Jump to content

User talk:IJBall/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Station naming convention

I've Been Working on the Railroad and found that the next stop after Downtown Pomona station is Ontario station (Amtrak). Now that seems like another stange one, but I have no idea what a suitable title might be. Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Secondarywaltz: there's no question that, in general, many of the U.S. Amtrak station article names are a mess. It's on my long-range 'To do' list to look into this, but it would be a big project which has been putting me off the idea of tackling it... But in the case of your example, Ontario station (California) might be the solution, depending on how the Downtown Pomona station requested move discussion goes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been working along the route of Amtrak's Texas Eagle and just got over the border into California. Most of the other stations have already been moved, since I think that the naming convention gives us the right to be bold. You have probably come up with the right answer for me. Thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much for the compliment (I think!) you paid me on my Talk page. I'm replying here because, frankly, the vandals who not infrequently access my Talk page would probably find your posting a particularly inviting target. To answer your question, I think it would probably be a bad idea; as it stands, I can at least delude myself into thinking I can stay off WP as long as I like (and long enough to take care of my RL responsibilities). I'd like to reconsider it at some point, but I think this is not the time. Hope to continue to be regarded as worthy! Cheers, and thanks again. General Ization Talk 22:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough! And I definitely can sympathize with the "now is not the time for it" argument, as I've had some big-time RL work responsibilities over the last couple of years too! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your close

Hi IJBall. Thanks for helping out at AN/I but I undid your close there as I think both the assertions are incorrect. This is not primarily a content issue but a user conduct issue, and no substantive discussion has taken place at article talk.

There has been some discussion at WT:BLP clarifying the policy issue, but as nobody but Snowded seriously asserts that the Mail or the Sun can be used for negative material on BLPs, there maybe isn't an awful lot to clarify. Snowded recently admitted that they reverted this material (twice) to make a point and I think it is very worrying if they are allowed to walk away thinking this was ok.

If you want to make a difference, you could read up on this situation and consider commenting; obviously this would have more weight though coming from an admin as I fear this may need action only an admin can perform if it continues. Thanks again for trying to help. --John (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

As you wish, but I've been around ANI long enough that I'm pretty sure that one's not going to get Admin action. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
That's a shame if it's true as that's what the board is meant to be for. I've seen you around quite a bit lately. Have you thought about adminship yourself? You seem like you'd be a good candidate. John (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, John, for the compliment (I think! ). Have I thought about it? Yes. Am I likely to run in an RfA? Not any time soon (and possibly never)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, please let me know if you are. --John (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
John, thanks again for the offer! I can say this – if I did decide to go the RfA route, it won't happen before summer (at the earliest...) due to real life/work obligations. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Poppy Drayton Birthday

Moved to Talk:Poppy Drayton
 – Which is where the discussion has always belonged... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback at WP:ORCP

Thank you for your feedback. I misunderstood the purpose of the page, so I will withdraw my request. Is it proper for me to delete the section, or is there some sort of archiving that must take place? — Jkudlick tcs 07:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jkudlick: I'll archive it for you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. — Jkudlick tcs 07:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Hi IJBall

I've removed one of your statements [1] from this page as it was posted in another users section. Please feel free to incorporate this into your statement section if you wish for it to be retained. Amortias (T)(C) 22:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Meh – They're gonna do what they're gonna do, regardless of what the peanut gallery says. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Motels in the United States for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Motels in the United States is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motels in the United States until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

—BarrelProof (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Signing your comments

On talk pages, don't forget to sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~ 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Uh, 7&6=thirteen, could you be more specific? – I just signed a comment for someone else at ANI, but I don't think I've forgotten to sign a comment of my own in ages... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I misinterpreted your edit summary. I had thought it odd that you would forget, but actually didn't look. Ciao. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ricky Garcia#Two different people?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ricky Garcia#Two different people?. Thanks. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Laurie Fortier page

I placed the deleted article in your Sandbox #6, per your request. I looked through the history, there is no version with more information that that which I "restored". Hope it is useful to you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Kidz Bop

Hello, I see that you've been making revisions to the KIDZ BOP page. I would like to keep ALL former KIDZ BOP members listed. A number of alumni do not have their own Wikipedia page, but do have a significant following on YouTube, Vine, Instagram, etc. (See: Steffan Agus) The wikipedia page for the similarly structured singing group, Mickey Mouse Club, has ALL members listed as well. It is an important aspect in the history of the brand.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F193:2900:81B7:AA4A:65E3:F03E (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately, that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. While a fansite or a Wikia devoted Kidz Bop would likely contain that kind of information, listing the lesser known (i.e. non-notable) members of Kidz Bop would be inappropriate on Wikipedia. What you might try doing is starting a topic at Talk:Kidz Bop to see which other members might be appropriate for inclusion at the list at the article. But a listing of all former members is basically outside of the focus of Wikipedia. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your suggestion but thats incorrect. If that were true, why is every member of The Mickey Mouse Club listed? The majority of these members are "lesser known" as well. KIDZ BOP is the best selling music brand for kids, and has sold over 16 million albums. A portion of this success is due to these members. They are all cast members of an audio series. Why would you not list the people responsible for each generation? A fan site might list fun facts about members, which this page does not. An encyclopedia page of a band would include all members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F193:2900:AC6B:A15:FE08:DECD (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Kidz Bop
 – Which is where the discussion properly belongs... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Laurie Fortier has been accepted

Laurie Fortier, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Onel5969 TT me 20:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fast Track (U.S. TV series) has been accepted

Fast Track (U.S. TV series), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

/wiae /tlk 13:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment: Lead sentence for train or railway stations

In what way should the lead sentence of articles dealing with railway stations or train stations be fashioned? See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment: Identification of train or railway stations in the lead. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Table captions

They're not redundant, I heard that they are needed if the table is not the first thing after the section heading (pinging AussieLegend). – nyuszika7h (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why (and visually, they're unattractive if added near the section header like the Liv & Maddie ones were). But if there's a compelling reason, I'm willing to hear it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Table captions are an accessibility issue. They provide navigation anchors for people using screen readers. If the table is not the first or only thing after a section heading, they should be included so people using screen readers can navigate directly to the table, rather than having to read through all the text, or other tables, before it. Imagine removing all of the section headers in an article, and then trying to find the section that you're looking for. To make it worse, you can't read it yourself, you have to get a 7-year-old with a voice like Stephen Hawking to read it for you. That's what people with screen readers have to do. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: Could you look at the List of Liv and Maddie episodes case then? There is very little text between the section heading and the actual table (basically, just a short list of "Absent" cast members...). I could see the point if there was a full paragraph before the episode table, but that's not the case in this instance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I think in that case the captions probably aren't needed. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. But I'll keep this issue in mind for future reference... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying it, AussieLegend. I don't think the captions look good in cases like this either, but I wasn't sure if they are needed. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello!

Where are you from — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:B840:111:1BC:A176:C41A:CF5A:BDAA (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Southern California. Now that you're here, would you like to discuss the M1 (Istanbul Metro) article?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

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

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Max & Shred episodes#Zap2it's Air Dates. Amaury (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Spinoff vs. spin-off

I demand that you change it back because I am right! Just kidding! Fair enough. Chrome underlined it red, so I added the hyphen. Amaury (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, both versions are technically correct. But it's like "crossover" – the unhyphenated version of the word "spinoff" is used much more commonly used than the hyphenated version. In fact, all three sources used the unhyphenated version of the word (though the MSN version did use the hyphenated form of "spin-off" in its title – but it used the unhyphenated version in the writeup)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I think crossover might be a different case, at least for me as Chrome doesn't underline it red, which means it's meant to be one word. However, like everything else, spin-off as one word is likely to eventually become either accepted or just common. It's the same as speakers who incorrectly say things like "I seen it" rather than "I saw it" or "I've seen it." It's just one of those things that's common in some societies, such as in Texas. At least that's what I read somewhere that said certain parts of Texas talk in more of a country tone without much care for grammar. I don't know how true that is, though, as it might be someone's stereotypical comment, just something I read. Amaury (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
In thinking it over some, it's possible that back in the 70s and 80s, "spin-off" was the only form of the word used. (I don't remember for certain...) But I'd say over the last decade that "spinoff" has become the dominant form used in the trade press. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

In regard to the plot, I could be wrong, but once the first episode airs, that itself can be used as the reference like with guest stars, absences, etc. That's why I removed it. And that's how it is on other articles, but I won't make that argument since it's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. :P Amaury (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspect that's the general approach at WP:TV, but I'm not sure I agree with it. My view is always: if you can source it, do so. WP:V is the name of the game. Frankly, if such a thing existed, I'd probably advocate sourcing even episode summaries (but because our summaries are usually more complete than what's out there, and because online episode synopses usually "disappear" soon after airing, there's probably no point in even trying...). But for overall TV series "plot" synopses, there is often independent sourcing available to verify those. So my working approach to Wikipedia is: if you can get an independent source for something, add it to the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Lindsay Ridgeway

If we delete Lindsay Ridgeway, then Susan Olsen fails for the same reason - only one major role. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, no, not necessarily. There are gradiations here. Among other things, Susan Olsen's "one big role" was relatively massiver from a cultural perspective (this is when WP:NACTOR's whole "cult following" thing might come into play). But, secondly and more importantly, I'm pretty sure I'd be able to find a lot more press coverage of Olsen than I'd ever be able to find of Ridgeway. Finally, Ridgeway's resume is light even when compared to her predecessor on Boy Meets World, Lily Nicksay. But, finally, and most troubling – Ridgeway's article has been unsourced since its creation in 2005! That's a sure sign that the article is a turkey, and probably needs to be AfD'ed. (On my end though, I still have too many irons in the fire at AfD, and haven't done as well there lately, so I'm in no hurry to take this one there, though I may get around to it eventually...) But adding the {{Notability}} tag in this case in certainly not out of line... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: "Davenport"

I always thought we listed cast members by their names mentioned in the show. Sorry for any trouble. --ACase0000 (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope – the cast lists (or episode synopses) actually need to reflect the character names as credited onscreen (or, failing that if character names aren't shown on screen, from reliable sources – e.g. press releases from the production company). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see. He is mentioned as "Donald Davenport" in both Lab Rats and Lab Rats: Elite Force. But, I understand. --ACase0000 (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Disappearance of Sheila Fox

I've created Disappearance of Sheila Fox but am not sure how to expand it? Can you help? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Paul Benjamin Austin: Well, it hasn't been deleted yet – it's just been taken to WP:AfD (which used to be called "articles for discussion" rather than its current "articles for deletion"). What you need to do now is find more sourcing and expand the article. I'm not sure I can help with that (it might involve going to a library to look up old news reports). If you can do that, it may survive at AfD with "Keep" votes. But if it stays the 1–2 line "stub" article it is now, it probably won't survive at AfD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: She's mentioned in this book - https://books.google.com.au/books?id=lXqIAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT88&dq=%22sheila+fox%22+1944&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUt9LTmc3LAhXoL6YKHdk0B5sQ6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=%22sheila%20fox%22%201944&f=false - the problem with such old cases is that abduction and murder of a child now goes straight to the national media as opposed to being reported only locally in the local paper, and only hitting the national media if the case proved unusual, intriguing or horrifying. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep – from a Wikipedia standpoint, that's exactly the problem. In order to qualify for inclusion, the coverage of a case like this needs to go beyond just news. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Salvador Metro Map

Template:Salvador Metro Map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~ RobTalk 22:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Code: 9

I don't know how, but after your edit it actually magically "fits to width" now. Also, a minor thing and I've always just left that alone in other articles where someone already converted it to {{Episode table}}, but I find it unnecessarily verbose to put all the parameters on a separate line. The spacing for the T/R ones does help readability a bit though, IMO. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I get it. It seems if |total_width= is specified but set to an empty value, it overrides the style. Actually, it sets an invalid style declaration (width:%;), which browsers just ignore, but it should probably be fixed to not set the width at all in that case. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Nyuszika7H: I dunno if it's possible, but if there's a way that the |total_width= parameter could be set to include an option to "fit [to width]", that would be awesome! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
What you did (specifying |total_width= with an empty value, thus overriding the default of 100%) actually kinda does that, but apparently on larger screens it does leave some white space on the right side. I figured out that you can actually subtract the infobox width though (width: calc(100% - 22em)). That width seems to be hardcoded in Module:Infobox. – nyuszika7h (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, there's a problem... if the article uses a bigger image or someone has a bigger default image size set in their preferences, then it won't fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyuszika7H (talk • contribs) 10:42, April 1, 2016‎ (UTC)

New user rights

Regarding the creation of new user rights: if there is no consensus to make use of a new user right, there is no need to create it. So the discussion must happen first, as was the case for template editor, for example. isaacl (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Isaacl: That's interesting – I figured the 'Move over redirect' userright would have to come first, and then the discussion about whether to unbundle "Page Move" would come second... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Copy edit

Regarding this edit: you made it look like I added a block quote. Can you revert or adjust the text appropriately? Thanks. isaacl (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Isaacl: OK, I see – it looked like that addition was signed by someone, but apparently Kudpung added it as a "quote". Its placement makes it seem like it's a replied statement improperly placed. But I've reverted. Hopefully other people can figure out that Kudpung meant to place that there (though it wasn't clear to me...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Edited your comments

You got the name of the flag wrong, so I fixed it for you. suppressedredirect → suppressredirect --QEDK (T ☕ C) 04:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Just one more quick thing...

Thanks for leaving a message at my RFA poll, but I cannot recall asking for Template Editor. I've gone through the page history in an attempt to trace the admin that asked me a question, and yet I can't find my edit for the life of me. I've gone through my contributions several times also. Could you please provide me with a diff? Thank you in advance --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Chesnaught555: You're right – that was someone else. I'll go ahead and remove my comment from ORCP. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Easily done, don't worry :-) --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

What's the keyword you used for the copyright office search for Fast Track (U.S. TV series)? Searching for "FAST TRACK" seems to give many irrelevant results and "SHOWTIME FAST TRACK" (guess based on Disney shows being prefixed with "DISNEY") yields no results. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: With some of the USCO database searches, you just have to "brute force" it, and go through the results, 50 or 100 entries at a time, until you find what you want. (IIRC, "Lab Rats" is another example of these...) Sometimes you can get lucky if you search "[SHOW NAME] : no." (this actually works with "Fast Track" in the USCO - searching "Fast Track : no." gets you the specific episodes info – if you want to add that info to the Fast Track (U.S. TV series) article ref, feel free...), as it generally looks for entries with just episode "no." (i.e. #'s) associated with them – but even that doesn't always work... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I managed to narrow it down by going to "Advanced Search", choosing "Motion Picture" in "Set Search Limits", then entering "Fast Track", selecting "as a phrase" and "Title (TKEY)". It doesn't seem like WebCite can archive it correctly though. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@Nyuszika7H: Thanks for tracking down the airdates of those last four episodes of Fast Track! – I didn't realize that the USCO also had that info as well. What's interesting about that is that it looks like the 5th-to-last episode aired on a Wednesday (as all previous episodes had), and then the 4th-to-last episode aired on the very next day, a Thursday, with the remaining three episodes also airing on a Thursday – I wonder if this is Showtime's equivalent of burning off the show?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Lab Rats: Elite Force

Just as an FYI, The Futon Critic is where the alternate title came from. :) Amaury (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: While Futon's definitely good, I don't think he's above making mistakes. I usually take the WGA (and the USCO) as the "authoritative" source on episode titles, as the titles should be coming directly from the producers at these. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The one making the mistake would be Disney in this case, but it's a rather unusual spelling anyway, and if even the WGA's site lists "The Superhero Code", listing just that should be enough. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

KgosarMyth

You were on the right track. The subject user has been blocked as a sockpuppet. So perhaps the curious edits (as to which at least I said I was "not sure what KgosarMyth was trying to accomplish") were meant to be disruptive. In any event, the sock's prior edits to the article did revert disruptive/vandalism edits. I have seen it remarked that a disruptive user who makes some good edits, interspersed with bad ones, is harder to understand or identify. Dead horse, I guess. Kudos to you on this one. Donner60 (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The "master" on this one is Special:Contributions/Winterysteppe – I think their "M.O." is edits with questionable WP:Competence. It looks like a number of editors have expended a fair amount of energy trying to bring this one into the fold with positive contributions, but it doesn't look like it's worked out. Whether the "questionable competence" shtick is legitimate or a "trolling" act, I could not tell you... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
You're right. I see that some editors have tried to get this user on the right path. It is hard to understand why Winterysteppe has continued on this path when it should have been quite clear that others who were trying to help would also be watching. The mix of his/her edits adds a little uncertainty, but the editor is either very obtuse and incompetent or he/she is a troll. Donner60 (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

PROD

I don't mind you editing it, but just noting that I recently discovered you can use {{Prod2}} to second a nomination. nyuszika7h (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll keep that in mind for future reference... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You may find it useful to add this snippet to Special:MyPage/vector.css (or meta:Special:MyPage/global.css to apply to all wikis): 

.mw-disambig {
	border: 1px solid #FF4000;
}

It will give an orange border to disambiguation links. It doesn't always work, but most of the time it does. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Can you point me to an example of what this would look like? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Sure, see this screenshot. (I got that one before DPL bot. :P) nyuszika7h (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, yeah, I think that will be useful... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference date formats

Would just like to point out that KC Streetcar has both formats in their existing references and I only mean to harmonize it. It's a bit jarring for some readers when you have to switch between formatted dates (May 6, 2016) and dashed ones (2016-05-06) in the same citation. SounderBruce 21:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: The predominant ref format at KC Streetcar already was was was 'mdy dates' for ref dates, and ISO dates for accessdates. Only a couple of recently added refs didn't use that format (probably because they were 'script' added), and those were out of harmony with the prevailing format. In any case, please don't change ref formats on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis – a lot of authors (myself included) consciously choose the ref date formatting style on purpose (I have a rationale in my Talk page archives if you're really interested – basically it's easier to tell the two different types of ref dates apart if they're in different formats), and the bottom line is that under WP:DATERET ref date formats shouldn't be changed unless there is clearly established consensus to do so. (I.E. Wikipedia doesn't have a "house" reference style, and all that...) Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

ORCP dearchive

[2] I don't agree with this edit. My observation has been that discussion dies right around 2 weeks, at most, and if an editor does not receive comment for more than 7 days, I think that's a strong indicator that the discussion is finished. --Izno (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: In the past, I actually pushed for 2 weeks before archiving. But that's when there were more candidates showing up at ORCP then there have been lately. I decided to be conservative this time, and set archiving to 30 days, but it's possible that the previously set 15 days may be enough. However, 7 days is definitely not enough – I've seen several of these where there's been more than 7 days before the next person comments. So I think 7 days is too short. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd be fine pushing it to 14 days--7 days was a trial that I still think is more appropriate, but 2 weeks isn't going to break anything. --Izno (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
@Izno: I wouldn't object to 14 or 15 days. (I slightly prefer the latter as "half-a-month"...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I prefer 14 because it's precisely 2 weeks; "half-a-month" also isn't always half ;). --Izno (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps this would be best discussed on the talk page for the poll? As I previously discussed on the talk page, the key need is to allow enough time for the prospective candidate to see the provided feedback. I had suggested archiving after three weeks, but two weeks is probably OK. isaacl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

F Market & Wharves and E Embarcadero Merger Proposal

Your input is requested: Talk:F Market & Wharves#F Market & Wharves and E Embarcadero Merger Proposal. Jackdude101 (Talk) 20:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Los Angeles County Metro Rail

I suspect I've stepped into a political issue here. I'm looking at this from the perspective of wikipedia reporting to the public. Somewhere the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has released their proposed routing. Either wikipedia has the report (map) accurately and sourced or it doesn't belong here. I suspect you are trying to say that since no progress has been made that the plans are irrelevant. That is a POV statement. All transit agencies in this country move at a glacial pace. The completion dates on projects I knew we needed when I was a child will occur after my lifetime. Its frustrating. That commentary doesn't inform the public. Either they have these plans in place or they have other plans in place. There are some plans that they are not visibly acting on. It is our responsibility to accurately report whatever those current plans are and to update them as they evolve. To suggest there is no visible progress so the plans have no relevance is commentary but not productive. Help wikipedia report accurate information. Trackinfo (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: My point is that, 1) including a map with line names that are currently incorrect (and which, further, are quite likely to never be implemented) does not serve the readership, and in fact is confusing to the readership; and, 2) there is no pressing need to show the Expo line extension before it opens. Pacific Coast Highway has already shown that they are prompt with adding extensions to their Metro map (as was the case with the Gold Line extension), and we lose nothing by waiting the week or so for Pacific Coast Highway to update their map accordingly, and then going back to that version for use in the infobox. Really, nothing is gained by including a misleading map in the article, and I would urge you again to revert or remove the addition of the map in question. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL and shouldn't be including maps of proposals like that which at this point are 100% speculative. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
What I see is a map produced by the agency in April 2015 with proposals, including the name changes to letters. The article says they have not yet acted. Politicians not acting or following through is not even news. But from what I can see, those are the current plans. The public is better informed by seeing the plans on the books. It gives them the opportunity to comment on those plans and probably slow them further. Have those plans been superseded? if yes, update. If no, then those are the plans on the books. Its not OR or speculative, it is sourced directly to the agency. Trackinfo (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
@Trackinfo: It is speculative because those plans were never approved by the Metro Board (the scheduled vote was never taken). Look, including a system map incl. future lines and routes (well, specifically, including only the Crenshaw Line, the Regional Connector, and the Purple Line extension, as those are the only extensions currently under construction) in the article is fine. But that specific map is not. Because the renaming plan was never instituted (it's just a "staff report") it's pure WP:CRYSTALBALL right now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
As I said, those are plans released by the agency. If those are outdated, find plans that are newer and replace. If politicians simply haven't taken a vote, postpone etc etc, thats normal. This is in a section labeled "Future" The prose is clear on the status of the votes. From what I can see at a distance, this is what is currently on the table, which is what should be in such a section. Trackinfo (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Map's updated. It turns out that the maps published by the MTA are under CA public domain laws, we're allowed to use them. I'll continue to update my map so long as it's wanted (or used). Pacific Coast Highway (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, IJBall. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. When you move a page, please remember to correct any double-redirects and make link corrections where necessary. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! — xaosflux Talk 01:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Moving a page

  • When moving a page, all that is needed (for an admin) is to move it from A to B, not a 3-point swop. The move will delete any old redirects at B, and will leave a redirect behind itself at A. (Plus many more complications.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Uhh, sorry, being an admin I am accustomed to being able to move from A to B and it automatically deletes anything which is already at B. (But when the move automatically drags Talk:A to Talk:B along with itself, it does not auto-delete any pre-existing Talk:B .) Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

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

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

Re: Instagram

First of all, I was the one who put the source in the text. Also, I only added filming part in the Notes section, so I understood that Nyuszika7H only didn't like that filming part was left unsourced, because no one complained about adding Thumper itself before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindre (talk • contribs) 17:47, June 2, 2016‎ (UTC)

@Vindre: Ah, I missed that part of it. Apologies. In fact, though, the Variety source did say that production would begin in May 2016, so the Instagram source probably wasn't even necessary, as just the Variety source probably would have been enough to show that it was "filming". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

NOTQUITEYET

Hi IJBall. I seem to recall that you were the editor who originally proposed the WP:NOTQUITEYET essay. I have no doubt that you did this completely in good faith, but unfortunately it's becoming increasingly clear that editors are exploiting this essay to push for higher and higher standards. It's being cited as a reason to reject editors with 10,000+ edits and 1+ years of experience on purely unsubstantial, arbitrary statistical "standards" which continue to inflate. I just thought you might want to know about this and perhaps overhaul the essay to clarify matters. Thanks. :) Biblio (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Biblioworm: You obviously have my permission to make any changes you think might help to to that essay. But I feel there's no point in "taking it down". People were actually quoting WP:NOTNOW in Anarchyte's RfA, so the problem isn't WP:NOTQUITEYET (which was designed to get people to not use WP:NOTNOW inappropriately), but is instead the continued inflation of some editors' RfA standards, which would be happening with or without the existence of WP:NOTQUITEYET. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

One episode, multiple prod codes

I just noticed your discussion on Alex's talk page and was going to comment, but since Alex has deleted the discussion, I thought I'd mention it here. You're actually quite correct, despite Alex's assertion, in saying that it is not the standard way of handling multiple production codes. That said, neither was your suggestion. There is no standard, the methods have varied at articles. We actually discussed this at Module talk:Episode list#Edit Request #2 in April 2016. Alex's examples seem a little bit disingenuous, as the horizontal rules in the examples were not added until March 2016, March 2016 and April 2016 and in two of the three articles referred to, the edits were made by Alex. The third actually replaced a slash, which was the more often used method, as others prevented linking to individual episodes, or made it incredibly complicated. To his credit, Alex did suggest a modification to Module:Episode list that made the horizontal rule method work. However, there is still not standard method. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, AussieLegend! I was actually going to follow up to that discussion at Alex's page with the following admission before he removed it – his way might actually be better if the "two-hour episode" has different directors and/or writers for each hour. But – and this is the case at The Shannara Chronicles where Alex reverted me to his preferred version – when it's the same director and writers for both hours, then it makes very little sense to do it his way. As to the "101/102" versus "101–102", you're right that there's probably not a "standard" format between these two, though the latter seems to be more prevalent (significantly, from what I've seen). And, I'll make no bones about it – ILIKEIT much better as "101–102" than as "101/102", though I realize that's hardly a "policy-based" argument!... But if this topic ever comes at WT:TV looking for a Project-wide consensus, I'd appreciate a ping – while I don't think Alex's way should be "deprecated", I think it should be used sparingly and only in the instances I outlined above. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
When talking about other users, it'd be great if you could notify them by pinging them, rather than talk about them behind their back. Have a good day! Alex|The|Whovian? 09:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems both "1–2" and "1/2" make linking difficult, though the only reason the horizontal rule doesn't is because of AlexTheWhovian's edit request. We should probably do something similar for "–" and "/" too. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian: - As I said, I was going to comment on your talk page but you deleted the discussion, so I assumed that you weren't interested any longer. My main point was to point out that neither claim regarding a "standard" format was actually accurate. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
And it depends how you define "standard" – "1–2" and "1/2" have been in use for far longer, and are much more prevalent, which makes them "de facto" (if "unofficial") standards. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me

And what gives you the right to undo my wiki edit?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.54.46 (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Could probably make it a BLPPROD. --NeilN talk to me 01:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@NeilN: My understanding is that the way some people read BLPPROD is that an 'External links' section with an IMDb link is considered a "source" for the BLP, and thus BLPPROD is invalid in that case as the article is considered not "completely unsourced" but is in fact "sourced" to something. (Now, that's not my preferred reading of BLPPROD. But it is what it is...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
While PRODs can be rejected on pretty much any grounds, your grounds were completely specious as IMDb can't be used as an inline source under WP:RS/IMDb, and further the article already cited IMDb in the 'External links' section. IOW, your edit did nothing to improve the article (it was virtually a "null edit") as a basis for rejecting that PROD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Now, adding a real (independent) inline source to the article would be a valid reason for removing the PROD. However, know that I will immediately take that article to WP:AfD in that event, as the subject clearly fails notability under WP:NACTOR, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

RMpmc

I've made a little proposal at Template talk:RMpmc#Appearance, and since all this is still so new, I'd like your input.  What's in your palette? Paine  17:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Silent Cancelings

I was going to post this on Talk:Bella and the Bulldogs as a response, but I felt it was more appropriate here. It's sort of a mini-rant, for lack of a better term.

Personally, I feel that any network quietly canceling a show is unfair to the viewers. They need to think about their viewers and always announce their plans, especially when it comes to series ending. They need to make it clear whether the show is being canceled, either by the network or the creators, or has truly gone as far as the creators intended. iCarly and Jessie from Nickelodeon and Disney Channel, respectively, are two examples of shows that were not canceled and ended when the creators intended for them to end. iCarly had five seasons, though for whatever reason Nickelodeon decided to split some of the seasons, thereby creating the illusion that there were seven seasons, and Jessie had four seasons, and that's pretty rare in regard to the former. While other networks, such as ABC Family, will go pretty high in season numbers—Boy Meets World, Malcolm in the Middle, and currently running The Middle are some shows that come to mind—it seems that even a fourth season for shows on Nickelodeon and Disney Channel, though I tend to lean more toward Nickelodeon, isn't that often as it's like they refuse to go past three seasons. The norm seems to be three seasons, and on occasion four seasons. Then you sometimes have those shows with only two seasons, such as Mighty Med, though I think that one was planned last-minute by the creators for the new series after the crossover, and on very rare occasions, you'll have shows with only one season, such as How to Rock. Amaury (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, this is a perennial issue going back decades. And, yes – it's totally unfair. I Didn't Do It was a pretty bad example of a network dropping a show in the middle of the night without even letting the series producers know so they could put together a more solid series finale. The A#1 worst Nick or Disney example of this is Victorious, though, which was cancelled with neither a "finale" episode nor a "wrap-up TV movie" ordered, despite being the most popular show on the network! However, what Disney sometimes does – renewing a show after it has come to a "logical ending" is nearly as bad: Austin & Ally's fourth season was completely superfluous (I still don't understand why Disney renewed it), and it was a total dud even if it did offer up a series finale that satisfactory wrapped everything up (that finale still can't erase the stain of the preceding 19 episodes!). Similarly, I remain deeply skeptical that Liv and Maddie's upcoming fourth season won't go exactly the same way, as the third season finale seemed to completely wrap the show up and would have served as a more than satisfactory season finale!... (Something very similar happened a few years back with CSI:NY, by the way...) Long story-short: The networks can get you coming or going, and you're going to get continually burned by them no matter what you do. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Compared to what's happened in the past—The Amanda Show is a very good example, where its Moody's Point sketch was left on a total cliffhanger, though its spin-off, Drake & Josh, did really well—I was personally perfectly fine with the final episode of I Didn't Do It. It didn't have that finale feel, but at the same time, it didn't feel like they were hinting at more. From a conversation I had a long time ago with Geraldo Perez, he mentioned that writers are pros and almost always, at least nowadays, are prepared for what might be their final season; as such, they try to make their last episode not leave any doors open.
For Austin & Ally, I read somewhere, I think here, that the fourth season was fan demand, where the fans felt that there was more that could be done. I don't even remember how the third season ended as it's been a while or if the show was canceled or had just ended at that point. And that's one example there that just because a season has ended and there's been no announcement of a renewal, it doesn't mean that the series has been canceled or ended. Usually, as I said earlier, shows are renewed for another season midway through their current season, but not always. Among all the possible reasons, perhaps the network is unsure on renewing or not, so perhaps they are negotiating with the creators. There's been no official word on 100 Things to Do Before High School, for example, and maybe that's what going on there. (It would be great if they did four seasons totaling 100 episodes as would make the most logical sense.)
Moving on to Liv and Maddie, it again doesn't bother me personally, because what you said about Austin & Ally's fourth season and its 19 episodes before the finale I did not notice as I don't really care about or look out for that stuff. Anyway, I suppose that could be looked at as a series finale for Liv and Maddie, but this is another one of those things where I personally feel they seem to leave the door open for something unfinished—life in California with the kids' aunt and Liv and Maddie's college experience, similar to how Boy Meets World kept going for a few seasons after high school, showing what Cory and Shawn's college lives were like. I wouldn't be surprised if Disney Channel made an exception for Girl Meets World because of its history and let it at least have seven seasons like Boy Meets World, if not more.
When it comes to networks deciding a show's fate, whether to renew it or cancel it, or perhaps even go on a hiatus while they work toward a decision, I think it mostly comes down to viewers—I say mostly as there could obviously be other reasons, such as an important main cast member leaving for one reason or another and there not being a way to continue the show without them. I feel like Bella and the Bulldogs has had good viewership for the most part. Networks need to remember that the viewers are in the millions. Even something like 0.94 is still a LOT of people. Disney XD's shows, for example, typically get below 1.00 viewers.
What I think it comes down to at the end of the day, though, is that they care more about money than their viewers. The actors of the various shows all appreciate their fan base, but the networks, not so much. Although I'm not saying that networks completely don't appreciate their fan base, either, but it's definitely different from the actors. Amaury (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The last paragraph is an accurate description indeed! It sometimes leads to particularly nonsensical outcomes to, such as when a low-rated network show is renewed because of overseas sales or potential syndication sales, while a higher-rated network show is cancelled despite having a larger audience. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking a cancellation is different than not getting the next season renewal which looks to be the case here. Shows go season to season and getting a renewal is a big happy deal for the cast and crew. Not getting a renewal is disappointing but generally not unexpected. Cancellation generally means they stop the show in the middle of a planned run - Sam and Cat being an example. My preference would be to consider a show finished if a renewal has not been announced in the normal upfront for the network, but that is not how the current TV MOS and editor consensus is now so we hang on for a year waiting to declare it done still indicating the show is active even when it is obviously over. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The usual "convention" in this case is the difference between "cancellation" and "ending" – "cancellation" is when the network pulls the plug on you and the TV show producers have no say in the matter (e.g. that would definitely include something like I Didn't Do It or Victorious); a series "ending" OTOH is generally when there's agreement between the TV series' producers and the network to "wrap things up" (which usually results in a "planned" TV series finale). When the network yanks you, mid-season, without even all the episodes aired, that's generally called "hiatus", though that's just a technical step before formal "cancellation". Recent examples of that is FOX's Cooper Barrett's Guide to Surviving Life or CBS's Angel from Hell. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I realize this is a bit old thread, but this reminds me of Spooksville. It was getting really interesting near the season finale, and Hub Network was even advertising it as the "season finale", and yet they didn't renew it, and it ended on a pretty big cliffhanger. nyuszika7h (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Episode table

Because the table header is not normally edited, it is usually condensed to a single line. How does listing it vertically make it better? Ryan8374 (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Because it makes it easier to edit in "edit source" mode. And it's not true that it's "not normally edited" – if the column widths need to be set, as they often are, then it will need to be edited. In general, it's best to leave "code" in the most easily readable form for "edit source" mode editing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
How often are you tweaking the headers? I use "edit source" mode and have no trouble with it. Ryan8374 (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Most recently? List of Renegade episodes would be just one example of an article where the {{Episode table}} headers have been purposefully edited by me. As I said, in general, I would simply leave "code" like this as you find it at various articles under the broad concept of "Not broken", and would only change it if there is a very compelling reason (or new consensus) to do so... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Round-robin

Hi IJBall, this is about a round-robin move you performed recently. FYI, see Talk:Christy: A Change of Seasons. I made this redirect from the old page to the new ones for the sake of completeness to avoid breaking incoming talk page links to the old page. Jenks24 recently pinged me about this issue about not breaking incoming talk page links, and I thought I'd share this with you as well.

For example, if page A had a talk page, 3 archives, and a good article nomination, swapping A and its subpages with B without the talk/subpages will turn the former A 's pages into redlinks. I documented this at WP:PMVR#rr if it helps. Of course, these additional redirects to be created could also use good judgment, but a move without redirect suppression would produce them anyway. Hope this only helps! Thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: Just so I'm clear here, the main issue is that I didn't create a redirect from the "old" Talk page location to the new one? But I got everything else correct?... Knowing this should help me in the future. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I believe that's all that was missing. I haven't shared this with too many others, but I made a checklist to look over that helps me personally. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IJBall/Archive_5&oldid=1143055914"