User talk:IJBall/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25

Work parameter vs. publisher parameter in references

What do we use where and how do we determine it? Episode guides, renewal/cancellation/ending announcements from Deadline Hollywood, et al, etc. I know for press releases we use publisher, like on The Futon Critic. Not sure on other things, but I know you use publisher sometimes, sometimes after I've cleaned up an article. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Then there's also a website parameter, which seems to complicate things, but I imagine that's just for the rare cases where a website doesn't actually have a name to go by. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, here's how this is supposed to go, as best I can figure – if the source is a "written" article, etc. that comes from a "press" outlet (e.g. with actual named reporters or "staff reporters" writing the article), then the work parameter should be used. This is especially true if the corresponding article has its title italicized – e.g. Variety (magazine), Deadline Hollywood. The publisher parameter should be used just when someone is "publishing" info (i.e. probably not "original" info from themselves) – so, for things like airdate listings, I'd use the publisher parameter. For those just "republishing" others' work, or those just providing a website or medium through which others publish, then you use the via parameter (e.g. YouTube, Instagram, Futon Critic when they're just republishing press releases, etc.). When to use the website parameter is iffy... really, that should only be used when they only go by the "website name", but these days that applies to almost nobody (e.g. it's supposed to be "Deadline Hollywood", not "Deadline.com"!)! Still, sometimes we get lazy and use the website domain and the website parameter when we should be spelling out the name and using the work parameter... FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

In other words, if there's an author on the page, like Nellie Andreeva and Denise Petski from Deadline Hollywood, use work. For example: [1]. Otherwise, use publisher or via. Like in the case of the episode listings from The Futon Critic and episode guides from Zap2it, there's no author mentioned anywhere. In the case of The Futon Critic, it does have "The Futon Critic Staff" on the press releases, but with no specific author, we'd still just use publisher or via. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes articles will have "Variety staff", for example, as the listed "author" – for those, you still would use work, even though we leave the author parameter blank. But for those other examples, basically yes. For press releases, just ignore any listed "authors" (you see that a lot more at Zap2It/TV by the Numbers, and it's really annoying, as those authors are just "quoting" a press release in its entirety!!), and for those you definitely use via with the publisher being whomever really released the press release (usually a TV network, or sometimes a production company...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Since you brought up TV by the Numbers, for ratings references info from Showbuzz Daily and TV by the Numbers—and The Futon Critic when they used to post ratings for cable a few years ago—what's correct? I've always used work, but now that I'm asking about this...
  • <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-150-saturday-cable-originals-network-finals-4-14-2018.html|title=Top 150 Saturday Cable Originals & Network Finals: 4.14.2018|work=Showbuzz Daily|author=Mitch Metcalf|date=April 17, 2018|access-date=April 17, 2018}}</ref>
  • <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-150-saturday-cable-originals-network-finals-4-14-2018.html|title=Top 150 Saturday Cable Originals & Network Finals: 4.14.2018|publisher=Showbuzz Daily|author=Mitch Metcalf|date=April 17, 2018|access-date=April 17, 2018}}</ref>
Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Here's how I'd handle that – if there's any "analysis" or "commentary" on the ratings from the listed "author", use work; but if it's just a listing of the ratings (directly from Nielsen) with nothing else added on top of that, I'd use publisher, like we do with episode air date listings... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
So, if I'm understanding you right, in the example above, it would be work since there's: NETWORK FINALS: NBC’s NHL PLAYOFFS game lost 0.1 in final numbers. CABLE HIGHLIGHTS: The NBA PLAYOFFS have arrived, and ESPN’s trio of games dominated Saturday cable at 1.60/1.24/1.16, with the Miami vs. Philadelphia game at the top. A&E’s LIVE PD shed 0.04 to 0.63... (And even when the ratings are in a comment from Mitch Salem, the one who writes that text for broadcast and cable, because a particular airing didn't make the top 150, it'd still be work since it's the same site.) Likewise, with TV by the Numbers, we have, for example Archived 2018-05-02 at WebCite: It was a down week in the Tuesday cable ratings for “WWE Smackdown.” The weekly USA broadcast took a minor hit and fell two-tenths from its previous 1.0 to a 0.8 rating in adults 18-49 with 2.55 million viewers... Now, with The Futon Critic, it looks like it'd definitely be publisher. For example, see here. It's just listing the ratings. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
With The Futon Critic, I wonder if it would be appropriate for it to be publisher=Nielsen Media Research|via=The Futon Critic or is publisher=The Futon Critic enough in a case like this? Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
For TFC, I would say it should be the latter, based on the fact that it's "select" ratings figures. (Now if they just "republished" a ratings list from Nielsen, verbatim, then you could argue the via/publisher point...) In terms of TV by the Numbers, I think it's work – not only is there TbtN's written prose "analysis", but even their "colored boxes" thing in the ratings tables can be considered "original" (by them) "analysis" of the ratings figures... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, hey! What about Copyright Office? Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I do something like this for that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
So publisher again. Perfect. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Determining when to use plot or premise for headers

This website, which is where I learned the difference a while ago, states: The premise and the plot of a book are two different things. The premise is the concept of the book. The plot, on the other hand, is what happens in the book — all the events that make up the story. Obviously, that's not exclusive to books and can apply to TV series as well. So I totally understand that. The premise is the concept, or outline; the plot is what actually makes up the story. It seems obvious to me that one-liners or similar sentences, like at Hunter Street, are 100% premise, but when it comes to ones with several sentences, I'm having trouble determining if they're a premise and plot. (Although I do realize that the length of the section doesn't necessarily determine whether it's a premise or a plot.) And it doesn't look like I'm alone as that website goes on to say: It’s pretty easy to get mixed up between what the premise of a book is and what the plot is — especially if you’re dealing with a book where the plot is very premise-driven — like a murder mystery with a twist ending where the twist is the point. Or a non-fiction book, where the premise and the plot can be the same thing — ‘Here’s what happened during WWI!’. What are some tips you have on determining what is what?

I'll try my hand first to see if you think I'm right or wrong by listing below what I think the proper heading is for each series, ignoring whether it already is that or not. In bold are ones I've already changed today or recently to that header title, though it doesn't mean I'm necessarily right. The ones you've already changed to premise or that don't even have a section I'm not including below.

So that's what I think they should be if I'm understanding the difference right, again, regardless of whether or not they're already named that. Where am I right and where am I wrong? Thanks in advance. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm very unlikely to second guess what you've done here... I largely agree with what you say about what defines "Plot" vs. "Premise" further up, and there's no reasons to think that I'll be better at ferreting out the differences than you would be! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

New Disney Channel scheduling

You thought the 5:30–7:30 PM scheduling in early 2017 was bad? Say hello to summer 2018 scheduling! (Technically, summer doesn't begin until June 21, but you get the idea.) These are all from Nick and More, so take them with a grain of salt as they're subject to change. There's currently nothing on the reliable guides.

General comments:

Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess it's part of a huge summer event going on, so it doesn't sound like it's going to be permanent, but seriously? Mornings for premieres? Andi Mack, while having weekly Monday premieres, is staying at 8:00 PM, at least. @MPFitz1968: What are your thoughts on this scheduling? I'm worried what kind of effect it will have on ratings. I would have rather them gone back to Friday and Sunday premieres. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: Definitely unusual to put episode premieres of their live-action series on in the mornings, but I do remember when they would run their live-actions in the mornings during past summers; the mornings outside of that were usually animated series as well as Disney Junior shows when I was watching. Ratings will be a big question mark as morning timeslots normally don't achieve as high in numbers as the evening ones - even part of Disney Channel's demographic, teenagers specifically, while not in school may have jobs during the AM, so they wouldn't be watching during the early part of the day. Not sure how the younger part of the demographic (tweens, under 10, etc.) would respond. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Recurring status for the Nate character in Star Falls

I think we can make an exception here and start a recurring cast list with him listed with only three appearances as of tonight's episode. And perhaps Lou as well, but not sure. Like was done with Lincoln Melcher (Griff) on Bunk'd because of his role, Tomaso Sanelli (Nate) has a pretty prominent role on the series. Shawn Lawrence (Lou) also seems to be along the same things, but not 100% on him. Thoughts? Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

If someone lists someone under "Recurring" "early", but there is every reason to believe they will ultimately be "recurring" by the end of the season, I usually let it slide and don't remove/revert. For example, I've been considering doing that for Danielle Campbell on Famous in Love, but ultimately I've decided to wait until episode #2.5 before adding her to the 'Recurring' list... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

As a followup, it's really odd. The series announcement had Tomaso Sanelli in the article, and when names are mentioned in those announcement articles, it means they are main actors. However, Tomaso Sanelli is not in the opening credits, and then even more odd, two of the main actors from the credits weren't even mentioned in the article. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably some kind of situation similar to what happened with Jordan Calloway on Beyond (2017 TV series). (And, incidentally, on that topic, I pretty strongly agree with you that that was one case where we should have ignored the letter of MOS:TVCAST, and left Calloway listed under 'Recurring' (with the 'note')... ) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
It was solved, but then it was re-added with this edit with no real discussion. However, as I was behind on the episodes at the time, I thought perhaps he returned for season two as a main actor, so I decided to leave it alone until I finished the season. I knew it was impossible since his character had been killed by Yellow Jacket in season one, but you never know. Series will sometimes surprise you. However, after watching the entire season two, he did not appear once, so... Truthfully, we could revert that edit as there was no discussion to change it and the matter had (supposedly) been settled when we got into it. I had actually forgotten about it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Probably not worth it, if Joey's still watching that article, as he's a stickler for following MOS's, and that edit has been left unchallenged for a long-time now. If we wanted to move back to 'Recurring', we'd need to launch a discussion on that, and it's probably not worth the effort... But that circumstance was definitely one where it made less sense to follow the "letter" of MOS:TVCAST... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Thankfully for us, for Beyond and Famous in Love, we have my sandbox pages where we can do the right way and not worry about people intentionally misinterpreting guidelines so they can incorrectly do things. In fact, I'm going to remove Beyond and Famous in Love from my watchlist again. I only re-added them to update the Zap2it links when the site had that big update. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up: Beyond (2017 TV series)/Vandalism

Not really related to the above discussion, and I wonder how I added this to my watchlist, but there's been an IP adding unconstructive personal opinions, which I'm interpreting as vandalism, to the article over the last few days. May need another eye or two on this one. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Yeah, that's effectively WP:COMMENTARY, certainly bordering on vandalism. I'll ping @Amaury: to this, as he actually has watched this series, whereas I have not... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Personal commentary indeed. Also, S2 was gold, except for ending on a cliffhanger and then being canceled! 'Nuff said. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

iCarly

There was a marathon on the main Nickelodeon channel last Sunday, April 15. Thought you might be interested in this. Average for the marathon was 0.86 million viewers, slightly better than the average of 0.82 million viewers for the Saturday premieres on April 14 (Henry Danger: 1.061 million, Knight Squad: 0.800 million, Star Falls: 0.597 million). There's something wrong with this picture. xD Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That reminds me – we need to "fix" the "seasons" for "iCarly" one of these days... I dunno if there should be 5 seasons or 6, but AFAICR there was really nothing to support the claim of "7 seasons" like List of iCarly episodes currently shows. Probably the "most correct" way would be to combines "season 6" and "season 7" together... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I remember it now – apparently Nick did advertise it as the "season premiere". Still... I think we could maybe combine them into "season 6.1" and "season 6.2" – something like what is done at List of Vikings episodes... If/when I'm ready to tackle this, I'll loop Geraldo into the discussion... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeah, the talk page discussion is still there, but we were focused on the numbering at the time. Talk:List of iCarly episodes#Merge season seven into season six. Amazon has proper seasons for the series, and only has six seasons. Airing-wise, we had season two production episodes for seasons 2–3, which then pushed all the other production seasons ahead by one airing season. Production season three became airing season four and so on. It's likely because season two got a huge order of 45 production episodes, so it got split into seasons two and three, airing-wise.
And yeah, that was the dilemma, but in this particular case, I think we can ignore promotions. It's a bit similar to the dilemma on Talk:List of The Thundermans episodes that we had. It wasn't quite the same as this, but around the same ballpark, if that makes sense. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I think handling "season 6/7" like they handle seasons 4 & 5 at List of Vikings episodes – by basically doing a "season 6, Part 1" and making "season 7" into "season 6, Part 2" – pretty much solves the issue. I'm not even sure that Geraldo would have a problem with that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I then take it that we would just redirect the S7 season article to S6. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Correct – we'll treat "season 7" like a "season 6, part 2", and turn the season 7 article into a redirect... I plan to propose this as a solution to Geraldo, but I need to get through the next couple of weeks of work before I can take on a Wiki project like this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd be willing to help out as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

On my latest edit

Well I put “Green” in the “Cast” section on the Legends of the Hidden Temple (film) adaptation page hence the fact that the movie is based off the game show and therefore featured real versions of the team animals. The green monkey (named Mikey), red jaguar (not sure why they used a cougar), and orange iguana were played by real animals while the purple parrot, blue barracudas, and silver snakes were computer-animated. Alec Borden (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alec Borden: As per both WP:TVCAST and WP:FILMCAST, names are supposed to be written exactly as they appear in the credits – that is how it was credited, as I copied that directly from the TV film's end credits myself. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Charisma Carpenter

Thank you for undoing my unintentional vandalism! I had an add-on on my Chrome that turns the name "Trump" back to Donald Trump's original name "Drumpf", and somehow it appears that in my editing, this change was made to an unrelated use of the word "trump" inside of a URL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CouplandForever (talk • contribs) 00:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

List of Henry Danger characters

Just an FYI: Hello. Edit summaries would certainly be useful. Also, I find the whole "this is an X page that lists Y" redundant. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I actually think the addition to the lede was OK. But I agree on the "no edit summaries" thing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just find it redundant because the articles are literally titled "List of X episodes" or "List of X characters." Stating "This is a list of episodes for X" or "This is a list of characters for X" is redundant and stating the obvious. Of course it's an episode or character list. Haha! Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I think something like that is OK here is because it's a "This is also a character listing for The Adventures of Kid Danger" situation. IOW, it's not just a characters list for Henry Danger – it's actually a characters list for two different series, which is kind of unusual... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: re: List of Henry Danger characters – something needs to be added to that to indicate the first names of the two Hart parents, as both were later credited that way, and I believe that's also how Mr. Hart is credited in The Adventures of Kid Danger... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they started being credited that way with Nickelodeon's credits in S4. Not sure if we should add prose or change the heading titles. Other changes include Trent and Mary's last names no longer being used in S4. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I suggest both: change the headers to their full names (e.g. "[Mr.?] Jake Hart"), and add something to the prose about crediting for seasons 1–3 vs. season 4/TAoKD... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: One other thing – Didn't The Adventures of Kid Danger used to list guest cast? What happened to that?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Granted, I've only seen the first episode—I've got a huge backlog of DVR stuff to watch—but, like The Loud House and other animation, it only lists voices of and doesn't separate into main, guest, special guest, or featuring. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Here's OctoCharlotte/Trouble in Tropkini on Nickelodeon. Doesn't require a login. Skip to 22:00 for the credits. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Bedre skilt end aldrig

Just a heads up that this was created today. It's the dramedy Splitting Up Together originated from. Seems okay to me so far. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Meh – that needed a lot of cleanup, and it could still use more. I've done a "first pass" at that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Fat fetishism

Hey! Could you take a look at this? A likely sockpuppet keeps adding an image of questionable copyright to the article. The image is already up for deletion at Commons, and the user added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vanillablu. Cheers! --‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 07:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like User:Greyfell and User:ChiveFungi has already backed you up on this! Just hit me back if you need any followup... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

First Ladies - Article for Deletion

Hey IJBall,

I was hoping you might chime in on this discussion being had in regards to deleting a page for the upcoming Netflix film First Ladies. I created a draft earlier today due to the fact that there is no word that the film has actually begun filming. Noticed later in the day that someone had went ahead and created a article in the mainspace. Hope to get your input in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Ladies (film). Thanks, BoogerD (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done – commented. But it looks like the WP:AfD portion of this is resolved. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Trimming of non-main Jessie characters

Speaking of Jessie, I've got a sandbox page for a list of characters article as I have plans on splitting the article as the characters section is definitely long enough as of now. However, that may not be needed if were to clean out those in the "Recurring" and "Guest stars" sections who definitely don't belong and see how long of a page that puts us at after the cleanup.

For reference, of the LOC articles we have now for Nickelodeon and Disney Channel series, here is the number of bytes/characters for each, as of this message:

Article Bytes
List of Backstage characters 10,969
List of Girl Meets World characters 29,543
List of Henry Danger characters 8,542
List of Lab Rats characters 37,204
List of Liv and Maddie characters 40,965
List of Mighty Med characters 47,788
List of The Thundermans characters 11,098

My LOC Jessie sandbox page is at 17,602 bytes—17,757 bytes if you include the characters image, but you can't have those in sandboxes. As of now, it has more bytes than three of the pages above, and if LOC pages are appropriate for those three, an LOC page is definitely appropriate for Jessie. But that's right now, and that might change once we clean out characters who don't actually belong.

When you have time, looking at List of Jessie episodes, who should be removed from the "Recurring" and "Guest stars" sections? If there are any that should be added—probably not, though—that's also fair game. In other words, who's actually recurring, and of those who aren't recurring, who's actually notable enough to be listed in the "Guest stars" section? Like what was done with Bunk'd. I know there are definitely some who shouldn't be listed. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I've added a list of every single guest star and their number of appearances to the top of the sandbox page: User:Amaury/sandbox/List of Jessie characters. That will make things a lot easier in regard to determining who's actually recurring and determining who's notable enough to be listed if they're not recurring. For example, Mr. Kiplin is definitely not recurring as he's not even credited. No for Boomer as well as only three appearances that don't seem to be a part of any major story lines like Michael mentioned on Talk:Andi Mack. Connie would likely be better under Notable. Etc., etc. I foresee the the Notable section being significantly trimmed once everything is sorted. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Kipling should still be included: this is pretty much an IRL/ignore-the-MOS situation – that lizard was in pretty much every episode, and was referred to by name in most – crediting shouldn't matter there... In terms of guest-stars (i.e. only 1–3 episode appearances), I'd include "notable" guest stars (e.g. Cheri Oteri), or anyone that was sort of a notable character (e.g. Rosie, and I'd include Boomer as well). But, as per usual, I would restrict 'Recurring' to only those who appeared in 5–6 episodes or more (e.g. Tony, Chesterfield, Christina Ross, with a special exception made for Charles Esten as Morgan Ross...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree. The only complication is how—or, rather, where, I guess—do we list him? Just like with main cast and characters, normal procedure is to order recurring—and notable if present—by order of appearances. And if two or more characters have their first appearance in the same episode, then we'd order by their ordering in the credits. Mr. Kiplin isn't credited, though, so do we list him at the top or bottom or somewhere else? Pinging Geraldo Perez as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Frankly, I would actually just list Kipling first under 'Recurring' – not by crediting, but because I suspect we saw Kipling on screen before we saw Christina and Morgan Ross (somebody will need to double-check the pilot...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968: You went through and made credit corrections quite a while ago. Do you remember when Mr. Kipling appeared, and if not, do you still have access to the episode? Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: The only way I can access at least the first episode is buying it on Amazon, or hoping Disney Now (which I've been calling Watch Disney, but Watch Disney redirects to Now ... now - although the phone app for Now was available for a while) makes it accessible to non-subscribers. I have access to some episodes from various shows there, but they rotate the accessible episodes from time to time. Unfortunately, all of the Jessie season one episodes have that "lock" on it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
As for the other part, see below. For notable, I've included the ones you mentioned plus all those with a special guest star credit as well as main cast and characters who are well known from other series, even if Jessie premiered before these other series, but that may change based on your answer below.
Recurring and Notable List
Recurring:
  1. Mr. Kipling (?)
  2. Christina Ross (7)
  3. Tony (23)
  4. Morgan Ross (4)
  5. Chesterfield (12)
  6. Agatha (4)
  7. Officer Petey (4)
  8. Stuart Wooten (7)
  9. Brooks Wentworth (5)
Notable:
  1. Connie (3)
  2. Finch (1) Note: Jace Norman, Henry Danger
  3. Rosie (3)
  4. Ms. Falkenberg (1)
  5. Shaylee Michaels (2)
  6. Brett Summers (1) Note: Jack Griffo, The Thundermans
  7. Ted Hoover (1) Note: Spencer Boldman, Lab Rats
  8. Victoria (1) Note: Lulu Antariksa, How to Rock
  9. Director (1) Note: Cooper Barnes, Henry Danger
  10. Eileen (1) Note: Haley Tju, Bella and the Bulldogs
  11. Mr. Collinsworth (1) Note: Brian Stepanek, Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn
  12. Boomer (3)
  13. Mackenzie (1) Note: G. Hannelius, Dog with a Blog
  14. First Lady Michelle Obama (1)
  15. Joey Rooney (1) Note: Joey Bragg, Liv and Maddie
  16. Parker Rooney (1) Note: Tenzing Norgay Trainor, Liv and Maddie
  17. Mr. Moseby (1) Note: Phill Lewis, The Suite Life of Zack & Cody, The Suite Life on Deck
  18. Christoper E. Paul (1)
  19. The Vamps (1)
  20. Logan Watson (1) Note: Austin North, I Didn't Do It
  21. Delia Delfano (1) Note: Sarah Gilman, I Didn't Do It
Would you agree with this? If not, what do you disagree with? Who should be moved from recurring to notable, removed entirely, or even added to recurring or notable? Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd be very tempted to simply list Agatha and Officer Petey under 'Guest' rather than 'Recurring' – it depends if we want to make the "cut" line for "recurring" for this show 4 episodes or 5 episodes... In terms of 'Guests', I'm not sure I'd include everyone you have (e.g. I wouldn't necessarily include somebody like Jace Norman just because he went on to "star" in another "tween" show...), but I guess that's debatable. But, definitely, anyone who was a "Special guest star", or anyone who was a "notable" character like Rosie or Boomer should be listed... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
How's this? For those who are listed simply because they appear in other series, I've trimmed it to only include other Disney stars—Disney Channel, Disney XD. Brian Stepanek still wouldn't be listed as he wasn't main in either of the Suite Life series. If I did that, that would defeat the purpose of the heading title. xD We're down to 24 non-main characters total with this new list below. The current version of my sandbox as well as my first list above both have 30 total.
New Recurring and Notable List
Recurring:
  1. Mr. Kipling (?)
  2. Christina Ross (7)
  3. Tony (23)
  4. Morgan Ross (4)
  5. Chesterfield (12)
  6. Stuart Wooten (7)
  7. Brooks Wentworth (5)
Notable:
  1. Agatha (4)
  2. Officer Petey (4)
  3. Connie (3)
  4. Rosie (3)
  5. Ms. Falkenberg (1)
  6. Shaylee Michaels (2)
  7. Ted Hoover (1) Note: Spencer Boldman, Lab Rats
  8. Boomer (3)
  9. Mackenzie (1) Note: G. Hannelius, Dog with a Blog
  10. First Lady Michelle Obama (1)
  11. Joey Rooney (1) Note: Joey Bragg, Liv and Maddie
  12. Parker Rooney (1) Note: Tenzing Norgay Trainor, Liv and Maddie
  13. Mr. Moseby (1) Note: Phill Lewis, The Suite Life of Zack & Cody, The Suite Life on Deck
  14. Christoper E. Paul (1)
  15. The Vamps (1)
  16. Logan Watson (1) Note: Austin North, I Didn't Do It
  17. Delia Delfano (1) Note: Sarah Gilman, I Didn't Do It
Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, this version of the guest list looks better – it may be missing a few people (for example, I think both Roger Bart and Robert Picardo should be listed here...), but I like this "trimmed" version better... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
In addition to Bart and Picardo, Jo Anne Worley and Lainie Kazan are a couple of more that should certainly me listed under 'Guest'... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I've added those four that you've mentioned as well as Chris Bosh: User:Amaury/sandbox/List of Jessie characters#Notable guest stars. We just need to think of some descriptions now for Nana Banana, Cyril Lipton, Wanda Winkle, Phil McNichol, Joey Rooney, Parker Rooney, Logan Watson, and Delia Delfano. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

List of Growing Pains episodes, and season articles created from that

I was noticing going thru that article, and then season articles generated (Growing Pains (season 1), Growing Pains (season 2), Growing Pains (season 3), Growing Pains (season 4), Growing Pains (season 5), Growing Pains (season 6), Growing Pains (season 7)), that the user creating the season articles went thru a WP:BOLD WP:SPLIT, without making any attribution of where the text in the season articles came from - looks like it was pretty much copied from the LoE article - or seeking to split via the talk page. This split occurred more than six months ago.

I was planning on fixing the LoE articles so that the info from the season articles is properly transcluded, but wasn't sure about the validity of the season articles, since they were improperly split from the LoE. What got my attention is when I saw the air date for one episode from season 4 ("Second Chance") was incorrect - should be April 19, 1989, instead of April 12, 1989, after checking TV Guide - but in checking that, I realized that I would have to change that in two places, the way the articles are set up right now.

BTW, I'm catching some episodes of the series (including the aforementioned "Second Chance" - which featured Matthew Perry before Friends) on Antenna TV, which I'm getting via the Instant TV that is part of my Comcast Internet service. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Separate "season" articles are only justifiable if there is substantive content beyond just an episodes table and a cast list. Just glancing at Growing Pains (season 1) and Growing Pains (season 7), I see nothing there that justifies a separate article – there is no 'Production' or 'Reception' section, and the 'Guest cast' section is entirely unsourced and does not even include which episodes those "guest stars" appeared. Based on all of this, I would be very tempted to restore List of Growing Pains episodes to a state before these "season" articles were incorrectly split out, and convert each and every one of the "season" articles into redirects back to the LoE article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
...and the 'Guest cast' section is entirely unsourced and does not even include which episodes those "guest stars" appeared. Exactly why I believe guest stars being listed in the episode tables is a must rather than just in a guest section or what have you, and trying to use the common argument that the parameter is meant for summaries is arguing over a technicality, like what Nyu mentioned in one of the discussions. It is needed for verification. How do I know if Actor X as Character Y is actually a recurring character (5+ appearances, typically) if I don't have an episode table to check? The answer is I don't. You can't expect people to just take your word that they're recurring. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
As you know, I basically agree with you on this, though there are ways to do a 'Guest cast' section "correctly" – e.g. NCIS: Los Angeles (season 8) (it's interesting to note that NCIS: Los Angeles (season 9) has gone back to doing these "wrong" again though...), or Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures (1992 TV series). But what is done at, say, The Newsroom (U.S. TV series) is completely unacceptable and those sections at that article should actually be "purged" on WP:V grounds... 'Recurring' sections are just plum more complicated, and are a perennial issue for TV articles and Filmography sections (which, frankly, I usually just end up "looking the other way" on... [shrug] ). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
All the season articles have been redirected to the LoE one, by Grapesoda22. (Thanks, Grape.) Also updated the air date for season 4's "Second Chance" in the LoE article - probably should've done that initially, instead of going to the now redirected season 4 article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Question to @Grapesoda22: Did you stumble upon this situation on your own and decide to "fix" it, or did you see this discussion first?... Just curious. TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@IJBall: I was not aware of these discussions. I noticed that the season pages didn't have sources, and they only consisted of episode tables and cast listings. I also noticed that the tables were presented on the main episode list with the same episode summaries (most of which are very brief), which pretty much defeats the purpose. Grapesoda22 (✉) 17:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Andi Mack#Cyrus Goodman

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Andi Mack#Cyrus Goodman. In case there's anything you want to add. I basically said, if I understood you correctly, what you said somewhere a while ago. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: If you two have any opinions to add as well, by all means. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Filmography tables

Hello. A while back I had a discussion with you regarding formatting of filmography tables, and I remember you saying that you originally formatted the example in WP:FILMOGRAPHY. Another editor reverted a formating edit I did, where I listed all an actors television films as 'Television film', changing from 'Movie (network)'. They then changed the example in WP:FILMOGRAPHY to reflect this, saying that the original formatting was redundant. Whilst I personally prefer the phrasing 'Television film', it is not that important either way, but I would like to be able to be consistent, as I edit quite a few actor articles where they appear in several TV films. Has there been some discussion/consensus on this that I can not find? Sorry to bother you, but I was just looking for clarification, and would like to avoid any potential edit wars. Many thanks. AutumnKing (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Autumnking2012: I have reverted User:Musdan77's changes to WP:FILMOGRAPHY – while Musdan77 has certain views in regards to Filmography tables, they are by no means universally shared, especially on the "movie" vs. "film" thing (and whether the use of "television" in "television film" is redundant). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello IJBall, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

  • Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

  • A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. 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.

Editathons

  • There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

  • Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

  • The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

  • Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
  • The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The Alienist

Is this a series you watched? If so, can you confirm the latest edits by Generale Lee with the addition to the Recurring section? Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I just checked, and IMDb say that one was in 4 episodes, so while borderline, I'm not going to remove. I do question whether they were credited ahead of David Wilmot – I'm not sure there's an easy way I can check that though... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

ABC spinoff in the works

Whoo! Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I heard about this yesterday. My one comment at the time was that I hope they include Daniela Bobadilla in it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Take this with a grain of salt.

A lot of people are speculating cancellation, but even he didn't mention the word: https://twitter.com/nickandmore/status/1000065126375002112 Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This seems odd – the ratings (and, by this, I mean the total viewership) that Star Falls has already generated doesn't seem so bad as to merit a permanent pulling from the air and a "burnoff" via streaming... I do take that with a grain of salt, and if it does happen, I've got to think there's something else going on here. (E.G. Has Nickelodeon had a change in upper management recently? – That has happened before: a new network head will come in, and will turf out all of the programming produced by the previous regime. It's a really stupid and short-sided practice, but I've seen it happen before...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't necessarily agree about the ratings being good—they've all been below 1M—however, yeah, totally. In fact, you've told me this before here: User talk:IJBall/Archive 8#Re: I Didn't Do It. In any case, to quote Stephanie Tanner if this is the case here, "How rude!" Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
What I meant was while the ratings are probably bad enough to guarantee ultimate cancellation, they don't seem bad enough to merit immediate "banishment" from the air – if the show was getting 400,000 viewers, I could easily imagine that happening. But 700,000–800,000 SAME DAY viewers in the current ratings environment doesn't seem disastrous enough to me to merit a full and immediate pulling off-the-air... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, that solves that. Fingers crossed it's renewed. I mean, it's not doing that much worse than Knight Squad, and it's not doing too well itself, unless Nickelodeon is considering its numbers good given the general ratings decline plus that Nielsen's last sample update wasn't exactly on Nickelodeon's side. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It also seems Nickelodeon has stopped roadblock airings—simulcasts on TeenNick and Nicktoons—so it's possible we may see higher numbers onward. The Thundermans finale marathon was advertised as simulcasting on TeenNick and Nicktoons, but that never happened. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Chris Wood

Hi IJBall. I saw you reverted my edit on Chris Wood (actor) as 'unsourced', but I noticed at least this source that seems to confirm the statement. Trijnsteltalk 15:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Trijnstel: WP:NOTGOSSIP. This isn't a tabloid – it's an encyclopedia. The transient dating lives of celebrities is not our mission. If and when someone like this, say, gets engaged, then it's appropriate to add it to the article. But not before then. Also, that is not what {{Infobox person}}'s partner parameter is for either. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Alright then. I thought the English Wikipedia was a bit more tolerant about this, which is why I accepted the edit from the anon, but I guess I was wrong. I've also removed the sentence here. Trijnsteltalk 16:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
@Trijnstel: Thank you!... Yeah, that latter one was particularly bad, as it was both WP:NOTGOSSIP and unsourced! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Episode table template - headers

That's interesting. Looks like there was a change made as episode table headers now have a black border. Have a look at any of our watched TV series articles—you can't miss it. Previously, it was the same shade as the episode table body. I kind of like it. Perhaps it was done because the gray borders didn't look or contrast that well with most of the colors or shades used for the header—for example, yellow. Looks like it's coded as well depending on what color or shade the header is used. If you take a look at I Am Frankie and then compare it to, say, List of K.C. Undercover episodes, you should notice an obvious difference, particularly between each column with the header cells. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I do like it, but not enough to object to it... [shrug] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Cyma Zarghami

https://deadline.com/2018/06/cyma-zarghami-departs-nickelodeon-1202403072/ Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Online leak notes

Ignoring the MOS:BOLD issue, do you think notes like this are trivial? Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The bigger problem that that claim is unsourced – to verify "accidentally released", we'd need a secondary source stating that. So the notes should be removed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
[2]. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Bizaardvark update

Nothing official has been announced yet on Deadline Hollywood, et al., but this seems to indirectly confirm S3. I realize Just Jared is WP:NOTRS, but if you look here, the official—verified—Disney Channel PR Twitter retweeted it, so we may be able to use it? Pinging Geraldo Perez as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd say no, as a "retweet" is weak evidence, IMO. BTW, can't say I'm thrilled that they're hiring such young actors to "replace" Dirk... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Ironically, a person in my Twitter group just said that. They asked why Disney Channel keeps casting little kids with older leads because it doesn't fit well. Like taking Xander, Tiffany, and Jorge out of Bunk'd and replacing them with little kids. Although that's still not officially confirmed until S3 begins in June. They also said that if they want to go for a younger demographic, do it with new series and to stop touching the older series. In other words, if I understood them right, if they're going to cast younger with older, do it from the get-go rather than with already running series. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I hope the Bunk'd casting rumors are just "rumors" – IMO, it would be pointless to bring that show back for a third season, but fire half the cast (esp. Xander). 16:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
There is this video of a live-taping, and those three aren't in there, but I don't think that necessarily confirms anything. I guess we'll see. (You can do a search on YouTube for "Bunk'd season 3" if you're curious on anything.) And yeah, that's what I said. Xander, like Lou, is also a counselor, so he should stay. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be more telling on Bizaardvark, though the words renewed aren't specifically stated. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you ever see this? Still not sure what to do. It's evident, at least to me, that there's a third season coming, but there's still no official renewal announcement from Deadline Hollywood et alia. This wouldn't be the first time, though. When Stuck in the Middle's S3 renewal was officially announced, S3 was already being filmed. Disney Channel has been strange lately. Usually, renewals are announced sometime after the current season has wrapped production and is still airing on TV. Furthermore, filming doesn't begin until after the renewal announcement, at least that's how it usually goes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: I think you can use that to say that a "new season" will premiere in summer/mid-2018 on Disney Channel. But I don't think you can use it say there's a "season 3" yet!! (My guess, is that you'll get a specific Disney press release about this soon, and will be able to use that...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It's official now. I'll be updating the article shortly. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I'm not sure whether we should be adding the new names in the infobox or characters section yet (at Bunk'd). There is the reference, but it doesn't address the names of the characters - another source is needed for that. Also, the episodes with these new actors haven't started airing yet, and the order of their names in the credits will be in question until then. If the names are to be in the infobox and characters section, shouldn't that tweet be tied to them, too (until the season premiere)? MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm with MPFitz – leave them out of the cast list and the infobox for now. They can be mentioned under Production/Casting, but I'd wait until episodes actually air for the rest... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Disney ABC Press has the photo [3] - that's also in the tweet - under which they give the character names played by the new actors - Matteo, Destiny, and Finn (who is Lou's cousin) ... but not which actor goes with which character at this point. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

New Bizaardvark cast confirmed. At 10:27 on this video from Disney Channel's official YouTube on May 12, 2018. Add: And at 23:17, we see the new Bunk'd cast. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've also just seen a promo on Disney Channel for season #3 Bunk'd – it looks like they've taken an already marginal show and taken it completely out of my demographic... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
On a site note, poor Ethan broke his leg as seen in that video. :( I wonder how he did that. As that was back in May and we don't how long he was already in that cast, though, it's probably healed by now, or, at the very least, he's out of the cast. Makes me curious how, if at all, it affected his filming. I doubt he'd just be forever absent, so the only logical conclusion I can think of is that they incorporated his broken leg into the series. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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:Harmony944 reported by User:Amaury (Result: ). Thank you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Amaury (and NeilN!)! I appreciate it! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The world as we know is over...

Proof. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The long-standing "TV universe" has been dead for about 5 years now. I'm not sure what they're going to need to do, but I can tell you that "Same Day" ratings are now completely useless. In fact, I kind of wonder why we on Wiki even still bother to report them for currently-airing TV series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm proud of The Thundermans. Given the times, it ended pretty decently. Sadly, we made history with a special for the first time not receiving 2M+, but still. Amazing how fast things change. Last year Nickelodeon was doing extremely well, even kicking Disney Channel's ass. Starting late last year is when things started changing for the worse, just like when things started changing for the worse on Disney Channel in late 2016. Hopefully Nielsen's algorithm update this summer improves both Nickelodeon and Disney Channel. Although I will say it seems ratings don't matter quite as much for Disney Channel, though they're still nice to have and nice to have high. I'm sure you've noticed that Disney Channel has its own commercials and the like. Add: But you know it's bad when even hit Henry Danger drops to the ratings it was at for April and May. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
And here I thought things couldn't get any worse. Albeit not much under, Andi Mack has fallen below 1M. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

List of Henry Danger characters

These additions probably need to be reviewed based on their number of guest star appearances. Also, unlike animation, I think you'll agree with me in this case that "portrayed by" is pointless. Add: For example, Omar is just a plant with no credit, similar to Jessie and Mr. Kipling, except it was only in a small amount of episodes and is only a plant, not an animal. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes "portrayed by" is pointless – that can definitely be removed. The additions... I'll have to look at – Evelyn Hall I think may qualify, but I'm not sure about the others. Omar the Plant should be probably be mentioned, but I'd put it inside Gooch's character summary, not as a separate entry. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Jillian Murray

Okay, I'm curious about something. If IMBD is not a WP:RS then why is a link to her IMBD in the External Links section? That's where I got the DOB from considering the link was already on her Wikipedia page. From my perspective that says the information it contains hasn't been challenged and is thereby accurate. So I assume that if it's not a RS then the link should be removed as well, right? Snickers2686 (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Snickers2686: IMDb can be used as an 'External link', but not as an inline source, and especially not for bio info at a WP:BLP. The details are covered at WP:RS/IMDb, WP:Citing IMDb, and WP:EL/P. In terms of Murray, I've looked for WP:RS that mention either a DOB or an age, and have so far found nothing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Vida (TV series)

Hi IJBall,
Just thought you should know the random ip address that your reverted is blocked for 31 hours due to personal attacks toward me. He or she has been disruptive editing various articles on Wikipedia. — Lbtocthtalk 14:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Harmony944

Seems they're back to it again. See article history for Judge Mathis and the latest discussion on their talk page: User talk:Harmony944#More edit warring after block. Not really sure what to do about them. I'll ping NeilN as well since he was the one who blocked them last. Hope you don't mind, Neil. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Edit war between two editors. Contrary to what the IP claims, variations on "removing fluff" are perfectly acceptable edit summaries. IP was also pretty quick to poison the well. Harmony944 has used the talk page - let's see how the IP responds. --NeilN talk to me 16:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
IP lied and claimed I reverted someone when no such thing happened. IP also violates status quo as the fluffless version was in place for eleven days. I did nothing wrong here. Strange how I'm the only one explicitly named. As if Amaury was also trying to paint me as the bad guy--Harmony944 (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Harmony944: You seriously need to read WP:EW carefully. "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Removing existing material can count as a revert but admins will usually try to distinguish between normal editing and reverting for the first edit. --NeilN talk to me 17:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about the initial removal of the fluff. It's not a direct undoing. This was clearly a regular edit--Harmony944 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello IJBall, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

  • As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
  • Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 100 review coin, 250 review coin, 500 review coin, 1000 review certificate.
  • Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Olivia Rodrigo

Article's history here:

We have a non-autoconfirmed editor overwriting what is currently a redirect to Bizaardvark, attempting to make a full article about her and ignoring the note in there about the draft article at Draft:Olivia Rodrigo. MPFitz1968 (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

In case there are more problems with this, I'll also ping Amaury and Geraldo Perez. Could you please keep an eye on this as well? MPFitz1968 (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Glad you figured it out – Draft:Olivia Rodrigo has precedence, no matter what, so you were correct to restore the redirect. Right now, I don't think she meets WP:NACTOR or WP:BASIC: she hasn't gotten enough coverage for Bizaardvark (or the "American girl") movie. I suspect she needs at least one more "significant" role before she'll clear NACTOR. In addition, even at the Draft, that editor's edits have been problematic, IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968: Watching. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Splitting Up Together recurring

Would you agree with that I have Henry, Wes, and Lisa Apple as recurring based on this? Henry and Lisa have been in four episodes so far and are bound to continue appearing. Same with Wes, except he's only at three right now; however, he seems to have a major (guest) role, like Griff in Bunk'd when he was added early. It's pretty much the same as the live article, except I'm not including Charlotte who's only had two appearances. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

4 out of 8? Probably yes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Full House

May need to keep an eye on this article after I made a WP:BOLD removal of the "drunk driver" detail from the plot ([4]), which I subsequently brought up on the show's talk page. An IP has reinserted the content since ([5]), which I immediately reverted. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Replied at talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Gortimer Gibbon's Life on Normal Street

This looks like such a good series from Amazon Prime, and, according to Nick and More, it's coming to Universal Kids tonight. New episodes every Saturday 9:00 PM–12:00 AM. Unfortunately, our DirecTV package doesn't have it! :( Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

On my end, I don't have Prime yet, but that should happen next month... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IJBall/Archive_18&oldid=1045689845"