:ANI to basically be completely useless these days. You may want to go to a preferred Admin directly in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is also worth keeping an eye on based on the latest comments, basically implying things can be shoved through without a reliable source, which, as you know, in the absence of in a case like this, we wait until one year has passed since the last new episode: Talk:List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel‎. We should also keep an eye out for any changes that happen before end of day on May 14, 2022. Pinging and  as well. Amaury • 05:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added hidden notes here, not only for this series, but Gabby Duran & the Unsittables and Disney Fam Jam as well. They never seem to do much, as most people will just ignore the notes, but it's something. Amaury • 05:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a particular guideline that mentions providing a source or otherwise waiting until after a year has passed? I can't remember it right now. I couldn't find anything on the general MOS:TV page. Amaury • 05:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's from the Infobox television docs: The first air date of the show's last episode on its original network. Use "present" if the show is ongoing or renewed and End date if the show is ended. Only insert the last episode's date after it has happened. In some cases the fate of a program might be uncertain, for example if there are no announcements that a show has been renewed. If such a program has not aired a new episode in 12 months, "present" can be changed to the date the last episode aired, using End date. This does not imply the series has been cancelled, rather that the program "last aired" on that date. This is to prevent programs from being listed as "present" in perpetuity. In the event that a program resumes airing after a long hiatus, such as more than 12 months between episodes or cancellation and subsequent renewal, the date is simply replaced with "present" to reflect the "current" status of the program. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Per a question on the talk page, can we use this? TVLine is a reliable source, but these seem to be more in the form of interview questions rather than direct statements. See the 10th question in bold in that article regarding this, Bunk'd, et al. Amaury • 21:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * He made a direct statement of fact without qualifying it with anything that would indicate he wasn't completely sure of what he stated. Since we consider tvline a reliable source we assume he did proper fact checking before making his statement. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note, though, that even TVLine leaves the status of Bunk'd unresolved. So no one should be trying to change that article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Feel free to modify anything, if needed. And agreed on Bunk'd, as it is allegedly continuing with a sixth season. Amaury • 22:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I will say that I was very surprised that Bunk'd still hasn't been determined yet. It's very amusing that this is the show that keeps breaking the norms--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Chiara Aurelia
For what it's worth, this wasn't created by Starklinson themselves, but they just moved it out of draftspace yesterday. Amaury • 02:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue with this one – there is no way the current version would fail at WP:AfD. But I did clean it up – Starklinson still hasn't learned how to do BLP articles properly (e.g. by now Starklinson should know not to use "best known" phrasing, etc.). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't surprise me. Amaury • 03:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Om a semi-related note (BLP), I don't know what the IP is going on about at Talk:Jayden Bartels. Amaury • 15:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Joshua Rush
I require assistance here. IP trying to stonewall unexplained changes. Have given them plenty of warnings now. Amaury • 02:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Bunk'd season 6
Pinging as well... I don't work on Disney Channel articles here, but I know you two (and others do as well), but Bunk'd has officially been renewed for a sixth season.

Normally wouldn't be too interested in stuff like this, but felt like putting this message out there since I've already been following one of the new cast members on Instagram- Luke Busey. Not 100% sure, but may be worth creating Luke Busey as a redirect to Gary Busey. (No clue why Luke isn't mentioned in the body text, but this source is being used in the first paragraph. Seems like the "In February 2010..." sentence later on in the same section may be referring to Luke...) Magitroopa (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Ariana Greenblatt
At this time, I have no plans to move this into mainspace or have the draft reviewed. I have noted her having significant roles in The One and Only Ivan, Love and Monsters and Awake, all of which I've watched in the last few months, and in addition to her major role on Disney Channel's Stuck in the Middle a few years ago, this appears to qualify her as notable under WP:NACTOR. Significant coverage in reliable sources outside of these projects, which is needed per WP:BASIC, appears to be lacking, however ... though not necessarily an impediment to establishing her notability if NACTOR does it. She does have a couple of films on the horizon, 65 and Borderlands, and if now is not the time for a mainspace article, perhaps when at least one of those films is released (65 is slated to come out in April)? What do you think? MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, right now WP:AfC would be very unlikely to approve it. WP:BASIC is the far more important standard – "technically meeting" WP:NACTOR is often not enough. Until the actress herself starts getting significant coverage (e.g. at least one, and probably more than one, article "profile"), she almost certainly wouldn't qualify for a mainspace article (yet). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that I have just substantially improved that draft. It's still not sourced enough to get into mainspace (the draft needs more sourcing in general), but it's a lot better than it was... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)