User talk:Starforce13/Archive 1

Walt Disney Television: BabyFirst
BabyFirst is also owned by Regency Enterprises of 30%, And Fox owns 20% of Regency,so fox owned a part of babyfirst. After Disney purchased Fox, They own Regency as a "minority stake". (According to user Bonusballs). Disney might own some part of BabyFirst. Thanks, HappyINC, 11:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey, Walt Disney Television is for TV assets that are owned and operated by Disney under Peter Rice. It doesn't even include ESPN despite Disney owning majority stake; and doesn't include A&E even though Disney owns 50% there. BabyFirst is not operated by and doesn't report to Peter Rice's team. 20th Century Fox only invests 20% into Regency and that investment is just for film distribution as part of the deal. And even if it applied uniformly to all other Regency spendings, Regency only invests 30% to BabyFirst. So, Disney would end up investing only 6% to BabyFirst and has no operational control over BabyFirst. Investing a small stake into something doesn't place it as part of your business hierarchy.


 * Should Disney's stake in Regency / BabyFirst be included under Disney assets? Yes. But does it belong under Walt Disney Television unit? No. Starforce13 (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * List of assets owned by The Walt Disney Company ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_assets_owned_by_The_Walt_Disney_Company check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_assets_owned_by_The_Walt_Disney_Company?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Variety
 * Marvel Entertainment ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Marvel_Entertainment check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Marvel_Entertainment?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Variety

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

International subsidiaries
In this edit, you removed Viacom18 and Rainbow based on the sourcing but I can't see the problem. The "Google link" is a direct Google Books link to a book written by the former chairman of MTV (Bill Roedy) in which he explains the acquisition of the Italian toy division. And the only "non-English source" is a government filing by the Italian arm of Viacom, in which it gives the exact percentage of their stake in a different Rainbow division. I understand the removal of Viacom18 a little more, since you say it doesn't report to Bakish. But given its name and since Colors is promoted on ViacomCBS' website, I think it should stay in the list with a footnote, since readers are likely to look for it. Hammill Ten (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , neither Viacom18 nor Rainbow reports Bakish. Neither of those are controlled by ViacomCBS. Do you understand what a "subsidiary" is? It can't be a subsidiary unless you own a controlling stake which would be at least 50% + 1 in this case. They're just investments. And even if any were over 50% stake, they would have to report directly to ViacomCBS to be considered direct subsidiaries. Otherwise, they'd be subsidiaries of divisions or other subsidiaries within the company. For example, Disney fully owns Marvel Studios, Pixar, Lucasfilm but we don't put those as directly Disney subsidiaries because they're subsidiaries of a division within Disney. There's a List of assets owned by ViacomCBS where all the assets can go instead of this infobox. Starforce13  17:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I'm not sure about Viacom18, but I know Pierluigi Gazzolo (Rainbow's board director) does report to Bakish and that Viacom acquired the entire Rainbow Toys company. I'll do more research on this. Hammill Ten (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , first Gazzolo reports to David Lynn (ViacomCBS International), not to Bakish. Second, Gazollo is not the president or CEO of Rainbow. He's the President of OTT International and Viacom International Studios which oversees Viacom's stake in Rainbow. That's why he's a member of Rainbow's board of directors. Being in the board just means they have a vote; it doesn't mean they have a controlling ownership. A company has multiple members in the board of directors. Here's an article if you want to see Gazollo's reporting structure. Starforce13  18:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year Starforce13!
Happy New Year! Hello Starforce13: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, ★Trekker (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Re; Mandalorian edits
Can you explain what you are basing your assertion that Refinery29 is not a good source? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: I've re-added it and added another source for good measure. If the future, it is helpful to utilize the article talk page to bring up questions of the reliability of sources. I even hear that there is a noticeboard where you can ask for independent verification by neutral sources as to a sources reliability. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , the articles on refinery29 are fan interpretations and are no different from comicbook.com, cbr, screenrant, wegotthiscovered, filmschoolrejects, mcucosmic etc. Their content is usually based on rumors and fan theories as opposed to factual sources. They're only useful when citing content that's supported by a primary source like video that's not directly citable as a web URL. When making big claims like that, you need real reliable sources from trusted sources like The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, Variety etc.  Starforce13  15:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a very interesting take on sourcing. I perhaps think that you are unaware of our policies regarding what actually defines a reliable source. Refinery29 seems to fulfill that criteria. I would dare say that the very argument points you are making rather invalidate your support of noting the Darkdaber content, as all of those sources you dislike have tried to note that the item is the Darksaber.
 * Now, here's the difference: The sources in question make an evaluative comment about how everyone who's not a Mandalorian calls every Mandalorian a 'mando.' The reason Din doesn't spark off every time someone calls him that is pretty much the same reason a black person doesn't spark off when some jerk drops the n-word into conversation, and why English Pakistanis (and Indians) don't cleave someone from head to toe for calling them a 'Paki'; its too much trouble and makes a mess, both with job opportunities and with laundry. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , not everything published on the web is trustworthy. A reliable third party source, per WP:RS is published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Fan sites and sites that publish articles from a fan point of view do not have a reputation of fact-checking and are often based on fan theories and rumors. They do not have editorial guidelines and a lot of them accept articles from users, most of which are published without any vetting. I can publish an article to a lot of sites with my own opinions as facts and people will just go with them. A lot of them use circular sourcing or cite Wikipedia and wikis. So, they lack credibility unless supported by another source. It's not a similar situation as the Darksaber because that is known from established canon content like Clone Wars just like how we didn't need citation for TIE; second, it's identified in trusted sources like |The Hollywood Reporter.  Starforce13  16:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I believe you are deeply misunderstanding our sourcing policy. To begin with, you have not indicated how the sources you are questioning fail to meet the criteria for reliable sourcing; many of the sources you decry are used a lot in Wiki-en. Additionally, I have searches the RSN and have found no section where Refinery29 has ever' been considered a questionable source. Therefore, I presume you are offering a personal opinion regarding the strength of these sources. While it is true that everything published on the web is true, not all of it is false. I tend to believe that the editorial oversight is significant within the wiki-en. Refinery29 is not'' a "fan site" or a site catering to "a fan point of view"; f anything the site's bias tends to focus more on women's issues.
 * Furthermore, by your own definition, the content regarding the Darksaber is exclusively fan content. Adding it is Synthesis, in that a wiki editor is taking their own experience watching other SW media (like Clone Wars or Rebels) and using those experiences to argue that an unnamed something is such and such based upon their experience of having seen something that looks like that thing elsewhere. When an item is common, like a TIE fighter, a jedi or a blaster, it doesn't need to be cited. When an object is uncommon, like beskar steel or the Darksaber, it needs to be sourced within the media that created it. No secondary source is equipped to overcome our guidelines on plot summaries. No desire to name a thing that is as yet unnamed by the primary source or a source connected to the creation gets to overlook our policies on inclusion. As I have stated in article discussion, there are not only the issues of SYN to worry about but TRIVIA, UNDUE and CRYSTAL to consider. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Refinery29 article also calls the Mandalorians a "race" and uses that to make it's argument of "Mando" as a racial slur. But Mandalorians is not a race. So, although Refinery29 may not be categorically a fan POV site, the article itself gets a lot of basic things wrong, losing credibility. Second, if canon content like Clone Wars and widely sourced claim like Darksaber is not good enough to treat something as "common" or worth inclusion, why would a thinly-thinned claim that's not even included in any of the existing Star Wars content be more worth of inclusion? Starforce13  18:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Like you may have noticed, not everyone online is a Star Wars devotee; some are just casual fans. And you will not that, in the episode itself, one of the characters express surprise that all Mandalorians are not of the same race. As for the use of the term 'mando' as a slur or derogatory term, I've noted two sources that state the same thing.
 * And I am going to say this next thing, and you should take it with all the emphasis I can muster without using allcaps and bold text: canonicity counts for jack shit in Wikipedia. It has no place here in an encyclopedia. None. Keeping that in mind, please tell me how many TIE fighters there are in the SW universe? How many blasters?
 * How many Darksabers? Due to the fact that it is supposedly unique (and presuming that the Empire didn't mass-produce them), it would require - not speculation by sources - but confirmation by the creators of the material. We needed that before we could identify The Child as being of Yoda's race. We need something similar to even mention the Darksaber in a plot summary.
 * The only way it is going into the article is via an Analysis section. I hope that is clear enough. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying that 2 sources - one of which is clearly based on a misinterpretation of the Mandalorians, and another from a site where one is probably a circular reference of the other - are far more reliable than dozens of sources and a primary (TV show) source? I'm not a "Star Wars devotee" but any rational person would agree that if one of those two items should be included, it's the one with the most sources. And, no, we identified "The Child" as of Yoda's race right from episode one, with or without anyone's confirmation. Starforce13  21:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying - again - that sources aren't always going to agree. None of the other sources even picked up on the Mando derisive term, and you attacked (without proof, I might add) the first one. So I added a second source. When two sources agree about a point that have only that point of overlap (or circular sourcing), its pretty reliable, in my book. And you are quite wrong about the Child/Yoda thing. It was discussed and fortunately, proof that the connection was made by Favreau himself. There is no way it would have remained otherwise. Primary source is the only important thing in plot summaries. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) Circular sourcing is not a good thing. It means when one source uses the other to write its claim without getting the info first hand. For example, a refinery29 editor who's not familiar with the Mandalorians mistakes Mando for a racial slur, Wikipedia uses it, other readers take it as racial slur and publish their articles as such etc. It's like the recent debacle about Olaf where someone went to the Frozen wiki, claimed Olaf is 5ft 4 inches and then other sources ran with it until it blew up on twitter. I've also had a case where I wrote a character description on a wiki (not Wikipedia), and then some of the so-called news sources went with my description almost word for word. So, if my wiki went back and pointed to those sources, that's circular referencing. So, even though the sources agree, the content originated from just one source. If you read WP:RS on circular sourcing you'll see what it's about. That's why you need better, more reliable sources that aren't based on guesses. The refinery29 article says kinda feels like it may be offensive... this is a race of people we’re talking about, after all. which is a very weak "maybe" argument to make such a big claim. That's why it would help to have more independent sources from some of the top, carefully vetted sources. When determining whether a source is a good source, you need to determine the tone to see if there are any biases or factual inaccuracies or points that don't meet WP's neutral POV that may undermine its credibility. 2) if there was a debate about Baby Yoda's species, I must have missed that. All I know is the plot we had the day the episode was released identified him as Yoda's species and that never changed.  Starforce13  00:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Read over my post again. Was there a point where I suggested that circular sourcing was a goo thing? I think not. Additionally, I think that your line of deduction regarding Refinery29 (and other sources noting the slur) is deeply flawed in its assumptions. If you have concerns about any source being used in Wikipedia, take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and get an evaluation. Until then, this is supposition and opinion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You said, "When two sources agree about a point that have only that point of overlap (or circular sourcing), its pretty reliable, in my book" - which clearly means circular sourcing means two sources agreeing on a point of overlap. Unless you made a grammatical error. Anyway, you do you. If you believe every source is a good, reliable source even if it's filled with factual inaccuracies, go for it. You might as well use Fox News articles to claim climate change isn't real. After all, it's sourced and no care for "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I'm done. Starforce13  19:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh shit, you're right. Sorry, that was not what I meant to say. While writing that, I had in my head the ''Venn Diagram]] of all the things that each source said as a circle, and the only point of overlap for these circles was noting the derogatory term perceived. Sorry for the mistake: no, my IQ did not drop sharply. Circular sourcing is both bad, difficult to track and absolutely necessary to avoid if possible. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * no worries. Starforce13  01:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Searchlight Pictures logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Searchlight Pictures logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

MORBIUS plot leak and MCU connections
I apologize if I offended you by naming Morbius' mentor as the name on the Reddit plot leak. It just sounds so accurate and it's from a credible source. What do you make of the MORBIUS plot leak? It scares the hell out of me and it makes no sense! You think it's legit? I am scared because I hate the Marvel Cinematic Universe and we all thought that Sony's Marvel Universe was it's own thing that started with Venom. Ever since Spider-Man got added to the MCU, I hated that franchise even more because I love Spider-Man. I thought that with Sony having their own Marvel universe without Spider-Man that there is a major perk to this nonsense. Now, I feel scared, depressed, and suicidal even more than discovering Vulture's possible appearance at the end of the trailer. I literally don't know what to do now! - Cineplex (talk) February 12, 2020 - 8:27PM (EST)
 * No worries, . I didn't even bother with the details the moment I saw that it's from unreliable sources and based on a leak. Wikipedia isn't built on unreliable sources and certainly not leaks. So, it wasn't even worth considering. As for your concern, Marvel Studios created the MCU and they're the ones who have the sole power to determine what's in the MCU and what's not. Not Sony. —  Starforce13  17:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

24.218.67.53
Hey, should we get this IP blocked or something? Almost all their edits are vandalism, like this one you just reverted or this one I just reverted, which he has been doing for a while now. El Millo (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Actually, it looks like they've got blocked already. — Starforce13  00:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh. Great. El Millo (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

MCU Films List
why cant you add the additional movies and shows for MCU :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam0059 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , we only list films that have a release date because otherwise we would end up with a lot of uncertain "potential" projects that may or may not happen. Once they get a release date, we'll add them. — Starforce13  18:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

its just so satisfying to see all the films on there. it makes sense though, i understand. sigh, no exception? :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam0059 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes,, it would be nice but we have to set some standards to ensure all the info is reliable and useful to most people. You can still see the projects in development under List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. — Starforce13  18:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.


 * Thank you ! — Starforce13  21:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi Starforce13. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AStarforce13 enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.
 * Thank you . — Starforce13  18:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020: Annie LeBlanc and Asher Angel
They are not rumors. If only I had the time to add sources. "I don't do rumors either." Kind regards, Joren Moerman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJorenMoerman (talk • contribs) 14:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , First, your edit literally started with In February 2019, rumours began circulating.... Second, this is a biography of a living person. So you can't add anything without reliable sources right away. Third, actors dating and exchanging flowers is not WP:NOTABLE enough to be included in Wikipedia articles. Otherwise, some actors would have hundreds of paragraphs about their dating lives. — Starforce13  14:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood. Working on it. Regards, Moerman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJorenMoerman (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, wait until there's something actually notable about their relationship in reliable sources. — Starforce13  14:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Removing/Deleting Warning
Please stop removing and deleting my edits on Love Victor. I provided a source but you apparently want more to validate my contribution and intelligence. You judge me for being a relatively new contributor. Note I do not have any agenda but you do. Stop being a police and let me and others edit. Your constant “checking up on users” and omitting historical cinema informations are a spam and abuse of power. Jason Langerleur (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I gave you the warning because you keep analyzing how Twitter users reacted about the casting; and when you finally cited an article, the article said nothing about Twitter. It also says nothing about none of the leads being LGBTQ. While it is true that people complained about it and that none of the lead cast is publicly gay, adding that analysis/opinion without a source that makes such a conclusion is not allowed on Wikipedia because it's considered original research and/or synthesis. I'm not policing you. Wikipedia has rules, which we need to remind new editors and others who violate them.
 * — Starforce13  01:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Warning users
Heyo - I saw your reverts on Walt Disney Television, but noted you didn't leave a warning on the IP users page. I'm still learning, so is this an oversight on your part or is there another reason? Thanks! JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, I chose not to warn them on purpose because by the time I first reverted, the same user had already used 3 different IP addresses, meaning that sending the warning to one IP probably won't help if they're changing IPs. So, it would be no use. So, I decided to wait it out until they do it again and request for page protection. Luckily, someone else beat me to it while I was still preparing the page protection request. — Starforce13  23:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for clarifying! Have a good day :) JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you . You too! — Starforce13

Bob Iger
Nowhere in the article did it say he was taking CEO duties. It is possible for the company to have both an executive chairman and a CEO, and unless you are familiar with the intricacies of corporate governance and are familiar with what the role of an executive chairman is and does, the citation must be cited as to what it is. "And now, Mr. Iger has effectively returned to running the company. After a few weeks of letting Mr. Chapek take charge, Mr. Iger smoothly reasserted control" - Where in that sentence does it say he's taking back CEO duties. Just so that you are aware, an executive chairman has operational duties, but Bob Chapek is still the CEO. What the article in question is saying is that he has assumed MORE operational duties as Executive Chairman.

Now, if you want to dispute it further and risk violating WP:3RR, go ahead and be my guest, but the article needs to be cited correctly. You can argue over the role of an executive chairman and CEO all you want, however, that does not mean the article is saying what you insist it says.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 11:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Taking CEO duties doesn't mean he took the CEO title. It means he's doing what a CEO does. It says he reasserted control of the company from Chapek which means he's doing Chapek's duties. The article even refers to him as the "nominal chief executive". Since the article says he reasserted control of the company, that's what this should say, not "he resumed his duties as chief executive" because that implies he had stopped doing the executive chairman duties, which is false. If you don't know what "resume" means, please look it up. This is basic English. — Starforce13  14:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Proposal: Clearly both taking back "CEO duties" and "resuming operational duties as executive chairman" are ambiguous... because one makes people think he has the CEO title while the other one makes it look like he had stopped being the executive chairman. FYI every role has its own operational duties, it's just a matter of what operations they do. So, saying "operational duties" is not the same as running the company". Even a finance role does operational duties related to finance.
 * So, why don't we change it to what the article actually says, which is, he reasserted / took back control of the company. Do you have a problem with changing it to unambiguous wording like In April 2020, Iger took back control of the company, while retaining the Executive Chairman title, to help...? — Starforce13  15:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "I'd say, resumed day-to-day responsibilities in running the company alongside Bob Chapek. A non-executive (or part time) chairman does not have operational authority over a company, only chairing the board. -- Tærkast (Discuss) 15:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Saying he resumed day-to-day operations is still misleading because it makes it look like he had stopped being actively involved with the company as executive chairman. Iger's role as Executive Chairman wasn't just being the chairman of the board, which is usually more of a background role. When Chapek was appointed, it was made clear that Iger was going to be actively running the creative operations of the company directing the creative side of the studios and DTCI units like Disney+. Part of the transition was for Iger to focus on running the creative side of the company. In this article he said, And that was to fully focus on the creative side of our business and make sure that our creative pipelines are vibrant... That is very, very important, especially as we roll out Disney Plus around the world. In thinking about what I want to accomplish before I leave the company at the end of ’21, getting everything right creatively would be my No. 1 goal. He's been basically running the role of CCO without the formal title, as this article describes.
 * So, since his letter to NYT says he took back control of the company, which the article makes clear, why can't we just call it what it is... instead of trying to go around it by adding misleading clauses? The article doesn't even say he "resumed" "operational" responsibilities; it just says he took back control/running company. Why do we need to synthesize it?— Starforce13  16:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not misleading, but your proposal certainly is. "reasserted / took back control of the company" also assumes that he ceded control to begin with. You want to argue about titles and governance fine, every company is different, no two roles are alike at every company, though I expect you should know that. Look at Ford Motor Company. "As Executive Chairman of Ford Motor Company, William Clay Ford Jr. is leading the company that put the world on wheels into the 21st century. There is no one size fits all model. "Resumed" as in taking back operational responsibilities is perfectly fine and by the way, "resumed" doesn't need to be in the actual article otherwise we'd be quoting word for word, in violation of copyright. You're splitting hairs here and it is clear to me that you won't truly compromise unless your version sticks. It's not worth the hassle. Do what you want. There are more important things to worry about than misleading statements which will no doubt be re-added into the article.  -- Tærkast  (Discuss) 17:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Reasserted" is what the sources said; whether that implies he had "ceded" control is not for us to judge, we just have to report what RS say. That doesn't mean we need to use the word "reasserted". We can use other phrases that say the same thing without changing the meaning like "took back control", "resumed control", "resumed running the company", "resumed being in charge". As you can see I don't have a problem with "resumed" as long as it correctly reports what the reliable source without making it ambiguous. My problem is "resumed operational responsibilities as executive chairman" because it implies that he had either stopped running the operational responsibilities of the executive chairman role or he wasn't actively involved with the company. You're the one adamant on using that wording which changes the original intended meaning by the source. You shouldn't quote source word-per-word but you shouldn't also paraphrase it in a way that changes the intended meaning, because then you're violating WP:STICKTOSOURCE, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:SYNTHESIS. — Starforce13  18:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

20th Century Animation
Found another source to 20th Century Animation's official new name: https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/SearchResults?filing=&SearchType=CORP&SearchCriteria=20th+Century+Animation&SearchSubType=Keyword

Yeah, you need to check out the search link to get to the source because you're not allowed to use the direct link in that manner. --XSMan2016 (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , if you open the entry and click the PDF, you will notice that it's the same one I added on the article when I changed the name in the lead.


 * The only reason I stopped short of moving it, is because per WP:NAMECHANGES, we need to wait until the name starts being used by secondary sources. Unfortunately, there hasn't been any news about 20th Century Animation since the acquisition, which makes it harder. We faced a lot of opposition when we were trying to move 20th Century Studios, so, this will probably be controversial too which is why I want us to wait for more sources. — Starforce13  13:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair, but ridiculous. There are times I don't judge a book by its cover, and that PDF source I didn't judge and I believed it was official. --XSMan2016 (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes the PDF is official. It's actually literally from the official business registration website. It's just Wikipedia policies preventing us from making the move until we have some secondary sources. — Starforce13  13:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

20th Century Home Entertainment
How come it still says "20th Century Fox Home Entertainment"? --XSMan2016 (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , although it got renamed, unfortunately we don't have enough sources yet to justify the move. So, even if someone moves it, it would probably end up being reverted by another editor. And until then, I'm choosing not to use my energy trying to get it moved. — Starforce13  17:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Three sources showing that it's mainly named "20th Century Studios Home Entertainment" say otherwise. --XSMan2016 (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they're all primary sources (Disney) which confirms the rename. There's no denying the rename. But for the article to follow the new name, there's a requirement in WP:NAMECHANGES to have secondary sources using it. So, once we start seeing it popping up on other sources like Variety, Deadline, THR, I'll be more than happy to push for the rename. — Starforce13  17:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable. --XSMan2016 (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:20th Television 2020 Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:20th Television 2020 Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Warrior Nun (TV series) § Positive reviews
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Warrior Nun (TV series) § Positive reviews. We had a similar discussion few months ago about this. You maybe interested in this discussion. — Young Forever (talk)   20:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Paromount+
Dude I am New to here I am trying help out please stop deleting my edits. Just trying to help my friend. Dylan5068373 (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're new, please read Wikipedia editing guidelines and policies to familiarize yourself with how to do it right so that your edits don't get reverted. For example, you should not be removing references without an explanation (a valid reason). Otherwise, your edits will get reverted; and if you keep doing it over and over, then you could be reported and blocked from editing in the future.— Starforce13  16:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Star force Dylan5068373 (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem.— Starforce13  16:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I try to do better here Dylan5068373 (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I will try to do better here Dylan5068373 (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Star force someone started these edits and I am trying to fix it Dylan5068373 (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to fix these edits Dylan5068373 (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your "fixes" are actually the ones introducing problems. You need to take a step back and read why all the other editors have issues with your edits and discuss it out if you believe you're right instead of trying to restore the changes over and over. You're probably going to get blocked soon since you've continued disruptive edits after final warnings. — Starforce13  20:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Danger Force
It was this edit, if you're wondering. I'm not sure I fully trust this editor, and this edit doesn't help... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I have gone back to the original airings of Episodes 6 and 7, and I can confirm that Nowak was credited as creator. If you want definitive proof, please ask. BrickMaster02 (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think I overlooked that because I was expecting such a change without explanation to be from an IP or a new account - not someone with a substantial number of edits. Might need to monitor their edits closely. —  Starforce13  01:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And now some disruptive editing from this editor as Wonder Pets!. Definitely don't get a good vibe here. Suspect this could be a sock, but I don't have idea whose sock it might be... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why does the page have the distributor as Nickelodeon, while other shows like Back at the Barnyard have ViacomCBS under distributor when it wasn't around back then? BrickMaster02 (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Subsidiary Employer
I've noticed employer being used inconsistently in the past which prompted my change yesterday.[] Are you familiar with a Wikipedia guideline (I looked before making the change and couldn't find one) where a person would be technically employed by the above subsidiary? Another example would be Kathleen Kennedy (producer) who is the president of Lucasfilm. Disney owns Lucasfilm, but she employed by Lucasfilm. Since you reverted the edit I thought you may have further information. Thanks! --Nemov (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't believe Wikipedia has any outlined guideline for subsidiary employer either, but even if it did, it wouldn't apply to Kevin Feige because he doesn't work for one subsidiary. He works for two subsidiaries, both owned by Disney. Marvel Studios and Marvel Entertainment are two different subsidiaries. So, calling him a Marvel Studios employee is misleading because his is also the CCO of Marvel Entertainment, which is not part of Marvel Studios. So, that was the basis of reverting that.
 * Outside special cases like this, I determine the employer based on reporting structure. If you report to the parent, then you're an employee of the parent; if you report to the subsidiary or the subsidiary's board, then you're an employee of the subsidiary. So, in this case, people who report to Walt Disney Studios chiefs are Disney Studios employees but people who report to Marvel Studios or Lucasfilm presidents - are employees of their respective subsidiaries. Lucasfilm and Marvel Studios don't have their own boards that can hire or fire the studio president. Disney Studios does the hiring and firing of the individual studio heads. But I don't have strong opinions on that. I just cared about this because it would be outright incorrect.— Starforce13  18:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for responding. I work for company with 23 subsidiaries and we classify the employees as employed by the company who pays their salary. So even if they report to the parent they're still technically employed by the company for which the work. As you pointed out Feige is employed at two Disney subsidiaries, but he's technically not employed at Disney. I'll poke around to see if there's a rule of thumb that can worked out for cases like this one. Thanks! --Nemov (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Different companies use different structures. Disney uses cross-functional structure where most executives are not grouped by subsidiary but rather by function and  therefore work across multiple subsidiaries and divisions. Like Feige, such execs are not hired by or paid by the individual subsidiaries, but rather by Disney. But the employees under him may belong to their various subsidiaries. That's why they have a lot of employees who report to multiple people for different functions. A good example is Craig Erwich who serves as the Hulu's President of  originals and also president of ABC Entertainment - two very different subsidiaries (unlike Marvel Studios and Marvel Entertainment). Is he just a Hulu employee or just an ABC Employee? Neither! So, trying to come up with a one structure fits all guideline - it's not going to work!—  Starforce13  23:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , my company does the same thing as Disney. The bean counters still have rules for this type of thing. I raised the question over at WP:WPBIO. I'm sure some consistent guideline can be worked out. Thanks! --Nemov (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , there are no black-and-white rules for company structures since every company is different and classifies revenue differently, not always subsidiary-based. But good luck with your discussion. We'll see how it goes! — Starforce13  00:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Sydney to the Max
I'm only up through S2 E18, so I'm not fully caught up yet on this yet, but based on your edit, it looks like the newest episode had the first absence of the series ever so far. Amaury • 22:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Leo was absent which was a surprise bc they've never had any absences before. — Starforce13  22:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Must have been some special occasion that prevented him from filming the episode, like a family emergency or something. Unlike series like Best Friends Whenever or Gabby Duran & the Unsittables, where absences seem to be more planned, like the twins being absent a lot in the former. and myself were ourselves a bit surprised when Karan Brar had his one and only absence on Bunk'd, more so the particular episode: User talk:MPFitz1968/Archive 5. I'm aware there are child labor laws, which I've discussed with  before, and, if I recall correctly, it applies only to children under the age 13, who can only work so many hours. Once they turn 13, I believe they can work whatever. They're technically still children until 18, but they're also teenagers, where they can start being more independent. Although this doesn't seem to be the case with Christian J. Simon, who seems to be 13, so there was likely another reason for his absence. For those under 13, like with the first couple of seasons and part of the third season of Raven's Home, where Jason Maybaum was still under 13, but has not been absent once, the producers find a way to work around an actor being under 13, but also wanting them in every episode. Perhaps longer than average production cycle? I know they were able to have the character Michelle in every single episode of Full House after her birth and after she was upgraded to main in the second season since the actors were twins: Mary Kate Olsen and Ashley Fuller Olsen. Of course, the way they eventually ended up doing the credits, it gave the illusion it was one actor. If I recall, they were both credited for a while, before it eventually changed. If I recall, the crediting was Mary-Kate Ashley Olsen. Amaury • 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes that's what I was thinking too, and since these were produced during Covid, an actor could miss an episode if they come into contact with someone positive and have to quarantine. And even though the show is shifting the flashback scenes to focus more on Young Alisha, it felt like Bucky was filling in for Leo. And yes, I think there's even a Gabby episode where all the main cast were absent except Gabby and Wesley. Stuck in the Middle used to have lots of planned absences too due to the large cast. —  Starforce13  00:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I know Richard Schiff (Aaron Glassman, main) and his wife Sheila Kelley (Debbie Wexler, recurring) from The Good Doctor were absent for a number of episodes due to contracting COVID. Thankfully, since they didn't contract it on set, the series was able to carry on with filming. K.C. Undercover's "Revenge of the Van People" also had all but two main characters absent. K.C. and Ernie were the only ones present, and even then, K.C. was barely there. That one was intentionally scripted like that, though, from what I read, as it was an episode dedicated to Ernie. For Gabby Duran & the Unsittables, it was "Who Is Joey Panther?" and there it may have just been a coincidence that that many were gone at once for that episode. Amaury • 00:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We might see more of these Covid-related absences as more of the episodes filmed during that time begin to air. I don't know if it was Covid related but in the Danger Force episode "Twin It to Win It", Ray was mostly absent and was only talking from "another room". He did appear in one short scene although that could have been recorded earlier. That seemed unusual. I'm curious to see what Just Roll with It will do once they run out of the pre-Covid episodes, because I don't think the ones airing now were done during Covid. There's no way Disney would allow so many people sitting close together, shouting during Covid.
 * Yeah I remember the Ernie one on KC Undercover - that's another show that had lots of planned absences, especially the parents and Judy. With Gabby Duran, Gabby is pretty much the only person guaranteed to appear in an episode.— Starforce13  00:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not always, but for some series that have planned absences, they will be nice and take the liberty to at least explain it in the series. Like with Sydney to the Max (which I am fully caught up with now and only have Bunk'd and Just Roll with It, as well as Secrets of Sulphur Springs if I can easily access it, left to get caught up with for Disney Channel), Max said Leo was studying for a test tomorrow, explaining the absence. I also noticed on the previous episode that Leo was only there at the beginning of the episode, and then didn't appear again. I always take things with a grain of salt from here, but according to the Wikia, the reason Leo was absent in the latest episode is because his actor Christian J. Simon was filming Under Wraps.


 * I don't know if you watched Kickin' It, but in "All the President's Friends" from the second season, Leo Howard/Jack only appears at the beginning and the end, presumably because something else got in the way. Olivia Holt was absent for production episodes 211–215 due to filming Girl vs. Monster (with a random absence for production episode 303) . iCarly had a similar thing to that one episode with Jack hardly there, where Carly was only there for the beginning and the end of an episode and wasn't involved in the plots at all. Another example is when there was that whole Max turned into a girt story arc on Wizards of Waverly Place, so Jake T. Austin was absent during that because he was homesick, if I recall correctly. Technically, the character Max was still there, just as a girl played by an actress obviously not part of the main cast, but rather a guest cast, but he was also technically not there. Amaury • 18:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wizards of Waverly Place one was one of the most memorable and smartest ways of handling an absence. They turned it into an iconic storyline. Yes, Max mentioned Leo was studying Spanish, although in some cases they can also add an explanation during a last minute rewrite if something comes up. But yeah, in this case, if Christian was filming something else, that probably explains why he's been getting less screentime lately and why he would miss an episode.— Starforce13  19:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , interestingly, today both Leo and Olive were absent without explanation. Although, Leo's absence could be because of the project he was filming, I think the show could also be changing its style so that they start leaving out main characters who aren't necessarily needed for the plot. — Starforce13  14:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's certainly one possibility, though I see Ava Kolker is also working on something, voicing Tinkerbell: . There have been plenty of times in Coop & Cami Ask the World where I was expecting someone to be absent, particularly Fred, Ollie, or Jenna, or a combination of the three, and yet, all of the main cast in the series has had perfect attendance so far. I really hope it continues with a third season. Likewise with Just Roll with It. A lot of people are claiming both are over, but I won't believe it until an official announcement or it's been a year or more in the absence of an official announcement, per our standards, since the last aired episode—the latter of which is still airing its second season—and even then, things like Bubble Guppies and The Bureau of Magical Things have proven to us that just because it's been a year or more doesn't mean a series is necessarily over. I obviously don't watch the former, LOL, but there was a renewal announcement back in June 2019 which included Bubble Guppies in it, so I got curious and then noticed that the last season ended in October 2016! It was less than a year on these between season endings and renewals, but still, look at how many times people claimed Bunk'd was over. They claimed it was over after the second season. It was renewed for a third season. They claimed it was over after the third season. It was renewed for a fourth season. They claimed it was over after the fourth season. It was renewed for a fifth season, making history for Disney Channel!


 * Going back to your point about Just Roll with It, according to the Wikia, filming wrapped in fall 2020, which was, of course, during COVID. I only have last week's episode and now tonight's episode, and I'll be fully caught up with it. I don't know how long it takes to film episodes, but I'm fairly certain that probably at least beginning from about production episode 216, the season was likely filming during COVID, so I'm wondering how they still had the audience. I believe filming takes place in Ohio, so it may be that they never had very many restrictions or, similar to Florida, eased off restrictions fairly early. (I believe South Dakota was the only state to not have any restrictions at all. I think the only thing they did was finish out the 2019–20 school year virtually, but then went back to in-person for the 2020–21 school year.) But I'm not too familiar with what Ohio has been doing. I only know of a few states, including obviously Washington where I live. If there's a third season and there are these gathering restrictions in Ohio, one thing I read on the Wikia from a commenter is that the audience could do the voting on what happens to the family how they did it for the "You Decide LIVE!" special from the first season: virtually online.


 * And then one was last quick note, Stuck in the Middle is another series that had many—likely planned—absences, which you already mentioned above, but what I found interesting is that Jenna Ortega/Harley and Isaak Presley/Ethan were the only ones with perfect attendance for the series for the first two seasons. Then in the third season Isaak Presley had four random absences, leaving only Jenna Ortega with perfect attendance. In two of the episodes Isaak Presley was absent, Joe Nieves/Tom was also absent. And in one of those—IIRC, "Stuck in Camp Chaos"—I believe it was explained as Ethan and Tom being on a trip spending quality time each other, which they've done before in episodes, but in that episode, they were doing it off-screen as a way for their absences to be explained. Amaury • 16:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I believe Stuck in the Middle was going to have the top billed cast (Harley, Rachel and Ethan) appear in all episodes but when Rachel left, it didn't make sense for Ethan to be the only one with perfect attendance (besides Harley). So, they put him in the same category as Georgie.
 * By default, the contract requires the main cast to be available and not have other projects that interfere with the filming schedule. But in some cases they allow the flexibility to some of the actors who aren't needed in every episode - as long as it's planned in advance before writing.
 * Is Just Roll with It filmed in Ohio? I know it's set in Ohio but I thought it was LA since the credits say it was taped at LA Center Studios? Also I believe Ohio was one of the first states to implement lockdowns, which was a surprise for many people because the OH governor is a republican. And also, Disney added its own Covid safety requirements. All that makes me question how they could have all these crowds. The next episode revolves around a lockdown, which could be the first one filmed during Covid. We'll see how they handle it. — Starforce13  18:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's right. I forgot about that. I believe I read something about that they want California to fully reopen by mid-June. They will still be recommending the CDC guidelines, but they may be a little bit more lax on them. I'm not too sure. I'm looking forward to the day we can put this behind us and go back to pre-COVID days. And we are making significant progress already. Amaury • 20:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me too, I just can't wait for this to be over and have things go back to normal. It's been so long. — Starforce13  22:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe Good Article Reassessment
Marvel Cinematic Universe, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn‎
Based on our recent discussion, we know that any production card in the credits should be added. I just can't remember if November 13th was shown after the credits for NRDD. Are you able to confirm this? I'd trust you over random IPs or problematic users any day. Thanks. Amaury • 22:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes, "November 13th" is credited in NRDD. I have double-checked on Netflix, just to be sure. — Starforce13  00:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Discord
Do you have a Discord account? you don't need to tell me about it, though. Just curious. --TheRavineStudios (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , no, I don't use Discord. — Starforce13  03:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, I got you. Thanks for the reply and have a good day --TheRavineStudios (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

"20th Century Animation (redirects)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 20th Century Animation (redirects). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 10 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Anarchyte ( talk ) 06:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Broadcast networks
So, outside of Nickelodeon and Disney Channel, what do you like to watch on the broadcast networks? This is my list, which unless otherwise noted, includes only current series:

ABC:
 * The Good Doctor
 * A Million Little Things
 * The Conners
 * The Rookie

I am getting caught up now on The Conners, then I just have the current season of A Million Little Things. I am also fully caught up with American Housewife, but I am sad that it was canceled, and since it was canceled, it's even more sad that the fifth season was only 13 episodes.

CBS:
 * Young Sheldon
 * Magnum P.I.
 * FBI
 * The Neighborhood
 * FBI: Most Wanted

I'm behind on all of these at this time. I have the current season of FBI to get caught up on; otherwise, I don't remember where I'm at everywhere else and may have the current season as well as still some of the previous season.

NBC:
 * Manifest
 * New Amsterdam

I really hope Manifest is renewed. It's been doing decent in the ratings—even slightly better than other series on the same and other networks—and with the way the third season ended, it can definitely continue. I just can't believe Angelina would do that, though I personally think it's also WP:OR to assume that from what I saw in the episode summary on the article. Based on where Grace was at the end there, it's also possible she grabbed a knife to defend herself and Eden and fell on it as she was running after Angelina.

That's about it, though I am also showing some interest toward The Flash and Riverdale on The CW. Amaury • 22:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, for me it's:
 * ABC: Big Sky, The Goldbergs, Blackish. I'm still mad they canceled American Housewife. It was my top ABC comedy. I've seen a few episodes of The Conners and I might eventually watch the whole show.
 * NBC: Manifest, Good Girls, Mr. Mayor, Brooklyn Nine-Nine - I have my fingers crossed for Manifest season 4. I really like Angelina and I'm really hoping Grace fell on the knife. But I kind of saw this coming when I accidentally read a Holly Taylor interview early on, saying that her character is longing for connection with anyone and that leads her to do something bad. So, when I saw her attachment to Eden and the fire thing, I knew she'll do anything to take her.
 * CW: The Flash, Supergirl, Batwoman, Charmed. I also watch Legacies and Riverdale but I'm behind on both.
 * Nothing on Fox or CBS
 * I used to have more than that but most of my broadcast shows are getting cancelled, without any new favorites being added. I was lucky to get Big Sky. — Starforce13  23:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In terms of canceled or simply ended series, for ABC, I showed interest in Emergence, which I was going to watch, but somehow lost several episodes—I think my mom accidentally deleted them—so I just deleted what I had. I like to watch things completely, not partly. I also watched The Middle. It's the first series I watched outside of Nickelodeon or Disney Channel, and from there, my watchlist on broadcast networks eventually expanded from just The Middle to everything I listed above and others. I think it was on the seventh season when I discovered it, but I managed to find all the previous seasons and binge-watched it until I got caught up to where it was on ABC. I also watched some of Modern Family, but I didn't have enough time to watch all the reruns recorded on another network since, at the time, we were going to be switching from DirecTV to Charter soon. We eventually changed back to DirecTV since my mom didn't like the setup, though we've now been with DISH Network for about a year and a half, IIRC, but my mom may go back to DirecTV in September when our contract is up since she isn't happy with some things. The only reason we switched to DISH Network is because in February 2019, we lost Fox, which had the one and only series I was watching there—The Cool Kids, where I only got through the episode on February 1, 2019—due to contract reasons between DirecTV and the network, IIRC. I didn't care too much, but my mom had a few favorite series on there. NBC later ended up going down as well for the same reasons, also having the generic we're working with the network and such message. While this one is still currently airing, I too like The Goldbergs, but for the same reasons as Modern Family, I gave up on it.


 * Other canceled/ended series I watched on ABC include the one-season Roseanne revival, which, for all intents and purposes, continued as The Conners due to the controversy that happened with the former, as well as Splitting Up Together, Alex, Inc., Single Parents, The Kids Are Alright, and Schooled. For CBS, God Friended Me, Happy Together, Fam, Carol's Second Act, and The Unicorn, the first and last one of which I'm still not fully caught up on. And finally, on NBC, Champions, Rise, and I Feel Bad.


 * For Modern Family, The Goldbergs, and Emergence, I may end up getting them on Amazon at some point to binge-watch them. Amaury • 00:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I really loved Emergence, but scifi/supernatural shows don't last for long on ABC. I caught of on all of The Middle and watched some of Modern Family, and I loved Single Parents too. The other recent ABC comedy I liked was Speechless. On CBS, God Friended Me is the last show I watched. I've never been into their comedies or dramas, but this was different because it had supernatural elements. And I haven't found anything good on FOX since The Gifted ended.
 * We use YouTube TV which has unlimited DVR storage. So, I can record as many shows as I want and have like 5-6 different recordings for each episode. So, I have almost all the shows you mentioned already recorded and I might just decide to binge them. — Starforce13  14:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Welp, Manifest is done. These network decisions are pissing me off. I guess the way the third season ended can be looked at either way, but it looks more like a cliffhanger ending. Amaury • 05:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But for all the bad news, there is also good news. While it doesn't appear you watch them from your messages above, I'm glad A Million Little Things and The Rookie are continuing. I'm so confused, though. Favorite series you expect to get canceled end up getting renewed and favorite series you don't expect to get canceled are canceled and not renewed. Based on the ratings, I thought A Million Little Things wouldn't make it, but it did. Similarly, I thought Manifest was doing decent in the current ratings climate. Roughly around 0.5 for the 18–49 demo and total viewers ranging from 2.5–4M, the latter more for the season premiere. NBC definitely needs to reconsider. I would settle for even just one more season, where by the end of the season, they reach and survive the death date, properly ending the series. Like I said above, the end of the third season is more of a cliffhanger than a proper ending. Amaury • 09:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , that's so disappointing - I was really hoping we get S4 to have more questions answered. I'm usually okay with finales that leave things open without resolving everything.... but this one was such a huge cliffhanger that added so many new questions. I wish they could let them do at least a 2-hour special to wrap things up. I tried getting into A Million Little Things but sometimes it's hard for me to get into shows that aren't scifi/supernatural or musical or comedies. But I'm trying to expand my taste. I want to get into The Rookie too because it stars Nathan Fillion and he's great. — Starforce13  16:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would be okay with that, too. Just something that properly closes out the series. I will say, though, I give more credit to the broadcast networks than I do to Nickelodeon and Disney Channel in terms of announcements. Broadcast networks always announce their cancellations. Very rarely do Nickelodeon and Disney Channel do. The only ones I remember actually being announced are ones like Henry Danger and Andi Mack, but those weren't canceled, as far as I know, they were just ending. Disney Channel has even silently renewed series. The third season renewal for Bizaardvark was never officially announced by Disney Channel. Bunk'd was (silently) renewed for a third season fairly close to when the second season ended the strange way that it did. (The intended season finale was "We Didn't Start the Fire," which aired at 6:00 PM on Friday, April 28, 2017, but then we had "The Great Escape," which aired at 10:30 PM on Wednesday, May 24, 2017, a really weird day and time, and it also caused continuity issues because of the events of "We Didn't Start the Fire." Wouldn't it have made more sense to have "The Great Escape" air on April 28, 2017, and then "We Didn't Start the Fire" on May 5, 2017? Or if they wanted the second season to end around the same time the first season ended, they could have done May 19, 2017.) It wasn't until several months later that Disney Channel officially announced it, alongside Stuck in the Middle's third season renewal, which was still airing its second season at the time. Raven's Home has apparently been renewed for a fifth season—see my message on IJBall's talk page—but nothing official right now.


 * I think it might be better to end each season as if it's the last. While I Didn't Do It was canceled or not renewed, the second season finale didn't leave any major plots open and therefore it felt like a series finale as well. Game Shakers ended on a cliffhanger, but it was a super minor one that didn't really affect the overall story is how I think put it. Basically, you can leave the door open for more stories to be told while also concluding all major plots each season just in case that season is the last. I was upset when Beyond and Famous in Love never continued, the only series I watched on Freeform, especially the way they ended on those cliffhangers. Those are major cliffhangers where the series definitely needed to continue. It's the same thing here with Manifest. I consider it more of a moderate to major cliffhanger than a minor one. I respectfully expressed my disappointment on NBC's Twitter, though of course, it's not really going to do much, but... Although I think a series ending should always be up to the creators. I don't know how many more seasons The Middle would have been renewed for by ABC, but the ninth season being the last wasn't actually ABC's decision, it was the request of the series creators. I think that's how it should always be. Letting any series on any network go for as long the creators want.


 * Why is it hard for you to get into series that aren't part of the genres you mentioned above? Amaury • 16:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was always worried Manifest would end unresolved because the creator mapped a 6-season storyline from the beginning, which is almost impossible to get on the big networks. He even set a specific death date which was supposed to happen in 2024 around season 6.
 * Yeah, Disney and Nickelodeon like to do quiet renewals / cancellations which are quite frustrating. I suspected Raven's Home might get S5 when I read a Raven interview the other day saying that it's not cancelled, she just doesnt know the status yet. It also said that this chapter of Raven and Chelsea is over, which makes me think they might be making major changes, including cast changes. I'm just glad Disney stopped with their 3-4 season maximum rule, thanks to Bunkd for breaking that tradition. I hope Sydney to the Max get at least S4. They've been addressing a lot of important issues lately.
 * I don't know, I probably find it hard to get into other genres because part of me just wants to escape reality, which is easier to do with sci-fi/fantasy/supernatural, music and comedies (including dramedies). A Million Little Things and This is Us deal with so much deep, real life stuff. — Starforce13  22:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

One thing I meant to add in my last message is that because of what has happened with Bunk'd and what happened with Bizaardvark, more so the latter, and now supposedly Raven's Home, this is why until a year has passed without an official announcement, it's not dumb to think it's possible for Coop and Cami Ask the World and Just Roll with It will continue, more prominent on the latter since the audiences could be allowed now since things are opening up now. (Here in Washington State we're expected to open June 30, or sooner if 70% have at least the first shot. At today's check, we were at 67.3%.)

If casting changes do happen, it's pretty obvious we won't lose Raven since her name is in the series title. While Wikias are WP:NOTRS, I do notice on the Wikia for the series that it has all the current cast plus two new ones. And it's not unusual for a series to simply add new main cast members, whether they be completely new or someone who was previously recurring being promoted, like Henry Danger, while still keeping the other main cast members and not removing them. Bizaardvark is a good example of this, with Zane and Rodney. Yes, Dirk was removed, but that wasn't due to cast churning, like with Bunk'd, it was due to the controversial actions of Jake Paul. But we will have to wait and see when or if Disney Channel has an official announcement. When the official announcements for the renewals of the third and fourth seasons of Bunk'd were announced, the announcement for the former, for example, mentioned all the main cast members, but several were missing, which were Kevin Quinn, Nathan Arenas, and Nina Lu, which is how we knew they weren't returning. Likewise with the fourth season renewal announcement not mentioning Peyton List, Karan Brar, or Skai Jackson. Amaury • 06:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, cast additions don't necessarily mean that someone leaving - but my suspicions were based on Raven's comment that this chapter in Raven and Chelsea's life is over. So, some of them might move or something. I have a feeling they might cut Levi because they seemed to struggle on what to do with him in the last 2 seasons (more so in s4); and then in the finale, they had him say goodbye to the family as he went to Europe. So, they could do something like say he decided to stay there. They also didn't have Tess in the last 2 episodes which was concerning. It also seems unlikely that they would do a show with 8 main characters, especially for season 5 which makes it very expensive, especially considering the low ratings. It would be one of the Disney shows with the most cast members, after Stuck in the Middle, but even SITM compensated for it by having main characters miss episodes and reducing guests and recurring cast to just a few. But we'll know for sure if anyone's getting cut by the time we get an official announcement, if any.
 * I didn't personally notice any story issues with Levi. Also, to be fair, Tess was absent before. I think I read that Sky Katz was absent in the last two episodes of the fourth season due to filming something else in Australia, and it wasn't so much the filming the made her be absent, but that she had to quarantine for two weeks because of everything going on. So filming didn't begin for two weeks, but she had to take a flight earlier than usual for something like this and use those two weeks to quarantine. Something like that. I'm just guessing on that part, but I did read about the filming and quarantine part. Although it was on the Wikia, so I don't know how true it is.


 * In terms of the era of Raven and Chelsea being over, it could also mean they'll be focusing even more on the children, with the potential of Raven and Chelsea being absent, like how later seasons of Boy Meets World started having the parents absent from some episodes, especially during the college saga. But yeah, like I said earlier and you then echoed above, we'll know for sure if or when there is an official announcement or when the probable fifth season premieres if there's never an official renewal announcement. And Chelsea was absent for the second half of the second season, but I don't know why. I think it was also something related to filming something else? Amaury • 16:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Tess missing due to filming and quarantine makes a lot of sense since it's highly unlikely for a main character to miss a season finale without a really good reason. Anneliese was doing broadway during most of S2. That's why Chelsea was absent. And I think whatever happens, Raven will remain, so that's good. And I really want at least Nia, Booker and Tess to stay. — Starforce13  16:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, Levi is one of my favorites because of how mature for his age he is and has been since the series started. Plus, if I may say as a compliment, both the actor and character are pretty cute. Older doesn't necessarily mean more mature and younger doesn't necessary mean less mature. LOL While he has matured a little, Booker may be older, but is overall a little immature. And I'm talking in a general sense, not puberty-wise, in terms of maturing a little. The only time Levi was immature that I can remember is the episode where he was nervous about accepting something. I don't remember what it was, but I think it was mostly Booker who caused it. Then, of course, there's the episode where Levi has a big test and Booker keeps him up.


 * And yeah, Chelsea's absences in the second season officially started with production episode 212 "Sleevemore Part Two: Found," but even in the previous in the first part of that three-parter, she was barely there. Then, of course, similar to the fourth season, Nia was absent from the last two production episodes of the first season.


 * Overall, I like everyone and hope they all stay. We shall see. I do know there have been plenty of series where a main character takes a trip somewhere in a season finale, but is still there the following season. I'll spare the detail since I don't want to spoil anything for you, but this was the case with Maggie in the second season finale of A Million Little Things, and she is still a main cast member. Amaury • 17:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for cleaning up the indentation... so much better now! I really like how well mature Levi acts. It's a nice break from the Disney/Nick trope where they like to make the boy characters all immature like what they did with Booker. I'm mostly just worried that if they cut any of the kids, it would most likely be the non-Raven kids. But I wish all of them could stay without replacing anyone. What I want them to do is add frequent recurring characters like they did in S2 with Sienna, Zeena, Curtis etc... during the NRDD showrunners era. — Starforce13  18:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Reading the announcement again, the creator is hopeful Manifest'll be picked up elsewhere—by Netflix or another network. I haven't watched either of these, but it's happened before with Last Man Standing (ABC -> Fox) and Brooklyn Nine-Nine (Fox -> NBC). The announcement also mentions the six-season map/plan that you mentioned. I'm still surprised ABC, Freeform, or Netflix didn't want to continue Girl Meets World, but it had a proper series finale, just in case it didn't continue. However, I feel like broadcast programs seem to have better luck. Also, I am fully caught up with ABC now and Young Sheldon and God Friended Me on CBS. Now I am catching up on The Neighborhood. Anyway, while God Friended Me was also canceled, I feel its second season finale served as a better series finale, True, we didn't meet the person behind the God account, but the episode ended—and started, for that matter—with Miles on that mountaintop. At the end, the child shows up to take Miles to the woman behind the God account. And I know there have been plenty of proper series finale that have ended like this, where whatever not actually being revealed was actually planned by the creator(s). Amaury • 19:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I liked the open-ended approach they did with God Friended Me. I don't like the base question being resolved completely because then it means if the show were to come back, the premise is ruined for good. And some reveals like Lost are usually disappointing, so, I'd rather have the mystery. But, I wanted Manifest to at least figure out how to avoid the death date. I hope Netflix picks them up. It's been in the top 10 for most days since it got added to Netflix. I used to watch Last Man Standing before it moved to FOX because the FOX one doesn't have my favorite cast members (Kaitlyn Dever and Molly Ephraim) who made me love the original series. They wrote Eve out and they recast Mandy which ruined the character for me. Broadcast network cancellations are predictable because it often comes down to ratings, but Disney cancellation is just weird. They cancel top rated shows like Girl Meets World, Shake It Up, K.C. Undercover etc without any real solid reason that we know of. — Starforce13  19:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty soon, a 0.2 rating for broadcast networks in the targeted demographic—in this case, 18–49—will be considered good and getting series renewed. Just a few years ago, something like a 1.1 rating would have led to cancellations. For example, The Good Doctor would have been done after one season if it had been getting the numbers it is now, but now these numbers are good. I'm not including The CW here since it seems to have different standards and its ratings are closer to that of cable networks. I like to think anything is possible, so hopefully we reach the lowest of lows at one point, and ratings start going back up for both broadcast and cable. For example, Nickelodeon and Disney Channel going back up to the 1.5 million or above average we were seeing in 2015. Or even the 3–4 million range we were seeing from series like Sam & Cat. Add: Or even 2016 and, in the case of Nickelodeon, the first half of 2017. The funny part is that when Disney Channel started going south at the end of 2016—see the 1.2 million for Girl Meets World or less for Liv and Maddie, Bunk'd, etc.—Nickelodeon started skyrocketing from already good ratings. It wasn't until the second half of 2017 that Nickelodeon too started going down. Amaury • 19:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Nickelodeon stayed up for a while, especially Henry Danger maintained an impressive 1M+ for a while when everything else was plummeting. I think at some point, the Nielsen ratings won't matter at all. Once we get below 0.20, the variations become too irrelevant. And with all the main media networks starting a streaming service, I think their decision to cancel will be highly influenced by streaming performance. — Starforce13  20:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

List of Bunk'd episodes
Is the latest edit correct? I haven't watched the episode yet, so I can't confirm myself. But I know you would have added this if she was indeed gone. Amaury • 16:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, yes, it's correct - I forgot to add that she was absent. — Starforce13  20:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, just confirmed it myself. Interesting that she's now been absent twice. Amaury • 20:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't know what's going on with that. The two episodes she missed were filmed back to back but they aired last week's episode out of order because it had a Juneteenth subplot. She might be absent in 517 too because I saw a cast photo with everyone including Gwen but Ava isn't in it. So, I'm guessing she was either away filming something or quarantined after travel or something like that. —  Starforce13  23:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Manifest
Some potential good news: Hopefully we end up getting six seasons. I would of course hope it could continue in some way after that, but if we end up getting the intended six seasons, we should quit while we're ahead. Amaury • 18:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, yeah, I've been so excited since I saw the news. I don't think we'll be lucky enough to get the planned 6 seasons, but anything is better than nothing. I knew Netflix and/or NBC would have to come back to the table - after seeing how well Manifest was doing on Netflix. Also, NBC decided not to pick up the show that made them cancel Manifest, so, they definitely have a room. — Starforce13  18:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , It finally happened! I'm so excited! Sure, it's not the 6 seasons, but I didn't even think we'd be able to get as many as 20 episodes. So, this is awesome. And being on Netflix, it means they can make longer episodes so they can cover as much as possible. Can't wait for the Netflix premiere. — Starforce13  16:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Late on replying, but if an episode is normally an hour, or roughly 46 minutes without commercials, if Netflix can do, say, two hours, or roughly 1 hour and 32 minutes without commercials—I don't know how commercials work on Netflix, though—that's basically 40 episodes right there, in a way. Based on the number of episodes from previous seasons, I think that would equate to about 5.5 seasons? I think? (So almost 6 seasons!) The unfortunate part is that my mom and I don't have Netflix. Amaury • 21:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly! So, we'll pretty much get the full story the creator intended. The good thing about Netflix is that you can do a free trial or pay just one month and watch hundreds of episodes before the month runs out.— Starforce13  04:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Raven's Home
The renewal is official: Although I am upset that only Raven and Booker are returning. I loved the other characters. However, I will say that Felix Avita being part of the cast now is sort of a nice tribute to Cameron Boyce. Not necessarily directly, but in an indirect way. Hopefully there was no backstage drama that led to the casting changes, like with Bizaardvark's Jake Paul, and it was more planned. (Not that I'm implying there was anything that bad if there was, but just talking about any kind of drama.) We haven't seen this big of casting change since Bunk'd between the second and third seasons.

On a semi-related note—not related to this directly, but lightly related to Disney Channel—did you ever hear about what happened to Ricky Garcia? I think it was last year that it was posted. If yes, it was heartbreaking to read. Amaury • 20:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, sorry for the late response. I'm half-excited and half-disappointed because of the cast changes. I just had a gut feeling they were going to make major recast. I expected Chelsea, Levi and possibly Tess to leave (as I mentioned in the earlier discussion)... but Nia? That just doesn't make sense to me. But then again, they're bringing back the BFW showrunners who didn't do a great job with Nia in Season 1, so I'm not surprised she left/is being left out. Nia (and Tess) was my favorite part of the show. I don't know any of the new comers except Victor... so, we'll see how they turn out.— Starforce13  14:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Merry Clint-mas, Starforce13! Here's to a 2022 full of madness! InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas 2021
  "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,  I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) is wishing you a  Merry Christmas. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove. Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The Villains of Valley View
Having been created from the creators of Lab Rats and Lab Rats: Elite Force, I have to wonder if they consulted with the creators of The Thundermans. This is basically The Thundermans, but from the perspective of the supervillains rather than the superheroes. It's also on Disney Channel rather than Nickelodeon. I'm on the second episode now, and it's pretty good. It matches nicely, though, with Ultra Violet & Black Scorpion, which I still have to watch. Amaury • 22:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , yes, I started noticing the similarities with The Thundermans before the premiere, and after seeing the first 2 episodes, there are way too many similarities to be a coincidence. Some pretty obvious similarities I've noticed so far:
 * Basically the entire premise is the same: a family of supes trying to live a normal life in a suburb while keeping their identity a secret
 * Brother-sister duo around the same age (not sure if they're twins yet) where one cares about grades and being good while the other one is rebellious... and the brother wants to be different from his family while the parents are proud of the daughter
 * Both shows' first episodes involved the brother inviting the sister's friend over to the house and accidentally exposing their powers
 * They both have League of Villains
 * The moms in both shows have the same power - electricity manipulation
 * Both Thundermans' Metroburg and VVV's Centropolis are references of Metropolis
 * Valley View and Hiddenville kinda sound a lot a like
 * The dad going to school as a science substitute teacher
 * An evil basement lair that looks a lot like the Thundermans
 * They both even have jokes about the little brother not wearing underwear
 * The family was originally going to be called The Mayhems which is basically a reference to the supervillain Dark Mayhem from the Thundermans
 * With all these and more, they must have consulted with the Thundermans creators at least to make sure their won't be any issues. — Starforce13  00:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Bunk'd
Would you be able to do me a favor and see if the edits I've reverted are correct or not? Please check and confirm. If they are correct, please revert me. I don't trust random IPs who are generally problematic and rarely make good edits, especially ones like this who are clearly problematic for the reasons I mentioned on GP's talk page—even though their only edits to Wikipedia as a whole are all from today, this person knows too much about some things here to be "new," so I'm near positive this is someone abusing logged out editing and/or multiple IPs. However, I do trust you! Thanks! I haven't been on top of things here like I used to and when I do edit articles of series I watch from Nickelodeon and Disney Channel, it's just to add or correct director, writer, and guest star info. Amaury • 01:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. The IP is correct in this case. They added those EPs and made Sakoda a producer in season 5. —  Starforce13  12:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

"WDT" or "DGEC"?!!
Hi, until you changed the rdr for "Disney General Entertainment Content" to the current "Walt Disney Television" about a week ago, this was meant for the "list of Disney's "senior" divisions" rdr. Can we start an RfC or any discussion on this confusion? Because I feel that "DGEC" deserves its own article, although it looks a vanity card along with "Disney Enterprises Inc." — not "WDT"!! Thanks! Intrisit (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, it is very confusing amd it's something I mentioned on the WDT talk page. Disney seems to use them interchangeably. Chapek made it very confusing when he reorganized them to create DMED... and made it content-focused by calling it "Disney General Entertainment Content". But when you look at the leadership and units included, they're basically the same thing as what we had under WDT. Same thing with "Walt Disney Studios" and "Disney Studios Content." So, it's very confusing since they didn't call it a directly rename but kind of just started using the new name. They also renamed wdtvpress.com to dgepress.com as a sign it was just the same unit being renamed. So, creating a separate article would just be nothing but duplicate information between the two units because they're both the unit led by Dana Walden. (Note: "Disney Enterprises, Inc." is their copyright holder for all Disney-branded content... including movies. But DGEC is specifically for TV content and Disney-owned TV content that's not Disney-branded.) —  Starforce13  19:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So, based on your reply, I'll make it easier on those pages so as not to make newbies and readers feel like they're missing something. Also, the "Disney Media Networks" is having the wrong rdr — who cares about whether it's defunct or not?! It ain't the first Viacom or the second Viacom which needed articles themselves. If Chapek is to confusion, WP is for clarity, so it'll be clarified before it canons back again. Intrisit (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, at the moment I don't feel strongly either way until I have a clear picture. I think ultimately renaming WDT to DGEC might be the way to go but I need to have a strong case so that it doesn't get rejected by other editors.— Starforce13  23:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Way to go speeding ahead of my thoughts, because it just hit my head as to why you'll redirect DGEC to the right-now WDT. The reason is this: When Disney—ABC TV Group rebranded publicly as Walt Disney Television (because there's 21st Century Fox attached with FX, 20th TV/20th TVA and Nat Geo), the WP page was obviously renamed likewise. I don't know for your judgement, but with some divisions of 21st Century Fox still integrating behind-the-scenes since 12 October 2020 (the official concluding date of the 21CF takeover), WDT was renamed to DGEC. Accessing "wdtvpress.com" (WDTV's official site) will redirect to "dgepress.com" (DGEC's official site), meaning that what happened with the previous renames should happen to this as well. Check out the "View history" link at the Barbie (film series), Barbie (film franchise) and Barbie (franchise). Also anyone who disputes this move should simply enter wdtvpress.com and answer yourself (the doubters, I mean!!)

Also, before I forget, I accessed the main Disney about page at thewaltdisneycompany.com/about, scrolled to the media sections and could only find the already mentioned DGEC, along with Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, the subdivisions of Walt Disney Studios, ABC, ESPN and those from 21st Century Fox. So, to conclude, after this text, I'll move it to DGEC and have WDT redirected there, so all this confusion and brouhaha would be clarified. Intrisit (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You can start a move discussion because someone will probably revert you if you move it without discussion. — Starforce13  01:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The Next Step Season 8
Starforce13, has anyone found any sourcing to either confirm the season 8 debut date, or the casting of season #8? I'm pretty sure it's not being released in the U.S. which means it's harder to trust random IP's when they just add stuff about this without citing any sources or putting in an edit summary. IOW, info about this is much harder to actually verify, so I'm hoping there are some actual sources out there. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's hard to get a good reliable source we can use when it comes to TNS and most Canadian shows. YTV and The Next Step instagram accounts announced season 8 premiere on the 26th (in this post). I confirmed Canadian dates from the YTV official schedule website. The episode titles for the first 13 episodes can also be found on CBBC's iPlayer. I was able to watch the first 4 episodes myself and retrieved the director and writer credits. Since their cast usually changes a lot especially within the first 5 episodes of each season, I don't have enough to confidently add cast information. One question... as far as the original dates are concerned, should we keep the Canadian ones (country of origin) or CBBC ones which released the first 13 episodes batch on iPlayer? — Starforce13  00:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally we go with (broadcast) airdates in the tables – in this case, as both Canada and UK are the same dates (so far), I would preferentially go with the Canadian airdates for season 8. It can be mentioned there, or elsewhere, possibly in notes, that [X episodes] were also released online on [Y date(s)]. This has come up before with other shows, though I can't think of a specific example to point to right now... I would at least use the official instragram to source the season 8 premiere date at the main The Next Step article. But I was really hoping that there was some source (even a "teen mag" would do!) that would mention something about the season #8 cast/casting. Short of that, I'm just going to wait for you to update the List of The Next Step characters article then – I just don't trust random IP's to not be wrong about this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Yes, we did that with Ultra Violet & Black Scorpion and Secrets of Sulphur Springs s2 because they were released on Disney+ weeks/months before Disney Channel. The actual YTV air dates here are 26th, 27, 28, 29 and 30th - I might have accidentally copy-pasted 26th for one of them making it look like they were all the same. So, I'll fix that. For premiere date I'll actually use this TNS tweet since Twitter shows the exact date it was posted unlike Instagram which just usually shows something like 4d ago. — Starforce13  01:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Followup question: Is there any RS reference that can be used for the season #8 air dates? Anything that can be added as a source for this would be helpful. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , The closest we can get are the TV schedules. [CBBC schedule] keeps archives for several months (but it's one day ahead of YTV starting on S8e10). YTV schedule can work too but they only keep past listings up to a week. — Starforce13  03:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Are either archived by the Wayback Machine (or another archiving site)? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We could request archives for the CBBC schedule, but the YTV ones use ajax/javascript-generated content with the same URL instead of a separate URL for each date. So, the archive tools won't be able to extract different days. — Starforce13  03:33, 18 October 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) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Merry Christmas, Starforce13! Have a quantumanic new year! InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
 Trailblazer101 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Any news on DGEC?!
Happy New Year, ! Have you had any news on Bob Iger's Disney restructuring yet?! It's been over 2 months since his Disney return! Surely, "Walt Disney Television" is in history and "Disney General Entertainment Content" is here to stay! Remember that Walt Disney Television was reorganized in 2021 as Chapek came in to, as you said previously, focus solely on streaming and Disney+. Now Iger is back, but judging by the news I'm getting from TV and online, Iger's return is to leverage both the linear and streaming sections to restore Disney's stocks and confidence in investors! What do you think?! Intrisit (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year ! He hasn't yet announced the new structure but he specifically said "Our goal is to have the new structure in place in the coming months." ... coming months... as in, it could take 2 or more months. So, being two months later, most of which were holidays, doesn't mean it's not happening. I do believe we'll have it by the next quarterly earnings call in Feb. He made it clear that he is working with Walden (DGE), Bergman (WDS), Pitaro (ESPN) and the CFO to develop a new structure. So, it's definitely happening. Does that mean DGEC will be renamed back to Walt Disney Television? maybe, maybe not. I just hate the situation where we make the changes, then 2 weeks later, he announces some new names, we try to make the changes again and we get opposition from people using the previous changes to claim WP:RECENTISM. — Starforce13  15:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Merry Merry


★Trekker (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)