User talk:IJBall/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

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

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, that NPP browser is a long overdue improvement – the ability for some of us to narrow the list to just WP:FILMBIO, WP:FILM or WP:TV new articles is crucial, and this looks to be a step in the right direction... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Not hyphenating the compound modifier "light[-]rail" (something), just because "we don't do that"?

Will you please see my proposal at talk:light rail?

Thanks if so, 97.117.19.208 (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC) for now.

Jake Paul

If you are concerned about accessibility, perhaps you should be consistent and remove the rowspan for the years as well. Ss 112 13:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: Actually, while I personally don't like those, 'rowspans' on the left-side of tables are generally OK under WP:ACCESS (that's why the 'Year' column had to go first if 'rowspan' is to be used) – it's 'rowspans' in the middle or on the right-side of tables that are the problems. WP:DTT goes into this somewhat (though not in enough detail IMO). Anyway, a large number of 'Discography'-tables, and many 'Award' tables, on Wikipedia are right now in violation of WP:ACCESS because of this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, in regards to this edit, I'm pretty sure WP:ACRONYM and consistency trumps "U.S." with periods. The article already uses "US" further down, as well as an intialism for CAN. Discographies/discography sections generally don't use "U.S." even for American artists. Ss 112 13:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope, not in my opinion. American actor – use MOS:U.S., at least until MOS:U.S. is deprecated (which I hope won't happen). Again, I'd argue that 'Discography' tables all over Wikipedia are wrong to use "US", but I'm usually not going to make a big deal about it... But in the rest of the article "U.S." should be used here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that MOS:U.S. is at odds with MOS:ACRONYM. Articles should be consistent first and foremost. MOS:ACRONYM simply says that if an article contains other acronyms or initalisms like "UK" (yes, I know this doesn't) that we shouldn't use "U.S." because having "U.S." with periods alongside "UK" with no periods looks odd and inconsistent. Ss 112 13:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

My understanding of that is that in "British" subject articles should use "UK" and "US", but that American articles should use "UK" and "U.S." Failing that, spelling out "United States" is always an option, anywhere outside of infoboxes and tables. Also "inconsistency" is not necessarily a large concern on Wikipedia – while the MOS tries to minimize it, it's not going to eliminate. (I'm having a similar conversation about something like this over at Talk:Burke's Law (1963 TV series)‎ currently – consistency is not always possible (esp. when sourcing disagrees...).) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The other option would be to also use "U.S." in the 'Discography' tables, which I have done at a few articles, but have not tried to do widely... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, okay, I concede in some instances we can't have consistency, but it is nice generally to aim for that. I also concede that "U.S." in the infobox is okay even on an article with a discography section that uses "US", but that's where I would stop as I feel that discography sections generally fall under the standards of the discographies WikiProject and featured discographies, which generally all use "US", and so that seems to be the accepted thing to do for music-related sections. Ss 112 13:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Often, I'll just try to spell out "United States" wherever possible to avoid these kinds of issues. FWIW... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yeah, I think an exception can be made for "US" in discography tables, because we wouldn't abbreviate, say, Canada as "CAN" in prose either, and consistency there is better (although I don't mind seeing both "U.S." and "UK" elsewhere that much). nyuszika7h (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Could use some help. Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Aw, they think I'm a vandal. Even said so on their talk page. How sweet. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

More unnecessary combative behavior here, but if Jake Paul does mention the specific date in that mentioned video (I haven't seen that one myself), I think we could use it per WP:SELFPUBLISH? Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll be honest – I pretty refuse to check Youtube video-like sourcing, unless it's something like a 15 or 30 second network promo that's been put on Youtube. I'm certainly not going to sit through a 15-minute video. If somebody wants to try to use that as a source, then they'd better be willing to provide a timestamp for the time= parameter in {{Cite AV media}} for the exact time the DOB was given... All that said, if it can be verified, a video like this would presumably count the same as a Twitter-source for DOB sourcing (yes, under WP:SELFPUBLISH, I guess...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

How conveniently easy. It's mentioned within the first minute. Around 0:50. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you have a look at the edits by AnonUser1 and see if they're okay? Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: My take? Remove the parents from the infobox (they're non-notable individuals, and are covered by WP:BLPNAMES). I would also remove the entire "Racial comments" section, as per WP:UNDUE. You can cite this Talk page topic in doing so, if you wish... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Done: Talk:Jake Paul#Parents and "Racist comments" section. Feel free to add anything if you have additional feedback. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Would you take a look at this? The YouTube one is fine, though a time stamp needs to be added. However, I'm not sure about that second source. Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The Scottish Sun is the Scottish edition of The Sun, which is a UK tabloid. As such, I doubt it is considered "reliable" for bio info like DOB's. (They could easily have pulled that DOB off an older version of the Wikipedia article...). I'm going to ping Geraldo Perez for his opinion on this, in case I'm wrong... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 134 § Is the British tabloid newspaper "The Sun" a reliable source? I'd say no. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's the birth date issue taken care of. Was it really that hard for people to add the time? (Apparently.) Although since he's credited on Bizaardvark as Jake Paul, I'm thinking his middle name Joseph is fine just for the lead and the born parameter in the info box, but it should stay just as Jake Paul everywhere else. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

"Firing" revisited

~~I don't understand why some users randomly remove those useful header spaces.~~ Would you or Geraldo Perez take a look at this? The Hollywood Reporter link they provided is a reliable source, but I still feel like it's not a definite. Supposedly, they're quoting Jake Paul, but there's no source for/link to Jake Paul's statements, unless I'm missing something. It still just seems hypothetical or guessing-like, especially with the "blah blah blah" there. You can read the article, watch the video, or watch the video and read along. Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Following this, I'm questioning their edit on the actor page even more. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Reading the sources Paul admitted that his parting ways with Disney was not his decision and that Disney offered to go with the general parted ways explanation to let him save face. Sources look sound for the actor article section. Inclusion in the show article merits no more than that he left the show in the middle of filming a season and maybe a wikilink at the left the show phrase to the section in the actor article that gives the details. A bit of a WP:COATRACK in the show article that gives far too much weight to stuff that is not directly about the show itself. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I Am Frankie sneak peek

I don't think it's going to be an actual sneak peek like was the case with Hunter Street, Make It Pop, Austin & Ally, etc., but more of a sneak peek in clip form during commercials, because if you jump to September 4 here and then go to 7:00 PM, it's Henry Danger: [1]. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm just going off what the press release ([2]) says: "I Am Frankie will sneak peek on Nickelodeon on Monday, Sept. 4, at 7 p.m. (ET/PT)." Now, if it turns out that this isn't a "full" preview, we can revise the text of the article then... But it's possible that Nickelodeon decided to do this in just the past day or two, and that the schedule guides haven't been updated to reflect that yet. Guess we'll see... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, and it's odd that they don't have their September schedules out yet. Like, they do with some things, such as Paw Patrol, Mysticons, and Power Rangers: Ninja Steel. (For example, for the latter: [3].) However, not for their sitcoms and the like, including I Am Frankie. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft started

This isn't from Nickelodeon's official YouTube, so we can't use it, but per the commercial that's been airing, we at least know it will premiere sometime in the fall. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: One or two more sources, and I think that can be ready to go, esp. if you can find a source with the rest of of the cast... This may help. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. The Futon Critic has been added. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: It's weird that there's no cast list... Looks like we'll have to wait for the official Nick press release for the series' premiere... Without the cast list, it's a judgement call as to when it should be moved into Mainspace. I'm tempted to advise you to do that now though, before we get a "drive-by" editor creating a new article for it that's (far!) worse. But I'm going to leave the "patrolling" of that to an independent NPP'er... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

We already experienced that with Hunter Street. @Geraldo Perez: Thoughts? Sufficient enough for main space? Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

My $0.02 is that, while it's "light", it technically passes WP:TVSHOW, as it has already filmed, and there is now an approximate airing date from Nickelodeon. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I think is is ready to go. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

IJBall, Geraldo Perez, thanks, guys!

Done: I Am Frankie. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Added to my sandbox.

Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll watchlist this one for a while (at least until it premieres...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

So we've got an article with the cast: [4] The only problem is, as you can see, it's J-14, and per my revert on The Thundermans and Geraldo Perez's reasons on the talk page a while ago here, we generally can't use it. Only reason we could there was because there was a quote. However, I came across this article because Nickelodeon's official Twitter, which I follow, retweeted it. I wonder if that means that we could use it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: I think the Nick press release lists some cast, but I was surprised it didn't seem to list them all. IMO, the show premieres in a mere 5 days – we could probably just wait until it airs. One note though: the press release said that the first episodes should already be available online and via the Nick app – so you could probably just check that for the main cast in the meantime. I may even do that myself... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. Why am I stupid? Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I Am Frankie main cast members

I absolutely do not disagree with this edit. I just had a question. At what point—in terms of how many main cast members—do you consider a cast list extensive that it shouldn't be in the lead? Obviously, for pretty much all of Nickelodeon and Disney Channel's live-action series, the cast list is small, so it's completely fine to list all cast members in the lead, but in a case like I Am Frankie, there are a fair amount of main cast members. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:TVLEAD says, among other things, to include "...principal cast of the show...". The question is, when you have an extensive cast for a show – how do you deal with that in the lead? The answer is that, in some cases you don't – see for example, Melrose Place: the only cast member who gets mentioned there is Thomas Calabro, because listing all of them would be a long, contextless list of names. Hollywood Heights (TV series) would be another such example – out of its extensive cast, only two or three castmembers are actually mentioned in the lede... Sentences just do not lend themselves well to a (longish) list of names. The other thing WP:TVLEAD says is "...a quick introduction to the topic, and as a concise overview of the article itself..." – again, "quick" and "concise" suggest against a long list of cast names. That's generally what the 'Cast' section listing is for. TV article leads should focus on the most important cast members. If your show's main cast is about 5 actors or less (e.g. something like Henry Danger), you can probably get away with listing them all. But when a TV cast starts to get to about 6 or more actors, then the lead needs to focus in on maybe the top one or two "lead" castmembers, and save the rest for the 'Cast' section. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

That raises the interesting question. What about the series that have equal focus on all the main cast members? Would you just not list any of the cast members—if it's a show like I Am Frankie—since there isn't anyone who's the most "important"? Like, all shows have main cast, but there are those that are more top-tier, if that makes sense. For example, with Bizaardvark, they're all main cast members, but the main plots (A) focus on Madison and Olivia's characters. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

In the case of Bizaardvark, it would be totally justifiable to focus on just Hu and Rodrigo in the lede. Even in the case of Henry Danger, it would be justifiable to focus on just Norman and Barnes in the lede.... Where things to get tricky is in the case of a true (small) "ensemble" show – in the case of something like Seinfeld, or Zoe, Duncan, Jack and Jane (which I'm working on currently...), you probably need to mention them all in the lede. But in the case of a "soap opera" or TV show with a similarly large cast, where you have a large ensemble cast, listing them all in the lede is a hopeless cause, so you need to focus on the "Top 1 or 2", if possible, and if not you just need to leave the cast out of the lede, and leave that to the 'Cast'/'Character' section... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

When and if you get a chance, could you or MPFitz1968 confirm the absences to make sure I didn't miss anyone or list someone that was present as absent? Thanks. Almost everyone's names were said. The only ones that weren't were Lucia, Makayla, Andrew, and Robbie, but for the first two, I looked at photos on the IMDB cast list, and I think they're Tammy's friends, so I think they were present. Michael, the first episode is available with no login required: [5]. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Many thanks for changing the article on Inside Science from Wikipedia: WikiProject Television to Wikipedia: WikiProject Radio. Vorbee (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Sneak peeks (Nickelodeon) and previews (Disney Channel)

Labeled differently, but mean the same thing. I read this a while ago and thought you might be interested. In short, networks do/call it that to gain viewers. See this discussion and all the messages within in: Talk:List of Austin & Ally episodes#Season premiere. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Feel free to edit the note at I Am Frankie how you see fit. I just think it's a good idea to have something like that there, so we don't have people continually changing the date of episode #1 back and forth... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

No, no. I wasn't questioning your edit, LOL! My message here actually had nothing to do with I Am Frankie specifically, it's something I've been meaning to bring up for a while just for the sake of something interesting. Your edit reminded me. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think you were "questioning" my edit...

I just meant that if you want to use a word other than "preview" there, because of this issue, feel free... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

An okay start. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, just noticed that. But that was on Labor Day, which probably had an effect. I suspect the ratings for the week of Sept. 11 will be more telling... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, IJBall. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Haven't gotten it yet – if you can resend that one, I would advise it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Created a new one with your email specifically in my email program instead of sending it through Wikipedia. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Please make sense

Why are you leaving in the video games and television by your own logic?★Trekker (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@*Treker: Look at WP:FILMOGRAPHY – do you see an example of "Theater" in there? No. Look, I've been doing these for ages, and I have gotten multiple "Thanks" from multiple editors for separating out "Theater" from Filmographies – "Theater" doesn't belong in there. Filmographies are only for filmed media: film, TV, music videos, etc. (Video games are generally considered to be included in this). But theater is a different "medium" (it's "live" not filmed, and different for a whole bunch of other reasons that theater people could tell you in detail) and should not be included in Filmographies. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Your ping didn't work just so you know. I could care less how many thanks you've gotten, not sure why you brought that up. If theater is excluded but video games can be included then wikipedias guidlines for filmography is fucking moronic and I don't agree that it should be followed. Where is the logic?★Trekker (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Go make your case at WT:FILMBIO. But I can tell you from what I have seen, the consensus is likely against including Theater, because as I've said it's considered a different "medium".... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

But video games are not a separate "medium"? Did the people on that project reality seriously decide that video games acting is similar enough that it could be considered filmography but not theater? What about filmed or televised theater then?

Yay, more convoluted work to fix. I love wikipedia consensus that's based on zero logic. There's no point, I'll get outnumbered anyway, that's always the way it is on established projects.

Sorry for being aggressive.★Trekker (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@*Treker: Honestly, I think the point about video games is an interesting question. (Radio is another one that I think is usually included under 'Filmography', but maybe shouldn't be...) If you bring the point about video games and Filmographies up at WT:FILMBIO, I'd probably follow that discussion with some interest, as I don't have any strong opinion on the question. (P.S. I didn't find your posts too aggressive – I've been on the internet for 25 years, so I have a pretty thick skin...

) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe I should bring it up. I feel beat down often by the majority on this site but I guess shouldn't give up despite it.★Trekker (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@*Treker: P.S. For a WP:FL example, see – Robert Bathurst filmography: notice that 'Theatre' is in a separate section from 'Filmography'. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

But his theater work is still included in the article called "filmography" even if it's not in that section. Now I'm even more confused. Maybe the word filmography should be avoided in general?★Trekker (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

That one (and many others like it) is probably poorly titled – something like Jessica Chastain on screen and stage is a better title for a dedicated "credits" article like this. But for simple actor articles, 'Filmography' (which covers film and TV) and 'Theater' are usually separate sections. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Knock off the rude behavior and have a civil discussion. It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not. If your changes aren't supported by consensus, then deal with and accept it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I've been rude, I may have been a little agressive but you people should stop being so over-sensitive and deal with the fact that sometimes people get frustrated. I don't enjoy dumb ideas and no one else should either. I'm tired of this site putting so called "consensus" based on editors personal feelings over actual logical thinking. It's a great way of createing confusing and poor compromises to apease editors "feels". I have no intention of stop editing so I'll have to deal with whatever thing the majority decides on but I'm not going to pretend I like it or think it's actually ok.★Trekker (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't remember...

...but isn't U.S. preferred in the info boxes? [6] Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: It's not a "rule" as far as I know, but "yes" – space is at a premium in infoboxes and it seems generally pointless to spell out "United States" or "United Kingdom", so "U.S." and "UK" is generally preferred. Even the documentation at {{Infobox person}} implies as much (see, under "birth_place"). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverted. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:The After Party (TV series)

Revising this (archive #4 on your talk page), I wonder if we're good to go now. I don't know if it was on The Futon Critic before, but that's been added now by Appleseed (who's been renamed). There's also a new episode tonight after a new Game Shakers. I think you also said that (TV series) wasn't needed since an article takes precedence over whatever the other The After Party was. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

My issues are still the same: 1) this looks to be a series of "specials" rather than a "regular scheduled TV program", and 2) it still has gotten apparently zero independent coverage (e.g. Deadline, Variety, LA Times, etc.). Until the latter happens, it's just not notable by Wikipedia standards... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

TV characters

Regarding this; since when are characters not covered by the TV project? We have style guidelines for character articles at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Character article structure, and these articles are included in other project pages. WikiProjects are intended to encourage collaboration and article improvement, they are not categories with especially limited inclusion criteria.— TAnthony^Talk 22:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@TAnthony: We just discussed this same thing last month (see here). As we discussed just last month, the {{WP TV}} banner makes mention only of TV programs (it does not mention TV actors/personalities nor does it mention TV characters), and there are other WikiProjects that are dedicated to covering the fictional characters of interest here – namely both WP:WikiProject Fictional characters and WP:WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire. There is absolutely no need for these to be included under {{WP TV}}, which is devoted to TV programming. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Banner or not, I don't know that anyone but you has made this distinction, or at least policed it, so a discussion is in order.— TAnthony^Talk 14:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Game of Thrones is the only TV series that has been putting the {{WP TV}} banner on their characters articles – as far as I've seen no other TV series does that. And it's completely unnecessary in the case of that TV series in any case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of soap opera characters have the banner, and I would argue that the bulk of fictional character articles are soap opera characters, by the look of it LOL. But in any case, it's also complicated because the Fictional character WikiProject was only created in like 2011 (and seems pretty inactive, by the way) and the character inclusion in WP:TV predates that.— TAnthony^Talk 16:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've noticed a lot of TV "soap" articles only have the WP soap opera banner, but not the WP TV banner (which they should – they're definitely "TV series/programs"!) – I've been fixing that when I come across them. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes I think there was a particular editor who was removing the TV banners at some point because the Soap WikiProject is technically a descendant Project of WP:TV. In the end, I don't know that it matters too much which Projects claim which articles, but I'm like you, I like organization LOL. You'll notice I opened a discussion about this at WP:TV, please chime in, I presented your basic point but didn't want to speak for you.— TAnthony^Talk 18:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've already replied. Looks like that one may go against me, though I really don't see the benefit of the WP:TV banner for the GoT articles which already have their own WP... [shrug] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother

Hi I thought I would let you know that for now I reversed the page name for Celebrity Big Brother (U.S.) if you still wish to move I suggest opening a request. Most big brother articles generally follow the naming conventions listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother Thanks! TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: OK, but AFAIK, that WP's naming conventions cannot supersede WP:NCTV. I'm going to bring this up over at WT:NCTV... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I mean the majority of Big Brother articles follow the WP. Just search "Big Brother" and you'll see what I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDoctorWho (talk • contribs) 01:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: I've got a question about this in at WT:NCTV, which should be the guidance on this. My guess is that "season" BB articles, like Big Brother 12 (UK) vs. Big Brother 12 (U.S.), may actually be OK under NCTV, but that articles like Celebrity Big Brother (U.S.) do need to be at Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll open a move request momentarily and see if I can get more Wikipedia's advice. However following this I think your opinion would be greatly appreciated on the move request @Talk:Celebrity Big Brother if you wanna check? TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Done – as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, that one does not need to be moved (at least, for now). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Knight Squad

Something of interest: [7] We already knew there'd be some crew from The Thundermans, and now this! Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Let me know if you hear anything about that one actually going into production/starting to film – once that happens, I can move Draft:Knight Squad to Mainspace, when it's ready... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Status update on Knight Squad

Status update. This isn't from the network or the showrunner, but it is from one of the main cast's verified Twitter: [8] Can probably use it, but it would need to be tagged with needing a better source like we did with Bella and the Bulldogs and Best Friends Whenever. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: OK, good to know. Draft:Knight Squad probably still doesn't have quite enough sourcing to go into Mainspace yet, regardless. Maybe you and I can look around for sources this weekend... If I can get it up to roughly half-a-dozen sources, then I think it can be moved into Mainspace. When that happens, I'll take care of the redirect at Knight Squad on my own as a Page mover. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Status update #2

Not a reliable source, so can't really progress with the article, but it does seem like a reasonable guess and figured it was at least worth posting here. It would possibly mean it would either be the lead-in or lead-out to Kids' Choice Awards 2018: [9]

On a quick side note, I'm really eager to see how Disney Channel did on Friday with Raven's Home and Nickelodeon did on Saturday with Game Shakers and The After Party as well as how I Am Frankie does this week, but ratings from Friday and onward are delayed due to Hurricane Irma. It's no longer a threat, I don't think, and the worst is over, but the Nielsen data center in Tampa is still closed. Friday and Saturday broadcast preliminaries were posted, but that's about it. Sunday broadcast preliminaries themselves are delayed. We can check late tomorrow, however, for a possible update with a revised release schedule for ratings. Hopefully things return to normal next week. Last week was delayed because of the Labor Day holiday, but with holiday delays, you at least know ratings will just be a day late. Here it's more complicated, just like when Nielsen suffered a power outage back in March and ratings from Saturday, March 11, which happened to have the Kids' Choice Awards 2017 as well as a new Henry Danger and the premiere of Hunter Street, and onward for a little while were delayed. If you're interested in the whole story: [10]. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yikes – March 2018? That's a long wait... I do think that they were supposed to go into production sometime this month, though – hopefully a RS will cover that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

~~Yeah.~~ Lilimar herself confirmed that production would begin in October. There's a link to her tweet in my previous update. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Mech-X4

Could you keep an extra eye on the article if you can? There have been two IP editors who've made their edits twice now, one who makes non-improving edits—basically, dumbing it down as I like to call it because apparently we're too stupid to understand some bigger words—and one who unnecessarily changes from feet to centimeters, the latter of which isn't that common. Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

As an American-produced series, the units should be feet (though a {{convert}} template can be used to list both)...). Anyway, I'll try, but I'm getting kind of busy these days!... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Holy shit!

A weekday strip did better than weekly and weekly primetime premieres, especially Nickelodeon's!

Network	Series	Date	Time	18–49 Share	Total Viewers (M)
Disney Channel	Raven's Home	9/8/2017	8:00 PM	0.28	1.37
Nickelodeon	Power Rangers: Ninja Steel	9/9/2017	12:00 PM	0.25	0.94
Nickelodeon	Game Shakers	9/9/2017	8:00 PM	0.22	1.10
Nickelodeon	The After Party	9/9/2017	8:30 PM	0.20	0.97

Since Saturday and Sunday were the really bad Hurricane Irma days, I strongly believe that had a huge factor in ratings, and since channels like Nickelodeon and Disney Channel score between the one million and two million range on average for total viewers, at least for the non-little kid shows, like the above, it was bound to be down. People either couldn't tune in because they had evacuated, for those in Florida, or were tuning in more to weather and news channels. I mean, if you look at the ratings on Showbuzz Daily for those days, you'll see how channels like Weather Center Live and CNN absolutely dominated the charts, pushing shows like Raven's Home down to #46, where a 0.28 has been much higher on the list before, which they don't normally do. Game Shakers didn't even do this bad as the lead-in back in May when it was paired with Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn. Raven's Home actually did decent, though, given what was going on. This Saturday should be better for Nickelodeon with Henry Danger returning. Of course, hopefully Disney Channel also does well! Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Spacing of seasons with present

Regarding this edit at Project Mc², I'm not really sure. MOS:DATERANGE isn't explicit about this case. "Season 1" is two words, and the MOS only suggests unspaced en dash for one word, although it's not a compound like "September 2017". But if we do it unspaced, it should probably be plural "seasons" like in the other cases. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: The relevant section of MOS:DATERANGE is this one: Constructions such as 1982–present (with unspaced ndash), January 1, 2011 – present (spaced ndash), or January 2011 – present (spaced ndash) may be used where appropriate, but other constructions may be more appropriate in prose (see § Statements likely to become outdated). In tables and infoboxes where space is limited, pres. may be used (1982–pres.). Do not use incomplete-looking constructions such as 1982– and 1982–... . To my thinking season 2–present is equivalent to 1982–present, and thus no spaces around the ndash should be used, though I suppose it's arguable. Most versions of this I have seen of these at other articles include no spaces, like season 2–present. No opinion on the "season" vs. "seasons" issue: it would definitely be seasons 2–5, but I'm not sure when it's season 2–present... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

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

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Notability check

Can you look over this article: Markus Linecker. Not a TV actor, but within the same general notability realm. As an aside, I just now noticed your Canadian American userbox. Always nice to see that :) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Give me up to 48 hours – I'm in the middle of moving right now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I've now looked at it. I've removed all the roles that cannot be verified (by IMDb) – that's everything before 2013. I've also removed all preproduction jobs. This doesn't leave much. IMO, this subject is WP:TOOSOON (i.e. not notable yet, esp. with the provided "sourcing" at the article), and should be ~~either WP:PRODed or~~ WP:AfDed. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markus Linecker. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

List of The Loud House episodes

Just a heads up in case it happens again. If you remember them, Elijah is a good faith editor, so this isn't disruptive per se, but they don't seem to have a good understanding of how production numbering works. See the page history. Thanks. Also, hope your new place is swell! Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It's coming along, though it's going to take a long time to actually get it totally "up" when people keep coming to town to bug me on the weekends...

As for the LoE article, as long as this editor doesn't edit war about this, it should be OK. You might want to open a Talk page topic about this, just in case... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Done: Talk:List of The Loud House episodes#Production codes. Feel free to add anything if you have anything to add, but as always, don't feel obligated to. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi-JBall, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh 666 22:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Raven's Home

I think I prefer waiting until we see something from Deadline, but I did just find this which I can't remember if it can be used or not. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't remember what the general feeling on this as a source is, but I myself am leery of a site that doesn't really quote its sources, and says things like "Disney has quietly renewed..." (How do they know this?!)... I suspect that could be used, but I think a {{better source needed}} tag would need to be used with it. At least, IMO... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Bizaardvark

Season two wrapped: [11] Fingers crossed for a renewal. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I've kind of lost interest in this one during season #2... Have the "post-Dirk" episodes started airing yet? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

He was absent in Friday's episode, but was still in the credits. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I Am Frankie: When character descriptions come into play

I did that, like I've always done, as I always feel it's better to have "Characters" when there are character descriptions. A (B) is a letter at Alphabet High School looks much better than B as A, a letter at Alphabet High School or B as A: a letter at Alphabet High School. The latter two just look clunky. Also, in almost all Nickelodeon and Disney Channel shows, the focus is on the characters and not the actors. Now, when there are no character descriptions, "Cast/Cast and characters" works best as B as A looks much better than A (B) for pretty much the same reason as the latter looks clunky. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that is basically a "WP:ILIKEIT"-type edit. In general, formatting for sections like 'Cast' shouldn't be changed after it's been established, and the 'Cast and characters' list at I Am Frankie has been in that format for a while, and shouldn't be changed without a consensus for it... From my own personal view, I'm generally not in favor of 'Characters' over 'Cast' section format at live-action TV series. Now, that doesn't mean I'll change a long-established 'Characters' list to a 'Cast' list at a long-standing article. But, in general, for live-action series 'Cast' lists are preferable. IMO, the only couple of types of articles in which 'Characters' list are preferable to 'Cast' lists are: 1) animated series where the character is far more prominent than the voice actor, and 2) live-action TV series that are essentially "superhero" shows where the TV series is depicting characters that have a long-standing history in other media (e.g. comics; though, ironically, articles like Arrow (TV series) actually have 'Cast and characters', not 'Characters' lists...) or TV series where the characters came to dominate the discussion (e.g. Seinfeld)... But none of that applies to I Am Frankie, and the format for the 'Cast and characters' section shouldn't be changed without consensus for it. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Isn't there more freedom with articles you created, though? I remember you got pretty... pissed off when that was going on at Legendary Dudas. Not at me, though. In any case, this is further reasoning why I believe there just shouldn't be character descriptions at all until and if there's a list of characters article as that way the only way to format the descriptions is "A (B) is this guy." Also, more detail can be written. I mean, seriously, "Alex Hook as Frankie: an android girl." Really? I didn't know she was android! Tell me more! LOL!

Also, "Gaines" is supported by the source, but not the credits. I'm aware that the show's credits are the authoritative ones in that regard, but we're also always saying that last names should be sourced with a secondary source if not in the credits, so I'm not sure. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Article authors only have some "privileges" at article creation – they get to choose things like date format, ref style, ENGVAR, etc. So, if you had created I Am Frankie with a 'Characters'-format section instead of a 'Cast and characters'-format section, then whoever wanted to change that from 'Characters'-format would need to establish consensus to change it (or have a legitimate policy-based reason to change it). But this article started with a 'Cast and characters' list, and there's no compelling reason to change from that, especially as WP:TVCAST makes specific allowances for the current formatting of that section... Also, the character summaries can be made a little longer than they are currently, if desired. And if this show goes multiple seasons, a LoC article can always be spun-off if warranted.
As for inclusion of the last name, in the cast list "proper", I'm a strong proponent of going exactly what is included in the show's credits. That doesn't preclude including surnames in the character summary. But, in the case, it's "Frankie" in the end-credits, so it should be listed as "Alex Hook as Frankie"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Why did you change Big Time Rush (band)?

Why do you think Big Time Rush "was" a band?? They still are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c64:627f:f9fa:4da2:87f9:ff4:dadf (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2017‎ (UTC)

No – the band was only active during the time the Big Time Rush TV show was airing. Once the latter went off the air, the band announced an undefined "hiatus", which means they're done as a band, unless or until they reunite as a band to put on a show or a tour, as per WP:CRYSTALBALL. In the meantime, at least some of the members are off doing other music projects, or have deemphasized music in favor of acting or TV careers – so the band is definitely "off" right now. (Pinging Geraldo Perez here, in case he ever wants to point to this discussion, as this seems to come up a lot...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Mickeydee15

I noticed their edits in the filmography tables for Jodie Sweetin [12]. Not only violating WP:ACCESSIBILITY guidelines with the use of rowspan, but when they use it on the year column, they are simplifying it to not use ranges, like changing "1987–1995" on Full House to just "1987". While they place the range in the notes, it's still considered disruptive. (The example tables in WP:FILMOGRAPHY do use ranges for the year column.) Definitely need to keep eye on this user, but I'm also noticing IPs doing the same thing at Candace Cameron Bure [13]. Possibly a user which is logged out for some of their edits? (Also pinging Amaury, Geraldo Perez, and Nyuszika7H about this.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Will watch the articles. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the same thing. I'll be keeping an eye on this editor when they edit articles I'm watching, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Henry Danger and The Thundermans

First, season four of Henry Danger begins October 21! Whoo-hoo! Season three ends this Saturday. Second, I don't think people understand what a hiatus is. See the page history for both the parent article and episode list of The Thundermans. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Is the "season 4 premiere" news coming straight from Nick, or from another source?... As for TV "hiatus", many people do not understand about those. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Zap2it for Henry Danger. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick follow-up. Season four is definitely October 21. The Futon Critic updated yesterday and the production code is a season four production code. See the episode list. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Even better, this Saturday has the finale tag. See [14]. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion about Per-user page blocking

Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building User Page (or category) blocking feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey about Enhanced per-user / per-article protection / blocking.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Candace Cameron Bure reversion

Hi, please be careful when reverting. I'm sure you meant to revert the changes by the IP, given your reason for reversion. And I'm sure you have enough experience to know that we don't completely revert another editor's work like that – since that is disruptive (to say the least). But, don't worry; I have restored my edits and removed the rowspans added by the previous edits. But next time, please make sure you do that yourself. Now, on that issue, I went to the page that you linked to. You didn't link to the particular section, so I did a search for "rowspan" and I find nothing about it on that page. So, also try to give accurate links. As far as I know, there is no site-wide consensus or policy on rowspans. Anyway, thanks for your cooperation. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Musdan77: I used "Restore previous version" under Twinkle. Because your edits were inexorably mixed in with the IP's incorrect edits, there was no "clean way" to fix that, while leaving your edits in tact. (For the record, I didn't think some of your edits were strictly necessary either.) On 'rowspan', Wikipedia:Non-discrimination policy is a site-policy, and WP:ACCESSIBILITY is the guideline that attempts to implement it. Specifically, WP:DTT deals with some of this – basically 'rowspan' anywhere else than on the left side of tables causes problems for some of our text-to-speech readers, and thus violates WP:ACCESSIBILITY, and should be avoided. Despite this, there are editors, esp. IP editors, who continually ignore this even after being warned about it, and are basically vandals who should be reverted on the basis of WP:ACCESS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, "be careful". When there are conflicting edits, then you can't use "Restore previous version". You have to do it manually (like I did) (WP:RV). Also I said that I went to MOS:ACCESS, yet you give 3 links to it – and still no link to a section. But I looked again and still don't see anything about that issue. You say, "'rowspan' anywhere else than on the left side of tables causes problems...", but the rowspans added to that article were just in the first column. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

No – they used rowspan in interior columns of the 'Awards' table. That was the primary reason I reverted. Also, editors are under no obligation to "restore edits" made by editors that build on the incorrect edits of other editors – "Restore to (last good) previous version" is a perfectly legitimate way to handle this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I missed that. I just removed the rowspans from the filmography (before). I simply made the awards table unsortable. The last I'd read is that there was some disagreement about whether rowspans are OK in the first column or the first two columns (and I'm still waiting for you to give some substantial reference on this).

"under no obligation"? And I was under no obligation to do what I did. I could have just reverted your reversion. That would have been the easy way, but it also would have been selfish and inconsiderate – not to mention, disruptive (and so was your reversion). "The main purpose of reversion is to undo vandalism or other disruptive edits." Which mine was not. "In the case of a good faith edit, a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement." I made definite improvements per different MOS(s). There are other quotes I could give, but I'll stop there. Suffice to say, I would be obliged if you wouldn't completely revert an edit of mine (I wouldn't do that to you). And if that type of situation arises again, that you will talk to me on my talk page before making any changes. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You know...

I wish people would learn how to read: [15]. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I am increasingly convinced that new editors who use Visual Editor never even see the 'hidden notes' while they are editing (they are there, but you kind of have to look for them to see them sometimes...). I have not really tried editing via a mobile device, but it wouldn't shock me if you really can't see the 'hidden notes' that way either... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company

There is currently a dispute on List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company regarding the placement of General Hospital. Being their own genre, soap operas have always been listed in a Soap Opera section (as is also done on lists for CBS and NBC shows and other networks). Former soaps are also been listed in their own category on these pages (and continue to be on the ABC list). An editor the past few days has been making edits putting it into the section with the primetime dramas. As one of the few other registered editors who has recently edited this page (most edits are by random IPs), do you have input as a third party on the matter? -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, IJBall. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Jake Paul

Could you or Geraldo Perez take a look at Larsconks' latest edits with regard to Jake Paul's "spouse"? Is Clevver a reliable source? The whole them being married thing was a joke from the start, which Clevver might just be amplifying. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: This RSN discussion didn't reach a strong conclusion but it seems that it's reliability as a source is dubious. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The Goldbergs (broadcast series)

I don't think WP:NCTV applies here as the article covers both the radio series and the successor television series. May work if the article were split but there is a lot in common so likely best as it is. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Still asking about this one in WT:NCTV – "(broadcast series)" does not strike me as a proper disambiguation term for either WP:TV or WP:RADIO, though I'm willing to change my mind on that if others think it's fine... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't think of anything better right now. The Goldbergs would be best if it were the primary topic but the later series says its not primary now. Broadcast does cover both TV and radio so seems the most inclusive. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I dunno – to my thinking, disambig. terms should be at least somewhat intuitive, and "(broadcast series)" does not strike me as particularly intuitive... It's possible there's no better option, but I'd like to solicit some other opinions on this first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

That's another one down!

Now it's just K.C. Undercover and Bizaardvark's fates which we need to know about. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I said elsewhere on the net today that the only Disney show I'm really still watching currently is Stuck in the Middle. I'm kind of off Disney right now, as I don't care for their new offerings, and have kind of lost interest in Bizaardvark. [shrug] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Aw.

Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Reply on Talk Page 1

Hello, IJBall. You have new messages at Geraldo Perez's talk page.
Message added 14:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mentions and other alerts don't seem to be working. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

GalaxyFighter55

I only reverted them with The Loud House stuff, though their other edits aren't constructive, either, and should probably be reverted? Unexplained changes, such as removal of websites, etc. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't look to be obvious vandalism, though the removal of the 'website' parameter does seem odd... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Reply on Talk Page 2

Hello, IJBall. You have new messages at Geraldo Perez's talk page.
Message added 16:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Grr! They need to fix this. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I got MP's ping as well. I didn't respond, because it doesn't look like the IP has edited there again since the last revert. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Then I guess Wikipedia doesn't like me.

Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, IJBall. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Famous in Love.
Message added 01:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Replied. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

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

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)