User talk:Amaury

It is approximately 11:05 PM where this user lives.

Welcome to my talk page! I have a few requests that I hope you'll respect while posting here: Be civil. If you don't agree with an action I made, please be calm and polite. We'll straighten things out a lot quicker without screaming and name calling. Sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ Start new discussions at the bottom. Start new discussions with a level three heading. I generally like to keep discussions together. If you post here, I'll reply here and leave you a message informing you of my reply. If I leave you a message on your talk page, I'll keep watching it, but if you want to make sure I notice it quickly, please feel free to tag me by typing {{re|Amaury}} before your main message.

Discussion Archives

Month	2009	2010	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	Total
January	14	13	0	0	1	0	8	36
February	15	43	0	0	0	0	9	67
March	11	25	0	1	0	57	10	104
April	20	28	1	0	0	52	8	109
May	27	17	10	16	0	18	6	94
June	15	8	1	50	0	11	6	91
July	21	4	1	17	0	18		61
August	10	38	0	4	0	11		63
September	8	5	0	0	0	10		23
October	26	5	0	0	0	10		41
November	17	0	0	0	0	5		22
December	11	6	0	1	1	6		25
Total	195	192	13	89	2	198	47	736

July 2016

Bunk'd

Hi Amaury, you've any consensus that DJJAK47 this user tried to create a separate page for the list of Bunk'd episodes or not? SA 13 Bro (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @SA 13 Bro: We don't usually split the episode list until we have confirmed episodes from a reliable source (e.g. Zap2it which is usually the first) with titles and air dates for the second season. Even then, you need to be careful to properly attribute the split, per WP:CWW and WP:SPLIT (I use the {{copied}} template nowadays, as the "Split from/to" set of templates have went through a TfD with consensus to merge but that looked like a work in progress last time I checked). nyuszika7h (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@DJJAK47 Take a look at the policy guide, thanks. SA 13 Bro (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Backstage (2016 TV series)

I noticed your edit [1] about the episode "Showtime". The Futon Critic does identify it under a different title "The Collab", but upon clicking that entry on that page [2] which brought up this [3], I noticed there is a problem, as the episode synopsis at the bottom shows it's from Bizaardvark, so I don't know about the validity of that episode title for Backstage. I brought this up on the talk page for Backstage as well, but decided to keep your edit for now. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: The Futon Critic has corrected itself. Amaury (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

List of Henry Danger episodes

Re: this edit in regards to "Danger & Thunder" – does that mean they did a "combined credits" for the two shows during the episode's open? Or did The Thundermans people simple not get credited at all?!... I'll admit I've been puzzled by this one – unlike a lot of other crossovers, it wasn't "one episode of each", but actually seems to be a Henry Danger episode in which The Thundermans stars just showed up on. So how The Thundermans kids are credited is kind of key... Also, I think a 'note' noting that this is a "crossover" with characters from The Thundermans doesn't seem unreasonable to me, depending on how The Thundermans people were credited... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Yeah, it was a Henry Danger episode only. Kira and Jack were not listed as either special guest stars or guest stars. I had the credits paused when they got to the guest stars, and they weren't listed. Even rewound the DVR to re-check a couple times just to make sure when I updated the table on June 21 here, and nope. Amaury (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That is truly bizarre, for them not to be credited at all. In that case, I think a 'note' about this being a crossover, and the two Thundermans actors appearing uncredited, is in order... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Note added. Feel free to make any changes you think are appropriate.

Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H, what do you make of this bizarre scenario? Would you say it's common? Amaury (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That is extremely weird that the crossover actors didn't get a guest star credit at the very least. Looks like someone dropped the ball in the production. That should not have happened. I wonder if they will fix it on reruns or streaming. It should definitely be mentioned that those two actors appeared in the episode but if they didn't get credited that should be noted. Is there some other documentation for the episode that shows credits? Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: There's this, but it's the same one shown on TV. Credits begin at 45:11—choose 720p for quality. The only credits that show up for Phoebe and Max are stunt doubles. Amaury (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I broke down and bought it on iTunes - they are both in the opening credits listed as Also Starring after the main Henry Danger normal credits at 1:44 in the episode. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Make the best of it and enjoy! :) That one was certainly tricky, though. You wouldn't think of looking there except for writer and director credits. The only other show that I know has done that was the first season of Girl Meets World. Amaury (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

186.84.46.227

I knew that, I just wanted to know if he did too. And I don't care about the warning. I wanted to get him to listen and learn. Maybe you could take over, because I got a bit too snarky. Thanks 80.132.77.61 (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

New section added to user page

Apparition11, Cyphoidbomb, IJBall, Geraldo Perez, Nyuszika7H, MPFitz1968, I have added a new section to my user page: Wikipedia Colleagues. (Name idea provided by Apparition11.) We have been friends or friends and collaborators for so long, consider this a sort of present or thank you from me. I enjoy our friendships and working collaboratively, which means a lot to me, so thank you!

If you notice any mistakes or have any feedback on how it could be improved, please let me know. I'm currently considering merging cells with the same content; I just need to figure out how to do that. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. A nice gesture indeed, thank you for thinking of me. It's always nice to find cooperative, considerate, level-headed and conscientious editors such as yourself. Keep up the fine editing! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: You're quite welcome! And thank you for the kind words as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

about 125.201.4.35

thanks for reverting my talk page. that IP was one of float-IPs. so your warning may be not read by that person... :( --Alexander Poskrebyshev (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI closure reverted

Hi-- I'm not sure the ANI Should have been closed, but perhaps you know more. There was a question of a community vote on an interaction ban, wasn't there?HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I've reverted your good-faith closure; while one party has been blocked, the issue of whether or not to issue an interaction ban is still outstanding. Regards, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

HappyValleyEditor, The Wordsmith, thanks for the note. My thought process was that it seemed like that discussion just got all cluttered from having more than one issue being discussed: the possible sock-puppetry from Fouette, which later confirmed to be true, and the interaction ban... and perhaps something else I may have missed. As such, having a fresh discussion on the interaction ban if further issues arose I thought would help keep things organized. However, now that Fouette has been blocked, perhaps the existing discussion will flow more smoothly. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I am thinking that it will. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Elena of Avalor

Any chance you can add Elena of Avalor to your list of shows? It hasn't premiered yet, but will soon, and could probably use more eyes on it. I'm already having to deal with an IP who's insisting upon removing "extra spaces" from the article despite the fact that guidelines like MOS:HEAD specifically allow for them. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Certainly can. We all make a great team! Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: As a follow-up, I just realized this is an editor I've crossed paths with before. We've all had problems with him before: same exact behavior of removing what he perceives to be useless spacing and somewhat hostile attitude. See here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Ulch... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Legendary Dudas

Hey, Amaury – would you mind restoring the early formatting of the refs at this article? I'm actually one of those editors that's really(!) picky about things like ref date formats (e.g. "ISO dates" for accessdates) and "author styles", and choose them deliberately when I create articles, and really don't liked them changed without a very good reason or a strong consensus to do so (e.g. MOS:DATERET and WP:CITEVAR, and all that). Also, the Futon Critic ref was actually correct previously, and is incorrect in the format you put it in (i.e. it's not a Futon Critic "work", but is instead a Nickelodeon press release that Futon simply republished at his website...). Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: I'll go ahead and change the latter, but will hold off on the date format until I hear your response to my following response, if that's not a problem. I realize this sounds like a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but July 12, 2016—example date, obviously—is how it is on a lot of TV articles, at least those that I watch relating to Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, and Disney XD, so it comes down to consistency. However, the other way I look at it is where the show takes place. In this case, the show takes place in the US, so it makes sense to use US format. I don't know, this is where we both feel different, and at the same time, knowing how you work, you'll eventually stop watching the article, so that would make the point moot, in my opinion. For me, the other way just looks odd, at least in numbered form. I'm more than happy to work with you, of course, so I look forward to your response. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: Yes, 'mdy dates' for the reference 'publication date' parameters. But "ISO dates" are extensively used in many articles for ref 'accessdates' even when 'publication date' are 'mdy' or 'dmy' format – and this is full accounted for in MOS:DATEUNIFY, and even in the documentation to {{Use mdy dates}}: In general, the date format used for publication dates within references should match that used within the article body. However, it is common practice for archive and access dates to use the alternative ymd format. This usage is valid and is specifically mentioned at MOSDATE. In those cases, the archive and access date formats should not be altered when fixing dates. (emphasis mine) (My personal reasoning for why I like them to be different was covered by me previously, here.) Bottom line: MOS:DATERET applies here, regardless. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: I guess I can change it back, and I'll even give a funny edit summary to make you laugh. ;) Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Adventures in Babysitting (2016 film)

Hi Amaury, I don't know if you have this movie on your watchlist, but would be nice to have additional watchers. Had to revert a disruptive IP twice who was removing the surnames from the actors and actresses in the cast section (which I've warned them about), and I already am up to three reverts in less than an hour ... also reverted another IP regarding a fact in the movie plot. If you could help, it would be appreciated. Thanks. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Certainly. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

When I first saw your edit summary I was confused because I don't remember anyone dying in the movie, but from your edit I realized you meant dyeing. :P nyuszika7h (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: I spaced out. ;) Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I actually just saw that edit, and I'm thinking the reverted IP edit was correct, but I may have to watch the movie again to be sure. If I recall, Mrs. Cooper told Jenny specifically to not let Emily "do anything to" her hair (she ends up just dyeing it, but she attempted to give herself a haircut right before Jenny came over); regarding Katy, though no edit was made there, the instruction was to not let her go thru her mom's jewelry box, as opposed to just her wearing her mom's earrings. Won't touch the plot as it is right now, but I'll check the movie again. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, verified and my memory is on. At the 15:10 to 15:15 mark of the movie is when Mrs. Cooper is instructing Jenny about both Emily (she's not to do anything to her hair, which includes dyeing but not limited to that) and Katy (she's not to go thru her mother's jewelry box). Will make the edit to the plot accordingly. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Amaury. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:04, 19 July 2016 (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.

nyuszika7h (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

M-M-M-M-Make It Pop!

Amaury, you may find this of interest... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This is interesting... I added the special episode, and in the exact same minute, someone else added it to the Spanish Wikipedia. It may have been a coincidence though, as they used a slightly different color and also added the director (though unsourced). nyuszika7h (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

You mean WP:TVUPCOMING. And yeah, I got confused because there was a "Special (2015)" so "Special (2016)" seemed logical and I forgot about TVUPCOMING because it's not a regular season which has its own number. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Abusing Warning or Blocking Templates

I think this was rather unjustified, i gave Geraldo Perez ample prior warning before this LEVEL 1 vandalism warning template that their deletion of my work without 1) justified explanation, 2) tags (not simply deletion without asking/discussing civilly) drawing attention to their disagreement first in the article or 3) reasonable attempts at discussion in the talk page would be perceived as biting the newcomer/bullying/pressuring an editor into silence, and wikipedia's rules on wikipedia:vandalism seem to agree with me. Again, I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with people saying i'm wrong or telling me what I'm doing is wrong, and i'd even change/take down stuff if they talked to me civilly about it, but when editors gang up on me, tear down my work without even giving me a chance to address it (seriously, what's wrong with tags first???), call my work "pointless, meaningless, fancruft, etc." then i consider that to be unconstuctive even hurtful vandalism. Thank you very much for the advice and have a good day.

Eshumaitreyus (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Eshumaitreyus: Don't drag me into your drama; instead, discuss the issue on the article talk page with Geraldo Perez. I only reverted you because of the inappropriate warning you left on his talk page. He's a highly respected editor, and I'm sure he has his reasons; plus, I trust him completely. Although I see that there's a lot of edit warring from you and another editor on The Penguins of Madagascar, so I suggest you knock it off and discuss it on the talk page, as I already mentioned, or you will find yourself blocked. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

And for your information, my level two warning was completely appropriate. You already received a level one warning earlier today for disruption. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Lab Rats: Elite Force

I guess Muffin Dragon watched the episode on Watch Disney, as I see it has been released already. In this case it's just a few hours earlier so I don't think it's a big deal. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Sneaky vandals

Just some sneaky vandalism I found on the article of a writer for Between... this one is hilarious, and nobody noticed it in two months: "Sam Egan is a journalist, an alien, and a screenwriter and producer for television." (permalink) – nyuszika7h (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it has fewer than 30 watchers, I guess it will help the article for me to watchlist it (and you and others watching this talk page, feel free to watchlist it too, if you want). nyuszika7h (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Elena of Avalor ratings

Re: User:DJJAK47 – this user has also shown confusion before about the different types of ratings, e.g. "live" (or "same day" ratings), versus things like LIVE+1 and LIVE+7 ratings. So even if this user adds sourced ratings, they'll need to be checked to make sure they're not reporting something like LIVE+7 ratings instead of "same day" ratings. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Indeed. We only care about the original airing's ratings on the original channel. :) Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: User:Amaury - You should know that you should know that both episodes premiered back to back on both Disney Channel and Disney Junior at the exact same time on the exact same day in the US

DJJAK47 (talk | contribs) 00:04, 28 July 2016 (CT)

We don't care. We only care about the original airing on the original channel. Keep this up and you could face a block. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: User:Amaury - I know i shouldn't have retried to fix the edit but you should know that the first two episodes both received 2.22 million viewers because they premiered back to back on Disney Channel in the U.S. If you noticed on Showbuzz Daily, it has a 51 minute run-time. They were not rated separately because it also says 51 minutes on Disney Junior at the exact same time. You should also know that the episodes premiered in the U.S. on July 22, 2016. June 20th 2016 was the premiere date for Canada and Elena of Avalor is an American television series. I hope you don't ban me for sharing this information. ;) DJJAK47 (talk | contribs) 01:02, 28 July 2016 (CT)

Even if true (and I'm skeptical of the claim), it can be mentioned in the article text – but it simply does not belong in the ratings table. Amaury is 100% correct that the ratings table is for the original airing on the original channel only. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

There may be something fishy going on here. Ranze's edit where he restores DJJAK47's questionable content as well strikes me as... odd. Let's keep an eye on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: I know you're keeping an eye on this one. Just thought I'd drop you a note that Zap2it's episode guide has corrected the airdates for the first 2 episodes. So the earlier complaints about Zap2it's guide being "incorrect" are no longer valid. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: It depends, I guess. Zap2it generally doesn't correct information. For example, this is still incorrect. And that was the case as well for an episode of Jessie. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Plot tags and guest stars

I noticed you removed the blank line after the {{Plot}} tags in Lab Rats: Elite Force – that causes the guest stars to appear on the same line, though I'm not sure why, because a single blank line is supposed to be a no-op. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: It was appearing just fine for me. And I still disagree with the "and" signs. What's with suddenly re-adding them? Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not "suddenly", I just didn't bother changing it elsewhere yet. I don't want to get into another pointless argument with WPTV in the future, it's best to just document the credits clearly like they do elsewhere, and if column width is a problem, line breaks can still be used in addition to that. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: I guess that's a good point, though I would assume there wouldn't have been an issue had you not brought up this discussion. NOTE: I am NOT blaming you whatsoever for what happened. I'm just saying that they wouldn't have even noticed that had the new template not being brought up for review, but, again, I am NOT blaming you. I just want that to be perfectly clear. I'm the type of person who believes we shouldn't be quite so strict and that other articles don't set precedence on other articles, especially when you have a great editor like IJBall referring people to WP:RF as guidelines are meant to be just that—guidelines—not rules that need to be followed to the nitty-gritty. And if other people are just going to be hotheads and stubborn and not see that more than one way of doing something can still mean the same thing, then I'll argue with them until the day I die. And besides, K.C. Undercover had had line breaks for quite a while and it was never challenged for the longest time until other editors were indirectly made aware of it via that discussion. As such, there actually needs to be a consensus on including the story and teleplay labels. The current state of List of K.C. Undercover episodes and Stuck in the Middle is actually not agreed upon and I've actually being considering just changing them back for such a long time since there was never a consensus, weighing the pros and cons.

I'm going to bring up some points that were raised in that discussion I linked to earlier and this discussion since I never really said this when the discussions were going on.

• You can't make that decision about the credits. If they're credited in the episode with story and teleplay distinction, you need to make that apparent, because right now, just listing the writers is incorrect and false, and material that can be challenged. And I'll say now, I'm challenging it, because it is wholly incorrect. - Favre1fan93 - February 29, 2016 - 9:39 AM Wrong! It is not incorrect and it is not false. People who write the story and do the teleplay are still, at the core of the matter, writers; therefore, it is not incorrect to simply list them under the Written by column without additional labels.
• The distinction is between two writers collaborating on a particular script (names separated with "and"), or an established writing duo who always work together (names separated with "&"). A writing team is really an entity in of itself, like a partnership name. See WGA screenwriting credit system for more on this and why it matters. I would consider line breaks and commas equivalent to "and" but "&" means a single entity so should not be broken. - Geraldo Perez - February 29, 2016 - 11:23 AM In this case, some of the line breaks I had when I went through the episode list of Austin & Ally a long time ago were incorrect as well as earlier when I restored them. That's also some good advice. Make sure you're only using "&" when it's an actual single entity as GP said.
• What does having Conn on a line break below mean? I'm going to guess it means the credits were "Cat Davis & Eddie Quintana and Eileen Conn" but I should be guessing this info because I can't determine what the styling is telling me. Favre1fan93 - February 29, 2016 - 1:37 PM They were just looking for an excuse to be confused. It's pretty clear what it means. If you have, under the Written by column, Amaury 1 [break] Amaury 2 [break] Amaury 3, it means that the episode was written by Amaury 1, Amaury 2, and Amaury 3.
• Many cast members, even series regulars, have episode count limits. It keeps costs down. Exception usually go to the number 1 or 2 star of the show. - Bignole - March 2, 2016 - 9:38 PM Also incorrect. As GP has stated in other discussions, one of the perks of being in the starring cast is that you still get paid even if you don't appear in an episode, meaning that the "it keeps costs down" argument is therefore invalid.

@Nyuszika7H: Before you respond, you know that I'm not upset with you (or any of the others), right? I just want that to be clear. I'm just venting generally here about others' silly arguments from my view. I'm generally the type of person to get over things, but this is kind of taking a while. If push comes to shove, I guess I could always build a lot of article stuff in my sandbox to my liking and then I don't ever have to worry about babies trying to challenge me, you, and my other friends. Although, truth be told, I was actually beginning to consider removing the line breaks and using "and" or "&"—I know that kind of contradicts what I said earlier, but yeah—and adjusting the column widths accordingly. I'm starting to change a bit in that perhaps it's better-looking to have a column that's bit wide than a column that's a bit tall, because when a column is tall, in a way, it makes the other columns a bit weird in comparison. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, when there are like 4 writers for an episode, it can look weird if it's tall, especially if it's transcluded from a season page to the episode list article and therefore the episode summaries are not shown. Regarding "Written by", I understand your logic, but technically according to the WGA's guidelines, that credit applies to people who wrote both the story and the teleplay. Regarding the line break for K.C. Undercover, I can see how it can be unclear if you are looking for more than just the names of people who wrote the episode, and I was considering adding "Part 1" and "Part 2" or something but Geraldo Perez said it's not necessary. And yeah, many Disney and Nick episode list articles simply listed writers as "A, B, C & D" before they were converted to using line breaks... nyuszika7h (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: I'm actually a little confused now in regard to this: Regarding "Written by", I understand your logic, but technically according to the WGA's guidelines, that credit applies to people who wrote both the story and the teleplay. If you just have Written by, the credit is still applied to both or more of those people?

Regarding the line break for K.C. Undercover, I can see how it can be unclear if you are looking for more than just the names of people who wrote the episode, and I was considering adding "Part 1" and "Part 2" or something but Geraldo Perez said it's not necessary. On this one, I honestly consider that to fall under WP:TRIVIA. Unlike guest stars or absences, where there is plenty of user interest, knowing who wrote what (part) doesn't have as much interest and it would be trivial to include it. We only really care who wrote the episode, not who wrote what part. This is the case when you have an episode that wasn't originally intended to be a single episode like some others, but it was later merged for the final production. It's a single episode, but they keep the "Part 1" and "Part 2" (or more) in the credits, anyway. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I just remembered this. About the writing credits, "Written by: John Smith & Jane Doe" is equivalent to "Story by: John Smith & Jane Doe / Teleplay by: John Smith & Jane Doe". And as for the parts, I don't really think it's trivia, not any more than "&" vs. "and" and story/teleplay, though it would make the director column wider than usual (as the credits are also split for that), so it may be best to just use a horizontal line. It isn't really excessive detail and avoids confusion – I would mention it since it had split credits in the original broadcast, not just syndication/re-runs (unlike the case of Lab Rats vs. Mighty Med where they changed credits for syndication, though they did have some split credits too). nyuszika7h (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Nyuszika7H: You hit the nail on the head, and that's why I was so argumentative in that regard.

On the other matter, it depends, in my opinion. If it's something like the first and last two episodes of Digimon Tamers, where they premiered as hour showings (with commercials), then yes, having labels wouldn't hurt. Although in the case of Digimon Tamers, the names of the episodes were totally different, so it wouldn't necessarily be "part" labels. However, when you have some episodes, like that one from Lab Rats: Bionic Island, that when first planned were going to be two separate episodes, but they were later combined for an actual hour showing—not just two episodes put together like that Digimon example—then having "part" labels is unnecessary as the final product is a single episode. They had to combine the credits, so that's why you see "part" labels, but they are still not necessary as it is now a single episode, even sold as such. Now, if an episode were planned to be an hour showing from the get-go, then that obviously changes things and there will be no labels. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Girl Meets World - awards and nominations

I'm seeing you're reverting the added awards by User:Riarklematthews [4] and [5]. I checked the sources given for these additions, and it clearly identifies Girl Meets World in the listing for the award/nomination, even though the recipient is for an actor or other person involved in the show, so it's OK to keep in the list. (Probably good idea to still list show in the recipient column where it's not clear, or somewhere else to clarify that it's for the person's work on the show.) Went thru some discussion on that talk page a couple weeks ago about it: Talk:Girl Meets World#Awards and nominations section - actor awards being moved to their individual pages, what about writers, directors, etc.?. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Bizaardvark

Hi Amaury. I'm confused as to how you are indicating the change I made on the Bizaardvark page is disruptive. I'm not very skilled at making Wikipedia changes, I admit, but I was not doing anything inaccurate. In fact, I was trying to correct mistaken info on the page. "Johnathan McClain" is the actor on Bizaardvark. Not "Jonathan McClain." If you look at the episode, "First!" you'll see that. Also here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0565611/ His name comes first in the guest star credits at the end of the episode, and I was also just adding the "Recurring Characters" section because he has now been in two episodes, and it looks as though he'll be in several more. (He also appears as a recurring character on the Bizaardvark Wikia page. I don't want to disturb the process, just contribute. How do you feel it's disruptive? Thanks... Nipsyrusel (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nipsyrusel: Then fix the typographical error without re-arranging the credit order. And no, Johnathan McClain is not listed first, so I suggest you watch the credits again. You'll see Calum Worthy is listed first by himself followed by the rest of the guest stars. As for whether Johnathan McClain's character is recurring or not, he has still only appeared in two aired episodes. We don't base recurring status on future episodes, only aired episodes. And IMDb and Wikia aren't reliable and can't be used as sources. (IJBall, you may be interested in this discussion.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: Ah. I see. You're right. I just looked back and saw Calum's name on its own card. Johnathan was listed first in the pilot episode and then I saw it at the top of the other guest star list. My bad. I will correct the typo without changing the order. I can see how that was disruptive. And I also understand the thing about aired episodes. And while I won't argue about what counts as recurring, I will point out that other pages for shows with recurring characters start the counting at two episodes. (Because to recur, by definition, means to happen more than once.) So I was going to put Johnathan McClain and Jimmy Fowlie in the recurring category, as they have both now appeared more than once. But since you appear to be the main editor for this page, I will play by your rules. I also see you just changed the typo. Unless you object, I plan to link both of those actors to their own Wikipedia pages, since it appears to have been done inconsistently.