User talk:IJBall/Archive 39

Winslow Fegley
Ping as well. I'm contemplating restoring the redirect, as he is not notable, despite an editor's claims (see the history of the page I'm linking), and in no way passes WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR. But I want your guys' opinions. Amaury • 16:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not touching it, personally, but you have to do more than just "invoke" WP:NACTOR – you have to prove that it is met. It's not about the number of "starring roles" – it's about the number of "significant roles in significant projects". I don't think this has been proven here. Aside from that, yeah – WP:BASIC is definitely not demonstrated. Either converting to a redirect or moving into Draftspace seem reasonable in this case, though I'm not going to do it myself. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Especially when virtually all of the references are from WP:NOTRS. Amaury • 16:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Editor who created the article at the redirect asserted that he passes those, restoring the redirect will be contentious, so next step is AfD. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't have been the first time I've redirected a creator's biography article, but here's the AFD: Articles for deletion/Winslow Fegley. Amaury • 17:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Side Hustle
That edit I made may not been necessary. What can be added is the mentioning of season 3 if and when they announce it.Cwater1 (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You are claiming the series will end, when you have no source to verify that the series will end. That violates WP:V – it's not that it's unnecessary: it's that it's a completely unsourced claim. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, scratch the above – I now see that you are referring to just the end of season #2, not the end of the series. The thing is, even that requires a source – something indicating that the "season finale" will air on that date. The Futon Critic may be able to be used for that purpose. But it's certainly strongly preferable that that be sourced to something. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
Hello ,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.
 * Backlog status

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
 * Backlog drive

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
 * TIP – New school articles

There is a new template available,, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
 * Misc

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.
 * 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 and its software.
 * To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
 * Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Days of Our Lives: Beyond Salem
Do you have any suggestions as to how to separate the cast lists for each season? I see that you removed the cast table that someone created. The second season basically has a 90% different cast list than the first season. Thanks for the help! Partyclams (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest posting about this to the article's talk page, to see if others have suggestions. My personal idea is that we do one 'Main' cast section (i.e. for both seasons), and then do 'Season 1/2' subsections below that to cover 'Supporting' and 'Guest' cast for the two seasons... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea! Thanks! Partyclams (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

IP 50.79.183.249
Ping and  as well. Will need more eyes here quickly, as the next edit should land them being reported. It's fairly clear they've also used another IP, beginning with 66. It's a school IP, so disruption coming from it doesn't surprise me. Amaury • 17:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * What is the specific disruption, besides removing years_active from IBs (which I haven't looked closely at)?
 * Meanwhile, I may need help at Maya Hawke, if anyone cares... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty much just that. They seem to have stopped and claim they are sorry for their behavior. I'll have a look at that page. Amaury • 21:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, a month-long editor (less, I think) is now edit-warring at Maya Hawke, whilst simultaneously ignoring a Talk page discussion and being wrong on the merits. I've given them a 3RR warning now on their Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The Thundermans
May need some attention here. Editor refusing to follow WP:BRD. Amaury • 20:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The edit looks legitimate – I would add that, but add it yourself, do the two new refs properly, and in the lede and not the infobox. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Lonesome Dove
Ordinarily, I would just accept the revert and move on. However, I wanted to comment on the edit summary Please stop robotically doing this. FYI, I am not "robotically" changing assessments. Yes, I am using Rater as part of my assessment process, but when using that tool, I don't blindly accept its result. In this particular case, when I ended up looking at the article, I did not look at the talk page history, so I did not see that we'd been down this road on this article 2 weeks ago. I happen to disagree on the assessment; but you also happen to be an editor I respect (and you've helped me before on some things in the TV project). Had I recalled the change from 2 weeks ago and/or looked at the history, I would not have re-assessed the article. I just wanted to clear that up, especially the "robotic" part. Butler Blog  (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I dunno what Rater is using to make assessments. On my end, I found the assessment criteria for especially 'C'-class to be vague-to-nonexistent, so I came up with my personal assessment criteria for that: User:IJBall/Assessment. In the case of Lonesome Dove: The Outlaw Years, I feel the article is neither long enough, nor contains enough individual sources (only about 10 sources), to graduate from 'Start' class. And this is an article that I created – so I can't be accused of inflating the criteria for an article-class promotion! FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Persistent disruption by User:CreecregofLife. Thank you. Amaury • 06:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth... (Ping as well.) Amaury • 06:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have commented. Hopefully this time, something is actually done. A 24-hour block is not going to solve this problem. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, enough is enough. Wikipedia requires collaborative work. I don't care how many good edits someone has. If they can't edit collaboratively and are constantly getting into edit wars and butting heads with other users, then they have no place here. Like I mentioned over there, if it were just one user with concerns, I could maybe be a little more sympathetic and try to come up with a solution or compromise both parties would be happy with. The problem here is that several different editors, including us, have brought up concerns regarding this editor. So it's not just a simple case of "this user has a vendetta against me" when it's several people with virtually identical concerns. Again, if it were just one person, I would be more open, but it's not. They keep complaining about their past being used against them, but they keep repeating their disruptive behavior. I have a past, too, which I believe I've shared with you before, but I have clearly learned from it. Even if I get into a conflict, which can happen, as we're only human, if someone brought up my past here, others may see it as unnecessary and may comment something to the effect of, "While yes, he was wrong here, I don't see any patterns indicating he has returned to his old habits." Nothing is guaranteed, of course, but still. Amaury • 07:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Zombies 3
Can you deal with this, please? Should just be deleted, but I'll leave it to you. Creator couldn't be bothered to check anything. Besides which, the page is full of errors. For example, the premiere date. And without its actual premiere yet, it shouldn't be in mainspace yet, anyway. Amaury • 07:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, 4 quality refs, and the movie is going to premiere in a week? I think I will leave it... That said, it needs a lot of cleanup, which I may or may not bother with... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is it already exists: User:Amaury/sandbox/Zombies 3. Just like when someone tried to do the same with Side Hustle: User talk:IJBall/Archive 34. (Also: User talk:Amaury.) Amaury • 17:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have replaced it with your draft that had precedence, and moved their article to where your draft was. I would take a look at their version – it has a couple of refs that your version doesn't have. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Paul Wesley link
Hi. I noticed you reverted my link to actor Paul Wesley on the Wolf Lake page. I probably should've included in it in my edit, but I retained his original credit with his real last name while correctly directing it to his article page. Why not leave it that way?

Thanks. Rmcrae2015 (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * IJBall explained it in his edit summary: WP:NOTBROKEN. Amaury • 02:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really. He just said he reverted my "faith edit" and nothing more. Rmcrae2015 (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact, Amaury is correct – I clearly explained WP:NOTBROKEN in my reversion. Bottom line: There was no reason to pipe from the redirect of his credited name at the time the show aired. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Céline Buckens
Hello – per your edit on Céline Buckens, where in MOS:ETHNICITY does it talk about the formatting of plural nationalities? I've always seen it formatted in the previous style and read over the manual to find anything that said different, but found nothing relevant. Apologies if I missed something in the MOS. – Meena • 23:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Belgian-British" is considered an "ethnicity" label (and almost certainly inaccurate in this case). Saying "a Belgian and British actress" is not about "ethnicity", but about her "nationalities", and so is the correct way to formulate this. This recent discussion at Ana de Armas explains in more detail.
 * Note, though, that I don't see anything in the article that confirms British citizenship – it's likely correct based on the circumstances, but there really should be a source in the article that confirms both Belgian and British citizenship. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Portal:Current events
Before adding the election to the portal I checked recent subdivision elections and if they were on the portal so I knew if it was allowed: many subdivision elections are on the portal, I just have no idea what you are referring to by saying they are "almost NEVER covered." Watercheetah99 (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have answered on your Talk page – please leave the discussion there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

July 17th 2022
I saw that you reverted an | edit for lack of 'international importance'. I have reverted the editor twice, but do not want to get into an edit war. Any advice? Regards, MattSucci  (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not much you can do, I'm afraid. Usually stuff like this is caught by other editors, but it's not worth getting caught in a WP:3RR trap over... In general, though, "state"-level elections do not belong in Current Events, as they are not notable enough. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just as I thought. Thanks for the advice, I'll take care. Regards, MattSucci  (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you start a wider discussion on this, please let me know. It is clear that some editors are abusing this process by including elections that are only of local concern. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion here. Let's see if it will make a difference. Regards, MattSucci  (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Ryerson is now Toronto Metropolitan University
See where Ryerson University redirects. Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC) See where Ryerson University redirects. Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Again – please review WP:NOTBROKEN. The info you are adding is extraneous at the BLP articles you are adding this to. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ryerson University redirects to Toronto Metropolitan University. The university changed its name earlier this year. Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Who cares? When the subjects went there, it was Ryerson U. Pinging and pointing out this issue at Rebecca Liddiard and Sarah Power (at least), because you clearly do not understand the purpose of WP:NOTBROKEN. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTBROKEN is irrelevant to your revert as the link was not touched.Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course it applies – it was Ryerson when they went there, now it goes by another name. None of that is relevant at the BLP articles themselves, and linking to Ryerson University will still get people to the relevant article. You really do not seem to understand WP:NOTBROKEN at all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't apply because NOTBROKEN refers to links and redirects and the link wasn't being edited. Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh huh – then what do you call this and this? You are completely ignoring everything I am telling you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Those were done *after* your revert in an attempt to address what I thought your complaint was. Look at the original edit that you reverted. In this edit which is the one you reverted, the link was not touched at all. Same with this one  which you also reverted. Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I told you – the information you added was extraneous to the articles you added it to. That has no relevance to these BLP's. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And that has nothing to do with WP:NOTBROKEN. The policy you cite does not apply. Also, the information is not extraneous, it's an update. If you want to back up your opinion with a policy, then cite a policy that actually backs up your opinion. WP:NOTBROKEN does not say what you think it says. Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It has everything to do with WP:NOTBROKEN! – anyone who wants to know about Ryerson will click on the link and find out about the name change. There is no need to mention the new name at all, or pipe the link to include the new name (which is exactly what you do here) at these articles. Again – just LEAVE IT ALONE. You are also violating WP:BRD, BTW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please quote the part of WP:NOTBROKEN that you think applies. Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is my last comment on this – relevant quote is: There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. This is exactly what you are doing right now at Rebecca Liddiard. You are also attempting to include information that is extraneous at these articles – you either get this, or you don't. We are now done here. Honestly, you should revert what you've done. If you don't, I will remove it later for the reasons I have outlined here repeatedly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And these two links do *NOT* bypass the redirect and link directly to the target page - so as I said, there is no violation of WP:NOTBROKEN. In future, please actually read the policy and understand it before you try to cite it. Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Put the name of the place attended as used at the time and the name that appears on any diploma or records they personally have. That is what the references in the article used to support that data say and stating something else breaks WP:verifiability. Redirects will take care of getting people who care to the proper article about the place. Also very few people will know or care about the new name, the old name is more recognized. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Ryerson
Regarding the discussion above, could you please see User talk:Horatio Bumblebee. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's no good either – it's equivalent to something like changing a cat from Category:The WB original programming to Category:The CW original programming for a show that actually aired on the former. It's amazing how people don't get this – name changes don't affect what happened before the name change... Pinging so that they are aware of the same discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
Hello ,

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators and, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
 * Backlog status

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.


 * Coordination: and  have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out.  will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.


 * Open letter to the WMF: The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.


 * TIP - Reviewing by subject: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.


 * New reviewers: The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.
 * 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 and its software.
 * To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Breanna Yde
Could you evaluate this latest update to the article, which seems to be an undue weight shift toward her music career, which is still not notable, compared to her acting career. I reverted the changes. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Since my revert, the editor made another change, a bit more expanded from their previous version (as they made clear in their edit summary, although they didn't remove the infobox photo like before). MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Not around much this week. May want to call in other editors… --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

"ICarly (upcoming TV series)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ICarly (upcoming TV series) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 10 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message
Hi ,

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
 * Invitation

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Sock
Hi, thanks for identifying the sock at Ponyo's Talk page, but I wanted to correct you on one point: I do not have CU privileges. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry about that – I saw that Ponyo did, so I just assumed you did too. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent series hatnotes
Hello, I hope you're well. A while ago, all (or perhaps most) of the hatnotes saying "For the most recent series, see show (series 3)" were removed. I was under the impression that this was under WP:TVGUIDE, but I just had a removal reverted over on The Masked Singer UK stating that the guideline has nothing to do with my removal. Do you know if there is a more clear guideline/MOS on these types of hatnotes? – Meena • 19:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest trying to find the actual discussion on this, as you can find the rationale there. My guess is that it's in the WT:TV archives somewhere. You can then revert, pointing to that discussion, to show that there is consensus for the removal of those. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI, two things: 1) I am the editor that reverted the hatnote removals, and 2) The (most recent?) discussion regarding this is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 28, though there was no consensus in that discussion. No idea if there's been any recent discussion(s) regarding this. Magitroopa (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh, OK, didn't remember the details of that... While I don't object to the hatnotes, I also think they could be rendered redundant by linking to the most recent season in a TV show's lede (esp. for reality TV shows). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Phrasing the airing date range in TV series
I'm working on rephrasing the "aired from {DateX} to {DateY}" in TV series articles, and decided to use Game Shakers as a start (since I'm avidly watching and rewatching episodes of that). I identify also a possible inaccuracy with the original phrasing, especially concerning the end date, because networks tend to continue airing series in reruns for a time after the final episode has premiered. What do you think? MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I saw that, and made some tweaks!! In general, going with something like that, or something like "[X series] premiered on March 1, 2000, running for five seasons and airing its final episode on May 15, 2005." is much better phrasing anyway... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, IJBall. I'll see what series to go thru, particularly with Nickelodeon and Disney Channel ones ... probably will be wary concerning other series, including those from the broadcast networks. Reality series I'd leave alone, as networks normally don't rerun episodes of those for weeks or months after the final episode has aired (pretty much knew that about Survivor and Big Brother, though not 100% on all others).
 * Was also checking out the two ongoing series Raven's Home and Bunk'd and noted the phrasing of the premiere date in the lede, thinking we should retain that phrasing, instead of going to the usual "from {DateX} to {DateY}", when those end eventually ... and just adding on the part about how long it lasted and when the finale was aired. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Kickin' It
Will need more eyes here. Based on their very last edit with adding what they claim to be production companies, this is most definitely one of our disruptive people. Whether it's socking or not, I cannot say, but this same exact edit—the production companies one—has been made before across different Disney XD series. I can't say with certainty, but I think it might be the same person from Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything. See the edits in the edit history over there, some of which you reverted, and some of which I reverted. Based on their message at the Kickin' It talk page, they clearly do not understand WP:ONUS or WP:STATUSQUO, among others. Amaury • 08:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * What they are removing from the Kickin' It premise does look trivial. I never really watched the show, so I can't say if that was a big part of the show or not. However, the production companies in infobox part is the concerning edit, as that is part of a long-standing pattern of disruption at the Disney articles, and I notice the IP doesn't mention that part in their Talk page post. It is also basically the same edit that User:95LightningWazowski was toying with just days earlier. Pinging to take a look. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election
Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

"Dracula (upcoming miniseries)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dracula (upcoming miniseries) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Kristine Froseth age edit
You left a message on my talk page but I don’t know if it gives you a notification.

The source was exactly my point. You are correct about the source but my point was that it was published on September 11, 2018 when she was still 22. With her birthday being 10 days later. Which she turned 23 in 2018 after the sources publication. Meaning she was born in 1995 not 1996 Fudgebby (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Please see my reply at Talk:Kristine Froseth. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Danger Force
FYI, I just reverted a split here with no consensus. There was a discussion started at List of Henry Danger characters, which isn't even where this discussion should have been posted. It should have been posted at Talk:Danger Force. Either way, no messages had been posted there besides the OP's, and there are not enough original Danger Force actors/characters to justify a split. Pretty much all of the characters are from Henry Danger. And I'm not including the main characters. Amaury • 20:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've restored the draft its state before the move, and have continued the discussion at Talk:List of Henry Danger characters (including a Please see link at Talk:Danger Force). Needless to say, I oppose the recent WP:RfC as both redundant and unnecessary (and possibly out-of-process). Ping in case he has any thoughts for the Talk:List of Henry Danger characters discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

List of The Flying Doctors episodes
Hi, I was just wondering if you could help me with a problem I came across while improving the above list. As I was sourcing the episodes in Season 2, I was unable to find anything for the episode "Give a Dog a Bad Name". There was no entry for it in any of the newspaper television guides and the episode that aired before it was labelled as the 1987 finale. A few places, including IMDb (I know), gave the date as 24 November 1987, but no new episodes of The Flying Doctors were broadcast that day. I believe the episode is included on the Season 2 DVD though. Today, I found the episode was actually broadcast on 24 October 1988, which would make it part of the fourth season. The newspaper source I found literally mentions the title and the synopsis matches what I've read about the episode, so I'm confident it is correct. My question is should the episode stay in the Season 2 table, which matches the DVD release, or do I move it to Season 4, which matches the broadcast order? In fact, should all the tables be based on broadcast order? - JuneGloom07 Talk  04:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * We always go with "broadcast order" in episode tables. We put episodes in the seasons they aired in – an extreme example of this is List of Saved by the Bell episodes, where two episodes produced for season #1 didn't actually air until during season 2 (at the latter article, this is indicated with a 'note' in the episodes summaries). This is why, if at all possible, production codes should also be included, as that usually shows readers when episodes "aired on the wrong seasons". In the writeup on Home media/DVDs, it can also be mentioned that all the episodes produced for, say, season 2 are included on the Season 2 DVD, even those that aired in season 4. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, thank you. I was starting to think something wasn't right with the order before that episode problem turned up. I'll reorganise the episodes, add notes where they're needed, and try to find the production codes. - JuneGloom07 Talk  19:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Row span
Hey, I found some more articles for you that you can fix the rowspan issues on: John Ritter, Phil Hartman, Catherine Hicks, John Bedford Lloyd, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Rachel Weisz. Hope that helps! – Broccoli &#38; Coffee  (Oh hai) 03:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not responsible for every article on the site. Also, WP:STYLEVAR works both ways – if the 'Year' column has been rowspanned for a while at those articles, then they stay unless consensus changes. But at Kel Mitchell, 'Year' doesn't get rowspanned if challenged (as I have), unless it's demonstrated there a consensus to change to that. In general, it's wiser not to change things like this in Filmography tables if you think there is any chance that the changes are going to be challenged – there are better more important edits to make anyway. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Liv and Maddie
Keep an extra eye out here. I am getting a Bambifan sockpuppet vibe here. Amaury • 00:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I generally defer to on category issues, as I don't consider myself any kind of "expert". But I did notice that edit (esp. how one cat seemed likely to be a WP:SUPERCAT of the other), and I did wonder about it. Worth keeping an eye on... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * After looking at the edit history, I'm less convinced now: . It's unlikely that a +100,000 edit-count account that has been operating since 2013 is a sock. (If it was, it would likely be a record feat!)... The only way to know for sure would be to look carefully at the interaction report between this editor and some of the more prolific Bambifan101 socks (which I don't intend to do). But you would need a lot of evidence to prove anything here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. I didn't have any plans on creating a report or anything, in this case. Just seems a bit suspicious. Amaury • 00:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's hard to do anything without knowing which are the most prolific Bambifan101 socks, but I just checked 3 decently-long Bambifan101 socks against this editor, and there were only two articles in common (one of which was Liv and Maddie). I'm not seeing a lot of evidence for Bambifan... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Pure coincidence is a possibility, I suppose. Amaury • 01:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

IJBall and, it's going on again. Note that the user is not Bambifan, but they are trying to insert one of the same categories that Bambifan does. Amaury • 08:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * What I'd like to know, and maybe can answer this – Isn't Category:Works about twin sisters a WP:SUPERCAT of Category:Television series about twins? If it is, then the former doesn't need to be at the article. If it's not, then arguably it belongs at the article if  Category:Television series about twins does. But I'm guessing the former is a WP:SUPERCAT of the latter. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * They are both subcategories of Category:Works about twins, not of each other. I have no problems with Category:Works about twin sisters been in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Regards to your message 14 days ago
I got your message. I'm new. I don't know how to verify yet. I just wanted to try to get up a photo for Chloe. Her IMDb photo would be great. Thank you. Filmscreen (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Without going into the details of Non-free content, on Wikipedia we are only allowed to use the images that have a valid license and then are uploaded to Wikipedia. Right now, there are no images of Chloe East uploaded to Wikipedia (actually Wikimedia Commons), and the IMDb image would not be covered under "Non-free content", as I understand it. So we are stuck.
 * Beyond that, I expanded the Chloe East article today, and have added some more sourcing to it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disney XD template mess. Thank you. Amaury • 07:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW. Note that it wasn't me who started it. Amaury • 07:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have left a comment in the WP:ANI thread. If you have issues with MegaSmike46 beyond the template thing, now would be the time to air your concerns in the ANI thread. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

That Girl Lay Lay
So I just found out, from the Wikia, that Caleb Brown's character Jeremy was quietly written out of the series after the first season finale with no out-of-universe or in-universe explanation. Things like this really piss me off. I did notice he hasn't been on any of the second season episodes to date, but I thought the actor was just busy with another major project, similar to how Anneliese van der Pol was absent from about the second half of the second season of Raven's Home (production episodes 212–221) due to working on another project. Or how Olivia Holt was absent from a few episodes of the second season of Kickin' It (production episodes 211–215) due to filming Girl vs. Monster. But nope.

Degrassi: The Next Generation has done this, too, with no explanation for some of its actors/characters. The slight difference there, though, is that has an ensemble cast like Backstage, though explanations still would have been nice. Some of its write-outs were explained, though, both from the actor point of view and the character point of view. For example, Ryan Cooley's character J.T. Yorke was written out in the sixth season ("Rock This Town") with the character being stabbed and succumbing to his injuries due to Cooley wanting to pursue education at the University of Toronto. There's even a behind the scenes video about this on YouTube. Amaury • 21:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

User:MegaSmike46
Something needs to be done about this user and their disruptive mass changes. This user has always been disruptive, but they are being especially disruptive now. Amaury • 19:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * They've certainly generated a lot of recent heat, from multiple different editors, based on their talk page. On the merits, they are probably right about a Disney XD template merge(?), but there's process for that, and I'm guessing they're not following it. It looks like it may be a WP:CIR issue... I dunno that much can be done yet – this is probably not "ripe" enough to take to WP:ANI, so unless they actually edit-war (e.g. WP:ANEW), there's not much that can be done here but to keep reverting, and possibly warn. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * FYI – I didn't bring there, but now at WP:ANI. Magitroopa (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. Amaury • 00:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully
Toddst1 (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Toddst1 (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Still looking – this may take a while... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I get it. I spent 20+ minutes looking before I emailed you. No rush. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So far, I'm not finding it. I don't think I made up the other report. But I'm not finding it so far (and I've gone back 2 years looking one way). I am going to try to check the ANI search again. It doesn't look like the other report was made to WP:AN. If I can't find it, I'll amend my ANI comments (which I may do even if I do find it). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, comments amended-and-stricken at ANI, and I've added the missing context. Once again, I apologize for the confusion here, and falsely accusing you, . (Though I don't think there is actually an "actionable issue" in this case, FWIW.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All good. Thank you sir. Toddst1 (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

BrookTheHumming
FYI: I am having issues with this user again. Amaury • 10:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Definitely a strange mix of possibly useful edits with edits that are definitely not improvements – I have reverted at Gabby Duran & the Unsittables and List of Henry Danger characters with explanatory edit summaries.
 * Separately, I have also taken a hatchet to Draft:Kylie Cantrall (which BrookTheHumming did not create) which was in pretty awful shape, and still is based on the number of tags I've had to add. Cantrall will soon arguably pass WP:NACTOR, so you may want to consider putting this on your watchlist. (On my end, I've pretty much done all I am probably going to do here...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I will clarify that the last edition I made in "List of Henry Danger characters" I did it focusing on that series, since the information of the characters that there was, was mentioning episodes and facts of the spinoff. Also the visible anchors seem unnecessary, since the the character section (" ==CharacterName== ") serves as the anchor. BrookTheHumming (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not do things like remove anchors without a very good justification – they were likely put there for a reason. If unsure about, post to the Talk page about it and ask... Beyond that, I don't think your additions were bad, but I would endeavor to add instead of replace in an edit like that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I already make an effort to add, but what I add, ends up being removed because of any little thing that seems to not comply with the Wikipedia regulations. 😓 BrookTheHumming (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with this edit is more than just removing the anchors – you also replaced/removed existing information.
 * The other issue is that there is currently an ongoing discussion about how to merge Danger Force characters into that article. If might actually be more helpful if you'd follow up on that discussion – because the current 'Notable guest stars' section is going to have to be partly reconstituted into a section on Danger Force's main characters... Anyway, please take a look at Talk:List of Henry Danger characters and think about commenting there, or starting a new thread on how best to merge the Danger Force characters into the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

FYI
Your latest posts at MOS:TV are doubly signed. Amaury • 21:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Boo!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Mike Caron
I am thinking about starting a Draft for Director Mike Caron with the announcement of a new TV show he is developing. . However when I do searches there seems not to be a lot of reliable sources about him just fan information or sourced information for him working on Danger Force, Fairly Odder and of course Henry Danger. Where do you suggest I start with this? Magical Golden Whip (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * My guess is that Caron will not have enough in-depth secondary source coverage to pass WP:BASIC. There's no harm in starting a draft, but I'd guess the odds of it actually making it to mainspace are low... In a case like this, I always check Variety and The Hollywood Reporter first – if all you're find there are just a few "passing mention" references at these, it's a bad sign. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay Thanks. I will look into more as try to Use Steve as a guide as that article is pretty small and may help. Thanks again. I did find this site now, So maybe it will help a little bit Magical Golden Whip (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is a WP:Primary source – can be used to add facts to the article, but cannot be used at all to establish WP:Notability. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Sentence fragments
Hi

I appreciate the edit summary here. I understand that a list solely containing sentence fragments should naturally not have fullstops. My intent with the edit was to make the list itself consistent, which is my understanding of WP:MOSLIST: Use the same grammatical form for all items in a list – avoid mixing sentences and sentence fragments as items. (Though in hindsight I don't think I made that clear in my own edit summary). 5.64.246.170 (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Your only option then is to turn every character summary into one containing proper and complete sentence(s). Sometimes that is easy to do, and sometimes it is hard. I appreciate MOSLIST's guidance on this, but generally editors can't be bothered to do these summaries as proper full sentences most of the time. Regardless, the only option here is to make them all full complete sentences if you want to follow this MOS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022
Hello , Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to ), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also. Software news: and  have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved. Suggestions:
 * There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
 * Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
 * Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
 * This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog: Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!


 * Reminders
 * Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
 * If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Firehouse Tales
Could use some help. Amaury • 19:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * IP reverted, and warned (Level 2). Definitely needs a source to verify the date change. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * IPv6 is still at it – please keep an eye on this article... IP is now up to a Level 3 'unsourced' warning. Almost to Level 4. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been on my watchlist for a while, though I forgot how it got on it. Ping as well. This appears to be a WP:KIDSTVDATES vandal. Amaury • 16:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * IPv6 still at it. Probably better if reverts this time, and leaves the Level 4 warning. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Source
is kidscreen.com considered a reliable source? Magical Golden Whip (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes: Kidscreen.com. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Perfect, Thanks. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Sabrina Carpenter
Could you assess the latest edits? In similar vein to WP:BLPPRIVACY, I don't think added useless bloat is necessary. And now I question the latest category additions. Amaury • 04:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * They fixed their recent addition – it's OK now, if maybe overly detailed. (Not enough to merit reverting IMO.) Less sure about the added categories – Geraldo would know better than I would if they are kosher or not.
 * Note: I will be on holiday the rest of this week, and likely won't be editing Wiki much – and I likely won't be available for editing backup... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Holiday? Sorry, not allowed! :D Amaury • 05:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Lexa Doig
Hello IJBall! About your edit of my edit at Lexa Doig article, I'm aware of MOS:REFPUNCT, however I moved the ref that I'd originally placed to outside the brackets because it does not just suppourt the date. That ref actually suppourts the country of birth (Canada) as well. I did mention in my edit summary that it covers both "date/place of birth". Hence it is better suited coming after "Canadian" as I changed it to. The only reason I'd initially placed it inside the brackets was because there was a citation needed tag there. As to the middle name, I did not add that in. My concern for wanting to make clear she is Canadian with a ref is because she's included in the List of Canadian actors & it's good if people added to that have a clear Canadian ref on their main Wiki article. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * There are probably better ways to handle that. I'll take a look at it when I get home later... But, in general, refs like that are used to support just the DOB in the lede... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello IJBall, thanks for replying! I've seen it done that way in multiple articles. It is sometimes added instead to the date of birth/place of birth in the infobox. I had been tempted to move the ref to the infobox mention of DOB/POB, after Canada, but did not as the unsupported middle name seemed more prominent there & I did not want the ref to look like it was trying to back that up. Now you've removed the middle name from the info box & only the Date & place of birth are there, maybe moving the ref there will be more to your liking? Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, this is what I've come up with on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello IJBall! Suits me as it supports the Canadian assertion as well as the date again. Thanks for your time! Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Deletion discussion
I have sought and respect your opinion before since you are an active editor in WP:WikiProject Television and understand its nuances within the large scope of WP, and I do so yet again now. I recently nominated two newly created season articles of The Chosen (TV series) for deletion: Articles for deletion/The Chosen (season 1) and Articles for deletion/The Chosen (season 2). Based on the project's criteria, (IMO) these should not have been created or approved as they are essentially verbatim copies of the main article and don't meet the project's critieria for splitting. If we don't count episode summaries per WP:NOTPLOT that leaves the season article with about 500 words of prose, the majority of which is simply repeated in both the season article and the main show article. My understanding is that we don't create season articles for every show simply because the show itself is notable. Notability for the season itself is necessary. Am I off on this? I'd appreciate your input. Butler Blog  (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You might want to run this by WT:TV directly, but looking at the season articles, there is arguably enough 'Production' and 'Release' type info to justify separate season articles. Now, I'm not sure I would have created them myself based on what's there. But there's probably enough content in the articles that it's going to make winning a deletion case at WP:AfD difficult. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I appreciate you taking the time to provide input. I'll post something in WT:TV as I think it is probably a relevant discussion similar to the episode article discussion from a couple of years ago.  I guess my feeling is that if the information in the main article and the season article are the same, there's no reason to have a season article.   Butler Blog   (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems probable that the likely consensus in the AfD will be to remove that info from the base TV series article, and leave it in the season articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Creation of film series articles
Hi, !! I want to create an overview article like a franchise or film series article for the Zombies film/movie trilogy from Disney Channel and/or Disney+ since they have enough referencing for them. We all know how quickly Disney wants a brand or production to explode into a franchise, especially with the frequent uploads of side-attraction videos to YouTube and other platforms. Intrisit (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * That is a decent idea. If you do that, try to follow the formatting model of something like Descendants (franchise) or High School Musical (franchise) or The Expendables (franchise) over something like A Cinderella Story (film series) – the latter needs a lot of work and is a bad example of these kinds of articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If I pull it off, I want it to be reflected in the lead sections of the list of Disney Channel original films. I wanted it last time when I made my statements to you, but it seems you weren't convinced then. Since I believe you oversee such a page, I want to bring it to your attention. Intrisit (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Especially if you create such an article, I would have no problem revising that sentence in the lede there to "Other major DCOM franchises include Camp Rock, The Cheetah Girls, Twitches, Halloweentown, the Teen Beach films, the Zenon trilogy, the Descendants franchise, and the Zombies trilogy." --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Or maybe ...the Teen Beach films, the Zenon and Zombies trilogies, and the Descendants franchise." would be the better way to go(?...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please, for correction, The Cheetah Girls is a franchise article, although your linking pointed there anyway as a redirect, as the original film trilogy combined with/expanded to their respective soundtracks, a non-Disney album and Disney/non-Disney concert tours. Speaking of Zombies, I feel that they could go that way as well as Descendants which started the same way. For now though, I'll stick to the films themselves and see where the article lands. Intrisit (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, that A Cinderella Story film series article reminds me of the "Barbie film series" article which had title and content disputes I've had with other editors, to the point where it got split into two: the original article which moved through 3 titles to land on Barbie (media franchise) and the spun-out article evolving to a List of Barbie films article. It is up to us to arrange them how they ought to be arranged here on WP when issues like these arise and sources linking/pointing to them are/get abound, don't you think?! Intrisit (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)