User talk:Geraldo Perez

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Production code problems for Disney Channel series on The Futon Critic

@MPFitz1968: With Zap2it's issues resolved now, what do you can could be the issue with The Futon Critic? This one is even more bizarre as it seems to only be affecting Disney Channel series, at least in terms of the networks I watch. It's not site-wide like Zap2it's issue was. I still never heard back and it's still not fixed. Amaury • 17:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:DE from IPv6

There's been a lot of WP:DE coming from IP(s)v6 editing from 2601:* today. Dunno if they are all related, or if anything can be done, but the pattern seems to be the same – messing with episode tables, episode numbering, series overview tables, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Isn't "Let it Go" a meme?

There's an entire article of the song on Know Your Meme. Plus there are so many videos of it all over the Internet. How is it not a meme? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebb1993 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ebb1993: It is not mentioned in the article as such so WP:CATVER isn't met. Not really relevant what is stated outside the article in other locations for what categories the article is included in. If this were notable and well referenced, there would be mention of it in the article, then a category could be added. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you make a section about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebb1993 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ebb1993: I personally don't think it matters and is trivia as most "memes" tend to be and I doubt there are reliable sources that support it as being notable. The article covers the popularity of the song quite well. Editors up to this point saw no need to go beyond that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Then I'll just be done with it. It's still a meme regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebb1993 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ebb1993: I don't own the article. As long as the information is relevant to the topic and sufficiently sourced - see WP:IRS - it may be OK to stay in the article. I and others will need to see what you add to see if it is appropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Danielle Fishel

Geraldo, shouldn't this edit be reverted on the basis of WP:ABOUTSELF? I don't have an Instagram account, so I can't check the comment that goes along with it, but it's from Fishel's verified account, so it seems like it's legitimate... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on the reversion? – She's still simply speaking for herself and saying she got married. OTOH, I suspect there must be a secondary source out there somewhere for this... --IJBall (contribs • talk)

@IJBall: I think so too. She is saying she is married and to whom, personal information about herself. Best to get a secondary source if someone is getting picky about this one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done – a high quality secondary source was easy to find for this, so this should never have been an issue in the first place (i.e. should never have been reverted, as per WP:SOFIXIT....). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Why was my edit reverted?

My edit on the article List of iCarly characters keeps getting reverted, even though I cited proof. WowSoCool112 (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@WowSoCool112: You removed proof, a cite that supported the information you removed, and added instead your own personal opinion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Also the police message likely didn't have her full name as generally a full legal name includes a middle name, which that didn't, and extremely rare that someone doesn't have a middle name. They just used what she was commonly known as. Also this is original research and we have a direct reference that supports Carlotta so we go with that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Frozen Fever

It turns out Hans leaving Anna to die and speeding up what happened to her was just as bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.141.200 (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Elsa was the one to cause the deadly curse on Anna, not Hans. What Hans did was evil but not the same thing and he couldn't save her anyway no matter what he did as it turned out. Anna saved herself. Hans actively tried to kill Elsa and Anna saved herself by saving Elsa from that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Very well. I will point out if Anna wasn't cursed, Hans might have planned a little accident for her too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.141.200 (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

WDSMP note on 20th Century Fox film pages

Before you start listing your argument against doing this, I’ll add this information for your review and response.

"This film was released by 20th Century Fox, despite Disney’s purchase of them" (this’ll apply only to films released under a specific timeframe)

I understand if you’ll disagree (I hope you don’t, but won’t be disappointed if you do happen to disagree with including that note at the bottom of the page, to not disturb 20th Century Fox‘s position in the infobox, if you can specify either a year or time where including WDSMP in the distributor note on the info box won’t be invalid (my suggestion would be maybe anything after a year has passed since the acquisition or when Disney flat out says 20th Century Fox will no longer appear as the credited distributor, despite them being the production company and wanting control over how to handle their copyright notice, Disney will distribute their films, even if that’s not what you want (as you clearly seem like someone who feels that 20th Century Fox‘s legacy would be ruined if Disney added WDSMP this, WDSMP that) just please give this a long-term thought and potentially try to offer up a compromise to this whole situation as I don’t want to see you annoyed with the anonymous accounts and their insistence of WDSMP inclusion, just please provide a compromise for them so that they’ll stop their inclusion of WDSMP in the info box. I know that’s what you want and that is one solution to the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.163.113 (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Articles need to conform to Wikipedia policy and information in the article should matches references and the credits as a primary source, I care nothing about Fox's legacy, only that the article reflects what we can source. That Disney chooses to label Fox productions with Fox or Searchlight label as distributor is Disney's choice and that is how Fox/Disney creates the films credits and one sheet, what we put in the article. The infobox is supposed to be a compact and concise summary. A footnote with an unsourced statement is inappropriate. A hidden note may be an appropriate way to head off editing issues. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I would consider the hidden note a good alternative, but I have doubt that anonymous accounts or users will listen to that advice, either way I think we do need some indication of Disney’s purchase on those pages, just not in a way that disrupts the subject or subject-related material on that page. 184.54.163.113 (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

They are just as likely to ignore an open footnote too but a hidden note will notify edit reviewers that the edit that goes against the note should be reverted. If we have sourced information that shows for that particular film what Disney's internal process is for distribution of the film, that WDSMP is distributing said film under a Fox label, that should go in the release section of the article as interesting and notable release data about the film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The only film (not proven yet) that I potentially see being labeled as a WDSMP release in the credits is Spies in Disguise, the reason for this is that Disney has posted content about the film on social media pages (that may or may not be considered a valid or reliable resource), but that doesn’t come out until December.