User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 19
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
New Year's 2019
Geraldo Perez,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
We may need to ask for semiprotection for this one – it's been a frequent target for date vandalism, and it seems to be happening again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- A protect for vandalism looks reasonable. However 97.116.162.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) looks to be the current culprit. Also check his other edits. Sufficient warnings and that IP can be blocked likely stopping the worst of the recent problems. Although looking through the edit history don't see many good edits before that. That IP looks to have other dubious edits in the 97.116 range further back so blocking one IP likely won't stop the disruption. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- [1] Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Why was my edit to the above article undone? The previous episode list could not possibly have been correct as it listed some episodes several times, such as "Go to The Movies", "Big Road Race", and Gotta Dance. Each episode of this series is compromised of two, fifteen-minute segments to fill a half-hour timeslot. That list pairs some episodes, but not all. The credits and titles I put in were taken directly from the episodes' respective opening credits. It also says that the series ran for three seasons and fourty episodes in the following link: http://www.nelvana.com/show/116/ DeathTrain (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DeathTrain: It always helps to leave an edit summary beyond "Correct episode list". You made massive changes without explaining in either the article talk page or edit summary where you are getting the information. If you have a source for the episodes list, great, tell us what that source is. If you have the episodes, state you are getting the information from viewing them. Suggest dropping a note in the article talk page explaining what you are doing and why. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUIixndCOJ8ySienKsCxKghFE12K4iyK2
- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUIixndCOJ8yswtKwsKH-6Y6ovR7FrjbS
- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUIixndCOJ8ymzf0RqMZ-eCUNgUVJUJZy DeathTrain (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DeathTrain: Then add those as references to the article maybe as column headers for the title row in each season. With the reference the changes would be supported and explained. Explain what you are doing in the edit summary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- How do I cite YouTube playlists? DeathTrain (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DeathTrain:
{{cite web}}would work for this. See help:cite if not familiar with adding cites to references. Publisher is a verified account of the airing network so is a reliable source. Unfortunately they don't have original airing dates. It would be great if you could find a source for those. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DeathTrain:
- How do I cite YouTube playlists? DeathTrain (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DeathTrain: Then add those as references to the article maybe as column headers for the title row in each season. With the reference the changes would be supported and explained. Explain what you are doing in the edit summary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Red Table Talk#Episodes list
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Red Table Talk#Episodes list . — Lbtocthtalk 06:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@IJBall and MPFitz1968: Asking the experts here. WP:TOOSOON? Created yesterday. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Meets WP:NACTOR with two major roles listed means likely notable. At this point in time does not meet WP:BASIC with only one passing mention in an article. IMDb references can be removed and ignored. And article cleaned of any unsourced bio info. In my opinion, should be tagged as needed sources and stub tagged. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
It's looking like semiprotection may be in order for this one. Pinging Amaury. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The Lion King 1 1/2 was vandalized, but not by me
Mr. Perez, I was the one who yesterday undid some recent changes to the page for The Lion King 1 1/2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_King_1%C2%BD
Those were clearly vandalism, yet you saw my efforts as vandalism and reverted it. Please discuss this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:7C88:2600:C123:966D:A15E:3680 (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- All the edits were tagged "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits", with no further explanation. That is the symptom of vandalism, not vandalism repair. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I was rapidly reverting edits, because there were multiple ones of vandalism, and I kept revering the most recent ones until all the damage was undone. Mr Perez, why don't you take a look at the page yourself and evaluate? I was not about to rewrite the entry from scratch when the original version was sufficient. Look, I'm trying to help here and I'd like you to understand the position I am coming from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:7C88:2600:4185:EBC2:2F52:265A (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I did look and none of the reverts you made were of obvious vandalism and without any edit summary explaining what you were trying to accomplish, your edits themselves looked like vandalism to me. I see the article got restored to the December 22, 2018, version which I think addresses your concerns. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also if you do want to go back to an earlier version, you don't need to undo every in-between edit one at a time. Just click on the latest good version in the edit history, click edit, and save - and don't forget the edit summary explaining what you are doing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I just saw latest revert and it does address my concerns, and I will also remember your advice in the future. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:7C88:2600:949D:30C7:5584:703E (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
As a heads up before things go downhill again, I will need more eyes here. Pinging MPFitz1968 as well. Geraldo, I'm sure you remember the issues we had with this editor on List of I Am Frankie episodes. Now they're once again making an WP:OR edit. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- No need to start causing problems again, Amaury. I've explained it perfectly well on the talk page. Magitroopa (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, I'm not the one who's been causing problems here. And quit WP:STALKING me. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've commented on the Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:45, 5 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) 14:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Is this appropriate/correct? My understanding is that hat notes are only used when there are articles of the same name—for example, one's a song and one's a television series article—or the names are extremely similar, such as the article the hat note refers to on Henry Danger. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: They can be used if the other article has a valid alternative name that matches the hatnoted article. That synonym should be mentioned in the lead and bolded in the target so it is obvious why someone landed there. Usually there is a redirect with that synonym tagged as an alternative name pointing to the article and the hatnoted article is considered the primary topic although that is not strictly needed. In this case "Loud House" is a nickname but it looks to be a minor identity as the lead doesn't mention it and it is not bolded there. I don't think the hatnote is indicated in this case as the name does not appear to be an alternative name for the destination. If it were mentioned in the lead and bolded, I'd go with the hatnote. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- On a related note, I noticed a link added at List of The Loud House episodes and then saw that a redirect at Overnight Success (The Loud House) has been re-removed. You previously removed it for being not notable, after I queried about it here. And it probably still doesn't pass WP:GNG. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: It was completely unsourced when I added the redirect. The new article looks to meet WP:GNG now with the references that were added. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I wonder if this would be a candidate for AFD, just like L Is for Love, as overall it still doesn't seem notable. An old version of "L Is for Love," before it was redirected, shows there was may way more content, but it still wasn't overall notable. And both "L Is for Love" and "Overnight Success" have a connection as they share the same theme, but like before, it doesn't necessarily mean notable for an individual episode article. In fact, if season articles are hard to get established, then episode article are even harder since they're on a lower tier level than even season articles. From what I can see, the tier seems to go, in terms of most common articles to least common articles: Parent article -> Episode list -> Character list -> Season article -> Episode article. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: You'd need to go to AfD for this one for a discussion. It is not clear to me. Basically WP:GNG trumps everything and if that can be show nothing else really matters. On the surface it looks to meet GNG but the references would have to be analyzed to see if the depth of coverage meets the significance needs of GNG. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- The Showbuzz Daily ones don't count since they're just ratings. Looking at the other sources, they're all essentially the same thing, just from different websites. And out of those, Radio Times looks like the only reliable source to me. I'm not sure about the other three—NewNowNext, Vanity Fair, and Teen Vogue. But from reading the Radio Times article, the subject of the gay fathers appears to be fairly mentioned and not just passing, trivial mentions which would seem to comply with the significant coverage part. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: That looks enough for a keep at AfD. Looks to be a landmark episode for the series with references to support that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- May not be worth it/need to go to AFD. Hm. I wonder if the sources for "L Is for Love" were less reliable, outside of the ratings sources, since that one resulted in redirect, and this one seems like it would be a keep. I wonder if Luna being bi was not entirely confirmed and was maybe just more speculation? I don't really watch The Loud House, outside of some episodes like Legends, which was a classic throwback to Legends of the Hidden Temple. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: That looks enough for a keep at AfD. Looks to be a landmark episode for the series with references to support that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- The Showbuzz Daily ones don't count since they're just ratings. Looking at the other sources, they're all essentially the same thing, just from different websites. And out of those, Radio Times looks like the only reliable source to me. I'm not sure about the other three—NewNowNext, Vanity Fair, and Teen Vogue. But from reading the Radio Times article, the subject of the gay fathers appears to be fairly mentioned and not just passing, trivial mentions which would seem to comply with the significant coverage part. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: You'd need to go to AfD for this one for a discussion. It is not clear to me. Basically WP:GNG trumps everything and if that can be show nothing else really matters. On the surface it looks to meet GNG but the references would have to be analyzed to see if the depth of coverage meets the significance needs of GNG. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I wonder if this would be a candidate for AFD, just like L Is for Love, as overall it still doesn't seem notable. An old version of "L Is for Love," before it was redirected, shows there was may way more content, but it still wasn't overall notable. And both "L Is for Love" and "Overnight Success" have a connection as they share the same theme, but like before, it doesn't necessarily mean notable for an individual episode article. In fact, if season articles are hard to get established, then episode article are even harder since they're on a lower tier level than even season articles. From what I can see, the tier seems to go, in terms of most common articles to least common articles: Parent article -> Episode list -> Character list -> Season article -> Episode article. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: It was completely unsourced when I added the redirect. The new article looks to meet WP:GNG now with the references that were added. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- On a related note, I noticed a link added at List of The Loud House episodes and then saw that a redirect at Overnight Success (The Loud House) has been re-removed. You previously removed it for being not notable, after I queried about it here. And it probably still doesn't pass WP:GNG. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:New Amsterdam (2018 TV series)#Guest section
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:New Amsterdam (2018 TV series)#Guest section . — YoungForever(talk) 23:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
IP edits at Peyton Elizabeth Lee
The edits made include information about agents or agency companies. I reverted those as being unsourced, but it also had me scratching my head about whether this information should be included even if there were sources. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: Seems trivial to me and I doubt even true. Unlikely she would be represented by any Philippine companies. I see those companies listed in a lot of Filipino actor articles as those companies are more about training and development then just getting them jobs, but seems very rare to list agents for other nationalities. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I decide to remove crossover Nexus in the season 2 tablet in OK K.O and shorts
Hey , Geraldo Pérez This i a recomendation to remove a little thing in the OK K.O web I thing the Special Crossover Nexus dont want to be in this site on the season Two, By example I erase the special in this season andy put this in a new table well this is a good idea and I want to quit the 1 -5 shorts of season 1 and not to be in shorts just in the new table name shorts (season 1) I Hope This Idea Be a Boom !!! 177.225.59.9 (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Kel Mitchell, again
What do you make of this edit? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Not a verified account but I found other stuff that supports it at the linked title. http://www.cbsdreamteam.com/tails-of-valor/ Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:List of iCarly episodes#Mechanics of merging
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of iCarly episodes#Mechanics of merging. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
This is an editor IJBall and I—much more me—have had problems with. It's one thing to use tweets from Brec Bassinger or Kelli Berglund that say they stated the respective series were over after the X season, but scheduling is 100% controlled by the network, and we shouldn't put anything in that regard unless it's from the network or scheduling sites—The Futon Critic and Zap2it—as it just causes confusion. And certainly not anything from an unverified Twitter. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi there Geraldo!
I'm a newcomer to the Wikipedia community and I would like to know why exactly my edit in the film's nationality was deemed "unjustified", specially because the film, like a lot of Don Bluth's projects in the early 90's, was done in their Irish divison. TonyZangrand (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- @TonyZangrand: It has been listed as an American film for most of the article's existence. Your edit summary didn't didn't state any justification for changing the nationality which is what my edit summary was referring to when I said the change was unjustified. Generally the nationality of the film is where the principal production company is located - Template:Infobox film/doc#Country makes the issue a bit more complex. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Geraldo Perez: Ok, thanks for the clarity! TonyZangrand (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The Mowry twins
Geraldo, should I put in WP:RM requests for both of the Mowry twins? It looks like both Tamera and Tia have been credited using their married names since at least 2010! So, as per WP:NAMECHANGES, it seems like they should both probably be moved, a la Alexa PenaVega, etc. Thoughts?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Looks like common and consistent usage since marriage for both. RM looks appropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Update – see: Talk:Tia Mowry#Requested move 16 January 2019 and Talk:Tamera Mowry#Requested move 16 January 2019. As is clear from my RM proposals, I'm, a lot more sure that the latter article should be moved than the former. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
IP 76.75.43.202 has been adding a lot of unsourced/WP:OR and WP:NOTDEFINING cats to a lot of articles lately. I never know what to do in these situations (e.g. is this "disruptive" enough to block? is this a well-known socker situation?...), but I figured you would... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: WP:BLPCAT applies. If he adds bio categories not supported by sourced article content, treat it like adding unreferenced bio info to the article and warn for that. If he goes past a level 4 warning for doing that, report to AIV. Some people just make stuff up and that includes adding bio categories. Some look to a person's name and try to induce an ethnicity from it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
What do we think of this page move that happened somewhat recently?... FTR, I don't think I agree with it, as it's not the WP:COMMONNAME. Pinging Amaury and MPFitz1968. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: As a stand-alone film iCarly: iGo to Japan seems to be the most common title, how it is listed on RT and IMDb. As an episode in the series the "iCarly:" gets dropped. The article describes it as a TV film so the film title looks to be most appropriate. This should be discussed on the article talk page to decide on what title to use. I'd go with the film title. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
How to Train Your Dragon reverts
What do you have against amputees? - Areaseven (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Areaseven: I have nothing against amputees. I am objecting to categorizing articles by WP:NOTDEFINING categories. I have never seen any of the films described in reliable sources as being about amputees. It has a passing mention in the first article and is basically a part of the characterization of one of the characters, not what the film is focused on as a major theme. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Areaseven: Reliable sources that talk about the film don't seem to think so. The injury to Toothless and the mechanism created by Hiccup to compensate have significant screen time, though, but that isn't really an amputation as such but I guess it could be considered a prosthetic. Operating it is a major part of the bond between the characters and drives a lot of the plot. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Personal life section of Shawn Mendes
More or less a copy-paste from IJBall's talk page. He didn't have any opinions on the matter, so thought I'd see if you might.
One line of the personal life section states the following: With regard to speculation about his sexuality, Mendes stated, "First of all, I'm not gay. Second of all, it shouldn't make a difference if I was or if I wasn't. The focus should be on the music and not my sexuality."[105][106][107]
Is him stating that he is straight really all that notable? For one thing, that statement that someone put in there just kind of jumps into it with the whole "with regard to..."; there's no "introduction" per se that says something along the lines of "due to X happening, Shawn Mendes has stated Y." In other words, why is that just being stated out of the blue? What happened that led to that statement? In any case, as we know, just because something passes verification and comes from a reliable source doesn't necessarily mean it should be included, per WP:VNOTSUFF and WP:UNDUE.
This is related, but I've separated it from the above since it contains more content with my own personal (side) thoughts than content directly related to the question. From my view, I understand why he would make that statement, as it does suck when people make assumptions like that. He shouldn't have to and should just ignore comments like that, but I understand why. From doing a small amount of research, it seems that one of the reasons the rumor was started was because of his voice, and that is unfortunately stereotyping which is of course wrong. There are some gay people of either gender who will dress up in a certain fashion, adjust their voice to be a certain way, etc., and I think we can certainly say that there are some things that are more common within the gay community, but that does not mean that everybody who does that is gay. There are plenty of straights who dress "flamboyant" and such.
I honestly don't care who anybody is attracted to. If they're a nice person, I will like them. It would be different if this were someone coming out of the closet and announcing they were gay, bi, etc., but that is clearly not the case here. Although that's not something I really "agree with," so to speak. "Coming out" shouldn't really be a thing in this day and age, in my opinion; people should just be attracted to whomever they want to be attracted to. We don't have people "coming out" and announcing they're straight and then posting that they stated they're straight on here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: He brought it up and thought it important enough to him to comment on. If all we had was speculation from others it wouldn't belong in the article. I think it would have been best if he had ignored it, but he didn't. I think it reasonable to note in the article as it is and there are sources that support notability of his statements. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Geraldo. I appreciate your thoughts. To clarify on some points, I wasn't saying it wasn't important, as clearly it was since he felt the need to respond to the comments, just whether it merited inclusion or not. It seems to have just been randomly thrown in there, as I mentioned in my OP, and doesn't seem to tie into anything else in the section. There are many important things happening to other celebrities, and those aren't always noted, unless they add significant substance to their BLP article, if they're notable enough to have an article on them exist. I'm also not criticizing him for not ignoring them, just saying he probably should have as that is generally the best thing to do. And in his case, it seemed to kind of make things a little bit worse, as in his video, for example, all he stated was that he wasn't gay, as quoted above, which of course led people to state things like "he didn't say he was straight, just that he wasn't gay, so he could be bi." Although most of those people were probably trolls. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: It is in the personal life section and is about as important as his mental health issues which is also pretty minor. On other bio articles sexuality gets covered if there are sources for it and the person is open about it. See Tim Cook § Personal life. Being gay is generally something people are proud of and want to be known for now, some of the other sources imply that he is gay, and he states he's not. If he were gay and stated he was we would likely cover it so don't see how this is that different. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't really have an opinion on whether it should be included or not and was more or less asking hypothetically, not because I was trying to remove it. As for the reason why it's considered to be different, in my opinion, at least, is because people almost never come out as straight; however, as we've discussed, this case is different because of the rumors people were starting about his sexuality. He responded to those saying he's not gay, he didn't just randomly say he's not gay, it was in response to something. Although that is why earlier I said nobody should have to come out in this day and age and just be who they are. Anyway, there's certainly no harm in having that there. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: At this point in time being not-straight in some manner makes you special and people want to be special. People like Rowan Blanchard § Personal life who admits she is actually straight likes to call herself queer, for example, to be special. Mendes doesn't want to be mistaken for what he is not and doesn't want the special status because of the implications of others. I think it will be a fair while before sexuality stops being something people care about. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't really have an opinion on whether it should be included or not and was more or less asking hypothetically, not because I was trying to remove it. As for the reason why it's considered to be different, in my opinion, at least, is because people almost never come out as straight; however, as we've discussed, this case is different because of the rumors people were starting about his sexuality. He responded to those saying he's not gay, he didn't just randomly say he's not gay, it was in response to something. Although that is why earlier I said nobody should have to come out in this day and age and just be who they are. Anyway, there's certainly no harm in having that there. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: It is in the personal life section and is about as important as his mental health issues which is also pretty minor. On other bio articles sexuality gets covered if there are sources for it and the person is open about it. See Tim Cook § Personal life. Being gay is generally something people are proud of and want to be known for now, some of the other sources imply that he is gay, and he states he's not. If he were gay and stated he was we would likely cover it so don't see how this is that different. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Geraldo. I appreciate your thoughts. To clarify on some points, I wasn't saying it wasn't important, as clearly it was since he felt the need to respond to the comments, just whether it merited inclusion or not. It seems to have just been randomly thrown in there, as I mentioned in my OP, and doesn't seem to tie into anything else in the section. There are many important things happening to other celebrities, and those aren't always noted, unless they add significant substance to their BLP article, if they're notable enough to have an article on them exist. I'm also not criticizing him for not ignoring them, just saying he probably should have as that is generally the best thing to do. And in his case, it seemed to kind of make things a little bit worse, as in his video, for example, all he stated was that he wasn't gay, as quoted above, which of course led people to state things like "he didn't say he was straight, just that he wasn't gay, so he could be bi." Although most of those people were probably trolls. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Strange Punctuation...?
Hi, good evening: I here to talk about the reversion; is everything okay...?
--SecretAgentMan0079 (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @SecretAgentMan0079: See MOS:COLON and MOS:SEMICOLON. Your usage was non-standard and awkward. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I was trying to introduce some brevity... --SecretAgentMan0079 (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:The Loud House#Propose list of characters split
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Loud House#Propose list of characters split. @IJBall, MPFitz1968, and Nyuszika7H: You as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Display of first and last aired parameters of Template:Infobox television
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Display of first and last aired parameters of Template:Infobox television. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Possessives
In English, as a general rule, the possessive for a singular noun always is presented by adding apostrophe-"s" ('s) to the end, such as in "my neighbor's wife," while the possessive for a plural noun that ends in "s" is just the apostrophe (as in "my neighbors' front yard"); plural nouns that end in letters other than "s," however, use apostrophe-"s" for their possessives (such as in "the children's new toy").
When indicating the possessive for a proper noun (such as a surname) that ends in "s," one should use apostrophe-"s" when it is a singular proper noun but just an apostrophe when it is the plural form for such noun. For example, one should write (and pronounce) "I met Jack Jones's wife" (with "Jones's" pronounced "joan-sez"), but "I went to the Joneses' party" (with "Joneses'" pronounced the same as "Jones's"). No "s" is added after the apostrophe for "the Joneses'" because otherwise it would be pronounced "the joan-sez-ez," which is not how anyone would pronounce it.
There are some exceptions to this general rule, such as possessives for the Biblical Jesus ("in Jesus' name") and a few other names from antiquity ("Pythagoras' theorem"), as well as some French names that end in a silent "s" ("Dumas' novel"). But English surnames such as "Jones" and "Collins" are not among the exceptions to the rule.
This means that when we speak of a song by Judy Collins, it is written (and pronounced) "Judy Collins's song"; we only would exclude the "s" after the apostrophe if it was a possessive for the plural form of "Collins" ("the Collinses"), as if we refered to "the Collinses' new family car."
For this reason, I corrected the punctuation in "Judy Collins' cover" so that it reads "Judy Collins's cover"; I thought of my edit as so uncontroversial that I called it a "minor edit." Wikipedia aspires to be a reference source for people seeking correct information, and that includes writing the articles using correct grammar and punctuation. I will leave to you the honor of reverting your reversion of my edit. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Anything that ends in an S and will be used to show possessiveness is just an apostrophe after the S. Doesn't matter whether it's an object or a name. So Judy Collins' cover is correct. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- @AuH2ORepublican and Amaury: I reverted my edit. I am not familiar enough with that particular point of written English to argue the point and will yield to those more knowledgable than myself. As far as I was aware both are grammatically correct and choice of which to use is a style issue and Wikipedia's manual of style at MOS:POSS says use s's for singular proper nouns ending in s. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
EW
Heads up Amaury and imbalance might pinging you and giving you an edit warring warning. Tnays20 (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I meant IJball. Tnays20 (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Some recent vandalism
Have you ever run across a user named "Mildred huxtetter"? Have you poked around SPI much? Totally random questions. :) --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Fru1tbat: I recognize the name as an indef blocked user, Special:Contributions/Mildred huxtetter, I stumbled over a few times. I'm not aware of any other accounts this user has used in the past or is currently using now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Check the archives. Just based on your recent editing activity, and the areas I think we tend to edit in common. (sorry to be intentionally vague) --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Fru1tbat: Not enough to be sure so far. If I get insulted again would make it solid. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what incidents you're referring to, but I think we may be talking about different things, so I'll be more clear. There have been repeated sockpuppets that edit articles that you frequent. One of them earlier today you took the time to warn about a COI. I've begun to recognize typical editing patterns, so I've reported a bunch of repeat offenders. I was just letting you know in case you ran across more of the same. --Fru1tbat (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Fru1tbat: Chuckle. I understood all that. My attempt to communicate that understanding was too oblique too I guess. Thanks for letting me know, I saw the report and history. User name choice is in the pattern. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Or I'm a bit slow on the pickup. Username pattern, and some really odd editing quirks. Seems like every few days a new one pops up... Anyway, cheers! --02:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Fru1tbat: Chuckle. I understood all that. My attempt to communicate that understanding was too oblique too I guess. Thanks for letting me know, I saw the report and history. User name choice is in the pattern. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what incidents you're referring to, but I think we may be talking about different things, so I'll be more clear. There have been repeated sockpuppets that edit articles that you frequent. One of them earlier today you took the time to warn about a COI. I've begun to recognize typical editing patterns, so I've reported a bunch of repeat offenders. I was just letting you know in case you ran across more of the same. --Fru1tbat (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Fru1tbat: Not enough to be sure so far. If I get insulted again would make it solid. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Check the archives. Just based on your recent editing activity, and the areas I think we tend to edit in common. (sorry to be intentionally vague) --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
This one definitely seems to pass WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR, but may need to be fleshed out. Ping IJBall as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm actually skeptical that it meets WP:NACTOR, and it's borderline on WP:BASIC, IMO. But not enough for me to do something about it...
- Close enough not to bother with. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- (OTOH, these Chhota Bheem articles that Geraldo has come across, like Chhota Bheem and the Incan Adventure absolutely do not look notable enough for their own articles, and should all be converted to redirects to either Chhota Bheem or to one central article on the film series based on that...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I ran across them following an editor who was copying credits in total from IMDb. The TV films don't meet WP:NFILM although the theatrical films look like they may. Content of all the TV films could be merged to Chhota Bheem#Television films. These are all look to be basically extended TV episodes. It is not an area I follow or have much interest in currently. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The Kim Possible edit you reverted
Yeah…a reference is never coming. Unless you think a SWAT/KP crossover is plausible--Fradio71 (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Andi Mack#The LGBT category
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Andi Mack#The LGBT category. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@IJBall and MPFitz1968: Zombies 2 ordered. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- However, for the same reasons we don't put these articles into mainspace until we have more information, like a scheduled premiere date, is this acceptable? That info has nothing to do with the actress and belongs in the Zombies article itself, as I have already done so. Also, we wouldn't list Zombies 2 in the filmography until we have more than just pre-production info? I imagine Milo Manheim will also be edited to the same effect. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- [sigh...] Really don't feel this one merited a sequel... Anyway, I think it's OK to put that in her article (sourced), but it should not be added to the Filmography until filming on the sequel actually happens. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- OK with reference to add to actor article and it looks solid. Isn't really a credit for the filmography until the credit shows up in the finished product. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- [sigh...] Really don't feel this one merited a sequel... Anyway, I think it's OK to put that in her article (sourced), but it should not be added to the Filmography until filming on the sequel actually happens. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Splitting out the sequel into its own section at Zombies (2018 film) will probably be justified at some point, but I'd rather wait until it actually starts filming – right now the sequel is really still in "pre-production"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Are the images added to Joshua Rush and Lilan Bowden acceptable or WP:COPYVIO? Also, the redirect to Andi Mack has been removed on Sofia Wylie. Does she now pass WP:NACTOR? One thing I do know for sure is that we should avoid the "best known" phrasing. Pinging IJBall and MPFitz1968, too! Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Not free-use images as license doesn't permit all uses. Looks to be tagged on commons now for deletion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Regarding Wylie, I'm on the fence about whether she meets WP:NACTOR. I see the movie Back of the Net in the filmography listing, and if that has indeed aired in Australia, as the prose in the Wylie article is indicating, then it gives her a second main role (after Andi Mack). Marvel Rising: Heart of Iron is also in the filmography listing, but as an upcoming film (according to the prose), with her in another main role (voice). Might still be just a little WP:TOOSOON there (especially since Heart of Iron isn't out yet), but there are a lot more references shown, compared to earlier versions of her biography, though hard to say if she would meet WP:GNG. At least one of the sources isn't focused on Andi Mack and is talking a bit about her dancing. I probably could go either way about whether she has passed notability at this point. MPFitz1968 (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Disruptive IP editor
Just to let you know that I have reported the persistent IP editor that you, I and others spend time dealing with, here[2] MapReader (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- @MapReader: IP was blocked for edit warring [3]. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The claim that this show is being revived should be sourced, or it should be removed. Just sayin'. A similar unsourced claim has been removed from Cubeez by yourself and EvergreenFir. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Camilod is persistent and I was just undoing one of his many dubious edits on that article so didn't check further. Likely managed to slip one in that didn't get caught in the past. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Live action Kim Possible
Vandalism
Hi Geraldo, The Summit School (Queens, New York) article keeps getting vandalized (i.e., putting former students names' as administrators in the infobox) and I wanted to know if you could lock it. Thanks. ATC . Talk 19:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- @ATC: I can't do admin stuff in this account and rarely log in to my admin account. Best process for vandalized articles is follow process at WP:RPP. If you have WP:Twinkle enabled, adding admin requests is easy. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Just want to double-check and make sure I'm correct here. Even though it's clearly evident that that's Nathan Kress in the video, we cannot use it since it was uploaded by a random YouTube account instead of Nickelodeon, Nathan Kress, or some other official YouTube account, correct? Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: We can use a person's words for information about himself per WP:ABOUTSELF. We can't use what he states about someone else. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Based on the sourced January 12 update at the article, I would suggest that the show fails WP:TVSHOW – as a show that has never aired (and apparently never will) – and so should be sent to WP:AfD for deletion. At the least, it should be moved to WP:Draftspace. Agree?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Fails TVSHOW now. Should be in draft space until it meets TVSHOW or at least GNG. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Move reverted by Fradio71 – apparently the source says a season #1 was produced. Still, as per WP:TVSHOW, TV shows don't qualify for articles until some kind of broadcast date is announced, and as far as I can tell this show still doesn't have that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I've reverted. They pull this again, and they should be reverted and warned or reported. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have reverted – it is "debatable". If no season #1 had been produced, then it wouldn't be debatable, and it should be in Draftspace. But if a season #1 has been produced, as the source claims, then it's in a "gray area", where there are some episodes sitting in the can, but no scheduled premiere date for the show. There are certainly shows that have produced episodes which ultimately are never released – there was a mid-2000s show for CBS called Waterfront like this; another was a show called Day One(?) on NBC – so it's questionable that it should be an article in mainspace. But this one's not cut and dried... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: From working with you and the others in our group, I've always understood it that unless there is an exact premiere date known—not just a year—articles do not belong in mainspace, for this exact reason. I don't remember the exact name, but it's like that talking (?) hand series Disney Channel ordered that never came to light. Add: Right Hand Guy]. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yep – that's pretty much what WP:TVSHOW does say. And this show definitely seems to not even have a "rough" premiere date slated... But that's balanced by the fact that this article has been in Mainspace a while. If it were my call, I'd leave it in Draftspace – but I realize at this point, with this article, it's a bit of a "judgement call"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall and Amaury: I think it is pretty clear that it doesn't meet TVSHOW and should be in draft space. Based on sources production team is hopeful but still nothing solid. Generally something needs to be airing or pretty certain it will air to have an article. For a contested bold move, though, even if done for a good reason, we should fall back to the RM process. Community consensus heads off a lot of problems and, like most things, there is no hurry. If the last move to draft space sticks, then best to just leave things alone. If it gets moved back to main space then should do the RM. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yep – that's pretty much what WP:TVSHOW does say. And this show definitely seems to not even have a "rough" premiere date slated... But that's balanced by the fact that this article has been in Mainspace a while. If it were my call, I'd leave it in Draftspace – but I realize at this point, with this article, it's a bit of a "judgement call"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: From working with you and the others in our group, I've always understood it that unless there is an exact premiere date known—not just a year—articles do not belong in mainspace, for this exact reason. I don't remember the exact name, but it's like that talking (?) hand series Disney Channel ordered that never came to light. Add: Right Hand Guy]. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- I would just like to apologize, as it does seem my move back was a point of contention, with me as that perceived other side. It just seemed like a major aspect hadn't been considered at the time so I figured it was worth addressing. I'll use more tempered tactics next time--Fradio71 (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have reverted – it is "debatable". If no season #1 had been produced, then it wouldn't be debatable, and it should be in Draftspace. But if a season #1 has been produced, as the source claims, then it's in a "gray area", where there are some episodes sitting in the can, but no scheduled premiere date for the show. There are certainly shows that have produced episodes which ultimately are never released – there was a mid-2000s show for CBS called Waterfront like this; another was a show called Day One(?) on NBC – so it's questionable that it should be an article in mainspace. But this one's not cut and dried... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I've reverted. They pull this again, and they should be reverted and warned or reported. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Move reverted by Fradio71 – apparently the source says a season #1 was produced. Still, as per WP:TVSHOW, TV shows don't qualify for articles until some kind of broadcast date is announced, and as far as I can tell this show still doesn't have that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@IJBall and MPFitz1968: Here's another one:
- Created on April 11, 2018, as a redirect
- Redirect removed on July 2, 2018, but quickly restored
- Redirect removed again on August 25, 2018, but quickly restored again
- Redirect removed yet again today
Thoughts? Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing has significantly changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aidan Gallagher. I note a second significant role, though, that may meet NACTOR. Still no significant coverage in secondary sources. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think the case can be made that Gallagher plausibly meets WP:NACTOR now, but that doesn't trump WP:BASIC. In cases like these, I'm always looking for one or two "in-depth profiles" of the subject in secondary sources – if you don't have that, my personal take is that I'm uncomfortable with having an article on the subject in the absence of that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
There's some weird, obvious socking going on at Talk:Aidan Gallagher – What should be done about this, Geraldo? Should somebody (or a noticeboard) be made aware?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: The IPs come from different geo locations. One commenter has similar name to subject. The admin accepting or rejecting the speedy should treat the comments based on the merits, not based on a vote. I suggest replying to the comments suspected as socking suggesting that people use one account but let the process run to completion, either G4 delete or speedy rejected. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy deletion removed (by a non-Admin, I'll note). Looks like the usual campaign to keep another clearly borderline BLP article on Wikipedia has succeeded. IMO, subject is still not notable enough for an article (the sourcing currently at the article is very shaky), but I'm washing my hands of this one. @Amaury: At this point, the only option is a second WP:AfD, but I wouldn't give the deletion side very long odds in prevailing now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've reverted for the reasons stated above. The previous multiple AFDs cannot just be ignored. I would've done it last night, but I wasn't entirely sure, so decided to wait to see how one of you felt about that charade. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- And now I've laid down the law. Further removals of the speedy deletion template should be considered WP:DE and reverted. Add: But I'm keeping mine to two here. It's up to you guys if you want to deal with these users' games. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury and IJBall: Only article creator is prohibited from removing a speedy G4 tag so removal with a reason by anyone who is not the creator is like removing a PROD. Next step for deletion is AfD and given marginal NACTOR and existing support for article I expect a no consensus for delete if taken to AfD. Best thing to do now is help improve the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- And now I've laid down the law. Further removals of the speedy deletion template should be considered WP:DE and reverted. Add: But I'm keeping mine to two here. It's up to you guys if you want to deal with these users' games. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've reverted for the reasons stated above. The previous multiple AFDs cannot just be ignored. I would've done it last night, but I wasn't entirely sure, so decided to wait to see how one of you felt about that charade. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy deletion removed (by a non-Admin, I'll note). Looks like the usual campaign to keep another clearly borderline BLP article on Wikipedia has succeeded. IMO, subject is still not notable enough for an article (the sourcing currently at the article is very shaky), but I'm washing my hands of this one. @Amaury: At this point, the only option is a second WP:AfD, but I wouldn't give the deletion side very long odds in prevailing now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Untitled projects
Should we really be listing untitled projects on pages such as here? That's one of the many added to the list. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Every entry in a navbox should be a live link to real information because that is the point of a navbox, linking to related subjects. I don't think untitled projects with no information belong as there is nothing meaningful to a user to link to in most of those cases. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- What about drafts? Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: We shouldn't be linking to drafts from mainspace so links to drafts don't belong. If there is some information in some mainspace article about the subject, link to that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- What about drafts? Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Few days back, I edited the infobox according to the description below the teaser trailer on YouTube, but somehow it was removed. Here's a little preview:
| director = Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck
| producer = Peter Del Vecho
| starring = Idina Menzel, Kristen Bell, Jonathan Groff and Josh Gad
| music = Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez
Please check the ordering of credits, and what about writing the parameter music, the same is written in Frozen (2013 film) infobox? Thanks! M. Billoo 12:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- @M.Billoo2000: Article is using the information from the IndieWire secondary source, not the trailer, for the order of credits and matching the first film it appears. Order in the trailer commentary is likely how the final film will order things but sources conflict. Best to leave order alone for now and wait for either the Disney press kit or actual film to be released for final order. Music attribute is contentious as template instructions say score composer only which is ridiculous for musical films. I pushed this on the first film article and wrote a WP:IAR justification at Talk:Frozen (2013 film)#Music credit in infobox. Still even with that people keep removing the songwriter credits per infobox instructions. Once we get firmer credit information and sources for the score composer I'll likely try for an WP:IAR exception on this film but too soon to push this right now, and for the exception to stick needs consensus. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Zombies 2 revisited
Splitting out the sequel into its own section at Zombies (2018 film) will probably be justified at some point, but I'd rather wait until it actually starts filming – right now the sequel is really still in "pre-production"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@IJBall: May need you guys. Add: Meg Donnelly and Milo Manheim probably as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Re: List of Andi Mack episodes – Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
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! Just notifying you because you came in today, not indicating my dispute is with you! I just didn't feel comfortable not including you in the notification. valereee (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Will probably need to keep an eye on this IP. A lot of contra-MOS edits that look to be disruptive. This edit, especially, set off alarm bells, as this is a perennial kind of low-desirability edit that most of us reject, but may indicate that this IP has been at this before. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Henry Danger
@IJBall and MPFitz1968: Just a heads up in anticipation. Next week's Henry Danger is being specially promoted because it is the 100th episode, and I'm posting this because I can already tell you guys what people may likely start doing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- To head this off, it's probably worth a special 'note' in the episode summary. Something like, "Note: Nickelodeon promoted this episode as the "100th episode" of Henry Danger, and it was the 100th episode produced." --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
"Disney Asia" vandal is back
- For previous discussions about this, please see: User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 17#"Disney Asia"/"Disney Southeast Asia" vandal and User talk:MPFitz1968/Archive 11#"Disney Asia" vandal.
The "Disney Asia" vandal is back, at Go Away, Unicorn! – [4] – this time at a 180.190.x.x. IP, rather than a 180.191.x.x. IP. Pinging MPFitz1968 to see this as well. We'll need to keep an eye out... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Abominable
Hey, that user is vandalising on Dreamworks Animation’s Abominable. 2600:387:1:811:0:0:0:97 (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Well
I still know the that Toy Story 4 will be a finale to the Toy Story franchise. BELIEVE THE GUYS WORKING ON THIS FILM! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaldiBasicsFan (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BaldiBasicsFan: Every latest film in any film series is possibly the last one to be made so stating that in the lead isn't really adding anything and it is speculation. Speculation that shouldn't be in articles unless well sourced and notable. Even if the production team makes an absolute statement that they won't make any more they will change their minds if there is money to be made in another film. At the time TS3 was released it was considered the one to close out the series and yet they are still making another one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Page Six
Is Page Six WP:RS? Instagram will have to go as it is not verified and therefore WP:NOTRS. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: From the site pagesix looks to be an outlet of New York Post so I'd say reliable. What does John Barra do for this show even if his social media account were verified. If we can prove via some other means that it is his account we can only use it for stuff about himself or things he would be considered an expert in (show runner or network mouthpiece for example). Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Swapping of directed and written by columns. @MPFitz1968 and IJBall: Would appreciate some feedback from you guys here if you have any. Discussion has stalled. 
Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Fast Layne – VIN
@MPFitz1968: Going to need more eyes here, as people keep wanting to make VIN a main character. VIN is in the opening sequence with "featuring," but there is just the character name, nothing else. Additionally, and the more important point, VIN and his actor credit is listed as a guest star at the end of every episode, as seen in the episode table. One more episode and VIN will be recurring, but VIN is definitely not main. Disney Channel has the first episode on their YouTube. You can skip to 1:32 for the opening sequence here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
My cleanup has been done for a long time, but I was going to wait until I had a chance to go through and trim some of my summaries, though that can be done little by little on the live article. Anyway, I finally got my cleanup done, as can be seen, including adding that unreliable source note to "We Are Family" (S2 E3) like we discussed at User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 16#Probable ratings error with Kickin' It's episode premiere on April 16, 2012. Please feel free to reword the reason if you think it could be worded differently. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Looks good to me. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Disney hybrid films
Mary Poppins, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Pete's Dragon (1977), Enchanted, G-Force, The Jungle Book (2016), The BFG, Christopher Robin, Mary Poppins Returns and Dumbo (2019) are Disney's live-action/animated hybrid films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.227.147.240 (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- They are live action with minor amounts of animation used more for special effects than anything else. Amount of animation is too minor to be considered hybrid films where the animation would be significant. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Wonder Park
Excuse me but the soundtrack for Wonder Park is real and the user that edited it before you locked it is fake. Can you replace the fake one with the real one? 2600:387:1:811:0:0:0:3A (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
May need another eye there. Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Q: Is Tunebat (Formerly Known as SongKeyBPM).com a Reliable Source For a Song's Composition?
It's a shame that none of Melanie Martinez's songs have a Composition section which mentions the key and metronome. (beats per minute)
But for Cry Baby's page, I had added the key and beats per minute for said song on its page which are in F Minor and at a moderately slow rate of 95 BPM. Unfortunately, someone had removed it and uncited.
What if this was added to Ring by Cardi B and Kehlani? It was set in the tonic of C-sharp Minor or alternatively on that site enharmonic equivalent D-flat Minor.
And also most of the songs keys there are wrong, e.g. SAD by the now-departed XXXTentacion was set in the tonic of A flat but it's actually C Minor or Rockstar by Post Malone and 21 Savage which was in actuality written in G Minor not F Minor.
If one uses that site as a reference on Imagine's page, (yes Ariana Grande's) it was also played in A flat the aforementioned key's relative major.
So do you think that Tunebat (formerly known as SongKeyBPM).com is a reliable source or not really? Please reply back ASAP.
Bye,
47.16.146.238 (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I can find very little about tunebat.com even on their own site. Appears to be run by 1 person and I suspect just measured the data from the songs to fill the database. It does not appear to meet our requirements as a reliable source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@IJBall: You guys may be interested in this discussion. I came across it on WT:TV and WT:MOSTV. Seems to be akin to Max & Shred and Supernatural, as we discussed here a long time ago: Talk:List of Max & Shred episodes#Zap2it's Air Dates Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@IJBall and MPFitz1968: I've requested indefinite semi-protection, but I'm going to need more eyes in the meantime. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
You're needed here... This is a persistent issue, so semiprotection may be in order. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Drake & Josh revival
@MPFitz1968 and IJBall: https://people.com/tv/drake-bell-teases-drake-and-josh-reboot/
I'll be making User:Amaury/sandbox/Drake & Josh (revival series) at some point. The disambiguation is temporary until I know a premiere year, of course, as I know that's wrong disambiguation. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I made note about this article being deleted by Bbb23, but then subsequently restored by Antandrus. Possibly the deletion was in error, but I don't know (sent Bbb23 a note on their talk page). Pinging IJBall, Amaury. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- It was in error, as Bbb23 mentioned in their reply, and there's a post about it at WP:AN#Help with restore. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: It originally looked like it was done in error to me. Interesting that restore didn't work until someone with a different browser (Javascript engine) tried it. Looks OK now looking at the edit history. Admin tools are easy to use, sometimes too easy, and mistakes happen then get fixed. Everything an admin does should be undoable so it is weird to see problems like this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@IJBall and MPFitz1968: I'm with MPFitz1968 in the archived discussion here: User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 19#Joshua Rush, Sofia Wylie, and Lilan Bowden And I'm concerned that this Starklinson fellow doesn't understand how things work as they are massively adding a big mass of categories that aren't supported by the article to the BLPs they have edited. In fact, all of their edits to Sofia Wylie seem to be problematic, such as unsourced birthday. So what do we do? Convert it back to a redirect and then request full protection on the redirect to keep people from removing it? Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Birthdate is sourced. Occupations and categories not supported by article content should be removed with edit summaries explaining why. Don't see where singer and producer came from. Starklinson seems to care about the article and would likely appreciate help making it better. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Singer was because of one song release that hasn't charted. Producer looks to be a hobby so far. Not notable occupations. Categories are iffy related to those so left alone. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Cat's probably out of the bag on this one – the only recourse is WP:AfD at this point, and I wouldn't give the deletion/redirect side long odds (even if that's where I'd prob. come down for now...). I've done some basic cleanup. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The Substitute
@IJBall: User:Amaury/sandbox/The Substitute. How do we want to disambiguate this? (Disambiguation page for reference: Substitute.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: The Substitute already exists as the primary topic and has a hatnote pointing to Substitute via the required (disambiguation) redirect. The Substitute (TV series) also exists. So suggest move current TV series article to (Chinese TV series), name new article with (U.S. TV series), tag (TV series) as incomplete disambiguation and point to Substitute#Television with entry for new series in that section. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- I wonder if we could leave the Chinese one as is and just do (TV program) for the Nickelodeon one. The Nickelodeon one doesn't appear to be scripted and doesn't have continuing story elements—for example, like Henry Danger—so it's not really a series, but rather a program. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I think the distinction will be lost on most people. A series of separate but connected programs that is broadcast on television. Looks like a TV series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- I wonder if we could leave the Chinese one as is and just do (TV program) for the Nickelodeon one. The Nickelodeon one doesn't appear to be scripted and doesn't have continuing story elements—for example, like Henry Danger—so it's not really a series, but rather a program. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Do we think this is an acceptable Navbox? I'm going to ping Gonnym to this discussion as well... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- I personally don't. All of the links in the "Seasons" section are red; None of the links in the "Characters" section are actually character articles. Some are redirects and some are actor articles (which never get added to nav boxes) so at the end all you have is the related section, which is not even for the show for which this nav template was created. --Gonnym (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- No way. The purpose of nav boxes is navigation to related articles. It is like having redlinks in a see also section. Navboxes are not list articles. Red links and non-links are pointless. Even if the episodes links were live, it overlaps the list of episodes article or table in purpose so also not needed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Apparently Nickalive is reporting a new title for this. That's why the page was moved. But Nickalive is WP:NOTRS, so it shouldn't be moved or retitled until a better source is produced. FWIW. Will probably need to keep an eye on this one over the next few days... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: It is supposedly from a Nick press release. Possibly a copy of the PR could be found on a reliable source to support the change. I haven't checked, I just undid the move pending a reliable source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: It's been move protected now, but we'll still need to deal with title changes in the prose. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Raven's Home dilemma
Pinging IJBall and MPFitz1968 as well.
As we know from the Production section, Following a silent renewal, on November 28, 2018, it was announced that Eunetta T. Boone would be taking over as showrunner and executive producer for the third season.
(Source: Deadline Hollywood.) However, now we have this, also on Deadline Hollywood: Eunetta T. Boone Dies: One on One Creator, Raven's Home Showrunner. Production of the third season is temporarily shut down the rest of this week, but I wonder if that will have any negative impact on the series in general or if they'll just find a new showrunner? Also, is this something we should mention on Raven's Home, in particular because she has no article on Wikipedia? Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: It is worth a mention in the production section. She is already there and her death looks notable to the show. They'll likely find a new showrunner. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Amaury (Result: ). Thank you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Big Time Rush (band) edits
Geraldo, none of these edits seems right to me. "The Wanted" is the name of a band. The lower caps in the header seems wrong. Thoughts?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- MOS:CAPS "sometimes the word following a colon is capitalized, if that word effectively begins a new grammatical sentence". MOS:COLON even demonstrates the issue. Also all the words in a proper noun get capitalized. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Talk:Big Time Rush (band)#Capitalization after colons and capitalization of proper nouns. One more revert, and we take them to WP:ANEW. They just reverted my edit warring warning and called me a troll, so they clearly have WP:CIR issues. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've filed an WP:RPP for full protection on the article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is an issue of the definite article in band names. General Wikipedia consensus seems to be that "the" is not capitalized mid sentence for band names. Major issue argued ad nauseam on The Beatles article looking at archives. Goes against how proper nouns are capitalized in general but Wikipedia consensus seems to permit band names as an exception. See articles like The New York Times for other uses. Capitalizing a phrase after an intro tag is potentially contentious but it looks wrong and is more like separate thing than a continuation of the sentence - an independent clause. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: That's perfectly acceptable and will force discussion out of this user. If approved, protecting admin should restore it to the earlier version before this started per WP:STATUSQUO. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- FWIW, MOS:THEMUSIC is still a guideline. It is not an absolute top-down rule that must be followed, especially when it doesn't make sense. The name of the band is The Wanted, not Wanted; if it were just Wanted, then yes, "the" would be lowercase. Regardless of right or wrong, the user is clearly edit warring, in violation of 3RR, and should be discussing it per WP:BRD, but they would rather keep reverting because of their "I am right" mentality. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Some things are just not worth it. MOS:THEMUSIC is compromise consensus after many major heated discussions. Not worth reopening that can of worms. Strong opinions on both sides who are certain they are right. I'm more than willing to yield to the MOS in this case. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not doing anything more at the article for now, either. That aside, however, see the latest comment by Purplebackback89 at the ANEW report. This seems to be part of a larger behavioral issue with this user in particular and it seems like they could be facing an indefinite block. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Geraldo, if you're interested, since you're actually the original user who started to tango with Joe, not me: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Joefromrandb. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Some things are just not worth it. MOS:THEMUSIC is compromise consensus after many major heated discussions. Not worth reopening that can of worms. Strong opinions on both sides who are certain they are right. I'm more than willing to yield to the MOS in this case. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is an issue of the definite article in band names. General Wikipedia consensus seems to be that "the" is not capitalized mid sentence for band names. Major issue argued ad nauseam on The Beatles article looking at archives. Goes against how proper nouns are capitalized in general but Wikipedia consensus seems to permit band names as an exception. See articles like The New York Times for other uses. Capitalizing a phrase after an intro tag is potentially contentious but it looks wrong and is more like separate thing than a continuation of the sentence - an independent clause. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Could use some more eyes at that one (pinging IJBall, Amaury). Got an editor who is changing her years active in the infobox without explanation (from "2008–present" to "2009–present"), against what is stated in the article, with her filmography showing 2008 entries as well as sourced info about at least one of her 2008 films. Seems to be a pattern at a few other articles about musicians/rappers, inexplicably changing their years active (either by one year later or earlier). MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The Loud House – Clyde
@IJBall and MPFitz1968: There's been slow-motion edit-warring from Lincolnspoud since at least March 15 with regard to Clyde. EvergreenFir has now opened a discussion at Talk:The Loud House#Is Clyde a Main Character? if interested. Animation, at least on Nickelodeon, is poor in making it clear who goes where in terms of main, etc. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
iCarly season articles
An IP is changing the order of the main cast members, moving Jeanette McCurdy down the list, and adding Noah Munck to the main cast in the seasons he wasn't credited as such. They were also indicating that Jerry Trainor became a main cast member in a later season, even though he is main cast throughout the series. The set of articles needs additional watching. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Suspicious user: Vic Hawk
The regular interaction report analyzer is currently down, so here is an alternative. It doesn't show who edited what first, but it's obvious I edited everything listed there first, long before this user cropped up (account was created March 21). I've set the start date there to January 1 of this year.
Interaction report here.
Pinging MPFitz1968 and IJBall as well, the latter who is already aware of this. Very little edits from them, but all but one of their edits are to somewhat disparate articles that I watch. As such, there is a sockpuppet vibe here. I can't really say who the master is if they are a sock, but they're definitely suspicious. IPs and users will generally just add episodes that are almost always unsourced and end up being reverted. The fact that this user even references Zap2it adds more suspicion. Please keep a good eye on them. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: If the edits are dubious and unsourced or appear to be deliberate misinformation, make sure to add warnings to the user talk page so a block can be supported if necessary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I'm not a sock puppet i was just trying to fix a few errors Vic Hawk (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall and MPFitz1968: I was just left this message on Commons. I'm going to go ahead and grant them their wish and file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simulation12. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Just for interest, I am at my 3rr limit, with an editor pushing contentious info refuted by the linked article in the list entry. Details in the edit history. I'll have to drop this for a while. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Legacies (TV series)#Followup on episode summary lengths. You and MPFitz1968 may be interested in this as you both participated over on Talk:List of Andi Mack episodes#Plot summaries of most episodes are way too long as in a lot more of than 200 words. Essentially the same discussion, just on a different series. For background, the summaries in question were originally 257 and 326 words, respectively. The long plot tag was added, and they were later shortened to an acceptable 225 and 224 words, respectively. However, the long plot was added again because it was believed they were still way too long. They've now been shortened to about 200 words. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Pinging IJBall and MPFitz1968. This is based on our discussion at Talk:Coop & Cami Ask the World#Opening sequence – Star billing for Dakota Lotus and Ruby Rose Turner, where we never really "decided" how to proceed. For Best Friends Whenever, there's actually already a completed discussion at Talk:Best Friends Whenever#Credit order, but it never hurts to revisit.
To keep it simple, here is the current ordering for stars whose names appear at the same time in the opening sequence:
Best Friends Whenever:
- Landry Bender -> Lauren Taylor
- Benjamin Cole Royer -> Matthew Lewis Royer
Bizaardvark:
- Madison Hu -> Olivia Rodrigo
Coop & Cami Ask the World
- Dakota Lotus -> Ruby Rose Turner
Note that for Best Friends Whenever and Coop & Cami Ask the World, Disney ABC Press—or, I guess, Walt Disney Television Press now—matches the order we have listed here on Wikipedia. However, for Bizaardvark, it lists Olivia Rodrigo -> Madison Hu, opposite of what we have here on Wikipedia. It's hard to say if Disney ABC Press' cast order is based on the order in the opening sequence of series, but I don't think it necessarily is, as having a look at Raven's Home will quickly show it does not match our order here on Wikipedia, which is based on the opening sequence.
So the question is simple: Is the current ordering showed in the bullet lists above correct or should one or more of them be changed? If so, which ones? What should the order be? Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- I still say go off the credits, and if the credits regularly "switch" the order then list it alphabetically (by surname). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: The issue here isn't switching credit order, like on Cousins for Life, it's names being displayed on the screen at the same time. I always thought it was top-to-bottom first, followed by left-to-right, since Geraldo mentioned line-by-line and then left-to-right. However, it's possible I may have misunderstood Geraldo since you said I was wrong in that first discussion and that left-to-right comes first, which means some of these listings may be wrong and should be fixed and many of the guest stars for Nickelodeon's series could be in the wrong order, since their generic credits show guest stars and co-stars in columns, but it's too late to fix that now. Screenshots: Best Friends Whenever (Screenshot 1, Screenshot 2), Bizaardvark (Screenshot), Coop & Cami Ask the World (Screenshot). Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think the rough consensus has always been to defer to left-to-right rather than top-down. But there may be some articles where the consensus goes the other way, I don't know... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: FWIW, since you mentioned it above, all three of these articles where main cast members' names appear at the same time have those names listed alphabetically by last name, and I know Geraldo stated that's how to show equal billing. Lab Rats: Elite Force is another one, with William Brent and Bradley Steven Perry, which is also alphabetical at the article. So maybe all of these are fine as is... Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- We should use normal English reading rules when reading English language text. Credits should be no different. They are trying to show equal billing, though and the intent is neither before the other. We need to serialize them for lists, and normal way to honor equal billing in lists is alphabetical. When we are lucky normal reading order ends up alphabetically and we don't have an issue. When they conflict we pretty much have to fall back on how sources closest to the production serialize them. Our fall-back should be alphabetical by last name if we get conflicting guidance in primary sources. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: FWIW, since you mentioned it above, all three of these articles where main cast members' names appear at the same time have those names listed alphabetically by last name, and I know Geraldo stated that's how to show equal billing. Lab Rats: Elite Force is another one, with William Brent and Bradley Steven Perry, which is also alphabetical at the article. So maybe all of these are fine as is... Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think the rough consensus has always been to defer to left-to-right rather than top-down. But there may be some articles where the consensus goes the other way, I don't know... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: The issue here isn't switching credit order, like on Cousins for Life, it's names being displayed on the screen at the same time. I always thought it was top-to-bottom first, followed by left-to-right, since Geraldo mentioned line-by-line and then left-to-right. However, it's possible I may have misunderstood Geraldo since you said I was wrong in that first discussion and that left-to-right comes first, which means some of these listings may be wrong and should be fixed and many of the guest stars for Nickelodeon's series could be in the wrong order, since their generic credits show guest stars and co-stars in columns, but it's too late to fix that now. Screenshots: Best Friends Whenever (Screenshot 1, Screenshot 2), Bizaardvark (Screenshot), Coop & Cami Ask the World (Screenshot). Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I Am Frankie season 2
Did you ever catch up and finish the season? Thoughts? Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: No as I kind of lost interest. I started, but couldn't really get engaged like I did in the first season. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Geraldo, just a heads up that I have either redirected or merged all of the separate season articles for Pingu (e.g. Pingu (series 1) thru Pingu (series 6)) to List of Pingu episodes. The first two simply duplicated content already at the LoE article. The last 4 were not valid "season" articles under MOS:TV (not enough unique content), and those sections were just "blank" at the LoE article anyway, so I merged those four back to the LoE. I've also added a 'Series overview' table.
I know essentially nothing about this series, but I am suspicious of the (unsourced) 'Special episodes' section, and am wondering if that section should just be removed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's also worth noting that all 6 of the "series" articles went to WP:AfD in August 2015, and the result was "delete" on all 6 of them. So they should absolutely not be allowed to be recreated again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Don't forget to tag the redirects with
{{R from merge}}to add the caution to preserve edit history. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Don't forget to tag the redirects with
I have multiple problems with this edit, on both WP:NOTBROKEN/correct titling and WP:ACCESS grounds, but I've had previous conflicts with this editor, so if you agree that the edits are problematic, a reversion is probably better coming from you... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I got it. Now the WP:ONUS is on them per WP:BRD. Unlikely they'll actually follow it, which doesn't bother me. We'll just take them to WP:ANEW again. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Spshu is clearly now just edit warring to prove some sort of WP:POINT, rather than trying to improve the article, so more eyes will be needed here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- There is a discussion at Talk:A Cinderella Story (film series)#Removing sources, where Spshu is blaming everyone but themselves. Geraldo and IJBall: Even though they continued past 3RR, since they've stopped for now, a report at WP:ANEW is likely not needed. However, I propose that a report at WP:ANI should be filed and we call for a six-month block, at a minimum. Despite their claims at the talk page there, their block log is completely relevant, as they are clearly WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Although it can't just be a brief report, it's going to have be probably fairly lengthy if we want harsher consequences to even be considered. Ping MPFitz1968 as well to make him aware. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Spshu is clearly now just edit warring to prove some sort of WP:POINT, rather than trying to improve the article, so more eyes will be needed here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| For your contributions on films and media articles, I look foward to be an editor like you! -Gouleg (Talk • Contribs) 15:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC) |