User talk:BoogerD

Yellowstone David Brown

In the first episode of Yellowstone, David is credited as "David Brown," but in all subsequent episodes, he is credited correctly as "David Cleveland Brown." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.198.111 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Double checked. That is inaccurate. He is credited as David Brown in every appearance. – BoogerD (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dirty John (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patrick Gallagher (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#Initials

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#Initials. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48

Proposed deletion of File:JCSLICSoundtrack.png

The file File:JCSLICSoundtrack.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in Jesus Christ Superstar Live in Concert#Soundtrack. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:TributeToASuperstar.png

The file File:TributeToASuperstar.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-free poster cover being used in a decorative manner in Jesus Christ Superstar Live in Concert#Other media. Non-free poster art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about events, etc. they are used to promote, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the poster itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album poster anywhere in the article, which means that removing it wouldn't be detrimental to the reader's other standing.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Future Man (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Weaver (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about your Raising Dion Edit

Hi BoogerD,

I noticed that on the Raising Dion page you made an edit on Dec. 17, 2018; removing the credit to the illustrator of the comic book (Jason Piperberg) that the show is based on. I was curious as to why? The edit was correct, as you can see if you go to the illustrator's website.

TheBatarang (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi! It was reverted because Piperberg was not mentioned at all in any of the various news reports announcing the series unlike Liu. It is currently unknown if Piperberg will be credited on-screen for the series. Until such a time when a confirmation of his credit within the series can be confirmed and sourced, he is not mentioned within the article. – BoogerD (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I can understand that reasoning to a point, in regards to Piperberg being credited on the show itself. However the edit you removed was specifically crediting him as the Illustrator on the comic book which is indisputable. His name is on Raising Dion's main website where he is credited as the illustrator. Piperberg's website is also proof of this, as it has the pages in his portfolio. Additionally, the website where you can buy the issue of the comic, credits Piperberg alongside Liu. In regards to Piperberg's name not being mentioned in various news reports, it's true that some do not, however there are many that do. Here are some links: Express.co, Deadline, Inquisitr, Nerdist, Even on the original Raising Dion Youtube video on Liu's youtube channel, Piperberg is credited as the illustrator in the description. There are others as well. Just Google Raising Dion Piperberg. So, although it's true that Piperberg has not been directly involved in the Netflix series, doesn't he still deserve credit as the artist of the comic book, which is mentioned in the article? TheBatarang (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I must say, you make a compelling point and cited numerous sources to justify what you were saying. As it is yet unknown whether Piperberg will be credited with a "based on" credit for the series, it is still appropriate to omit him from the lead and infobox. However, you actually pointed out sources that the article itself already uses and, as such, I've gone ahead and rewritten a portion of the development subsection with Piperberg now mentioned. Further mentions of Piperberg within the article can be addressed at some point in the future once more information is known regarding the series. – BoogerD (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I do still personally think that since the lead sentence mentions the comic that it would be appropriate for Piperberg to be given a credit, but I can understand your reason for omission and appreciate his inclusion in the development section, at least. TheBatarang (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Valley of the Boom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barry Moore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Year ranges on templates

Actually, there probably needs to be a wider discussion about these. The two issues are: 1) some editors consider the year ranges in templates "trivia" that should just be removed, and 2) should the date ranges be the full "4-digit" ranges or not? (And I think I pointed to the wrong discussion on this one – I know there's already been a discussion about this somewhere...) On issue #1, I think including them is harmless, though I don't feel strongly about it. On issue #2, I do think they should be the full "4-digit" ranges as there's really not a good justification for doing the "shortened" 2-digit date ranges. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that a wider discussion needs to be held. The discussion you linked to has a few editors, such as Geraldo Perez, pointing out that MOS:DATERANGE actually makes an exception for situations like these and that using two digits keeps the template more "compact". The discussion had a great deal of comments but it doesn't appear that a consensus was truly reached. – BoogerD (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

This may be one of those discussions in which no firm consensus is ever reached. But it probably does need to be brought up at someplace like WT:TV so a wider discussion can at least be held. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that a discussion like that would seem warranted. Opinions regarding this would effect numerous templates/navboxes/etc. My only concern is that you'd end up with another discussion, like the one you linked to, that starts off strong and productive but eventually peters out as the editors involved don't immediately come to an agreement or get distracted/pulled away by other concerns on the site. But, well, such is the way things are on Wikipedia a lot of the time. – BoogerD (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

119.224.3.221

This person is clearly disruptive editing. He or she claimed it's common practice to not round below millions. There is absolutely no rule on MOS:TV and WT:TV. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

He or she is the same person claimed initials require periods over by Manifest (TV series), yet, most editors disagree. In fact, most editors agree that names should be written how they are credited on screen. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

They're a known problematic editor that will happily edit war to push through their changes, be very careful when engaging. It may very well be easy to mistakenly trigger the WP:3RR thing. I had an issue with them over on the Suits Season 8 pages months back. And they went a little crazy on the Rise page a while back(See page history of that show). People like Ijball & Amaury & Alexthewhovian(Now Alex 21) have also had encounters with them. Esuka (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Esuka: Thanks, for the heads up. — YoungForever^(talk) 06:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: 119.224.3.221 has threaten to report me vandalizing the List of Teachers (2016 TV series) episodes article. I was not vandalizing the article at all. He or she is the one disruptive editing the article. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I too have had issues with this editor. Not sure what to do with them. They are on like my shortlist of 5 or so editors that just prove to consistently be a headache with little upside to their presence here. – BoogerD (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The editor is known to force upon rules/guidelines that do not even exist on MOS:TV and WT:TV and make BOLD edits just because he or she just don't like it without gaining a local consensus. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

You'd be better off just reverting them on your talkpage and ignoring. You haven't broken any rules and there's enough evidence out there to get a retroactive ban against them. I believe that will probably happen at some point this year, they'll no doubt irritate enough people on a more active Wiki page that their past actions will be brought up. Esuka (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate is at it again

There's trouble happening to me right now: NinjaRobotPirate just blocked me because I vandalized numerous television series articles again and you have only tried to clean up after me last year. Joeymiskulin (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: @NinjaRobotPirate: – BoogerD (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on, so don't ask me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: You blocked this editor a month ago (check your talk archives and their talk archives) after I dropped a message on your talk page. Their block just ended and this is the first edit they've made since. – BoogerD (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Black Monday

Showtime are doing a panel for the show tomorrow at the TCAs, perhaps you'll hear something about a renewal or something noteworthy. You can see details here [1] Esuka (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Consistently one of my favorite people on Wikipedia. God bless you, Esuka! Thanks for pointing this out! – BoogerD (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks like Showtime announced pretty much everything but a renewal. But oh well, I guess that will happen later. Esuka (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Games People Play (TV series)

FYI, I've requested an undo on the moves related to Games People Play (TV series). Firstly, Games People Play (TV show) isn't a disambiguator supported by WP:NCTV. More importantly, you didn't do anything about fixing all the internal links (Special:Whatlinkshere/Games People Play (TV series)) to the 1980s show. Very disappointing. -- Netoholic @ 18:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey Netoholic. First, let me start off by saying that my intentions were never to move an article to an unsupported title or to ignore fixing internal links. With all of the articles I have contributed to, I hope you will look at the breadth of my work on here and understand that my edits were done in good faith. To get to the matter at hand: You are 100% right that (TV show) is not a disambiguator supported by WP:NCTV. What I had intended to move the page to was Games People Play (TV program), which is supported by WP:NCTV. I had seen IJBall make a number of these sort of moves to shows that were not series (with serialized narrative elements) but were rather simply television programs. Obviously Games Divas Play can no longer stay at that title as it is now inaccurate. So now I am wondeirng what you think she be done going forward. With Games People Play (TV series): the article could either be moved Games People Play (TV program) or simply deleted. The only reason I suggest deletion is that the article is over 10 years old and never once has possessed a single citation/source. Doesn't appear to be all that notable when a single source cannot be procured. But I understand that many would disagree with a full on deletion, so I'd be curious as to your thoughts on that. Once Games People Play (TV series) is moved to a new title than Games Divas Play be moved to a more correct title as well. Sorry it took me so long to get back to you but I've been feeling under the weather today. Get back to me as soon as it is convenient for you. – BoogerD (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree that Games Divas Play likely should be moved (although the news of the name change is very recent). This is why I suggest you hold a full RM discussion covering both article moves. I think an AFD of the 1980 show wouldn't succeed for delete, and indeed either an AFD or an RM will give visibility to fix the sourcing. As far as the naming, we often use additional disambiguation because "##### (TV series)" and "##### (TV program)" are terms which are often interchangeable in the minds of many readers (and editors) unfamiliar with the specifics of our naming conventions. I suspect what we should end up with is a Games People Play (2019 TV series) and Games People Play (1980 TV program) situation, but there is also some investigation necessary to tell if the 1980 is serialized or not enough to use (1980 TV series) instead. -- Netoholic @ 21:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

IJBall, I've noticed that you have been heavily involved with the moving of television articles in the last year. Could you possibly take a look at the discussion above and give your two cents? – BoogerD (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Several issues here. First, I agree that the 1980s TV show article should be at Games People Play (TV program) (or, arguably even at Games People Play (game show)), as it is clearly not a "TV series" in any sense of the word, with continuing narrative elements or contestants "continuing" from episode to episode – so it's a "TV program" as per WP:NCTV. Second, I agree that the upcoming BET TV show looks to be a bona fide "TV series" as per WP:NCTV. However, there's a problem here – the lede of that article claims the series "is set to premiere in 2019 on BET", but there is nothing in the article that I see that supports that claim.

So, now we have a problem – both TV shows are American, so we can't use "by country" disambiguation to distinguish them. So, we're stuck with "by year" disambig. So, I'd argue the first should be moved to Games People Play (1980 TV program). The second should then be moved to Games People Play (2019 TV series) but only after a source is provided to verify a 2019 premiere date...

Now, does all of this necessitate a WP:RM? I'm a little sour of RM's of late, and the moves I've suggested are all supported by WP:NCTV, so if it is certain that the BET series is now titled Games People Play, then I'd argue that, no, a WP:RM is not "required" in this case, and I'd just move the articles as I suggested, provided it can be confirmed that the BET series actually will debut in 2019. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply IJBall. A quick double check showed that this Deadline Hollywood article ([2]) confirms both the name change and that the series will premiere in 2019. – BoogerD (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Pose cast credits - need help!

Hi, can you take a look here and give us your opinion on the matter? thank you! --Walkabout86 (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)