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 (~~~~).

Guest star credits for Legendary Dudas

I brought this up on Nyuszika7H's talk page a while ago—please see here!—and now that I've gone through and fixed the directing and writing credits, I wanted to revisit this and see what you, as well as Nyu, thought. This only includes episodes two through six which each featured two mini-episodes, but were still obviously one episode, as the first episode was just one big episode.

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

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

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

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

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

(Also two separate lines.) Thoughts? Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll invite MPFitz1968 and Geraldo Perez to this discussion as well and see if they have any feedback. As usual, I don't think they mind being solicited for feedback. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

What I'd do is check to see how Ned's Declassified... handled guest casting, as Ned was setup the same way: two 15-minute "segments" strung together to form one 30-minute "episode". IIRC, Ned just did one big "guest credits" at the end of the entire 30 minutes (though, with Ned episode guest stars did sometimes appear in both 15-min segments) – if Dudas handles guest-crediting the same way, then I think the first example would be the correct way to handle it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IJBall, I think so. I'm not totally understanding what you said. Do you mean Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide had one overall guest star listing during the end credits with no segment labels, but sometimes in the end credits they had the segment labels and showed the guest stars for each segment? (For example, segment one guest stars: A, B, C; segment two guest stars: A, T, Y.) Here's the aforementioned episode on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwBWxE9lutQ. Put it in full screen and skip to 20:50. Then just look closely for the mini-episode name and the guest starring. They're a bit hard to see, in part because they're not the official end credits, just generic ones while the episode is playing to have more time for commercials, I think, but I think they're easy enough to make out what they are. If you have a cable/satellite login, though, you can skip to 21:57 here: http://www.nick.com/legendary-dudas/videos/un-film-de-duda-homeroom-wars-s1-ep5-full-episode/ Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

My recollection is that Ned didn't "tie" guest stars to either "segment", but just had a guest cast listing in the end credits that threw all the guest stars from both segments together without specifying segment. It sounds like Dudas does actually list guest cast by segment, so it's different from Ned in that way. As a result, I'm thinking the "2a/2b" episode listing might be the way to go... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

2a/2b form looks reasonable to do here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

We would just need to still keep them as one main entry since they are each one episode, just made up of two segments, if that makes sense, supported both by Amazon and the fact and there's only one set of ratings for each episode on Showbuzz Daily, excluding the first one since it was one approximately 22-minute segment. Just need to figure out how to do this with the table as I've never done it before, haha! Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

What the IP did on this version from December 25, 2016 (diff), of List of Henry Danger episodes was wrong, but something like this would work for Legendary Dudas. We would just need to have an additional HR to have two titles within the same row. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This is mostly unrelated to the current discussion, but I have to say I dislike the use of the 'HR' hard rule lines over the use if "1–2" in episodes tables most of the time. Unfortunately, there are some WP:TV editors who seem to be pushing the use of this 'HR' stuff, but I really prefer the use of "1–2" the vast majority of the time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

IJBall, Geraldo Perez, I've made an example here: User:Amaury/sandbox#Legendary Dudas Episode Table. I'm not sure how it would be done without the HR tags because they are indeed single episodes that just happen to contain two segments, so the air date, production code, and viewers are all "one" and belong to the same episode and don't need to be distinguished. The numbering, titles, directors, and writers are all that need to be distinguished between one segment and the other. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

That's basically fine, and is an example of using the 'hard rule' lines correctly – but I would not go with "2-A" listing you have there: I think "2a" or "2A" is fine. But I still think just going to a full on 2a/2b "split" listing a la List of Breadwinners episodes is the better way to go here – I don't think it's "undue" or ignoring the sourcing to do list this show that way... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I've tweaked my example and added what I believe is your example. I guess my only issue with that is that we're duplicating information—for example, two instances of August 6, 2016. I mean, there is duplicate information in other cases as well, such as when Liv and Maddie premiered two episodes for its third season, but there it was two different episodes, so it just, I don't know, feels different to me there. Here it's one episode with two segments. I suppose we can wait and see what the others think. Although I will say that your way makes it more clear who guest stars in which segment. Even with the HR tags using my way, it's not totally clear who guest stars in which segment. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep – definitely prefer the second example. If we go that way, there just needs to be text added above the table in the 'Episodes' section, stating in words that the show aired as two 15-minute segments (or "chapters") bundled together into one 30-minute episode... I notice that the Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide article, etc. make no mention of this in the article – I'll have to try to add text to that effect when I get the chance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Either way for the article works but the actual end credits are the official credits so would be my preference. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: I agree! Should follow the authoritative credits which is also why I brought this up. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

If we decide the second way is preferable, then I wonder if "splitting" the episodes list into "2a/2b" episode entries might be the better way to go?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't see an issue with that, personally. It wouldn't exactly match The Futon Critic and Zap2it, but I think episode lists for cartoons like SpongeBob do the same thing even though it may not be like that in the sources. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

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

New suspicions

MPFitz1968, Callmemirela, Sro23

I have a strong hunch this editor is our good ol' "friend." We'll find out if and when they revert me with a combative or lack of an edit summary. I'm keeping an eye on it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the three articles they have gone to so far have been ones you recently edited, Amaury, so that thought was going thru my mind, too. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Pretty much a lock after an IP related to ones we have for "them" reverted your reverts. Added that IP to the list. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added Dudas iscariot to the most recent Orchomen report at WP:SPI – it's clear that this is another Orchomen sock. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

As is this Burner Lee fellow. I'll add them as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Poor Orchomen – no friends: nothing else to do but waste his time here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) LOL! Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't like this person either, but saying they have no friends, etc. won't do any good. Sro23 (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Meh. My sympathy for Orchomen expired long ago. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sro23: Noted. Thank you for the friendly and non-template note. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

BTW, a belated thanks to NeilN for protecting my Talk page – it's my personal policy never to request protection of my Talk page, but in this case I believe the level of disruption justified it. (If there are any IP editors looking to contact me over the next 24 hours, best to grab me at an article Talk page, I suppose...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you want an info message at the top, edit my talk page and look at the #ifeq code. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

And just FYI, when protection expires, that message will turn invisible when this page is edited or purged. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that's what the "#ifeq" code was for! This is a very cool feature – thanks again! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: That's a pretty cool feature, I must say. It's basically like having an IF conditional in a spreadsheet. If protection exists, display this message; if protection doesn't exist, don't display this message. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Yes, but don't expect it to disappear the second protection expires. The page needs to be "updated" via an edit, purge, or automatic server cache update. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Makes perfect sense! Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

For any editors that don't know, adding "?action=purge" on to the end of any Wikipedia page URL will allow you to purge that page. (Luckily, I've known how to do this for a while – it ends up being a useful skill for editing Portal:Current events!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Shouldn't you just be able to go here on any page? http://i.imgur.com/MJYBXhP.png Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You must have added a gadget to get that "Page" menu, 'cos I don't have that myself... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Preferences -> Gadgets -> Appearance -> Add a "Purge" option to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

List of [series] episodes: Episode list -> Episodes

Is this something you were still planning on doing, at least with the articles in my sandbox? I figured you should be the one to do it since you started the whole thing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

If I think of it, I do eventually plan to do that. But if you want to get the jump on me, feel free to make those changes yourself! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

All right, I'll get the ones I'm watching. I just didn't want you to feel like I was stealing your plan. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello IJBall,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 826 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Girl Meets World characters#Morgan Matthews character description

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Girl Meets World characters#Morgan Matthews character description. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

Recurring cast

I think we can definitely say Shel Bailey and Bubba Ganter are recurring. List of Game Shakers episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, definitely – appearing in nearly all of the episodes pretty much qualifies you! (Ditto Sikowitz on Victorious, etc.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Crashletes and Jagger Eaton's Mega Life's current seasons almost finished

I just updated List of Crashletes episodes#Season 2 (2016–17) and Jagger Eaton's Mega Life#Episodes with episode entries. I can honestly see both series being renewed for third and second seasons, respectively. Sports and documentaries with a mix of sports are quite good categories for any network to have, but especially Nickelodeon since it has that World Wide Day of Play event and focuses on wanting kids to go outside a play, so it could always use series like that. Despite the ratings seeming low, that's to be expected for those types of series, and, while I know this isn't a reliable source, I can honestly believe it when they say Jagger Eaton's Mega Life started out very strong. In my opinion, both Crashletes and Jagger Eaton's Mega Life have been receiving fair ratings, including 18–49, though I'm thinking they, as well as Disney Channel, probably—although I'm not 100% certain—pay more attention to the 12–34 range, even for their sitcoms because it is a kids' network. The only significant break both series have had was not having any new episodes after November 14 and 15 of last year until January 8 of this year, but that's normal for all networks due to the holidays, so it doesn't really count, in my opinion. Both series have been airing pretty consistently, and I know that's one reason you gave as to why you think Lab Rats: Elite Force is likely canceled as it went from having a long break after April 13 until July 25 and then another long break until September 10, all last year. Although generally speaking for any series, I will note that that doesn't necessarily mean anything as look at the scheduling that's been going on with Henry Danger's third season, and we know it's coming back for a fourth season. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hunter Street

Now that we have more than one genre—comedy from Variety and sitcom and adventure from Screener—I'm having trouble trying to think of how to revise the lead to reflect that with wording that's not awkward. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"Comedy adventure" series is just fine. The bigger issue is that Hunter Street has now disappeared from the Variety reference (my guess is that once you become a "series about to air" it gets dropped from the Variety list...). So now we're down a WP:RS again, unless there's an archive version of that Variety ref... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

There is, but it doesn't work as it says no results: http://web.archive.org/web/20170221105924/http://variety.com/cable-tv-pilot-season-list-network-scorecard-7/ So it is probably just better to use sitcom and adventure from Screener: http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/hunter-street/EP02632767?aid=zap2it Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm one of the creators of the show . Hunter Street is a Dutch production, the entire show was written and shot in the Netherlands/Amsterdam with a Dutch crew, back-to-back with the 'De Ludwigs'. Even most of the actors are (partially) Dutch. The country of origin is therefore The Netherlands, not the US. Reintws (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Reintws. I believe you. The issue is that we need what's known as a Reliable source reporting that it's a Dutch production. Unfortunately, IMDb is generally not considered a "reliable" enough source for information like this. Would you happen to know of anything else out there that reports the Dutch nature of this show's production. Even a Dutch-language source could be used for this, as long as it confirms the series' Dutch production. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Here are two articles about 'De Ludwigs' that also mention the production of the English-language version (still untitled at the time): The second one is behind a paywall, unfortunately. And our names should indeed be easy to verify by checking the opening credits (I read your other comment on Amaury's page). Reintws (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I think the first of those can be used. I'll go ahead and add the info back, using this Dutch-language source. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Re: List of Liv and Maddie characters

If you could temporarily watch it and keep an eye on it, that would be great (see page history). I'm not going to be available in a bit, and I won't really be fully available until around 12:30 PM. I have high suspicions this is Orchomen again, making incorrect edits such as "the pair reveal," where it should correctly be "the pair reveals." That would be correct if this were in the series in the UK, but it's not. I've already added to the SPI. Mentioning MPFitz1968, Callmemirela, and Sro23 as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I just got back after a couple of days off. This one is already on my watchlist, probably due to a previous request for me to do so. If it's Orchomen, hopefully there's a quick block to put an end to this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Kendra Timmins

Hi there, I would like to apologize and I have avoid an edit war. This is an apology message. I have stop edit warring for now and I let go. I am here right now now cause I am very sorry. I know that the Canadian link is redundant. If you read my apology message please accept my apology. Could you warn User:Onel5969 for never adding links for Actress and Canadian is redundant and avoid an edit war. So please forgive me and It won't happen again. Thanks. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the acknowledgement. I think Onel5969 will pursue no further action if you keep to your pledge to stop any further restoring your recent edits. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing

It must be super hard! Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, sometimes it is!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Hi IJBall. Have you considered running for adminship recently? From a look at your contributions and stats I think you'd make a good candidate and could do some productive work with the toolset if interested. I notice, however, that you're "ambivalent" about adminship, and saw that you'd put it off for the time being last year. Let me know your thoughts. Best, Sam Walton (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Hello! Yeah, I'm definitely still ambivalent about it, for a variety of reasons. What I can tell you is that, for the foreseeable future, I'm quite happy in my role as an "experienced editor", and now that I'm a Page mover (a toolset I really wanted, and am very glad that I have now!) I see no need for me to apply for additional tools – while I could see me being a decent page protector, and I could do AfD closures (and WP:PROD work), I really don't want the responsibility for blocking, and don't want to pick up some of the "hassle" that comes with Admining. So, for right now, I'd say that I'm not interested in running. But it's definitely possible that down the road I'll change my mind, and want to do more work on the maintenance side, and may run for RfA at that point... Anyway, thanks for the interest, and for thinking of me! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, no worries. Let me know if you change your mind :) Sam Walton (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

A good project for you

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

Hunter Street premiere date

So numbers for Saturday are finally in, a day late due to technical difficulties with the Nielsen company—Saturday and Sunday finals are usually posted around 6:30 AM PT on Tuesdays, unless there are holiday delays—and I noticed Hunter Street is in the list because a sneak peek did air after the KCAs for the last 30 minutes, I think. Showbuzz Daily shows it occupying a 26-minute slot. In guides, however, it was still shown as the KCAs taking up a two-hour slot, so that wasn't immediately clear. I think it was first episode, "The New Hunter," but I'm not sure. We'll see if there's an entry or not for the 7:00 PM showing on Monday, as reruns aren't posted, whenever Monday finals are posted—usually posted around 1:00 PM PT on Tuesdays, but they're also delayed. Once we figure out which episode was used for the sneak preview—usually the first one, but you never know—we should change the premiere date to March 11. Just like with other series, such as Austin & Ally which, according to Disney Channel, had a sneak peak on December 2, 2011, and later "officially premiered" on December 4, 2011, the first episode still aired on December 2, 2011, and that's what we should document, regardless of how Disney Channel labeled the first two episodes. Same thing here. I just want to wait, though, until we know for sure which episode was used for the sneak preview. Again, usually the first, but you never know. http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-150-saturday-cable-originals-network-finals-3-11-2017.html Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, no need to wait. The Futon Critic has it listed as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, yeah, that's odd, as my cable guide definitely did not show an episode of Hunter Street on Saturday night. But I think that Showbuzzdaily report can be used as a cite to source a March 11 premiere date. And, yes – it pretty much has to be the pilot episode that was shown, and not episode #2... OK, use Futon to source the date as well, then. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the other reason I wanted to wait, but I didn't realize The Futon Critic also had March 11 listed, which is used for our column references, so we're good there. And yeah, the KCAs were shown taking a two-hour slot, including commercials, but it was more, like, an hour and thirty minutes, and I guess they just didn't bother to show that. I don't remember if the same thing happened with last year's KCAs when the School of Rock series premiere was the lead-out. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't feel it's necessary to source the air date itself. The Futon Critic is already used as a column reference, so it's kind of redundant to have it again there, and Showbuzz Daily is already used for the viewers source, and, obviously, there couldn't be ratings there unless an episode has already aired on that date. The column references are sufficient, and it's really no different than with, again, List of Austin & Ally episodes as well as List of Make It Pop episodes, both of which had "previews" and "official premieres," but, really, the "previews" were the premieres, or any series in general, really, even those that didn't have "previews." I'm also trying to think of some other Nickelodeon and Disney Channel sitcoms that did this, but I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Screener also changed the date to March 11 at one point, but then changed it back for some reason. I won't remove the sources... for now. TROLOLOLOL Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The reason I think explicitly referencing the date in this case is a good idea is because the premiere was so "buried" that it didn't even show up in cable guides. Also, the other referencing at the article explicitly states a March 13 premiere date. (The only question here is whether we want to add a 'note' to the March 11 date to note that it was a "special preview" ahead of the "official premiere" date of March 13 – if we decide to go the 'note' route, then the note can probably replace the referencing. Otherwise, I'd advise leaving the referencing...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hm. I would think The Futon Critic, which does have March 11 listed, would be sufficient. We have sources that say March 13, yes, but just like the situation we had at Talk:List of Henry Danger episodes#Number of episodes for second season, where what was planned with regard to the episode count for season two isn't actually what happened, things can change, so it's the same thing here, I'd like to think. We now have The Futon Critic with newer/more up-to-date information—March 11—reflecting what actually happened. I'm sure we had sources saying December 4, 2011, for Austin & Ally, April 6, 2015, for Make It Pop, and March 11, 2016, for Stuck in the Middle, but what actually happened was different because of the "previews" which were really just the premieres: December 2, 2011, March 26, 2015, and February 14, 2016. I remember the Austin & Ally series overview used to have two dates for its season one premiere date as seen in this version of the episode list article, but GP replaced it with just December 2, 2011, in the following edit when he updated the table to use the template as that is when the series premiered, regardless of whether it was advertised as a "preview" or not. I'll invite the rest of the group and see if they have any feedback because you can never have too much feedback, right? Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Why we pretty much say "First aired" instead of "Premiere". First aired is descriptive and what we normally want. Premiere is a term that normal English would consider a synonym of "First aired" but has been usurped by channel marketing types for hype purposes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H

So I'm not quite sure how to handle this as it's never happened before. Ctrl + F Hunter Street here. As "previews" are the first episodes and first airings per GP above, when they officially "premiere" later, they are still listed as reruns by the network which aren't posted on Showbuzz Daily. For example, Make It Pop "previewed" on March 26, 2015, but do you see an entry for Make It Pop on April 6, 2015, when it "officially premiered"? Nope. However, it doesn't look like this was the case this time for some reason. I'm wondering if this one of those times we can make an exception and list the ratings for the first episode for both Friday and the 7:00 PM Monday showing? Unlike here on Game Shakers, where what people were doing was totally and truly unnecessary. Please advise. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The other "issue" here will seem to be the Ratings section. We have a 20-episode season, but we will be listing 21 entries in the calculations by the time it ends even though there weren't 21 episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

FTR, this is exactly why I am in favor of 'noting' all instances of "special previews" before "premieres" in episode tables. There have been a number of examples of this lately – Van Helsing (TV series), Falling Water (TV series), etc. I know some in WP:TV don't think it's necessary to note these circumstances, but I feel strongly that we do need to note them. When I get a chance, I'll probably go ahead and add a 'note' about this to Hunter Street (replacing the refs I added before when I do). As for the ratings part, your whole concern points up why this whole situation is fraught with more complications than first appears – for the episode ratings, I'd be tempted to either just quote the ratings for the "true premiere" (i.e. not the "preview"), or I'd be tempted to take the sum(!) of the ratings for both the preview and the premiere! (Either way, that will probably have to be 'noted' as well...) Or you could just list them both! (which may require using the {{hr}} formating that I dislike ... ) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I still don't feel it's necessary, IMO. If we didn't have The Futon Critic reporting March 11, then yeah, I'd say source the air date itself, but we do, so it becomes no different than any other air dates where the column source is sufficient. Anyway, the article is more up-to-date with its ratings, but I'm still working on something with regard to dealing with this minor dilemma, so try not to edit it if you can. c: Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

What I'm saying the fact that there was a "special preview" before the official "premiere" date needs to be noted. You can see how this was done at Van Helsing (TV series) and Falling Water (TV series) for examples. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I feel like that's good and should be sufficient. That way we aren't cluttering the date cell for that episode and the date itself is also evenly aligned with all the other dates. It's also the more standard way of noting things of that nature from experience, and thinking about it now, it couldn't hurt to make similar notes for Austin & Ally, Make It Pop, and Stuck in the Middle. Those just weren't as problematic because their reruns were listed as reruns by the network, unlike with Hunter Street. Although in the case of Austin & Ally, that was before Showbuzz Daily started posting numbers and I believe ratings are currently being sourced to Screener. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Accusation

No, I am not Speedy135. Do not accuse without providing proof.Divide223 (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)