User talk:YoungForever/Archive 1

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ApprenticeFan  work  10:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI
If your user talk page is being vandalised, you can request it be protected at WP:RPP. - the WOLF  child  15:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I wasn't sure if User talk can be page protected. — Lbtocthtalk  17:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

'Cast' vs. 'Cast and characters'
Lbtocth, as I explained in my revert at Alexa & Katie, many of these are just simple 'Cast' lists that list just the actor and the character name. 'Cast and characters' is when you have actor, character, and short (or not-so-short) character descriptions – e.g. Arrow (TV series). Note also that WP:TVCAST makes allowances for both formats. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought "Cast and characters" is the preferred one to use since most T.V. series articles use this one at least the ones with short descriptions. — Lbtocthtalk  23:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily say either is "preferred". But relatively "new" TV series will tend to have simple 'Cast' lists, while more developed series will tend to have that section evolve into a more developed 'Cast and characters' list. The latter format might be "preferred", but neither is it "required"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

CBS show "Instinct" comment
I follow the CBS TV show "Instinct" and have tried to update the wiki page for the show with brief plot summaries I get from several source (i.e. CBS website, newspaper TV listings, TVGuide.com) But they are removed by you stating that it violates copyright. If CBS didn't want the plot summaries published why do you think they would they issue press releases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey bennu (talk • contribs) 23:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * For your information, copying word for word from any website is a copyright violation. See WP:COPYVIO and MOS:TVPLOT. They were removed because they were copied from word for word. Plot summaries have to be in your own words not copied from elsewhere. In addition, I wasn't the only one removing the copied plot summaries. There were several other editors keeping removing your copied summaries BECAUSE they are copyright violations. — Lbtocthtalk  00:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Wynonna Earp
I see you are keeping an eye on these articles. Please let me know if you ever have any problems over there... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Will do. — Lbtocthtalk  16:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Stay Here
Hi, thanks for creating Stay Here (TV series). I've reviewed it made a request at Requested moves/Technical requests for the title to be moved to Stay Here. Bennv3771 (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Stay Here is redirecting to an album Filth (Swans album) as a result I named the article Stay Here (TV series) to avoid confusion. — Lbtocthtalk  05:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, there was a redirect already using the article title and hence only an admin or a user with page mover rights can move the article. For future reference, if you need an admin/page mover to make an uncontroversial page move for you, you can make the request at WP:RM as I did in this case. Bennv3771 (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  05:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Family Reunion (2019 TV series) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Family Reunion (2019 TV series) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Family Reunion (2019 TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Heathers (TV series)
Hi ,

Given that we have such a history editing alongside each other on numerous television-related articles, I was hoping you might have a look at an issue/conflict that has arisen over at Heathers. What it boils down to, at least as far as I can see, is that the information that another editor has contributed, and that I am contesting, is unsourced. Additionally, it does not fall into the same sense of verifiability as the cast and character sections or episode summaries do as the information being presented cannot merely be verified by watching the content of episode or its onscreen credits. I have other issues with the content but that is major sticking point. You can see the discussion had thus far over on the article's history and its talk page (found here Talk:Heathers (TV series)). I'd love to get some outside opinion because, as I'm sure you know, one call victim to short-sided and not realize when they may be in error. I hope you can be help of here and to hear from you soon. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I will look into when I have the time to read the whole talk page thread. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  23:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I just stated my thoughts on the matter. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  23:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for being so prompt in taking a look at it. Another editor, Esuka323, also commented on how they found the information to be worthy of removing. I am personally hesitant to remove it again at the risk of being accused of edit warring. Do you think you might intervene? – BoogerD (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I just removed it. But, if I get reverted, I will not revert the editor. I recommend posting a discussion on Wikiproject: Television where a consensus can be reach. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk   03:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So far, I haven't been reverted yet. Let's hope I don't get reverted at all for removal of the trivial content. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  23:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Legacies (TV series)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Legacies (TV series). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Broadcast series
In case you're interested, I've sandbox pages for many of the series, mostly the new ones, airing on all the broadcast networks this TV season, except The CW. I have them so I can maintain them without having to worry about dealing with editors who think they know everything, and they're unfortunately at virtually every one of those that I'm watching. See the "Personal" section here. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 19:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  16:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Into the Dark
Hey, I'm having another issue over at Into the Dark where another editor is insisting on adding column to the show's episode table that lists each episode's runtime. I pointed out that, that information is already included in the infobox and that nothing in the MOS or WP supports the notion of including it in the table. He went ahead and reverted and you can guess where its gone from there. I was hoping you might take a look at it so that I might avoid getting embroiled in an edit war. Thanks! – BoogerD (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I will look into it. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  16:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply! While we may not always agree, know that I am so grateful to have you as an ally and a friend on here. Let me know what you glean. The other editor has yet to revert me again so far. – BoogerD (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't see the point of adding a column just for runtime on the episode table. It's just wasting space on the page. The runtime parameter on the Infobox television is sufficient with just putting a range when it comes to that. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  17:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I know, right? The only other time I've really seen it is in articles for like web series where its included such a manner that appears like Fancruft. – BoogerD (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The Sword in the Stone
Sorry to bother you again. Having an issue over at Draft:The Sword in the Stone (upcoming film) where another editor is attempting to have a draft I created back in July 2018 deleted because he believes it to be at the wrong title. He believes the correct title for the draft should be (2019 film) even though there has been no confirmation from a reliable, secondary source as to when the film will premiere. A third editor created a basically copied-and-pasted new draft yesterday and the first editor is trying to have it essentially replace the original one that I created. Please see Draft talk:The Sword in the Stone (upcoming film) for a discussion that the first editor initiated. – BoogerD (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy Turkey Day, Back!
– BoogerD (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Returning the Favor
Hey Lbtocth, I was hoping you might do me another favor and take a look at the most recent edit over at the article Returning the Favor. Another editor has consistently attempted to remove an entire section of the article regarding accolades/awards that the series has received. The awarding organization "Got Your 6" has partnered with various entertainment companies such as 21st Century Fox, NBCUniversal, CBS, HBO, Viacom and Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Lionsgate, A+E Networks, Live Nation Entertainment, UTA, 44 Blue, The Ebersol Lanigan Company, DreamWorks Animation, Endemol Shine North America, and Valhalla Entertainment. The awarding event was reported on by Variety as seen here: https://variety.com/2017/tv/news/got-your-6-veterans-the-gifted-disjointed-1202607620/. The other editor has argued that the paragraph/section of the article should be removed and cited General Notability Guidelines and Undue Weight as an issue. I may be in the wrong here but I am of the belief that the information warrants mentioning in the article given the stature of the organization within the entertainment industry and the fact that the awards event was covered by a major publication (being Variety). I don't know...maybe give the article and its edit history a look and let me know what you think. – BoogerD (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC) Worth noting that I've created an article for the organization here: Got Your 6. – BoogerD (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My 2¢ after taking at look at it: I don't think it is worth it to mention the recognition of "Got Your 6 " because the accolades/awards of the nonprofit are not notable enough - there are hardly any significant coverage on the accolades/awards themselves. It's not the Primetime Emmy Award, Screen Actors Guild Award, or Golden Globe Awards notable. The nonprofit is not even recognized by or in partnership with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  05:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I don't see why the organization being or not being connect with the VA is relevant. Many non-profit medical organizations don't work in tandem with the Department of Health but that doesn't make them non-notable. And I'd point out that you listed some of the most well known awards ceremonies of all time. Just because they are incredibly notable doesn't make all other award ceremonies non-notable or irrelevant simply due to a comparison. Lastly, I'll mention that Variety mentions the certification twice and Fox News mentions it once. – BoogerD (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the nonprofit has to do with veterans so, connection with United States Department of Veterans Affairs would be relevant. My main point is that the accolades/awards of the nonprofit lacks significant coverage. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  05:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Your point is valid. I suppose I find the determining of what is notable to be quite arbitrary. As noted above, the "Got Your 6 certification" has been covered by two reliable, secondary sources of note in Variety and Fox News. Not sure what threshold would need to be reached to make the certification notable. As it stands now, I think the coverage warrants at least a mention or notation in the article. – BoogerD (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you still want to advocate on adding that to the article, I would recommend posting on the WikiProject Television to reach a consensus and avoid edit warring. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  06:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing Episode Tables
Hi Lbtocth, I was wondering if you might take a look at a discussion (see here Teahouse) that I've been pulled into in the last two days. An editor recently removed an episode table from an article I was working on citing a lack of sourcing. However, in the last year-and-a-half of serious editing I've been doing on here, I've been led to believe that such sourcing of titled, directors, writers, and airdates were unnecessary if the episodes of said series have already aired or been released. The two editors engaged in the discussion have stated that this is not the case so I am hoping if you, and potentially other in the WP:TV community might be able to help here. Thanks, BoogerD (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agreed with you. I also invited other editors who are fairly active on television articles to the discussion. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  06:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not correct – see the recent discussion in WT:TV about this. WP:PRIMARY only covers directors, writers, guest stars – i.e. anyone who is credited on an episode – and episode summaries in most cases. WP:PRIMARY does not cover airdates (ever!), and usually doesn't cover episode titles or prod. codes – that means all of those need to be sourced, as per WP:V. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I want to point out some TV series does show episode titles at the beginning credits of each episode such as I Feel Bad and Black Lightning (TV series). In terms of prod codes, they are usually at the very end of the end credits of each episode on most U.S. TV series. In addition, air date of aired episodes are on the TV series official website usually. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  16:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, also so do The Crown (TV series) and Victoria (UK TV series). Others, such as Legacies (TV series) and Arrow (TV series), actually show prod. codes in the end credits. But the examples of either are rare, so these generally need to be independently sourced. And, again – airdates always need to be sourced, as they are absolutely not covered under WP:PRIMARY. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Spliting discussion for List of Fuller House episodes
An article that you have been involved with ( List of Fuller House episodes ) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article ('Fuller House (Season #) ). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:List of Fuller Episodes. Thank you. mrwoogi010 Talk 00:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Possessive Article Titles
Hey Lbtocth,

Sorry to message you again so soon. Quick question. Do you know if there is anything in WP or the MOS regarding the formatting of article titles when it comes to like a television series with a possessive title? For instance, Jack Ryan was moved from it's original official title of Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan. One editor explained to me that it was due to WP:COMMONNAME though I took a look at that again and couldn't find anything in it regarding possessive titles. I'm creating a new article with a similar title structure and I'm trying to figure out if it is against Wikipedia to have a possessive title. Hope to hear what you think. – BoogerD (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I think the title at the top of the article is not supposed to be possessive. Per WP:COMMONNAME, some examples include: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Jessica Jones (TV series), Power Rangers (film), Legends of Tomorrow, and Runaways (TV series). In fact, I checked all the current Marvel and DC TV series do not include the possessive title at the top of the article. The possessive title is only included on the MOS:LEAD. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  05:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Examples of the TV series articles are frequent by veteran editors. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  06:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Christmas 2018
<div style="text-align: center; width: 60%; margin: auto; padding: 1em; border: solid 4px green; letter-spacing: 28px; background-color: red; color: white; font-weight: bold;">Merry Christmas! Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Kristen Stewart
It was revealed the Kristen broke up with Stella quietly over the holidays since the last article was Us Weekly maybe you should google about their breakup on Us weekly because it says she’s rumored to be dating Stylist Data Dinkin who are you to determined what is not a reliable source if there are several articles on people ,Marie Claire, just Jared, on their breakup  Tnays20 (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Rumor is not confirmed. We don't put rumors on Wikipedia. See WP:NOR. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  23:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet you use my article and take credit from me when I’m the one who found out that they broke up. Tnays20 (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you have ever edited Kristen’s page if I hadn’t bought up the fact that she broke up with Stella of Would have been blinded until 2019. Tnays20 (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OWNERSHIP which states Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone. I was not taking credit at all, I was just editing it. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  23:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Last Names on The Bachelor (season 23)
I appreciate you telling me to add my sources when it concerns the contestants’ last names. However, my “sources” are all of their official Instagram pages, in which they all have their last names down. These last names have been confirmed by the contestants themselves so I would appreciate if you let us, viewers edit them onto their unfinished names. Goddessinhere (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia still requires a reliable source. It's NOT their official Instagram pages if they are not verified aka the checked mark next to their names. I advised you to check previous seasons where there are reliable sources next to their full names. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  07:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOR. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  07:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To reiterate what I did say, these are the official Instagram accounts of the contestants. For example, Michelle Randolph, who is a verified account and the sister of contestant Cassie (Cassie follows almost every contestant), hence, the accounts are their official accounts. Goddessinhere (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Cassie Randolph's account is NOT verified. It doesn't matter if her sister's account is verified because her sister is not a contestant on The Bachelor. Cassie is the one who matters if she is verified or not because she is the one on The Bachelor. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  17:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, there is already a reliable source next to her last name on the The Bachelor (season 23) article. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  17:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Who Is America?
Hello Lbtocth,

I am messaging you in order request that you might take a look at the most recent edits over at Who Is America. An editor is insisting on reformatting all of the short summaries in the episode table with bullet points instead of in the paragraph form that the article has been using. They have brought up Saturday Night Live as a means of defending their reasoning as the season articles for that show use bullet points (seemingly in violation of WP:OTHER). However, those articles use bullet points to list trivial information found in each episode and they do not list ever single individual sketch. I'm not sure it is written so explicitly that short summaries are to be written in single paragraphs but that has largely, as I'm sure you know, been the case. I will say, for instance, that other episode tables in other television series articles don't bullet point different subplots in given episode. It's just not done. No one has objected to the article, being Who Is America, following typical television series formatting and this other editor doesn't seem to be making a convincing case to change it to a format that is almost never used. Not sure where you'll fall on the issue but I'll hope you'll give it a look. I'd go ahead and revert the editor again myself, including the points I've made here, but I believe I've reached the three reverts limit. Get back to me when you can. – BoogerD (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , As far as I know, short summaries are not meant to be written in a bullet points list format. I am sure somewhere in WP:TV and/or MOS:TV said something about that with a general consensus. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  05:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you mind, if you have the time, dropping your two cents on the article's talk page? The offending editor brought the dispute up over at the talk page for MOS:TV and its sort of been kicked back over to the show's talk page. Hoping to get some clarity and finality on this issue. Thanks as always, BoogerD (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to do here. I've noticed you've reached out to other editors that are frequent at Wikiproject: Television to add to the discussion. However, the other main editor in this dispute has up and decided to close the discussion (something I wasn't aware someone centrally involved in the middle of a discussion could do). It is all turning into quite the mess. None of this is why I come to Wikipedia to contribute. What a day. – BoogerD (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's fine. Sounds like the local consensus agrees that paragraph format is preferred. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  02:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The Rookie source
Hi there! Just curious, why did you remove the Disney/ABC press release as a source for the episode director/writer? I realize it might be considered redundant to the Futon Critic cite, but isn't an official press release a more reliable source than an outside source? Thanks for your attention. Her Pegship (speak) 23:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , RTitle is for the whole row, you don't need it separately for the director and writer. It's fixed. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  03:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Her Pegship (speak) 04:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Lbtocth!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;height:173px;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

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

— BoogerD (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

New Year's 2019
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding: 0.2em 0.4em; height: 185px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks"> Happy New Year! Lbtocth,

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

Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 08:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Lbtocth!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;height:173px;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

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

– Davey 2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 10:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Tana Ramsay page
Hiya I don’t know how to add sources but I noticed that Tana is expecting and I have found a reliable source could you add it for me. https://news.sky.com/story/gordon-ramsay-and-wife-tana-announce-they-are-expecting-their-fifth-child-11596166 HospitalHistory (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , article looks questionable in terms of reliable source because it doesn't have a author. But, I added a different source that is reliable. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  21:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Multi-camera setup/Single-camera setup over at Homecoming
Hey Lbtocth,

Hoping you might take a look at another little instance of an editor raising hell over a non-issue. For the last two days there has been an editor over at Homecoming that has been debating whether the series is single-camera or multi-camera. I would understand one's insistence in having a source for such information before a series is released, when it might be possible to not know one way or the other, but once a series has premiered it is generally clear which set-up is used and such is information is covered by WP:PRIMARY, being the series itself. I think the editor is confused and is under the impression that single-camera setup implies that only one camera is ever used to film any given scene. Obviously that is not the case, as anyone with a cursory knowledge of film knows that in many situations in film and television more than one camera is utilized to increase the "coverage" in a scene. "Multi-camera" vs "Single-camera" rather refers to the specific setup of cameras and the construction of sets. In a multi-camera sitcom, you'll have a set with three walls and there will be three cameras setup in a specific formation all pointing at the same thing. In a single-camera, you will usually have a full four-walled set and the camera setup generally involves one camera situated somewhere in the set. Though, in single-camera you may also have other cameras utilized for close-ups or wide shots but the basic "setup" of the series is still single-camera as it is defined in film and television production. Anyways, myself and Drovethrughosts have reverted the editor a few times and I am concerned at this point of passing the threshold into edit warring. Hope you might take a look at the situation and intervene if necessary. Of all the big hullabaloos around here in the last few weeks this one seems to be the most cut and dry. Hoping your new year is good thus far, BoogerD (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have issued an Edit Warring Warning on the editor's Talk page. If the editor continue to edit warring I advise you or to report the editor on Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk   21:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor proceeded to post the same message on my talk page though, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I didn't revert three times within the 24 hour period. – BoogerD (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And now they've reverted again. I won't take their bait. Not going to be drawn into an edit war especially over a non-issue. I sincerely hope another editor intervenes. – BoogerD (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Camera type doesn't even need to be listed for dramas, which is what Homecoming looks to be. All dramas are single-camera. The single-camera and multi-camera distinction really only exists in sitcoms, as explained by and elaborated on by  here. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I seen popular drama TV series frequently visit by veteran editors list the camera type. However, since it on the Infobox television, I think it is optional. Of course, you don't remove just because you want to which seems to be what the editor is doing. The editor was reverted by 3 different editors. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  22:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

adding comments to section headings
Hi,

I noticed you've added a number of comments to section headings, like you did here. Could you please, in the future, ensure the comment is on the line after the heading, as per the MOS:HEAD guidelines? Thanks! —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I was not aware I was doing it wrong. Thank you for letting me know. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  22:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries... it's a subtle thing and I'm sure in most cases it doesn't create a big problem, but I just figured we should be guideline-compliant. 🙂 —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I put the comment in because some editors repeatedly put the year before it even aired in 2019. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  22:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know why you're adding the comments and I think it's a useful reminder. We just have to ensure they are added on the next line down to avoid the potential problems that MOS:HEAD talks about. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2019 (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: Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:58, 7 January 2019 (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.

Rollback granted
Hi YoungForever. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have temporarily [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AYoungForever enabled] rollback on your account until. 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! Ixfd64 (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2019 (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.
 * When does it expire? I am not seeing a date. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   18:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your rollback rights do not expire. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. I was confused when you said, "I have temporarily enabled rollback on your account until ." — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   18:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was using the "notify" link on the Requests for permissions/Rollback page, which automatically created this message. Sorry for the confusion — we should probably get it changed. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thank you for clearing up the confusion. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   18:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

My Spy
Hello YoungForever,

First off, wow, getting used to the new name. Might take a while. Haha. I'm messaging you though to take a look at a film article I was editing today: My Spy. Currently in a dispute with another editor over content in the article. I had included writing in the article regarding various producers on the film sourced to Deadline and Hollywood Reporter articles. However, the other editor removed the content as they said the information was "irrelevant". When I objected and pointed out that that was a more opinion-based reasoning rather than anything based in WP or MOS policy they responded by saying, "Relevant according to you. I conceded on some aspects of your edit but Wikipedia is a collaboration. I don’t agree that it belongs and so it’s gone unless someone else agrees with you. Additionally, i express the film’s titled because, before that date it was unknown. What is your reason for not noting it?" I'm trying to proceed with caution here and avoid an edit war. Perhaps, you'll take a look at the article. Get back to me as soon as it is convenient for you. – BoogerD (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I had to change my username because over by https://it.wikipedia.org my previous username was deemed as an inappropriate username. I honestly don't know why my previous username was inappropriate on it.wikipedia.org. I had to email the administrator who blocked me for inappropriate username in Italian if he can unblock me after I changed my username. I took Italian a long time ago as a foreign language so, my Italian is not good at all as I have not used it in years. Anyways, I think it should be fine to include various producers with reliable sources on film articles according to MOS:FILM. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   00:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * First off, that is the most bizarre reason to have to change your username. Sorry you had to deal with that. Also, Would you mind making the edit? The other editor specifically said they would only acquiesce with the intervention of another and, also, I'm concerned over engaging in an edit war. – BoogerD (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. But, I will not revert again if I get reverted by the same editor. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   00:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, &, any thoughts about including various producers with reliable sources on film articles? — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   00:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Only those with a "producer" or "produced by" credit should be listed. Co-producers are not producers. Same with other credits like executive producers. Co-executive producers are not executive producers. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 00:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: this was regarding the inclusion of such information in the production section of the body of the article. I was already aware that Infobox film only lists those credited specifically as a producer. I believe you were referring to Infobox film, no? – BoogerD (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * was adding executive producers under the Production section of the article. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   01:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't the think the other editor will revert you again as most editors see no problem adding them under the Production section with reliable sources as it is a consensus. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   23:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, YoungForever! I value all of the generous help you offer more than you know. Honestly, I think I am at a turning point with my editing on Wikipedia though. I've gotten into too many debates in the last two months and I no longer get the same enjoyment out of editing. Due to various circumstances of my life, I logged in over 20,000 edits in 2018 and devoted a lot of time to the site. I think I'm simply at a point where I have to ask if continuing to edit is in the best interest of my wellbeing. The only fear I have is that, should I step away, all of the work I've done here will be for naught. I would hate to see all of the articles I've poured so much time and energy into begin to decline in quality. I don't know. In the last few weeks, I have had to make so many concessions with myself about stuff on here. There's been so many things that I might have debated or argued over in the past that I'm just forced to let go. I don't have the mental energy or time to devote an entire day on here to one topic (often a tiny one at that). Just now, I decided to just move on and let go over some recent edits I disagreed with at Manifest. Removed the article from my watchlist. I suppose I just can't care so much about every article I have listed on my user page. Sorry to burden you with all of these rambling thoughts. I suppose I just think you'll understand where I'm coming from given all of the great work you've done and continue to do at a lot of the same articles. Hoping you're having a good year thus far, BoogerD (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. I am sorry to hear that you might quit editing on Wikipedia. If you must take a short break from editing for the sake of your wellbeing, then you should as I know mental health is very important. But, I hope you don't quit for good.

MOS:INITIALS
If you actually looked at the style guide dots are used in people's names. The only time they aren't is in an initialism. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not on MOS:INITIALS and MOS:TV. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   23:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:INITIALS states unless it's the preferred style or majority of reliable sources use it, not when the on-screen effect based font styling of a series chooses the ignore the use of periods. If you had a copy of the printed script that which would not use on-screen font styling for effect and had the periods removed then the unless exceptions would be valid. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY overwrite MOS:INITIALS. The periods have nothing to do with styling and effect on-screen in episodes. Nowhere on MOS:INITIALS says it is required to use periods. Enough with making up your own rules/guidelines. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   04:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Using Rollback
Hello, congrats on getting Roleback right. Could you please help revert the edits to List of ancient Greek philosophers made by u|25callagard thanks A 10 fireplane Imform me  17:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I just checked the them and they are definitely vandalism. ✅ — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   17:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Awesome thank you  A 10 fireplane Imform me  17:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If the articles keeps getting vandalized, I recommend you getting the article page protected. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   17:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good A 10 fireplane Imform me  17:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * I thought I rejected the ip address pending changes, I must have pressed the accept button by mistake. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   08:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Returning the Favor - Episode Section
Hi YoungForever,

Would you mind taking a look at this most recent edit over at the article for Returning the Favor? I believe we had discussed the issue of sourcing for episode tables and whether the series itself provided sourcing for the episode table. I know on the numerous, numerous television series articles that we edit that it is common practice to remove sourcing (from websites like The Futon Critic for instance) after an episode or season has aired. I believe in the past that you and another editor had suggested that completely removing the information was disruptive and that if anything was to be done adding a tag might be appropriate (though I'm not sure that is true given the fact that literally every article I've contributed to on here does not source episodes once they've aired). Please get back to me as soon as it is convenient for you, I'd love to resolve this issue promptly. – BoogerD (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be considered to be disruptive editing. However, I will have to politely decline to involve myself in reverting the veteran editor because he is an administrator. I do recommend invite him for a discussion on the Talk page of Returning the Favor. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   00:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely understand your decision not to get involved. I too find that when others reach out to me give me thoughts on a questionable edit that I have to look at it within the context it was made and decide if intervening is in my best interest. I've reached out to and  to see what they think as well. Funny thing is in this specific case: the other editor isn't really arguing that sourcing of the episodes is required. Rather, they are saying that their is not enough enough coverage of the episodes themselves (independent of the show I presume) and so that makes them somehow non-notable and their presence in the article then given an undue weight. I don't know...I've never seen another editor use this sort of rationale for deleting an episode table from a television series article. I'm in no rush to resolve this issue tonight though. Gotta keep my nerves in check and take on any undue stress from something like a Wikipedia dispute. However, I guess I'll make a more concerted effort to deal with it tomorrow. – BoogerD (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is solved now. Esuka (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I just checked and I believe the sources should be sufficient enough as they are Returning the Favor's official Facebook Watch page details of respectively seasons. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   01:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Esuka and I were discussing this on his talk page. Sourcing in the episode table does not seem necessary. YoungForever, you are someone who is frequent and consistent with your updating of articles following a new episode or season's premiere. And so I know you are one of many who follows the general policy of removing sourcing (like The Futon Critic) following a premiere. I just don't see why a different standard applies to this article and not to basically all others. I don't know...at some point in the future perhaps they will be removed. – BoogerD (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I seen many TV series articles keep the column reliable source like Famous in Love in which I don't have a problem with. The ones in which are removed are rows of a reliable source like Counterpart (TV series) in which I don't have a problem with either. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   02:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I will say that, however, general consensus has been to remove the sources following an episodes premiere. I believe you do it all the time with articles such as the various current CBS sitcoms. And you could take a look at any episode table for current popular or heavily edited television series articles like Stranger Things or Grey's Anatomy or Orange is the New Black for instance. No sourcing. Past discussions into this have seemed to suggest that the shows themselves provide sourcing for the articles. Hmmm...I guess I just like things to stay fairly consistent over a given topic (like television series articles) and not for one show/series to be held to some different standard. BTW, has intervened and commented on the article's talk page. Just an FYI. – BoogerD (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I want to point out that I do not remove column reliable source like Famous in Love. I only remove row ones like Counterpart (TV series). — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   02:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying. If you don't mind me asking though...what's the difference? Why remove one and not the other? – BoogerD (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The column ones refer to the all the episode titles and the row ones refer only to the row of the episode. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   02:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I get that. I mean why remove one type and not the other type especially in situations where the ones citing individual episodes are the only source in the table? Numerous, numerous television series articles would suggest that sourcing tables for already aired shows is unnecessary and this seems supported when sources, like the episode ones, are consistently removed. Not trying to "wade out into the weeds" here but just trying to clarify what has been my, and I would think many editor's, experience editing television articles. – BoogerD (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contributing to the discussion btw. I always find your input/thoughts invaluable. You are certainly an asset on Wikipedia especially when it comes to WikiProject Television. – BoogerD (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Gotham (season 5)
There is some discrepancy regarding the production order and airdate of the season's episode "The Trial of Jim Gordon". Can you please fix it? -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  17:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are referring to as I don't see anything wrong as of the latest edit. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   17:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently it's publicised as the season's 12th episode and last to be produced, but it is airing as the ninth episode. -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  17:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, episodes may not go in the order of production order. I seen this on several TV series. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   17:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The Neighborhood
What is wrong with the edits I am making? Can you kindly tell me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarksville (talk • contribs) 18:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You cannot change order of credits just because you want to, we go by the cast order on the on-screen credits. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   18:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

List of Teachers (2016 TV series) episodes
You don't have any idea that shows below millions are not rounded. If you didn't like the Aussie show example then how about this US cable one: Corporate (TV series). Fix the article now or I'll report this as vandalism. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are the one who is disruptive editing when there is no hard rule/guideline on that at all. It's not vandalism. I am not obligated to fulfill your demands. Enough with WP:OWN. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   00:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It was originally in 2 decimal places before you wanted to change it. You can't change it without reaching consensus. You have the attitude of "I want to change it because I don't like attitude". Again, there is no hard rule on WP:TV and MOS:TV that says it is required to round numbers in thousands instead of decimal points. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   22:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

No Good Nick
I do not know want to go through an edit war. This is the link I got her character's name from. https://instagram.com/officiallaurendonzis/ Brokence (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The account is not verified as it does not have a verified badge check mark next to the account name as result, it's not a reliable source. This is according to WP:RS. If it is verified with a check mark badge next the the account name, then if would be a reliable source. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   22:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh. Despite that, I do just want to say that it is her since the account has been tagged in some of Siena Agudong and Melissa Joan Hart's posts, who both have verified accounts. But I guess that doesn't stop it from being an "unreliable" source. Brokence (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is irrelevant because her supposed account is still not verified. The character name can be add in if her supposed account is verified, there is a reliable source, or the TV series has been released which would be cover as WP:PRIMARY. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   23:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * When I made that comment, I wasn't trying to convince you to let me edit the page again. I was just letting you know that the account has been tagged in the posts of verified accounts. That was all. I wasn't even expecting a response. Brokence (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The Perfectionists
Hey, I've seen you around; mostly editing quite a bit of the same TV shows I'm editing. Just wondering if you're actually watching The Perfectionists or just editing it?? The Doctor Who (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do watch Pretty Little Liars: The Perfectionists. Why do you ask? — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   01:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well this helps me out and hopefully it'll help you out if you're TV schedule is as full as mine. But the new episodes go up on Freeform's website for free shortly after the start of the episode (|here's the link). There are still commercials but they're shorter than the traditionally are on TV. For example the episode was uploaded at 7:02 my time (two minutes after it started airing on Freeform). I started watching about 7:05 and finished the episode (with commercials) at 7:51 (ten minutes before it would've ended on Freeform). It also allows you to skip around so I was watching it on my TV but used by laptop to skip around and grab information like production code, editor, guest starring credits, etc. Sorry if I got a little long-winded but like I said hopefully it'll help.
 * As a side note I'll be busy on Wednesdays for the foreseeable so if no one beats me too it my episode articles/summaries will be delayed from what they have been. Thanks! The Doctor Who  (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't not aware of that at all. Thanks for letting me know. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   02:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Anytime, just noticed you're doing quite a bit to help maintain the article and thought it might help.  The Doctor Who  (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That actually saves a lot of time. I hate long commercials. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   02:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I know, me too they're so annoying I just wish they'd go away sometimes. The Doctor Who  (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)