User talk:IJBall/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 25

Rufus 2 (film)

Hey, just wanted to let you know, the creator of the page has converted it back to a page about the movie, from the redirect you put up. You are probably going to need to work this out, though you might want an admin to help out on this one. Xevus11 (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Geraldo Perez on this, as well as Amaury and MPFitz1968 – thoughts? Js833905, whose editing I think several of us have had concerns about before this point, clearly looks like they are trying to circumvent process with this creation of Rufus 2 (film). (I.E. Please also see Rufus 2 and its revision history.) FTR, I was also going to give Js833905 about a month on improving Rufus (film) before also converting that one to a redirect as well if notability was not demonstrated under WP:NFP. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Should defs go back to a redirect. I noticed their edit linking it earlier on Jace Norman and was going to revert until I saw the article actually existed. Although I didn't have time to actually check the article. I had to go and was out all day. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The bigger issue is the attempt to evade proper process here. FTR, this same editor was earlier blocked for socking (the sock was indef'ed, they were blocked for 24 hours, IIRC). So this is part of a pattern. Pinging Geraldo Perez again, as I'd like to hear Geraldo's thoughts on what should be done here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Just for the reference, see also recent reverted edits to The Adventures of Kid Danger and List of Bunk'd episodes as well as List of Henry Danger episodes last week. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks like the move to draft space solves the issue for now. That was a reasonable thing to do. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

List of Raven's Home episodes

I saw this coming the minute AlexTheJerkvian went running to the project pages again. Pinging Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968 as well if they have anything to add to the talk page. The parent article may also require some extra attention. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) WP:CANVAS. Hey, I love the nickname. -- AlexTW 06:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Am I telling them to agree with me? No. So it's not canvassing. Nyuszika explained that to you here: User talk:Amaury/2017#Your recent edits. Clearly it didn't reach your brain. So go fuck yourself. And if you want to cry personal attack and try to have me blocked, good luck with that. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
CANVAS doesn't say anything about "telling them to agree with me", when you know they most likely will. I recommend not quoting policies when you cannot confirm with WP:NPA. -- AlexTW 06:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Funny how you only quote what's relevant for you and will make you look good. And it also states, and even Nyuszika told you this: Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) and Editors known for expertise in the field and yet you ignore that because it would make you look bad. So I don't give a shit what you think when you're not even right. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Ditto. I see no expertise here? Some editors, sure. And yes, participated in previous discussions on the same topic, I do agree with that. Much like that recent discussion, where an editor was against early splits but now seemingly supports them only days later... -- AlexTW 06:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the situation is resolved – while the split may have been too early, it's doesn't violate any major Wikipedia policy by any stretch. Further, there's no point in reversing it now, and consensus is to leave things be. P.S. I would encourage AlexTheWhovian not to put words in my mouth. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll wait for the discussion to continue or conclude fully. And you could have used my new nickname too! Cheers. -- AlexTW 12:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
It has – you want to follow WP:BURO and reverse the split, and four other editors think such a move would be pointless. If that's not "consensus", I dunno what is... My best advice is to let this one go – you're not going to prevail in every discussion on Wikipedia, even in those cases where you are "right". There are more important topics to tackle than this one... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
That's why I'm waiting for opinions from the MOS group and WP:TV group. If no more editors comment, then I'll be happy with how it currently stands. I was indeed pointed to other more important topics, and helped them out first. AlexTheJerkvian, always here to edit. I would, however, like to thank you for going through this in a civil manner without any obscenities or namecalling, despite past encounters, and I aim to do more so myself in the future. -- AlexTW 12:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Descendants 2

No idea what this is, but is it necessary? Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I've seen these before on various pages about albums. Just indicating certifications of an album, usually in terms of sales or shipments. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Certification of at least gold status in at least one country is one criterion for determining notability of an album, per WP:NALBUM #3. The section about the soundtrack is showing that, plus rankings on at least one national record chart, so it's possible to split this part out as a standalone article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968: I'm not very familiar with this area, and IJBall doesn't seem to be around right now. @Geraldo Perez: Do you have any expertise here? Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I don't like it, and don't think it's necessary at an article on a TV film. Also, this editor seems to be another of the serial WP:ACCESS violators, and is adding extraneous 'Discography' sections to certain WP:BLPs (and I think has done the same before), so I find multiple problems here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Sabrina Carpenter

Man. what do you dislike in my edition? Everything was alright. No mistakes, and for no reason you remove what I did. What regrets your ass hugs or do you want to fuck? (Norbson12 (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC))

Incorrect – your edit's use of 'rowspan' violated WP:ACCESSIBILITY, and disadvantages our readership who use text-to-speech readers. In addition, these weird 'gray-background' templates that get used in some discography tables are completely unnecessary. Just because something is done at "other articles" does not make the practice correct (as per WP:OSE). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Bunk'd and Bizaardvark

Just an FYI. According to my friends in the Twitter DM, the third season of Bunk'd will have 16 episodes and the third season of Bizaardvark will have 21 episodes. Too bad for Bunk'd. It could have stayed consistent, too, with another 21 for S3. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I almost forgot. You're a jerk! WP:TVLEAD says nothing about not having laundry lists, which doesn't bother me, and I don't know why it bothers you. It even supports inclusion of all main cast. So once again, you're a jerk. I should just revert you, and then we'll get into an edit war, etc., etc. On a more a serious note, maybe I'm not reading it right, but this wording doesn't make sense to me: The series is a spinoff of Jessie, and stars Peyton List, Karan Brar, and Skai Jackson from the latter series, and Miranda May. Emphasis mine. It would just sound better without that: ... Brar, Skai Jackson, and Miranda May. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

What WP:TVLEAD does say (repeatedly) is that the lede should "summarize". Imagine a TV series with 30 different main-cast actors over the course of its run – would you list all 30 in the lede? Of course not. IOW, even the main cast should be "summarized" in the lede. At Bunk'd, there are now well over a half a dozen main-cast actors, and that's just too many to list in the lede, so it's best to focus on just those that are present throughout the entire TV series' run... On Bunk'd what I tried to do there was get across that 3 of those 4 are from the progenitor series, Jessie. You could reword that as The series is a spinoff of Jessie, and stars Peyton List, Karan Brar, and Skai Jackson from Jessie, and Miranda May. but I didn't like that because it has Jessie twice in the same sentence. But if you think this one reads better, feel free to change it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
K.C. Undercover has a much smaller and more normal amount of main cast, and you even changed it there. So you're still a jerk in my book. Anyway, I tried that with an additional change. That way Jessie isn't in the same sentence twice. I'll hold off on updating the episode list lead, which you forgot to get—another reason you're a jerk! —until I hear your feedback. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that revised version of the lede is fine. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, yeah – I changed that at K.C. Undercover because that's a show with a "lead"/titular character. As I said at the time, that appears to be how titular/lead-character TV series ledes are generally handled... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Even if there are only, say, four main cast members? Interesting. By the way, a friend in our Twitter DM last night mentioned Raven's Home S2 has 28 episodes! More than makes up for the short S1. After two seasons, there are usually about 40 episodes, so with Raven's Home, after two seasons, there will be 41 episodes. And I think Andi Mack S2 has either 24 or 26 episodes—I can't remember—leaving us with 37 or 39 after two seasons, not too far away from 40~. Also, Imagine a TV series with 30 different main-cast actors over the course of its run – would you list all 30 in the lede? Well, no, that'd be silly, but 10? Not that many, honestly. Once it starts getting to Backstage level, then yeah. But meh. . Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
"10" would still be too many if "listed" in a single sentence – even about 6 is too many listed that way: it reads horribly. On K.C. Undercover, it might be OK to list the rest of the cast, but it should be done in a separate sentence in the lede – as Geraldo, I believe, pointed out, that show was conceived as a "starring vehicle" for Zendaya, so it's her baby, and the emphasis should be on her. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Hm. Reads fine to me, but maybe I'm just delusional. Could do something like, The series also formerly starred Kevin Quinn..." but I dunno. Also: The series stars Zendaya as a teenager named K.C. who becomes a spy. Alongside her, the series also stars Veronica Dunne, Kamil McFadden, Trinitee Stokes, Tammy Townsend, and Kadeem Hardison. ? Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with the current lede for Bunk'd. On K.C., feel free to make that change, though I may "tweak" in later. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done on K.C. Undercover. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if you've been watching Disney Channel lately, but there is a promo or teaser—whatever you want to call it—for Bizaardvark. The clips are clearly from the third season, but there's no date or any mention of "new." At the end, there's just the usual "Watch Bizaardvark on Disney Channel." No "coming soon" or "in X weeks" or anything like that. It may just be a general "watch X series on Y channel" commercial, and it just happens to be using clips from the third season. It ends with Paige saying "the summer of us," so it seems there are summer-themed episodes in the third season. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Apparently it returns on Tuesday, July 24, airing Tuesdays and Thursdays at 10:30 AM, taking over Stuck in the Middle's slot after it airs its finale on July 23. This was confirmed by Olivia Rodrigo at the RDMAs. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Dang! – SitM will be gone that soon?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, yes, because of the scheduling all summer long. Nothing's been officially confirmed, and while we can't actually insert this into the article since it's still hypothesizing, it's simple by looking at the episode count. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Now confirmed by Zap2it. See the LOE. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Promos for Stuck in the Middle's July 23 episode and Bizaardvark have begun. Bizaardvark is being advertised as the season premiere. Still have no idea why there was never an announcement on Deadline Hollywood et al. about the renewal, but we're getting another season. I'm not complaining. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Same problem as Bunk'd – they've added a bunch of too-young new castmembers that I'm not interested in... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, I think it was a bigger "problem" on Bunk'd because it was from a creative change. Bizaardvark is basically just filling in the slot for one big Jake Paul with two little actors. Har. Speaking of season premieres, though, are you excited for September? Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding some shows you cleared

Hey, I noticed you cleared some shows with the reason that they survived RM discussions. I'm not quite sure that is the correct way to handle this. I checked the the discussion at Talk:The Edge (Fox TV series) - the first had 3 and the 2nd had 5 people (with a majority in favor of that second move, though the admin thought otherwise). Those numbers can easily change one way or another.

I think we should either add a sub category to the current one with something like "Television articles with disputed incorrect naming style" or one that says they have an "exempt" (though even for one like Aladdin, I think its still a disputed one, rather then an exempt), this way they will still won't get lost unnoticed, and might change something - either guideline or the articles. (as a side note, I personally can see merit in network names, however, I don't see one for specific pages not to follow guideline. One could say that "Aladdin (Disney TV show)" could also be better to a reader or "The Office (US Adaptation)" could also be better than The Office (2005 TV series), or even "Friends (sitcom)", but then why go with any guideline and not just let people do what they want?). Thoughts? --Gonnym (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Even the TV special issue was down to 5v5, so those issues are far from a consensus vote (and if TV special is kept, it should just be added to the guideline. There is no valid reason to use a convention, argue to keep it, but hide it from the guideline). --Gonnym (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
On the "TV special" (and "TV pilot") front, the point that was made there was that not every iteration needs to be in the naming guideline – the use of these two as disambiguators is rare, so I'm personally of the opinion that they don't need to be in the guideline. (There's also been resistance to adding them to NCTV.) But both of those have come up multiple times at RMs over the years, and have ultimately survived every time, so I don't think they're going anywhere... On the "Television articles with disputed naming style" cat. (and I'd call it this, not "Television articles with disputed incorrect naming style", as this title is "prejudicial"), that's up to you – I wouldn't object to (or support, either) doing that. And, you'll notice, I actually left your cat at The Edge (Fox TV series) – because I feel strongly that that one is still misnamed. (The others I removed it from had some good reasoning offered at previous RMs, even if I didn't agree with it, so I don't feel it's worthwhile to leave the cat on those articles...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Your suggested name does indeed sound better. I think that I might add that, if only to be able to gather data better. I don't believe in the school of thought of not adding stuff to a guideline as its rare, but then going over and arguing it over and over again in every other page. If it really was rare, it wouldn't have come up over and over again. Also, placing 1 line saying that TV special is OK if consensus on that page agrees, would make it much easier in any discussion (if that was the consensus). --Gonnym (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Bizaardvark – Ethan Wacker/Bernie

User talk:IJBall/Archive 18#Bizaardvark update

Remember when I mentioned this? On a site note, poor Ethan broke his leg as seen in that video. :( I wonder how he did that. As that was back in May and we don't how long he was already in that cast, though, it's probably healed by now, or, at the very least, he's out of the cast. Makes me curious how, if at all, it affected his filming. I doubt he'd just be forever absent, so the only logical conclusion I can think of is that they incorporated his broken leg into the series. Apparently I'm psychic, because the "Trivia" section of the season three Wikia page has this: Ethan Wacker's real life ankle injury was written into the storyline. Although it was his ankle, not his leg as I originally thought. That brings me to the following point: Out of curiosity, do you know of any other times an actor has been non-majorly injured—a broken leg, foot, etc.—and the writers incorporated that into their character's storyline on X series? With Ethan, I wonder if the explanation they'll give for Bernie will be what actually happened to Ethan himself. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: How about Jodie Sweetin in Fuller House? She had a real-life ankle injury I believe while they were filming part of season three, and the writers incorporated her injury into her character Stephanie, where she had crutches for a few episodes. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I want to say that when Kaley Cuoco broke her leg in real life, it was at least partially incorporated into The Big Bang Theory's storylines for that season, but I can't remember (I know they also filmed her standing behind counters a lot to hide the injury...). A more extreme example – Ryan Phillippe's real-life leg injury cut short the second season of Shooter (TV series) by two episodes, and they ended up having to resolve the season #2 storylines in the the season #3 premiere! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Is that why season three has 13 episodes? To make up for those cut in season two? Also, speaking of Bizaardvark, have you seen the dramatic Bizaardvark promo yet? Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Possibly, though it's hard to tell. And, no, I haven't seen that promo yet... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
It's of course saying Tuesday now instead of "this July," but here you go. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
And this was the general teaser they were using before the S3 premiere came within two weeks of premiering, I want to say? Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Joey Bragg

Thoughts? Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent. For an article that short, I don't think it needs to be included. But I'm also not really willing to revert over it... I guess someone could revert, and simultaneously start a Talk page discussion on it (e.g. is the source strong enough? etc.). It's just not going to be me pulling the trigger... [shrug] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Condensing infobox items

So I have this sandbox page that isn't a draft and is a page just for my own personal use: User:Amaury/sandbox/Young Sheldon. I moved all of the writers and directors to the infobox to make the table look neater. I want to now condense that so the infobox itself looks neater. I don't remember which article, but I saw an infobox last week, I think, where there were a lot of people for one of the parameters, but about only five were actually showing and then there was a see more link. Do you know how to add that? Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

My guess is use of {{Plainlist}}, with the last item being something like * [[User:Amaury/sandbox/Young Sheldon#Cast|See more]]... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Hm. Thinking about it more, I think it was actually a dropdown menu. Clicking "Show More" would open it and clicking it again would close it. Like the spoiler BB code on forums. I just wish I remembered the article as I could then just see what it has. lol Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
If that's the case, I'm thinking it must be a template... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe the {{Collapse}} template? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The one I saw just had a simple "show," but I think we're getting somewhere. See the sandbox again. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
{{Show}}?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
That seems to be it. Not sure if I coded it right, but it works, so yay! See sandbox again. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon‎

May want to keep an eye there. I don't know when, but I just realized earlier today that NRDD had been incorrectly listed under former for quite a while. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with people? I just realized I oversaw other series that had been wrongly moved, incuding Game Shakers, Hunter Street, et al. People are dumb. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hello IJBall, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules
  • New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
  • Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
  • Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
Editathons
  • Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
The Signpost
  • The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Cycle seasons

Hey, how do you think I should go about with the moves of the "cycle" seasons? Should I list them all in one request or do it per series? Currently I'm at the letter C and at around 60 articles. --Gonnym (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I'd do it "by series", first – start by doing a "mass" WP:RM request for all of the U.S. ANTM articles, and see how that goes. If that one passes, then I think you might be able to do a second "mass" request (or multiple "mass" requests) for the rest of them... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't a valid response from those not wanting to change is "why not nominate them all"? --Gonnym (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd use SMcCandlish's comment in response to that kind of thing – the fact that some are misnamed doesn't justify not correcting the ones that are nominated in a WP:RM. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, will give it a go. Hope this doesn't get too messy. --Gonnym (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with IJBall. "Super-mass" RM tend to fail; what happens is someone finds a reason to object to a single entry, and opposes the whole thing. I've had to learn this the hard way. It's much more practical to take them a chunk at a time, and specifically mention that their being done in group, i.e. the existence of some other "cycle" article isn't a rationale to oppose, because it's the next one that's going to get RMed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Done - Talk:America's Next Top Model (cycle 1) --Gonnym (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
For all your work improving the pages about NZ television programs! Ollieinc (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

List of The Loud House episodes

You wanna help me? lol Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the IP a Level 4 warning – they do it again, and you can take them to WP:AIV IMO... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Renewal info in lead of current series

Don't necessarily have any qualms about this practice in general, but should it only be restricted to the latest season renewal, as was done at Henry Danger, to prevent the list from growing too long? Like at Tangled: The Series, should only the third season renewal be mentioned? Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes – note: in my opinion – only the latest season renewal info should be in the lede. Details beyond that (e.g. previous season renewals), belong in the 'Production' section (or the 'Broadcast' section, when applicable). However, this does seem to be the evolving WP:TV "standard" on the question, from what I can tell... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
You should consider making it a project to add renewal info to leads of current series like the section ordering you did back in May, at least for the ones in my sandbox since those are our commons ones—most of them. Although for series like Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn and Game Shakers, since they'll be ending soon, especially the former, probably shouldn't bother with that there. You may have noticed I recently went through and did a lot of my references maintenance project per my main sandbox page. The only ones I haven't done are of pages I still need to thoroughly go through and clean up since the first time I cleaned them up, I wasn't as experienced and doing as much as I do now. So I'll just wait to do that when I clean them up. Other than that, the only other remaining project I have that isn't ongoing is Plot -> Premise where appropriate. Just a matter of figuring out the ones that aren't so clear-cut. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Reviving this discussion – Every Witch Way is definitely an example of what I'm talking about – pretty much all of that "renewal", etc. info that's currently in the lede should be under 'Production' and/or 'Broadcast'... To get back to your earlier suggestion, I went through a portion of {{Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons}} last night, mostly looking for bad MOS:BOLD use in 'Cast' sections as per WP:TVCAST, but I can probably also look through some of these for this kind of thing as well... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

OVA / Anima / Manga

What are the naming conventions regarding these? I've never even heard of OVAs before. --Gonnym (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Dunno – honestly, I've mostly stayed away from them... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Do you know if they're under TV? I'd like to know where to look for info on this. --Gonnym (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Tracking category name

I'd like to create a tracking category for articles with a non-standard disambiguation that use genre or media(?) such as animated TV series, live-action tv series, etc. Any idea on a suitable name? --Gonnym (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Not sure... But there's a secondary issue here – "animated TV series" is likely not "incorrect", and it's arguably not "non-standard" either. This is one of those changes that Netoholic made to NCTV without much discussion – I think Netoholic thinks "animated" is a "genre", but it's not: it's arguably a format (a la "miniseries"). In any case, there are definitely some cases where using "animated TV series" is likely "correct": e.g. Mr. Bean and Mr. Bean (animated TV series) – i.e. those cases where the animated series is actually a straight "animated" version of the original series. (Note that I'm wondering if something like The Lone Ranger (animated TV series) may also be another valid example of this...). Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not comfortable putting the "animated TV series" examples into Category:Television articles with incorrect naming style... Now, whether that justifies putting them into a "new" maintenance category or not, I don't know... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Well they wouldn't be in that category. I was thinking the category tree would be this
  1. Category:WikiProject Television articles
    1. Category: Television articles using <name I can't think of>
      1. If needed this can be even be divided by types but I don't think that there are that many pages that it would need that
Inside I'd like to add articles that use disambiguation that is non-stranded, which I mean those that fall under an appropriate genre or format word ("animated TV series" or "anime", "telenovela", "soap opera", "sitcom", etc.) can then be considered for use via a page move request - If it needs to be discussed via a page move request, then it's not a standard disambiguation usage. --Gonnym (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Category: Television articles using genre or format disambiguation - how does this sound?
Well, that's my point – the change you are quoting was made by Netoholic, who threw "animated" in there, when the discussion didn't include that – the discussion(s) had actually been about using things like "telenovela", "sitcom", or "anime" (which is a "genre", but it's a genre under "animated", which is arguably a format) as disambiguators. My point is that whether the use of "animated TV series" is valid or not probably requires further discussion in NCTV – on my end, I consider "animated" a "format", and if we're going to stick with "talk show", "game show" and "miniseries" as OK, then to my mind "animated TV series" should be valid as format disambiguator as well... As to your question, I'd narrow the category to Category:Television articles using genre disambiguation – but, again, the issue is that most of these (e.g. those using "sitcom") actually belong in Category:Television articles with incorrect naming style (as well) anyway, so I'm not sure the extra category is actually necessary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
OH! Now I see what you mean. I thought his change was just the order and changing to "animated" from "animated TV series" that you fixed. I didn't realize that "animated TV series" used to on par with talk show and the others. If that's the case I'll hold on changing anything as currently, the only articles that would go in that category are of the animated type as the others haven't survived the cleaning process. --Gonnym (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Is there a Category:Television articles using insufficient disambiguation (or something similar) category? If not, I suggest creating one! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of what should be in there? --Gonnym (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Yep – Foreign Exchange (TV series) and Time of Your Life (TV series), for starters... I can use something like this to track articles that either need to be boldly moved, or which possibly need to go through WP:RMs (e.g. my second example). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Now I understand. Will create one now. I do have Category:Television news program articles using incorrect naming style which Foreign Exchange (TV series) is already tagged in. I didn't think about situations for the other one as those I couldn't easily spot when moving fast between pages. --Gonnym (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Peyton List (actress, born 1998)

The portrait of her has changed back to one that I recall your having objections to with at least a couple of reverts over the last couple of months. (An IP restored the image, though I remember one of your comments was directed at User:Bigs7.) I felt tempted to revert, but wasn't sure of a reason, other than saying "at least one editor has objected to use of this photo - restoring previous", which no doubt would have to have some explanation on a talk page. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks – I've reverted the IP. If someone wants to try to change the image, they'll need to hold a Talk page discussion on it, and I know which way I'm voting... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Power Play (TV series)

I noticed that you have been moving around "Power Play (TV series)". Could you please correct the links in Template:Hamilton, Ontario and Template:UPN. In both templates Power Play is now pointing to a disambiguation page and I have no clue what the correct links are after the renamings. The Banner talk 10:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

 Already done by R'n'B. Incidentally, I tried to find a source to verify that Power Play (1998 TV series) was filmed in Hamilton, Ontario, but couldn't find anything. Hopefully others will have better luck... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

List of The Thundermans episodes and List of Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn episodes

Now's probably a good time to go over those to see who needs to be added—or removed—as recurring to List of The Thundermans characters#Recurring and Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn#Cast and characters, especially the latter as there's literally no Recurring section. Season one doesn't have any listed, but TeenNick is airing reruns of NRDD and I can check them there and then add them. The ones for seasons 2–4 should be enough, however. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Handy Manny episodes

I would appreciate your looking at recent edits on the article. Continued issues with an IP and WP:ENGVAR. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I can help out as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
^ Geraldo Perez. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
They do it again, I'm reporting to WP:AIV. While some of their edits are not WP:VAND, other edits are questionable bordering on that, and this WP:ENGVAR business at this article is basically vandalism at this point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
IJBall, Geraldo Perez, time for AIV. I'm not familiar with range reports and how ranges work in general, so will leave the report to either one of you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: He uses two IPs at least for normal editing it appears and is likely doing this just to be deliberately disruptive for his personal entertainment. I requested a page protect (protected for 1 week) and tagged IPs used for multi-IP vandalism. See what happens. With a final warning on both IPs can report to AIV if continues. I can't edit article in question per 3RR and article is not on my watchlist for now as I don't want to be tempted. If one IP gets blocked and continues on the other that can be blocked for block evasion. Range block is unlikely to be supported as range is Special:Contributions/69.115.40.0/22 and only 2 IPs look to be used now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Geraldo Perez: Fair enough. Also, shouldn't you be fine under WP:3RRNO #4? Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: I don't like to depend on that for stuff that might be considered an edit dispute by an unaware observer. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I Didn't Do It

This should be "Notable guest stars," but on the guest stars themselves, do those seem notable? Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • @Amaury: Revert/kill the whole section – entirely non-notable appearances, unsourced, episodes of appearances aren't listed, extraneous and unnecessary, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Big Brother issues

Hey, Alucard 16 and I are discussing some issues with various Big Brother names and general notability for companion shows and would appreciate it if you can join in. The discussion is over at User talk:Gonnym/sandboxBigBrother. --Gonnym (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Singapore

Just in case you missed it List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations has both versions as viable. --Gonnym (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Maybe. But is there any point in having two at "Singapore" and the rest at "Singaporean"?! Per WP:CONSISTENCY, best to put them all at "Singaporean"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Nope, no point at all (but I haven't checked what the current consistency status is regarding actual usage between the two). This was more in regarding to your comment in the RM about how its not an adjective. --Gonnym (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

All About the Washingtons

Hi IJBall, Geraldo Perez, and Amaury, Care to explain more on cast list about how cast list should be credit? It seemed that editor added the middle name of a character just because the character's name was mentioned on an episode? I am going to start a discussion on the page. — Lbtocthtalk 21:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lbtocth: Names should be per credits, or sources if actor names are shown in the credits, but not the character names, which is almost always the case for main characters. See WP:TVCAST. Credits typically supersede what sources have. If a source has John Smith as Apple Seed, but the credits just have John Smith as Apple, go with the credits, typically. If that middle name isn't in the credits or sources, it shouldn't be included as part of the name, though it can be added as part of the character's description. If neither of those is viable, use the WP:COMMONNAME. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: The character's middle name was not in credits, it was only mentioned in dialogues in one episode. — Lbtocthtalk 22:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 Commented: At Talk:All About the Washingtons#Cast list. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting Bunk'd cast

User talk:IJBall/Archive 19#Bunk'd and Bizaardvark

With regard to: "10" would still be too many if "listed" in a single sentence. Emphasis mine.

I just thought of a compromise that would work for Bunk'd's lead, similar to what was done on K.C. Undercover, though there it wasn't a laundry list issue, but rather that the series was a starting vehicle for Zendaya.

The series stars Peyton List, Karan Brar, Skai Jackson, and Miranda May. Starring alongside them are Kevin Quinn, Nathan Arenas, Nina Lu, Mallory James Mahoney, Raphael Alejandro, and Will Buie Jr.

Those are two separate sentences, with the cast appearing in all seasons part of the same sentence, and gets rid of the laundry list you ate. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I still don't like it. Ledes are summaries of the article's main content. The fact is, everyone listed in that second sentence was not a cast member through all 3 seasons. Especially the last 3 who have appeared on all of one season.
There's an additional problem with the ledes to many of the various Nick and Disney TV shows – they spend far too much time/prose on cast, and not nearly enough of summarizing the shows' premises. A good number of these articles have none of that. Bunk'd is one, in fact... The focus on the ledes at these articles should be less on listing everyone who's ever been a cast member on this show, and more on what these shows are actually about... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The thing is, WP:TVLEAD does support the inclusion of all main cast members. It doesn't say that those cast members must appear in all seasons or that there can only be X main cast members, etc., it just supports the inclusion of main cast members. It states: Subsequent paragraph(s) should summarize the major points of the rest of the article: basic production information (e.g. where the show is filmed), principal cast of the show, critical reception, influences, place in popular culture, major awards, and anything else that made the show unique. Emphasis mine.
Summarize the major points means at it says: summarize the major points, not to summarize the content of the major points themselves. If we have something like this in the body:
  • Point 1
  • Point 2 (major)
  • Point 3 (major)
  • Point 4
  • Point 5
Summarizing the major points in the lead would mean only including points 2 and 3 in the lead. But the content of points 2 and 3 themselves shouldn't be summarized.
I do agree that if we have 30 main cast members, as mentioned earlier in that example, they shouldn't all be listed, and I even agree that for series like Backstage, where the cast is more of an ensemble rather than just a plain cast, not all cast should be listed, but for your run-of-the-mill comedy/drama series, I see no problem, whether all in one sentence or not. Also: The fact is, everyone listed in that second sentence was not a cast member through all 3 seasons. Especially the last 3 who have appeared on all of one season. If we go by that, that would mean Wilson Radjou-Pujalte and Kate Bensdorp shouldn't be in the lead since they didn't appear in Hunter Street's first season. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Ended series wording

I'm starting to consider it myself and will make it a mini-project. What do you like better? My version:

1. [Series] is an American [genre] television series that aired on [network], premiering on January 1, 2017, and ending on January 1, 2018.

Or what's been done at GMW and KCUC:

2. [Series] is an American [genre] television series that aired on [network] from January 1, 2017 to January 1, 2018.

The comma not being there after the year is something I'm not letting bother me anymore, especially after Geraldo explained to me in that one discussion how in that instance with the "to," without the comma is also correct. My comment now is actually the use of "to." Let's use Zoey 101. It first aired on January 9, 2005, and last aired on May 2, 2008. If we say it aired from January 9, 2005 to May 2, 2008, aren't we excluding May 2, if that makes sense? Like a book. If your instructor tells you to read pages 1 to 15, that means you should read through page 14, but not 15. Stop at 15. In this case, it's like we're saying Zoey 101 aired through May 1, but not May 2, which is wrong. We could say it aired through May 2 or aired to May 3, but I don't think the former is professional and the latter would cause confusion. As such, I'm probably making this too complicate and arguing over a technicality, huh? And in the case of TV series, people should know that "to May 2" includes May 2 in this context, right? And according to this, I guess it can be interchangeable in the US.

So to make a long story short, I guess ignore my stupidity above. What do you prefer? One or two? Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Whenever I do this myself at other articles, I nearly always do Option #2. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I think I'll do that, too, then, as I'm probably causing more confusion as many IPs have been making edits like this on recently ended series: [Series] is an American [genre] television series that aired on [network], premiered on January 1, 2017, and ended on January 1, 2018. They either think it's a list or that I've made a tense error and they're matching the premiere and end tenses to that of "aired" when "aired" isn't part of the same "thought". Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Another couple of questions:
  1. On series like Knight Squad, where we note both the sneak peek (February 19) and official premiere (February 24), once those series end, would we just get rid of the official premiere date and just have: Knight Squad is an American comedy television series created by Sean Cunningham and Marc Dworkin that aired on Nickelodeon from February 19, 2018 to December 31, 2025.?
  2. If a series starts and ends on the same year (Champions, Alex, Inc.), should we have ...that aired on NBC from March 8, 2018 to May 25, 2018 or ...that aired on NBC from March 8 to May 25, 2018?
Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  1. No, as per The Bold Type and Falling Water (TV series), etc. – I feel strongly that these "special series premiere sneak peaks" need to be noted, even in the lede. (Mostly to avoid confusion, esp. from IPs, on the question...)
  2. It looks like it's generally done as ...that aired on NBC from March 8 to May 25, 2018, but I don't have strong feelings on the issue, and feel like it can be done either way. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
So for Knight Squad, whenever it ends, it would be something like this? Knight Squad is an American comedy television series created by Sean Cunningham and Marc Dworkin that first aired on Nickelodeon as a sneak peek on February 19, 2018, before its official premiere on February 24, 2018. The series aired from February 19, 2018 to March 1, 2025? Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd do it like this: Knight Squad is an American comedy television series created by Sean Cunningham and Marc Dworkin. It first aired on Nickelodeon as a sneak peek on February 19, 2018, before its official premiere on February 24, 2018. The series aired its final episode on March 1, 2025. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
In cases like #1, you can also choose to drop the exact dates and write "X aired from February 20XX to January 20YY". It avoids the question in the lead in deference to some exposition in the body of the article. --Izno (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I find this solution to be sub-optimal for several reasons, chief among them that an IP will eventually come along and fill in exact dates anyway. With these "special sneak peak/previews", it's best to just cover the details in the lede too. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Seriously, IJBall!? Why do you like mountains so much? Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Phrase usage comparisons

How do you check which phrase has more usage? I remember seeing you link comparisons. --Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I just do it "dumb" – I search, like, "Argentina TV series" or "Argentine TV series", and see what pops up. I'm sure there's a better way to do this to actually get numerical data – the place to ask would probably be WP:VPT... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Technical issues with parameters

Have you been having issues with episode parameters? It can be any parameters. Production code, viewers, summary, you name it. If you look and scroll down here, you can see that no summaries show for 11–12, despite them being there in the source. The "fix" is to copy and paste them from a working parameter. As seen is this version, now 11–12 are showing. But I'm literally not tweaking anything there the first go-around, only what's after the equals sign. This has been going for a while now with me. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

To add, if it happens with parameters like production code and viewers, the table will actually become messed up. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Never seen this before. May be a problem with the template (code) itself. If it keeps up, you'll need to go to the template Talk page about it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Reporting

Hello, what would be my best thing to do involving an IP that is constantly vandalizing pages (page 1 and page 2) and will not stop? I'm not sure where I should report the IP and how to make sure they stop, because they won't stop. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: If it's clear Vandalism – i.e. bad-faith editing – (or Disruptive editing), you report to WP:AIV. If it's just "bad edits", as opposed to bad-faith editing, then you're stuck reporting to WP:ANI. Hope this helps. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Prime Time

Would it be better to retarget Prime Time → Prime time (disambiguation)? Technically prime time has a small T, and there are several things actually called "Prime Time". No articles link there now, but it's only a matter of time before they reappear. Certes (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: Debatable, and I wouldn't revert that. But, I think in this case Prime time is the more logical target, as television "Prime Time" is sometimes capitalized (at least in the U.S.). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Prime Time (Canadian TV program), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Current affairs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed. Amaury (talk | contribs) 09:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ardhangini

There should be no links to disambiguation pages, so now that you made Ardhangini a dab page, would you please follow up and fix all the incoming links? (DisamAssist, Dabfix and Dabsolver are helpful.) Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

May not happen tonight, but I can get to it in the next 24 hours. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 Done! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! — Gorthian (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

reverted amendment on Light Rails in North America page

Hello IJBall, may I ask why my amendment regarding Seattle Light Rail was reverted? I do not understand the remark regarding the situation in Buffalo and in my view, it is obvious that the Seattle system does have underground sections. Thanks in advance for your answer. Best, SchedukiamSchedukiam (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Schedukiam: It means we don't note this kind of thing at that list. Seattle is by no means unique in having a "subway" section to its light rail. But we don't note that at that list – it's too much detail for a simple "overview" list. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@IJBall: Well, I am surprised, as this information was already given (and is still visible) at the Philly, Newark and SF entries. That's why I amended at the Seattle and Hudson-Bergen Line entries. In that case, it would be consequent if you would edit these entries, too. Schedukiam (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Schedukiam: Yes – someone snuck that in there and I didn't catch it: I've removed those ones too. It may be appropriate to mention this kind of thing in the article's prose – i.e. a sentence somewhere on those light rail systems with underground portions. But the overview table is supposed to be a very general overview/summary, by design. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Zap2it affiliate

As I'm sure you know, Zap2it used to be laid out differently. Apparently it's still around as an affiliate—whatever that means. I Am Frankie, for example: http://affiliate.zap2it.com/tv/i-am-frankie/episode-guide/EP02762342?aid=jac

I don't know if it's actually ran by Zap2it—probably—but it seems to get things out a little earlier, like in the I Am Frankie example above. Those two October episodes aren't on the "actual" Zap2it site. Similarly, Raven's Home has September air dates for Sleevemore parts 1 and 2 here, while the "actual" site still has July 20 and 24. Et cetera, et cetera.

It can be a little confusing sometimes, though, as clicking some links will just redirect you right to the "actual" site with the updated layout. I think it's probably best just to stick with what we have now, the "actual" site. It's why I reverted on the Shimmer and Shine episode list the other day. The "actual" site as well as The Futon Critic will eventually update with what is listed on the affiliate Zap2it. Another example is here with Knight Squad, where a November episode is listed that's not found on the "actual" Zap2it site. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Japanese episodes list template importance.

Japanese shows include kanji and romaji in the episode titles aside from the English titles which is why the template is different in the first place. Your efforts in supporting the deletion of the template has caused the episodes list in a lot of articles became unreadable right now.

Some anime episodes also should be watched in release order OR chronological order which is why the sortable function in Japanese episodes list is important. Tsukishimastarrk (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't support deletion – I supported merging. That's an important difference. (Link to: TfD discussion). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

180.191.115.175

Just a heads up that that's the same range that has been especially persistent at Andi Mack with their bias and unsourced BS—see history—which, as of August 4, is now semi-protected for a year thanks to Ad Orientem. They also showed up at Raven's Home here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah – if they had hit the Bug Juice article before today, I was going to report them... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

What to look forward to in September for Nickelodeon...

I Am Frankie of which you of course already knew about: [1]. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IJBall/Archive_19&oldid=858720780"