User talk:IJBall/Archive 17
 | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
May not be "disruptive," by definition, but still, at this point, it comes down to them needing to follow the D on WP:BRD. I could be wrong, but considering I've not seen the cinematography parameter used on any other TV series, that's a pretty strong case that it shouldn't be added and is meant only for films. WP:3Os are of course welcome, and I'll ping {{U|Geraldo Perez}] as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Geraldo Perez. Because I'm a dummy and messed up the first time. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Infobox instructions say the "director of cinematography" or "lead cameraman" for that attribute. It would need to be listed in the credits of an episode, I don't remember TV series generally having that credit. Likely in infobox more for TV movies. If contentious anyone can start the discussion although one adding info is supposed to, and gives a pointer so don't argue in edit history. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Geraldo Perez: Looks like they went ahead and did that shortly before you posted. See Talk:Famous in Love. I wasn't going to keep reverting in either case. You're right. For one thing, it's not worth it, even if you know you're 100% right. The only exceptions are with socks, like on Keep It Spotless just recently. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Infobox instructions say the "director of cinematography" or "lead cameraman" for that attribute. It would need to be listed in the credits of an episode, I don't remember TV series generally having that credit. Likely in infobox more for TV movies. If contentious anyone can start the discussion although one adding info is supposed to, and gives a pointer so don't argue in edit history. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
See here. That doesn't seem like a reliable source for the birthday. Second, I think it's pretty obvious I don't have any issues with the gay storyline or LGBT in general outside of the series, but the claim that he is openly gay is totally false. Jonah doesn't know yet. Bex doesn't know yet. Celia doesn't know yet. The recurring characters don't know yet. The only people who know so far are Buffy (S2 E1) and Andi (S2 E13). Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Actually UPI is legit – it's the lesser known cousin to Associated Press – so I think that's A-OK as a source for WP:DOB. I'd leave it (though I'd move this source from the infobox on the lede). On the second thing, I think I'd open a Talk page discussion: it kind of depends on what the People source says – if the source actually says that, it's kind of hard to exclude it, even if it's wrong (e.g. WP:Verifiability, not truth). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's also what I was looking at, because they're also wrong. The very definition of being opening gay, transgender, etc. means exactly that: that you're not hiding it and everyone knows and it's public for everyone who doesn't know to know. For example, Tristan from Degrassi is openly gay. Even from around the time he was introduced, it was made known. There's also an article by Deadline on the same matter that doesn't explicitly state openly gay, just coming out. We could probably substitute the People article with the Deadline article, and then we could make it right. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Definitely do that, then. But I think I'd still open a Talk page discussion about this, as it's sure to come up again... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Will do. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Done and done. I'll make MPFitz1968 and Geraldo Perez aware as well if they're not already watching the page. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- The information about his character is excessive detail in the bio article about the actor. Irrelevant to the actor himself. If this is a big deal then the show article will have all the details as to why. In general I don't think going into details about roles is appropriate in any actor article, just saying what role played and on what series is sufficient. Why we link things is for people who want more details. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Geraldo Perez: You should probably mention your view on that at Talk:Joshua Rush then, as this is bound to come up again and again (one way or the other...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- The information about his character is excessive detail in the bio article about the actor. Irrelevant to the actor himself. If this is a big deal then the show article will have all the details as to why. In general I don't think going into details about roles is appropriate in any actor article, just saying what role played and on what series is sufficient. Why we link things is for people who want more details. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Definitely do that, then. But I think I'd still open a Talk page discussion about this, as it's sure to come up again... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's also what I was looking at, because they're also wrong. The very definition of being opening gay, transgender, etc. means exactly that: that you're not hiding it and everyone knows and it's public for everyone who doesn't know to know. For example, Tristan from Degrassi is openly gay. Even from around the time he was introduced, it was made known. There's also an article by Deadline on the same matter that doesn't explicitly state openly gay, just coming out. We could probably substitute the People article with the Deadline article, and then we could make it right. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Only one edit like this so far, so this isn't a problem yet, but I can see this potentially becoming a problematic pattern, so just a heads up for now. I just made this revert for obvious reasons. Per my earlier message on Geraldo's talk page, production episode #215 definitely appears to be his last, but there's nothing that confirms this, so we can't add any sort of note on the matter. Second, he's still in the credits, so his lack of appearances should be still be noted just the same as before.
PS: Are you still on wiki-break or did you just forget to remove that notice? 
Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah... I forgot to remove it about a week and a half ago... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Preliminary ratings
Hi IJBall,
Geraldo Perez, and Amaury
What are you thoughts about people putting Preliminary ratings? Oppose or Support? — Lbtocthtalk 01:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- We should be waiting for the finals to be posted before providing any ratings info for the broadcast networks. While the demographics don't usually change, the total viewers, which is what we report here, are always adjusting between the preliminaries and the finals. Broadcast networks can also sometimes have inflated numbers from sports or other preemptions, especially The CW. For example, for Thursday, see The CW preliminaries here and the The CW finals here Archived 2021-01-25 at the Wayback Machine. Thursday had preemptions from baseball in the preliminaries. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- My $0.02: Considering that (same day) ratings are nigh on useless these days anyway, I agree that putting preliminary ratings into an encyclopedia such as this one is an unproductive exercise. This is also arguably falls under WP:CRYSTAL, and definitely falls under WP:NO DEADLINE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
My word
What is it with people wanting to immediately change things here? Updating episode counts and adding credits "immediately" is one thing, but when it comes to season/series finales, even when they're confirmed, it's like, "The X Show's episode tonight is being promoted as the series finale, so the millisecond this episode ends, I have to update the Y article to reflect that or else I'll die!" In the case of School of Rock, let's hypothetically say we did know tonight's episode is the series finale via TV promos or reliable secondary sources. It hasn't even aired yet. It doesn't air until 7:30 PM. (4:30 PM for me since I watch Nickelodeon East on DirecTV.) Even then, there's no harm in waiting until the end of Sunday, at least, for all major time zones, just like we did with K.C. Undercover. I mean, look at the history of Girl Meets World in January 2017 and what happened after "Girl Meets Goodbye" aired... Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm off to bed. I'll leave anything further to you and the others when you're up later. I've got college, and I'm not playing these games anymore when I've—we've—made it perfectly clear what the issue is. MPFitz1968, from looking at my page, you're only watching the episode list. If you haven't already, could you add the parent article for School of Rock to your watchlist as well? Thanks! Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- Added. MPFitz1968 (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Confused on MOS:TV
I'm a little confused here, in part because the only articles you've done this at are Henry Danger quite a while ago and now School of Rock, but none of the other ones. I tried looking at MOS:TV, but couldn't find anything explicitly about it. Sequentially (logically?), don't we care about the cast/characters more? You can't have episodes without them. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- OK, here's the deal – based on discussions that have been had in WT:TV, it's argued that 'Episodes' actually goes best after 'Plot' (basically, the "episodes" are the "vehicle" by which the "plot" is "delivered"). So, if you're just transcluding a 'series overview' table from the LoE article, you put 'Episodes' section after 'Plot'. The problems arise when the episodes table is still at the main TV series article – in those cases: 1) they take up a lot of room, and 2) they "clash" with the infobox. So when the episodes table is still at the main TV series article, the general practice then seems to be to put the episodes table after the 'Cast' section, and either immediately before or immediately after the 'Production' section. (Unless you still have a "white-space" issue due to the infobox – then things get... complicated.)
- Bottom line: If you're just transcluding the 'series overview' table, it either goes just after the 'Plot' section (as an 'Episodes' section), or it's included in the 'Plot' section (or its equivalent) itself (e.g. Arrow (TV series)). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds like a project both of us could do to update things: User:Amaury/sandbox#General Maintenance. I know you went through most of those before the last time you did a mass update to make things MOS compliant, though at the time that mostly involved putting Production before Episodes since the episodes stem from, well, the production.
Nothing was changed in regard to it being Episodes -> Cast and characters since I don't think you knew that at the time or that discussion was still ongoing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds like a project both of us could do to update things: User:Amaury/sandbox#General Maintenance. I know you went through most of those before the last time you did a mass update to make things MOS compliant, though at the time that mostly involved putting Production before Episodes since the episodes stem from, well, the production.
An IP is persistent in adding content in front of a source which doesn't support the content they are adding. [1][2][3] I have reverted them three times and per WP:3RR, I don't plan to do so again. I have delivered a level-4 warning to the IP for persistent addition of the unsourced material. No doubt this article and IP will need watching. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Looks like Geraldo's got your back. I also have this article watchlisted, and will help out when I'm on-Wiki... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the massive overhaul over there, but I've got one other concern. I've had to revert a user twice for changing Jennifer Love Hewitt's Saturn Award ("Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films") result in 2006 from "won" to "nominated", but providing inadequate proof/sourcing to back this. In looking at any sourcing for this award, I've not been having any success with it, and the Wikipedia articles about the Saturn Awards do show Hewitt as the winner of the Best Actress on Television award. I've looked at Saturn Award for Best Actress on Television and 33rd Saturn Awards. The official Saturn Awards site has not given me answers either on this one. This is also addressed on the talk page for GW. Note: I also looked at Jennifer Love Hewitt's page and this same award shows "nominated" for the result, though it doesn't look like that user had anything to do with that, at least recently. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: In the absence of a WP:RS, I think we need to leave it as "nominated", esp. if that's what the JLH page shows. (The 33rd Saturn Awards page, being much less watched, is more likely susceptible to vandalism on something like this.)... In terms of Ghost Whisperer, if you've got the article watchlisted, please be on the lookout of any IP edits that "roll it back" to an earlier version – I can foresee possible IP vandalism to restore the 'International broadcasts' section, even though it is in violation of WP:TVINTL, for example... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: Hold up! – This seems to confirm that she did win the (33rd) Saturn Award in 2007:
"This joke was referenced throughout the night by a few presenters and BEST TV ACTRESS winner Jennifer Love Hewitt (GHOST WHISPERER) who said Grunberg would love to see how excited her "golden globes" were at the moment."
Yes: this clinches it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)- Part of the confusion here is what is meant by "Year" – does it cover the year the show was eligible, or does it cover the year the award was given. For example, the 33rd Saturn Awards were given in May 2007, but covered 2006. I think these tables usually cover the year the award was given – thus, for 2006, the result for JLH/GW should be {{nom}} (for the 32nd Saturns), then should be {{win}} for 2007 and 2008 (34th Saturns), and then back to {{nom}} for 2009 (35th Saturns) and 2010 (36th Saturns). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Raven's Home S2
[4] and [5]. Around now is usually when we see next month's schedule for Disney Channel is up on Zap2it; however, when it comes to series and season premieres, it can take a little longer for some reason. For example, when the July episodes for K.C. Undercover and Bizaardvark were up, the July episodes for Raven's Home still weren't up on Zap2it. But we should be seeing something soon. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi IJBall. Just thought you should know after you reverted my edits last week on March 23, 2018. Someone else have put the last names again the next day. -- Lbtocthtalk 23:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Lbtocth: I'm still on break. I might be able to get to this tomorrow. It really depends if/how the characters are credited... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- On the T.V. show, the last names are not credited in during the credits. They were just calling their last names several time in the dialogues. -- Lbtocthtalk
Hi IJBall, again! You might want to look out for random ip addresses possibly vandalizing the article again just to WP:AGF. I just reverted an edit when a random ip address changed the year. — Lbtocthtalk 03:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Lbtocth: Date vandalism is an all-too-common occurrence on Wikipedia, and I find it impossible to assume good faith on those... But I'll be on the look-out... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 18:49, 13 April 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) 18:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
End date for School of Rock
I was reading through the discussion again on the talk page, when my attention was drawn to Lado's The Futon Critic posting, and I was thinking and thinking about it, and I think we can use it, but I'm not 100% sure, hence my message here rather than just making changes accordingly. This part didn't click with me the first time I read it: "BROADCAST HISTORY: 3/12/16 - 4/8/18." (Either that or I just paid no attention to it since I had already been dealing with Lado's disruptiveness and didn't really care what they said.) And if you look at other series, like Nicky, Dicky, Dicky & Dawn, you just see "BROADCAST HISTORY: 9/13/14 - ???."
Long before the Bunk'd S3 renewal was announced, I posted this on Geraldo Perez's talk page: User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 10#Bunk'd season two finale. The text under the section I mentioned there now reads something different since it was renewed for S3, but Geraldo said that was fine to use to add the end date for Bunk'd S2. Following that, it may be fine to use The Futon Critic to support the end date for both S3 of School of Rock and the series itself since we do have a reliable source stating it was canceled. But again, I think. This may be a different situation than Bunk'd since that was just about the S2 finale. For School of Rock, it's about the S3 and series finale.
I'll ping MPFitz1968 as well in case he has any feedback. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- FTR, it said "3/12/16 - ???" a few days ago when I last checked that. I'd have no objection to using that to source an "end date" here (though I would use the
quoteparameter when doing so, to be clear where the end date is coming from....). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC) - (edit conflict)@Amaury: I wasn't exactly sure myself about whether to use that info to support the end date, but we do regard The Futon Critic as a reliable source and it sounds like it could be used, though I don't know. BTW, when I was checking that particular link from Futon, I decided to check a few other series (from Disney, Nickelodeon) and their status. I am surprised that the info they have for Best Friends Whenever still shows no end date for the series, well over a year after the last episode aired ("completed airing its second season on 12/11/16; has yet to be renewed for a third season") [6]. From what it reads there suggests a chance of that show continuing, but I personally doubt it. Definitely had my eyes open, but certainly a different story for School of Rock, from what they're reporting. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Done. @MPFitz1968: It's been over a year for Jagger Eaton's Mega Life as well and its end date is still set as "???." Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Scheduling
Thought you might be interested in this tweet. It's what I think would be the perfect Nickelodeon schedule right now, because, honestly, their scheduling is terrible. All they seem to show is PAW Patrol, SpongeBob, The Loud House, and Henry Danger. They're not giving any other shows an equal chance of viewing. For shows that aren't the aforementioned ones, reruns for some are really only on weekends; otherwise, they only air when there are new episodes. Disney Channel's scheduling is much, much better! Also, Nick Jr. has been its own channel for a really long time, and, in fact, the pre-school shows on Nickelodeon are no longer part of a block called that, they just air then. Their pre-school and the like could honestly just move completely to Nick Jr. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Isn't this irrelevant? Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- It's worse than that: 1) it's nonsensical: it's 2018 right now! (2018–present makes zero sense), and 2) it's inaccurate: it looks like all 10 "segments" of that one have aired (as five 30-minute "episodes"), and it has not been renewed, so it's very possible that all of that that is going to air already has (i.e. there's no "present" in there, no matter how you slice it!). I've reverted. On your end, please revert anywhere you see this "2018–present" nonsense... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Is Showfax a reliable site?
I brought this up not too long ago here, though unfortunately I couldn't find the site back then and only had that image that I showed you that someone posted on Twitter: User talk:IJBall/Archive 15#Bizaardvark, Part Deux. Supposedly, it's a casting site, which has several series, including Nickelodeon and Disney Channel, and when they started filming. Well, I finally found the site a while ago via TV Series Finale. here. Pinging Geraldo Perez as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- I can't tell... At the least, I don't think I would rely on this as a source exclusively – I think I'd want something else to back it up/confirm it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: It is planning information, casting calls, all of which is preliminary and can change. Some discussion on WP:RSN, search for Showfax. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Concerning my edit.
Excuse me but who do you think you are? Wikipedia is a place for editors to well... Edit! You are just a critic. Wikendgeria (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Wikendgeria: I assume this is in reference to this edit? First, it was unsourced, which makes it an explicit WP:BLP violation, which means it needed to be removed. Second, the dating lives of teenagers is a non-encyclopedic concern – Wikipedia is not a "news site", and it certainly isn't a "gossip site", as per WP:NOTTABLOID. Please remember all of this in your future editing. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well it doesn't really matter now. Because I went back to that page and recrated my edit so jokes on you. Deal with it. Wikendgeria (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Wikendgeria: That's called Disruptive editing and you can be blocked for it. I would encourage you not to go down this road... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry for my rudeness. I've edited the page on Cameron Boyce and I used correct reference. Boyce lives in the Los Angeles area with his mother, father and younger sister. His favorite style of dance is break.[1] Along with four of his friends, he is a member of the breakdancing crew "X Mob".[1] His father is black, of Afro-Caribbean and African-American descent. His mother, who is white, is Jewish.[2][3] His paternal grandmother, Jo Ann (Allen) Boyce, was one of the Clinton Twelve, the first African-Americans to attend an integrated high school in the south, in 1956, as ordered by Brown v. Board of Education.[4] He is currently in a relationship with Sophie Reynolds[5] Wikendgeria (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Wikendgeria: That's called Disruptive editing and you can be blocked for it. I would encourage you not to go down this road... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well it doesn't really matter now. Because I went back to that page and recrated my edit so jokes on you. Deal with it. Wikendgeria (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
IJBall, as a suggestion, I would either archive this early or completely remove it. They seem to be a troll. See their latest edits on Geraldo's talk page that he reverted. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- It's pretty rare that I do that on my Talk page. Also, this thread may potentially be useful, as it gets to "the dating lives of teenagers is not an encyclopedic concern" topic, which comes up repeatedly at certain WP:BLPs... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Knight Squad episode summaries
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP:TVPLOT says anywhere between 100 and 200 words. By using a word counter, the summaries came out to:
| Title | Word Count |
|---|---|
| Opening Knight | 217 |
| A Knight at the Roxbury | 213 |
| Knight in Shining Armor Day | 179 |
| One Magical Knight | 200 |
| The Dork Knight Returns | 184 |
| Tonight, Two Knight | 190 |
| A Knight's Tail | 187 |
| Parent Teacher Knight | 200 |
| Do the Knight Thing | 193 |
The average comes out to about 196 words. The majority of the episode summaries were below 200 words, and only two of them went over 200, though neither of those was excessively over 200 words. I'm not seeing any problems that prevents those episode summaries from being there. Courtesy ping for Starforce13. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you @Amaury:. Yes, if they are about 100 words, they get reverted for potential plagiarism even if they're my own summaries. I try to keep them below 200, but a few may run over a little like the ones noted above. I hope we can all agree on the correct range so that I can keep it in mind in the future. Starforce13 (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Starforce13: If that ever happens again, open a Talk page discussion, and ping the "reverter". If they aren't plagiarism, that should be easy to prove after a quick Talk page discussion on the matter.... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm saying for a show like this they were too long. "200 words" is a maximum – shows like this do not need 200-word episode summaries. P.S. A discussion like this should have been held at Talk:Knight Squad, not here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Put another way: 200-word summaries are more justifiable for a 60-minute drama series episodes. 30-minute sitcoms probably only merit about 100-word episode summaries (esp. a "kids" show like this one). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Episode titles of Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything
Does it look like that the episode titles of "Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything" look very similar to the episode titles of Cartoon Network's "The Amazing World of Gumball" as well as the episode titles of Disney XD's other show "Wander Over Yonder"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:31FD:5AE0:95AA:F817:AA6D:8C21 (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- IJBall, I think we've got IP hopping here. See User talk:Amaury/2018#Episode Titles of "Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything". Same exact question. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Please keep an eye on it. Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- This will make things easier for me... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oops! Sorry!
Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC) - And again. Perhaps you can explain it better to them as you're the one who added it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: It's from the Disney press release, right? Well, I do notice that the press release doesn't seem to be used as a source at that article. So it looks like the press release needs to be used as a source, and then that would justify including "family" as a genre... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: BTW, I didn't add "family" to that article. I think I remember adding that to Andi Mack. But I don't think I added that to Raven's Home... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't remember. I just remember you made this edit and stated
As per other discussions, let's at least as "Family" as a genre while we figure out "Comedy" vs. "Sitcom", as there is sourcing support for "Family" as a genre...
. You might have been referring to one of the press releases on The Futon Critic, which we normally don't worry with sourcing, but now that this user has a problem with it, I guess we have to. Although their statement offamily not a tv genre, if so this would apply to all disney shows, but only this is the exception idk why
is bullshit. Bold emphasis mine. Family is definitely a genre. Plus, they're failing to take it to the talk page. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)- @Amaury:OK, yeah, it looks like the press release will have to be used as a source, if "family" is used as a genre there. (If "family" is not used in a genre in the P.R., then it should actually stay out.) And, yes, you're right – genres aren't what editors tell each other they are: it's what sources tell us they are. So, if the Disney P.R. uses "family" in a way that refers to a genre (as it did for Andi Mack), then it can and should included in the article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: It's this press release for Andi Mack that uses "family" as a genre. I notice that one's not cited in that article either, which means it needs to be added... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Done. The source in question is currently Reference #4 – but that one clearly refers to
""Andi Mack," a single-camera family series..."
As for Raven's Home, I generally don't even edit that one (heck, I barely ever edit Andi Mack!!), but for that one the Futon Critic page is here, and this Disney P.R. declares"Disney Channel and Raven-Symoné are developing and beginning preliminary casting for a family sitcom..."
, so I'd say there's definitely sourcing supporting "family" as a genre. So that press release, and this one should prob. be added to the Raven's Home article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC) - Done. See here. Feel free to make any tweaks you see fit. I couldn't figure out how to work it into the "Production" section, so I just sourced it in the lead for now. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury:
- I don't remember. I just remember you made this edit and stated
- Oops! Sorry!
The Encyclopedia of Animated Cartoons?
The Encyclopedia of Animated Cartoons by Jeff Lenburg – do any of my Talk page stalkers out there have this book?... (I'll look into picking it up myself, when I have ca$h again... 
) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
An IP is claiming that England (and not the United States) is the movie's country of origin because it says in the article that it was filmed in England [7]. As I couldn't find any source citation(s) concerning where it was filmed, I'm scratching my head on this one. I decided to revert [8]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: Where something is filmed doesn't determine "country of origin". If it did every U.S. TV series filmed in Canada would be deemed "Canadian". Similarly, some of Star Wars (film) was filmed in Tunisia, but it's not a "Tunisian film". What matters is who puts up the money. In the case of Little Shop of Horrors, it looks like Geffen put up the money, which makes the film an "American production". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm behind on American Housewife and just started getting caught up today, starting at "Field Day". Peyton Meyer appeared in that one, so I will be updating his article accordingly at some point. If he's appeared more in the aired episodes I haven't watched yet and appears more in the upcoming episodes, is there a limit to where we stop listing the the specific episodes an actors appears in on their article and just change to X episodes? Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Depends on length of episode titles – unless the titles are ridiculously long, I try to list both episode titles for two guest appearances (e.g. in the 'Notes' column, something like – Episodes: "Sunshine", "The Chasm"). If the titles are short, you can sometimes list three episode titles for three guest appearances (e.g. Episodes: "Sunshine", "The Chasm", "Deceit"). Four episodes is where it gets vague – I usually just list "4 episodes" in the Filmography. Five or six episode appearances or more, and then you graduate to "Recurring role" in the 'Notes' column. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Message added 09:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Yak79 2.0 (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
A user has created a page on the actress, but she is not notable enough yet to satisfy WP:N or WP:NACTOR. It was tagged with BLPPROD, but removed after one source was added to it, which is not reliable ([9]). I'm trying to determine whether to go with speedy, PROD, or AfD on this one. (BTW, I have the Draft article in my watchlist.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: Thanks for the head's up. I have converted it to a redirect as she is not independently notable based on the Draft – in the edit summary, I also pointed out that Draft:Olivia Rodrigo has precedence in any case, as it was created long before this was. I've watchlisted the redirect – if someone tries to recreate the article there, I would simply convert back to the redirect (and if that happens multiple times, we can then try WP:PRODing or WP:AfDing it). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- P.S. This once again points up the importance of WP:ACPERM passing! – I think we're roughly a week from that happening, and this kind of nonsense (note that when creating the article, this non-autoconfirmed editor purposely ignored the Draft article that was pointed to from the 'page creation' page...) will finally be put to an end! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Decided to watchlist the redirect as well. I have also reverted an edit at An American Girl: Grace Stirs Up Success which had her name wikilinked ([10]). I was scratching my head about the redirect approach, since she was first in that movie before Bizaardvark, but she clearly gained a lot more recognition (in terms of the notability standard) on the Disney Channel series. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- If anyone decides to challenge where the redirect should go, then I'd probably take it to WP:RfD and ask for a "delete"... But, yeah – in her case, it clearly should be Bizaardvark. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Decided to watchlist the redirect as well. I have also reverted an edit at An American Girl: Grace Stirs Up Success which had her name wikilinked ([10]). I was scratching my head about the redirect approach, since she was first in that movie before Bizaardvark, but she clearly gained a lot more recognition (in terms of the notability standard) on the Disney Channel series. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I have some suspicions here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see any overlap (yet) with MarioFan123, so it could be a coincidence... But stuff like this always bears watching. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: This most recent edit looks like pure vandalism – definitely bears watching... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Would you revert their latest edits to the NRDD pages? Maybe you can get it through them that on hiatus does not equal over, especially when you have a damn source stating 14 episodes for season four. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, Geraldo Perez! Not the first time they've done this. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
suggest re-sign
Good comment [11] but wrong numbers of tildes suggest re-sign. Andrewa (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
The renewal announcement mentioned 20 episodes, but someone shared a picture of a table read in the Twitter chat with the text "S. 2 Ep. 21". Possible extension for S2! 
Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting... Based on the format, I've got to think they added either 10 more episodes, or 20 more. (For this show, 5 episodes wouldn't make sense...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
You know me. I would never revert you (), but I did want to explain my view on it. I just find it pointless to add "voiced by" to the Characters section on animation articles for a few reasons: 1) The article mentions who it "features" the voices of, 2) the "voices" parameter—displayed as "voices of"—in the infobox is being used, and 3) it's animation, so of course it's going to be voices. I mean, for live-action series, should we start putting "Dicky Harper (portrayed by Mace Coronel) is a character on Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn? LOL! Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- There's people who prefer "redundancy", and there are those who hate it. On Wiki, I admit that prefer redundancy – that's why it prefer it actually be "Television film" under 'Television' in filmographies, rather than just "Movie" as another editor prefers. Now, in cases like these, if the heading was 'Voice cast', then you definitely wouldn't need a "voiced by" thing. But in a 'Characters' list like this at an animated TV series article, I do prefer it in the format of: "Speedy (voiced by Sullivan Kline)", etc. YMMV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- You know what I find interesting? We both agree and disagree with a lot of things, and generally speaking, we're both on the same page the majority of the time. However... some things I agree with you disagree with and vice-versa. . For example, I prefer the "Characters" layout, whether it's live-action or animation, when there are descriptions while you don't; I don't prefer "voiced by" in the "Characters" section of animation articles while you do. But that's what makes the world go round, right? Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- You know what I find interesting? We both agree and disagree with a lot of things, and generally speaking, we're both on the same page the majority of the time. However... some things I agree with you disagree with and vice-versa.
I don't think they're notable to even list since they're not recurring per your comments on one of the TV project discussions, but you can find the episodes they appeared in here: User:Amaury/sandbox/Champions#Episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- As you know, I don't like 'Guest' sections. But the only way they "pass muster" is if either each guest is independently sourced, or if the episode title of their appearance is included (which covers WP:V under WP:PRIMARY) – and preferably both. Otherwise, 'Guest' cast should not be listed. So at Champions (U.S. TV series) and Black Lightning (TV series), I've tagged those sections to give other editors a chance to "fix" that. But, if they don't, then those sections have got to go... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly why I removed it, but you know editors. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- For example, this definitely works, though I find the use of "inline sourcing" to source to episodes to be on the "clumsy" side. (It's easier to just list the episode title itself in character summary prose itself, IMO...) But either/or needs to happen with 'Guest' cast sections... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- You mean like at List of Liv and Maddie characters. In "Sweet Sixteen-a-Rooney", blah blah blah. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Also, for Champions, Robert Costanzo should be changed to Bobby Costanzo and all the J. J. Totah should be changed to J.J. Totah as it's names per credits. There is a guideline—WP:SPACEINITS—that says names with periods should be spaced, but the credits are the authoritative source on that, just like when the whole fiasco happened on Game Shakers over the comma in P-Nut's name. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- If that's how they're credited, then yes, as per WP:TVCAST. (Honestly, I'm not sure how that article ended up at J. J. Totah – I don't think it started that way, and it should probably not have the "space" in between...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- For example, this definitely works, though I find the use of "inline sourcing" to source to episodes to be on the "clumsy" side. (It's easier to just list the episode title itself in character summary prose itself, IMO...) But either/or needs to happen with 'Guest' cast sections... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly why I removed it, but you know editors. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Obviously, it's my sandbox and I can do things how I want. However, this may help in the future with live articles. In the first episode of Champions, Mindy Kaling is credited as a special guest star at the beginning of the episode after all of the starring credits roll, like how Beyond and Famous in Love do it with their regular guest stars. It's just her name and nothing else. As such, we would ordinarily list it in the episode table as either "Special guest star: Mindy Kaling" or "Special guest star: Mindy Kaling (as Priya)" since her character name is not officially in the credits However, in later episodes, she's credited as just a regular guest star in the closing credits along with everyone else with both her name and her character name, which is Priya. In this situation, since later episodes have her character name, I suppose it would be fine to make the first episode have "Special guest star: Mindy Kaling as Priya"—no parentheses—even though her character name is not in the credits of that one. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, definitely, in this case... There's another issue here – if guests actors are credited near the show's opening, as the main stars are, I'd actually have less of an objection to the "Mindy Kaling as Priya"-type of crediting. But with those TV shows that only list guest stars in the end-credits, and don't include character names – those are the TV shows where I don't even think we should list the character names, as the end-credits is traditionally where the "[actor] as [role]"-type credits usually appear, so when character names don't appear in those, it's a "bigger" deal, IMO... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Looks who guest starred on Thursday's episode. And on a related note, is he actually known as a singer and songwriter? Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Definitely not the latter. The former is in dispute, but the consensus on Talk:Kevin Quinn (actor) seemed to be that he's not established enough to consider "singer" a actual "profession" for him. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Your reversion deleted the latest rating that was added and when most cable shows rate below millions why make values fractional below one???? 119.224.3.221 (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- 119.224.3.221: I have restored the rating in question. But I have once again undone your other changes – please discuss them on Talk:Imposters (TV series), and try to build consensus for your changes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- awaiting for you to justify the "0." stupidity. And I hope you don't just revert without removing content. 119.224.3.221 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
If any of my WP:TPS want to comment on the discussion at Talk:Imposters (TV series), please feel free... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) They're trying to argue the same thing at User talk:Brojam#Template talk:Television episode ratings for Nobodies (TV series). -- AlexTW 01:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting... OK, thanks for the heads up on this, AlexTheWhovian. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Hm...
The Nickelodeon May lineup is Henry Danger and The Adventures of Kid Danger May 5, 12, and 19. I wonder how this lineup will do. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- These two shows seem demographically "mismatched" to me – The Adventures of Kid Danger seems like it would skew much younger than Henry Danger would IMO. So I'm not sure it is a good choice for a lineup, even though at cursory glance it would seem like it would be... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- We'll have to see how the next two Saturdays do, but this past Saturday, they did surprisingly "well," at least in terms of Kid Danger holding its lead-in well. The total viewers in general still aren't the best, considering Henry Danger last year was easily getting 1.6+ million. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Help us design granular blocks!
Hello :-) The Anti-Harassment Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation will start building these granular blocking tools in a few weeks and we've asked WMF designer Alex Hollender to help us make some wireframes so the tools are intuitive to MediaWiki users.
We have a first draft of how we think this tool should work. You can read the full proposed implementation here but here are the significant parts:
- Granular blocks (page, category, namespace, and file uploading) will be built on top of Special:Block. These blocks will function as if they were regular blocks and allow for the same options, but only take effect on specific pages.
- We will add a new checkbox for "Block this user from the whole site" which will be checked by default. When it is unchecked the admin will be able to specify which pages, categories, and/or namespaces the user should be blocked from editing.
- Granular blocks can be combined and/or overlap. (For example, a user could be simultaneously blocked from editing the articles Rain, Thunder, Lightning, and all pages inside the Category:Weather.)
- Only one block is set at a time, to adjust what the user is blocked from the administrator would have to modify the existing block.
- Block logs should display information about the granular block
- When a blocked user attempts to edit an applicable page, they should see a block warning message which include information on their block (reason, expiration, what they are blocked from, etc.)
- If a category is provided, the blocked user cannot edit either the category page itself and all pages within the category.
- If the File: namespace is blocked, the user should not be allowed to upload files.
We like this direction because it builds on top of the existing block system, both a technical and usability wise. Before we get too far along with designs and development we'd like to hear from you about our prosposal:
- What do you think of the proposed implementation?
- We believe this should be an expansion of Special:Block, but it has been suggested that this be a new special page. What are your thoughts?
- Should uploading files be combined with a File namespace block, or as a separate option? (For example, if combined, when a user is blocked from the File namespace, they would neither be able to edit any existing pages in the File namespace nor upload new files.)
- Should there be a maximum number of things to be blocked from? Or should we leave it up to admin discretion?
We appreciate your feedback on this project's talk page or by email. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
My poem is bad but my apology for the bad links is sincere!
Good message links are blue,
My proofreading stinks,
So here's a good link for you SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
.
New Disney Channel series: Coop and Cami Ask the World
User:Amaury/sandbox/Coop and Cami Ask the World. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. Did not even think of checking that. Only checked Deadline Hollywood. Should add that and Variety as bookmarks as well, I guess. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: To forestall any "trouble", I have also created a redirect at Coop and Cami Ask the World. As long as no one else edits that, we can simply overwrite it when your Draft gets moved into Mainspace. However, if somebody else edits it, then we'll need Admin assistance to overwrite the redirect... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Opinion on ratings templates
I left it alone for my recent cleanup and just added the other one, but in your opinion, is the one that goes into more detail with DVR and stuff ({{Television episode ratings}}) really necessary? Isn't the one that just provides an average ({{Television season ratings}}) enough, in your opinion? Knight Squad, et al. The former basically just duplicates all information found in the episode table above. The latter, when in a one-season series, only duplicates the first and last episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- Honestly, I'm not particularly a fan of any of the ratings templates (mostly because I personally don't care about ratings anymore, and haven't in years...). But I find {{Television episode ratings}} more questionable than {{Television season ratings}} – I'm really not sure we need that level of detail when it comes to ratings info in a general encyclopedia. Seems more appropriate for some site that specializes in TV info, and it's pushing the boundaries of WP:INDISCRIMINATE IMHO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- That's how I feel as well. A simple average is more than sufficient. By the way, what's with the message above? Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- Basically, check the edit history at Candice King (who played Caroline Forbes on The Vampire Diaries)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- That's how I feel as well. A simple average is more than sufficient. By the way, what's with the message above? Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: What would you say your thoughts on this are?
Both IJBall and myself feel that {{Television episode ratings}} is just too much detail and duplication—it duplicates all the total viewers ratings seen in the episode table above on whatever page. {{Television season ratings}} is only a simple template that shows you the season averages and only duplicates the season premiere and finale ratings, and that's only if the episode table is in the main article—one-season series. Additionally, the only ratings we see in the episode tables are the total viewers, and the ratings templates should really only be a summary of what's in the episode table above, hence another reason why {{Television episode ratings}} is too much. If there were a columns in the episode table for the general 18–49 demographic and the delayed DVR ratings, then maybe that would be a different story, but they don't. {{Television season ratings}} also has a slot for 18–49, but it can be hidden.
Anyway, enough rambling from me. What are your thoughts? While I'm sure it was created for a reason, is {{Television episode ratings}} too much detail or can you find it useful? Is {{Television season ratings}} more than sufficient? Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Further discussion
I'm actually considering being bold and removing the {{Television episode ratings}} template from The Alienist.
@Lbtocth: Since you've come to us before for our thoughts, what are your thoughts on this? So you don't have to read so much, unless you want to, basically, since the only ratings info we report in the episode tables are the total viewers, that's really the only info we should be summarizing in the Ratings section. It is the opinion of myself and IJBall that there's just no need for the in-depth level of detail that the {{Television episode ratings}} template provides. If we also listed the general demographic ratings in the episode tables, maybe that'd be a different story, but we don't. Therefore, {{Television season ratings}}, which just provides an average, should be more than sufficient. I've actually got sandbox pages for Alex, Inc. and Splitting Up Together here and here, where I'm working on cleaning up the articles. I'm doing that in sandboxes so I don't have to do it all at once; once I'm done, I'll just copy and paste. Anyway, in both of those, I'm only including the {{Television season ratings}} template. So what are your thoughts? Does {{Television episode ratings}} provide too much detail that we don't need? Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: In my opinion, I think it depends on the WP:CON of T.V. series because I seen Template:Television season ratings and Template:Television episode ratings being used on different T.V. series. Although, the more popular one is the Template:Television episode ratings one.— Lbtocthtalk 18:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Brianis19, Scottknight02, and Esuka323: What are your thoughts (personal opinions) about this Template:Television season ratings vs Template:Television episode ratings debate? I am asking because I know you do ratings.— Lbtocthtalk 18:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think the idea is dead in the water and wouldn't gain broad consensus among editors. The standard ratings table used on pages is supported by many. Esuka323 (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Esuka323:: I meant, the Template:Television season ratings vs Template:Television episode ratings debate. Sorry, if I wasn't clear. — Lbtocthtalk 18:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Lbtocth and Esuka323: Just to clarify as well, I wasn't necessarily asking the question to get consensus. (I may start a discussion on that in the appropriate venue in the future, but not now.) I was just genuinely curious on your personal thoughts.
Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Lbtocth and Esuka323: Just to clarify as well, I wasn't necessarily asking the question to get consensus. (I may start a discussion on that in the appropriate venue in the future, but not now.) I was just genuinely curious on your personal thoughts.
- @Esuka323:: I meant, the Template:Television season ratings vs Template:Television episode ratings debate. Sorry, if I wasn't clear. — Lbtocthtalk 18:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think the idea is dead in the water and wouldn't gain broad consensus among editors. The standard ratings table used on pages is supported by many. Esuka323 (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Lbtocth: I think there's some need for the Template:Television episode ratings due to the DVR element, plus the Template:Television season ratings is quite compact. I'd say it depends on if the series has a LoE / individual season pages. ScottKnight02Talk 19:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- More in depth, I think Template:Television episode ratings should be hidden so, it is less clutter on the page itself. See Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series, season 8). Personally, the only columns I think are necessary are the 18-49 rating column and Viewers (millions) column on the Template:Television episode ratings. I do think Template:Television season ratings are not enough if people want to look into the ratings for each episode. — Lbtocthtalk 21:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Scottknight02: Sorry for the late reply, but what exactly do you mean by quite compact? Also, I think
I'd say it depends on if the series has a LoE / individual season pages
is a good statement. More so the LOE aspect, not so much the individual season pages aspect for the reasons I will be stating. I have created a mock-up sandbox page here to make previous and future examples and explanations easier to follow.
- @Scottknight02: Sorry for the late reply, but what exactly do you mean by quite compact? Also, I think
- @Scottknight02 and Lbtocth:
I do think Template:Television season ratings are not enough if people what what to look into the ratings for each episode.
So this is the problem I have, which I have stated before: {{Television episode ratings}} when used in parent articles and individual season articles, which are really the only pages it has ever been used in, creates a lot of repetition. As you can see in my mock-up, it duplicates every episode number, episode title, episode air date, and episode total viewers. Meanwhile, {{Television season ratings}} only duplicates the season premiere and finale ratings and also provides a nice average that the other template does not provide. When there's a separate LOE page for series with two or more seasons, that repetition disappears, especially for {{Television episode ratings}}, since those ratings sections are kept on the parent articles. The problem with {{Television episode ratings}} is that it is also used in individual season articles for series with five or more seasons, which creates the same aforementioned repetition. If we were to keep {{Television episode ratings}} solely on the parent articles like we do with the other template, that would take care of the repetition issue. Lbtoch's comment ofPersonally, the only columns I think are necessary are the 18-49 rating column and Viewers (millions) column on the Template:Television episode ratings
is also a good suggestion. Then the only thing that is repetitive are the total viewers, which is a lot of better than the current setup.
- @Scottknight02 and Lbtocth: