User talk:Amaury/2016/September

2016 Archive Index: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

School of Rock (TV series)

I don't think it makes sense to use the series name for |website_title=. People are going to look at it and see "External links – School of Rock". That's pretty meaningless, what is it, the official website, some social media site, fan site, or what? It's better to leave it as the default "Official website", IMO. (And strictly speaking, the actual title of that would be "School of Rock Official TV Series (2016) - New Episodes, Videos, Games".) nyuszika7h (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Noted. I plan on doing an overhaul to the items in my sandbox at some point—hopefully soon—like removing the line breaks and using "and" or "&" and will take care of that then. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean use that... Honestly, just keep the default. That parameter is more useful when you link something like the production website (though that's its own parameter). Though the template documentation just says "The name of the official website", I think it's confusing to readers and it's entirely unnecessary to say anything other than "Official website". nyuszika7h (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, you weren't the one who added the "Official TV Series (2016)" part. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: LOL! Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Henry Danger: "Danger & Thunder"

Hi, I saw that you reverted the edits for the notation of an extended version of Danger & Thunder, [1] and [2]. However, shouldn't there be a notation of this extended version to make the format in line with other Episode Lists on Wikipedia? E.g. for iCarly, there's a separate premier date for extended versions and for The Thundermans, there's a note that Episode 19 has 2 endings. Thanks! ~ Appleseed w (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty much trivia, and it's essentially the same case for the other shows mentioned. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response! However, usually people would run through the Episode List for information, and by seeing that it has an extended episode, they might be interested to watch it? ~ Appleseed w (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Adventures in Babysitting (2016 film)

Hi, Amaury. I was looking at the edit history and see you have reverted that disruptive IP four times, and I'm on the verge on having to file an edit warring report for that IP user. (I have given the IP the edit warring notice ahead of that.) Admins do check on everyone involved in the dispute, and I'm afraid when they see the edit history, you might be in trouble, too. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Every case is different, and I obviously can't say this with 100% certainty, but I've filed reports before under similar circumstances, at least since I became a TV show article editor last year, and due to the other editor going against a clear consensus and refusing to discuss, there was no wrong from my part as I did my part and the other party didn't. It's like Cyphoidbomb said in a discussion on my talk page from last year, the other party can't do a stonewall change and stay silent and expect to have their way. In this case, they're still technically being silent as they refuse to discuss on the talk page. Although I will leave it alone for now and you and my other colleagues can take care of it if necessary as it's pretty much hopeless even when it's 100% clear the other party is in the wrong to continue reverting. It's up to you, though. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

They've definitely crossed both WP:3RR and the "spirit" of WP:Edit warring as well. I'd report the IP to WP:ANEW, posthaste. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Amaury reported the IP to AIV earlier, but IP is now blocked 24 hours for edit warring. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

List of The Thundermans episodes

Starting with this episode I added is the start of Season 4. Season 3 ends with The episode secret revealed. Also notice how the production codes starts with a 4 and nota three. [3] 137.148.115.102 (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@137.148.115.102: Production codes mean squat. They're interesting background information, but they're only for internal purposes. There can be a season four episode in a third season or vice-versa. At this time, there is no indication that it is a season four episode. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Henry Danger episodes

I was noting your edit summary for this edit at List of Henry Danger episodes. While I agree the word "or" in the episode title should be lowercase, last I checked the word "or" is a conjunction. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Nice catch. Thanks. It's not even listed here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The Thundermans

I may start watching The Thundermans tomorrow (I have the first season downloaded), maybe I can help with the episode summaries too. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: That would be wonderful. (And the guest stars as well.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The Thundermans: "Thundermans: Secret Revealed"

Hi, I saw that you reverted the edits to list the episode, "Thundermans: Secret Revealed", under Season 3 ([4]) and not as a special. I know that it's promoted as a special, as seen in this YouTube video. However, by this criteria, "The Haunted Thundermans" would also be considered as a special, see the promo @ 0:41. Thus, I propose that "Thundermans: Secret Revealed" be listed together with Season 3, but state that it's a special as a note (similar to "The Haunted Thundermans"). Even Zap2it lists the episode as S03E25 [5] / S03E26 [6]. ~ Appleseed w (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Appleseed w: How Zap2it has things listed means squat. It has "Girl Meets Demolition" listed as the twenty-first episode of the first season of Girl Meets World when in fact it's a special standalone episode as the first season's official ending was on March 27, 2015, and the special aired on April 17, 2015. It's the same case here; besides, it wouldn't make sense for The Thundermans' season three finale to air and then have the season four premiere just five days later. That's not how it works. There's always a break of at least a few months between season finales and premieres. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

User Orchomen

Hi, Amaury. There's an editor by the name of Orchomen, whom you are already aware of thanks to their disruptive editing at Legendary Dudas, who seems to be targeting all of the articles I have created for the same kind of disruptive editing you saw at Legendary Dudas. If you could keep an eye out on this, I would appreciate it – Orchomen seems fully willing to go into the edit warring tank, and is unwilling to discuss any of their edits, so it will probably take a concerted effort to limit this disruption... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Yeah, man. Of course. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Cool – my first suggested stop then is Gracie Dzienny to see which version you think is better – heck, if you like Orchomen's version better, that's good enough for me! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Based on what you've said, I'm getting somewhat of a sock puppet vibe. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As am I. I just don't recognize this specific M.O., so I'm not sure I've come across this one before... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: I reported them on WP:AIAV last night if there's anything you want to add. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. Looks like Admins are waiting on it. Orchomen is of course clever, and will probably knock off posting until your report is cleared out of AIV. I thought about adding something to your report, but I decided it probably wouldn't help and I think I'm just going to wait – I expect a third pass from Orchomen at my articles in a few days, and that's when I'll take it myself to either AIV or ANI when the WP:Wikihounding pattern will be clearer... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Gracie Dzienny

Hi Amaury, I wanted to let you know that I reverted you here. Although the "approximately" <--> "around" change is essentially the same thing, but the other 2 grammatical changes are improvements (I see now there's a 4th change, a comma change...this is half correct and I went ahead and removed the comma after co-star as well). The user didn't do a great job using edit summaries to explain their edits, so that could be a little confusing, but I wanted to provide you a longer explanation on your talk page since the edit summary limits what I can state. Since the edit looked okay to me, I also went ahead as well and declined the report at AIV. Hope that clarifies my rationale and let me know if you have any additional questions. Best, Spencer^T♦C 17:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Spencer: Noted. Thanks for the message and explanation. I personally didn't think it was an improvement, but if others feel differently, that's fine, too. I was also trying to help IJBall above. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Spencer & Floquenbeam – The discussion above this one on Amaury's talk page, and this discussion at Oshwah's Talk page provide needed context to this. The issue isn't simply whether Orchomen's edits are "improvements" or not (I personally would say that about half of them are, and half of them aren't). The main issues are: 1) Orchomen's edit warring to their preferred version (whether you think their edits are "improvements" or not, if the consensus is against them, they should not be restored, esp. in regards to edit warring for them); 2) Orchoman's unwillingness to even discuss their edits (hence, disruptive), and 3) and this is the most important one: Orcoman's wikistalking of articles I've created. Now, I believe all of this may tie into a series of disruptive IP edits that have been hitting Katheryn Winnick (Orchomen themselves admitted that they started targeting my articles after "looking for Lagertha"...). So you may believe their edits have merit, but the way Orchomen has gone about this is somewhere between disruptive and down right offputting and creepy... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification; I wasn't aware of everything going on. Spencer^T♦C 07:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)