User talk:IJBall

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
  • If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
• To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

List of films based on television programs

Pinging Geraldo Perez – this is more a reminder to myself than to you, Geraldo: but the WP:SCOPE of List of films based on television programs looks like it needs to be (massively?) narrowed. Right now it's including a bunch of what are basically TV movies in the list (including some TV movies that basically aired as episodes of these series – e.g. I just removed Shake It Up: Made In Japan which should not have been included under any circumstances!). That list should be narrowed to just theatrically-released films that are based on TV series. FWIW. (And, again, this is more a reminder to myself...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• See also: List of television spin-offs to do the same. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC) ‎
• And: Lists of actors by television series is another cleanup job... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Very fast

Moved to Talk:Isabela Moner § Date of birth

Kickin' It

Not really an issue, but more of a general question. Is this correct? She was main cast for the first three seasons, before leaving to work on I Didn't Do It. She only special guest starred three times in the fourth season, which as we know does not recurring make. So is that correct? Does her previously being main cast count toward being recurring? Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

And this. Isn't that the whole point of a list of characters page, so you can not only go into more detail rather than a brief synopsis, but also really list a lot notable characters rather than just a few? In fact, I think that's basically what you stated here: User talk:IJBall/Archive 20#Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn. I find including a 'Guest cast' section less objectionable for a LoC article.. Although in our cases, we're limiting it to notable guest stars only. Those who receive a special guest star credit automatically qualify as notable, and then from there we go with who we think is notable—for example, main cast from a fellow series on the same network guest starring on another series makes them notable. At the very least, shouldn't it be discussed before outright removing it? Note that I'm not the one who added it, I just changed it to "Notable guest stars" so we're not listing every single non-recurring guest star, as that definitely does become excessive. I accordingly simultaneously added and removed from the original list. Courtesy ping for AngusWOOF so they can provide their thoughts, as they are the ones responsible for removing the section, and also because they participated in that semi-related discussion at Geraldo Perez's talk page here: User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 16#How to list guest stars when actor and/or character name changes?. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Kim in season 4, three appearances in that season could be recurring, but depends on how the editors for the series define recurring. Some go with 2 or more separate storyline appearances in a season, others are 3 or more. As for guest stars, I removed that from the List of Characters since those are usually stated on the episode lists themselves. For the names, yeah, we can go back to the discussion in the archive. I might have gotten some of those wrong, but it's definitely not appropriate to have "Sensei Ty / Ty". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: Sorry for the incredibly late response. As for guest stars, I removed that from the List of Characters since those are usually stated on the episode lists themselves. That doesn't seem like a valid or logical reason for removal and I will have to respectfully disagree. If we are to use that logic, we shouldn't be listing recurring guest stars, either, since they're listed in the episode list as well. When there isn't enough content for a separate character list page, you typically only include main and recurring stars on the parent article, though you can include notable guest stars as well, provided you state which episodes they appear in. Additionally, bios should generally be brief. Then when or if a character list page is created, that's where you can not only go into a lot more detail in the bios, but also list a lot more non-recurring guest stars, within reason. We should not list every single non-recurring guest star, only the notable ones. Those who receive a special guest star credit are automatically notable. Likewise, if a main cast member from one series guest stars on another series on the same network or franchise, that also makes them automatically notable. For example, Kelli Berglund guest starring as Sloane on Kickin' It is notable because she is a main cast member on Lab Rats, and both series are from Disney XD. Similarly, Milo Manheim guest starring as Pierce on ABC's American Housewife is also notable because he is a main cast member on Disney Channel's Zombies, and ABC and Disney Channel are both part of the Disney network franchise. After that, for non-recurring guest stars who fall into neither of those categories, it should be discussed why they are considered notable. For example, a guest star from one series guest starring on another series on the same network is not necessarily notable. While I can certainly look at cutting back what I had a little for anyone who doesn't fit into those two categories I mentioned, I don't think outright removing the section is the answer. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Dakota Fanning's ancestry

Hello, IJBall.

I noticed that you deleted my edits to Ms. Fanning's page a number of days ago. Per your recommendation, I started a conversation on her talk page about what I proposed to add to it. I'm afraid that nobody has added anything to the topic since. Therefore, I thought that I'd discuss the matter with you directly.

The general rule of thumb when adding things to pages is notability and verifiability, at least as far as I understand it. On both scores, the reference to Ms. Fanning's descent from Edward III scores highly: The latter is a prominent figure with his own page, and her descent from him has been written about by a reputable publication. I therefore think that it deserves to be referred to.

What is more, I would also point out that there are precedents: Jane Fonda's page refers to the fact that Ms. Fonda was named after her relative Queen Jane Seymour, while Beyonce's page refers to Mrs. Knowles-Carter's descent from the Acadian leader Joseph Broussard.

I will wait twenty-four hours to give you an opportunity to respond. If you have no further objections, I will restore the reference to the page.

Warm regards,

O.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC) O.ominirabluejack.

I don't think this is notable enough to add to the article, and I was maybe going to post to that effect at the Talk page. But I was hoping other editors would offer their opinions first, because it's kind of pointless if it's just one editor in favor and one opposed – that's not really establishing a consensus on the matter. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. However, nobody has offered their opinions. In the absence of that, what else can be done?

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Boldly make your edit again, and I won't revert this time, as nobody else objected. But, just be aware – it's quite possible that somebody else will still remove it, either sooner or later. And if another editor removes it, then it shouldn't be restored until a consensus for its inclusion is demonstrated. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC) O.ominirabluejack.

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello IJBall,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 808 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Spin-off (media)

Each variation is permitted Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Theoretically, yes. But if you track the usage of the terms over the years "spin-off" was used much more in the 70s and 80s, while "spinoff" (no hyphen) has been used increasingly over the last couple of decades. In fact, it seems like the general trend in English language (at least in the U.S.) has been away from "hyphenated words" and towards the "unhyphenated" word form. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Question...

There seems to be some contentions with another member where MOS:DATERANGE is concerned and soap character articles; someone believes that if someone marries in, let's say September 2019, and it is now November, and they are still married — despite actual dates not existing in in-universe fiction — that should be reflected in the infobox, as simply stating 2019 is "misleading," so it should be September 2019–present. What's your thoughts on this? livelikemusic talk! 14:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: I would say that, while clunky, "September 2019–present" or "Sept 2019–present" would at least be acceptable in MOS:DATERANGE terms (and, so, maybe, on a WP:IAR basis). However, I would also say that when 2020 roles around, I would change it to "2019–present". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: But wouldn't that, in realistic terms, over-ride the intentions of what {{Infobox soap character}} represents, which is an overview? Besides, even in terms of November, November 2019–present would still defy MOS:DATERANGE, as November 2019 is the present? This is where I find much complications with the soap character infobox, and my beliefs that only current marriages should be mentioned, etc. There is too much clutter and fluff filling it up. livelikemusic talk! 15:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably merits a wider discussion. Or it can be ignored as an "exception" if it only affects a couple of articles... Separately, yes – "November 2019–present" would violate MOS:DATERANGE again, and should not be done (but "September 2019–present" is OK in terms of MOS:DATERANGE). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: It is times like this that I wish the soap community was still active on Wikipedia. Thank you! livelikemusic talk! 16:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: Seems the conflict with this specific editor is coming to a head — they're violating MOS:YEAR and MOS:DATERANGE in an attempt to own the edit. This has been an on-going battle; what do you suggest I do? livelikemusic talk! 13:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: Next step – go to their Talk page, and try to talk to them. If that gets you nowhere, you're probably stuck with either WP:3O or WP:DR, if there aren't other editors with an interest in these articles and this issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: I've tried, several times across other talk pages, and they seem persistent on their edits being the "know all" for the pages they edit, and it seems to stem from a long-term history of disruptive editing. I may have to reach out to 3O and/or DR, because I doubt the user is going to see any other edit besides their own; they flat-out are removing marriage years, in an attempt to own the page. See Jennifer Horton and Jack Deveraux, etc for example. I cite MOS:DATERANGE, and they continue to ignore, while removing current marriage year, because it's like again that they do not like 2019, despite that being appropriate. And then on Kristen DiMera do not understand that a marriage was done under false pretense, and is invalidated, because it could never be legal, even in the terms of the in-universe world. livelikemusic talk! 13:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: If it's slow-motion edit-warring, you can try WP:ANEW. Also, if there's an Admin you know, you try asking them for advice as well. (FTR, I agree with your edits at a glance (in MOS terms), but as I'm not as much of an "expert" on the history of DOOL, so I can't say for sure which dateranges are actually correct...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: I used to have discussions with a couple of admins a few years back, so I could try reaching out to them and seeing their thoughts on the situation, too. Thank you. Sorry to bother you, once again. livelikemusic talk! 13:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the editor conflict — seems like they're going to continue to edit-war, as they've even undone your edits. livelikemusic talk! 19:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to report them, then. I'd at least talk to an Admin about it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I did last week; they said to report them. But I did warn them as a precaution, in case someone said there was no warning. You think I should file an ANI now? livelikemusic talk! 22:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you maybe should, especially if this has been a longer-term issue. But they've been reverted by (at least?) two different editors on MOS grounds, so at this point their edits would appear to not be based in policy (despite what they say), and they're effectively edit warring to boot... However, you may also want to wait to collect more evidence of EW-like behavior before filing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

By my count: they've been reverted by four members, across multiple articles. According to my count, it's been you, me, TAnthony and Jester66. livelikemusic talk! 00:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Am filing a report now, because they clearly are not understanding the complication of this issue, and it's out of control. livelikemusic talk! 14:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The Hollow Crown

I was about to open a RM about the "episodes" of this TV series but got stuck because the sources used do indeed call these films. I haven't watched this so am not sure, but this sounds to me like a production trying to grandiose their show. The "films" were released in two groups (aka seasons), were released on a weekly schedule (as in any regular TV series with episodes would) and are called "episodes" on the BBC website (as well as IMDB and Amazon listing). The TV series article for the show is a mess, using "episodes", "films" and "plays" to describe them. Any ideas? --Gonnym (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: This is just my opinion – but probably best to consider these as either a "[TV] series of miniseries", or a "[TV] series of television films". So I think I'd treat either each separate entry as, effectively a "TV film" (even if it's "two-part" "TV film" as a couple of them are)... So, I think I agree with Woodensuperman's (since "retired") solution – treat the two "Henry" ones as "two-part TV films" that are "episodes" of the larger "TV series franchise" ("The Hollow Crown"). So I'd advocate a merge of Henry VI, Part 1 (film) and Henry VI, Part 2 (film) into a single article, at Henry VI, Part 1 and Part 2 (The Hollow Crown), and either leave all the others where they are or move the other single-part TV films to, for example, Richard II (The Hollow Crown)... But this is all likely to be controversial (except possibly the article merge), so it should probably go through an WP:RM. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Name seems so familiar

Hi IJBall,

I have to be careful not to out you, so I'll refrain from using what I think is your first name. Per your comment at Talk:CPAC (TV channel). your username looks so familiar. At first I wondered if I'd seen your name on the B.C. discussion forum of B.C. radio stations, but I don't think that's it. Did you, by chance, used to contribute regularly to the rec.arts.tv newsgroup? I used to post semi-regularly there, but have had other commitments and haven't checked in in a number of years.

If so, nice to hear from you again.

If not, nice to meet you!

Cheers,
- --Doug Mehus (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail! again

Hello, IJBall. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 07:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

AussieLegend (✉) 07:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Respectfully, I understand your point, but I'm not inclined to "help" out on this anymore... Still, if there's a concrete proposal down the line, I guess let me know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Maggie Geha

Hi IJBall, I am very sorry about my editing mistakes on the Maggie Geha article. I know my edits are not disruptive and I know I did not make vandalism. But I didn't know my edit is unnecessary. I am asking your for help and your advice. I tried my edits and it was all unnecessary by you. Please do not give me a warning and I am giving you some advice so I'll do better than that next time. I promise I will be careful with those unnecessary edits you controlled your articles. So I am very very sorry for my editing mistakes and it was unnecessary. If you can accept my apology, that would be great. So I promise I'll be careful next time when I edit. Thanks for your time. 2001:569:7C07:2600:A893:F5F1:1E30:4AD2 (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

117.222.198.45

Hi IJBall,
This ip address is a problematic editor as this person repeatedly disruptive editing on several TV series starting from yesterday. 117.222.198.45 may need to be report to WP:ANI. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

They need to get to a Level 4 warning – after that, they can be reported to WP:AIV (or WP:ANEW). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Note: this is not a report on you, but someone you've dealt with. livelikemusic talk! 14:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Coop & Cami Ask the World

No official WP:RS yet, but according to Ruby Rose Turner's Instagram story, season two has been picked up for ten additional episodes, bringing the season to 31 total. Definitely a popular series. Amaury • 04:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The Casagrandes

I'm going to need more eyes here, as this disruptive IP will not quit. Amaury • 15:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Sydney to the Max

Likewise for Sydney to the Max, I may need eyes. Given that the IP seems to be "familiar" with me, I'm thinking we've got some sort of block evasion or socking. I can't say that with 100% certainty, though, of course. Amaury • 07:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It's Orchomen. IP address geolocates to the UAE. So just the usual. Revert until they're blocked for the I don't know what time. I've lost track. Amaury • 08:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

If it's Orchomen, the good news is that WP:3RRNO is in effect (though I wouldn't revert too many times – I'd just report, and revert after they've been blocked...). But if it's Orchomen IPs, those can go straight to WP:AIV with no problem, as they're block evasion... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

What do we think about Copyvioburner? I think we have a WP:DUCK case here, in which case an SPI should be filed. Amaury • 17:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Did you see this? Thoughts? Amaury • 17:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Wait... – It's likely, but if they edit again we'd have more proof. They've been silent since then, and we're aware of it, so it's not a big priority... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I just reverted an already blocked IP of Orchomen here. We'll see what happens. If that user reverts, there will be our proof. Add: What typo am I missing here? Because I see nothing different. Amaury • 18:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we have our proof now. What do you think? Amaury • 18:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Lololol. Well done Sherlock! Was the clue in the name?

Also, it's a double space.Copyvioburner (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

List of American television programs by debut date

Do you know if there is a reason why (a) this is sorted from newer to oldest and not correctly the other way around? and (b) why this uses a list and not a sortable table? --Gonnym (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

"Fixing" this article has been discussed on its talk page, at least once (and probably more than once). But "fixing" this article would be a massive undertaking, and so far no one has seriously wanted to put in the time or effort (I certainly don't!!). My own personal take is that I consider the list to be too WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and too large) to bother with – IOW, rather than "fixing" it, I'd actually favor deleting it! While something like List of American television programs currently in production is a useful and sensible exercise, I don't think this particular list is or is worth keeping. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I agree with you on deleting it, just thought you were in favor of keeping it. --Gonnym (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not motivated enough to AfD it myself, but if someone else takes it there, I'm a "delete" vote for it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)