User talk:IJBall/Archive 16
 | 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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Um... (listing of the cast in the lede)
That's not that many cast members. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but listing them all implies that this is an "ensemble" series. It's not – it's a starring vehicle for Zendaya... Again, if you're listing something like 6 castmembers in the lead, you're probably listing too many in most cases (Backstage being one of the exceptions!). For the ledes of most TV series, you want to list somewhere between 1–4 of the main cast. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- This may mean changing the ledes for Andi Mack, Stuck in the Middle and Bizaardvark, among others, though I'm not sure. Each is listing more than four of its cast members, but the question becomes: Are they "ensemble" series? MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, Bizaardvark should really just list the two, IMO; same for Best Friends Whenever. Andi Mack and Stuck in the Middle should probably just list their leads – in the case of Andi Mack, I think you could make a case for including the sister/mother as well... But I'm of the opinion that the lede should not be a laundry list of the main cast – just the "lead" cast, as it were. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) x2 As long it's not something like I Am Frankie—or "worse," Backstage, before we pruned it—I don't see an issue as long as it doesn't get to 10+. And WP:TVLEAD supports it by saying that the principal cast of the show should be included. It also says earlier that it should be concise, which it was, with only two lines of text (without including the infobox) and 44 words. LOL, MPFitz1968! Don't give him any ideas!
Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- The issue is what defines "principal cast"? – Is it everyone who's main cast credited? Or is the one or two or three lede characters/actors? Remember that the lede is supposed to be simply a "brief summary" of the article's content, which means by design it won't be "all-inclusive", esp. for something like cast. I'd argue for a show like The Flash or Arrow, it's only the lead/titular character that needs to be mentioned in the lede. (And, indeed, those articles only mention Stephen Amell and Grant Gustin, respectively.) K.C. Undercover should be treated like these shows. Bizaardvark and Best Friends Whenever should be handled like Ned & Stacey, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Because scripted series like Backstage, Hunter Street, and I Am Frankie are different than your typical run-of-the-mill scripted series, I actually don't disagree that things should be handled differently there. Even Andi Mack can be considered different from other series, but it's still like the other shows in the sense that it still follows the airing schedule of other TV series, like airing in prime time, and the like. The angle we of course should be focusing on here, which I believe we already are, is for your typical run-of-the-mill scripted series, like the ones mentioned above. As long as one of these "typical" series doesn't end up with 10+ main cast members like non-typical series like I Am Frankie, it shouldn't be problem to list all of the main cast members. Personally, that alone—listing them all—doesn't necessarily signify an ensemble series. I'll ping Geraldo Perez as well in case he has any feedback, one way or the other. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Again, if a show has a titular character, you should probably only be mentioning their portrayer in the lede, in most cases. Meanwhile, Stuck in the Middle (TV series) is another excellent example – should we really be including Ariana Greenblatt, Nicolas Bechtel, Malachi Barton in the lede when they don't even appear in a number of the episodes?! Obviously, my answer would be "no!"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I take principal cast to mean main/lead cast. From a quick search, all I could really find that was helpful was this, which does say principal cast are the main cast members, but it's also really just personal opinions, so I don't know of much help that really is. There's also the Wikipedia page Ensemble cast that might help, but it doesn't really say anything about main cast members.
- (edit conflict) Because scripted series like Backstage, Hunter Street, and I Am Frankie are different than your typical run-of-the-mill scripted series, I actually don't disagree that things should be handled differently there. Even Andi Mack can be considered different from other series, but it's still like the other shows in the sense that it still follows the airing schedule of other TV series, like airing in prime time, and the like. The angle we of course should be focusing on here, which I believe we already are, is for your typical run-of-the-mill scripted series, like the ones mentioned above. As long as one of these "typical" series doesn't end up with 10+ main cast members like non-typical series like I Am Frankie, it shouldn't be problem to list all of the main cast members. Personally, that alone—listing them all—doesn't necessarily signify an ensemble series. I'll ping Geraldo Perez as well in case he has any feedback, one way or the other. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- The issue is what defines "principal cast"? – Is it everyone who's main cast credited? Or is the one or two or three lede characters/actors? Remember that the lede is supposed to be simply a "brief summary" of the article's content, which means by design it won't be "all-inclusive", esp. for something like cast. I'd argue for a show like The Flash or Arrow, it's only the lead/titular character that needs to be mentioned in the lede. (And, indeed, those articles only mention Stephen Amell and Grant Gustin, respectively.) K.C. Undercover should be treated like these shows. Bizaardvark and Best Friends Whenever should be handled like Ned & Stacey, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- This may mean changing the ledes for Andi Mack, Stuck in the Middle and Bizaardvark, among others, though I'm not sure. Each is listing more than four of its cast members, but the question becomes: Are they "ensemble" series? MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Like I said, though, as long it doesn't get to be 10+ main cast members for a typical run-of-the-mill scripted series, I don't see any issues, personally. If you start getting more main cast members, that's another thing. For example, if a show goes through a change where, say, three of the five main cast members depart after the third season, and then for the fourth season, four new main cast members are introduced, I would actually see nothing wrong with re-wording the lead to either include all of the current main cast members, worded in a way that complies with WP:RECENTISM, or just focus on the titular roles. In that instance, it doesn't really make sense to focus on the main cast members who left. They should be in the cast section, of course, since an article covers a series' entire history, but hardly any focus should be put on them at that point. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- When the list of names starts to overwhelm the lead it is probably excessive. The lead should give key info about the article and long lists of names hides what is most important. Judgement call, of course, but likely first few in the main cast (and people with the "with" and "and" credits) are most notable. The cast that shows up in all the episodes if not too many. The article has to support the whole
seasonseries so if there are major changes that should be reflected. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)- @Geraldo Perez: What do you personally consider to be too many? At what point should we only focus on some or, at the very least, word it differently so it's not one big list?
- @Amaury: I can't think of any hard and fast rule for this. Depends on the show and how long the lead currently is. If most of the lead is listing the cast, that is likely excessive. The list of names in the lead is basically duplicating what is in the infobox so I don't think it is strictly necessary at all really unless an actor is extra important like really famous or the show is a starring vehicle for the actor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Also, IJBall, while I still don't see an issue with it myself, I think I'm understanding what you mean by laundry list now per your edit to the Hunter Street lead. A laundry list is when you have more than X starring actors in the same sentence. In your edit to the Hunter Street lead, you didn't remove any of the starring cast from the lead, you just re-worded and put the two new cast members in a separate sentence. If something like that could be worked out for K.C. Undercover and similar, that might be another idea. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- The issue with K.C. Undercover is that it has a titular character, and was designed as a starring vehicle for Zendaya – IOW, the other cast on that show is irrelevant (to the lede). Moreso when you consider that Stokes, Townsend and Hardison don't even appear in all of the episodes (IOW, they shouldn't be included in the lede). Hunter Street is more like Backstage – it's clearly an "ensemble" series, so it's appropriate to list all of the main characters in the lede (and here it's possible to do so, whereas with Backstage it isn't as the cast now includes about a dozen individuals!). P.S. Wanna see another example of what shouldn't be done?! – Check out Maze Runner: The Death Cure: now that is an awful "laundry list" of cast!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- The issue with K.C. Undercover is that it has a titular character, and was designed as a starring vehicle for Zendaya – IOW, the other cast on that show is irrelevant (to the lede). Moreso when you consider that Stokes, Townsend and Hardison don't even appear in all of the episodes (IOW, they shouldn't be included in the lede). Hunter Street is more like Backstage – it's clearly an "ensemble" series, so it's appropriate to list all of the main characters in the lede (and here it's possible to do so, whereas with Backstage it isn't as the cast now includes about a dozen individuals!). P.S. Wanna see another example of what shouldn't be done?! – Check out Maze Runner: The Death Cure: now that is an awful "laundry list" of cast!!
- @Geraldo Perez: What do you personally consider to be too many? At what point should we only focus on some or, at the very least, word it differently so it's not one big list?
- When the list of names starts to overwhelm the lead it is probably excessive. The lead should give key info about the article and long lists of names hides what is most important. Judgement call, of course, but likely first few in the main cast (and people with the "with" and "and" credits) are most notable. The cast that shows up in all the episodes if not too many. The article has to support the whole
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
- We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
New Year Backlog Drive results:
- We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!
General project update:
- ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
- Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Neutral notice
As someone who has commented at Talk:Lyndsy Fonseca, you may or may not wish to join a discussion at Talk:Lyndsy Fonseca#Request for comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
K.C. Undercover recurring characters
Since you're more knowledgeable on determining this, with the series over, it's probably not a bad time to go through the guest stars on List of K.C. Undercover episodes and see if anyone needs to be added—or removed, for that matter—to the "Recurring" section on the parent article. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- I certainly have only watched this show infrequently, so I'm not sure I can be a lot of help on this. But coincidentally I was actually glancing at that section at the article the other day, and at first glance it looked OK: it seemed to cover the characters that could plausibly thought of "recurring" without listing anyone that obviously shouldn't be there. The only two I am not sure of (having not seen many episodes of the show, esp. season #3) are Victor and Brady... FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Reverting Power Star
Hi. Please do not revert power star edit. Power Star Pawan Kalyan is more popular than Srinivasan and has the greatest fan following for any actor in South India. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajupowerstar (talk • contribs) 03:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Rajupowerstar: First, please sign your posts. Second, you are making an unsourced (and frankly WP:POV) assertion without any basis to support it. In general, hatnotes like this should not be changed without discussion first. Now, pinging Cyphoidbomb, an editor and an Admin with experience in the area of Indian television, etc. – Cyphoidbomb, could you please take a look at the recent edit to Blackstar (TV series) to assess whether it has any basis, or in fact should be reverted. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sir, type in Power Star craze in youtube. You will not see Srinivasan there. You will see many Pawan Kalyan videos. Then you will see Pawan Kalyan's power. He is not a indian television actor, he is an indian film star. Rajupowerstar (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Wait for Cyphoidbomb to chime in, please. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- He is indian television guy not indian film guy. Just for your notice when you type it in youtube, not even one video of Srinivasan shows. For your entertainment type in power star theater craze. It will give you goosebumps. You will see no Srinivasan video. Only Power Star Pawan Kalyan. He is the brother of Mega Star Chiranjeevi. Also, Pawan Kalyan has a political party. I think thats enough to say he is way more popular than Srinivasan. Rajupowerstar (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- OK, Rajupowerstar: You've got to stop posting multiple times to my Talk page – figure out what you want to say, and post it once. Also, please stop posting now until Cyphoidbomb has had a chance to comment. If you post any more here before Cyphoidbomb replies, I'm going to start reverting your edits. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- He is indian television guy not indian film guy. Just for your notice when you type it in youtube, not even one video of Srinivasan shows. For your entertainment type in power star theater craze. It will give you goosebumps. You will see no Srinivasan video. Only Power Star Pawan Kalyan. He is the brother of Mega Star Chiranjeevi. Also, Pawan Kalyan has a political party. I think thats enough to say he is way more popular than Srinivasan. Rajupowerstar (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Wait for Cyphoidbomb to chime in, please. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sir, type in Power Star craze in youtube. You will not see Srinivasan there. You will see many Pawan Kalyan videos. Then you will see Pawan Kalyan's power. He is not a indian television actor, he is an indian film star. Rajupowerstar (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hey there, doing a Google News search for both configurations, Pawan Kalyan has about 2450 hits, where Srinivasan has about 308. Of the two, Kalyan seems the better choice. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, Cyphoidbomb. Based on that, I won't be reverting this time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- YUHH, thank you sir. Thank you for educating IJBall. -- Rajupowerstar (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, Cyphoidbomb. Based on that, I won't be reverting this time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hey there, doing a Google News search for both configurations, Pawan Kalyan has about 2450 hits, where Srinivasan has about 308. Of the two, Kalyan seems the better choice. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 22:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Usage of last names outside of cast sections
See history of List of Girl Meets World characters for some context. Part of my revert included removing the addition of last names. My view is that if a series' characters have last names—that can be traced to an official and reliable source—they should only be included in the "Cast/Cast and characters" section (Rowan Blanchard as Riley Matthews) or "Characters" section (Riley Matthews (Rowan Blanchard) is a girl.) If a character list article exists, then it's the same format as the "Characters" layout on the parent article below the lead. Headings in character lists should have the credited names as well, of course. However, when it comes to plot summaries or a brief synopsis in the lead, I believe only the first names are sufficient. The only exceptions would be to use, say, Cory Matthews instead of Cory, but otherwise use Riley instead of Riley Matthews. What do you think? I'll ping Geraldo Perez as well in case he has any feedback. This is just a general question and doesn't really have anything with the issues that came up on the article, but still figured I'd invite you, Geraldo, since it's indirectly related. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- My $0.02 is that simple 'Cast' listings, and thus ledes and section headings at LoC's articles as well, should definitely use names as credited or the WP:COMMONNAME, yes. However, the "character summaries" at LoC articles (or, a decent sized character summary in a 'Cast and characters' section) can contain surnames in the summaries, even if the character is only credited by their first name, provided the surname is mentioned multiple times throughout the series, and thus is more than just "trivially mentioned".
So, in this case, my question is – does anyone know how the Disney Channel website used to refer to the characters for GMW – e.g. was it just "Riley", or was it "Riley Matthews" at the website cast/characters listing?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC) - I agree with IJball in general. In the intro section in the article in question I thought it redundant to give Riley's last name when in the same sentence it was stated that Cory Matthews was her father and common presumption she shares her father's surname. As for Cory Matthews being there that looks to be how he is commonly known and credited so had no problem with that part. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:List of drama series broadcast in first-run syndication
Hello, IJBall. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of drama series broadcast in first-run syndication".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Legacypac: Thank for the heads up before deleting. I've moved that draft to my userspace – that's a draft I never finished, but I intend to at some point, as it pairs with List of sitcoms broadcast in first-run syndication. I just have never gotten around to finishing the list off, and looking for sourcing. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Big news coming this Friday!
I don't know if you were already planning on watching the huge premiere night this Friday (Andi Mack + Zombies), but there's some huge news coming during those premieres. See here. The ideas that have been thrown around so far on Twitter include Descendants 3 announcement, Bunk'd season three announcement, Raven's Home season two announcement, Bug Juice revival announcement, and some announcement on a new show. Or a combination of those. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- I was planning on watching Zombies, though not necessarily on Friday (i.e. perhaps sometime over the weekend). That teaser specifically says "DCOM", so I'm guessing it's not going to be about one of the Disney TV series. My guess is that it's most likely info about the Freaky Friday musical (the only DCOM "officially" in the pipeline right now), though there is a chance that it's about a Descendants 3 flick being greenlit, and an outside chance that it's about High School Musical 4 finally going into production for reals... My guess is that it's Door #1. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Hey, have they run a version of Zombies without "crushed credits" yet?! I noticed last night the Disney Channel smooshed the end credits to the point where they were pretty unreadable... [[File:|25px|link=]] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Zombies ratings?
@Amaury: Have you come across the ratings for the premiere of Disney's Zombies yet? (If so, please include the link!) Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Already in the movie article itself, but: February 16, 2018 Archived March 15, 2018, at the Wayback Machine. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- OK, thanks – this source is also needed as List of Disney Channel original films... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm thinking it's way too early for this article to exist, as I doubt production (let alone "principal photography", the wording shown at WP:NFF) has even started on the movie. Disney only announced its release around the middle of next year sometime last week. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: Yes – as per NFF, this should not be an article yet. I could boldly Page Move it to WP:Draftspace, or we could go through "normal" channels, and WP:AfD it, with the goal being the same (Draftspace). I'll ping Geraldo Perez here as well, in case he has any thoughts on what we should do here (though he may be "off" or on holiday right now...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: I have just posted to Talk:Descendants 3 about this as well, so no one will be blindsided by what happens next... (And, right now, I'm leaning in the direction of converting it to a redirect, as no material will actually be "lost" that way – I'm just not sure whether to redirect to Descendants (2015 film) or Descendants 2!!...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- The redirect target looks like a toss-up to me, too. Both make mention of it under "Sequel(s)". I probably would lean toward the first movie's "Franchise" section (Sequels being the first subsection there). MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Move it to draft space and work on it there per WP:NFF. Redirect to a location with the most info about it as a sequel. This article should not exist now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Done – article has been moved to Draftspace (at Draft:Descendants 3), and a redirect to Descendants (2015 film)#Sequels currently resides in Mainspace at Descendants 3 until the topic qualifies for an article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Move it to draft space and work on it there per WP:NFF. Redirect to a location with the most info about it as a sequel. This article should not exist now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- The redirect target looks like a toss-up to me, too. Both make mention of it under "Sequel(s)". I probably would lean toward the first movie's "Franchise" section (Sequels being the first subsection there). MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Hunter Street "guest stars"
Per Geraldo's statements on the matter elsewhere in previous similar discussions, we shouldn't be second-guessing the producers and other crew. Thus, if someone's a co-star, we shouldn't be listing them as a guest star. Brett Willis comes to mind. He was billed as a co-star in the last two episodes of the first season of K.C. Undercover despite being a major character in those two episodes and despite being billed as a guest star earlier in the season and in season two's "Virtual Insanity." Co-stars are only minor roles, unless it's Stuck in the Middle and Bizaardvark which, for some reason, give many of the (very) minor roles a guest star credit. Anyway, for Hunter Street, while I'm aware of I what I mentioned earlier in the paragraph, because this series is different than your typical series, they list everyone that's not main as a co-star, and I wonder if they're meaning co-stars as guest stars. For example, the Hunter parents are by no means minor characters. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Could be. Remember it's a Dutch production, and they likely won't have the same "rules" on crediting that the Americans do. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Done. I've added all the co-stars to the episode list per your explanation above. Nickelodeon has all the episodes on their site. Yay! From that, we can probably determine who else can be added to "Recurring." Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Will need a hand here. Unexplained reordering in which things are going against MOS, such as the Production section incorrectly being after the Episodes section, etc. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Also sockpuppeteering as 199.126.163.221. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think Geraldo and I have covered the latter IP. Looking into the IPv6 now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury and Geraldo Perez: It looks like we've gotten it all. A few of these edits actually did further MOS:TV section order compliance (or were not MOS:TV-related), but many of them were contrary to MOS:TV, so I've either reverted those that I have found, or have manually put articles' sections in proper order as per MOS:TV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, IJBall, Geraldo Perez. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Bizaardvark recurring characters
I felt the user brought up an excellent point at Talk:Bizaardvark#New Recurring Characters. Since I trust your judgment, taking a look at List of Bizaardvark episodes, who else is worthy of being added? Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
IMO, I'd rather have whitespace over an ugly table. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- I flipped the 'Ratings' table so it's above 'Episodes'. Even that doesn't solve the issue, but it's better... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Acceptable compromise! And that's why we're awesome, because we can do that.
Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't like this either, but it's better than the huge tract of whitespace... (The solution would be if we could find more sourcing, and could flesh out the 'Production' section. But, unfortunately, it seems like this show has gotten almost no press at all...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- The other option would be to expand the plot to a size similar to Liv and Maddie's. That would probably be enough to cover the whitespace, or at least significantly reduce it. It's just a matter of having enough material to write one at least that long. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Adding to the 'Plot' section will help, but I don't think it'll be enough on its own. Something else that would help would be the addition of a 'Broadcast' section, but I have no idea if this show has premiered in Canada or the UK yet, or even if we could find sourcing for that in any case... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- The other option would be to expand the plot to a size similar to Liv and Maddie's. That would probably be enough to cover the whitespace, or at least significantly reduce it. It's just a matter of having enough material to write one at least that long. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't like this either, but it's better than the huge tract of whitespace... (The solution would be if we could find more sourcing, and could flesh out the 'Production' section. But, unfortunately, it seems like this show has gotten almost no press at all...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Acceptable compromise! And that's why we're awesome, because we can do that.
I don't get the problem with Sarah Bolger birth day, I think it is clear that it is on February 28th, 1991, every web site tells the same, even IMDB and Google, why do you insist in reverting the birth date? Is is better to put that it is circa 1991?. Please, note that English is not my mother tongue, in case I make any mistake.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greuze (talk • contribs) 14:01, February 27, 2018 (UTC)
- @Greuze: Please review WP:BLPPRIVACY (aka. WP:DOB) – dates of birth that are not widely publicized in Reliable sources should not be included in articles for WP:BLPs. All 3 sources you tried to use – Famousbirthdays, IMDb, and a Wiki – are all considered "not reliable sources" for this sort of info as per WP:NOTRS and WP:RS/IMDb. "Widely included" at websites with poor to no history of fact-checking doesn't change this equation at all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Thanks for your clarification, I don't know then how to find a source good enough, to be used as a ref. A tweet from her verified twitter account from last year birthday will be ok? Tweet on 2017 birthday. By the way, tomorrow is her birthday again
;). Greuze (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Thanks for your clarification, I don't know then how to find a source good enough, to be used as a ref. A tweet from her verified twitter account from last year birthday will be ok? Tweet on 2017 birthday. By the way, tomorrow is her birthday again
If this continues we may want to consider SPI. Looking at the edit histories makes me think the IP and Targatron are both user:Sumatro. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumatro . Meters (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- [Sigh...] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Meters: If you want to pull the trigger on an WP:SPI report, I would suggest now's the time. Unfortunately, I don't think there's much I can add. But looking at the case history, from my inexpert eyes, it looks to me like behaviorally there's quite a bit of evidence that Targatron is a sock of Sumatro. The edit warring from Targatron at Nina Dobrev, even after the recent block, does suggest to me that this is not a "normal" editor... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- Done. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumatro Meters (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- They've been blocked again for two weeks. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 09:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- Done. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumatro Meters (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Is the recent {{School of Rock}} that was added really necessary/relevant for the series? Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: No – from what I know, it fails the criteria for a Navbox, and should be taken to WP:TfD for deletion. I just don't have time to do that these days... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'll go ahead and revert those edits, but I'm not too familiar with the procedures for navigation bar deletions. Geraldo Perez, would you be willing to assist here? Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: If you are using twinkle go to the template page itself and choose XFD as the option. Fill in the justification for deletion in the form and TW will do all the work. I see little value for the template with the few entries that are in it but it was added and created by a very experienced editor so expect well-informed pushback on any deletion request. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Geraldo Perez: Wow, you weren't kidding... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't really see a need for the template and I wouldn't have created it but, as it has been created with 5 links (my personal minimum), I don't see why it shouldn't be used now that it exists. I can't see that it fails the creiteria for navboxes. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks for your comment. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- @AussieLegend: Would you WP:TfD this template? (I personally don't want to pull the trigger on that, though I agree that this particular navbox is basically not necessary...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't really see a need for the template and I wouldn't have created it but, as it has been created with 5 links (my personal minimum), I don't see why it shouldn't be used now that it exists. I can't see that it fails the creiteria for navboxes. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Geraldo Perez: Wow, you weren't kidding... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: If you are using twinkle go to the template page itself and choose XFD as the option. Fill in the justification for deletion in the form and TW will do all the work. I see little value for the template with the few entries that are in it but it was added and created by a very experienced editor so expect well-informed pushback on any deletion request. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'll go ahead and revert those edits, but I'm not too familiar with the procedures for navigation bar deletions. Geraldo Perez, would you be willing to assist here? Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Can Amaury and IJBall come join a centralized discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Navboxes_in_episode_lists.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi. In a follow-up to your reversion on How to Build a Better Boy, I was having the cast reordered per the credits in the opening as they appear to be part of the rest of the principal cast just like how they did with some of the other Disney Channel Original Movies. I'm just letting you know that. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Rtkat3: My revert was actually for two reasons – the first was that the cast in the infobox usually relates direct to the film's poster art and the poster for this film only shows three of the film's cast (and no billing block), so only those three shold be listed there; the second was because I wasn't sure about Ron Lea's placement in the cast order. If you are sure about Ron Lea's placement in the cast in the film's front credits, then please feel free to restore that part of your edit. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Need a hand with 2601:82:202:CB17:F09C:7A1A:AD8D:4E5C
I've come across this range before. Their edits speak for themselves, removing the "season" column in episode tables for shows with more than one season, where we indicate overall number and season number. Another type of edit involves adding "season finale," but I don't know if that's good or bad. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Please could you help me?
Hi. I see that you've reverted my edits on the page Nick Wechsler several times. I'm pretty new to using (and ultimately knowing how to use) sources and references but you informed me I had used WP:NOTRS, instead of WP:RSN. I feel a little lost! So could you either edit the information I have given into the right format, or revert my info to be included on the page once more?
Thank you for reading! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmj93 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Hmj93: The truth is, there is probably nothing that can be done in the case of the information you want to add. In general, "ethnic ancestry" is considered "trivial" bio info, and is not included in the vast majority of WP:BLP-type articles unless it is well sourced in Reliable sources (i.e. probably in multiple ones). The issue is that sites like ethnicelebs.com have poor-to-no editorial oversight (i.e. they don't fact-check their information), and so cannot be used for information like this. Sorry. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Message added 21:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
May need some temporary extra eyes. What the parent article has is irrelevant. Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I'd think about asking for page protection – this is clearly WP:DE now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Danielle Fishel
Seriously?! It's been awhile since I've had a problem with you. I thought you had learned from our last conflict, but I guess not. I will repeat some of what I said then, here. "'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 I asked that "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." (WP:PARTR) So, your partial reversion of mine was unnecessary (saying, "Restore standard formatting [??] and unexplained content removal"), but I compromised with you made some changes in collaboration (how we're supposed to). But I didn't expect you to make disruptive complete reversion. You said I didn't explain previously, so I explained each change. Then your RS says "guest episodes titles should be listed, whenever possible." What are you talking about? Did you see my changes? I didn't remove the titles (this time), and WP:FILMOGRAPHY is not even a guideline (and guidelines are just that "guidelines") and it says "it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" and uses the words "recommendations" and "Example". The tables themselves are "standard", but the style within are not necessarily "standard". Then you say, "season is generally indicated parrnethetically [sic]". "Generally"?? Not a valid reason for reverting (and you don't cite WP:FILMOGRAPHY for that because it's not there). Do you know what a "parenthetical" is? It's a word or phrase added to explain something. If the parenthetical is removed, it would not matter. So if you take them out of "Recurring role (season 1); main role (seasons 2–7)", you would have: "Recurring role; main role", which really makes no sense. So it would either be: "Recurring role in season 1; main role in seasons 2–7" or "Recurring role: season 1; main role: seasons 2–7".
So, I will wait for you to make proper changes before doing anything. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Musdan77: I've recently come to the conclusion that I'm not interested in discussing topics such as this one on my Talk page, when they should be discussed at article Talk pages. This is one of those conversations that should be held at Talk:Danielle Fishel. Beyond that, I am not interested in reverting further at that article at this time, as I've moved on to other things. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused, but I hope that means that you won't have a problem with me reverting it back to the previous version (sorry I forgot to sign). --Musdan77 (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Musdan77: Honestly, something closer to your first edit would be better than your second version, which used unnecessary line-breaks which should be generally avoided... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) (edit conflict) No, that means you should be discussing the issue on the talk page. Reverting again would be edit warring, and, in this case, also going against guidelines and policies. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused, but I hope that means that you won't have a problem with me reverting it back to the previous version (sorry I forgot to sign). --Musdan77 (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
There's still not a lot in terms of referencing, but with a premiere date now known, I think that can be ignored, so to speak, and the draft can be moved to article space. Pinging Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968 for feedback as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Odd that they moved it to TeenNick. So there are no other secondary sources available about the series premiere?... (This is looking a lot like Knight Squad, which also got almost no advance press.) Add: Yeah, I'm finding nothin'! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Looks ok to put in article space as has a firm start date scheduled. Article is a bit sparse but that can be filled in after first ep airs. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- IJBall, I think I'll need your page-moving assistance:
You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text.
Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)- @Amaury: Done – There was a redirect with more than one entry in the edit history thanks to IP vandalism, which I simply moved to Star Falls (TV series). This should be all good to go now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury:
- IJBall, I think I'll need your page-moving assistance:
@Amaury: Looks like the official Nick website for the show has the first two episodes – you can probably get crediting info off those two episodes. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: On other thing – we need to add something about the "early" online release of the show to the article (probably in a 'Release' or 'Broadcast' section). Do we know on what date Star Falls' first two episodes were released on the Nick website? (Also, are they available elsewhere – e.g. the Nick app? or anywhere else online?...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Can't use this, but I think yesterday based on this tweet. I don't have the Nick app, so I can't check there. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I can confirm that the first 2 episodes are available on the Nick app as well. In terms of sourcing, I think we're stuck: use the Nickandmore tweet, but tag with a {{better source needed}} tag – I looked, and the official Nick twitter feed did not include a mention of this. So Nickandmore is all we got – as they're just reporting a date, and no other real info, I think it's OK in this case... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Neutral notice
A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, an article you have edited, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Requested move 11 March 2018. It is scheduled to end in seven days.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Deception page move
I appreciate your providing a helpful link in the edit summary of your revert of my page move of Deception (2018 TV series). I understand your reasoning and agree that the current title is more appropriate.—Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Quick and Dirty User Account: I appreciate it! Yeah, we generally don't disambiguate article titles "unnecessarily", and as there's only one 2018 TV series with the title Deception, disambiguation by year for that one is considered sufficient under WP:NCTV. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
FIL
Per this, I've gone ahead and moved that into that new section while adding S2 information, but feel free to re-move it back if you feel otherwise. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Disney Channel keeps surprising us...
See my last two edits. For a while, we only got Halloween and Christmas/New Year's episodes. Then Stuck in the Middle covered new ground last year with an Easter episode. And now it's happening again. It's not really a holiday, but still. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Also, YGM. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Which "holiday"?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Just a heads up. A user re-added the LGBT categories that you and Aussie removed a while ago, among other changes... (If I recall, you removed the LGBT one and Aussie removed the gay one a while before you removed the LGBT one.) I reverted them. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes – it's not WP:DEFINING for this show. If the lead character were LGBT, that would be one thing. But the impression I get is that that whole thing with Cyrus is very supplemental, not "defining"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Stubs
Knight Squad may no longer be a stub, but it was done by the same user who was disruptive at Hunter Street who kept removing the tag there. Is this edit correct or not? Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I've reverted... Here's how you tell if an article is no longer a stub or not – if there's about 10 or more sentences (or their equivalent) in prose, and there's about 3–4 (good) inline sources in the article, then it has graduated to Start class. But any article that has only, say, 1–3 sentences of prose is still a "stub" IMO, no matter how many sources it has (e.g. in the case of Jagger Eaton's Mega Life, nearly all of the inline sourcing is to support ratings info, which I wouldn't "count" towards graduating to "Start" class). Similarly, no matter how long an article is, if it has just 1 inline source or less, it should be marked as a "stub" regardless (as per
"...all very-bad-quality articles will fall into this [stub] category."
). (Note: This doesn't include "list articles", obviously.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Periods after quoted punctuation
Is there a guideline for this? See Liv and Maddie. Grammatically, we don't include a period if a quote already ends with punctuation, I just don't know if there's a guideline for that here, and if there is, I don't know which one. Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks you
I just want to say thanks for not removing the creator name on nickelodeon new gameshow Keep It Spotless – i was the one add the name there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaysonboricua8282232678750 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit? I was adding additional information to the article. — AMK152 (t • c) 21:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- @AMK152: Names should be listed as per credits, or as per WP:COMMONNAME, as per WP:FILMOGRAPHY. For example, the source associated with the Blindspot role only refers to the character as "Blake". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- Then should the surnames be removed from the articles of the TV series? — AMK152 (t • c) 23:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- @AMK152: As per WP:TVCAST, "names should be listed as per credits, or as per WP:COMMONNAME" in the 'Cast' section of TV series as well. Same applies to the 'Cast' sections of films. So if surnames are not included in the credits, then they should not be included in cast lists and filmographies. Where things get more complicated is with the "main cast" of TV series: TV series do not generally include the names of "main" characters in their TV shows credits – in those cases, then you have to fall back on the WP:COMMONNAME (preferably sourced to a reliable source of some sort...). That's why it's probably OK to list Tori Anderson's role in Open Heart (TV series) as "Dr. London Blake", as that was a main cast role, where the character name was not included in the credits (IIRC)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Then should the surnames be removed from the articles of the TV series? — AMK152 (t • c) 23:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Comes from here: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/mech-x4/listings/ I added it when I cleaned up the infobox. :) Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we can rely on that. There is nothing to suggest that this is a "multi-cam" (i.e. traditional sitcom) production format. I'd like to see some source confirming single- vs. multi-cam before including that info... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- I don't get it. TFC is a reliable source. As for single vs. multi, can you even tell by watching? Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- Sort of, yes. "Tradition sitcoms", like say Kevin Can Wait and Man with a Plan (TV series) film "multi-cam". "Multi-cam" filming is distinguished by "fixed sets", and no outdoor filming (in general). In the case Mech-X4, it's possible that they film the scenes with the 4 leads in the "robot control room" in multi-cam format, as it's a consistent "fixed set". But when I did watch Mech-X4, the thing I noticed about it is that they did a lot of outdoor filming, and filming not on fixed sets. IOW, it looked a lot more like a series filmed via digital single-cam to me. In the case of Futon, I'm worried that they just mis-categorized this one. So I'd like to see another source confirm that it's multi-cam in the case of this show... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I'd just go with the reference. Multi-cam is just a technique to avoid shooting a scene multiple times with different lighting to get different points of view during a scene. It is a cheap way of doing things and results in faster production. Single cam is more cinematographic and implies higher production values as it is more costly to do but does result in better production values because lighting can be optimized for each take. Multi-cam is a compromise. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- Sort of, yes. "Tradition sitcoms", like say Kevin Can Wait and Man with a Plan (TV series) film "multi-cam". "Multi-cam" filming is distinguished by "fixed sets", and no outdoor filming (in general). In the case Mech-X4, it's possible that they film the scenes with the 4 leads in the "robot control room" in multi-cam format, as it's a consistent "fixed set". But when I did watch Mech-X4, the thing I noticed about it is that they did a lot of outdoor filming, and filming not on fixed sets. IOW, it looked a lot more like a series filmed via digital single-cam to me. In the case of Futon, I'm worried that they just mis-categorized this one. So I'd like to see another source confirm that it's multi-cam in the case of this show... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- I don't get it. TFC is a reliable source. As for single vs. multi, can you even tell by watching? Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Will you take a look? Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury and MB298: I'm not going to revert. But Bertrand began his career as a child actor, so this is begging for a solution silimar to Joshua Rush (see also: this discussion) – it needs to be mentioned in the lede that Bertrand began his career as a child actor... --IJBall (contribs • talk)
This article is currently under semiprotection, prior to which IPs (which have been geolocating to western Illinois or eastern Missouri, US, close to St. Louis) were adding in networks this series has aired on in syndication. I have dismissed their edits as WP:NOTTVGUIDE, and at least three other editors have also reverted this type of content. Right now, a series of semiprotection edit requests are being made on that article's talk page by IPs, asking other editors to put in these networks, but so far the requests are being denied. When this article is taken off semiprotection in a little over a day, I'm getting the feeling there's going to be persistent restoring of this content, and I'd be tempted to take this article back to RPP for possibly a longer period of semiprotection if in fact that happens. But no doubt this article needs to be seriously watched.
Will also ping Geraldo Perez and Amaury. What do you think? MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: Added to watchlist. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Ditto. (I've been putting off adding the various SbtB articles to my watchlist, but it's probably time...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
New Page Review Newsletter No.10
ACTRIAL:
- ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.
Paid editing
- Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.
Subject-specific notability guidelines
- The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?
Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
- While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.
News
- The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Hypothetical WP:NCTV question
How would you disambiguate these sets of series (all of which have only appeal within their region)?
- One U.S. series (year 1955) and one UK series (year 1965)?
- Two U.S. series (years 1950 & 1960) and two UK series (1970 & 1980))?
-- Netoholic @ 08:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- The first can actually be disambiguated by country or by year, though I think most would prefer the former method. The second would be best disambiguated by year only (however, redirects with "double disambiguation" would be advisable in the second case). Only an example like the following would require "double disambiguation", and only for the last one listed:
- One UK series (year 2010) and two U.S. series (1990 and 2010) – best done by "(UK TV series)", "(1990 TV series)", and "(2010 U.S. TV series)"
- The only example I've ever come across that requires "full double disambiguation" is for the two 1984 Hunter TV series, as per User:IJBall/NCTV and double disambiguation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Infobox television - First/last aired
So there are two separate fields—first aired and last aired—however, the actual display of them is different than what the code says. Display-wise, it's "original release" with a date range. So the current way is this: I'm just curious: is that how it's always been? Because I vaguely remember the wording there or something being different, but I could be wrong.
On another note, for consistency with the parameters, I think the examples below would actually look better, in my opinion, if I had coded the template. The current way makes the date wrap as seen above, which to me looks weird to have part of a date on one line and the rest on another. Although on my new 1920 x 1080 monitor at home for my desktop, I think the range fits all on one line when both months aren't long words. I can't remember right now. My laptop screen is only 1366 x 768 for native resolution, what my old monitor was.
Using Jagger Eaton's Mega Life, one example is with a currently running series, in which you'd leave the last aired parameter blank, and another example is with an ended series.
Again, in my opinion, actually displaying the parameters that way per the code would work better. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- The top example is the way it's always been, for as long as I've been paying attention. And, for the record, I prefer the first way over your "Example 2" there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mech-X4#Cast/Cast and characters format vs. Characters format. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Is that on your watchlist? Will need some extra attention for a while, it seems. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: It's not, under my general rule that I try to avoid watching listing current TV show articles (esp. for shows that I don't really watch). I'll try to remember to watch it manually... However, I thought we were going to add the tweet info from Skai Jackson on this (we can always tag with a {{better source needed}} tag) – while it doesn't "confirm" that the show will end after season #3, it's consistent with what we've done in the past (e.g. Lab Rats: Elite Force) to indicate that a show is likely over when we don't have an official word from the network... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: (edit conflict) I decided to ask for semiprotection of the article [1]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Andrea Barber's page
Your edit contains duplicate and disorganized information. Read carefully and you'll see. I was just trying to help. Editing pages on Wikipedia is a pleasure for me, but it's getting harder and harder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.38.112.204 (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Sasha Pieterse's page
It's not basically a special PLL, in the episode it contains exclusive scenes that were never broadcast on TV series. That's the reason why I did put in TV credits and as personality. I spend hours of my time contributing to Wikipedia, my versions are always with correct and true information and I'm always trying to make everything organized, with a clean interface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.38.112.204 (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't merit a separate entry – it's basically an episode/special of PLL. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
MOS:ACCESS (beyond the TV project)
I know how you make sure tables are accessibility-compliant within the TV project, particularly with those who use screen readers. I managed to get one of those screen reader add-ons (for Chrome called "ChromeVox"), and I was hearing how it read the tables. With rowspans placed all over the place in some tables, it can make any screen reader user confused over what is in the table, which is why the rowspans are discouraged.
Well, I've come across tables in the record charts project with the Billboard articles I check, and some I update: e.g., List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2018, List of Billboard 200 number-one albums of 2018, List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2018. Obviously, getting rid of the rowspans altogether would help for the screen reader users, but what about if we wanted/needed to keep rowspan in there to avoid unnecessary repeating of text, like with the current #1 on the Hot 100, "God's Plan" by Drake, 10 weeks on top and counting. Most would like the idea of that being typed only once rather than 10+ times (though copy/paste could rectify the problem of typos), hence the benefit of rowspan. But the accessibility issues that presents...
Anyway, one thought I had that may be okay the way screen readers parse the text - and this would be with the Hot 100 number-one singles and Billboard 200 number-one albums - is to move the issue date column after the song/album and artist columns. I'll have to explain it on those articles' talk pages, of course, if I go on with making such a change. What do you think? MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: Yes – basically, one way to use 'rowspans' properly, while still meeting WP:ACCESS, is to move any use of 'rowspan' to the left-most columns on any table (and then use what I'd call "stacking" rowspans – e.g. the biggest use of 'rowspan' goes in the left-most column, then the second biggest use of 'rowspan' in the second left-most column, and so on). So, in the case of those articles, moving the "Issue date" column over to the right-hand side of the table (right before the 'Refs' column) should solve the issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
One sandbox page I forgot to create, so someone already made it in article space, though I'm not sure if it's quite ready for article space as there's no concrete premiere date yet, though there have been promos on Nickelodeon and it already has its own page on the Nickelodeon website. I plan on cleaning it a little bit later, but if there's anything you think it needs, go for it. I've already moved the page to the proper title. ("It" is not a preposition. Grumble.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- While there is no announced release date, so it's in technical failure of WP:TVSHOW, in the spirit of avoiding (unnecessary) drama, I would suggest leaving it for now. If this project with Cena never actually produces a show that reaches the air (which, from what you're saying, is very unlikely – i.e. it sounds certain to air), it can always be WP:AfDed down the line if that ends up being the case... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Going to need your help. Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Report this user to WP:ANEW – General Ization provided the sourced solution, and this editor continues to ignore it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jaysonrivera787321 reported by User:Amaury (Result: ). Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
And it's going on again. Call it a hunch, but I smell a sock. Courtesy ping for General Ization. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- And so it goes. (ping @Amaury) General Ization Talk 19:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Cool. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- On an unrelated note, how is a game show doing better than Knight Squad? LOL Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- You're asking the wrong person – I pretty strongly dislike reality shows, and don't care for game shows, and they always seem to do better in the ratings than the scripted TV shows I watch and like... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Speaking of which, are you watching/keeping up with Knight Squad and Star Falls? Thoughts so far? (Albeit the latter is only an episode in, or two, if you want two count online.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Knight Squad, yes – it's not as funny as I was hoping for (I was hoping for something more clever, along the lines of Wizards of Waverly Place), but it's OK. Star Falls, no – of the Nick shows in this vein, I like I Am Frankie quite a bit, Hunter Street was OK, and I haven't cared for the other shows like this that they've tried... --IJBall (contribs • talk)
- Huh. Interesting. I was thinking Star Falls is more along the same lines of your run-of-the-mill comedies, like Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn, Game Shakers, and the like. For one thing, it's not airing by itself daily like Hunter Street, I Am Frankie, and the ended series before them, which is typical of telenovela series, it's airing on Saturdays during prime time alongside the other series. Also, it already looks like episodes will be airing out of order like your typical comedies, so, like the aforementioned comedies, you can watch in any order and still understand the point of the series. Airing out of order is not something Hunter Street or I Am Frankie could do. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Knight Squad, yes – it's not as funny as I was hoping for (I was hoping for something more clever, along the lines of Wizards of Waverly Place), but it's OK. Star Falls, no – of the Nick shows in this vein, I like I Am Frankie quite a bit, Hunter Street was OK, and I haven't cared for the other shows like this that they've tried... --IJBall (contribs • talk)
- Speaking of which, are you watching/keeping up with Knight Squad and Star Falls? Thoughts so far? (Albeit the latter is only an episode in, or two, if you want two count online.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- You're asking the wrong person – I pretty strongly dislike reality shows, and don't care for game shows, and they always seem to do better in the ratings than the scripted TV shows I watch and like... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- On an unrelated note, how is a game show doing better than Knight Squad? LOL Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Cool. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)