User talk:Amaury/2017/July

2017 Archive Index: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

Liv and Maddie

Extensive Discussion

So, I'm close to finishing the show, already into the first few episodes of Liv and Maddie: Cali Style. And I'm adding referenced full names to the character list article, right below the heading as it has been agreed on before at other articles. I'm removing the prose mentions for name reveals because I don't think that's necessary when we can mention it at the beginning in character list articles. Also, I noticed how out of date some of the character descriptions are – like, it's mentioned that Maddie and Diggie break up but it's never mentioned that they get back together. I'll try to add some more detail later. Also, I wonder who added the claim that Andie's last name was revealed to be "Bustamante" in "Friend-a-Rooney", and why, when they actually said "Andie Bustamante" in an earlier episode, "Cowbell-a-Rooney", while in "Friend-a-Rooney" only his father's last name was mentioned ("Mr. Bustamante"). I'm correcting mistakes like that too. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC) Also, I think per MOS:FICTENSE we should be writing most things in the present tense there rather than the past. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC) @Nyuszika7H: No disagreements here on anything. No idea who added Andie's (incorrect) last name. Also, I know you already fixed and added missing guest star credits quite a while ago, but do the director and writer credits look good? Any story and teleplay stuff? Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC) @Amaury: The last name is correct, but the reference was wrong as that one did not prove it is her last name. But I've changed the reference already. And yeah, I'll look at the directors and writers soon as well. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC) @Nyuszika7H: Since we're on the subject, for the series listed in my sandbox, both current and ended, are all of those available on Netflix? If not, how many of those are? Would you be interested in going through those to make credit and absence corrections/additions? Not all at once, of course. I know Bella and the Bulldogs is already on your to-do list for both credits and Rio Mangini's absences in season two from being on your talk page. The credits should all be pretty much right since I did go through the series myself quite a while ago online, but I know there's at least one episode that needs the StoryTeleplay template. As I mentioned on your talk page a while ago here, I no longer have any objections to using the StoryTeleplay template where applicable. It actually doesn't look that bad. Anyway, in the case of Girl Meets World and Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn, this should automatically fix minor episode table header issues—the "fatness"—with both series' first two seasons. Girl Meets World is another one where you fixed credits already quite a while ago, but left the story and teleplay stuff alone because you weren't totally sure how to handle that then, so you didn't really touch those credits other than to make minor corrections like the ordering from what I know. I actually have a sandbox page to keep track of this stuff here, if you remember, but I haven't really updated it with more series since I created it. MPFitz1968, from the sandbox link above, Austin & Ally is one series you yourself went through and fixed director, writer, and guest stars credits on, but you also left the story and teleplay stuff alone. You didn't happen to make notes somewhere, such as in the edit summaries, of which episodes have story and teleplay much like the notes you made to know which episodes of Girl Meets World season one have Corey Fogelmanis as "guest starring" and "also starring," did you? Andi Mack, Backstage, and The Thundermans are some series that can be excluded from being looked through since everything there is definitely correct. Andi Mack and Backstage are more recent series, especially Andi Mack, while The Thundermans is one series you, Nyuszika, went through more recently and used the StoryTeleplay template where applicable. Also, in the case of current series' current seasons, everything should be correct, it's the earlier seasons that need double-checking, such as with Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn. In the case of recently ended series, such as Girl Meets World, the last season should be correct, but for older series, not so much. For example, with I Didn't Do It, when I started adding credits—in general, not specifically to that series—it wasn't until some of the second season had already aired. Now, focusing on the credits, Nickelodeon is a bit tricky. As you might know, Nickelodeon stupidly removed series' actual end credits and replaced them with generic credits, just to save a measly 30 seconds or so to have more time for commercials. The trickiness comes from the guest starring credits. As you know, some series just list the actors' names, such as 100 Things to Do Before High School and School of Rock—and in those cases, we show the characters they play in parentheses for the first instance they appear which indicates the names aren't official—but some series do list the actors along with the characters they play, such as Henry Danger and Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn. That's with the generic credits, though, and that's where the other bit of trickiness comes into play. It seems that all series' actual end credits on Nickelodeon only list the actors for the guest starring as I noticed after MPFitz1968 took care of the credits for the Henry Danger and Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn episodes on April 29 by viewing them on the Nickelodeon website as I wasn't able to add the credits for that day due to the Charter outage. He had to look at the previous episodes on the episode list articles to see which characters those actors play. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC) Could list what shows/seasons (listed in your sandbox, Amuary, both current and former) are presently available on Netflix. If the show is not listed, it is not available on Netflix at all. Some surprise me as not being available, like Disney Channel's K.C. Undercover, Stuck in the Middle and Bizaardvark. And no Nickelodeon shows are listed, because as I recall, they and Netflix had some kind of fall-out (contractual dispute perhaps) a few years ago: Backstage - season 1 Best Friends Whenever - seasons 1 and 2 Bunk'd - seasons 1 and 2 Girl Meets World - seasons 1 thru 3 Jessie - seasons 1 thru 4 Lab Rats - seasons 1 thru 4 Liv and Maddie - seasons 1 thru 4 Mighty Med - seasons 1 and 2 Hope that helps :). MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC) To follow up on what I said about Netflix and Nickelodeon, it appears from what I'm reading, Netflix in the spring of 2013 decided not to renew its contract with Viacom altogether (Viacom owns Nickelodeon, as well as BET and MTV, among others), which expired in May of that year. [1][2] MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC) @MPFitz1968: Oh, sure. You read this large message. Don't worry, "Amuary" is just giving you a hard time. Thanks, that does help. I'll make a section for that in my sandbox. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC) I also remember reading in your "large message" about when I was checking credits at Austin & Ally, though I forgot to address that. I did leave notes regarding story/teleplay credits in one episode from season 3 (I think it was the only episode that was split into story and teleplay for writing credits). [3] I'm pretty sure for the writing credits on that show overall, where two are listed in the episode, it was always in the format name & name, even though it doesn't look like that in the LoE article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC) @MPFitz1968: Yeah, I don't really have an issue with story and teleplay anymore; as such, I will no longer disagree to it being used where applicable. It doesn't really look too bad, anyway, as can be seen on List of Stuck in the Middle episodes. The only place it seems to be a problem is over on List of K.C. Undercover episodes with the first season as seen by the header, though I'm not exactly sure why. Even if you play around with widths, you can't get it to look nice as when you get one thing looking nice, you'll cause something else not too look nice. You'll also notice that some episode titles (S1 E2, E26, E27) and directors (S1 E17, E20) aren't all on the same line. The only way to get it to look nice and have all the episode titles and directors on the same line would be to have the writers for the first episode simply as "Rob Lotterstein and Corinne Marshall," but that, of course, is not a choice. What's strange, though, is that for K.C. Undercover's first episode, "Teleplay by: Rob Lotterstein and Corinne Marshall" comes to 49 characters, whereas with Stuck in the Middle's first episode, "Teleplay by: Alison Brown & Linda Videtti Figueiredo" comes to 52 characters, so you'd think it'd be the other way around since the teleplay for Stuck in the Middle's first episode is longer. There is one writer cell for Stuck in the Middle where the contents aren't all on the same line (S1 E14), but that doesn't cause issues for the header, unlike with K.C. Undercover, which is strange. For K.C. Undercover, I'm thinking it's a combination of the long "Written by" contents for the first season one episode and somewhat long names for those mentioned titles and directors. If I remove the titles and directors for those mentioned episodes above, then the header looks normal. I'm going to keep playing around with it until I get something I like. We may or may not need to use line breaks for the episode titles. What I know for sure is that I can at least get the header to look normal if I add some widths for the "Written by," "Original air date," "Prod code," and "US viewers (millions)" columns, but the wrapping for those episode titles and directors still happens and at an earlier point than without the widths. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC) @MPFitz1968: Just in case you guys are interested in trying stuff, I've made a copy of K.C. Undercover's first season here: User:Amaury/sandbox/K.C. Undercover season 1. That way we don't clog up the actual article's history while we try different things for us to see. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC) So after doing just one test, I may have gotten the ideal solution, and it just involves adding one thing. Adding <br />—don't use the ubc template for this as that makes it worse—before "and" seems to fix everything. A normal header and all titles and directors are on the same line. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC) Yeah, in this case <br /> is fine, because you're just making a visual line break and semantically it's already separated by "and". (Or we could also use {{nowrap}} instead so that it doesn't wrap if someone has a really big/wide screen – though it has to wrap even for me.) And yeah, MPFitz1968 already listed the availability of shows on Netflix, I'll look over the credits sometime. End credits are no problem on Netflix and other sources like iTunes, they aren't cut off there. Aside from my local country's Netflix, which barely has a few of these (I don't remember if it has any at all), I can access Netflix US reliably with ExpressVPN. In some other countries, they have some older Nickelodeon shows, though often not complete series. For example, the UK has all of Sam & Cat with English audio and subtitles (split into "Season 1" and "Season 1B", for whatever reason), Canada has the first two seasons of iCarly with English audio and subtitles, and some Latin American countries have some others with no English audio or subtitles. The ones in your sandbox are all newer so they're almost certainly not available on Netflix, but I can probably find the iTunes version of them online like I often do. I can't really reliably access Netflix in regions other than Hungary and the US anyway, because ExpressVPN only guarantees that the US region will work with Netflix, the others are on a "may or may not work" basis, but this is usually good enough. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC) @Nyuszika7H: Awesome! Regarding Sam and Cat, I'm wondering if that's because it's close to the number of total episodes there usually are after two seasons, kind of like Backstage, though I don't think that one's split. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Yeah, Backstage is just listed as a single season of 30 episodes. Not sure why they did that weird split (and especially "1" and "1B" rather than "1A" and "1B") with Sam & Cat. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC) I just finished Liv and Maddie and it was great, including the finale, but I wish season 4 had at least 20–25 episodes. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC) Have you (or Geraldo Perez, IJBall, MPFitz1968, or anyone else who may be watching this talk page) ever heard from any reputable source that Liv's middle name is "Elizabeth" and Maddie's middle name is "Kate", which is what the Liv and Maddie Wikia claims? I never heard that in the entire show. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC) Presume it to be fan invention unless an in-episode reference can be supplied that directly supports the claim. Too many fan invented name enhancements to trust any name that is not in the credits or on some official source. Wikia is rife with them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC) @Geraldo Perez: Yeah, that's why I asked, I wasn't gonna add them without confirmation from episodes or some other reliable source. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC) @Nyuszika7H: It was supposed to have 20 episodes, but they had to cut it short due to Dove Cameron being needed on Descendants 2. Although I don't understand why couldn't have simply: Postponed the film until Dove Cameron was done with Liv and Maddie Postponed production of Liv and Maddie's fourth season until Dove Cameron was done with Descendants 2. And this is exactly what they did with K.C. Undercover. Production for the third season didn't begin until Zendaya was done with Spider-Man: Homecoming and Veronica Dunne was done with a film she was doing. Placed Liv and Maddie on hiatus when Dove Cameron was needed for Descendants 2, filming however many episodes they could before then, such as 15, and then filming the remaining episodes when Dove Cameron was done with Descendants 2. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Lab Rats: Elite Force

Hello, I would like to know why you reverted my revision as referenced here [4] On both predecessor shows they ended on a cliffhanger, and the storylines are continued in the series that followed them, is it that i need a reference? Please let me know, Thank you. Wikipediauser123456 (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It is a spin-off, not a sequel. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

In this case, whats the difference between the aforementioned series and the series linked here [5], as this series also has 2 TV series combining into the new series, and continues the story following the events of both finales, so i'm confused, there is really no difference between the two, can you please explain? Wikipediauser123456 (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Wikipediauser123456: Now that I think about it more, I'm not so sure. Sequels typically involve the same cast members, setting, etc. Sure, there can be additions or subtractions from the main cast, but the main cast from the prequel is still there. Spin-offs, on the other hand, only relate to the previous serious. For example, Bunk'd only has three cast members from Jessie while the others are completely new and the setting is completely different, at a camp rather than at the penthouse. The parameters, looking at them more in-depth, can be confusing, though. Do we use the "preceded by" and "followed by" parameters or do we use the "related" parameter? Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H, IJBall, what do you guys think? Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I honestly am not sure when preceded_by versus related is supposed to be used in the infobox – hopefully somebody else can explain the difference... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure. The Mighty Med cliffhanger was never properly resolved, all they mentioned is that the Mighty Med hospital was destroyed, but nothing about Mr. Terror. Maybe we can blame the early cancellation on that, but still, 15 episodes without resolving that sounds like they never meant to reveal that in LREF. This is really sad, because both the original series and the spin-off/crossover/sequel were great, but the execution of LREF was pretty poor. When Mighty Med ended on a cliffhanger I told myself it would get resolved in the new show, but nope. From what I've seen on the WGA site, there are unreleased episode titles for Mighty Med which hinted towards possible previous plans of a third season. But sorry for getting a bit off-topic here – anyway, I probably wouldn't call it a sequel because reliable sources also call it a spin-off. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Right. It is definitely a spin-off. The issue here is what parameters do we use? Do we use "preceded by" or "related"? Is what we use based on whether something is a sequel or a spin-off? Is there any difference? That's what we're trying to figure out. The question comes from WP User above making the following change which I reverted. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Ping: Nyuszika7H. I always forget something. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty sure |preceded_by= and |followed_by= are only for prequels/sequels. For example, Descendants 2 would have |preceded by=Descendants. But we should use |related= in this case.

(Also, since I have email notifications for watchlisted pages now and I usually watchlist talk pages at least for a while when replying, if you miss a ping it's not a big deal.) nyuszika7h (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

(unrelated tangent – followup to Nyuszika7H) The problem that LR:EF had IMHO was that is felt "hermetically sealed" from the other two shows' universes. Yes, they had guest appearances from people like Douglas and Perry, but the original Lab Rats originally had the school, and then the bionic school, so there were always "extras" around; meanwhile, Mighty Med had the various superhero background characters. We got none of that from LR:EF. (Having no guest appearances from the Mighty Med cast also felt like a rip-off...) The show never felt "lived in" to me, with too much focus on the 5 main characters, and not enough focus on "superhero action" (i.e. taking down bad guys, or whatever), or interaction with just some background characters (aside from Douglas and Perry), in the way the earlier shows did... Still, I like LR:EF, and find some of the episodes amusing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, as per my question above, wouldn't Sam and Cat Be considered a spin-off, due to it continuing on from ICarly, and Victorious, but not using the same locations, well, on that note it does bring back several old cast members from the old shows, but still, noting that it continues and combines 2 shows, has a completely different setting, wouldn't that be considered a spin-off, and in that case would we use the preceded_by and followed_by, or perhaps would we use related in that situation too, because right now its being used as preceded_by and followed_by? (Sorry for the long-winded run-on sentence, i tend to do that sometimes) Wikipediauser123456 (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Teen Choice Awards

Did you know about this? It appears to be no longer the case according to Teen Choice Awards § Controversy, but I'm sure they reserve the right to do whatever they want anyway. This is pretty sad. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Yes and no. I knew that that was posted, but whether or not it's accurate I don't know. I haven't seen anything from official sources like USA Today, and I try to avoid that type of drama. I also don't vote, anyway. People were trying to claim things about the Kids' Choice Awards as well and got really upset when Zendaya and Henry Danger won for the 2017 awards instead of Dove Cameron—who's been nominated a few times, but has never won—and The Thundermans. Their argument was that Zendaya shouldn't have won two years in a row, but yet, they would have been fine if The Thundermans had won two years in a row. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, yeah, there are many complaints, those you mention are stupid, and I don't have a copy of the old rules page or a Teen Choice Awards broadcast, but I don't think they faked that notice. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Valid point. I actually haven't really seen those as, truthfully, the only awards I watch are the Kids' Choice Awards. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Related to the 2014 ones, I remember keeping an eye on the articles about awards and nominations received by the music groups Fifth Harmony and One Direction. (They seem to have been competing against each other endlessly in various music categories across a number of kids-based awards shows - TCA, Nickelodeon's KCA, Radio Disney, etc.) And even sources used couldn't agree on one TCA that year pertaining to them - Best Choice Song, I think. And the articles about each other's awards and nominations kept changing back and forth to either "Nominated" or "Won" for that. I still don't buy that Fifth Harmony won it, with some users linking to a source with a picture/video of them at some after-show event supposedly accepting that award when it's not clear whether that was happening or not. The telecast of the 2014 awards definitely indicated One Direction winning that award in one of those captions on the bottom of the screen (the award itself wasn't shown being presented during the telecast). But long story short, when I saw the back-and-forth with the status of who won the award, and multiple sources not agreeing on the winner, I just simply removed both articles from my watchlist, and let everyone else duke it out about the winner. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The Dude Perfect Show

So, this article already exists, if you're interested. FWIW, it looks like it could use a fair bit of work... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Yup. I've had it on my list for a while now and am planning on working on it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Regarding the sneak peek claim, like with Hunter Street, Nickelodeon is promoting this Saturday's episode as the premiere if that helps. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The term "sneak peak" (or "preview" – e.g. see: The Bold Type) is the part that really needs to be sourced, though it would be better if there was a secondary source for the "official season premiere" stuff too... But what that article needs first is a 'Cast' list/section! (or whatever the equivalent is in an "unscripted" TV show article...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Voila!  All done! Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

List of Henry Danger characters

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Amaury, thanks for creating List of Henry Danger characters! I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add sources. The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Boleyn (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The credited character names themselves don't show in the opening credits, if I remember correctly, and were sourced, I think, to Schneider's page about the show [6]. Those would be good to reference at the least and get the semi-auto processes that look for no cites in article to give it a pass. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Is that good? Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Look good. Justifies removing the tag. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Tks for reverting my edit at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.The fat finger struck again. I meant to click on Beeblebrox's contributions on the line below on my watchlist but somehow stuffed up. Unintentional. Moriori (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

K.C. Undercover

I just caught up on K.C. Undercover and I see they're doing a long multi-part story again, I like it. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: And guess what else? The closed captioning has been consistently correct for the theme song in season three so far. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Yeah, I noticed that too. Also, I like the new remixed theme song. Now the next thing I need to catch up on is The Thundermans, but first I'm gonna watch Descendants 2. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Descendants 2

Hey, Amaury – you will probably come across the ratings for this before others do. Could you please ping me or something, when you determine its ratings? TIA! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Since it also aired on ABC, and it is a broadcast network, the preliminary ratings are in already: [7] However, we shouldn't use those as we of course only care about the finals since the numbers change for broadcast networks. For some reason, in the preliminaries for broadcast networks, things are also separated, but in the finals, they'll of course be all one thing. Just posting it just because it'll probably give us an idea of what the final numbers will be. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, what I'd like to have is just the Disney Channel-only ratings, and then also the combined ratings for the film's airings across all 6 networks. The latter may end up being available from a Disney press release in the next few days. I'm hoping the Disney Channel-only ratings may show up on TV by the Numbers in the next day or two... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Final and cable ratings for Fridays, unless there's a holiday delay, are always posted around 1:00 PM (PT) on Mondays on Showbuzz Daily. I will not forget to let link you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: We still need to wait until Monday for the individual numbers for each network, but for what it's worth: [8]. Seeing how Descendants 2 on ABC did in preliminary form and considering that Disney XD and those other networks don't get huge numbers—solely because they're in the higher packages of cable and satellite providers, not because they're bad, as Disney XD, for example, considers 0.50 million total viewers good—Disney Channel alone must have, unsurprisingly, gotten most of the viewers. I'm guessing it received at least what Descendants received on July 31, 2015, which was 6.55 million total viewers. If it did, that means Raven's Home probably received around what the series premiere of Bunk'd received following the premiere of the Descendants, which was 4.24 million total viewers, if not more. I'm so exited! (MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H, Geraldo Perez.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: I have something for you. [9] Archived 2017-07-24 at archive.today Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, Headline Planet came up with the same 8.9 million total viewers for the 6-network "simulcast" of Descendants 2 that I did. So Disney's Saturday P.R. claiming 13 million viewers was way off... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: They didn't really need the simulcasts, but I understand why Disney did it. Although once Nielsen makes its sample size change in the fall, numbers should improve. Makes me wonder if Disney Channel itself could have gotten around that number if it hadn't be simulcasted or if it would have still been around 5.3 million? That is still very good, don't get me wrong, but the first movie still did better if you only count Disney Channel. Also, I'm confused. Why did you insert the word average for ABC's viewership note? Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The prelim. figures for ABC were broken out by hour, with ratings higher from 8-9pm than they were from 9-10pm. (That's a usual ratings pattern...) Thus, the 2.4 million figure quoted for ABC is actually the average ratings across the 2 hours. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Broadcast networks, I think because they use affiliates, are the only ones affected by this which—ugh!—complicates things. The preliminaries don't take into account the exact timing of how an episode or a movie airs in different affiliates. An example someone on Twitter gave me:

• ABC in New York airs an episode two minutes later.
• ABC in Chicago airs that episode 30 seconds earlier.
• ABC in Los Angeles has more commercials and that episode lasts one minute longer.
• ABC in Wisconsin could have a football game or local news interruption during that time.

Preliminaries don't take those exceptions into account which is why shows are broken up by hours—or sometimes half hours, I think—in the preliminaries or if they're not broken up when they're just typical episodes, the numbers will change in either direction in the finals, so once they get all the data, they recalculate and get the final numbers. And I think that's the total number of viewers because the number is for one two-hour showing, not an average, but I'm not 100% sure and could very well be wrong. The preliminaries for Descendants 2 were 1.991 million, 1.552 million, and 1.512 million, which is an average of 1.685 million, and that isn't close to the final total viewers of 2.412 million that we see, but that's, again, before they recalculated the numbers. I don't know. It's complicated. LOL Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Jake Paul

Hi, I was wondering why you undid my revision about jake pauls white house breach, as it is confirmed by him that the secret service DID in fact come after him, could you explain why my information needed to be removed? Irelynkennedy (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Amaury, can you double-check this please? I'm very dubious... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Too late. I read your mind. He's been titling some of his videos that, but I'm pretty sure it's a joke and they're just boyfriend and girlfriend. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Raven's Home#Cory in the House at WP:DRN

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

The IP didn't do it, so I am doing it now. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 16:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Thanks. If I can think of something, I may reply. But I will say this now: I was dismissive once it was clear that they were going to refuse to drop the stick, not from the get-go like they make it appear to be. I'm happy to discuss issues, but not when the other party just keeps going around in pointless circles. They're clearly in the minority here, but just have to keep insisting. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties and no further comment is made at the opened filing, it may be failed and suggested that the next logical course of action be formal mediation. Please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Failed". If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Kostas20142 (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Keeping this discussion out of the board for the time being. The article of the main show mentions the show in question as spinoff. Spinoffs are by definition related , in a way, with the initial show. do you think we could say that spinoffs which each other do as well?. For that reason, it can be included, since the documentation allows it. Would you consider making this compromise with this reasoning?-Kostas20142 (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Not to judge or anything, but what you just wrote made no complete sense. I suppose English isn't your first language? To answer your questions, Raven's Home has no relation with CITH. Yes, spin-offs have relation with the original show, but CITH has nothing to do with the sequel of That's So Raven. CITH is only mentioned in the article Body because Disney Channel went forward with a spin off of That's So Raven. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 10:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah not first language and I was admittedly in a rush. I will wait for the other parties to comment but you have a point --@Kostas20142 (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties and no further comment is made at the opened filing, it may be failed and suggested that the next logical course of action be formal mediation. Please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Failed". If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Kostas20142 (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Status Update

Hey, could you please add this to your watchlist, if it's not already on it – after a long layoff, we're back to random IP editors adding unsourced cast and character names prolifically to the article for this upcoming film again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Done. The name sounds familiar. I think you posted about it to someone else in the group. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll check again in the morning – if this continues, I'll request semiprotection at WP:RfPP... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The Thundermans

So, according to Jack Griffo's Instagram story, looks like we'll be seeing new episodes of The Thundermans for another year. That's great news. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Although according to Wikia, there are only 15 episodes left (the series finale being a double episode, I counted it as one), so sounds like there will be a long hiatus or multiple shorter ones... nyuszika7h (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, if I counted right, using our "proper" episode numbering, the series total will only be 98 episodes (or even less if there are more upcoming double-length episodes apart from the series finale). Those insistent fans certainly won't like that, but we can probably still mention that 103 episodes were produced, as we have a reliable source for that. It's just that five (or more, remains to be seen) of them were merged into double-length episodes. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, when the show wraps up, the 'Production' section can say something like, "The series aired 98 episodes including 1-hour episodes (103 30-minute episodes were produced[source])." Something along those lines... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Saying "103 30-minute episodes were produced" would be misleading, because they're actually only approximately 22 minutes (double episodes 44 minutes) without commercial breaks. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You could say "103 regular-length episodes were produced", but that's sort of vague... Again, I'm not exactly sure how to word this, but it would be something along the lines I suggested. Hopefully others can come up with a better wording... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: This was actually talked about on Twitter yesterday. It's kind of confusing what he means: Does he mean another actual year or just well into 2018? It may be more like six months or something. @IJBall: We could do something like the notes I (re)added for the one-hour episodes in the episode list, which are actually about 40 minutes. In the notes, I just put that those are double-length episodes. That still gets the point across without causing any confusion. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I've probably "thanked" you at least 10+ times today for your work cleaning up the edits made by that IP hopping user. Thanks for being so diligent and for your quick and helpful reversions - it's very much appreciated! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)