User talk:IJBall/Archive 9

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 5

←

Archive 7

→

Hunter Street premiere date

So numbers for Saturday are finally in, a day late due to technical difficulties with the Nielsen company—Saturday and Sunday finals are usually posted around 6:30 AM PT on Tuesdays, unless there are holiday delays—and I noticed Hunter Street is in the list because a sneak peek did air after the KCAs for the last 30 minutes, I think. Showbuzz Daily shows it occupying a 26-minute slot. In guides, however, it was still shown as the KCAs taking up a two-hour slot, so that wasn't immediately clear. I think it was first episode, "The New Hunter," but I'm not sure. We'll see if there's an entry or not for the 7:00 PM showing on Monday, as reruns aren't posted, whenever Monday finals are posted—usually posted around 1:00 PM PT on Tuesdays, but they're also delayed. Once we figure out which episode was used for the sneak preview—usually the first one, but you never know—we should change the premiere date to March 11. Just like with other series, such as Austin & Ally which, according to Disney Channel, had a sneak peak on December 2, 2011, and later "officially premiered" on December 4, 2011, the first episode still aired on December 2, 2011, and that's what we should document, regardless of how Disney Channel labeled the first two episodes. Same thing here. I just want to wait, though, until we know for sure which episode was used for the sneak preview. Again, usually the first, but you never know. http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-150-saturday-cable-originals-network-finals-3-11-2017.html Archived 2018-07-15 at the Wayback Machine Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, no need to wait. The Futon Critic has it listed as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, yeah, that's odd, as my cable guide definitely did not show an episode of Hunter Street on Saturday night. But I think that Showbuzzdaily report can be used as a cite to source a March 11 premiere date. And, yes – it pretty much has to be the pilot episode that was shown, and not episode #2... OK, use Futon to source the date as well, then. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the other reason I wanted to wait, but I didn't realize The Futon Critic also had March 11 listed, which is used for our column references, so we're good there. And yeah, the KCAs were shown taking a two-hour slot, including commercials, but it was more, like, an hour and thirty minutes, and I guess they just didn't bother to show that. I don't remember if the same thing happened with last year's KCAs when the School of Rock series premiere was the lead-out. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't feel it's necessary to source the air date itself. The Futon Critic is already used as a column reference, so it's kind of redundant to have it again there, and Showbuzz Daily is already used for the viewers source, and, obviously, there couldn't be ratings there unless an episode has already aired on that date. The column references are sufficient, and it's really no different than with, again, List of Austin & Ally episodes as well as List of Make It Pop episodes, both of which had "previews" and "official premieres," but, really, the "previews" were the premieres, or any series in general, really, even those that didn't have "previews." I'm also trying to think of some other Nickelodeon and Disney Channel sitcoms that did this, but I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Screener also changed the date to March 11 at one point, but then changed it back for some reason. I won't remove the sources... for now. TROLOLOLOL

Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The reason I think explicitly referencing the date in this case is a good idea is because the premiere was so "buried" that it didn't even show up in cable guides. Also, the other referencing at the article explicitly states a March 13 premiere date. (The only question here is whether we want to add a 'note' to the March 11 date to note that it was a "special preview" ahead of the "official premiere" date of March 13 – if we decide to go the 'note' route, then the note can probably replace the referencing. Otherwise, I'd advise leaving the referencing...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hm. I would think The Futon Critic, which does have March 11 listed, would be sufficient. We have sources that say March 13, yes, but just like the situation we had at Talk:List of Henry Danger episodes#Number of episodes for second season, where what was planned with regard to the episode count for season two isn't actually what happened, things can change, so it's the same thing here, I'd like to think. We now have The Futon Critic with newer/more up-to-date information—March 11—reflecting what actually happened. I'm sure we had sources saying December 4, 2011, for Austin & Ally, April 6, 2015, for Make It Pop, and March 11, 2016, for Stuck in the Middle, but what actually happened was different because of the "previews" which were really just the premieres: December 2, 2011, March 26, 2015, and February 14, 2016. I remember the Austin & Ally series overview used to have two dates for its season one premiere date as seen in this version of the episode list article, but GP replaced it with just December 2, 2011, in the following edit when he updated the table to use the template as that is when the series premiered, regardless of whether it was advertised as a "preview" or not. I'll invite the rest of the group and see if they have any feedback because you can never have too much feedback, right?

Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Why we pretty much say "First aired" instead of "Premiere". First aired is descriptive and what we normally want. Premiere is a term that normal English would consider a synonym of "First aired" but has been usurped by channel marketing types for hype purposes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H

So I'm not quite sure how to handle this as it's never happened before. Ctrl + F Hunter Street here. As "previews" are the first episodes and first airings per GP above, when they officially "premiere" later, they are still listed as reruns by the network which aren't posted on Showbuzz Daily. For example, Make It Pop "previewed" on March 26, 2015 Archived July 24, 2015, at the Wayback Machine, but do you see an entry for Make It Pop on April 6, 2015 Archived April 10, 2015, at the Wayback Machine, when it "officially premiered"? Nope. However, it doesn't look like this was the case this time for some reason. I'm wondering if this one of those times we can make an exception and list the ratings for the first episode for both Friday and the 7:00 PM Monday showing? Unlike here on Game Shakers, where what people were doing was totally and truly unnecessary. Please advise. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The other "issue" here will seem to be the Ratings section. We have a 20-episode season, but we will be listing 21 entries in the calculations by the time it ends even though there weren't 21 episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

FTR, this is exactly why I am in favor of 'noting' all instances of "special previews" before "premieres" in episode tables. There have been a number of examples of this lately – Van Helsing (TV series), Falling Water (TV series), etc. I know some in WP:TV don't think it's necessary to note these circumstances, but I feel strongly that we do need to note them. When I get a chance, I'll probably go ahead and add a 'note' about this to Hunter Street (replacing the refs I added before when I do). As for the ratings part, your whole concern points up why this whole situation is fraught with more complications than first appears – for the episode ratings, I'd be tempted to either just quote the ratings for the "true premiere" (i.e. not the "preview"), or I'd be tempted to take the sum(!) of the ratings for both the preview and the premiere! (Either way, that will probably have to be 'noted' as well...) Or you could just list them both! (which may require using the {{hr}} formating that I dislike

... ) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I still don't feel it's necessary, IMO. If we didn't have The Futon Critic reporting March 11, then yeah, I'd say source the air date itself, but we do, so it becomes no different than any other air dates where the column source is sufficient. Anyway, the article is more up-to-date with its ratings, but I'm still working on something with regard to dealing with this minor dilemma, so try not to edit it if you can. c: Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

What I'm saying the fact that there was a "special preview" before the official "premiere" date needs to be noted. You can see how this was done at Van Helsing (TV series) and Falling Water (TV series) for examples. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I feel like that's good and should be sufficient. That way we aren't cluttering the date cell for that episode and the date itself is also evenly aligned with all the other dates. It's also the more standard way of noting things of that nature from experience, and thinking about it now, it couldn't hurt to make similar notes for Austin & Ally, Make It Pop, and Stuck in the Middle. Those just weren't as problematic because their reruns were listed as reruns by the network, unlike with Hunter Street. Although in the case of Austin & Ally, that was before Showbuzz Daily started posting numbers and I believe ratings are currently being sourced to Screener. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Other than you know what, Hunter Street is actually doing quite well, I'd say. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That surprises me – I thought it would do worse than Ride. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It's even doing better than Disney Channel! :o Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Accusation

RESOLVED

Note to myself: the SPI report is for Speedy135/Divide223 is here, and both have now been blocked. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No, I am not Speedy135. Do not accuse without providing proof.Divide223 (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Divide223: Just to be clear – are you asking me to file an WP:SPI report?! Because that's how you gather proof of socking... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assistance needed at Hunter Street

There's a reason we use plainlist, but of course people don't care about that and would rather make it a disorganized mess. Please keep an eye on it. Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

That IP is a strange one, and I've already got one eye on them. Some of their edits are good, but I suspect them of being one of our IP editors with problematic editing habits (the removal of 'plainlist' being just one of them). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

According to Template:Infobox television#Parameters, both {{Plainlist}} and {{Unbulleted list}} are allowed. {{Unbulleted list}} makes it easier to see when editing, so how is it disruptive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.135.226.182 (talk) 16:27, March 25, 2017‎ (UTC)

That is far less important than WP:BRD – you basically made a cosmetic change (effectively a WP:NOTBROKEN-type edit) that was reverted. At that point, you should have just let it go. Your preference for one over the other is effectively a WP:ILIKEIT-type edit, but when other editors don't agree, and there's no policy that favors your edit over the other, you should just WP:Let it go... (I will ping Amaury to let him explain why he feels that {{Plainlist}} is preferable (and I happen to agree with him on this...).) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to your claim, plainlist is easier to read as each thing—person, company, etc.—gets its own line. That is not the case with unbulleted lists as it's all one continuous line, except when it wraps. Have 10+ starring cast, for example, and it would be a nightmare. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Why didn't you just tell me this when I asked instead of giving me a final warning? I meant no harm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.135.226.182 (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Understood. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps because you failed to use edit summaries and your edits were typical of a disruptive user. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

That, of course, is also a fair point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Now how long will this discussion stay posted up here? Cause if you don't mind, I would like my part deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.135.226.182 (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, when you post to the Talk page of an article or another editor, that sort of doesn't become your call anymore, as per WP:REDACTED. What I can do is send this discussion to my archive ahead of schedule, if that's what you'd prefer. But I generally keep a record of all of my Talk page discussions with other editors, either here, or in my Talk page archives... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you make an expection just this once? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.135.226.182 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I would strongly prefer not to, but I will move this to the archives imminently. The odds of anyone finding this conversation there are extremely low... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

^{[April Fools!]}

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:Amaury, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You don't always agree with me. That is a personal attack. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Ulch! April Fools... even as a kid, I never liked it!

--IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Another renewal for Nickelodeon

They're on a roll. And episode increase as well for the current season. Hopefully they end up increasing the next one as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Question about recent reversion

Hi,

I can see your point re: the Notes column, however, the "aka" immediately follows the episode number. Because of this, I was initially confused, thinking that the "aka" referred to an alternate title for the episode mentioned in the Notes column. When I discovered, after some research, that it was instead an alternate title for the entire series, that inspired me to make the edit that I did.

Can you think of an edit that clarifies what is being referred to, and still maintains proper layout? That particular entry, as it exists right now, is confusing at best insofar as the same cell both lists a specific episode and gives an aka that applies to the entire series. I was just looking for a way to improve it. :) Thanks! 1980fast (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Just had an idea. What do you think of swapping the order of the info, such as: "aka: The Gil Mayo Mysteries: Episode: 1.7"

I think that makes it a lot clearer. What do you think? 1980fast (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@1980fast: No objection to flipping the order, as you suggest – that certainly works too. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Cheers! Have a great one! 1980fast (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Seven is the new eight...

I think I need to learn how to count... Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

It took me a second, but I figured it out.

(This does, once again, point up the need to be able to reedit edit summaries – even if the window to "reedit" them was only 5 minutes or something, it would be better than nothing. I don't fully understand the resistance to it...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Please forgive me for entering this conversation, but I must say I agree completely. I think it would be very useful, even if the window were extremely limited. I thought I was the only one who wished for that ability. 1980fast (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Official categories order?

Is there an official way to order categories? This edit was done, and it actually looks like an okay edit to me, unless there's a specific order we follow? (If we do, I wouldn't know what it is.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea. Categories are something I am only dimly aware of, and have no interest in figuring out the details. Luckily, there are some category "experts" on Wikipedia (I think Admin User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao might be one of them...), that you can track down. But when it comes to categories, I'm pretty much useless. [shrug] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries. MPFitz1968, Geraldo Perez, do you have any ideas on the matter? Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Alphabetical order is as good as any and makes stuff easier to find for people who want to click on a category. I generally ignore reordering and just look at whether or not additions or deletions make sense. Add: found this Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization § In what order should categories be listed within the article?. Importance or alphabetical seems choices and editor judgement. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Thanks! Determining importance can sometimes be hard, so I guess when in doubt, go alphabetical since that is also okay.

Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I recently came across an IP edit at Becky G [1], where their move of a category within the list seemed to have no rationale to it (and they left no edit summary). When I saw the original arrangement was alphabetical, I simply reverted [2]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: Ride

Definitely needs a second season! Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Disney Channel renewals

MPFitz1968

Apparently Disney Channel ratings don't mean much, but yet there's a rumor that declining ratings were one of the reasons GMW was canceled. https://twitter.com/basicdovely/status/844618307462422528 Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't buy that. I think Disney Channel realized that GMW had "aged out" of their audience, but were unable to get any other Disney TV network (e.g. ~~The Squiggle Channel!~~ Freeform) to take over the show from Disney Channel. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't buy it, either. But it's like arguing with little kids. See, in order:

Links

I expect to get hate for the first two, but whatevs. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I like how people think they know what's going on:

I can't even find anything like that with a search, and you know how unreliable/gossip sites like to quickly get their hands on that. I still don't buy that Disney Channel doesn't care about their ratings—why their ratings suddenly took a steep drop on November 18 and have pretty much stayed like that since is still a mystery—but I think there is some very slight truth that ratings aren't the biggest factors in renewals for Disney Channel and Disney XD, though I think they still are for Nickelodeon, per an earlier discussion of ours regarding I Didn't Do It. I Didn't Do It had excellent ratings, but was canceled; Bizaardvark had not so excellent ratings, with some exceptions here and there, and was renewed (although I think that's also because Disney Channel has always seemed to give series at least two seasons, regardless of how the first season did, but if the first season didn't do so well, the second season, I guess, was a chance to bounce back to determine a renewal for season three or not), though I read somewhere that it made up for that in its delayed DVR ratings and the like and also reached an overall high total: http://deadline.com/2016/12/bizaardvark-renewed-second-season-disney-channel-1201871158/ If Disney Channel truly didn't care about ratings or didn't make money from good ratings, you wouldn't see ratings mentioned in articles, but they are, so... Also, Bizaardvark wasn't renewed until after 17 episodes of its first season had already aired. Bunk'd has only aired 15 episodes of its second season so far, so there's still time. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

When Disney Channel was a "premium" cable channel, a la HBO – and this was 25 or more years ago now – I'm sure they didn't care much about ratings back then. But since they made to switch to "standard cable channel", they have to care about ratings at least somewhat, no matter how deep Disney's pockets are. As for Bunk'd getting cancelled – I'll believe it when I see it (officially!)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Even though there's no official word and there's still an extremely very thin chance, Best Friends Whenever is one thing. Bunk'd, on the other hand, is still airing new episodes and isn't being "burned off" with weeks of premieres. Only exception is when season two premiered, but that's it, it didn't happen again like with Best Friends Whenever. Stuck in the Middle did it as well with its season one finale. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: How do you feel about a season three for Bunk'd? Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Kind of mixed about whether a season 3 will happen. I hope there will be, as K.C. Undercover now stands as the only active Disney Channel live-action series that is beyond season 2 (or slated to go beyond it, as it was renewed months ago for season 3, though no episodes have been scheduled yet). If Bunk'd bites the dust, too, then it's looking like Stuck in the Middle may become the second oldest active live-action series (and that's been out just over a year). On the other hand, when combining both Bunk'd and Jessie, that makes six seasons we've seen Emma, Ravi and Zuri, and certainly their portrayers are aging (Peyton List and Karan Brar are already 18+), so I don't know whether Disney will keep them around for much longer. (Then again, speaking of Jessie, didn't Debbie Ryan stick around well into her 20s?) MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Debby Ryan is currently 23 (birthday: May 13, 1993). Jessie ended, airing-wise, October 16, 2015. Her age then was 22 (2016 - 2015 = 1 and 23 - 1 = 22). So yup! Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

MPFitz1968

So not the best of ratings, but Bunk'd has been staying consistent for the most part, at least. Also, Michael, looks like Tangled has the curse as well: http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-150-friday-cable-originals-network-finals-3-24-2017.html#comment-171516 Archived 2017-03-28 at the Wayback Machine Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

IJBall, Michael, I also learned something interesting. We've touched on this before, IJBall. Ratings are a much bigger play for the broadcast channels, but for cable channels, such as Disney Channel, they're still important, but there are other areas of revenue for them. See: http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/the-sked-friday-ratings-3-24-2017.html#comment-171506 Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

IJBall, Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, I don't know if this is reliable, but this seems to imply or hint at a third season for Bunk'd: http://2017castingcalls.com/disneys-bunkd-season-3-casting-now-nyc/ Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It is planning info and the production team is being optimistic. They could still pull out the rug from under them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: So it is reliable, but not worthy of inclusion as it's not a for sure thing? Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Pretty much. It is reliable in that it supports there is a casting call and gives some idea of what the production is thinking about doing and the kind of cast they are looking for. Show info in that source may or may not end up in the finished product as it is real early planning. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Tom Hardy

So why don't you do the same with peaky blinders you didn't change that one Ale236 (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ale236: For the very simple reason that the start year on Peaky Blinders is 2014, not 2017. "2017–present" is completely redundant and nonsensical: Just "2017" suffices, as it is the "present" already. However, "2016–present" or "2014–present" is perfectly logical, as the start year isn't the present year. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

So from 2014 to 2016 it's acceptable you but putting 2017-present you think it's not logical because that's the start year and you know I put present because of the future seasons and indicate it will continue for futures season but probably when the series starts you're gonna put in present or 2017-2018 because that's what you're logic says but whatever jball im gonna edit it later — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ale236 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

If you're suggesting you're going to change it back to "2017–present", I would strongly urge you to not do that: 1) it's dead wrong (I'm not the only one who thinks that – most long-term editors in this area think it's also wrong), and 2) it's somewhere in the ballpark of Disruptive editing and Edit warring to do this (esp. when you consider WP:BRD). It's absolutely not worth it, especially over this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not worth it to continue this I can't wait when you say in 2018 that it's right because clearly that's the only better thing you have to do so in the end who cares it's gonna be 2017-present and you are just gonna accept it that's the bottom line and I'm gonna leave it here Jball I have better things to do than argue with someone like you good bye. Ale236 (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

His user name is IJBall. If you cannot get that correct, it is difficult to consider any of your commentary seriously. Thank you and have a lovely day. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 04:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: Best Friends Whenever

MPFitz1968

Finally got this done if you're interested in a more detailed timeline of the series like with Girl Meets World. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Saved by the Bell

Hi, I know you're making good faith edits to Saved by the Bell, but I'm in the middle of trying to add a bunch of new material, and your cleanup in the middle is causing me to nearly lose some work. Could I ask that you wait a bit and come back later? I have no problem if you engage in any clean-up of anything I miss later. Thanks so much! Chris the Geek (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chris the Geek: Adding a "bunch of new material" to a long-standing article is generally a bad idea unless you've discussed the changes you want to make on the Talk page ahead of time to gauge any issues. You actually would have been advised to do this in your sandbox first, and then point to that from the Talk page. In any case, a lot of the changes you are making are contrary to guidelines line MOS:TV, so that's a problem. And, yes, I know your changes are generally good faith, and seems to be improving the article, but not everything you're doing is following guidelines. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

So...WP:BOLD is no longer a general rule? Guidelines can be cleaned up in a bit. I'm not a newbie, just haven't been around in a while (I've previously brought articles up to featured article status), so please give me the benefit of the doubt. All I'm asking is a bit of time and leeway. Not saying that anything you're doing is wrong; it's just causing some edit conflicts. Chris the Geek (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chris the Geek: I think I mostly done "tidying up" your changes, so you should be able to proceed from my latest revision. WP:BOLD is fine, but the bigger the changes you want to make to a long-standing article, the better it is to initiate a discussion on your proposed changes first... (P.S. It sounds like you had another account in the past – may I ask what your old account was?) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm doing a WP:CLEANSTART so have no problem letting you know, but would prefer to do it in a non-public venue. Can I email you? Chris the Geek (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chris the Geek: Of course! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Just sent you the email. Chris the Geek (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chris the Geek: Thanks – got it! As I said above, you can now proceed with Saved by the Bell – just keep an eye on MOS:TV, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Chris the Geek – you seem to have access to Peter Engel's autobiography: does the autobiography give his exact date of birth? If it does, would you mind popping over to the Peter Engel article and adding the DOB to the lede of that article with a cite to the appropriate page of the autobiography? Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

He's unfortunately pretty vague with when he was born. The book starts when he's twelve with a recollection of his first television and never really gives an exact birth date. I'll keep an eye out and, if I can find it, I'll add it! Chris the Geek (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I made a post to the talk page that I'd love your input on. The gist is I'm hoping to establish precedent about whether the Lifetime biopic can be considered a reliable source or not. I know this is bound to be controversial. Chris the Geek (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Category renamed

Just to let you know, in anticipation of the proposal outcome I've reverted my listname page move. Also in January, I moved Category:Entourage (TV series) episode redirects to lists to Category:Entourage (U.S. TV series) episode redirects to lists. The MOS:TV touches on category naming style; however, it doesn't appear to be specific. Do you think the category move should also be reverted? Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 11:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Cool! Thanks for that, Paine! On my end, I've been meaning to change to the proposed harmonized text over at WP:NCTV, but I've gotten sidetracked by work and a family visit. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"No deadline" – been sidetracked myself a bit, lately. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 14:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Done – text at WP:NCTV has been harmonized with MOS:TV with this edit. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on Hunter Street?

Have you been watching the series? What are your thoughts? It's certainly been doing well, especially yesterday's episode as can be seen. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I like it a lot better than Ride (I finally watched the finale of Ride and was pretty disappointed with the ending). Hunter Street is probably the best show like this (i.e. a show in a "daily airing-telenovela" format) that NICK has shown since the second season of House of Anubis (which itself was way too long, at 90 episodes!). But 20 episodes for a show like this seems to be perfect – it consolidates the mystery down enough to keep it interesting without stringing things out too much. And it seems to be doing pretty well in the ratings. I expect NICK will probably renew it. Then we can look forward to seeing Stony Blyden playing a teenager into his late 20s! (LOL.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I still hope for a second season of Ride, though. I don't know if I would call it a cliffhanger per se, but season one certainly ended open-ended. Based on this, it certainly seems possible.

Ride did struggle to get above one million total viewers, but I have a feeling part of it had to do with it airing in Canada first, so when it came to the US, most people had already seen it. As for Hunter Street, yup! It's had some lows and kind of lows, but I've noticed a pattern that those have been on Fridays (1.11, 1.05, 1.19). There were also two lows and kind of lows on Mondays (1.12, 1.18). However, it's been fairly consistent, even the 18–49 ratings if you look at my page (I haven't updated it yet for Wednesday's episode, so that was 0.30), and there were only two times it was not on the top 50 chart. However, because Nickelodeon and Disney Channel focus more on kids, I have a feeling we should be looking more at those female and male 12–34 ratings on Showbuzz Daily. And for 6–11, it is in the top 10. I'll try to find the link later. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I have updated my page for Hunter Street if you're interested. I haven't gotten around to finding that Twitter link yet. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Move request

A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Boy Meets World

If you, MPFitz1968, or Nyuszika7H need help confirming guest stars or the like, feel free to ask. The complete series DVD set I ordered on Wednesday arrived today. Good price, too: $54.99. No shipping or tax, either. If you divide that by seven, that's like getting each of the seasons for $7.86, about how much DVDs cost, I think. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Not a bad price, especially without tax or shipping. I subscribed to Amazon Prime not too long ago (the $99/year plan) and plan on taking advantage of their free shipping and two-day delivery on whatever items are marked eligible when I can, not to mention watching some TV programs on it (already into 7th Heaven, The Amazing Race, Survivor, Just Add Magic, just to name a few). I do have season 1, via Amazon, so need to check on you for that. I may have questions regarding all other seasons regarding main cast credit order, and apparently some episodes where some of the main cast is not credited (in episodes they don't appear). MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: We actually canceled our prime status a while ago because it was just a free trial we got because I'm a student at YVC, so it looks like it may have been one of those no shipping on orders over X amount deals, or it could have been that there just wasn't any shipping. And from my experience, there's usually not any tax. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The After Party

Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H

My second time creating an article that's not a split if you and the others are interested. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: I see that a WP:NPP'er just {{Notability}} tagged this one – let me know if you want me to move it to Draftspace as a Page mover (which you should be allowed to request, as the primary author)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Come tomorrow morning, we'll have another source in there since the ratings will have been posted and we could also link to it from the list of Nickelodeon shows. Would that improve notability? Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

On my end, I'm concerned that I can't even find a press release on Futon Critic mentioning this. And I can't find any independent sourcing at all. On the plus side, it appears to meet the criteria for WP:TVSHOW, so that's good. But, from what we've got there, I can't even tell if it's a "regular series", or more like a series of specials like Disney Channel Games or something... So, as of right now, I'd say the {{Notability}} is fair – this one looks borderline, currently. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Since it was your idea, you can go ahead and move it if you feel it's best for now. That gives us more time to improve it, sourcing-wise.

Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: OK, will do. We can easily move it back if more sourcing turns up for it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: One other thing – if notability is ultimately shown, I think the Draft article should actually be moved to The After Party. The latter is currently a redirect to an 8 Simple Rules episode, but an extant and airing TV series would almost certainly qualify as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and thus it should get the 'base title'. (The current redirect can be moved to The After Party (8 Simple Rules)...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Still can't find WP:RS'ing for this one. Nick.com doesn't even seem to have a page for this show. I've been able to find out is that it looks like it started out as a web series, and Nick has now apparently taken some of those webisodes and combined them together to make 30-minute TV episodes. But no word on whether the airing of this will be temporary or not. Just, nothin'... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I'm not seeing anything that says images have to be used in articles either at WP:NFC or WP:NFURG like that editor claims. I would have assumed Rob would have mentioned that or made the edit himself when I asked him for a favor had that been the case. (Or any administrator, really.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm no help with images or files, unfortunately. Nyuszika7H was the guy who seemed to know something about them, but it looks like Nyuszika7H is indefinitely away from Wikipedia these days... The other person who may know is Geraldo – you could try asking him. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez.

Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I missed that it was moved to draft space where image was deleted. Best to leave it out for now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: It's still up, actually. See Draft:The After Party (TV series) and File:The After Party Logo.jpg. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It it marked for non-use delete on image file and commented out in draft article. Easy enough to add it back if article gets moved back to article space. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

IJBall, I'm thinking I may just request deletion. Doesn't look like anything more is planned and it was just those two episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

My advice it to hold off on that. Drafts don't get deleted for 6 months – let's take that time to see if there's anything more with this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: Game Shakers

There's another special coming up soon! Nick is already airing commercials for Clam Shakers. There are also this and this. I know the user is not reliable, but doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: Ratings compatibility

Do you and MPFitz1968 think there's any truth to this? See the following four tweets and their replies:

Relevant to the above:

Also, not reliable, I know, but I don't doubt it, either: http://www.nickandmore.com/2017/03/29/nickelodeon-wins-first-quarter-2017-with-all-kids-demos/ Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This gets into the whole theory of "lead-in"/"lead-out" shows, vis a vis shows "compatibility". There's some truth to this, but only some. Yes, Henry Danger would "pair" better with The Thundermans than Game Shakers would in terms of ratings. But the difference in ratings is likely to be fairly minuscule, esp. for Nick-type programming. (A more extreme example would be pairing The Thundermans with, say, a Nicktoon – those shows might have very different audiences, that could negatively affect the ratings for both...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

They're actually saying Henry Danger pairs best with Game Shakers, I guess because they're both Dan Schneider series, and The Thundermans pairs best with Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn I don't know why. And I don't know which series would be School of Rock's best partner per se. But your point is the same regardless. c: And yeah, even the latest ratings of 1.65 and 1.37 for Henry Danger and Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn aren't really awful even if they are a decrease from March 25 (1.79 and 1.50)—certainly better than Disney Channel has been doing, and Nickelodeon and Disney Channel kind of have the same range and like, I think, on what's bad, mediocre, good, and excellent in regard to ratings. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Most and least watched series premieres in 2016

Just thought you, MPFitz1968, and Nyuszika7H might be interested in this.

Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, IJBall. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Good morning! Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Ed (TV series) into List of Ed episodes. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought I'd done that, but you're right – I only did that with the edit summary for the two refs I took from Ed (TV series). My bad – I'll try not to do that again... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Tim Rozon

Good catch on the order of the columns. I saw the missing borders and didn't even notice the bigger issue. Thanks. Jmg38 (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hello, IJBall. When you moved the disambiguation page to the title Fantasy Island, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Fantasy Island" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Stubs

Would this also be wrong, then? Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Definitely, definitely in that case – that one only has one sentence of real prose!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

[1]. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

reruns

Thank you for the tips, also thank you for being nice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soap0623 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Andi Mack

First, look at us disagreeing and not breathing down each other's throats. Also, I've decided to do it my way here, and you can't make me change it! User:Amaury/sandbox/Television ratings/Andi Mack#Season 1 (2017).

You can mostly do what you want in Userspace! (I've toyed with doing some more off the wall stuff in Userspace, but have never gotten around to it...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

FIL - Production section

Any chance you could provide a screenshot of what you're talking about? Unless I'm blind, after looking at the previous version again via the diffs, I'm not seeing any clashing, especially with there being another section between Production and Episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You had to put a {{Clear}} template in to push the episodes list down below the infobox, which left quite a bit of "whitespace". Putting the 'Production' section before the 'Episodes' list (which is pretty much what they want us to do as per MOS:TV anyway) pretty much eliminates that issue... FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hm. Now starting to wonder if that might be a better option for many of the main articles where I've done that. Do you personally feel that a Production section makes more sense before or after an Episodes section? Chronologically speaking—or whatever term you want to call it—and regardless of whether there's an episode table or not, the latter of which would mean there was a list of episodes article, of course. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The argument that I think I saw made at WT:TV (or WT:MOSTV?...) was that the finished episodes are a "direct consequence" of the production, and so it makes most sense to put the 'Episodes' section after the 'Production' section... I'm not sure I totally buy that, but it's the argument I've seen made. [shrug] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hm. Actually makes sense to me. What's your issue with that logic? Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little more flexible in terms of placing the 'Episodes' section – I'm OK with it after the 'Plot' section (I think an equally good argument can be made that 'Episodes' belongs after 'Plot'), or even after the 'Cast' section... But in cases of new/short TV series articles, it usually is better to go with: Plot -> Cast -> Production -> Episodes, in terms of sections order. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#interpretation of MOS:TVCAST order

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#interpretation of MOS:TVCAST order. You participated in the linked to discussion. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

MPFitz1968, Geraldo Perez, if you have any opinions on the matter, one way or the other, would you be interested in participating? The more the merrier like I'm always saying, haha! Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Editor's Barnstar
		You are always popping up on my watchlist, making thoughtful and helpful changes to lift the quality of film and television articles. Your efforts are very much appreciated. Cheers, Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Right back at ya, Ponyo!

--IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You know what I miss?

(MPFitz1968) Series' original end credits on television that are now just generic end credits played during the final moments of an episode instead of after the episode. Sure, if you want to see the original end credits, you can just watch an episode online or on a VHS or DVD, but still. Disney XD seems to keep the original end credits, though a lot of the time, they minimize the screen and silent the series' sound while other series' commercials play, and I'm not sure about Disney Channel because it looks like their end credits may have actually been designed like that for most episodes by whoever does the end credits. However, Nickelodeon scrapped the original end credits back in the early-mid 2000s for reasons unknown where the series were specifically designed with unique end credits. It's just fun watching and listening to the music played with them, like with Jagger Eaton's Mega Life there. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

COSMETICBOT closure

Hello IJBall. Regarding your post here can you link to where User:BDD closed this? I don't see any comments by him in that thread. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Ugh! That's because I added that to the wrong entry!!

I'll go fix that... Grrrr... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Too bad, I was getting my hopes up that COSMETICBOT would be settled some day... EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

BLPPROD policy change?

I'm asking you since you will probably know, but any other friendly talk page stalkers are also welcome to answer. ;)

Has the WP:BLPPROD policy changed to remove the restriction that it can only be applied on articles created after a specified date? I no longer see that mentioned in the policy. I just tagged Federico Russo, which, IIRC, would be eligible anyway, as it was created in 2016. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Appears to be so. --Izno (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: Great, thanks. Although I haven't really been active here recently and missed it, I approve of that change. Finally we can tag some ancient unsourced BLPs for PROD without leaving them to rot or having to go through regular PROD/AfD. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, what Inzo said... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello IJBall,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 818 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear John (U.S. TV series)

So this seems to be having problems again. :( --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 07:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: I reported that editor to WP:AIV last night, and it looks like it did the trick.

--IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed. I have a feeling they'll resume after the block expires, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

--‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 18:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Game Shakers

Don't you just love the smell of obvious vandals in the morning? Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

One of the ratings tables at Pretty Little Liars

I find the second table under Pretty Little Liars#Ratings to be a bit excessive. While looking unsourced, the numbers could be looked up and verified under the individual season or LoE articles (BTW, the LoE article has this same table), but still would involve a lot of maintenance to ensure the data remains accurate. I'm inclined to remove it but could use additional opinions, plus I'm wondering if this has been done at other TV articles before. It is definitely a huge target for vandals to play with. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: That might be viable (if perhaps "overkill"), though it might go better at the LoE article. That said, I think it should be removed for now, with a note placed at the Talk page that, 1) every ratings figure in that table needs to be sourced/referenced, and 2) it would probably go better at the LoE page rather than at the main TV series article page. FWIW... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I've just removed the tables, and opened a talk page discussion at Talk:Pretty Little Liars#About the table showing viewership numbers for every single episode of the series... MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: After the earlier discussion, I looked, and that exact same table was at the LoE article. I think it is fine there, as long as it is referenced/sourced. But if definitely does not belong at the main TV series article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm now seeing the same issue at Jane the Virgin with this edit. As the numbers in the table are not directly sourced, I've reverted the IP who inserted the table (now twice). The IP did the same at two other television articles, and I've warned the user for disruptive editing, and hoping they will come to the JTV talk page or mine to discuss this. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

You are well within your rights to challenge unsourced content – it's up to the IP to provide referencing for those. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: It looks like someone is still at this – now at 90.4.92.62. The original ratings table at PLL was added by a named-account editor, so I'm thinking the IP is somebody else. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian has reported that IP as well as the original one (who added the table at Jane the Virgin) at WP:AN3 for edit warring. And I removed the table (once again) from Jane the Virgin [3], even though it had stood there for more than a week. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Both IPs – the 90.x one above and the other (86.209.130.34), geolocate to Savoy in France. FWIW. Should make it easier to ID the person behind these edits in the future... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Frenemies

I wasn't sure if I should include this, I tried to keep it short, but I'm fine with including it. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7h: With disambiguation pages, I generally prefer more information over less – you're trying to guide people to the correct article (as quickly, and as unambiguously, as possible), so I feel like it's important to give as much relevant information as one can in a quasi-sentence. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Kirby Buckets episodes

I don't foresee this turning into a problem, but just in case, some more (temporary) eyes couldn't hurt. See the recent edit I just reverted due to introducing name enhancements not supported by the credits as well as a bunch of trivial notes (eg, dual roles). Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Liv and Maddie

Remember when I mentioned somewhere—one of your guys' talk pages, though I don't remember which one—that Kkjj had lost the right to freely makes changes without discussion and then GP mentioned something about assuming good faith despite their disruptive behavior. Well, that's out the window now, in my opinion, not just from the edits last night, but the recent edits before last night by their other IPs as well. (And I don't understand why they're socking when their account is not currently blocked.) No more assuming good faith for them, especially given the fact that they refuse to discuss, and when they do leave a message on the talk page, they just say "X, Y, and Z should be changed" without expanding, clarifying, and actually contributing to the discussion. Then when they don't get their way, they go and make the changes, anyway. They're a disruptive editor, plain and simple, and I refuse to call them a good-faith editor. I'm not so much "upset," just that at some point, you have to know when it's obvious an editor doesn't care about anything but their way. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I was already there... Incidentally, I'll try to take a look at the Liv and Maddie 'Plot' section some time today – let's at least take that issue off the table. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of programs broadcast by Disney XD#Right Now Kaplow has ended

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of programs broadcast by Disney XD#Right Now Kaplow has ended. MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Guess what?

Promos for Bizaardvark's second season have begun showing, and guess what? They're specifically saying season premiere in them. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

It's still unusual. They seem to be doing it in this case because there was a pretty big gap between "new" episodes... And I'm pretty sure that Disney or Nick hardly ever advertise about "season finales"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. And hm. I think they did advertise Liv and Maddie's finale, but that was a series finale, not a season finale. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, yeah – they'll both advertise series finales. But they generally don't advertise "season finales"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Usually. I don't seem recall I Didn't Do It being advertised as such, though we did have an online source confirming it ended. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

No, shows that they drop (like I Didn't Do It or Best Friends Whenever or Bella and the Bulldogs) don't get that treatment. But their shows that run 3–4 seasons, like Wizards of Waverly Place or iCarly or Jessie or Austin & Ally or Liv and Maddie, usually do get the full "series finale" treatment. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)