User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Happy New Year!

Amaury (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Amaury (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:K.C. Undercover#Enemy of the State

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:K.C. Undercover#Enemy of the State. Thanks. Amaury (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Poppy Drayton

Hello, Geraldo! When you (or any WP:Talk page stalkers who see this!) get the chance, could you chime in at Talk:Poppy Drayton#Poppy Drayton Birthday. I'd appreciate some other opinions there, so we can resolve this. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Twitter question

Hi Geraldo! So, how can you determine whether a Twitter account is a BLP's "official" twitter account?... Just curious. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Generally look for the blue circle with the white checkmark on the users main page. See this for example next to his name under the picture, proves that twitter has received proof from him that it is really his account and he states that it is his official twitter account although we'd likely assume that minus the statement. Click on the blue circle, hover text says verified and links to what that means. If the account is not verified need a reliable source that connects the account to the person, still most notable people now get their twitter account verified. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, cool – that's definitely good to know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: Max & Shred

I meant to ask you about this back then, but on January 9, 2016, Gatordragon added a season two table, and I was just curious if the German source used is reliable. It looks like there are air dates for season (staffel) two, but Gatodragon didn't include those for some reason. Amaury (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: Gatordragon likely didn't add the German airdates as it is a US show and should have US airdates in the table. I could find nothing in my browsing at http://www.fernsehserien.de and subpages that showed any obvious signs that the site is not a reliable source such as disclaimers of accuracy or it being capable of being edited by anonymous editors or the info is in an open comments section. Using translate software to browse a German site is difficult and I may have missed something. Should probably ask about the sites reliability at WP:RSN. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury and Gatordragon: Add: It has been asked at WP:RSN - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_190#Fernsehserien.de. Opinion is reliable for very basic info but should get better sourcing for details. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: I sometimes forget that WP:RSN has a search function. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: 109.77.193.176

Please see this edit, where they, like previous users, revert the article to a past version. The tense part is the only good part of their edit. Everything is else is unnecessary. I don't know why many users are so insistent on writing a lot of parenthetical sentences in paragraphs. I don't feel like reverting it myself, but looking at your contributions, you've also dealt with them today. Amaury (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: I generally ignore minor source formatting changes that don't change displayed text. Parenthetical stuff is, in my opinion, awkward and should never be necessary in an article. Looks like he is generally trying to improve the articles though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I will assume good faith, then. Thanks. Amaury (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury and Geraldo Perez: That doesn't make sense to me. Now two tenses are mixed in the same sentence: "She was offered more roles in other shows and movies, but decides to come home instead because she misses her family and wants to see them again." – nyuszika7h (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably could just correct that to "is offered", actually. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: The way I interpret the guidance is for the show itself past tense is stuff that happens before the first episode of the series, present tense for what is in the series itself as it is revealed as it happens to the viewer, and future tense for what would happen after the series is over. For an episode description past is what happened in previous episodes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I didn't think of that. (Also, that ping didn't work. It needs to be adding a new line, not modifying an existing one.) nyuszika7h (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Game Shaker revert

About that edit you reverted. I saw info removed when looking at the edit. Might of been looking at something else that was already fixed. I really don't know what happened. But the edit was fine. Thanks. WP Editor 2012 (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Having issue with editor(s) update of a season 4 episode from Boy Meets World

Hi, Geraldo. Four days ago, I came across a change in the summary for a season 4 episode titled "Uncle Daddy" [1], which I reverted, explaining how significantly different the meaning is about what happens (as I'm not too familiar with the episode, and felt the original version was accurate, and long-standing in the article). That edit was restored roughly an hour ago, by a user with a different IP address from the first user who submitted the edit (likely a dynamic address, as about the first half of the address itself is the same) [2]. I reverted a second time, stating my reasons again as for the first time. The change in the content of the summary to me didn't look to be clear vandalism, as opposed to disputed details as to what happened, though pretty dubious given the family-oriented nature of the show. Problem is this edit may be restored again, and at that point (if it turns out to be from a user with yet another IP address) I'd be inclined to request semi-protection of the article, but I don't know. What do you think? MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @MPFitz1968: I've seen the Boy Meets World series, and I can definitely tell you that Eric didn't get any girl pregnant. Amaury (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: The original edit made August 26, 2006, [3] that added the ep summary supports the long term description. Doubt that they made a major mistake but I do trust Amaury to have verified that the long-term original summary is correct. The IPv6 is the same person but hard to communicate with as IPv6 addresses change the bottom half each time the person logs in to their ISP for most ISPs who assign addresses so won't see messages on the talk page. If this continues and edit summary messages ignored will need to protect the page. About the only way to stop vandalism from IPv6 users is range blocks that cover the first half of the address. Most admins are generally loath to do range blocks though so this tends to be a problem. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Wander Over Yonder Season 2 Synopsis Adding (When to add them appropriately)

Geraldo,

What do you recommend when it comes to putting in the Synopsis? There are sources I found that I can add to the summaries for each upcoming episodes of Wander Over Yonder:

http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/Disney-XD-Announces-February-2016-Programming-Highlights-20160129

and

http://www.disneyabcpress.com/disneyxd/

Both updated the info of each episodes and synopsis. And they are reliable sources. Would putting in the exact same words infringe on what kind of summaries would be about? In the past, the summaries were added BEFORE the episodes aired. But deleting them until it airs seemed like it doesn't make sense that way. Paraphrasing I tried, but seemed that it's deemed not constructive enough.

Just wondering this notion.

WingedArtist28 (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@WingedArtist28: The references are good but unfortunately it is almost impossible be sufficiently different to not count as a copyvio when you are using the summaries provided by the press-releases and program guides. Changing a few words is seldom sufficient. Data such as who the guest cast is, dates, and if the episode is a special is fine to include as that is not creative content. Summary descriptions should wait for someone to actually view the episode in question and then a real good summary can be created from memory after watching the episode. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Cameron Boyce

I don't think it's fair for you to take off my edit when it is already confirmed by Disney channel, many other pages already have information about the actor staring in movies before it even premieres. Im pretty sure you took off my edit so that you can put it and that's not right. This has happened before, you always take off my edits then a week later put it yourself. This is a page where everyone can edit and my information isn't wrong. This isn't your page. So please next time please don't mess with my edits unless it's 100% wrong not because you don't like it. Thank you. Nathan0313 (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nathan0313: That's nice. Info still requires a reference. I have seen nothing in reliable sources about that episode that mentions the guest cast so until the episode airs and the credits can be viewed, needs a reference. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Does it have to be on Disneychannel.com or other resources ? Nathan0313 (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nathan0313: A reference needs to meet the requirements listed at WP:RS. Current reference on the Bunk'd page for the episode in question is http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/bunkd-lukes-back/EP022005700015?aid=zap2it which give the title and lists the main cast only. Cameron Boyce is not mentioned and it just a presumption he will be in the episode based soley on the title. Generally program guides, Disney press releases or the actual credits of the episode after it has been aired are needed for credit info. Sometimes other reliable news outlets cover upcoming episodes of shows and talk about cast. That would work as well. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I was noticing on the Disney ABC Press page for the episode ("Luke's Back", in the photos section, that it does mention Boyce in the captions for three photos (along with him appearing in them), which reportedly come from the episode. Don't know exactly how it affects sourcing about him being in the episode. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That should be sufficient as a reference. Still needs to be explicitly cited for cast info in any article until the ep has aired then the episode itself become the published source and does not need to be separately cited. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Actually it is WP:SYNTHESIS but is reasonable to stay in article until the ep airs, just needs the tag. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Candace Cameron Bure in the Movie Selena

Hello I just wanted to let you know that Candace Camron Bure appeared in the movie Selena which was filmed in 1997. The Scene is where Selena and her friend Sarah go to buy a dress for Sarah to ware at the Grammy's in L.A. The owner or manager does not know who they are more importantly Selena, she then tells Selena that the dress they want to try on costs $800. When everybody runs to the store Selena is in the lady asks what is going on. Candace Cameron Bure tells the lady of Selena and that she is there for the Grammy's. if that was her --96.254.36.116 (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)she went uncredited and should be added to her film list. Thank you. --96.254.36.116 (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Final two episodes of Make It Pop

The last two episodes of Make It Pop were aired as an hour-long airing (including commercials), but are actually two separate episodes, not just an hour special with two productions codes like we've dealt with in the past in regard to reverting other users, as there are part one and part two credits for "Written by," so I'm not really sure if if they should be left separated or combined (40/41 and so on) on the episode list article. Zap2it shows them as two separate entries, but The Futon Critic shows them combined. This is pretty much like Henry Danger's "Henry and the Bad Girl" and "One Henry, Three Girls", where they each have two parts, but are sometimes aired as an hour-long airing. And I have noticed that Zap2it's entries are sometimes weird. Amaury (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember – when the finale aired, was there just one opening credits sequence, or two?... I couldn't remember, which is why I didn't even try to revert the IP who combined the two episodes into one entry. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

One, which generally determines what it is, but not always. TeenNick, for example, aired Degrassi's season 13 episode "Unbelievable" as an hour-long airing with one opening sequence on its original airing, but repeats air as two separate episodes, with each having an opening sequence. It was packaged as two separate episodes, but was combined as an hour-long airing for the premiere. Amaury (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I think "Part 1" and "Part 2" credits are pretty definitive proof of two separate episodes, though I don't know how these specific situations are generally handled on Wikipedia... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury and IJBall: It is a single episode if it has one opening actor credit sequence and one closing credit sequence. They might put the writing and directing credits, which come after the opening credit sequence showing the actors for the first half and show another set of writing and directing credits mid way through the episode for the second half of the episode usually with no break in the episode action other than commercials. It is still one episode. On the other hand if they just show two complete episodes back to back each with opening actor credits and closing crew and guest cast credits, it is two episodes. We should go by what is originally aired. Usually how Amazon and iTunes sell the episodes reflect that. Netflix and syndication may still split the episode in two. I haven't seen the episodes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Guess we'll wait and see how Amazon sells them. :) Amaury (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, to expand on "there were part one and part two written by credits," there were also different writers, so that would indicate to me two separate episodes that were just shown back-to-back as an hour airing like those Henry Danger and Degrassi examples I gave. Amaury (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: How many end credit sequences were there? If only one end credit sequence than only one episode. Most extended episodes are produced in multiple production slots and each slot might have different writers and directors who get credited at the beginning of their respective segment overlapping episode content usually. Still if the episode was planned and produced as a single entity by merging the two produced segments into one then that is the finished product we should be documenting. Again, I haven't seen the ep but look to Amazon and iTunes to see what they did. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the series isn't even on Amazon, though the soundtracks are. However, on Nick I can see them being listed as two episodes: http://www.nick.com/make-it-pop/episodes/ (E19 and E20). And the official Nick site is definitely a reliable source. Amaury (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury:That Nick site is authoritative and that site is also a broadcast official outlet alternative tied to a cable subscription. Also two separate titles. This one is pretty strong as being two separate episodes aired back-to-back. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Nick's Schedule

You don't have to necessarily respond to this, just something I wanted to get off my chest—not exactly venting, just something—and thought I'd share that I find kind of interesting.

Correct me if I'm wrong on the times/order (if there were a TV schedule history, that would certainly help), but before Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn's hiatus after July 25, 2015, I believe this was the lineup for Nick's Saturday night, regardless of whether there were new episodes or not:

Show	Time
Henry Danger	8:00 PM
Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn	8:30 PM
Bella and the Bulldogs	9:00 PM
100 Things to Do Before High School	9:30 PM

Bella and the Bulldogs' first season ended on May 30, 2015. Then when the third season of The Thundermans premiered:

Show	Time
Henry Danger	8:00 PM
Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn	8:30 PM
The Thundermans	9:00 PM
100 Things to Do Before High School	9:30 PM

Then finally in September when Nick had premieres and resumed new episodes after being on hiatus since July 25, 2015:

Show	Time
Henry Danger	8:00 PM
Game Shakers	8:30 PM
100 Things to Do Before High School	9:00 PM
The Thundermans	9:30 PM

This is when new episodes of The Thundermans and Bella and the Bulldogs—when its second season premiered—were moved to Wednesday nights and Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn went on hiatus. What I don't get here is that instead of reruns of The Thundermans at that time on Saturday nights, new episode of Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn could have been airing in that slot.

Now after the holidays, it's new episodes of Henry Danger that are on hiatus, but unlike with Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn, reruns are still showing.

Show	Time
Game Shakers	8:00 PM
Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn	8:30 PM
100 Things to Do Before High School	9:00 PM
The Thundermans	9:30 PM

Once again, instead of The Thundermans, Henry Danger could be keeping the 8:00 PM slot, consequently moving the other shows down. Then next Saturday with the return of new episodes of The Thundermans and Bella and the Bulldogs and on Saturday again:

Show	Time
The Thundermans	8:00 PM
Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn	8:30 PM
Bella and the Bulldogs	9:00 PM
100 Things to Do Before High School	9:30 PM

As there are no other dates currently for new episodes of The Thundermans and Bella and the Bulldogs, I'm not sure, but it's certainly possible that will be the new schedule. If that's going to be the case, they could extend Nick Saturday nights and add 7:00 PM and 7:30 PM slots for Henry Danger and Game Shakers, respectively, instead of having them on hiatus.

I don't know. I just don't get networks' scheduling sometimes. Disney Channel, for example, has been pretty bad on new episode airings since after the holidays.

Anyway, just something interesting, to me at least, that I wanted to share. Hope you don't mind. Amaury (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gravity Falls (season 2)#Between the Pines

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gravity Falls (season 2)#Between the Pines. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Game Shakers

Thank you for explains it to me. WTCM47 (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Episode list question

Semi-hypothetical question – if I know of a show with a two-season, 95-episode run, is there any scenario where it makes sense to include that at the (relatively short) main TV series article? Or should an episode list that long pretty much always go to a separate article page?... Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall:Judgement call. If lead of episode article is basically the complete main article then pointless to have separate articles. Generally, though, the main article needs to be added to to make it more complete, then the ep article will eventually be created anyway so why not have it now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Look familiar?

Hey do you know of a socker that puts Category:Cartoon Network original programs on tons of articles? This behavior seems familiar but I cannot remember from where. See Special:Contributions/2604:2000:A005:1F00:E01F:A025:5C2B:D7D0. Ping me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Ping Cyphoidbomb too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks same as User talk:68.175.36.204. That category is, of course, bogus on most of what was added to. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hm... I had found another at Special:Contributions/2604:2000:A005:1F00:6D0E:7088:267A:7BBF. The two IPv6 locate to Kansas City. The one you linked is in NYC. The first IP i linked above has been blocked. I'm gonna look to see if they continue adding pages. Might ask for an edit filter. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I found that this range was blocked in past for same behavior. Will go to ANI about it soon. Dinner first. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Pretty much everything at that IPv6 is same bogus category edits. I couldn't find the range block, though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Gad this crap is irritating... Some others from recent history: 2604:2000:a005:1f00:6d0e:7088:267a:7bbf and 2604:2000:a005:1f00:b5b0:a287:d8c4:ad1f Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Found the range block in this block log. Where do we go to ask for another? ANI? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Current range is 2604:2000:a005:1f00::/64, 14 IPv6s listed all same edits. Materialscientist did the latest block on the current IP and also did a range block on the previous range. That range is still blocked so this is block evasion. He might be willing to do another range block or may have better information of what range block to use to stop this IP. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Jesus christ I think 95% of the edits by this range are related to this pattern of vandalism... even those used just once ([4]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to clean up what I could find in that range. Also did a purge of obvious wrong inclusions in Category:Cartoon Network original programs, but that is not the only target. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not as familiar with Disney and stuff... I did request an edit filter. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The plot thickens... I dug through The Powerpuff Girls history after noticing the Jetix and Kids' WB cats and found this edit. Turns out this has been going on for years. The IP in question is also from New York like the other IPv4 you mentioned... Special:Contributions/108.27.140.223. I don't know what to do about this... years? Who the hell does this for years? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Another NYC IP address from 2013 - Special:Contributions/108.14.184.239. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Another one

Different vandal but another range being used to vandalize dates... what is it about cartoons that attracts these assholes? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Related to The Replacements... IP range here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Lima Peru, different person, different pattern in the 2001:1388:106:: and 2001:1388:107:: ranges. Mix of good and bad edits to lots of pages, won't communicate and just forces stuff. Mostly annoying. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

100 Things to Do Before High School

This is how the episode table header appears on Chrome, which isn't correct: http://i.imgur.com/BukDfho.png However, on Explorer and Firefox on my laptop, it appears correctly, like so: http://i.imgur.com/466CiIY.png Notice it's not "fat." It's set up the same as Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn's season two table, which also uses school bus yellow, and it appears fine on Chrome: http://i.imgur.com/NM1BYpe.png

Can you think of why this would be? Unless there's something I'm missing, I'm not seeing anything obvious in the code that's perhaps messed up. Amaury (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Amaury: It's probably wrapping because of the very long episode names (E17 is "Survive the Virus Attack Trapped in the Last Home Base Station on Earth Thing!"). You could specify widths for the other columns to make sure they are wide enough. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: What Nyuszika7H said most likely. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess it's just down to browser differences, then. Amaury (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

PROD question

Is there any reason not to WP:PROD this? – List of Mister Sterling characters (I.E. Is PROD'ing preferable in this instance to WP:AfD?) The article is totally unsourced, and the parent series, Mister Sterling, ran for just a single-season of 10 episodes. IOW, I can't think of one reason why this article should be included in this encyclopedia... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: A separate character article for a show that lasted 10 episodes. I'd try a PROD first and see if anyone cares. Need a summary in the main article either way for the main characters and that is all that is needed in my opinion for this series. Consider AfD if PROD removed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Added a 'Cast' list to the main article, and PRODed List of Mister Sterling characters. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

What the hell!

Why the hell did you revert all my edits. Take a chill pill. I am just adding facts. WTCM47 (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@WTCM47: I didn't revert all your edits, just the changes you made to other editors' personal user pages. Don't do that, let people speak for themselves. Specifically don't mark people as {{retired}}, that is a declaration that they have to make, not you on their behalf. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Soliciting your opinion...

Hi, Geraldo. Continuing the discussion about List of films broadcast by Nickelodeon, I'd like to get your opinion on this. It would seem that anything included in that Futon Critic list should not be included in the list of movies. Feel free to respond either here, or at Talk:List of films broadcast by Nickelodeon. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up question: So, this Nick promo does advertise The Massively Mixed-Up Middle School Mystery as a "Nickeoldeon Original Movie" (at the end of the ad) despite it being 60 minutes long (and apparently being a failed TV pilot?...). (The claim is that Nick often advertises stuff like this as "a Nickoledeon Original Movie"...) Meanwhile, The Futon Critic (and others) simply refer to it as a "special". So, if only Nick (the primary source), and only in an advertisement, describes something as a "movie", does it matter? Or is a reliable secondary source describing something like this as a "movie" or "film" required before it "counts"?... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: I suggest inclusion in cases that are marginal like this one. It is not part of a TV series as it looks like a failed pilot and sometimes pilots are produced as stand-alone-projects before pickup. Nick says it is a movie, though, so there is a reference that supports that. Other secondary sources are second guessing Nick using their own criteria for what is a movie or special. I think length is a rough filter but short films do exist. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand. But the broader issue is if Nick advertises nearly all one-hour "specials" (including one-hour "special episodes" of regular TV series) as "movies" (which is the claim that's made at Nickelodeon#Movies), then what do we do then? What if the only source we have is just an advertisement from Nick calling something a "Nickelodeon Original Movie"? Is that enough, or do we need more? (FTR, sourcing has, so far, not been much of a problem for the "true" Nick movies – in pretty much all cases, there's at least some secondary source referring to things like Spectacular! or Liar, Liar Vampire, etc. as a "movie"...) The issue is just potentially with things like "The Haunted Thundermans" or the various one-hour animated specials. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Was the special in question a real 60 minutes or was it actually 44 minutes plus commercials? If Nick is calling all their special TV series episodes "movies" then that does degrade the definition and the usefulness of Nicks own classification. Go with what secondary sources say then if they disagree with Nick. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Basically, I think doing what you're suggesting with the 'one-off' one-hour specials likes The Massively Mixed-Up Middle School Mystery and One Crazy Cruise will probably be OK. The issue is primarily the one-hour specials of their regular series. I actually don't watch Nick, so I don't know if they really do advertise even stuff like "The Haunted Thundermans" as "Nick Original Movies" or not – I just know that that is the claim that is made at the Nickelodeon article. And if that's so, then it may become a problem at List of films broadcast by Nickelodeon. I think as long as we stick to demanding some kind of sourcing before inclusion in the list will probably solve this issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of Max & Shred episodes#Zap2it's Air Dates

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Max & Shred episodes#Zap2it's Air Dates. Amaury (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is the evidence.

I did not know if Facebook was to be a good reference, but here is the page that is the evidence that Matthew Taylor is now Maddie Taylor. https://www.facebook.com/MattVOTaylor Thank you and have a nice day. SonicTheEpic (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@SonicTheEpic: Credits listed in tv series are what is shown on the credit list of the episodes itself for the episodes the actor appeared in. These don't change when an actor chooses to change their credited name for subsequent projects. If they start using a new name for professional credit purposes that will show up when they start getting credits in that new name. An article on the actor may show the latest name if that becomes how they are best known but redirects from other names used will point to the correct article, no matter what that is. What is in a facebook page for someone who can be proven to actually be the person owning that account can be used as a reference for an article on that person but that can't change existing info as name changes are not retroactive to before the point the name actually changed professionally. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Okay, so as soon as Matthew(Maddie) gets credited as her new name, then I have permission to edit the page? SonicTheEpic (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@SonicTheEpic: Credit info is copied from the credits shown in projects the actor appears in. There is no issue for any episode credit info using the new name. Any info that covers the entire show should show both names and say what episode the change occurred in possibly with a short well-referenced note that explains why the change occurred. Just make absolutely sure that the info is valid and it must be very well-reference (ep credits are references) as any misidentification can be considered demeaning to the person involved if we get it wrong. See WP:BLP policy. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Okay, thank you for helping me out. SonicTheEpic (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Production codes question

There may not be an answer to this question, but I thought I'd give it a shot – Is there any other source for TV episode production codes aside from the U.S. Copyright Office search? (And I mean a bona fide source, not something like Epguides.com (which often doesn't have production codes anyway...)) It's not just the missing Girl Meets World episode prod. codes – another example is that I recently found all of the prod. codes for the second season of a 1990s U.S. comedy series but only two of the dozens of first season episodes! I'd love to get the remaining missing production codes for this show, but I don't know where else to look... Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: The first place to look for production codes is, of course, the last screen displayed in the episode credits. Most TV shows on the major networks now list them there. The copyright office is, at least, an official record with info provided by the copyright holder. After that it gets a bit soft and really it is a matter of finding a reasonably reputable source such as Futon Critic or some network site. I'd generally say that if we can't get a good well-referenced source we should just drop the info. Most of the minor network shows are just internal accounting production slot numbers and the only importance is to show some semblance of production order. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

To add, if the production code is listed in the episodes themselves, then other sources may be a valid convenience source of info if it is reasonable to assume someone is doing the transcription accurately. Much as we use IMDb for credits where the real source is the project credits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem is that the show I'm thinking of I did have VHS recordings of, but that was in the late 90s, and those tapes are long gone now, so I can't check the end credits anymore. (The show is also not at Epguides.) Oh well... At least I was able to get the season #2 prod. codes from the U.S. Copyright Office. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Synths

I don't even know where the editor got this from, it's definitely not a Lab Rats in-universe term. Maybe it's from another series, or simply made-up. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Question

Is this – Tarzan (TV series) – a disambiguation page? Should it be tagged as such? Or is it legitimately a "list" article?... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @IJBall: Not really sure if it makes sense to have a separate stub article for that, especially restricted to just TV series. There is already a {{Tarzan}} navbox and Tarzan#Television. There are also many articles containing ambiguous links to there. I'm thinking of redirecting it to Tarzan (disambiguation)#Film, stage and television with {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}, might be better to take it to AfD first though. – nyuszika7h (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: It started as a disambiguation page then got repurposed as a list as it didn't really follow the format of a disambiguation page. The title is wrong in my opinion, it should be List of TV series based on Tarzan to match the contents and name in lead. Also, in my opinion and I concur with Nyuszika7H, I don't think this list has much value and it wouldn't harm the project to just WP:BOLD redirect it ,although I'd redirect it to the main disambiguation page and not to a section. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Any reason to not redirect to the section? I feel like when I've done these before, I did redirect to the section of the disambig. page... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Personal preference I guess. I feel redirecting to a section bypasses the disambiguation page lead section and its explanations making the section destination a bit of a surprise destination when landing there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

 – After moving content over to Tarzan (disambiguation), I have boldly converted Tarzan (TV series) into a redirect page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

School of Rock (TV series)

New article you can watch and keep an eye on. New sitcom that premiered on Nickelodeon on March 12, 2016. I just finished going through it. It wasn't messy per se, but whoever did it obviously didn't have much experience. Also, the summaries for the three episodes that aired so far were all in violation of WP:COPYVIO, so they had to be removed. Amaury (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Pinging MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H, and IJBall as well if any of you are also looking for something new to help keep an eye and/or generally help out on. Amaury (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Redr

I didn't even realize there was any difference between {{Redr}} and the R templates, not even the visual difference. Thanks for pointing that out. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the preference for {{Redr}} over the R templates personal preference, or is it rooted in some guideline?... (Honestly, I prefer the latter.) TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Just the documentation at {{Redr}} as guidance and the template's fairly heavy use. I like the fact it detects and displays protection levels on redirects and has a better message box. WP:TMR doesn't seem to care but need to know the R from templates to use redr correctly. Also see Template:This is a redirect/Comparison. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible sock puppet

Hi, I apologize if I'm wasting your time, but you reverted a user with this edit today. I just wanted to get your take on this IP.

It's not so much the over linking of common terms, but the history of useful airport edits coupled with very unhelpful edits or plain old vandalism.

I'm concerned that it's a sock puppet of User: EnRouteAviation. The history seems really similar to me and his puppets. Would you be willing to take a glance at the history here and see what you think?

I've never opened an SPI, and this probably doesn't justify one, but you're clearly an experienced editor so I thought I'd at least get your opinion.

Thank you. Hy Brasil (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hy Brasil: I checked the edits of the other editor you mentioned and the related socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Taokaka/Archive and don't see a link. 122.60.180.123 geo locates to New Zealand and that seems to be the focus of the airport edits. Taokaka seems to be located in California based on suspected IP socks and has a different focus and pattern. I have been leaving the airport edits alone as I don't have sufficient knowledge to judge if plausible or not. The overlinking is pretty obvious and that is what I am reverting when I see it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Goodness, I never thought to geo locate the IP socks. Thanks kindly for looking into that. At least I learned a new trick today. Sincere apologies for wasting your time. Best regards Hy Brasil (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

British cartoon date changer

Hi Geraldo Perez! If you ever see edits like the one you undid here and you remember to, let me know about it. I've been trying to keep track of this vandal at User:EvergreenFir/sandbox#British_cartoon_date_changer_.28England.3B_Sky_Broadband_ISP.29. Also requested an edit filter for them. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The Cree Cicchino thing

I made it, but a guy drafted it, what does that mean? Should I gather more info on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaryan33056 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Aaryan33056: It was moved to draft space as it wasn't anywhere near being ready to be a wiki article. See requirements for actor articles at WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Other articles created in that location were deleted because couldn't show notability. Being in draft space allows you to work on the article to get it to the level required to be a main space article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for creation for more info if you choose to work in this. Still need to find sufficient references an show major roles in notable projects for an article to exist. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Aaryan33056: – I have improved the draft (you may want to take a look at what I did...). But it is still not ready to be a "regular" article yet – it still needs more reference sourcing (and just more info in general) to show why Cree Cicchino is "notable". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: No problem, thanks! With Love, Me ;) (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: List of Girl Meets World episodes

If you could keep an eye on the article and provide a helping hand when you can, that would be greatly appreciated. I am having problems with a user who is refusing to understand that IMDB is not reliable. Amaury (talk) 04:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:RossSLynch

Hi, Geraldo. I just stumbled across the fact that we've got a user with the username "RossSLynch". (I am deliberately not pinging this user to this discussion, as I don't want to alarm them yet, if there's nothing to this...) Anyway, Ross Lynch's middle initial would also be "S.", so I've got to think that the above username is a (potential) username violation. So, what should I do here? Should I report this to WP:UAA?... Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: He joined Wikipedia September, 11 2012, doesn't edit much, mostly math, science and engineering related stuff. I see no attempt at impersonation, just co-incidental names, likely his real name. I don't see any user name violation of WP:UNP here. People with wikipedia articles do sometimes have accounts and as long as no conflict of interest editing are generally permitted to use their own names if they wish. I strongly doubt this is Ross Lynch, though, unless he has some hidden depths we are not aware of. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:UNP, since there is a slight possibility of confusion and if it is his real name he is supposed to assert on his user page that he is not Ross Lynch. You may wish to alert him to that possibility of confusion issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I think my concern was – Should this go to UAA so that this user in question can prove that their name really is "Ross S. Lynch"? Otherwise it might fall under the "misleading usernames – Usernames that impersonate other people" part of UNP. As this editor hasn't edited since 2014, I personally don't intend to follow up on this (though I guess I might be tempted if they started editing again...). Anyway, thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: WP:UAA says "This page is for usernames that are such blatant and serious problems that they need to be immediately blocked" so not appropriate venue for this. {{uw-username}} may be indicated but is kind of harsh so an informal note on his user page would likely be more effective if you chose to bring it up to him. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Huh – there's not a forum for less seriously problematic usernames to be discussed? I'm surprised... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. Just a suggestion to discuss the issue with the user and, I guess, if it remains a problem and the user is active the general WP:ANI board. Since he hasn't edited for a while the presumption is his account has been abandoned. Abandoning the account is a permitted resolution to the issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Episodes page

I already made a separate page i read what the article says so i do it and make this page.Channel1235 (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

That is not vandalism as well so don't keep reverting it back Channel1235 (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for the inconvenience. I just read the splitting side note for the episodes page and so I created it. No hard feelings on reverting it back. Channel1235 (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Channel1235: Concensus so far in split discussion is to wait for season 2 to at least be on the schedule. Please read and add your comments to the discussion before trying to force (and incorrectly done as well) WP:SPLIT against consensus. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

PROD can be added after BLPPROD is removed

Lilimar Hernandez is fine now, but I just found out at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Sticky prod that if a BLPPROD is removed, you may still tag it with a normal PROD, you don't have to go AfD unless/until someone contests that one. Might be useful for future reference. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: I've done that but in this case it seemed probable that a regular PROD would be quickly removed so figured AfD would be a quicker way to resolve the issue. An AfD keep overrides the old AfD delete so end result was for the best. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a good choice in that case, just wanted to make sure you know. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Interesting example here. Info was poorly referenced so I removed all the poor references and tagged it as blp unsourced as BLPPROD is really meant to catch bio articles with absolutely nothing about the person, which obviously actors with credits don't fit. That tag was replaced with a BLPPROD which was deleted when some valid references were added. I then put back a regular PROD. I'll consider AfD if the PROD is deleted and the article is not significantly improved. Anyway appreciate the info and the link. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Bunk'd Archive Link

Both links led to the same page with the episode information, so I wasn't sure what the difference was and removed the archive link as a duplicate of the live content that's the same. Amaury (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: That is the purpose of an archive link, to be a duplicate at a point in time. They exist as a backup to the main link in case it goes dead or changes from its original content. Generally we really want archive links when we can get them particularly for info that is important like a note of an episode being the season final one. The "deadurl=no" portion of the cite shows that the archive is just a backup for now and changes to "yes" if the main link ever goes dead. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I use javascript:void(location.href='http://www.webcitation.org/archive?url='+escape(location.href)+'&email=geraldo.perez@myemailsite' as a bookmark to create an archive of the the current site I am viewing. Then use the archive link it gives to add to cites where I think it is important to have an archive. Geraldo Perez (talk)

Re: Backstage (2016 TV series)

I need some help. This IP continues to insist on using IMDB in sections other than the external links section which, as far as I know, is the only place it can be used. Thanks. Amaury (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I fought the battle to use "imdbname:" cross wiki link and lost. I still think it is a good idea for actors with no wiki article, but very strong consensus of pretty much every other person on wiki that commented on the issue was against linking to IMDb in any form in the body of an article. WP:ELPOINTS and goes into it a bit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm on the side that if IMDb can't even be used as a "source" in an article, then we shouldn't be linking to it in any place other than the 'External links' section. (The website Find-a-Grave is another one that's in basically the same boat as IMDb...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Geraldo, do you have the link to that discussion? TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It was a couple of years ago. I'll try to find it. I mostly remembered the distress of being on the losing side of something I felt strongly about. WP:ELPOINTS captures the gist of it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_13#IMDB has a part of it. There was other related discussion on my attempt to use soft redirects to accomplish the same thing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Lab Rats: Elite Force

Yeah... I don't know where people are getting these ridiculous theories from. They fail to realize that companies intentionally sometimes have long hiatuses of new episode airings. Kirby Buckets and The Thundermans haven't had new episodes since March 30 and April 2, respectively. Don't see people crying that they're canceled. Amaury (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Categories

Hi, thanks for your feedback. What exactly did you mean about not adding certain categories?The Editor 155 (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@The Editor 155: There is a good writeup at WP:SUPERCAT about adding categories that overlap other categories. It is a tree structure, if a lower level specific category is already in the article, a higher lever more general category that covers the same thing should not be added. You can check the category tree by clicking on a category and looking at how that category is itself categorized and also what subcategories are included in it. We try to put only the lowest level categories possible in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Kung Fu Panda airdate correction.

Just to let you know, I corrected some airdates on season 3 of Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness. I suggest you correcting more references related to the end date of Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness (season 3), Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness, and List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon.2600:8801:184:E600:8A63:DFFF:FE96:6313 (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Minor favor request

Hi Geraldo! Minor favor request here – could you take a look at Lost in the West and tell me if see a "[Mark this page as patrolled]" prompt in the bottom right corner of the page? TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: I don't see that on the page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting... That means pages moved from Draftspace must be "autopatrolled". That's a loophole. I dunno if that's an intentional loophole. I also dunno if it's a potentially "dangerous" loophole (I doubt it is, as I doubt most people (e.g. noobs) will figure this out...). But it is definitely a loophole... Thanks for looking! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Lab Rats: Elite Force

Yeah... I don't know where people are getting these ridiculous theories from. They fail to realize that companies intentionally sometimes have long hiatuses of new episode airings. Kirby Buckets and The Thundermans haven't had new episodes since March 30 and April 2, respectively. Don't see people crying that they're canceled. Amaury (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so yeah. Maybe you can explain this to me in regard to your recent revert here on 100 Things to Do Before High School since it's similar to the aforementioned case. Usually, season renewals are announced about mid-way through a show's current reason, but not always, so why do people automatically assume that just because there hasn't been a new episode in a while, the series has gotten canceled or if the current season is over already, why do they assume it wasn't renewed for a new season? For whatever reasons, networks will air new episodes once a week for, say, a month, but then it all changes when they air new episodes every other week, then it will be about a month before a new episode airs before going back to once a week for, like, two weeks, and so on. It's all intentional. Why? I don't know, but it is. Amaury (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: I just chalk it up to good faith but inexperienced editors and hope an explanation in the edit summary is sufficient to let them know what needs to be in the article and why. If they persist after explanation, that is another issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Seen you revert a lot of vandalism recently, particularly on Kira Kosarin and Jack Griffo and thought I'd reward you with this for your hard work! It is much appreciated! Class455fan1 (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, I appreciate it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Zendaya

That was only one problem. The other problem is that the article text makes no mention of her casting in Spider Man. That's what Nyuszika7h was trying to get at on Talk:Zendaya.

I'm going to go ahead and add that to the article text now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Heck! The text doesn't even mention K.C. Undercover!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: I should have added more support. I tend to let references slide if the linked to article permits verification with good references even though I know all articles should stand on their own. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The biggest issue here is that Zendaya is just plum out-of-date. I've started working on that, but I've got to go run errands for the next couple of hours... I'll get back to it this afternoon! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

BLP "Awards"

Hey, Geraldo! Is there any "best practices" way to handle the "Awards" tables for BLP actors? Specifically, in the case of the (very probably soon-to-be-deleted!) Peyton Meyer (actor), 6 out of the 7 listings are not for awards that Meyer was nominated for, but for awards that Girl Meets World is nominated for! I'm of the strong opinion that "awards" should not be listed at actor BLPs unless the actor was specifically listed for the "award". Is that how these are generally handled? Would you know?... TIA! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

There probably are best practices but this is an area I don't pay much attention to so really don't have an informed opinion. Your position that he should be specifically named in an award to be in the article is reasonable to me. I guess if the award is for a show he is in, it doesn't really belong, but if the award were for something like best ensemble that the person is a part of it should be in the individual's article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds about right – "Best Ensemble" awards seem to generally list the various actors included (which is what I meant by "specifically listed" above). But "Best Show"-type awards should be listed at the TV show's page, not the actors' pages IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Henry Danger

Hey, hope you don't mind me asking, but did you watch the whole Danger & Thunder episode? Did you enjoy it? :) Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: It's on my list of stuff to watch, but I haven't seen it yet. I tend to let stuff pile up then bing watch since I dropped my cable and sat subscriptions and just go with Netflix now mostly and iTunes for stuff not on Netflix. I tend to watch shows a season at a time all at once and find it hard waiting a week between episodes now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Why have cable or satellite when everything is just available online, anyway, right? :) Personally, I think both have their advantages. On TV, for example, quality is typically better (clearer) and everything literally moves smoothly—on computers, sometimes things seem kind of freeze-y, even with a good Internet, if I'm making sense. We're with DirecTV ourselves. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You can watch Netflix on your TV, if you have a smart TV or a Chromecast. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: Forgot to ping. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I got a Samsung SUHD TV with all those apps built in and it has a real good upscaler. Also an Apple TV for iTunes stuff. Some of the 4K streaming Netflix and Amazon stuff is spectacular, but not a lot there yet. Over the air 1080i/720p on the major networks looks great upscaled (not as good as 1080p blu-ray upscaled though) and normal Netflix isn't too bad. When I had DirecTV I wasn't really impressed with how much they compressed stuff, over-the-air looks a lot better. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

GP, Nyuszika7H, I've got a SEIKI SE322FS. Although it's able to go up to 1080p as when I choose that option in the DirecTV resolution options, it supports it. My mom has a Magnavox 32ME402V/F7. That Amazon link for my mom's has a different model number, but it's basically the same thing. Here's another link, but again, different model number, so the specifications don't totally match, either. Mine's not a smart TV, and I don't think my mom's is, either.

Regardless of whether we can connect to a TV or not, we may go with Netflix at some point in the future. We've never really discussed it, just a random thought that just now popped into my head. If it's cheaper, it might be a good idea at some point. If we ever do start officially thinking about it, we'll just need to figure out how it works, such as if we have access to all channels and if it's the same as live TV, meaning if I watch a new episode of, say, Girl Meets World, does it count toward the later viewership data, for example? Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

If your TV has a USB port, you can just buy a Chromecast for Netflix. Regarding viewership data, no, it won't count, as they usually only go up to Live+7 days or maybe Live+30 days, and Netflix tends to release only entire seasons at a time. Netflix has its own viewership data but they don't publish it. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: Forgot to ping again, though I suppose you would notice on your watchlist at some point. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Nope, no USB ports. However, I'm sure that if or when we go with Netflix we could find a mixed cable. HDMI plugin on one side and a USB plugin on the other side. (And it would help vice-versa as well, as the new computers my mom and I got in December 2015 and January, respectively, don't have HDMI plugins—might even look for the cable a lot sooner than moving to Netflix, if we ever do.)

And yeah, don't worry about it if you forget to mention me. All my colleagues are on my watch list, and I also have "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed" checked in my preferences. It's actually one less email as when there's a mention, you get two emails—the mention and the general notification. I don't care, personally, just saying. :P Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Best Friends Whenever

Thank you, and good catch! I did not notice that they linked it. Appreciate it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Ricky Garcia

Now that Forever in Your Mind looks like it has an actual album release under its belt, how close is Draft:Ricky Garcia getting to be "ready"? (I know less about musician articles than actor articles, so I'm not as clear what the notability hurdles are on that end...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Can't really answer the question, but just had to say this: You may not know as much about musician articles, but he's also an actor, so you should know about the actor half of the article. :) Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: Yes, and on that score he still "fails" WP:NACTOR. But I'm wondering if some combination of the acting, and Forever in Your Mind, makes him "notable" enough now (or at least moves him closer to "notability" than just his Best Friends Whenever role does)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: In my opinion I don't see anything in the band article that would support WP:MUSICBIO for Garcia as an individual, just for the group. Generally a non-notable member of an ensemble is just redirected to the group article and I think that is appropriate in this case for all members of that group. The draft article as it stands has the same related references to Garcia that the group article does so I don't see anything additionally sufficient to meet the general WP:NBIO of significant coverage (only see passing coverage) for him as an individual yet. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Season 7 article of iCarly - user adding a column to episode list

I don't know what to make of this edit [5]. User added a column which lists "storyboarding" credits, which is something different and I haven't come across. Even if this has been checked via the episodes (primary sources for any information contained in them since they have all aired), is this relevant detail for a sitcom? Decided to revert the edit for now. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't belong. Usually people add it for animation episode lists (I disagree there as well but there seems to be a strong consensus to have it on some animation shows) but I can see no reason at all for it to be in a live-action series. Storyboarding is just another below the line production role even in animation, even less so for live-action. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, I just noticed in that edit that the user changed directing and writing credits, too, so it's pretty much vandalism. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to a discussion

There is a discussion at Talk:Arrow (season 1)#First name or last name? regarding how we should refer to fictional characters. Your participation would be greatly appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Liv and Maddie

And even if we weren't basically quoting what she said and were just giving a generic statement, final would be unnecessary. Fourth would be sufficient. :) Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It is a judgement call about what goes in the article. Need to be careful with primary sources though when getting info from them to not change the meaning by selective editing of what was stated. If she actually stated that she thought it would be the final season it would have been OK in the article and it still would have no more credence than anything else she says about the show – interesting info that is not official. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Eliza Taylor#Inclusion of E! Online awards

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Eliza Taylor#Inclusion of E! Online awards. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

hello

hello, I need to ask you why do you keep reverting my edits on 100 Things to Do Before High School obviously the image I've added is higher resolution and looks better than the one you keep reverting?? thank you for helping Wikipedia shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Super ninja2: Two different editors liked the original image better. It better represents the show. If you still want to replace the image, start a discussion on the article talk page and get consensus. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Penguins of Madagascar

Your involvement at The Penguins of Madagascar would be appreciated. Right now I'm starting a discussion on the talk page regarding introduction of OR today. Cheers. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I've started the discussion now so it's just a matter of wait and see. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I was watching that article anyway and found those edits concerning for both OR and general value to article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello all! I just wanted to let you know, Geraldo Perez, that i am always open to you using tags and discussion first to disagree with me instead of just deleting parts of the article in a "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude it would appear. However, even if you or others disagree that deleting without tags or JUSTIFIED reasons on the article first isn't vandalism (things which i myself disagree with), i will keep reporting vandalism and escalating those claims if you really, really don't want to tag parts of the article first and give editors a chance to respond first, and we have to write everything all over again! Thank you very much, have a wonderful day today Eshumaitreyus (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Eshumaitreyus: If you read the edit summaries in the edit history, messages on your talk page, and postings on the article talk page, a lot of the mystery of why things are happening will become clear. You were given clear explanations of why your edits were not appropriate which you chose to ignore. The only message I left on your page was a welcome message with some advise on how to edit wiki. I note you removed my attempt to be helpful. I have no animus towards you, don't really care that much, but would like to encourage beneficial participation. A combative attitude is not really going to achieve much other than annoying people. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, asuka was right, you guys really are bullies. Excuse me, but how can you tell me I am "mystified" and "combative" when I repeatedly and logically answer your objections and you just keep ignoring them? Wow. No animus indeed. Thank you (i was being sarcastic at first btw, but i admit i really am thankful for this reveal of your hypocritical actions/attitudes), have a nice day (i really mean it, seriously; i just want everybody to be happy, even when people are calling me annoying which seems just hurtful, honestly!) Eshumaitreyus (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Eshumaitreyus: Disagreement is not bullying, it is just disagreement and nothing else. Your explanations, such as they were, were not ignored, they were argued against and not accepted as valid based on Wiki policies - specifically WP:NOR, which is what your were doing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Just... Wow big brah. Is this what adults be like, so hurtful :? He even erased all my writing dude! Well, he can't keep all of us from talking. And hey brah, how u gonna block big sis when her ip address is from her house far, far away, or other big sis from da mainland? You can't keep putting everybody down. No aloha, no mahalo nui loa, wit all due respect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asukadamooka (talk • contribs) 02:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Asukadamooka: If there is a point there, I missed it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Well, i'm not surprised! ;) Otherwise this whole thing would probably blow over by now, goodness gracious good lord o' mercy!! Eshumaitreyus (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• In case you weren't aware, there is now an SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eshumaitreyus. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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! --HamedH94 (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

apologies

sorry sir i am a big fan of yours and i got no way to talk to you but this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.83.18 (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

If a user is caught for WP:COPYVIO multiple times

- submitting episode summaries verbatim from another source - what next?

I just notified this user for submitting episode summaries taken from another site at List of K.C. Undercover episodes, which I reverted [6]. I saw that this is the second time the user was warned about COPYVIO, the first time being from you just a couple of days ago. As I'm still reading over how to deal with copyright violators, and it's a complicated process, I'm not sure how to report this one if they continue with these submissions. Given this deals with just episode summaries for a TV show's episode list, I'm thinking AIV is the route, but I don't know. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: It depends on the whims of whatever admin at AIV is evaluating the reports whether or not a block for persistent copyvios will be made. Need a solid record of copyvio warnings on the user talk page. I'd consider reporting on the next violation but edit intensity looks low so a block will not really accomplish much. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Random AfD question

A couple of weeks back, I stumbled across Noah Cyrus, and I remember looking at it at the time and thinking that it looked to me like a clear notability fail (mostly due to Notability is not inherited). Well, earlier today, I stumbled across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah Cyrus (2nd nomination). So, I was wondering if you could explain your thinking on why the subject passes notability? 'Cos in looking at it again today, I still feel like it falls short... Thanks in advance! My "notability" standards seem to be higher than the general community consensus, so understanding why people think subjects like this pass will hopefully help me understand the current standards better... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Your notability standards are probably correctly calibrated. I tend to lean a bit more towards keep on articles that have been around a while as I don't like to change stuff that looks stable. I think she squeaks over the threshold of WP:GNG even though WP:NACTOR is not met. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Elena of Avalor

I'm not as involved in this like the articles listed in my sandbox in that I'm not gonna go through it or add new episodes and such, so I just keep an eye out for vandalism and the other typical stuff after IJBall kindly asked me to watch it. I don't think it would hurt to have another watcher or two (MPFitz1968?). You can have a look at the article history to see what's been going on so far. There are currently some issues as you can see on the talk page, such as the original air date. Another issue not mentioned on the talk page—at least not yet—is the Cast and characters section. Ranze believes their nicknames should be included in there, and while I don't disagree completely, I don't think having them in parentheses is appropriate. It could be as a separate sentence at the end, similar to what we have on Best Friends Whenever with Naldo. Barry calls him Renaldo.

At a high level in the intro sentence expect to see what is in credits reflected as part of the desired out-of-universe coverage. Alternative names shouldn't be in character intro but are appropriate, if referenced, later in description if the level of description gets beyond basic intros. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm not annoying you with these, "Can you watch this article?" requests, especially those in my sandbox, and it's why I suggested watching my sandbox to you guys a while ago so you could just simply look at your watch lists to see when I add something and then add articles accordingly to them. Although it's been a while since the last request. xD Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll start following it. It looks like an interesting show. It does look like a fair number of experienced editors I am familiar with are working on the article and it looks in good shape. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not personally watching this show like those in my sandbox, but I'm still more than happy to keep an eye on it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Category 2016/2017 TV series endings

Seems to be that troll again. I've dealt with them before and reported them a while ago—one page I remember was Best Friends Whenever, and I think Bunk'd, too. Behavior appears to be the same. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: This may be of interest to you as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion

I'm trying not to out the particular editor I'm talking about, hence the ambiguity, but his user page says he is from Iran, and English is therefore probably not his first language. It seems he is relying on dictionary definitions, and not the subtle nuances that we, as native English speakers, are used to. In other words, we talk English more gooderer than he do. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: May explain some stuff, culture and non-native speaker may drive things so worth some deference and understanding. Otherwise looks like WP:LISTEN that we have let go on too far and long well past the point of annoyance. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn

See history. Although this isn't the only article this has been going on that in regard to the categories, and you may have noticed. I'm not willing to revert again, and if I do happen to be wrong in this case, please slap me with a trout. Could you have a look? Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Bizaardvark as well. I won't keep messaging you, though, specifically to keep adding on to the list. I'm pretty sure you're watching all of the articles I'm watching which are listed in my sandbox.

IJBall, MPFitz1968, and Nyuszika7H, your feedback is more than welcome as well, and I'm more than happy to admit to it when and if I'm wrong. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: FTR, I've taken nearly all current TV series off my own Watchlist to avoid conflicts with certain WP:TV regulars. (Note that this includes Legendary Dudas, despite the fact that I created it, for obvious reasons...) That said, I generally respond to 'pinged' requests like this. I've reverted this IPv6 user's 3 most recent edits because they either removed spacing (thus violating WP:NOTBROKEN), or because they added categories without discussion that probably aren't relevant. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: That's unfortunate but editing here should be enjoyable and when that stops it is not worth it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

GP, it's really not that big of a deal – I get far more enjoyment out of drilling down on the TV (and film)-related BLPs, and cleaning up the "old" TV series articles, anyway. And I'm not saying that I'm not editing current TV series articles anymore – I'm just no longer watching them... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: You're doing a great job on the BLPs I've seen you work on. Glad to see you enjoy that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:SusanneSC#Pedro Fernández

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:SusanneSC#Pedro Fernández. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Shrek 5

How about I put different wording? For example, "currently Shrek 5 is planned to be released in 2019" and "currently the plot is to be about how Shrek got to the swamp"--Trisha Gaurav (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Trisha Gaurav: - per WP:NFF an article is not to be created for this film now as it is too soon. Need proof that principal photography has started or project is out of pre-production. Until then the redirect target is sufficient and all the info is there. As I said, if you want to start an article create one at Draft:Shrek 5 and work on it there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Jake Farrow

Hi, Geraldo. I've put some work into Jake Farrow this morning, and am toying with the idea of removing the '{{Notability}}' tag (that I added), as I think Farrow probably meets required notability levels. The article is still undersourced (and sourcing is hard to come by...). So, I'm looking for a second opinion here – "notable", or not? What do you think? (TIA.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: As an actor only wouldn't be notable but his crew credits look significant and there is a lot of them. Needs more references but I think he is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done. And thanks – that was basically the conclusion I came to: that as a TV writer(/producer) he's notable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)