Jump to content

User talk:Alexiaya/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

19:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

16:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

19:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Split seasons in series overview

Hey, Nyuszika7H. So, I remembered your post back from July at Template talk:Series overview/Archive 1 § Split season with more than two parts. I created a sandbox version of the module - is this what you were looking for? I am planning to tweak the code further, but this seems to be a working case for now. Cheers. -- AlexTW 14:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

SeasonEpisodesOriginally airedFirst airedLast aired
First airedLast aired
18040May 14, 2012 (2012-05-14)July 6, 2012 (2012-07-06)July 22, 2013 (2013-07-22)October 25, 2013 (2013-10-25)
40September 3, 2012 (2012-09-03)October 26, 2012 (2012-10-26)November 4, 2013 (2013-11-04)August 28, 2014 (2014-08-28)
28040April 29, 2013 (2013-04-29)June 21, 2013 (2013-06-21)June 1, 2015 (2015-06-01)July 10, 2015 (2015-07-10)
40August 19, 2013 (2013-08-19)October 11, 2013 (2013-10-11)July 11, 2015 (2015-07-11)August 19, 2015 (2015-08-19)
38020July 28, 2014 (2014-07-28)August 22, 2014 (2014-08-22)July 4, 2016 (2016-07-04)TBA
20September 22, 2014 (2014-09-22)October 17, 2014 (2014-10-17)TBATBA
20November 17, 2014 (2014-11-17)December 12, 2014 (2014-12-12)TBATBA
20January 12, 2015 (2015-01-12)February 6, 2015 (2015-02-06)TBATBA
@AlexTheWhovian: Yep, that looks good. (The UK & Ireland air dates should probably be just removed per WP:TVOVERVIEW, but it's nice that it can also support that.) nyuszika7h (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

02:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

IMDB for writing credits

They were partially right, but they must be marked with WGA: Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll let you handle the latest round of edits there. But it's now two different editors in a row who are refusing to follow WP:TVCAST... --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

21:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist purge

Amaury, IJBall, Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968

Just letting you know that I'll be purging my watchlist and turning on email notifications for changes to watchlisted articles, so that I don't miss disruptive edits to articles I actually care about the most. The amount of watchlisted articles I have is way too much to handle both by manual review and email. I will re-add most of the articles in Amaury's sandbox, and I can still temporarily watchlist problematic articles on request. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Everything is up-to-date in my sandbox for the time being. I'm planning on making more character articles soon. Out of curiosity, how many articles are on your list? I've got 159, but that varies as I usually end up removing talk pages of people I've just warned and the like. The list is all the articles in my sandbox, plus some others where I've been asked for help, such as people articles like Cameron Boyce. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
You're too late to ask that, as I've already cleared it, and I don't really remember how many it might be, as it's been a while since I last checked. It was probably more than yours, though. Even when I was more active here I mostly only looked on the top few articles on my watchlist (the ones changed most recently). nyuszika7h (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Image question

Nyuszika7H, you seem to know something about images, yes? If so, there's no way that this is legit, right? I don't track this stuff closely, so what needs to be done here?... Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribstalk) 03:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Yes, that does seem like some random user uploading an image and saying "own work" when it's not true, perhaps without even knowing what it means. There's a "Nominate for deletion" button in the sidebar on the Commons description page, which I've done now. nyuszika7h (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

22:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks, Nyu! I guess that means you don't like Andi Mack, Crashletes, Hunter Street, Jagger Eaton's Mega Life, Kirby Buckets, Legendary Dudas, Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn, Paradise Run, and The Other Kingdom as well as the respective episode lists for three of those (some that you previously had check-marked were removed). Shame because ones like Kirby Buckets and Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn could use someone going through and fixing/adding director, writing, and guest star credits.

Just kidding! Don't worry, I'm not upset or annoyed at all. Just thought it'd be funny to give you a hard time. :P Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't particularly like most of them on first look, though I may check out some of them eventually. I've mostly watchlisted the ones that I've at least started watching and like or plan to watch. Though I might still help with the non-watchlisted ones somewhen, now it will be faster even if I have to download some of them instead of just streaming – did I tell you our ISP decided to lay fiber in our relatively small city, and our connection went from 10 Mbps down and 0.5 Mbps up to 1000 Mbps down and 200 Mbps up? nyuszika7h (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wow! I was about to ask if that was good or bad, but then I saw "even easier now," something I missed the first time reading your message, LOL! Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean download and upload speeds. Of course, for speed, bigger/faster is usually better (except if you're falling out of an airplane without a parachute or something like that). nyuszika7h (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
By the way, regarding Bunk'd, see User talk:IJBall#Famous in Love. I trust you as well as the others in the group 100%, so I don't really have a problem there, but I don't know those other editors, haha! Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

12:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey!

I just found you! --Bankster (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

19:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

15:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Your question regarding List of Backstage characters

Regarding this, that's a good question, actually, since the headings are still going by the official credits. I want to say I think so, but I'm not sure. Geraldo Perez, IJBall, and MPFitz1968 might know. I think GP himself has even specifically mentioned something about that before, but I don't quite remember what it was. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

IIRC we agreed that the headings should use the credited names but the descriptions can use the full names. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
That's my understanding as well – the "credited" name needs to be used in the cast listing, or as in this case as a header, but the "full" name can be used in the character synopsis (esp. if it cites the first episode in which the full name is revealed...) --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The reference for the reveal is fairly important for verifiability, should include ep info, timestamp and some info about the reveal, if possible. One common form of vandalism is people making up names for characters, some presumptions about full names for perceived nicknames, some pure vandalism. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Writing credits

Just thought you might be interested to know that I am completely fine with listing the writing credits—with story and teleplay when applicable—exactly as they are listed on-screen. It doesn't matter to me anymore. As such, for the articles in my sandbox that you've already gone through, if you held off on making changes to the writing credits, other than fixing the ordering of them or whatever, because you weren't sure how to handle those cases where there were story and teleplay, it might be beneficial, actually, to quickly modify that and make the corresponding changes, such as on List of Girl Meets World episodes, where you already went through and fixed the guest stars and the like, but left the writing credits alone, other than ordering. When you have time, of course. I mostly wanted you to know, though, that it's no longer an "issue" for me. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

15:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Nyuszika7H, probably best if you look at the most recent edits at Project Mc2. I've reverted some of them. But I'd like you to look over the remaining edits... --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Thanks, it seems I forgot to re-add that one to my watchlist. I've sorted out most of it, but just tagged the "Merchandise" section, I have no idea about the dolls, since I'm not really interested in those. :P nyuszika7h (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Still getting edits here. And I can't still whether they're "good" edits, or not. In this case, I really worry that this editor is pushing some sort of product "promotional" angle... --IJBall (contribstalk) 03:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@IJBall: Yeah, I'm not sure, I'll try to find out info about this. If you want, you can revert or remove the section as unsourced / poorly sourced (I haven't looked much into the website to see what info it has on the dolls). nyuszika7h (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

15:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

15:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

15:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Backstage characters#Original Research tag. IJBall, MPFitz1968, Geraldo Perez, you're invited as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Per Geraldo, the "General references" sections aren't really necessary as it is assumed information comes from the episodes per WP:PRIMARY, so he removed that, but the other editor's claims that we're using those sections to try to get around WP:OR and whatever else it was that they mentioned is absurd. And now I'm getting a stalking feeling considering they've added unnecessary unreferenced tags to the character list articles for Bunk'd, K.C. Undercover, and Stuck in the Middle, which I reverted, though I left the removal of the "General references" sections in place per Geraldo's comments. The other editor is basically trying to be WP:SNEAKY because they "failed" with Backstage, so they are moving to other articles to attempt to do the same "controversial" edits there. At least that's my interpretation. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure many who have read the WP:OR policy know there's a footnote after the first sentence in the lede there: By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source. This does not mean that we shouldn't cite sources wherever possible or necessary, but we also shouldn't just blindly make a claim that the content presented is straight-out original research. And the "published, reliable source[s]" for these LoC articles is covered by WP:PRIMARY—the episodes from these series—so long as the policy there is followed, about not making any kind of interpretation, analysis, etc., and if needed, providing secondary sources to back statements or facts not easily evident from viewing the episodes. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968: Exactly. And that's why now when I look at it, we never even needed the "General references" section. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess the note is not really necessary, but claiming that the note itself means it's OR is ridiculous, especially when we have actual episode references as well. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

22:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)