User talk:IJBall/Archive 8

Happy holidays!

 * Thanks! Happy Holidays to you! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: I Didn't Do It
I'm still having trouble trying to figure out why "I Didn't Do It" was canceled or simply just not renewed—I can't remember which. Either way, it couldn't have been the ratings—or, at least, that couldn't have been the only reason if the ratings were part of the reason—because I just added a ratings section to the main article here, and the averages for the two seasons are actually quite excellent, better than the current series with their current seasons, in fact. (Also, adding the season averages together and dividing by two gives us an average of 2.08 million viewers for the series as a whole.) And if you take a look at the episode list, the only episode that had not so good total viewers was "Food Fight" from season two at 1.05 million viewers. Other than that, the second lowest was "Logan Finds Out!" also from season two at 1.58 million viewers, which is a good rating, so with the exception of one episode—"Food Fight"—not one episode dropped below the 1.55 million viewers mark. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 03:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This gets to something I was saying earlier: that renewal decisions these days are not purely based on simple ratings. That's always been true to some extent, but I think it's become much more true over the last 5 years. In terms of I Didn't Do It, I'm not sure what did it in, but the most likely suspects are: 1) a change of leadership at Disney Channel (it's a longtime practice among network heads to clear out some of the projects from the previous regime, whether or not they been well received - a lower-profile show like I Didn't Do It can fall prey to stuff like this), or 2) Disney Channel's leadership decided that its development slate (e.g. Stuck in the Middle) was better than the shows it was currently airing (e.g. I Didn't Do It) and so cleared out some of its current shows to make room for the new shows. I'm not sure exactly what it was, but I agree with you that objectively I Didn't Do It didn't merit the backdoor cancellation it got. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's funny, though, because they air new episodes on Fridays and Sundays—although it seems to be just Fridays for now beginning on January 6—so with having two days, they have enough room for eight new episodes in total. Fridays from 8:00 PM to 9:00 PM and the same for Sundays, but for some odd reason, they don't always utilize all four time slots. And Nickelodeon's always had only Saturday, as far as I know, and instead of not renewing or canceling shows to make room for others, they just put some shows' new episodes on hold for a while. For example, new episodes of Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn's second season went on a short break when Game Shakers premiered, and then new episodes of Henry Danger's second season went on a short break while Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn's second season continued as well as 100 Things to Do Before High School. Then Nicky, Ricky Dicky & Dawn had another break after March 5, 2016, while new episodes of Henry Danger's second season and Bella and the Bulldogs' second season continued starting on March 19, 2016. Then Bella and the Bulldogs' second season ended on June 25, 2016, and new episodes of Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn and The Thundermans—the latter of which had also been on a break alongside Bella and the Bulldogs as it only had two new episodes between November 18, 2015, and July 9, 2016—then continued regularly on July 9, 2016. And Nickelodeon also does the same thing of not always utilizing all four time slots for some reason. More often than not both Nickelodeon and Disney Channel don't always utilize all of the prime time slots. They still have whatever show is on at that time, just not a new episode. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

So I was doing some research today and learned that when it comes to the ratings aspect, networks don't really care so much about the total viewers, but more the demographics, such as 18–49. So while new episodes on Disney Channel between November 18 and December 11 received not so good total viewers, I guess it's not as bad as it seemed. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The impression I got from the end-of-the-year ratings PR pieces I saw is that Disney may now be skewing younger than Nick. I'm not sure that's been true before now. If so, we will probably see Disney start dumping its "older"-skewing shows in favor of "younger" fare. That might explain why Girl Meets World and Best Friends Whenever might not be returning, while Stuck in the Middle seems to be Disney's new "marquee" show... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Only time will tell, though Stuck in the Middle seems just like the other sitcoms to me, personally, and seems like the same level of show as Liv and Maddie, for example. Also, Bizaardvark doesn't really seem that different than past and other current sitcoms, either, and I can't imagine they would have renewed it for a second season if they're planning on changing everything in 2017. I also can't imagine they would have renewed K.C. Undercover for a third season for the same reasons. But again, only time will tell. And of course this is all speculation and they may not be changing anything at all, and the reason the total viewers were down between that date range could simply be because of the holidays, and although they've never been that down before during the holidays, every year is different. By the way, what's PR? Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * PR = "public relations" or "press release". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Melissa Benoist
Hi, IJBall. I just wanted to stop by and explain my edits at Melissa Benoist at Blake Jenner. You replaced the TMZ cite with a HuffPo cite with the edit summary that TMZ is not RS. It actually is RS when it's citing court documents or directly quoting people, though not when using anonymous sources — same as People or Us. But that's actually secondary. More notably, HuffPo was itself citing TMZ! : )   So it all goes back to the same source, and, obviously, researchers cite the original sources rather than the copycats that, as this one rightly did, attributed the original. Thanks for letting me explain.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. I didn't catch that about the Huffington Post source... In general, most editors seem to really have a problem using TMZ as a source, so I usually try to replace any TMZ sources (if possible...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * One other thing: this edit is the exact opposite of what MOS:REFPUNCT says. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah. Hadn't seen the exception for parentheses before. Have at it then! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No prob! It's easy to miss it unless you read through the whole thing rather than just the first paragraph. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays

 * Awesome! Thanks ! The same to you! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW, never got back to on the Tori Anderson article. Nice job. Glad to see it survived.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , the funny thing about that is that somebody else just moved my draft of Tiera Skovbye into mainspace as well – while I think Tori Anderson was probably strong enough to survive in mainspace, I'm not so sure about Skovbye! (yeah, she has a bunch of credits, but virtually no press coverage!). Ah, well – at least people feel I'm not totally messin' up the joint! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year!


Happy New Year! IJBall, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 08:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks without header}} to user talk pages.

Re: Caedite eos
Does this look like a possible sockpuppet of Orchomen to you or just a run-of-the-mill editor making edits that don't really improve anything by looking at their contributions? I mean, they're not reverting me or using Orchomen's kind of summaries, but it could be Orchomen trying a new tactic to throw us off their trail, I don't know. Obviously just a theory as, unlike with Orchomen's confirmed sockpuppets, there's nothing here right now that strongly indicates or yells sockpuppet. Their contributions are to articles our group—me, you, GP, Michael, and Nyu—is watching, but I don't think that in itself can necessarily mean anything. (How do you access the interaction reports? Although I'm 100% sure we've all edited there first, haha!) I considered filing an SPI just to check, but I don't know if it's too early and I know the SPI clerks won't do checks unless there's at least some evidence that indicates that X is a sockpuppet of Y or what have you. (Pinging those who have been majorly involved in this since it started, other than the admins:, , and .) Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I ran Orchomen and the new user through the Editor Interaction Analyser and this is what I get. They only have two articles in common. Though since it's Orchomen, anything is possible. I feel like I've seen the whole twin thing before. I'll look into it. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  22:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I come empty-handed. CU check is the only way to verify unless the new user begins edit warring then we know it's the same person. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  22:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * IJBall,, do you think it's worth filing an SPI just based on the article relations alone? I'm strongly considering it. If you run the interaction report between any one of us—me, Geraldo Perez, IJBall, MPFitz1968, or Nyuszika7H—and Caedite, there should be a bigger article list than between Orchomen and Caedite. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 22:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and ran the interaction report myself now that I figured it out. Here are the results:
 * Amaury and Caedite eos
 * Geraldo Perez and Caedite eos
 * IJBall and Caedite eos
 * MPFitz1968 and Caedite eos
 * Nyuszika7H and Caedite eos


 * Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 22:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd at least ask at SPI – I am suspicious of this editor based on some of the articles they've edited, and suspect it's Orchomen at it again. But if it is, they're being less obvious this time – one approach is just to continue to monitor their edits for a while longer: if it's Orchomen, then won't be able to go long before unmasking themselves. They simply can't help it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I think they just unmasked themselves based on their latest edit summary at List of The Thundermans episodes and their message on my talk page accusing me of making threats. I shall file an SPI now. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For reference, link to the SPI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Orchomen#01_January_2017. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup! It's them! The fact that they just happened to find the SPI and make a comment, which I didn't notify them about, is proof. They're just playing dumb and trying to save face. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 07:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

IJBall,, , and , just an update that the SPI check by Bbb came back as possible, and then Rob commented that there doesn't seem to be enough evidence yet for a block, I guess, but that the allegation isn't without substance, so it seems he has his suspicions as well, there just isn't enough evidence for now. He said to re-report, though, if anything else comes up, so if you guys want to keep an eye on it or have something already that could further tighten the links and show it's our good ol' friend, that would be most appreciated! :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Orchomen/Archive#01_January_2017 Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, IJBall!


Happy New Year! IJBall, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Donner60 (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Welcome back!
Look, I'm stalking you!  But seriously, nice to see you have much more time here, and I hope your vacation was awesome! (Now we can focus on working to get this latest most likely sock blocked. Ha. Ha. Ha.) Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Went to Kauai, the "Garden Isle"...  --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Disney Channel Games
Not sure if leaving a template counts as watching my page, so thought I'd notify you that I've left a response on my talk page. --haha169 (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Emerald City
Okay, I get it. It seems unlikely we'll see Dorothy's search for her mother again, but how do we make it clear this is a different Dorothy?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Best way to probably do that is to use the term "reimagining" (or "reboot") in either the 'Production' or 'Plot' section (or even in the lede). I'd bet dollars to donuts that at least one of the press articles on this series used one of those terms, so it should be sourceable... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I did use her nursing skills in the plot because that has been important. Might as well mention she's 20 since the original Dorothy would be a little young. And she named the "Scarecrow" after her home town.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  17:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been reverted again. It seems her biological mother is going to be important to the plot so I put her in. Wouldn't you agree?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  17:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My advice it so open a topic on this at Talk:Emerald City (TV series). I think an argument can be made that that whole subplot with her mother will prove to be important, but it's best to build consensus for including that at the Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Twitter as external link
The one link rationale only works if the "official site" is controlled by the subject, and "The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.", according to WP:EL. If you look at her Twitter account, it's the usual public interest social justice issues. These are fine, but her tweeting about MLK day and the usual social media items is not her tweeting about her notable activities. It's really stretch to include the Twitter account there and say it is directly related to the content of the article. In fact, including it is essentially linking offsite to a stream of unrelated information given in very subjective form, which is exactly what the EL policy seeks to avoid. 96.127.242.152 (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw your edit summary. However, it is generally standard practice to include one "official" website in the External links section in actor BLP articles, and the official site that is nearly always listed is the Twitter account. The blue checkmark at the Twitter account verifies that it is Sofia Black-D'Elia's actual Twitter account, so that meets criteria #1. Criteria #2 is more debatable, but if she uses that to post updates on her acting career (e.g. landing acting parts and such), then it probably meets criteria #2... Just know that if you're going go around trying to remove Twitter from the External links of other actor BLP articles, you're very likely to meet resistance and reversion in trying that, as most editors seem to feel that Twitter meets the WP:ELOFFICIAL criteria... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just going by policy. The way people "feel" is not so important! if it were, we would have a fairly messy encyclopedia.96.127.242.152 (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

RE: TV Movie Runtimes
I get them from IMDb or Amazon listings.The Editor 155 (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, you can't use IMDb for that kind of info - see WP:RS/IMDb. Now, I'm not sure about using Amazon for that – that may be OK... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay I'll stick to Amazon.The Editor 155 (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Amazon is a reliable source and should be fine, yes, as they sell what and how the networks tell them to. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 06:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC Notice
There is a Request for Comment posted at Talk:New York Daily News. You are being notified as a registered editor who has commented on that article's talk page or in a related move review. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Jodelle Ferland
Le nom Ferland est un nom typiquement français ! Elle est donc d'origine française ! Vous débattez sur de la forme alors que moi je débats sur du fond ! Vous pouvez supprimer les origines anglaise et autrichienne si vous le souhaitez, mais sachez qu'elle est bien d'origine française ! http://www.filae.com/nom-de-famille/FERLAND.html User:Jejesga06 22:55, 22 january 2017 (UTC)
 * Courtesy translation by Google for you, IJBall. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, French... OK, let me try: Même si Ferland est d'origine française, nous avons encore besoin d'une source fiable pour vérifier ses origines. C'est la politique Wikipedia (WP:BLP). (English: Even if the surname Ferland is of French origin, we still need a reliable source to verify her ethnic origins. This is Wikipedia policy (WP:BLP).) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nous pouvons débattre philosophiquement sur "qu'est-ce qu'une source fiable ?" ... mais là n'est pas la question, son nom est un nom français, elle est donc logiquement d'origine française. Tout comme 29 à 45% du vocabulaire anglais (suivant les sources) est d'origine française. Ce qui me permet de te comprendre très facilement. Habitues toi à parler français car avec le développement de l'Afrique, la langue française va se développer massivement. User:Jejesga06 23:26, 22 january 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that is not how BLP's work – nearly everything requires a source, including (especially) bio details like ethnic origins. (Attempted French version: Malheureusement, ce n'est pas la façon dont le travail de BLP - presque tout nécessite une source, y compris (surtout) des détails bio comme les origines ethniques.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Catania Metro/Routemap
Hi. I don't do much work on templates, but I saw you in the above article's edit history. Not sure this belongs in mainspace. Could you have a look? Catania Metro/Routemap. Thanks.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the move from template space to mainspace looks to be incorrect – I've never heard of anyone doing what was done there. I've moved it back. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear User:IJBall thank you for your contribution to the work I've done on Catania Metro/Routemap. Feel free to add you comments here: Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template --Vadp (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Underwood listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Matthew Underwood. Since you had some involvement with the Matthew Underwood redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Transition to "Episodes" on episode lists
In that case, would you like to go through the episode lists in my sandbox and do a mass change to "Episodes"?  And thinking about it now, it probably should have been the other way around all this time. "Episode list" on the main articles and "Episodes" on the episode lists. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's pretty standard as an "Episodes" header (at both types of articles) from what I've seen, and I generally change it to "Episodes" in those few older articles I stumble across that have the header as "Episode list". I'll try to remember to go through your list for this, but these days I seem to have other fish to fry, as I seem to be coming across multiple articles every day that don't meet our notability thresholds and should be WP:PRODed, etc. It's actually getting me down a bit, because the magnitude of absolute crud articles (almost in every case created by a "drive-by editor" that has never been heard from again) that we have in this project is starting to be mind-boggling: there's literally so much that should probably be deleted that I'm currently trying to figure out whether to throw up my hands on it or not! I really am starting to see that this problem is probably beyond the WP:NPP project, and that we really need to ramp up the criteria for article creation... Anyway, I'll see if I can get to your request. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Liv and Maddie
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Liv and Maddie.

, ,

I don't know how much clearer I can be on other articles not setting precedence over other articles. (As a reminder, this is the user who I think has lost their rights to freely make edits, and you agreed, IJBall.) Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also need to be careful with possibly discouraging people who in actual good faith are trying to improve an article. People learn by reading other articles and form their own opinions based on that on what they see as actual practices, as opposed to maybe unfamiliar guidelines. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Liv and Maddie
Did you ever see the discussion I just started? This edit was reverted last year and I decided to get consensus, but only Amaury responded. Did you ever see the edit? The discussion exists at Talk:Liv and Maddie. So far there hasn't been another reply from another user and I get the feeling that Amaury just doesn't like me at all. He claims this article doesn't need to follow the guidelines of other articles but I don't see why it shouldn't. I don't get the point of it not being like other Disney Channel and Nickelodeon teen sitcom articles. The lead lacks context and their does not seem to be a point in listing two plot summaries, especially when both lack certain details. Are there any other editors that should be involved in this discussion? Geraldo Perez failed to chime in this time like he usually does (I don't know why). Kkjj (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to participate in that discussion. But I'd be lying if I didn't say that I prefer the version before the edit you link to above, based on a quick perusal. It's possible the original can be improved upon, but I think your edit was probably too radical a change. My advice would be to go back to Talk:Liv and Maddie, and maybe start a discussion where you go section-by-section through the article, suggest what changes you think should be made, and then see what kind of response you get. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I already tried that, see the link above. What made my edit bad? This article lacks a well-structured lead like the other articles. The fact that there are two plot summaries when only one is needed does not make sense at all. The first of the two was supposed to be in the lead because this article lacks context about the show in the lead like other articles. In fact, Girl Meets World has more plot info in the lead than in the actual plot summary. Other Disney Channel articles such as Wizards of Waverly Place, Good Luck Charlie, and A.N.T. Farm also give their shows more context than Liv and Maddie, particularly Good Luck Charlie. This article simply lacks compared to other articles about Disney Channel and Nickelodeon teen sitcoms. Do you agree? Amaury doesn't seem to, but I needed another user's opinion. Kkjj (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Ride viewers
Given that it's an imported series, I think it's actually started out quite well, certainly better than Disney Channel's imported Backstage and The Lodge overall. Backstage's first season had an average of 0.95 million viewers while The Lodge's first season had an average of 0.73 million viewers. Combining the averages, that is an average of 0.84 million viewers between the two series. For some extra information, Backstage's first two episodes average to 1.18 million viewers and The Lodge's first two episodes average to 0.77 million viewers. And if you combine those averages, you get an average of 0.98 million viewers between the two series for their first two episodes. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's see where Ride ends up... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * True! Although for an imported series to start with one million or more is quite good in my book. Backstage stayed above one million viewers per episode most of the time for the first half of season one, but then the ball dropped in the second half of season one when they just turned it into a filler series, as you put it. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 05:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2
Hello , We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October. The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to. Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten. This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody,  and
 * A HUGE backlog
 * Second set of eyes
 * Abuse
 * 1) this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting  in  a community ban.
 * 2) this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in  a community ban.
 * 3) This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election
Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Email
Got the alert here, but just a heads up that I won't be able to check it until I get back in approximately four hours as my college blocks email ports. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 19:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's nothing super important. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: The Other Kingdon
For what it's worth, I read something a while ago that negotiations for a second season of The Other Kingdom were in the works, most likely because it's not fair to leave us on a cliffhanger like that. Obviously, we'll need a reliable source, but knows? It might get renewed. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 23:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I still think it's safer to put that one "on a clock". If it does ultimately get renewed, we can simply remove the timer. And I'm quite certain that any renewal for that one would have to come before summer 2017 which would give us plenty of time to remove the timer if it becomes necessary. FWIW, I doubt that one will get renewed (for one thing, I don't think Tori Anderson will be available to do it anymore), though I suppose a (finale) "special", a la Make It Pop, is possible. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:K.C. Undercover
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:K.C. Undercover. Could use some extra attention to the article. This isn't the first time I've tangoed with this user. Feel free to add to the started discussion. U|Geraldo Perez, U|MPFitz1968, U|Nyuszika7H Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Nickelodeon wins 2016
,

Nickelodeon won 2016 in regard to viewers: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings/2016/12/28/nickelodeon-wins-2016-with-kids-and-total-viewers-outperforms-competition-by-double-digits-40211/20161228nickelodeon01/ Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not sure that this has happened before in a long time, if ever. Disney earlier put out a press release trying to claim they won 2–11 viewers or something. But, basically, it looks like the two nets have flipped places – Disney used to win total viewers, while Nick would sometimes win Kids; now it looks like the situation has reversed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're not sure Nick has won like this before is what you're saying? Disney Channel's win in 2015 was a first-ever when going against Nickelodeon:
 * http://deadline.com/2015/12/disney-channel-wins-2015-full-day-total-viewers-ratings-1201674224/
 * http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/ratings-disney-channel-beats-nickelodeon-2015-1201669852/


 * Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant. One bit of added confusion is the Variety ref you use is quoting "Total Day" ratings. I think in the past I've usually paid attention to evening/"Primetime" ratings, rather than "Total Day", the former of which Disney has been winning consistently for years IIRC... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On the subject of ratings, hopefully Stuck in the Middle's season two premiere does well tomorrow. How do you feel about it? Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 01:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's Disney's best current show. It seems to be their most popular as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you had to take a guess, what numbers do you think we could see?, you're obviously welcome to weigh in as well given the weekly prediction questions I've been asking you. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 01:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't follow ratings closely anymore (haven't in years, really...). But if I had to guess, I'd expect it to do better than any of Disney's other shows. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The average viewership for season one of Stuck in the Middle was around 1.6 million per episode. The "movie", which is shown to be only one hour in the TV listing, probably will be near that average or maybe a tenth or two (couple hundred thousand viewers) higher. Though my track record for predicting how these ratings will go hasn't been stellar. I do tend to agree it's probably Disney Channel's most popular show at the moment, though I could be biased, too, since other than Girl Meets World, it's the only one of their shows I've followed avidly from the beginning. MPFitz1968 (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

IJBall, : And ta-dah! List of Stuck in the Middle episodes. Additionally, rank five and 0.45 million for 18–49. Are you blown away? Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't say I'm too surprised by these results. More encouragingly to me, unlike "Stuck in the Store", I thought "Stuck in the Waterpark" was actually good – back to season #1's form. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I had my concerns given the ratings for Disney Channel's other sitcoms, but I was proved wrong. As always, I expect Nick did well. We'll see when Saturday's ratings are posted tomorrow morning. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, this is saddening. 1.09 million total viewers, 0.18 million viewers for 18–49, and a rank of 62 for the second episode of season two. That's a 1.04 million (49%) drop in total viewers—almost half!—and a 0.27 million (60%) drop in 18–49 viewers. It looks like Stuck in the Middle is also cursed now as before this, its series low was 1.29 million total viewers which isn't a terribly bad number. Disney Channel has definitely really dropped the ball somewhere. I know I read comments that people were going to boycott Disney Channel for canceling Girl Meets World, but I can't imagine the number of people would actually make that big of an impact. Plus, numbers dropped even before Girl Meets World ended or the cancellation was announced. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a huge drop in viewership! I'm not exactly sure that it's all because of the fallout from the GMW cancellation and a lot saying they will boycott/are boycotting Disney Channel. One possible other theory would be the content of this episode: I have noticed a trend of their being pretty liberal with the potty-type dialogue (which I will refrain from mentioning here, but also note that in "Stuck in the Slushinator", "Stuck in the Mother's Day Gift", and even the season two premiere "Stuck in the Waterpark - The Movie"). I honestly don't have a problem with that, but some families may be turned off by that kind of talk. Disney seems to be OK with potty dialogue, but not with mature content. (Not sure about Nickelodeon's stance with that.) Even though I present that theory as a possible reason for SITM's huge drop in viewership, I will not dismiss the boycott Disney theory (though I'd wait to see if new shows like Tangled, Andi Mack, and the long-awaited sequel to Descendants continue this trend of sagging ratings later in the year). MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's strange, though. Doesn't Nickelodeon do the same thing? Yet they seem to be having no problems with their ratings. Sure, School of Rock kind of fluctuates a bit, but even that's not too bad, and I have a feeling those ratings that are somewhat on the low side are approximately the ratings they expect for that series. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 00:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Guest star credits for Legendary Dudas
I brought this up on 's talk page a while ago—please see here!—and now that I've gone through and fixed the directing and writing credits, I wanted to revisit this and see what you, as well as Nyu, thought. This only includes episodes two through six which each featured two mini-episodes, but were still obviously one episode, as the first episode was just one big episode.

I'll use the fifth episode—Un Film de Duda/Homeroom Wars—since that's what I have on the Nick site right now for an example. Currently, the guest stars are displayed like so:

Guest stars: Jackson A. Dunn as Elmer, Pearce Joza as Logan, Dallas Liu as Carter, Meyrick Murphy as Dallas, Daniella Perkins as Sophia, Megan Richie as Gigi, Laura Harman as Miss Tolomeo, Davis Cleveland as Icuzio, Kelly Perine as Principal Platt

However, watching the end credits, you'll see Un Film de Duda Guest Starring and Homeroom Wars Guest Starring, so should it instead be like this?

Un Film de Duda guest stars: Jackson A. Dunn as Elmer, Pearce Joza as Logan, Dallas Liu as Carter, Meyrick Murphy as Dallas, Daniella Perkins as Sophia, Megan Richie as Gigi, Laura Harman as Miss Tolomeo

Homeroom Wars guest stars: Jackson A. Dunn as Elmer, Dallas Liu as Carter, Meyrick Murphy as Dallas, Daniella Perkins as Sophia, Megan Richie as Gigi, Davis Cleveland as Icuzio, Kelly Perine as Principal Platt

(Also two separate lines.) Thoughts? Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll invite and  to this discussion as well and see if they have any feedback. As usual, I don't think they mind being solicited for feedback. Face-wink.svg Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What I'd do is check to see how Ned's Declassified... handled guest casting, as Ned was setup the same way: two 15-minute "segments" strung together to form one 30-minute "episode". IIRC, Ned just did one big "guest credits" at the end of the entire 30 minutes (though, with Ned episode guest stars did sometimes appear in both 15-min segments) – if Dudas handles guest-crediting the same way, then I think the first example would be the correct way to handle it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * IJBall, I think so. I'm not totally understanding what you said. Do you mean Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide had one overall guest star listing during the end credits with no segment labels, but sometimes in the end credits they had the segment labels and showed the guest stars for each segment? (For example, segment one guest stars: A, B, C; segment two guest stars: A, T, Y.) Here's the aforementioned episode on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwBWxE9lutQ. Put it in full screen and skip to 20:50. Then just look closely for the mini-episode name and the guest starring. They're a bit hard to see, in part because they're not the official end credits, just generic ones while the episode is playing to have more time for commercials, I think, but I think they're easy enough to make out what they are. If you have a cable/satellite login, though, you can skip to 21:57 here: http://www.nick.com/legendary-dudas/videos/un-film-de-duda-homeroom-wars-s1-ep5-full-episode/ Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My recollection is that Ned didn't "tie" guest stars to either "segment", but just had a guest cast listing in the end credits that threw all the guest stars from both segments together without specifying segment. It sounds like Dudas does actually list guest cast by segment, so it's different from Ned in that way. As a result, I'm thinking the "2a/2b" episode listing might be the way to go... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 2a/2b form looks reasonable to do here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We would just need to still keep them as one main entry since they are each one episode, just made up of two segments, if that makes sense, supported both by Amazon and the fact and there's only one set of ratings for each episode on Showbuzz Daily, excluding the first one since it was one approximately 22-minute segment. Just need to figure out how to do this with the table as I've never done it before, haha! Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What the IP did on this version from December 25, 2016 (diff), of List of Henry Danger episodes was wrong, but something like this would work for Legendary Dudas. We would just need to have an additional HR to have two titles within the same row. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is mostly unrelated to the current discussion, but I have to say I dislike the use of the 'HR' hard rule lines over the use if "1–2" in episodes tables most of the time. Unfortunately, there are some WP:TV editors who seem to be pushing the use of this 'HR' stuff, but I really prefer the use of "1–2" the vast majority of the time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * IJBall,, I've made an example here: User:Amaury/sandbox. I'm not sure how it would be done without the HR tags because they are indeed single episodes that just happen to contain two segments, so the air date, production code, and viewers are all "one" and belong to the same episode and don't need to be distinguished. The numbering, titles, directors, and writers are all that need to be distinguished between one segment and the other. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's basically fine, and is an example of using the 'hard rule' lines correctly – but I would not go with "2-A" listing you have there: I think "2a" or "2A" is fine. But I still think just going to a full on 2a/2b "split" listing a la List of Breadwinners episodes is the better way to go here – I don't think it's "undue" or ignoring the sourcing to do list this show that way... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked my example and added what I believe is your example. I guess my only issue with that is that we're duplicating information—for example, two instances of August 6, 2016. I mean, there is duplicate information in other cases as well, such as when Liv and Maddie premiered two episodes for its third season, but there it was two different episodes, so it just, I don't know, feels different to me there. Here it's one episode with two segments. I suppose we can wait and see what the others think. Although I will say that your way makes it more clear who guest stars in which segment. Even with the HR tags using my way, it's not totally clear who guest stars in which segment. Face-smile.svg Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep – definitely prefer the second example. If we go that way, there just needs to be text added above the table in the 'Episodes' section, stating in words that the show aired as two 15-minute segments (or "chapters") bundled together into one 30-minute episode... I notice that the Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide article, etc. make no mention of this in the article – I'll have to try to add text to that effect when I get the chance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Either way for the article works but the actual end credits are the official credits so would be my preference. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree! Should follow the authoritative credits which is also why I brought this up. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If we decide the second way is preferable, then I wonder if "splitting" the episodes list into "2a/2b" episode entries might be the better way to go?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't see an issue with that, personally. It wouldn't exactly match The Futon Critic and Zap2it, but I think episode lists for cartoons like SpongeBob do the same thing even though it may not be like that in the sources. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections
Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New suspicions
, ,

I have a strong hunch this editor is our good ol' "friend." We'll find out if and when they revert me with a combative or lack of an edit summary. I'm keeping an eye on it. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 15:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the three articles they have gone to so far have been ones you recently edited,, so that thought was going thru my mind, too. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty much a lock after an IP related to ones we have for "them" reverted your reverts. Added that IP to the list. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added to the most recent Orchomen report at WP:SPI – it's clear that this is another Orchomen sock. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As is this Burner Lee fellow. I'll add them as well. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Poor Orchomen – no friends: nothing else to do but waste his time here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL! 👍 Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't like this person either, but saying they have no friends, etc. won't do any good. Sro23 (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Meh. My sympathy for Orchomen expired long ago. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Noted. Thank you for the friendly and non-template note. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

BTW, a belated thanks to for protecting my Talk page – it's my personal policy never to request protection of my Talk page, but in this case I believe the level of disruption justified it. (If there are any IP editors looking to contact me over the next 24 hours, best to grab me at an article Talk page, I suppose...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. If you want an info message at the top, edit my talk page and look at the #ifeq code. --Neil N  talk to me 17:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And just FYI, when protection expires, that message will turn invisible when this page is edited or purged. --Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured that's what the "#ifeq" code was for! This is a very cool feature – thanks again! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty cool feature, I must say. It's basically like having an IF conditional in a spreadsheet. If protection exists, display this message; if protection doesn't exist, don't display this message. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but don't expect it to disappear the second protection expires. The page needs to be "updated" via an edit, purge, or automatic server cache update. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Makes perfect sense! <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-smile.svg Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For any editors that don't know, adding "?action=purge" on to the end of any Wikipedia page URL will allow you to purge that page. (Luckily, I've known how to do this for a while – it ends up being a useful skill for editing Portal:Current events!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Shouldn't you just be able to go here on any page? http://i.imgur.com/MJYBXhP.png Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You must have added a gadget to get that "Page" menu, 'cos I don't have that myself... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Preferences -> Gadgets -> Appearance -> Add a "Purge" option to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache. <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-smile.svg Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

List of [series] episodes: Episode list -> Episodes
Is this something you were still planning on doing, at least with the articles in my sandbox? I figured you should be the one to do it since you started the whole thing. <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;"> Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If I think of it, I do eventually plan to do that. But if you want to get the jump on me, feel free to make those changes yourself! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll get the ones I'm watching. I just didn't want you to feel like I was stealing your plan. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3
Hello , Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed. We now have New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced. If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Still a MASSIVE backlog

Discussion at Talk:List of Girl Meets World characters
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Girl Meets World characters. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 08:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Recurring cast
I think we can definitely say Shel Bailey and Bubba Ganter are recurring. List of Game Shakers episodes. <abbr title="Winking face" style="border-bottom: none;"> Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely – appearing in nearly all of the episodes pretty much qualifies you! (Ditto Sikowitz on Victorious, etc.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Crashletes and Jagger Eaton's Mega Life's current seasons almost finished
I just updated List of Crashletes episodes and Jagger Eaton's Mega Life with episode entries. I can honestly see both series being renewed for third and second seasons, respectively. Sports and documentaries with a mix of sports are quite good categories for any network to have, but especially Nickelodeon since it has that World Wide Day of Play event and focuses on wanting kids to go outside a play, so it could always use series like that. Despite the ratings seeming low, that's to be expected for those types of series, and, while I know this isn't a reliable source, I can honestly believe it when they say Jagger Eaton's Mega Life started out very strong. In my opinion, both Crashletes and Jagger Eaton's Mega Life have been receiving fair ratings, including 18–49, though I'm thinking they, as well as Disney Channel, probably—although I'm not 100% certain—pay more attention to the 12–34 range, even for their sitcoms because it is a kids' network. The only significant break both series have had was not having any new episodes after November 14 and 15 of last year until January 8 of this year, but that's normal for all networks due to the holidays, so it doesn't really count, in my opinion. Both series have been airing pretty consistently, and I know that's one reason you gave as to why you think Lab Rats: Elite Force is likely canceled as it went from having a long break after April 13 until July 25 and then another long break until September 10, all last year. Although generally speaking for any series, I will note that that doesn't necessarily mean anything as look at the scheduling that's been going on with Henry Danger's third season, and we know it's coming back for a fourth season. <abbr title="Winking face" style="border-bottom: none;"> Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 05:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: List of Liv and Maddie characters
If you could temporarily watch it and keep an eye on it, that would be great (see page history). I'm not going to be available in a bit, and I won't really be fully available until around 12:30 PM. I have high suspicions this is Orchomen again, making incorrect edits such as "the pair reveal," where it should correctly be "the pair reveals." That would be correct if this were in the series in the UK, but it's not. I've already added to the SPI. Mentioning, , and as well. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 15:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I just got back after a couple of days off. This one is already on my watchlist, probably due to a previous request for me to do so. If it's Orchomen, hopefully there's a quick block to put an end to this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Kendra Timmins
Hi there, I would like to apologize and I have avoid an edit war. This is an apology message. I have stop edit warring for now and I let go. I am here right now now cause I am very sorry. I know that the Canadian link is redundant. If you read my apology message please accept my apology. Could you warn User:Onel5969 for never adding links for Actress and Canadian is redundant and avoid an edit war. So please forgive me and It won't happen again. Thanks. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for the acknowledgement. I think will pursue no further action if you keep to your pledge to stop any further restoring your recent edits. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing
It must be super hard! <abbr title="Winking face" style="border-bottom: none;"> Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, sometimes it is!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

RfA
Hi IJBall. Have you considered running for adminship recently? From a look at your contributions and stats I think you'd make a good candidate and could do some productive work with the toolset if interested. I notice, however, that you're "ambivalent" about adminship, and saw that you'd put it off for the time being last year. Let me know your thoughts. Best, Sam Walton (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello! Yeah, I'm definitely still ambivalent about it, for a variety of reasons. What I can tell you is that, for the foreseeable future, I'm quite happy in my role as an "experienced editor", and now that I'm a Page mover (a toolset I really wanted, and am very glad that I have now!) I see no need for me to apply for additional tools – while I could see me being a decent page protector, and I could do AfD closures (and WP:PROD work), I really don't want the responsibility for blocking, and don't want to pick up some of the "hassle" that comes with Admining. So, for right now, I'd say that I'm not interested in running. But it's definitely possible that down the road I'll change my mind, and want to do more work on the maintenance side, and may run for RfA at that point... Anyway, thanks for the interest, and for thinking of me! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, no worries. Let me know if you change your mind :) Sam Walton (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

A good project for you
I think I have a good project for you, something a little more important, I think, than simply changing "Episode list" to "Episodes." Going through the articles in my sandbox—and any others of your choice—and adjusting the categories and navigation menus, such as when an article includes a Nickelodeon navigation table, so they're in the right order as well as have the proper spacing between them. For example, separating navigation from categories and categories from stub tags. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 06:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hunter Street
Now that we have more than one genre—comedy from Variety and sitcom and adventure from Screener—I'm having trouble trying to think of how to revise the lead to reflect that with wording that's not awkward. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 19:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Comedy adventure" series is just fine. The bigger issue is that Hunter Street has now disappeared from the Variety reference (my guess is that once you become a "series about to air" it gets dropped from the Variety list...). So now we're down a WP:RS again, unless there's an archive version of that Variety ref... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is, but it doesn't work as it says no results: http://web.archive.org/web/20170221105924/http://variety.com/cable-tv-pilot-season-list-network-scorecard-7/ So it is probably just better to use sitcom and adventure from Screener: http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/hunter-street/EP02632767?aid=zap2it Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm one of the creators of the show. Hunter Street is a Dutch production, the entire show was written and shot in the Netherlands/Amsterdam with a Dutch crew, back-to-back with the 'De Ludwigs'. Even most of the actors are (partially) Dutch. The country of origin is therefore The Netherlands, not the US. Reintws (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . I believe you. The issue is that we need what's known as a Reliable source reporting that it's a Dutch production. Unfortunately, IMDb is generally not considered a "reliable" enough source for information like this. Would you happen to know of anything else out there that reports the Dutch nature of this show's production. Even a Dutch-language source could be used for this, as long as it confirms the series' Dutch production. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Here are two articles about 'De Ludwigs' that also mention the production of the English-language version (still untitled at the time): The second one is behind a paywall, unfortunately. And our names should indeed be easy to verify by checking the opening credits (I read your other comment on Amaury's page). Reintws (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I think the first of those can be used. I'll go ahead and add the info back, using this Dutch-language source. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)