User talk:IJBall/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 → Archive 20

Big Time Rush and List of Big Time Rush episodes

I know you fixed the episode numbering on Victorious and List of Victorious episodes in the past without discussion since it was just one episode being inaccurately multi-counted, unlike iCarly, where discussion was needed since more episodes were involved and anchor links needed to be updated. We have a similar situation to Victorious with the Big Time Rush articles that should probably also be fixed. No discussion should be needed for the same reasons as the Victorious articles. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I may add this to my "When I'm really bored..." list of Wiki things to do... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Once you do, I'd more than willing to clean them up as well. They could certainly use it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!


Callmemirela 🍁 talk is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, 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 cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Callmemirela 🍁 talk 16:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

List of The Thundermans episodes and 185.51.73.128

First, I don't know if the episode list is still on your watchlist, but more eyes are always helpful. Disruption continues with WP:TVUPCOMING violations. See page history. Second, I'm thinking 185.51.73.128, the one you reverted earlier on Jade Pettyjohn and the one that I just reverted on Ella Anderson, might be a sock or IP hopper of 109.255.187.164 who had the same summaries, with things like "done."

Also, how dare you revert me! I'm going to revert you for being picky, and we are going to get into an edit war and both be blocked just before Christmas! How's that for a Christmas gift? (If it's not obvious, I'm messing with you. xD) Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

First, I've been noticing that – this is one of those situations where the only option may be page protection, as Admins won't consider that "blatant vandalism" and will ignore reports at WP:AIV about this. Second, hard to say if 185.51.73.128 and 109.255.187.164 are the same, though they both geolocate to Ireland, so it's possible. However, in the case of 185.51.73.128, you pretty much never have to fill in the 'nationality' parameter in {{Infobox person}} unless it's a weird case like Breanna Yde. Third, as you know, I am strongly in the camp that it's better to leave an inline source in almost all cases, then remove them. WP:TV has picked up some weird practices on this score that completely runs counter to WP:V IMO. IOW, if you can source cancellation dates, season premiere and finale dates, air dates, prod. codes, etc. then you should do so whenever possible, regardless of what some WP:TV regulars say on the matter... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I've self-reverted on the Best Friends Whenever episode list: [1] Although on the parent article, we could just source it in the production section, similar to what we're doing—or, rather, you did—with Star Falls, not needing the source in the lead. I realize WP:CITELEAD is just a guideline like many other things, but just food for thought. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: I actually glanced at whether there was an easy way to transfer that info & source to the 'Production' (or 'Broadcast', if applicable) section, but couldn't figure out a quick/easy way to do it, so I just reverted. If you can figure out to better present that info in the 'Production' section, please do so. As for CITELEAD, my reading of it is that any thing that is "controversial" can (and likely should) also be referenced in the lede – I dunno if the end date of this series is still considered "controversial" or not... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 Done. I believe that should work. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Question on decimal form usage

I'll be staying with the millions per Geraldo's comment, but I've been meaning to ask: For the millions, why are you fine with using something like 1.35 (1,350,000), 0.92 (920,000), 0.05 (50,000), etc.; however, when it comes to using the column for the thousands (or lower?), you're not fine with using something like 2.62 (262,000), 0.45 (45,000), etc.? Or 4.50 (45,000)? Etc., etc. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Standard exponential powers are 103, 106, and 109, etc. You just don't do "105" or an "off" power like that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Um, we're talking about the same thing, right? xD My question had to do with your comment at Talk:List of The Lodge episodes#Using thousands instead of millions to represent the viewership data: If you're going to do thousands, please do "261,000" and "797,000". This discussion has come up before at places like WT:TV, and the general consensus seems to be that "261,000" is preferred over "261" "(in thousands)" or worse "2.61" "(in 100,000s)"... Bold emphasis mine. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
The above is the answer to that: 261,000 (which is 261,000 * 100) or 261 (i.e. 261 * 103) is always preferred over something like 2.61 (i.e. 2.61 * 105) or 26.1 (i.e. 26.1 * 104) – the latter two would be examples of what you might call "non-standard exponents" or powers of 10 for the presentation of figures like this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas 2017!


Merry Christmas


This user wishes you a very Merry Christmas.

Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Katheryn Winnick

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography tables consensus was made on the new format for tables JMichael22 (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@JMichael22: Yes, I know – I was involved in the last set of discussions that established the current WP:FILMOGRAPHY. But you notice the example tables there are short. When a Filmography table for either Film or Television expands beyond a "screen length" it is reasonable to convert them to subsections to aid in article navigation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay so there was absolutely nothing wrong with my edit your revert was not needed. My edit was just as acceptable as any other JMichael22 (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
@JMichael22: As per WP:BRD, it is also reasonable to revert to the previous version while discussion is taking place. And, as I've said, your desectioning here (and with some other longish Filmography sections at other articles) is not necessary, and is absolutely not required by WP:FILMOGRAPHY. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: so only small Filmography's get it and larger ones get the sections. Okay if that is the case thank you for informing me I appreciate it greatly and from this point forward I will edit accordingly. JMichael22 (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@JMichael22: I'm not exactly saying that either... I'm saying that it's "reasonable" to use subsections when Filmography tables get long enough, not that one necessarily "has to". However, I agree with you that the reverse does tend to be true: "short(er)" Filmography tables should not be sectioned into subsections, and should instead use table captions like you've been doing. Also, just as a note – you definitely want to avoid using IMDb as an inline source pretty much ever, as per WP:Citing IMDb and WP:RS/IMDb, though IMDb is A-OK for use as an 'External link'. FWIW. If you have any other questions, let me know!... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Guidance Barnstar
Thank you for giving me guidance on WP:FILMOGRAPHY and WP:Citing IMDb I greatly appreciate the knowledge. I'll take it with me for future edits JMichael22 (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Requesting extra eyes

I could use some (temporary, if it's not an article you watch) extra attention on Tangled: The Series. Got a disruptive IP trying to change some information to something else, citing Wikia because they're a content moderator there and because they "know what they're doing". Apparently having those two qualities means they're God and know everything. Pinging Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968 as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to add, they were reverted by EvergreenFir yesterday for the same reason, and then a little while ago they reinstated their disruptive edit. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Yep! I'm watching too. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Minor dilemma regarding Danger Games' ratings and a question

We've got, what I believe is, a first here. After posting the ratings here, I noticed that the ratings were split because, for whatever reason, Nielsen considers Nickelodeon and Nick at Nite two separate networks despite being on the same channel. So we've got 1.917 million total viewers for Nickelodeon and 1.900 million total viewers for Nick at Nite. What's odd is that Nickelodeon isn't supposed to become Nick at Nite until 10:00 PM on Saturdays. If you take a look at August 5's ratings on Showbuzz Daily, you'll see that School of Rock, which was at 9:00 PM, is listed under Nickelodeon. In any case, how should we handle this under the Viewers column on the episode list and in the average calculation on the parent article?

Also, while we should only include the Nickelodeon ratings under the Viewers column, would it be trivial to add a note stating it was simulcast on TeenNick and Nicktoons and include their ratings there? Likewise for Game Shakers' premiere. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course I forget something. Pinging Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968 as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: First answer: I'd combine/average the ratings given. You can add a 'note' to this explaining both ratings figures. But I think combining/averaging the ratings is the only thing that makes sense here. In terms of the simulcast ratings, I would leave that out of the ratings (table) entirely – however, I would mention this in prose (similar to how we handled Descentants 2's simulcast ratings at List of Disney Channel original films...) – i.e. add a sentence of text about this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
That would just be 1.917 + 1.900 / 2, right? That comes out to 1.9085 (or 1.91). Reason I ask is because the Nickelodeon portion is 60 minutes and the Nick at Nite portion is 30 minutes, and somebody said I was wrong when I did something similar when Kids' Choice Sports 2017 was split back in July on a Sunday—when The Dude Perfect Show season two premiered—because you're supposed to include the duration and do some additional calculations. I think that's irrelevant, though. All that matters are the numbers? In this case, you're finding the average of two numbers. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: Should probably be ((1.917 * 2) + 1.900) / 3, then. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
So I was wrong. Thankfully for me, that still comes out 1.91. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Note added: [2]. Feel free to reword or make any other changes if necessary. I'm not exactly sure how to go about the prose, though. Like, I'm not dumb, LOL! I know what you said, I just don't know the best way to go about it. Nicktoons (#131) was at 0.33 million total viewers and TeenNick (highlights) was at 0.24 million total viewers: [3] Archived 2019-12-24 at the Wayback Machine. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

So I take it the note is fine, then? Only reason I ask is because you later came back and modified my notes for Hunter Street and I Am Frankie, and I'm surprised you haven't done that yet here. So I think I got the prose: This episode was also simulcast on TeenNick, where it received 0.24 million total viewers, and on Nicktoons, where it received 0.33 million total viewers. In total, the episode received 2.48 million total viewers. I think that's similar to the prose for Descendants 2 on both its article and List of Disney Channel original films#Top 10. Now it's just a matter of where to place it. You said not in the table, so did you just mean not visibly in the table? Would I add it on to the note explaining the combined average? Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I can usually nitpick anybody's wording... ...but in this case I looked at the original wording and didn't feel like nitpicking. I can't promise that I won't come back and nitpick it later... ...but for right now I'm leaving it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
What about my other question? "So I think..." Silly goose. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
What you've done is probably fine – I meant that I usually put info like this into the "prose" of an article, but List of Henry Danger episodes doesn't have a separate section for 'Ratings', so putting it in a 'note' like you did is reasonable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, I see now – you haven't added that to the article yet... I think in this case, I might do it as a second 'note'. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 Done. See here. I also went ahead and did it for Game Shakers as well here. I'm just seeing your second reply above now, so feel free to make adjustments as you see fit. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
One important thing to mention if we're going to do this is that I wonder if we should set some boundaries or not. I mean, should we do it for all episodes that are/have been simulcast, provided that we can get our hands on the ratings for the lower-rated channels, such as TeenNick and Nicktoons, or only for series premieres, big specials, and the like? For example, Henry Danger's second season premiere, which premiered before Game Shakers' series premiere on September 12, 2015, was also simulcast. Should we add a note for that episode as well? Et cetera. Et cetera. I'll ping the others as well if they're interested in providing their feedback here: MPFitz1968, Geraldo Perez, Nyuszika7H. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm seriously considering just removing those simulcast notes that I added for Henry Danger and Game Shakers for the reasons I mentioned above. (I don't think it should be a problem since I'm the one who added them in the first place.) The way I look at it is that you either include simulcast ratings notes for all episodes that are simulcast or none at all. Sure, we could try to set boundaries and have them be only for series and season premieres, season and series finales, and special episodes. However, for that last one, that can be considered subjective. Some episodes are advertised as specials—for example, The Thundermans' "Save the Past Dance" on November 18 was advertised as a special—when they're not and are just being being advertised that way to bring in viewers. Actual specials are those that are longer than their usual run time, like "Danger Games," and they also have a special production code, at least on Nickelodeon they do. Disney Channel's don't seem have special production codes. Well, other than the latest season premieres for Andi Mack and Stuck in the Middle, but I think it's too early to tell if that's what all double-length episodes are going to be like from that point onward. In any case, if we start doing this, then we'll end up with IPs trying to insert those notes into everything they consider a special and the like.

The only other thing I can think of is to include the simulcast ratings in the cells themselves. The cells will just contain one number, the total viewers across however many networks—in this case, three: Nickelodeon, TeenNick, and Nicktoons. For example, 1.95M. Then in a hidden note we would break it down, such as 1.60M total viewers for Nickelodeon, 0.15M total viewers for TeenNick, and 0.20M total viewers for Nicktoons. I know people tried to do this multiple times with Game Shakers when it premiered, and they kept being reverted because only the ratings for the original channel/network should be included, such as here. However, they weren't even attempting to discuss if including the overall ratings for a particular episode would be more beneficial than just the ratings on the home channel/network, they were just doing it. The other thing is that it seems like Nickelodeon simulcasting on TeenNick and Nicktoons is the new norm now, possibly because of ratings overall declining. The last Lip Sync Battle Shorties and School of Rock were both simulcast, receiving a total of 1.51M and 1.09M total viewers, respectively. All of January's premieres will also be simulcast, it seems. So if we have that many simulcasts and the ratings are available for the lower-rated channels/networks (if they're not, over on Showbuzz Daily we can request them in a comment; however, Mitch Salem mentioned that if this becomes normal for Nickelodeon, they won't be answering those requests) and we start adding all of those, it can become excessive and excessively long, in my opinion. "Walls of text" under the episode table(s). Other than that, the only thing left is to simply just not include simulcast information at all, like we were doing before I asked about this in my original message in this section. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: The solution is probably to deal with simulcast ratings in the 'Reception'/'Ratings' section at the main TV series article (you may have to create such a section at some of these articles first...), rather than as 'notes' at the List of Episodes article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, thanks to me, the "Ratings" section exists in pretty much all of the ones I'm watching. So something like this?
== Ratings ==
<< SEASON AVERAGES TABLE HERE >>
The fourth episode of the fourth season, "Danger Games", was also simulcast on TeenNick and Nicktoons. With Nickelodeon receiving 1.91 million total viewers, TeenNick receiving 0.24 million total viewers, and Nicktoons receiving 0.33 million total viewers, the episode received a total of 2.48 million total viewers.
The wording could probably be tweaked, though, but something like that and likewise for the other series? Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, something like that – an explanation in prose – was what I had in mind. And new sentences can be added anytime this comes up with future episodes/specials that get "simulcast". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if it's something that would be frowned upon, but maybe something like this could also work.
== Ratings ==
<< SEASON AVERAGES TABLE HERE >>
=== Simulcast episodes ===
The following episodes were simulcast on both TeenNick and Nicktoons. Below are the total viewers all three networks received, in the millions.
Season Episode Air date Nickelodeon TeenNick Nicktoons Total
2 "The Beat Goes On" September 12, 2015 (2015-09-12) 2.13 0.12 0.19 2.44
4 "Danger Games" November 25, 2017 (2017-11-25) 1.91 0.24 0.33 2.48
That actually looks rather nice and organized, in my opinion, but, again, I don't know if it's something that would be frowned upon. Although it might just be one of those things that there's no technical guideline for and it just comes down to local consensus and if it's more beneficial than prose or whatever. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Dcapellj.

Should keep an eye on this user. See their contributions. Just one page as they started editing on September 10, so really not that much. They're adding excessive and unsourced categories, such as their recent changes to Henry Danger and K.C. Undercover. While I'm going per the press releases for the genres per your feedback a while ago now and slowly making those changes retroactively to articles, not even the Zap2it overview page for those shows has the genres they are adding, so they seem to be coming out of thin air. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, IJBall. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Just a general comment. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello IJBall, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

  • The total number of reviews completed for the month.
  • The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but...

I have a suspicion that last edit on Liv and Maddie—that you beat me to, by the way, as when I clicked okay to confirm the revert, there you were —is a sock based on the name and the content that was added. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I just sent you an E-mail about this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Saw it after I posted this, yeah. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: Also take a look at this: [4]. Seems to be a case of self-outing. Strange. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, well, well. Would you look at that? We are awesome! Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101. They thought they were being clever by vandalizing with other accounts, and then using one—and the accompanying IP socks that we dealt with—to make disruptive-like, but not vandalism, edits, like on Liv and Maddie. I mean, they sure had us fooled for quite a while, but now we know if we see edits like that made on Liv and Maddie, in particular, it's them. I'll ping Geraldo Perez as well in case he's interested as I know he's dealt with Bambifan a lot and has probably seen the Kkjj account around without thinking anything of it since they weren't giving any signs. And I didn't know about the Bambifan sock issue until fairly recently when I left that message on Geraldo's talk page. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Lol. You seriously think you're good at sockhunting. Hilarious.Sro73 (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Sro23 – looks like User:Orchomen is impersonating you, again... Pinging Amaury as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 Confirmed, for what it's worth. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

List of School of Rock episodes

According to my page, everyone but MPFitz1968 is watching this, so I'll ping him. Although I also know Michael is watching it now, the page is just not updated and marked. Anyway, may need some temporary extra attention. One of those editors who seems to stop and then comes back. This is a slightly different case, but I just don't trust them. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there any sourcing to show that the series is airing in Russia before here?... If not, then it's straight up pirating, and yeah – any info obtained from pirating should be reverted and ignored. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, I've got some updating to do. Gonna check my watchlist. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968: I pinged you guys about this a while ago because I updated the layout. See User talk:Amaury#Calling the group! Sandbox layout changes!. Only IJBall thanked me, so I thought you and the other two didn't see it. Because it was close to the holidays, I figured that was why, and as such I didn't really want to "push" it, so to speak, until after New Year's. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I think I got my portion of the list up-to-date now. Amaury, I noticed for some of the links I clicked that they went to disambiguation pages (like for the parent articles for Stuck in the Middle and Jessie). I could fix those if you want. ;) MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968: Thank you! For you, there wasn't as drastic of a change as I was expecting. I was expecting a bunch of check marks to parent articles, episode lists, and character lists alike. xD One down; three to go. And whoops. Feel free since you discovered that. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) From a quick Google search, the most I can find is a clip of the show in Russia on YouTube, but nothing for this episode in particular. Not even the Wikia has anything in its Trivia section for this, and they're known for adding even the most minuscule of details. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Lindy Booth

i edited the Lindy Booth page (and others), merely trying to eliminate the year listing on each movie and television by using the rowspan edit - in my eyes, i just think it streamlines the page a little and makes it easier to read. if it's that important to you, i will stop. Eneri1953 (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC) eneri1953

P.s. - i have also been researching, mainly through IMDB, the original station airing on those films listed as television movies/films and then adding it to the movie/film notes. Eneri1953 (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC) eneri1953

@Eneri1953: Let me try an explain how the process is supposed to work (when it does): the gist of it is something called WP:Bold, revert, discuss. You have made a series of essentially cosmetic edits to a series of WP:BLP articles' WP:FILMOGRAPHY tables. You were then reverted. At that point, it probably would have been best to just drop those kinds of edits (as they were only "cosmetic"-type edits)... or, after the first set of reverts you could have discussed the issue then. What you don't want to do is what you did, which is wait a few days, and then try to restore the same kinds of cosmetic edits after they've been reverted. While you may think it's important to eliminate what you feel are "redundant" year listings in Filmographies tables, there are plenty of other editors such as myself that feel that those kinds of edits either aren't necessary (as they are actually cosmetically a "net negative"), or aren't necessary in all but maybe a few cases (e.g. those actors that have 5 or 6 projects per year over many different years). (An article like Jill Wagner is an example of one where your addition of 'rowspan' added nothing to the article, as Wagner doesn't generally have more than a couple of projects per year, and that's just in a few years...) In any case, you came close to what is known as WP:Edit warring especially at Julie Benz, and that can actually get you (temporarily) blocked from editing if you cross what is known as WP:3RR.
I should also warn you that other editors (not myself, per se) will also view the addition of TV movie "networks" to the 'Notes' columns of Filmographies as unimportant "WP:TRIVIA", and will choose to remove it – so I am just letting you know that other editors may revert those kinds of edits, or may remove that info after you've added. Try not to get discouraged about that.
Thank you for finally stopping by to discuss this. And, if you feel like really helping out at TV actor WP:BLP articles, what many of them could use is more inline Reliable sources, so if you want a "project", that would be a great one to tackle... Let me know if you have any other questions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2018!

Happy New Year!

IJBall,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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:Netoholic reported by User:Amaury (Result: ). Thank you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, IJBall. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just realized that and was about to self-revert when you beat me. I saw your revert on the main article, and I guess I got conned, too, as you put it. Apologies, Majora. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

List of Henry Danger characters

Might need some extra attention there temporarily. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Several things

Bizaardvark

Zap2it still has December 1, 2017, listed for "A Killer Robot Christmas" while The Futon Critic also has that, but it is stricken out to a show scheduling change; however, it doesn't have the new date of December 8, 2017. And Disney ABC Press has nothing; in fact, a lot of season two episodes—and simultaneously production codes—are not listed there for some reason, and The Futon Critic doesn't have production codes for a lot of them. Anyway, should we source the December 8, 2017, date with something, at least temporarily until The Futon Critic updates, though I don't know how, or is the Showbuzz Daily source for the viewership sufficient? Ratings have to match an air date after all. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Not sure how much of a longshot it is, but try TV Guide to see if you can source the airdate through them. That's all I got! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: and IJBall: TV Guide won't be of help here either ... it lists December 1, 2017 as the airdate for "A Killer Robot Christmas" as well [5]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
IJBall, MPFitz1968, regarding Bizaardvark, it is now moot. Look: [6]. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Jake Paul

Is that section heading title in Alexander's latest edit MOS-compliant? Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Discuss on the Talk page – I'd see if there's consensus to keep it, or get rid of it as per WP:UNDUE or something. (However, that section contains a flagrant MOS:BADDATEFORMAT error!...) That's all I got! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Might need a WP:3O here. Revert of the previous edit. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Not sure about that. I do think the former wording – that Paul "claimed" that – is more solid wording: he may be claiming that, but it's not independently confirmed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Zombies (2018 film)

With the premiere date now known, I just watched the article and a few more watchers probably wouldn't hurt: Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H. As for the article itself, it seems to be mostly stable, but improvements can always be made. (I see one raw reference.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I'll watchlist this, at least in the short-term (i.e. until it premieres...). And it almost certainly meets WP:TVSHOW, etc. so it's fine from that standpoint. That's all I got! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if it's worth mentioning somewhere on the Zombies page that it will be airing with the new Andi Mack episode that day. No idea yet on whether Andi Mack will be a lead-in or lead-out, but either way, ratings will likely be inflated due to Zombies' presence, much like ratings were inflated for the premieres of Liv and Maddie, which followed Teen Beach Movie, Bunk'd, which followed Descendants, Bizaardvark, which followed Adventures in Babysitting, Raven's Home, which followed Descendants 2, etc., etc. Would probably be fine in the lead for now, but can be moved down to the broadcast section once it airs like we did at Bizaardvark. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The reverse is true – that is of no matter to Zombies, but it is probably relevant to Bizaardvark and its article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: We've got a problem at Zombies (2018 film) – the Disney P.R. is saying one director, Deadline is claiming another. I have no idea what to do here... Pinging Geraldo Perez as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, Futon Critic agrees with Deadline that it's Hornaday: [7], so for now I'm going to revert. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
FTR, I still don't know what to do about Zombies (2018 film). I have a theory: my guess is that Hornaday originally was going to direct the film, but that Hoen ended up directing it. Thus Disney updated their P.R. piece (IMDb also lists Hoen now), while Deadline and Futon Critic are now out-of-date on the director. The issue is that I have no idea how to handle this – I'm tempted to just remove any mention of a director for now, until either we get more recent WP:RS reporting, or until the thing actually is released and we can check the credits. Pinging Amaury and Geraldo Perez again for ideas... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd list both for now and then see what's listed for the directing credit when the film premieres. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User talk:IJBall/Archive 13#I Am Frankie main cast members

I was just thinking about something. Backstage has 16 main cast members—Hailey Fauchere, for some reason, isn't currently listed in the lead or infobox—and it got me thinking about what we talked about in that archived discussion and where this article would fall.

Where things to get tricky is in the case of a true (small) "ensemble" show – in the case of something like Seinfeld, or Zoe, Duncan, Jack and Jane (which I'm working on currently...), you probably need to mention them all in the lede. But in the case of a "soap opera" or TV show with a similarly large cast, where you have a large ensemble cast, listing them all in the lede is a hopeless cause, so you need to focus on the "Top 1 or 2", if possible, and if not you just need to leave the cast out of the lede, and leave that to the 'Cast'/'Character' section... Bold emphasis mine.

So is this an ensemble TV show, in which all those starring should be listed, or is this a soap opera/regular TV show, in which only one or two should be listed or none should be listed if minimizing it down to one or two is not possible due to the large number of main cast? Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I Am Frankie has a titular character. Thus, Alex Hook is the "lead", and is the only one you need to mention in the lede. IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
In the case of Backstage, I would only mention these 4 in the lede: Devyn Nekoda, Alyssa Trask, Josh Bogert, Aviva Mongillo – the show seems to focus on these 4 more than the rest. You could maybe expand it out to 6, and include Matthew Isen and Julia Tomasone. But I would not list them all, as is done now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, IJBall. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

NickALive

What makes you think NAL is not reliable? CriticismEdits (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

As per WP:BLOGS, it's WP:NOTRS. IOW, it's not an accredited "news" website. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

"Blurt!"

I'm surprised there isn't already an article on this. See this, which I know we can't use, just posting it. I can't seem to find anything official, but Nickelodeon has already begun promotion on the channel, which you can see here on Nickelodeon's official YouTube. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, the latter can be used to add it to List of films broadcast by Nickelodeon, I guess. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, and Broadway World has the premiere date [8], which can be used. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested...

S2 sneak peek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mf9NyoyJTA

Looks like Daan Creyghton, who portays Sal, went through puberty as he sure looks and sounds older. Not so much the other as I think he is the only young—or younger—one in the cast. It looks like there's also going to be a new main cast member. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The promos made it seem like Thomas Jansen wouldn't be back as Daniel, which kind of put me off... I'm wondering if he only shows up in the season premiere... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Knight Squad January update

Just says coming soon right now, but a promo just played during a commercial break during Henry Danger's "Toon in for Danger." Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! – I'm set to record that now... --IJBall (contribs • talk)
Don't know if we can use this or not, but it was retweeted by Ron Hart's verified Twitter: [9], so it must be true, though it would need to be tagged with "better source." Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: I'll let you do the honors, if you like... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) On the other hand, thinking about it, per Geraldo Perez's comments on a similar matter at Talk:List of Liv and Maddie episodes#"Stand-Up-a-Rooney" quite a while ago, when Ron Hart was tweeting Liv and Maddie would return on Tuesdays—which ended up not being the case—because the scheduling is controlled by the network, we probably can't use that, even if it were directly tweeted by Ron Hart himself. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Here's a tweet directly from the verified Twitter of John D. Beck: [10]. That doesn't change the above "concerns," but at least we have something directly from a verified Twitter now. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Almost done untangling

Get it?

Anyway, almost done. I just want to go through the episodes thus far and confirm that the credits are good, and then we're all set. One key note to make is that Before Ever After is now being counted as, while labeled a DCOM, it essentially serves as the series' pilot, and it is also listed with the other season one episodes on Amazon: [11]. Unlike something like Good Luck Charlie, It's Christmas!, where it's not listed with the season two or three episodes at all: [12], [13]. As a matter of fact, it has its own complete standalone page: [14]. With Before Ever After, it is similar to the first episodes of 100 Things to Do Before High School and Stuck in the Middle. Also, the main characters order was changed to comply with how they are in the credits.

One other point to make is that this article seems to face the same issue that The Loud House does in that it seems like many of the non-main characters don't even belong. I know Nyuszika7H is working on The Loud House in determining who's actually notable. Since I have all the episodes of this downloaded, while going through them to check the credits, I can also look at the voice talent and additional voices credits and then do a tally at the end of how many times each name showed up in the credits and then go from there. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Because Tangled: Before Ever After aired as a DCOM, I would leave it separated out as a "special". You can always still put the episode number down as "1" if necessary (to keep the episodes count consistent with outside listings), and add a 'note' that it's listed under season #1 at places like Amazon. But I'd still leave it separate, because of the way it was aired. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Yup, I was always going to leave it separated and not put it in with the season one table. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
This will lead to a complication with the series overview table, however – should Tangled: Before Ever After be included in the total number of episodes for season #1, or not? If it's included in the season #1 episodes total, a 'note' will have to be added spelling that out... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
All done: [15]. Obvious and clear improvements have been made. Feel free to add that note you mentioned in whatever way you think is best as well as make any other changes or improvements you still see that could be done. The issue on recurring and such can be tackled later. Because the episodes were downloaded from On-Demand rather than just recorded as reruns aired, I can't fast-forward them, so it'll take a while. Also, similar to The Loud House, there were opportunities to increase room in the table. (Since it's an animated series, table room can become an issue, as you know.) In this case, more than just the director column like at The Loud House, giving us even more room. The crew seems to be pretty established now, and while the parameter for the writers goes over the five Template:Infobox television recommends, it's only by one writer, so nothing to raise a fuss about. However, if more crew of any of those starts appearing and growing, then we can look at adding them back to the table. Since there's no episode list article yet, it's probably not necessary for a short prose above the table since the information is in the infobox. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
IJBall, can you please help me with an IP who doesn't understand how things work? See history of Tangled: The Series. Thank you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: I'd leave it: We'll get the answer one way or the other within the next 3 days. As this falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL, one could argue that we shouldn't be listing yet-to-air episodes anyway. Also, the fact that Futon Critic doesn't list it is probably telling... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Shortly after I posted here, Geraldo Perez posted on the talk page with a press release we can use. So it's essentially moot now, but stubborn IPs really need to know how Wikipedia works. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
checkY [16] Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Sentence structure for The Adventures of Kid Danger lead

I didn't see it as a run-on sentence, but I'm going to come here like a proper editor and look for a potential compromise.

Okay, my copy-edit had: The Adventures of Kid Danger is an animated American television series created by Dan Schneider that first aired on Nickelodeon as part of a special preview on January 15, 2018, before the official premiere on January 19, 2018. While your wording is: The Adventures of Kid Danger is an animated American television series created by Dan Schneider. It first aired on Nickelodeon as part of a special preview on January 15, 2018, before the official premiere on January 19, 2018.

To be honest with you, I actually don't have a totally good understanding of how to tell when a sentence is a run-on. Like, if the whole lead were one sentence, then yeah, that's definitely a run-on, and I've reverted things like that before. But in cases like this, it's hard to judge. I don't think a run-on sentence is one of those things that has to be a certain length before it can be considered a run-on—likewise with sentence fragments, the opposite of run-ons—it just depends on whatever variables.

For a potential compromise, would you be okay with changing "it first aired..." to "the series first aired..." I don't know. Maybe it's just me, but using "it" in a sentence, at least when it's starting a sentence, just sounds really awkward. Again, at least to me. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue with "The series first aired..." as the start of the second sentence is that the first sentence already says "The Adventures of Kid Danger is an animated American television series...". And the third sentence also starts with "The series..." So I'm not sure there's anyway to avoid the use of the word "it", starting either the second or the third sentence. Otherwise it's just too many repetitive uses of "The series...", and we need to avoid use of the phrase "[television] show... FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Good point. And that was also a concern for me. Then let's brainstorm some potential (minor) re-writings of the lead. Here are my first three:
  1. The Adventures of Kid Danger is an animated American television series created by Dan Schneider that is based on Henry Danger. The series first aired on Nickelodeon as a sneak peek on January 15, 2018, before its official premiere on January 19, 2018, and features the voices of Jace Norman, Cooper Barnes, Michael D. Cohen, Riele Downs, Sean Ryan Fox, Ella Anderson, and Jeffrey Nicholas Brown.
  2. The Adventures of Kid Danger is an animated American television series created by Dan Schneider. The series first aired on Nickelodeon as a sneak peek on January 15, 2018, before its official premiere on January 19, 2018. Based on Henry Danger, the series features the voices of Jace Norman, Cooper Barnes, Michael D. Cohen, Riele Downs, Sean Ryan Fox, Ella Anderson, and Jeffrey Nicholas Brown.
  3. The Adventures of Kid Danger is an animated American television series created by Dan Schneider. The series first aired on Nickelodeon as a sneak peek on January 15, 2018, before its official premiere on January 19, 2018. Based on Henry Danger, it features the voices of Jace Norman, Cooper Barnes, Michael D. Cohen, Riele Downs, Sean Ryan Fox, Ella Anderson, and Jeffrey Nicholas Brown.
Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Option #3 is the best of these choices. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Look how smoothly that went. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Girl Meets World

After how this year has started, for once, not an actual problem. However, I'm thinking the references that were added for the theme song earlier are pretty excessive and make the infobox look a little messy, and some of them don't seem to be particularly reliable, like the Sweety High one which I mentioned on GP's talk page when I inquired about something else. A single source for that should be sufficient. Something exactly like this, which is from the official channel, like what's done over at Bunk'd since that theme song title for that one isn't in the credits, either. I'd do it myself, but, other than unrelated edits or reverting vandalism, I want to let things cool down or I'll likely be accused of things again. (At least for a week or so.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look at that at some point, if it's still there. But I'll admit I'm in no hurry on this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
No worries! Sorry for not responding yesterday as I was dealing with a "killer" headache. Got it around 12:00 PM during my Biology 105 class, but it didn't really get worse until after I got back around 4:00 PM. I tried taking the last two Ibuprofen to no avail. Three hours later, I had my mom run down and get Tylenol, which are stronger, so I took two of those, and even then it didn't even start to get better until around 10–11:00 PM. So I just stayed in bed and watched same DVRs of Modern Family and The Goldbergs. My worst headache that I know. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
No rush still. Just making a post here so this isn't archived on Tuesday. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: List of The Loud House episodes

http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/loud-house/listings/: https://i.imgur.com/HFnjdQo.png Are you not seeing that? Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: No, I missed that. However, is there a better source we can use for that? Like a TV news article that reports the number of episodes in season #3?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
[17]. The description on The Futon Critic also has the same thing further down. :3 Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Question remains – is there a better/clearer source we can use for that? – i.e. was there a season 3 renewal press release or something?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
The Deadline article in my last message is not enough? *insert puzzled look here* xD Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: Oh, yeah – perfect! Just use that!! (This will probably lead to a "double-ref-listing" on The Loud House page, but what can you do... ) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Bizaardvark, Part Deux

Just an FYI, similar to Bunk'd and Stuck in the Middle before official announcements were finally released—not so shocking for the latter as the second season was still airing, but definitely shocking for the former—Bizaardvark has apparently been renewed for a third season. Here's a photo someone in the Twitter chat posted. The info comes from Showfax, though I don't know the exact page, but probably not a reliable source for Wikipedia, in any case, and should defs wait until Deadline posts it. On another, semi-related note, I don't know how many episodes were originally ordered, but apparently Stuck in the Middle and Andi Mack both got more episodes for their current seasons. Season extensions aren't always announced, though, so we just go by what and how many they air in those cases. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It's annoying when orders for more episodes don't get reported. They always are for the broadcast network shows, but apparently aren't always reported for cable TV shows. But, yeah – I would wait for Deadline, et al. before adding any season 3 news to the article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
This might be a reliable source. Found it through this tweet. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I would say that could be used at Andi Mack, yeah. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hunter Street

Don't forget to tune it tonight! They've been giving it hella good promotion, especially lately it seems. From watching The Thundermans and Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn Saturday and School of Rock yesterday, the promo aired about twice every commercial break. The promo also seems to be airing during the Nick at Nite block, and the only other time I saw that was with "Danger Games." Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

There's a good chance that I going to miss the first few episodes of this, at the least – I have too much other stuff on my plate right now. Also, the only Nick "telenovela" I've really liked is I Am Frankie – I will definitely catch season #2 of that one! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply

Please refrain from reverting edits without due cause. The references inserted in the Mario Lopez article are perfectly fine, absent statement of Specific reasons as to why such references cannot be used. Otherwise the edits will be treated summarily as abuse. Therefore, the edits have been reverted until specfic reasons are shown as to specifically why the references are inadequate. If you continue to revert without showing specifics, I will have no choice but to open up a dispute ticket against you. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

No, they are not. I have pointed you to WP:RS/IMDb multiple times now, and you have simply ignored it. See also WP:Citing IMDb. You cannot use IMDb as a source in 99% of cases. P.S. Please take this to any noticeboard you like – I look forward to see what happens to you there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent revert on Liv and Maddie

Revert is fine, but... the reverter is suspicious. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Advise monitoring, then. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if I should just go ahead and file an SPI because of the extreme similarities with our Bambifan sock, where, as you know, Kkjj came from. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I think I'd advise waiting for more evidence first – if it is as you say, the evidence will surely be forthcoming based on the articles edited, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Good deal. And, well, we already have two pieces of evidence: their username and the fact that they just happened to randomly show up on the article Liv and Maddie and reverted an edit, where Kkjj has previously edited. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Whee! Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Raven's Home

Went about it differently than I mentioned (), but I still followed up on the talk page: Talk:Raven's Home#Lead. I also made some other minor tweaks from the original text, but still free to make tweaks yourself if you don't agree with something. I trust your judgment. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer (1984 TV series)

Just curious, you said "some of the section reordering goes against MOS:TV" -- which ones? Damiantgordon (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Damiantgordon: Two main issues with your edit there: 1) if you're just transcluding a series overview table or more simply just linking to a List of episodes article, discussions at WT:TV have concluded that you want the 'Episodes' section immediately after the 'Plot' section (however, if the full episode table is being included at the main TV series article, then it's general practice to list it further down the page either before or after the 'Production' section...); 2) you did the 'Cast', then 'Main cast' and 'Recurring cast', thing which is "redundant in headers" – you just want a 'Cast' section header, and then 'Main' and 'Recurring' subheads. I think most of the rest of your edit there was generally fine... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
you said "some of the section reordering goes against MOS:TV'" -- which ones? Damiantgordon (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes – you moved the 'Episodes' section further down the page from where it had been – under MOS:TV you should have left it where it was. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Are you kidding? where in MOS:TV does it say that? Damiantgordon (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm telling you, there have been discussions about this in WT:TV about this, and "episodes" is considered the means by which the 'Plot' is delivered, so it should go right after the 'Plot' section according to MOS:TV whenever possible. Now you know... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Are we talking about this? "For main series articles, plot summaries of no more than 200 words per episode should ideally be presented in a table using Episode table and Episode list (such as State of Affairs). If appropriate, these articles could instead include a prose plot summary of no more than 500 words per season (such as Scouted) instead of an episode table, but an article should not have both an episode table and a prose summary. If the plot summaries are moved to a separate list of episodes (such as with The Blacklist) or to individual season articles (such as with Monk), then the plot summary at the series article should be replaced with a simple overview or premise section that allocates around 100 words per season (such as a logline for each season in non-copyrighted language). This may lead to articles about long-running series having quite long premise sections; it is highly recommended that these be cut down, as this should be a brief overview that avoids redundancy with the more detailed plot summaries that have been split off. Individual season articles should use either episode tables with no more than 200 words per episode (such as Smallville (season 1)), or a prose summary of no more than 500 words, not both. Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words." Damiantgordon (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Basically, yes. Take a look at Arrow (TV series) – it doesn't have a separate 'Episodes' section, but the transcluded 'series overview' table and the link to the List of Episodes page is included in the equivalent of the 'Plot' section. If an article has both a 'Plot' section, and an 'Episodes' section with a transcluded series overview table and a link the the List of Episodes page, then you're basically supposed to do 'Plot' -> 'Episodes' -> 'Cast' sections, in that order... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
O.K., thanks. Damiantgordon (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IJBall/Archive_15&oldid=1141528727"