User talk:IJBall/Archive 30
 | 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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
You've got mail!
Message added 17:04, 10 October 2019 (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.
On Gmail. Amaury • 17:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- E-mail is problem for me right now, with my main laptop out. Plan on posting to my Talk page until I get it back... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think it was on your talk page we discussed not using the below for the Nickelodeon templates, and I think it was GP who said it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Nickelodeon_original_series&diff=next&oldid=919928093 Regardless, do you want the initial revert or...? Add: It was on Template talk:Nickelodeon original series itself. Amaury • 17:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Do you not have a regular ol' desktop? Amaury • 20:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Nope – haven't had a desktop computer in a long time. A laptop is all I need... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- What is your laptop status? Are you up and fully running again yet? Amaury • 14:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- Friday, at the earliest...
--IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- Well, it's better than a month from now.
PS: Do you want to comment on that discussion I invited you to on GP's talk page? I'm sure you would have by now if you wanted to, but because of your current status, it might be possible for to miss some things, so just checking. Amaury • 14:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- Are you frolicking in the flowers now? Amaury • 23:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- Repair people didn't even call today – looks like it'll be next week now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- Repair people ended up getting back to me late Friday – I should have my primary laptop back Monday afternoon. Definitely will be nice to have that back, as it has all of my recent docs, and I can't do the things on my old laptop that I can do on my primary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- Are you frolicking in the flowers now? Amaury • 23:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- Well, it's better than a month from now.
- Friday, at the earliest...
- What is your laptop status? Are you up and fully running again yet? Amaury • 14:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Laptop is back from the shop! I should have unfettered access to my Email again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Acquisitions on original series templates
Hi IJBall, thanks for responding to my talk page post about Power Rangers from a few weeks ago. Since it had been almost a month since the discussion and the pinged user didn't provide any source to indicate any production involvement from Nick, I removed the PR shows from the Nick templates. It was my understanding that under the policy WP:BURDEN, editors who restore content must provide a source/reason for that restoration, but the editor added them back. Instead of a reason for these titles to be on the templates, their edit summary told me I failed to achieve consensus, even though I did wait out a discussion for them to provide sourcing. I really respect this user's many edits but from my learning, I thought I was justified in removing the content from the templates as they do not fit the templates' scopes. Did I do anything wrong or can you help guide me as to what to do next? SBSPfan (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- You probably need one or two more editors who are knowledgeable about Power Rangers to comment. On my end, I don't watch, and so don't know enough about it to really add anything. But if you can get one or two more editors who are knowledgeable about the show (and its production) to comment, esp. if it can be backed up by a WP:RS, and I think you will 'synch' justify removing it from the templates. I would post a notice about the discussion to any relevant Power Rangers articles Talk pages to see if you can get anyone else to comment (make sure the notice to the Talk pages "neutral" though, to avoid WP:CANVASing charges). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll accept your...
... caveat about the 'recurring' actors but ".... not an actor who (not 'whom') played many different roles). Cheers! Shir-El too 06:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Draftspace; no redirect. Please and thank you. Amaury • 20:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Give me until tomorrow morning – now that I have my laptop back, I need to catch up on paying bills, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury:
Done – but I've had to move it to Draft:Sulphur Springs (TV series), as Sulphur Springs is a WP:DABPAGE, and the eventual article will need to be at Sulphur Springs (TV series)... P.S. I've also sent you Email. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Feel free to copy-edit that last sentence. I may have misread it, because Nickandmore! stated that it was simply originally for Disney+ and then became for Disney Channel. Email received. Add: Doesn't it qualify for no disambiguation per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Amaury • 18:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- No, that is correct – I read both of the Deadline sources, and they both say that: originally for Disney Channel, then stolen away by Disney+, then abandoned by them which sent it back to Disney Channel who then formally greenlit it... And, definitely no, as there are mutliple towns with that name – the DAB should stay at the base title, while the TV series should be disambiguated by "(TV series)"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Feel free to copy-edit that last sentence. I may have misread it, because Nickandmore! stated that it was simply originally for Disney+ and then became for Disney Channel. Email received. Add: Doesn't it qualify for no disambiguation per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Amaury • 18:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury:
Dates at Maggie & Bianca: Fashion Friends
Sorry about that. I just thought to copy a date template from another Italy show Winx Club, and use that format because it is European. I read the policy on dates and thought national ties meant a show's country, but I guess I was wrong. Was the rest okay? I did read the TV articles policy before editing. Donimb (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Donimb: Adding the two sources for the first two seasons' premiere dates was fine. But you also removed an entire paragraph of sourced content, and you shouldn't have done that either. Frankly, I think you should just add those two sources – I don't think any other changes you made were necessary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- I did that because of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television which says: "As Wikipedia is not a television guide, do not include an indiscriminate list of every network that a series appeared on in countries outside the country of production." The Netflix worldwide rights was noteworthy to keep but not the list of random channels outside the Italy. Donimb (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- It also says
"Editors are encouraged instead to add noteworthy foreign broadcasts, if reliably sourced. These can include: broadcasts in primarily English-speaking nations such as the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand..." (emphasis mine)
The information is reliably sourced. This is also why I reverted your removal from the following paragraph, as it highlights that Netflix is bringing it to the same English-language countries listed in MOS:TV. Bottom line – a paragraph of sourced material does not need to be removed, and shouldn't unless there is clear consensus demonstrated to remove it. Bottom line: WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD apply now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC) - @Donimb: You are now edit warring and ignoring WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD – I would encourage you to self-revert and try to build consensus for the changes you want to make at the Talk page instead. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- I self reverted. I really didn't know. Who should I ask to get consensus? Donimb (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Donimb: Here's my suggestion to you: if you don't like the "laundry list" of countries and networks, revise that – you could change it to something like,
"The series was broadcast throughout Europe, including in Greece[ref] and Portugal[ref]."
But there is no need to actually remove sourced content – even MOS:TV is clear on that. What WP:TVINTL is really trying to prevent is a long "laundry list" of country broadcasts that is mostly or completely unsourced... The situation is also unusual in that we are talking about a TV series that is not from the "English-language world" so the usual WP:TVINTL guidelines don't quite apply anyway. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Donimb: Here's my suggestion to you: if you don't like the "laundry list" of countries and networks, revise that – you could change it to something like,
- I self reverted. I really didn't know. Who should I ask to get consensus? Donimb (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- It also says
- I did that because of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television which says: "As Wikipedia is not a television guide, do not include an indiscriminate list of every network that a series appeared on in countries outside the country of production." The Netflix worldwide rights was noteworthy to keep but not the list of random channels outside the Italy. Donimb (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Probably time for WP:RFPP now? Amaury • 16:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- This IP is hitting multiple articles with these edits – so it makes more sense to (range?) block the IP than try to protect a bunch of articles... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- What would the range to block be? Amaury • 17:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at it. And I don't understand rangeblocks as well as MPFitz1968 or Geraldo Perez do either... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Geraldo Perez Can we get your insight here? Amaury • 17:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at it. And I don't understand rangeblocks as well as MPFitz1968 or Geraldo Perez do either... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- What would the range to block be? Amaury • 17:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Dakota Fanning's ancestry
Hello, IJBall.
I noticed that you deleted my edits to Ms. Fanning's page a number of days ago. Per your recommendation, I started a conversation on her talk page about what I proposed to add to it. I'm afraid that nobody has added anything to the topic since. Therefore, I thought that I'd discuss the matter with you directly.
The general rule of thumb when adding things to pages is notability and verifiability, at least as far as I understand it. On both scores, the reference to Ms. Fanning's descent from Edward III scores highly: The latter is a prominent figure with his own page, and her descent from him has been written about by a reputable publication. I therefore think that it deserves to be referred to.
What is more, I would also point out that there are precedents: Jane Fonda's page refers to the fact that Ms. Fonda was named after her relative Queen Jane Seymour, while Beyonce's page refers to Mrs. Knowles-Carter's descent from the Acadian leader Joseph Broussard.
I will wait twenty-four hours to give you an opportunity to respond. If you have no further objections, I will restore the reference to the page.
Warm regards,
O.
O.ominirabluejack (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC) O.ominirabluejack.
- I don't think this is notable enough to add to the article, and I was maybe going to post to that effect at the Talk page. But I was hoping other editors would offer their opinions first, because it's kind of pointless if it's just one editor in favor and one opposed – that's not really establishing a consensus on the matter. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. However, nobody has offered their opinions. In the absence of that, what else can be done?
- O.ominirabluejack (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Boldly make your edit again, and I won't revert this time, as nobody else objected. But, just be aware – it's quite possible that somebody else will still remove it, either sooner or later. And if another editor removes it, then it shouldn't be restored until a consensus for its inclusion is demonstrated. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice.
- O.ominirabluejack (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC) O.ominirabluejack.
- Boldly make your edit again, and I won't revert this time, as nobody else objected. But, just be aware – it's quite possible that somebody else will still remove it, either sooner or later. And if another editor removes it, then it shouldn't be restored until a consensus for its inclusion is demonstrated. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello IJBall,
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
- Getting the queue to 0
There are now 819 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.
- Coordinator
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
- This month's refresher course
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
- Tools
- It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
- It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
- Reviewer Feedback
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
- Second set of eyes
- Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
- Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
- Arbitration Committee
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
- Community Wish list
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Each variation is permitted Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Theoretically, yes. But if you track the usage of the terms over the years "spin-off" was used much more in the 70s and 80s, while "spinoff" (no hyphen) has been used increasingly over the last couple of decades. In fact, it seems like the general trend in English language (at least in the U.S.) has been away from "hyphenated words" and towards the "unhyphenated" word form. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The Hollow Crown
I was about to open a RM about the "episodes" of this TV series but got stuck because the sources used do indeed call these films. I haven't watched this so am not sure, but this sounds to me like a production trying to grandiose their show. The "films" were released in two groups (aka seasons), were released on a weekly schedule (as in any regular TV series with episodes would) and are called "episodes" on the BBC website (as well as IMDB and Amazon listing). The TV series article for the show is a mess, using "episodes", "films" and "plays" to describe them. Any ideas? --Gonnym (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: This is just my opinion – but probably best to consider these as either a "[TV] series of miniseries", or a "[TV] series of television films". So I think I'd treat either each separate entry as, effectively a "TV film" (even if it's "two-part" "TV film" as a couple of them are)... So, I think I agree with Woodensuperman's (since "retired") solution – treat the two "Henry" ones as "two-part TV films" that are "episodes" of the larger "TV series franchise" ("The Hollow Crown"). So I'd advocate a merge of Henry VI, Part 1 (film) and Henry VI, Part 2 (film) into a single article, at Henry VI, Part 1 and Part 2 (The Hollow Crown), and either leave all the others where they are or move the other single-part TV films to, for example, Richard II (The Hollow Crown)... But this is all likely to be controversial (except possibly the article merge), so it should probably go through an WP:RM. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Name seems so familiar
Hi IJBall,
I have to be careful not to out you, so I'll refrain from using what I think is your first name. Per your comment at Talk:CPAC (TV channel). your username looks so familiar. At first I wondered if I'd seen your name on the B.C. discussion forum of B.C. radio stations, but I don't think that's it. Did you, by chance, used to contribute regularly to the rec.arts.tv newsgroup? I used to post semi-regularly there, but have had other commitments and haven't checked in in a number of years.
If so, nice to hear from you again.
If not, nice to meet you!
Cheers,
- --Doug Mehus (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
You've got mail! again
Message added 07:42, 10 November 2019 (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.
AussieLegend (✉) 07:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- @AussieLegend: Respectfully, I understand your point, but I'm not inclined to "help" out on this anymore... Still, if there's a concrete proposal down the line, I guess let me know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Maggie Geha
Hi IJBall, I am very sorry about my editing mistakes on the Maggie Geha article. I know my edits are not disruptive and I know I did not make vandalism. But I didn't know my edit is unnecessary. I am asking your for help and your advice. I tried my edits and it was all unnecessary by you. Please do not give me a warning and I am giving you some advice so I'll do better than that next time. I promise I will be careful with those unnecessary edits you controlled your articles. So I am very very sorry for my editing mistakes and it was unnecessary. If you can accept my apology, that would be great. So I promise I'll be careful next time when I edit. Thanks for your time. 2001:569:7C07:2600:A893:F5F1:1E30:4AD2 (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi IJBall,
This ip address is a problematic editor as this person repeatedly disruptive editing on several TV series starting from yesterday. 117.222.198.45 may need to be report to WP:ANI. — YoungForever(talk) 18:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- They need to get to a Level 4 warning – after that, they can be reported to WP:AIV (or WP:ANEW). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Question...
There seems to be some contentions with another member where MOS:DATERANGE is concerned and soap character articles; someone believes that if someone marries in, let's say September 2019, and it is now November, and they are still married — despite actual dates not existing in in-universe fiction — that should be reflected in the infobox, as simply stating 2019 is "misleading," so it should be September 2019–present. What's your thoughts on this? livelikemusic talk! 14:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Livelikemusic: I would say that, while clunky, "September 2019–present" or "Sept 2019–present" would at least be acceptable in MOS:DATERANGE terms (and, so, maybe, on a WP:IAR basis). However, I would also say that when 2020 roles around, I would change it to "2019–present". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: But wouldn't that, in realistic terms, over-ride the intentions of what {{Infobox soap character}} represents, which is an overview? Besides, even in terms of November, November 2019–present would still defy MOS:DATERANGE, as November 2019 is the present? This is where I find much complications with the soap character infobox, and my beliefs that only current marriages should be mentioned, etc. There is too much clutter and fluff filling it up. livelikemusic talk! 15:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Probably merits a wider discussion. Or it can be ignored as an "exception" if it only affects a couple of articles... Separately, yes – "November 2019–present" would violate MOS:DATERANGE again, and should not be done (but "September 2019–present" is OK in terms of MOS:DATERANGE). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: It is times like this that I wish the soap community was still active on Wikipedia. Thank you! livelikemusic talk! 16:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Seems the conflict with this specific editor is coming to a head — they're violating MOS:YEAR and MOS:DATERANGE in an attempt to own the edit. This has been an on-going battle; what do you suggest I do? livelikemusic talk! 13:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Livelikemusic: Next step – go to their Talk page, and try to talk to them. If that gets you nowhere, you're probably stuck with either WP:3O or WP:DR, if there aren't other editors with an interest in these articles and this issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I've tried, several times across other talk pages, and they seem persistent on their edits being the "know all" for the pages they edit, and it seems to stem from a long-term history of disruptive editing. I may have to reach out to 3O and/or DR, because I doubt the user is going to see any other edit besides their own; they flat-out are removing marriage years, in an attempt to own the page. See Jennifer Horton and Jack Deveraux, etc for example. I cite MOS:DATERANGE, and they continue to ignore, while removing current marriage year, because it's like again that they do not like 2019, despite that being appropriate. And then on Kristen DiMera do not understand that a marriage was done under false pretense, and is invalidated, because it could never be legal, even in the terms of the in-universe world. livelikemusic talk! 13:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Livelikemusic: If it's slow-motion edit-warring, you can try WP:ANEW. Also, if there's an Admin you know, you try asking them for advice as well. (FTR, I agree with your edits at a glance (in MOS terms), but as I'm not as much of an "expert" on the history of DOOL, so I can't say for sure which dateranges are actually correct...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I used to have discussions with a couple of admins a few years back, so I could try reaching out to them and seeing their thoughts on the situation, too. Thank you. Sorry to bother you, once again. livelikemusic talk! 13:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Livelikemusic: If it's slow-motion edit-warring, you can try WP:ANEW. Also, if there's an Admin you know, you try asking them for advice as well. (FTR, I agree with your edits at a glance (in MOS terms), but as I'm not as much of an "expert" on the history of DOOL, so I can't say for sure which dateranges are actually correct...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I've tried, several times across other talk pages, and they seem persistent on their edits being the "know all" for the pages they edit, and it seems to stem from a long-term history of disruptive editing. I may have to reach out to 3O and/or DR, because I doubt the user is going to see any other edit besides their own; they flat-out are removing marriage years, in an attempt to own the page. See Jennifer Horton and Jack Deveraux, etc for example. I cite MOS:DATERANGE, and they continue to ignore, while removing current marriage year, because it's like again that they do not like 2019, despite that being appropriate. And then on Kristen DiMera do not understand that a marriage was done under false pretense, and is invalidated, because it could never be legal, even in the terms of the in-universe world. livelikemusic talk! 13:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Livelikemusic: Next step – go to their Talk page, and try to talk to them. If that gets you nowhere, you're probably stuck with either WP:3O or WP:DR, if there aren't other editors with an interest in these articles and this issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Seems the conflict with this specific editor is coming to a head — they're violating MOS:YEAR and MOS:DATERANGE in an attempt to own the edit. This has been an on-going battle; what do you suggest I do? livelikemusic talk! 13:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: It is times like this that I wish the soap community was still active on Wikipedia. Thank you! livelikemusic talk! 16:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Probably merits a wider discussion. Or it can be ignored as an "exception" if it only affects a couple of articles... Separately, yes – "November 2019–present" would violate MOS:DATERANGE again, and should not be done (but "September 2019–present" is OK in terms of MOS:DATERANGE). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: But wouldn't that, in realistic terms, over-ride the intentions of what {{Infobox soap character}} represents, which is an overview? Besides, even in terms of November, November 2019–present would still defy MOS:DATERANGE, as November 2019 is the present? This is where I find much complications with the soap character infobox, and my beliefs that only current marriages should be mentioned, etc. There is too much clutter and fluff filling it up. livelikemusic talk! 15:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the editor conflict — seems like they're going to continue to edit-war, as they've even undone your edits. livelikemusic talk! 19:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be tempted to report them, then. I'd at least talk to an Admin about it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- I did last week; they said to report them. But I did warn them as a precaution, in case someone said there was no warning. You think I should file an ANI now? livelikemusic talk! 22:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think you maybe should, especially if this has been a longer-term issue. But they've been reverted by (at least?) two different editors on MOS grounds, so at this point their edits would appear to not be based in policy (despite what they say), and they're effectively edit warring to boot... However, you may also want to wait to collect more evidence of EW-like behavior before filing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- By my count: they've been reverted by four members, across multiple articles. According to my count, it's been you, me, TAnthony and Jester66. livelikemusic talk! 00:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Am filing a report now, because they clearly are not understanding the complication of this issue, and it's out of control. livelikemusic talk! 14:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- By my count: they've been reverted by four members, across multiple articles. According to my count, it's been you, me, TAnthony and Jester66. livelikemusic talk! 00:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think you maybe should, especially if this has been a longer-term issue. But they've been reverted by (at least?) two different editors on MOS grounds, so at this point their edits would appear to not be based in policy (despite what they say), and they're effectively edit warring to boot... However, you may also want to wait to collect more evidence of EW-like behavior before filing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- I did last week; they said to report them. But I did warn them as a precaution, in case someone said there was no warning. You think I should file an ANI now? livelikemusic talk! 22:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Note: this is not a report on you, but someone you've dealt with. livelikemusic talk! 14:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
No official WP:RS yet, but according to Ruby Rose Turner's Instagram story, season two has been picked up for ten additional episodes, bringing the season to 31 total. Definitely a popular series. Amaury • 04:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Do you know if there is a reason why (a) this is sorted from newer to oldest and not correctly the other way around? and (b) why this uses a list and not a sortable table? --Gonnym (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- "Fixing" this article has been discussed on its talk page, at least once (and probably more than once). But "fixing" this article would be a massive undertaking, and so far no one has seriously wanted to put in the time or effort (I certainly don't!!). My own personal take is that I consider the list to be too WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and too large) to bother with – IOW, rather than "fixing" it, I'd actually favor deleting it! While something like List of American television programs currently in production is a useful and sensible exercise, I don't think this particular list is or is worth keeping. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to need more eyes here, as this disruptive IP will not quit. Amaury • 15:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Sydney to the Max
Likewise for Sydney to the Max, I may need eyes. Given that the IP seems to be "familiar" with me, I'm thinking we've got some sort of block evasion or socking. I can't say that with 100% certainty, though, of course. Amaury • 07:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- It's Orchomen. IP address geolocates to the UAE. So just the usual. Revert until they're blocked for the I don't know what time. I've lost track. Amaury • 08:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- If it's Orchomen, the good news is that WP:3RRNO is in effect (though I wouldn't revert too many times – I'd just report, and revert after they've been blocked...). But if it's Orchomen IPs, those can go straight to WP:AIV with no problem, as they're block evasion... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- What do we think about Copyvioburner? I think we have a WP:DUCK case here, in which case an SPI should be filed. Amaury • 17:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Did you see this? Thoughts? Amaury • 17:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Wait... – It's likely, but if they edit again we'd have more proof. They've been silent since then, and we're aware of it, so it's not a big priority... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- I just reverted an already blocked IP of Orchomen here. We'll see what happens. If that user reverts, there will be our proof. Add: What typo am I missing here? Because I see nothing different. Amaury • 18:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think we have our proof now. What do you think? Amaury • 18:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- I just reverted an already blocked IP of Orchomen here. We'll see what happens. If that user reverts, there will be our proof. Add: What typo am I missing here? Because I see nothing different. Amaury • 18:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Wait... – It's likely, but if they edit again we'd have more proof. They've been silent since then, and we're aware of it, so it's not a big priority... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Did you see this? Thoughts? Amaury • 17:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- What do we think about Copyvioburner? I think we have a WP:DUCK case here, in which case an SPI should be filed. Amaury • 17:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- If it's Orchomen, the good news is that WP:3RRNO is in effect (though I wouldn't revert too many times – I'd just report, and revert after they've been blocked...). But if it's Orchomen IPs, those can go straight to WP:AIV with no problem, as they're block evasion... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I've added a citation needed tag for now to give legitimate people time to find a good source, but if it should be removed entirely, that's fine, too! Amaury • 19:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like removing it entirely is the best option, and that's what Floquenbeam has done, which is of course completely fine. Thanks, Flo! Amaury • 19:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- I really have no business editing right now; too busy IRL. I had a free second, so I was about to handle their AIV report, but got distracted. I came back a little later out of curiousity to see what ended up happening, and noticed the BLP vio. BLP trumps LTA, but I know when the LTA is making dozens of edits, it's impossible to keep up with every single one. A little disconcerting that the unsourced rape allegation has been there uncontested since it was added by an IP in June. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: I will make sure to keep note of BLP -> LTA for the future. Thank you very much. Amaury • 19:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- I really have no business editing right now; too busy IRL. I had a free second, so I was about to handle their AIV report, but got distracted. I came back a little later out of curiousity to see what ended up happening, and noticed the BLP vio. BLP trumps LTA, but I know when the LTA is making dozens of edits, it's impossible to keep up with every single one. A little disconcerting that the unsourced rape allegation has been there uncontested since it was added by an IP in June. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Per Talk:The Loud House#Propose list of characters split, The Casagrandes, and the general discussions we've had in the past, I'm inclined to remove everyone except those listed as principal cast here for Elena of Avalor. It's just ridiculously long, but it's not long enough for a character list article. Big City Greens makes it easy, as you have your main characters in the opening sequence, and it distinguishes guest stars from minor roles as well. Anything listed under "additional voices" is minor and shouldn't be listed. What's listed before that are clearly significant guest stars and are listed. Add: And as it is, it's doing it wrong, anyway. It should only be "main," "recurring," and "notable." Amaury • 03:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- This is a general problem with animation articles – cast bloat. However, it looks like a good chunk of those under 'Villains' would actually qualify as "notable" guest stars. I have no idea what to do with 'Supporting', as I don't watch the show, but it would definitely make sense to convert that into a 'Recurring' cast section (restricting to only those in 5 or more episodes). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Q: Is BTVA (Behind the Voice Actors) Detered From Meeting Reliable Sourcing Criteria?
Hey, came back from a two month long vacation. This website has been used for a couple voice actors such as Cree Summer and Frank Welker for which roles that have been verified by them.
It may look like a visual and audio repository for voice artists and their roles throughout these six mediums: TV series movies commercials video games shorts and amusement park attractions but it is in reality full of user-generated content for said voice artists.
So do you think that BTVA is disregarded from meeting reliable sourcing?
Bye,
47.16.146.238 (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
What do we want to do here? Semi-protection? Amaury • 05:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Wouldn't work – semi-protection wouldn't even stop the current editors. But I looked for any kind of WP:RS reporting of Henry Danger being over, and I found nothing. So these edits are wrong. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Happy Thanksgiving, IJBall!
 |
— YoungForever(talk) has given you a Turkey! Turkeys promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving!
Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
— YoungForever(talk) 17:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
A Move Request from Draft:Firefly Lane to Firefly Lane
Hi IJBall,
Can you move Draft:Firefly Lane to Firefly Lane without leaving redirect? The Draft was created weeks before the Firefly Lane article was even created. — YoungForever(talk) 17:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- @YoungForever: Done – please be sure to merge any unique content (and sourcing) from what is now at Draft:Firefly Lane into the article now at Firefly Lane. Then please convert Draft:Firefly Lane into a redirect to Firefly Lane. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. — YoungForever(talk) 18:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Useddenim
Has this person given up editing completely now?
Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Xenophon Philosopher: It's hard to know when people just stop editing Wikipedia like that. Sometimes real world concerns take them away for a time, but they return to editing some time later. Other times, people just stop editing and they never come back. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Silly trivia
See here: Cooper is taller and his voice has gotten deeper due to Dakota Lotus going through puberty.
Really? Thank you for stating the obvious, because it's a totally unexpected thing for somebody to go through puberty (Dakota Lotus) or have completed puberty. *gasp* Wow! Add: I realize that's what the Wikias are for, but puberty is not trivia, it's just a fact of life. Amaury • 17:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The Next Step
Hey, I have a query about something. A few days ago, my addition to List of The Next Step episodes was reverted so that the Canadian air date could be added, even though it airs in the UK first. I know TNS is a Canadian series, but if episodes of a series have a first-run in another country, shouldn't the worldwide premiere date be listed? – DarkGlow (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- @DarkGlow: In a case like this, a pretty good case can be made for listing both the UK (the "world premiere" dates) and Canadian ("country of origin") airdates. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- What would you suggest? – DarkGlow (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- @DarkGlow: Include both airdates columns, for that season, as is done at articles like List of Backstage episodes and The Bureau of Magical Things... 23:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- What would you suggest? – DarkGlow (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Recurring roles on Van Helsing (TV series)
OK,what do you think it means?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- From WP:TVCAST:
"A cast member or character appearing in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes, does not necessarily mean that character has a "recurring" role. An actor or character may simply have a guest role across several episodes, rather than a recurring story arc throughout the show. If reliable sources cannot adequately distinguish between recurring or guest roles, then local consensus should determine their status."
IOW, 2 or even 3 episodes is almost never actually "recurring" – that's just a "guest role" for 2 or 3 episodes. Long-standing WP:TV practice is that "recurring" is defined as appearing in at least 4 or 5 episodes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)- Jennifer in Van Helsing is a focus of Phil's story arc this season (I am not sure if the role was played by a different actress in the first? season episode that showed Phil's turning)...the same with Max,who gets "recurring" billing.Doug Spinuzza's Louie Amante on Cold Case appears intermittently from the first to last season when needed for the separate plots of episodes.So which of them is what to you?The allocations in the Van Helsing article seem utterly arbitrary...and the credits don't really help.I think it best to err on the side of inclusion...the two lone "guest" entries are thoroughly arbitrary.12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- No – it's always best to err on the side of exclusion. Richard Harmon is actually front-credited (as a guest star) for the show, and there is WP:RS reporting his casting, so he should be included as this all shows his casting is notable. Otherwise, we should only list those who appear in 4 or more episodes. If Dignard appears in a fourth episode, then she can be listed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Jennifer in Van Helsing is a focus of Phil's story arc this season (I am not sure if the role was played by a different actress in the first? season episode that showed Phil's turning)...the same with Max,who gets "recurring" billing.Doug Spinuzza's Louie Amante on Cold Case appears intermittently from the first to last season when needed for the separate plots of episodes.So which of them is what to you?The allocations in the Van Helsing article seem utterly arbitrary...and the credits don't really help.I think it best to err on the side of inclusion...the two lone "guest" entries are thoroughly arbitrary.12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Found a guideline
IJBall and @AussieLegend, Just stumbled upon a guideline I wasn't familiar with at Wikipedia:Television episodes (it should probably also be merged into the main guideline as it doesn't have a lot of content and I'm sure barely the amount of watchers the main one has), sadly a bit late now. The section at Wikipedia:Television episodes#Process has this to say:
* Create page for the television PROGRAM. :: ''Once there's enough verifiable information independent of the show itself, then:'' * Create a page for each series/season, or a "List of episodes" page with every season/series. :: ''Only if there is enough verifiable information from secondary sources about individual episodes, then:'' * Create pages for notable episodes.
So seems there was already a guideline that says how the hierarchy of TV articles should be. --Gonnym (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- This is effectively what I was looking for with the RfC. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- That's nice, and all, but let's face it: nothing is ever going to be done about WP:ANIME, or the reality TV articles either – both groups have far too many willing enablers on Wikipedia to ever bring these groups into compliance with Wikipedia's own guidelines. (And it's not like these are the only two groups on Wikipedia that this is true about, either...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Consider working with anime and manga editors to see what their concerns are. I think it's that having some sort of MOS:TV preferred structure results in inferior articles (more anemic, likely to be deleted, etc.) in the general case. --Izno (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Izno: that argument has been shown to be false numerous times but I guess that if you repeat false claims enough time, people like you believe it. But just to summarize why it's flase: (a) if a TV series article already exists as a list of episodes, adding any information to it will make it less "anemic" not more, and (b) since when have you seen any article about a TV series been deleted because it's a stub? Just look at the latest reality season AfD, articles which have 0 sources and only horribly formatted tables with a ton of trivia in them. All kept. Also, if you've read any comment from one of the anime crowd you'd see that there is no "working with them" as they have claimed ownership of those articles and one of the more vocal editors "compromise" was to work on a version for a different article in draft and when they deem it ready to move it. I do hope the admins are not disregarding WP:OWN now.Gonnym (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Much aggression have you. (b) is a trivial WP:OSE argument and I won't bother to consider it accordingly. (I can if you want, but I won't, because it's not worth the time.)
- (a) is interesting, in that it seems to assume certain things about the shared knowledge I or any other 'bystander' might have. Unfortunately, it does you an injustice. What qualities of certain articles are you identifying as an issue? Is it the title? The composition? The layout? Is there a compromise position? I saw a lot of TV editors in the discussions hammering at anything sticking up rather than laying out a collected case for X or Y or Z position (hitting the nail rather than the screws). I certainly didn't see any discussion of compromise. And moreover, it looked more like a hostile takeover than it did an attempt to understand why the anime editors were saying the things they were. "These are the things I see that worry me." is much more likely to be met with "These things worry me too." than "These should change, today!" and allows you to draw both sympathy and empathy for your cause from external readers. Consider drawing up a list of both the issues you see (really, use some bullet points), as well as pros and cons of organizing information one way as opposed to another. Decide which qualities are high priority in the end and which are not. Go and re-read what was being said to see if you can understand, and if you don't, just start asking why. Of yourself or 'the other side'. Heck, use my user space; User:Izno/Anime and TV articles differences awaits. We're shooting for summary here, not reams of text. We're also not looking for specific policy guideline call outs (though I might suggest you provide that as supplementary information). When all's said and done, invite them to work on it too. Then maybe you'll get to shared understanding and consensus might be possible. If both sets of editors still feel there's nothing in the middle, then you can take that summary to the community, who can decide to digest it as they see fit.
that there is no "working with them" as they have claimed ownership of those articles and one of the more vocal editors "compromise" was to work on a version for a different article in draft and when they deem it ready to move it.
I think you would be pleasantly surprised if you actually worked on some of the articles in question. Show them that articles are worth WP:SPLITting, or worth WP:MERGEing by contributing the prose and reliable sourcing that says "yes, this article is worth having". Then you defeat both the editors who are so protective of their way of life and the editors who have caused that over-protectiveness. --Izno (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- What's the point? We've already heard their arguments that they should ignore how "franchise" articles are handled by pretty much every other WP with either, 1) "We're special!!1!", or 2) "We've always done it this way, and we're not going to stop now." Exactly the same arguments made by the reality TV article editors, and the WP:DISCOGSTYLE editors. In none of these case was there an actual substantive argument to be made for ignoring current guidelines. (And, FTR, I'm hardly a "guideline Nazi" – there are good reasons for not always following guidelines. But none of those reasons have appeared in any of these discussions.)
- So, no – I fully demure from the idea that I should go work with these WP's. There is plenty of other articles, esp. in the WP:TV arena proper, that are in need of help and I'd much rather spend my freetime working on those... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Izno: that argument has been shown to be false numerous times but I guess that if you repeat false claims enough time, people like you believe it. But just to summarize why it's flase: (a) if a TV series article already exists as a list of episodes, adding any information to it will make it less "anemic" not more, and (b) since when have you seen any article about a TV series been deleted because it's a stub? Just look at the latest reality season AfD, articles which have 0 sources and only horribly formatted tables with a ton of trivia in them. All kept. Also, if you've read any comment from one of the anime crowd you'd see that there is no "working with them" as they have claimed ownership of those articles and one of the more vocal editors "compromise" was to work on a version for a different article in draft and when they deem it ready to move it. I do hope the admins are not disregarding WP:OWN now.Gonnym (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Consider working with anime and manga editors to see what their concerns are. I think it's that having some sort of MOS:TV preferred structure results in inferior articles (more anemic, likely to be deleted, etc.) in the general case. --Izno (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- That's nice, and all, but let's face it: nothing is ever going to be done about WP:ANIME, or the reality TV articles either – both groups have far too many willing enablers on Wikipedia to ever bring these groups into compliance with Wikipedia's own guidelines. (And it's not like these are the only two groups on Wikipedia that this is true about, either...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Pup Academy, etc.
I still haven't watched past the pilot, but it is on my to do list. I just have a huge backlog of stuff. Other than Pup Academy, I'm fairly caught with Disney Channel stuff. If I recall correctly, for now, all I have are the last new episodes of Just Roll with It and Gabby Duran & the Unsittables. However, I'm way behind on Nickelodeon and the broadcast networks. The last Henry Danger episode I've watched was "Glittered with Danger." The All That episode that aired on that date is also the last episode of that that I saw, if I recall. Power Rangers: Beast Morphers I'm even more behind on as I'm only up through, if I recall, the first September episode.
Anyway, on the subject in the heading, have you watched this series? Amaury • 18:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- I saw less than a couple of minutes of it, before running to my remote. I think I also tried to check the credits of this show, to see if it was a Disney production, but I can't remember if I was successful or not – I think I tried to do it on the Disney Now app and couldn't get it to work, so I think I was never able to check the credits... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- What do you have on your to-do list? Are you caught up with Coop & Cami Ask the World? I know it's one you actually like, and it sounds like you're watching Just Roll with It. Amaury • 18:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm watching C&CAtW season #2 – I think I'm up to #2.5. I must say, I think it's significantly weaker than season #1. (This is generally true of a lot of the Disney/Nick shows IMO: good season #1, mediocre season #2, and usually awful season #3 and beyond – a lot of these shows only seem to have enough "good material" for one season, maybe two if they're lucky...). The only other show I'm mostly "current" on is Henry Danger, but I think the successive "episode order extensions" on season #5 has really hurt it, and most of these recent season #5 episodes really feel like the writing is just "throwing things at the wall, and seeing if anything sticks"... (The same thing happened to the last season of Victorious – the episode order was too large, and the later season #3 production batch episodes really seemed like the writing was "thin" as compared to the superior first half of season #3 episodes...) I've seen a few random episodes of Just Roll with It – I thought the one with John Michael Higgins was actually pretty darn good, and the live Halloween episode had its moments – but I'm not watching it regularly. I'm mostly avoiding all of the other (live-action) shows, as they don't appeal to me for various reasons. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: You know what really does bug me?! – Nick has memory holed Knight Squad. It still has never shown up on TeenNick. They run everything, up to and including iCarly (which is now over a decade old! meanwhile I miss Ned's Declassified...), but have never bothered to run any of the Knight Squad season #2 episodes (and have certainly never just "run through" the series). I can't figure out if 30 episodes just isn't attractive enough to rerun, or if they are deliberately "blacklisting" the series for some other reason!... I guess I should just be thankful they're still running Game Shakers – I thought that one would be "memory holed" too, after the Schneider/Nick blowup. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- What do you have on your to-do list? Are you caught up with Coop & Cami Ask the World? I know it's one you actually like, and it sounds like you're watching Just Roll with It. Amaury • 18:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: The Futon Critic and Walt Disney Television Press still have nothing for this series, so what do we think about removing the prod. code column? It also seems evident that this series airs in sequential order, with the first and last day episodes being two each episodes merged for presentation. Amaury • 17:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- If prod. codes can't be sourced (or aren't in the show's end credits), then the prod code. column should be removed (or shouldn't be added in the first place). Prod. codes also should generally not be listed if a series airs 100% in "production code order" (as it's redundant info). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't find it redundant, especially in cases where the first episode is episode #1, but is production codes 101–102 because it was two episodes merged for presentation. The second season of Andi Mack or the first season of Bella and the Bulldog are good examples of this. Amaury • 17:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about that – I'm talking about a series, where 10 aired episodes = ep's "101" to "110" in order. There are plenty of series like this, and listing the prod. codes is redundant and unnecessary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- I mean, even then, I don't see a problem with it, unless we're trying to save space, like with Backstage, because of other extra columns that we have. Amaury • 17:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about that – I'm talking about a series, where 10 aired episodes = ep's "101" to "110" in order. There are plenty of series like this, and listing the prod. codes is redundant and unnecessary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't find it redundant, especially in cases where the first episode is episode #1, but is production codes 101–102 because it was two episodes merged for presentation. The second season of Andi Mack or the first season of Bella and the Bulldog are good examples of this. Amaury • 17:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Riele downs article
Hello am sorry for the misunderstanding I was not trying to vandalize by adding false information I was not aware I was adding false information ( Dr Namkangu)sorry Dr Namkangu (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Date precision
Unlike with certain other individuals, this is nothing personal, which is why I'm always more than willing to have a discussion with you and why I'm starting this discussion. So with all due respect, "Come on, now." is not a valid revert reason in situations like this. You should know better. Please point to even a guideline that talks about this, or even a discussion that talks about date precision; otherwise, this and your other edits, except the tense since that can be debated, are coming from a pure WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis. For the record, the version with the date precision is the WP:STATUSQUO, as you are the one who removed it here without ever explaining why or pointing to some sort of discussion on the matter. For something like this, just saying it's "unnecessary" is not a valid reason for removal. Amaury • 18:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Does it matter what exact date Frankie Grande was cast on the show?! No, it makes absolutely no difference. It's the same at WP:BLPs when it's announced that someone has been cast in a film – does the exact date matter? Not at all. Exact dates likely matter for renewal information – i.e. "On July 27, 2018, the series was renewed for a fifth season of 20 episodes." is entirely appropriate. But exact dates only need to be reported when it's truly important... And your "status quo" argument utterly fails – it's been like that at the article for two entire months, with no objection: thus it's now the "status quo". Beyond that, this discussion probably should have been held on my Talk page – my original reversion was basically a "test", as I'm concerned about some of the behavior I've seen in regards to editing this article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- I could understand if it had been more than six months, but September 23 was not that long ago, and the edit was buried with the other edits you made then; otherwise, I would have restored it then. There's nothing that says that if an edit is X old, it is now the status quo. I seem to recall a similar situation like this, but it was between you and somebody else, with the "sides" being switched, with you in my shoes and them in your shoes. My feeling is if the article has a date, we state a date. If it has no exact date, then we can just state "In January 2019, it was announced that SpongeBob SquarePants is a sponge with square pants." If, for whatever reason, there's no date at all, but we know it was posted in the current year, then it would just be "In 2019, this was stated." But I'll digress. I know you're not doing this to be a WP:DICK, so I'm always willing to back down with you. (See me do this with someone else.) What is this behavior you're talking about? Amaury • 18:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Cutting to the chase, this edit is highly problematic, and this Talk page edit goes over the line. In point of fact, both Esewe13 and the IP had provided cited proof that their edits were correct. In short, I'm getting a bad vibe from some of your recent edits, and I'm getting a wiff of "WP:OWN" on Henry Danger specifically. The edit you made today at Henry Danger was a mix of "not broken"-type edits (the WP:REFNAME at the article had been that way for ages, the guideline says nothing about the specifics of naming "style" outside of not allowing certain characters, so there was no reason to change it), and debatable judgement calls (date precision, and tensing) – IOW, nothing in that edit was actually necessary (the most justifiable was the "will" for "would" change, but even that is fully correct either way), and unless something is actually "wrong" it should be left that way, even if you don't fully agree with it. Correcting bad grammar is one thing, but changing to your own preferred stylings (incl. in references) should be avoided.
- I realize that you're working very hard these days, and are probably dead-beat tired when you get home. I simply want to make sure that that's not affecting your editing. Because it seems like you're short of temper these days, and it has me concerned. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm still confused as to what you were testing, as I didn't even realize it was me until you said it above. As for things like the ref name, I was keeping it consistent with other ref names in the article, because "S2-renewal" is not grammatically correct. "S2 Renewal" is. It would be like having "futoneps" for the ref name instead of "The Futon Critic," which is actually what editors at series like Henry Danger, Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn, etc. were doing before I cleaned them up, including our "JMichael"—whatever their name was—person before we got them indefinitely blocked.
- However, putting that aside, I apologize if I've had you concerned, though I will state for the record that I've always had much, much less patience with IPs and random users, which I think you already know. See, for example, when I got my warning back in July from Ad Orientem. And that's when I tried to give you the heads up at User talk:IJBall/Archive 28#Friendly note to maybe dial it down yourself to avoid the situation I got myself into, and you basically refused. Eswe has been a disruptive editor, and I wouldn't be surprised if the IP was them. It's similar to the situation we had with Kkjj and Liv and Maddie—and some other articles—who did turn out to be sock of Bambifan. After so much disruptiveness, and I recall you agreeing with me on this—and this was before we knew they were a sock—they lost their ability to freely edit the Liv and Maddie article, at the very least, and would have to post on the talk page whenever they wanted something potentially changed. In any case, Eswe's disruptiveness blinded me, so I completely overlooked checking the link they provided. So I'll now admit I should have used a different revert summary, but the revert was valid as all they provided was a bare ref and they couldn't bother to properly format it, like you did—and you did it perfectly! And it is not my responsibility to fix it.
- Add: I don't know if that answers your concern, but I'm basically saying I would still be like this even without work. Although you will notice I haven't been quite as active. That will change with holiday break from college coming up after Wednesday, so I'll have more free time, even on the days I do work since I won't be going to college. Amaury • 19:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- You cannot assume that all IP's are "bad actors", or that all edits from editors you've had problems with before are necessarily "bad". You should have checked their cites before reverting (and even though it was "baiting", I would have advised just leaving the IP's message to your Talk page). In the case of Esewe13's edit, it shouldn't have been reverted – it should have been fixed (the part about the series "ending" is a WP:SYNTH – the source only supported the second part of that edit, that these will be the "final episodes").
- But my point on today's edit still stands – nothing about your edit was necessary, and it basically shouldn't have been made. I read that as reflecting how "you think the article should be" rather that what it should be about, which is: "Is the current state of the article correct (and not violating any guidelines unnecessarily)?" You definitely shouldn't be changing things that are "not broken" and have been that way at the article for a long time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The only reason that "not broken" edit was there for a long time was because some editor did it wrong, and I either never noticed it or didn't get around to fixing it. And WP:NOTBROKEN appears to apply more to someone linking to [[Jonathan A. Apple|Jon Apple]] instead of just [[Jon Apple]]. An article should also be easy to navigate and understand, regardless of whether it's what you read or the code only shown while in editing mode. I would rather take a ref name of "Two Many Dates" over a ref name of "0208" or even "dates." I still stand by my revert, even if the summary wasn't exactly the best. If it were just a typo, I would fix it. But it's not my responsibility to fix something that is entirely wrong. I'm sorry, it's how I feel. Amaury • 20:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- That's the point – "S2-renewal" is not "wrong" as a WP:REFNAME. You just feel it's wrong. But there are plenty of editors (myself included) that don't like "spaces" in REFNAMEs, and so do things line "S2-renewal" or "S2_renewal" for the REFNAME. There is absolutely nothing "wrong" with that. WP:REFNAME specifically allows for use of "-" and "_". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The only reason that "not broken" edit was there for a long time was because some editor did it wrong, and I either never noticed it or didn't get around to fixing it. And WP:NOTBROKEN appears to apply more to someone linking to [[Jonathan A. Apple|Jon Apple]] instead of just [[Jon Apple]]. An article should also be easy to navigate and understand, regardless of whether it's what you read or the code only shown while in editing mode. I would rather take a ref name of "Two Many Dates" over a ref name of "0208" or even "dates." I still stand by my revert, even if the summary wasn't exactly the best. If it were just a typo, I would fix it. But it's not my responsibility to fix something that is entirely wrong. I'm sorry, it's how I feel. Amaury • 20:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- I could understand if it had been more than six months, but September 23 was not that long ago, and the edit was buried with the other edits you made then; otherwise, I would have restored it then. There's nothing that says that if an edit is X old, it is now the status quo. I seem to recall a similar situation like this, but it was between you and somebody else, with the "sides" being switched, with you in my shoes and them in your shoes. My feeling is if the article has a date, we state a date. If it has no exact date, then we can just state "In January 2019, it was announced that SpongeBob SquarePants is a sponge with square pants." If, for whatever reason, there's no date at all, but we know it was posted in the current year, then it would just be "In 2019, this was stated." But I'll digress. I know you're not doing this to be a WP:DICK, so I'm always willing to back down with you. (See me do this with someone else.) What is this behavior you're talking about? Amaury • 18:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't have time to get to it right now, but there are major WP:ACCESS violations for the awards section. Only the years should be rowspanned. Amaury • 00:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- One I'm pretty sure I "fixed" some time ago. It's what happens when I "fix" tables on articles I don't watchlist (and when the other editors watchlisting the article don't revert this kind of nonsense)... If you go back in the edit history far enough, you should find the edit where I "fixed" the table (assuming I did, and I think I did at that one...) – I'd just cut-and-paste the "correct" version, and then restore any more recent additions in a followup edit. On my end, I'm not enthusiastic enough to do it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- I take it back – I may have never fixed the 'Awards' table here. I have done the 'Filmography' table, but it looks like I never got to the 'Awards' table (I probably concluded it was too much work for an article I don't watchlist...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
List of Jessie characters
I think this is ready. We just need to ask a few bios, even if brief for now, for some of the characters if you can recall what they're like. Then we can finally get around to actually completing this project 100% on User:Amaury/sandbox/Jessie (2011 TV series). Amaury • 19:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Some secondary sourcing would be useful, to demonstrate notability... I imagine guest appearances like Chris Bosch's and Maia Mitchell's, and possibly some of the others, might have gotten some media coverage. Any casting sourcing from the main TV series article could also be used. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
You may wish to comment at Talk:The Casagrandes#Characters and casts. It's obvious this user either doesn't or refuses to understand how 1) casting works and 2) how animation, except in few rare cases—like Big City Greens which handles its casting excellently—almost always never distinguishes their main, guest starring, co-starring, etc. roles. That's why we are only listing those cast shown under The Futon Critic's principal cast section for The Casagrandes, and we should not list anyone else, except recurring, but only if they've been proven to actually be recurring and not just the equivalent of co-starring roles on live-action series, which we don't list. Amaury • 17:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- How do we want to handle this? Because that is not correct for a few reasons, including, as far as I know, WP:NTCS. Two separate series, so it should only be "List of The Loud House characters." It doesn't matter that it's a spinoff, it is still a separate series, just like Jessie and Bunk'd are separate series. I'm tempted to revert, as per undiscussed page move. Amaury • 07:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Presonally, I don't care about the LoC article. What I do care about is that there should still be a (now-shortened) 'Characters' list at The Casagrandes – that should be restored, probably now as a simple list. You don't just remove that simply because there's now a standalone LoC article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- I still think the LOC article goes against NCTS and should be moved back, or whatever the hell the guideline/policy is called, and also because a page move like this requires discussion. It's not just a simple matter of fixing an error. They are still two separate series. That would be like creating a page called "List of The Loud House and The Casagrandes episodes," which I'm surprised hasn't happened. But the link has been added. Now we'll just need to deal with the idiot fans, like that IP, who will keep wanting to remove the characters list. They can go over to the series' Wikia page if the want things "their way." Amaury • 16:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Do you mean WP:NCTV?... A "merged" LoC article like probably isn't strictly contrary to NCTV. But it's definitely unusual/non-standard, and it should be shown that there's consensus for a "merged" LoC article like that. I think arguments can be made both for and against such an arrangement, but there really needs to be a consensus (from the editors of both TV shows' articles) demonstrated for it for it to remain this way IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- That's the one. Wow. I'm dumb. But exactly. Honestly, everything should be reverted to pre-move and a proper discussion should be held, just like we held a proper discussion when we tried to have Lab Rats at just Lab Rats, because the series is the primary topic. The problem is you have to be careful, because even though it would have to be consensus-based on an article-by-article basis, then people will start wanting to do things like my example above of "List of The Loud House and The Casagrandes episodes." This is why I hate fans and think they should just go away, and it's also why I think editing should be restricted to registered members only. It would cut down on a lot of problems like this or even socks. Amaury • 16:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Do you mean WP:NCTV?... A "merged" LoC article like probably isn't strictly contrary to NCTV. But it's definitely unusual/non-standard, and it should be shown that there's consensus for a "merged" LoC article like that. I think arguments can be made both for and against such an arrangement, but there really needs to be a consensus (from the editors of both TV shows' articles) demonstrated for it for it to remain this way IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- I still think the LOC article goes against NCTS and should be moved back, or whatever the hell the guideline/policy is called, and also because a page move like this requires discussion. It's not just a simple matter of fixing an error. They are still two separate series. That would be like creating a page called "List of The Loud House and The Casagrandes episodes," which I'm surprised hasn't happened. But the link has been added. Now we'll just need to deal with the idiot fans, like that IP, who will keep wanting to remove the characters list. They can go over to the series' Wikia page if the want things "their way." Amaury • 16:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Presonally, I don't care about the LoC article. What I do care about is that there should still be a (now-shortened) 'Characters' list at The Casagrandes – that should be restored, probably now as a simple list. You don't just remove that simply because there's now a standalone LoC article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Cheers
|
Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry
No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well IJB. MarnetteD|Talk 11:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC) |
What do you make of this edit? I'm tempted to revert, as per WP:PRIMARY. Note that the user in question was also disruptive in the past on Andi Mack. Amaury • 04:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: This is like the whole "Mack Chat" thing – if there is no secondary source coverage of these, then they're non-notable and should not be included in the article. That section was completely unsourced, so it should be kept out, unless sourcing for it can be found. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)