User talk:MPFitz1968/Archive 11
 | 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 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
Just know that I've also got my eye on this one as well. I'm giving the author 24–48 hours before I hit it with a WP:BLPPROD. If that doesn't happen, I'm going to take a very close look at it – my guess, is that the subject does not meet WP:NACTOR and will need to be WP:AfD'ed... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- @IJBall: From the moment I looked at the article, I pretty much concluded he doesn't meet the NACTOR notability guidelines. Aside from the main cast designation in Sea Patrol (and only for the later portion of that series), and Mako Mermaids where he is highly recurring, there's nothing else to establish his notability that way. Plus a lack of sources, aside from the IMDb external link (which would eliminate BLPPROD as an option), doesn't help with attempting to establish general notability. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- I pull IMDb EL's before I BLPPROD, because some editors don't get that IMDb should NOT count towards that – i.e. if it can't be used as an "inline source", then it's not a "source"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- OTOH, if you choose to take it to AfD now, I'm definitely a "Delete" vote... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- And already moved to Draftspace, so it looks like this is resolved. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Andi Mack
Can't put this in the article, but according to Nickandmore, it returns on October 8. Unfortunately... still on Mondays. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Better not feed the troll. Especially long-term abuses. Thanks —AE (talk • contributions) 08:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Noted. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
How to write good summaries?
I'm coming to the expert on this. Although I generally don't write summaries that often to begin with, while I think my summaries are good—generally, but definitely grammar-wise—unlike you and AJFU, I haven't mastered the art of being concise enough. I mean, you saw this "mess." While that Best Friends Whenever one I think is the worst one, I generally still have a hard time being concise enough. It's not grammar-wise as I do my best to avoid sentence run-ons, fragments, etc., but just general writing-wise. 100 Things to Do Before High School is another example of my writing. See 100 Things to Do Before High School#Episodes All the ones from episode 12 onward are my summaries. Episode 21, however, was later trimmed here. I still consider it my summary, though.
I haven't checked them for COPYVIO, but I just started my Kickin' It binge today to cleanup the articles (guest star corrections, etc.) and am writing summaries as I watch the episodes: User:Amaury/sandbox/List of Kickin' It episodes#Season 1 (2011–12). I am using some elements from the summaries already at the live episode list: User:Amaury/sandbox/List of Kickin' It episodes#Season 1 (2011–12).
So... when you write summaries for Andi Mack and wrote summaries for Backstage and Stuck in the Middle, what is your thought process? How are you able to get all of the plots in there while still being concise enough? How do you determine important plots? Etc., etc. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Mostly related, but in a sentence like this:
After enjoying quality time with Bex, Andi begins to wonder why her mother left home at the time of her birth, and while Bex does not reveal any details to Andi, things come out at home when Celia suggests that Bex move out.
Why is it "move" (singular) and not "moves" (plural)? Normally, singular goes with plural and plural goes with singular, by which I mean something like "Mickey (singular) takes (plural) the trash out" and "Micky and Donald (plural) take (singular) the trash out." I know that the singular version is correct in that context, but I do not fathom why since if you rearrange the sentence and have "Bex" starting it, it would be "Bex moves out and finds a new apartment." I am working on the summary for Kickin' It's "Kung Fu Cop," and my first sentence is, as of now:After Jack stays up for two consecutive nights playing Kung Fu Cop 77, Rudy insists that he take a nap in his office as he will not have him sparring while tired.
I am trying to figure out if "take" (singular) is correct, which I'm guessing it is since it is no different from that "Celia suggests..." line other than the words. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)- @Amaury: It has to do with something called subjunctive mood, which is about expressing that a circumstance may happen, or it may not, contrasting that with the indicative mood, which expresses that a circumstance happened (without any uncertainty to it). English tends not to be big with the subjunctive mood, but other languages are - like Spanish, which I took in middle and high school. So technically, we could use either move or moves for "Celia suggests that Bex move out", but to truly express the subjunctive (uncertainty in the action of move out because of the word suggest), it is move (see English subjunctive for the conjugation). MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm done with the first season and was wondering if when you have time and if you would be willing to, you could take a look at the summaries I've written and see and tell me how I could make them more concise: User:Amaury/sandbox/List of Kickin' It episodes#Season 1 (2011–12). While I don't think you've watched the series, I'm sure you could probably still tell what are unnecessary sentences. If you spot any typos or weird grammar issues, feel free to point those out as well. Here is a word counter, should you find it helpful, though it should be pretty easy to get an approximation of how long the summaries are just by looking at them. I'll tell you one thing, though. They're a lot better than the current summaries on the live article List of Kickin' It episodes#Season 1 (2011–12). I haven't checked the other seasons yet, but all of season one's summaries are pretty much WP:COPYVIO on the current version of the live article. Just have a look at the episode summaries The Futon Critic has for those season one episodes. PS: I'm glad I'm working on this as the episode tables on the live article are still using the old, ugly code instead of the episode table template. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- In the Andi Mack discussion, you mentioned this:
And TV shows regularly are telling multiple stories within an episode, with most focus being on an A-story, and lesser focus on B-stories, C-stories, etc. ... Limiting the focus just to the A-story isn't always easy to discern, as a character could be involved in the other stories as well that are just as important.
And:Different TV series, as well as individual episodes within a single series, are going to vary in story complexity ... With B-stories, it's really an editorial call whether they should be included but probably no more than a sentence ... With Andi Mack, and even with Backstage, determining what is a B-story isn't as clear as with GMW or SITM, and several storylines tend to be treated as core to an episode...
- Kickin' It has something similar. There's always the main plot, which involves a lesson being taught, and one or two subplots that are mostly just there for comical relief. Although at the end of the day, it's still a run-of-the-mill comedy. In response to that "B stories being en editorial call," unlike Andi Mack, the subplots (B story, etc.) probably aren't really that important in the grand scheme of things? I don't want to say they aren't relevant, because they are, but, again, they're still comedies. The only exceptions would probably be series like Liv and Maddie, Girl Meets World, and maybe even Austin & Ally. They're straight comedies, too, but are a little more on the serious side, particularly the former two.
- So the way I've been handling the subplots with Kickin' It, and I think you do this as well, is with one or more generally short sentences at the very end after the main plot has been written, and I begin them with "meanwhile." On rare occasions, which has been the case with some episodes, such as the pilot "Wasabi Warriors" and "Wazombie Warriors," the subplots are noticeably intertwined a tiny bit with the main plot, so I integrate the "meanwhile" earlier on into the main plot writing. Plots and subplots are probably always intertwined with each other in some way based on what you said above about a character being involved in more than one story, but in most cases, you can still write the subplot—the "meanwhiles"—at the very end after you've written the main plot summary, whereas in some cases, you can't or it doesn't seem feasible/possible, such as the aforementioned episodes earlier in this paragraph.
- Like I said, because series like this aren't like Andi Mack, the subplots generally probably are not that important in the grand scheme of things, though sometimes they can be, hence the "generally." Again, it doesn't make them irrelevant, just not really needed for the global understanding of an episode. As such, to shorten some of my summaries, as none of the ones I've written so far have gone below 250 words, I'm thinking I can remove some of the "meanwhiles" without context being lost. I've listed all the episodes with "meanwhiles" at the very end of the summary below, and those in bold are the ones with subplots I'm thinking I can remove without context being lost. Thoughts? Any not in bold that probably aren't needed, either? Or maybe some of the bold ones are fine as is?
Season 1
|
|---|
|
Season 2
|
|---|
|
Season 3
|
|---|
|
- And that puts us to how far I've gotten. I've actually gotten through S3 E6, but that one did not really have subplots from what I could see. (Have you ever heard of a series that has one or more episodes with no subplots whatsoever and only has a single main plot?) The only thing I can think of is that maybe the different jobs the Wasabi Warriors were doing were different subplots, but I dunno.
- Anyway, for the purposes of my "question" here, we're just going to ignore the word count guidelines and simply focus on whether the subplots to these episodes are relatively important (include) or relatively not important (exclude). Like I said in my OP, I assume you haven't seen this series, but it doesn't meant you can't help and spot something you feel is unnecessary. Incidentally, though, by getting rid of whatever subplots are deemed unnecessary here, word counts will be lowered. The matter of the word counts themselves and shortening summaries specifically for that can be focused on later. Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if I've just gotten lucky, if season four just doesn't have a lot going on in comparison, or if I've subconsciously improved (or maybe it's a combination), but of the three summaries I've written so far for season four, I've gotten 313, 350, and 334 for an average of 332. And I haven't included the subplots in any of these three, but even without subplots, my summaries for the previous three seasons were 400+ on average. So I dunno. I guess we'll see as I continue watching the fourth season. I mean, I guess the question is, if I went back through the first three seasons and rewrote the summaries from scratch, would I be able to get the main plot summaries at 350 or less? Who knows. I mean, I could if I wanted to as it wouldn't be as time-consuming since I wouldn't have to watch the whole episode first—to enjoy it—and then go back and skim through it to write the summaries.
Also, before I started the fourth season, after I finished the third season, I went back through the first three seasons to double-check that I didn't make any credit errors, but I also did a lot of copy-edits. In most cases, it was trimming summaries to the best of my ability, while finding typos along the way. In some cases, word count did increase because I was trying to word things better, but most of the copy-edits were trims, even with rewording. I removed the subplots for most of the episodes and only kept the ones with lessons in them, generally. While the main purpose of plots in Kickin' It is lessons and the main purpose of subplots in Kickin' It is comic relief, I actually think all subplots actually have lessons to a degree, but I only kept the more notable subplots, like Milton and Joan trying to get Jerry over his bad lying habit. I also significantly trimmed the Halloween episodes in the first two seasons. In the case of the first season, the legend that Kim shared was only mentioned, like, one other time in the episode, so it wasn't really a continuing story. In the case of the second season, while the whole Jack and two dates fiasco was important, it was more of a minor side story within the main plot. Similarly, for the season three finale, I just focused on the climax of the story Rudy shared rather than the entire story.
I think part of my problem is that I worry that my summaries will be too short and not even reach 150 words because sometimes I get halfway through the episode, and I've only got a few fairly short sentences, so I try to include a little bloat—not a lot, just a little—and before I know it, my brain gets going on a writing streak and a summary turns out to be 814 words. I think that's one of the reasons I don't write summaries, as, except on rare occasions—such here (138) and here (146) with Henry Danger and Game Shakers—my summaries are long. That's probably why when I went back through the first three seasons of Kickin' It, I was able to find a lot of things to get rid of or reword to be shorter, because, again, when I was writing them, I was worried about the summaries being too short, and before I knew it, I got summaries that ended up being, say, 550 words, but going back through them, I can get them down to, say, 330 words, a 220-word difference.
So below are tables showing the changes of word counts after my copy-edits. I've also provided diffs so you can see exactly what I changed as maybe something deserved to stay, etc.
- Season 1: https://i.imgur.com/BsRQd33.png (diff)
- Season 2: https://i.imgur.com/FbGOecW.png (Note: "Kickin' It on Our Own" is a double-length episode.) (diff 1, diff 2)
- Season 3: https://i.imgur.com/fbqQN3O.png (diff)
And, again, the plots and subplots almost always intertwine with each other in some way, but in some cases, the intertwine is major, and you can't really exclude the subplot, or else context is lost. In those cases, I just consider that to just be one overall plot.
Now, obviously, even after these trimmings, a lot of them can still probably be trimmed even further. Like I said, the question is, if I went through them again and rewrote them from scratch, could I write them with word counts lower than now? Maybe I'll do that, I dunno. But who knows, I might just be getting lucky with season four so far. But for now, any ideas on shortening these? How do you write summaries for Andi Mack? Basically, how do you keep the summaries short while still getting the main point across, even with the inclusion of subplots? Admittedly, Andi Mack is a more complex series, but if you can keep summaries short there, even with subplots, then summaries can certainly be kept short for run-of-the-mill comedies like Kickin' It, even with subplots. As an example, for the season one premiere and finale of Kickin' It "Wasabi Warriors" and "Rowdy Rudy," how could I say all that in much less words? Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe I am getting good? I managed 326 words for The 'Stang (S4 E4), and that's including the subplot. 256 words for the main plot and 70 words for the subplot. Once I'm done with the fourth season, maybe I should go back and write new ones from scratch for seasons 1–3 if season four keeps going like this. Admittedly, they're still a little over for season four, but it's much, much more minor now and along the same lines as some of Andi Mack's summaries. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Part of the challenge in keeping the summaries short is sifting out details from the episode that, while they can establish how the storyline develops, are trivial to relaying that storyline in the summary. Decided to compare that summary for the first episode of Kickin' It ("Wasabi Warriors") as it's written in the LoE article with what you are working on in your sandbox. The first sentence from your account -
At the Seaford High School cafeteria, new student Jack meets Kim, both of whom really hit it off.
- certainly is a boy-meets-girl detail that often has something to follow which is more important than just the fact that they met (such as Jack finding out Kim is a Black Dragon, as you point out later in the same summary). A sentence like that usually isn't necessary in the episode's plot and often winds up in character descriptions, depending on how strong their relationship gets. Another sentence -Meanwhile, Milton, Jerry, and Eddie learn from their sensei Rudy that the Bobby Wasabi Martial Arts Academy is in danger of closing due to none of Rudy's students advancing.
- in comparing to the summary in the LoE, that part I emphasized in the sentence isn't explicitly written out over at the LoE, but your next sentence stating...the Wasabi Warriors must win two belts at their next tournament
clearly connects to the reason why the dojo is in danger of shutting down, so that detail is more emphatic of what needs to be done to prevent the dojo's closing. Stating "none of Ruby's students advancing" along with the needing to "win two belts at their next tournament" seems superfluous. Also saw the phrasehe will let bygones be bygones
, which I'm taking has to do with Rudy's forgiving Jack for crashing into the wall of the dojo if he were to join the Wasabi warriors - seems to be along the same line as this part in the LoE,Rudy lies to Jack and says he will go to juvie, and if Jack does not join and help them get 2 belts, the dojo will close down
. And I'm not sure about including the detail about Jack crashing into the wall with his skateboard, compared to just saying he crashed into the wall (like what the LoE has). Well, I'm hoping you get the picture, but no doubt summary writing does take practice. Removing details that are not necessary in relaying the story can sometimes be fairly easy, but where it may be necessary to connect another story, either within the same episode or in another one, can become puzzling. Even a couple of minute details Justthefacts9 wanted to add to a couple of Andi Mack episode plots concerning TJ looking back at Cyrus or Buffy (in the season 2 finale) or Cyrus and Andi looking back at Jonah (in the season 1 finale) seemed to me as trivia or excess detail, but they tell me they are/were forebodings to how things (will) unfold concerning Cyrus' coming out; I did point out to them we need to write from the perspective of a reader who has never seen the show as opposed to one who has (or has become a fan of the show). Certain small details would seem important to a fan, but to someone unfamiliar with the series, those kind of details can be out of place. The MOS:TV summary size limit is there for a reason, as well as Wikipedia's policy/guideline about no indiscriminate information (including nonsense trivia or fancruft). MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)- Maybe I am getting better, then. Maybe it's because we went from six main cast/characters in the first two seasons to five main cast/characters in the third season (with Eddie departing after 2) to four main cast/characters in the fourth season (with Kim departing after 3). Again, though, who knows why I'm having better luck with S4. But I definitely think I will go back and write from scratch for seasons 1–3. Then I'll come back to compare S1 E1 now to the rewritten version. But yeah, for my latest summary for "Invasion of the Ghost Pirates," I managed an impressive 131 words for the main plot. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think I'm sick. Send help. So for S4 now, we've got:
- E1: 313, E2: 350, E3: 334, E4: 326 (MP: 256, SP: 70), E5: 338 (MP: 245, SP: 93), E6: 329 (MP: 281, SP: 48), E7: 313 (MP: 131, SP: 182), E8: 210 (MP: 123, SP: 87)
- Overall average: 314, main plot average: 254, subplot average: 96
- I think I'm sick. Send help. So for S4 now, we've got:
- Maybe I am getting better, then. Maybe it's because we went from six main cast/characters in the first two seasons to five main cast/characters in the third season (with Eddie departing after 2) to four main cast/characters in the fourth season (with Kim departing after 3). Again, though, who knows why I'm having better luck with S4. But I definitely think I will go back and write from scratch for seasons 1–3. Then I'll come back to compare S1 E1 now to the rewritten version. But yeah, for my latest summary for "Invasion of the Ghost Pirates," I managed an impressive 131 words for the main plot. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
How's this? "Wasabi Warriors." Rewritten from scratch, at a lot less words: 284. Should be more concise, with almost all trivial details excluded. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
MOS:TENSE
Per the above guideline, summaries should almost always be written in present tense. ("they are happy," not "they were happy"). Now, like with anything else, there are various exceptions. For example, if the characters in a series are talking about about an event prior to the series or an episode not in the series, then you would use past tense. Or if there's one of those "Don't forget what happened last time" dialogues with a flashback, you'd write in past tense, if it's a quick flashback. If the flashback is the almost the entire episode, like the quads' trip to the dentist in a season one NRDD episode, then it'd be present tense. Then there are cases where you have to use the present/past participle, I think it's called (eg, "he has had enough).
What about in case like this, though, for my "Tightroping the Shark" summary: Not wanting to give the audience their money back and disappoint them, Jerry takes it upon himself to attempt the tightrope walk. However, it goes wrong when Jerry loses his balance pole and ends up dangling above the sharks, but Jack is able to walk out onto the tightrope and get Jerry back to safety. Even though Jerry did not make it all the way across, the audience is still impressed.
Is "did" okay in this context or should it be "does"? Alternatively, it could always be reworded to avoid that, if necessary. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Past tense ("Even though Jerry did not make it all the way across...") is the correct tense the way the summary is written, since the action of Jerry being on the tightrope becomes in the past after Jack gets him "back to safety" (as in off the tightrope). In avoiding the past tense usage altogether, that last sentence could become something like: "Despite not making it all the way across, Jerry still receives applause from the audience." (I'm assuming the audience applauded the effort, but I'm not sure - make the appropriate change according to the episode.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, they applauded the effort, basically. I made the following change: Diff. It's basically what you suggested above, just slightly different because I think the audience was more impressed with Jack's rescue performance than Jerry's attempt, though they both still got applause. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Candace Cameron Bure in Boy Meets World
Is there a way you can check to see how Cameron was credited in the episode "The Witches of Pennbrook"? I'm going to guess she wasn't credited as "Millicent "Millie""... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- @IJBall: The Boy Meets World S5 page is correct, except on Melissa Joan Hart's character.
Actor Character Credit Melissa Joan Hart Sabrina Special guest star Candace Cameron Bure Millie Guest star Chris Wiehl Dexter Guest star
Disney Channel premieres
In case you're interested, promos for upcoming premieres:
Bunk'd Raven's Home 1 Raven's Home 2 Coop & Cami Ask the World
The latest version of the last one is using the exact date. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Andi Mack - WP:OVERLINKING names of publications in references
Pinging Geraldo Perez as well.
What are your thoughts on this and this? They raised a talk page discussion here that I actually meant to reply to, but completely forgot about. The argument is that it's fairly common practice across articles, but that's a WP:OSE argument, and ever since I started working on TV articles, I've only ever seen it on maybe two or three of the 50+ TV articles I work and have worked om. I don't know if I really have any strong opinions, but there wasn't really any consensus, though I don't really know if it's a big deal here. It would certainly help if they used edit summaries on all their edits (and used the preview to make as few edits as possible within a short span of time). Add: It may be better to just reply over there, but it's up to you guys. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: This is about something more broad than just Andi Mack, so I'm thinking it might be OK to have the discussion here. But my thought is linking the same publication across a variety of references appears to be OK to me, as readers are likely not aware of the repetition of a publication in these references as they are embedded in footnotes across the article. (They'd have to scroll to the References section to see the repetition.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm, I replied before I clicked on the talk page discussion over at Talk:Andi Mack. Since it was started there, best to continue there. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Seems OK in this case, linking in cites. It won't be seen except in the references section. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Heads up: [1] I foresee this becoming a problem.
We know cast don't speak for the series, but even if they did, their word is not absolute. We have to remember that actors on Disney Channel are contracted for three seasons—two seasons guaranteed; three seasons depending on other factors—so when they get to the end of the third season, of course they're going to be all sad, reminiscent, etc., since they think they're done and a fourth season is considered bonus, with contracts having to be renewed and salaries increased. Bizaardvark's third season is only six episodes in, and we didn't know about Austin & Ally's fourth season until April 25, 2014, after 11 out of 22 (50%) season three episodes had already aired. Likewise, we didn't know about Liv and Maddie's fourth season until December 21, 2015, after 9 out of 20 (45%) season three episodes had already aired. Bizaardvark's third season was ordered another 21 episodes, and with only 6 out of 21 of those aired, it's only aired about 29% of its season, so for now, the cast and crew are just as much in the dark as the rest of us are, really, and just assume they're done for the aforementioned reasons. There's still time. I mean, you saw what happened with Bunk'd third season renewal. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- That wouldn't be definitive anyway – she said "last day of filming", not "last day of filming EVER". So that couldn't even be used to source a "series finale"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Spinoff of "two TV series"
Re this edit – that's actually an interesting question... My guess is that Sam & Cat is not the first example of this, though I'd be hard-pressed to come up with another (though I'm pretty sure there are some, from the 1970s and/or 1980s...). If I end up coming up with others, I may make a "scratch page" in my userspace on the topic... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Andi Mack
Didn't want to change anything in case it's not a typo and does make sense in a way I'm not getting—maybe it's related to the whole Celia suggests that Bex move out
—but is this a typo? but he becomes shocked to hear Andi downgrade their relationship to being just friends
Did you mean either "downgrades" or "downgraded"? Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: To me, it didn't sound like there was a problem, but now that I'm thinking about it, I may rephrase that sentence a bit. The earlier sentence was correct, as the "move out" part was in the subjunctive mood, as in the action wasn't actually carried out, relative to the "suggests" part (the "move out" action might be carried out, later, or it might not). The present subjunctive conjugation for "move" is the same for all persons (first, second, third) and number (singular, plural), whereas the present indicative (where the sentence's action is carried out) has the added "s" for the third-person singular. The sentence I wrote from the latest episode which you cited has a different mood on the "downgrade" part (it's not subjunctive), as Andi actually says that she's OK being friends with Jonah, which does shock him. Which is why I have thoughts of rephrasing the sentence - if I were to leave the sentence intact and choose between the two other options, I probably would go with "downgraded", as Jonah's shock happened right after she said what she did. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: This might be one of those complicated sentence structure issues, particular with a verb like "hear". Did a Google search typing in a similar sentence - "I heard him say..." - and focused on a particular forum that addresses these kinds of grammatical matters, forum.wordreference.com ([2]). One post indicated something called a "bare infinitive" (the verb expressed in the infinitive without the word "to" preceding it). That's why I was thinking the original way I wrote the sentence didn't have any problems ...
he becomes shocked to hear Andi [to] downgrade their relationship...
. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Might watch this as well: 2018 in American television. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Pretty long article in terms of size (which is to be expected for this kind of info), but I'll check that every now and then. Glancing at it, I don't think IJBall is gonna like the WP:ACCESS violations in that one - lots of rowspanning in the tables. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- There are suites of articles like this where fixing the ACCESS-violations are just too big a job to "fix" without an organized, concerted, consensus-driven effort from multiple editors. The 2018–19 United States network television schedule, etc. suite of articles are even worse – I'm not even sure it's possible to "fix" these articles without completely redesigning them from scratch. So, on WP:ACCESS, I generally pick my battles to focus on those articles or sections of articles where I think a WP:ACCESS push might actually accomplish something aside from just controversy. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lists of UK top 10 singles#Requested move 25 October 2018. You're much more of an "expert" about this kind of stuff than I am, so I figured you should probably take a look at this one... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert, either, but the user's request is also confusing me as I'm not seeing the potential confusion they're referring to. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't comment at either that talk page, or a discussion held earlier in the year concerning the move of related articles associated with the Billboard Hot 100 top-ten singles. (I was OK with the move, however.) The argument made in the earlier move (Billboard) had to do with using "top-ten" vs. "top 10" (before, it was something like "List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2018"), which has more to do with hyphenation of a multi-word adjective, like with "number-one singles". Appears to be more of a consistency issue from a grammatical standpoint - "number-one singles", "top-ten singles", etc. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Disney Channel premiere scheduling changes beginning November 2
- 8:00 PM: Andi Mack
- 8:30 PM: Coop & Cami Ask the World
- 9:00 PM: Raven's Home
How it should be. Amaury (talk | contribs) 12:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- So Monday's new Andi Mack is pulled and moved to November 2. See this and the reply to it with new dates. Amaury (talk | contribs) 12:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Definitely a good idea to move new episodes of Andi Mack back to Fridays, as the show certainly has taken a ratings plunge since it went to Mondays back in June, in the middle of the second season. And the first three episodes of this season, with even worse ratings, have been up against Monday Night Football on another of Disney's owned networks (ESPN). Terrible move back in the summer. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- The whole GO! premieres ruined everything. They should have just stuck to Fridays. Notice that even with Friday primetime back, Raven's Home hasn't recovered and in turn Coop & Cami Ask the World isn't doing well. Bunk'd and Bizaardvark at 7:30 PM also didn't do too hot. Admittedly, ratings probably would have been lower because of the declines, but not this low. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- And this is up-to-date, if you're interested. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Definitely a good idea to move new episodes of Andi Mack back to Fridays, as the show certainly has taken a ratings plunge since it went to Mondays back in June, in the middle of the second season. And the first three episodes of this season, with even worse ratings, have been up against Monday Night Football on another of Disney's owned networks (ESPN). Terrible move back in the summer. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Disney Channel has sent out an official press release, though the episode guides still haven't caught up. Although I wonder if it's notable enough to mention on the parent article or if it violates WP:NOTAGUIDE. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Coop & Cami Ask the World
If you haven't already, the second episode is available free on Disney Channel's YouTube, if you want to check out the series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPYNo2S8SF8 Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Already watched that episode, "Would You Wrather Have a Hippo", from Disney NOW (which has it subscription-free). I thought it was okay, but just that - didn't really prompt me into wanting to watch more of the series. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- On the subject of series, if ever do decide to get Raven's Home season two, let me know what you think of the episodes. I'm sure that's one that keeps you wanting more. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- "Raven's Home: Remix" is available on Disney NOW, currently subscription free. Thought you might like this episode in particular as it's unique. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
"Disney Asia" vandal
Newest iteration appears to be Special:Contributions/180.191.119.13, so unfortunately, this seems to go beyond 180.191.114.* and 180.191.113.* IP addresses... 
--IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- @IJBall: That topic just recently got archived from Geraldo's talk page, at User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 17#"Disney Asia"/"Disney Southeast Asia" vandal. That third number (119) is one of the five I mentioned associated with this IP range ... which were 111, 114, 115, 118 and 119. All five of those were found in edits at Andi Mack, which got semiprotected for a year because of disruption from that range. If I were targeting a range block, I'd go with /24 on all five of those (e.g., 180.191.111.0/24, 180.191.114.0/24 ...), though focusing on the more recent disruptions. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- @IJBall: 180.190.*.* has shown up again, at Mitsubishi Motors ([3]). MPFitz1968 (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nothing is going to happen until we start reporting these (to AIV). I dunno if we need to start a "case page" on this, like Amaury did with Orchomen. But this IP has been skating under the radar too long – they're obviously a vandal that's not going to quit. Pinging Amaury and Geraldo Perez here in case they have any other comment. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ping Amaury correctly this time.... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
This article is in frankly awful shape. It's basically WP:BLPPROD as being completely without meaningful sourcing. I'm tempted to either cut it back to a 2-sentence stub (all else is unsourced), or {{Notability}} tag it... If I had some time (which I don't these days...), I'd look for sourcing, as there should at least be a source available for being promoted to the main cast of Henry Danger. But, even with that, I'm really not sure Cohen's notable enough for an article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
hello
edit warring has no winners. please tell me why you believe that detail is unnecessary instead of warring over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.4.89 (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- To clarify what this is about, the IP is adding the day of the week on which a particular person is born in addition to what is listed for the birthday in the infobox of a couple of Survivor contestants: Parvati Shallow and Amber Mariano. For one thing, the day of the week is not supported by the template used {{Birth date and age}}. Secondly, this is trivial detail as far as Wikipedia is concerned ... if someone wants to know what day of the week a date falls on (BTW, I'm obsessed with that, but I don't carry it into Wikipedia articles), they can look it up ... there are articles talking about the various Gregorian calendar configurations with what year belongs to what configuration. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- @100.2.4.89: And another editor besides me reverted at Parvati's article [4], so you definitely do not have consensus to add these days of the week to birthdays. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Given that one of the users is now attempting to get you and IJBall blocked, it's only fair you should be aware of this. However, any further comments about the article itself should go on the article's talk page, per Favonian's wishes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
User:LOVI33
You're up – this will have to go to WP:ANI (where it's probable that it will get ignored, of course...), but I don't have time to file a report today on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- After completely flouting WP:ACCESS and the Talk page discussion (which clearly favored continuing to follow ACCESS) at Sabrina Carpenter discography (which I've now taken off my watchlist), this editor has now turned their attention to the Sabrina Carpenter article itself, where they are now doing things like adding unsourced genres and associated acts. Pinging Amaury as well. Despite 2 previous blocks, I'm unconvinced that this editor will stop now, so this may ended up having to go to ANI in the end, after all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I don't feel like getting involved with them again. I say just take them to ANI now and get them indefinitely blocked. Then we can revert them there and at the discography without having to worry about them. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- They're not disruptive at Sabrina Carpenter yet, so this is more of a "heads up". But they won't have WP:DISCOGRAPHY editors carrying water for them at Sabrina Carpenter, so if they keep persistently doing things like adding unsourced genres, they could conceivably be blocked for that kind of activity... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I don't feel like getting involved with them again. I say just take them to ANI now and get them indefinitely blocked. Then we can revert them there and at the discography without having to worry about them. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I know you're already watching this, but just keep a little closer eye on it than normal temporarily, as I imagine we'll probably run into problems. The two recent editors there have seemed to appear out of nowhere as you may have noticed, and while I don't suspect any foul play—I'm instead getting a stalking feeling—it just seems odd that they would. I dunno, maybe I'm just being wiki-paranoid with the problems we've had with long-term sockers like Bambifan and Orchomen. Of the articles I watch, one has previously been confined to editing articles like List of The Loud House episodes and Big City Greens, while the one I reverted the other day on the Henry Danger episode list for adding unsourced guest stars has previously been confined to editing articles like Double Dare. The latter is a stubborn one if you remember what happened back in October on List of I Am Frankie episodes.
Anyway, moving on: Thumb War is a double-length episode, and this is one of those that had part labels, but those are irrelevant since it is still one episode (that involved merging two episodes for presentation), as supported by Amazon. It's no different than Lab Rats: Elite Force and Knight Squad or previous double-length specials in that regard. It's still treated the same as other double-length specials, but this one is a tiny bit different in that it's like iCarly's "iDate a Bad Boy" double-length special. Nickandmore explains it best in his three tweets here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, MPFitz1968. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Sydney to the Max update
With a premiere date now known, it meets WP:TVSHOW and is now a live article. (Geraldo Perez, IJBall.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- @IJBall:
OMG! Stalker! I saw you edited the article one minute before I posted here!Is this referring to adding a Premise section? If so, we can work with what we have from the press release, it's just a matter of avoiding COPYVIO stuff, which seems tricky to do with Premise sections.Set in the present day with flashbacks to the 1990s, the comedy revolves around outgoing middle schooler Sydney Reynolds who lives with her single dad Max in the house he grew up in, along with her progressive grandmother Judy - three generations under one roof. As Sydney's preteen pursuits begin to expand with unexpected and funny twists, Max tries to get a better sense of the guidance, perspective and support she needs. Grandma, full of both parental wisdom and wisecracks, has a razor-sharp memory that proves Max's own teenage antics parallel Sydney's. Flashback scenes to a young Max and his best friend Leo juxtapose the funny predicaments invented by Sydney and her vivacious friend Olive.
Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)- No – 'short description' is just what Google searches will turn up for this page. It has nothing to do with the 'Premise' section... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Happy Thanksgiving!
 |
Amaury (talk | contribs) 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. |
Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. Happy Thanksgiving to you, too, Amaury. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I reverted them at I Didn't Do It as well. But outside of that, I'm not familiar enough or at all with the other articles they've edited today. Perhaps you and IJBall are more familiar and can determine whether the additions are correct or not. For reference:
- Goliath
- JC Gonzalez
- 9-1-1
- List of NCIS: New Orleans characters
I Didn't Do It- How to Rock (I've seen the series, but this was long before I became a regular TV editor post-indefinite block, so I'm not familiar enough with it. Likewise Victorious.)
- Parenthood
List of Victorious episodes- The Hard Times of RJ Berger
- 11-11-11
Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Let's just say there's a reason I tried to get JC Gonzalez deleted at WP:AfD – I failed in that, and now we're going to continue to have to put up with this... But there is some editor/IP that's been trying to inflate this guy's resume for about a year now – he's only a minor actor, and should almost certainly be pulled from every article he's been added to. Pinging Geraldo Perez so they're aware of this too. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- I went through most of the recent adds. Minor role in an episode and got added to starring cast in infobox in some articles, recurring in others. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Andi Mack
Don't look at anything related to Andi Mack from Deadline Hollywood tweets and the like. I don't want to spoil anything for you, but Disney Channel will be breaking ground again with a very interesting story line arcing two upcoming episodes—this Friday's and next Friday's. Although the "next time on..." at the end of the last episode might have given you some theories, but still. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'll add the info to the article, now that you've seen "Cookie Monster." That scene with Andi acting like a police officer was hilarious. "Drop the scissors!" By the way, did you ever manage to find what I was talking about here? User talk:MPFitz1968/Archive 10#Andi Mack – "Buffy in a Bottle". Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Sorry, I might've re-watched "Buffy in a Bottle" not too long ago, but can't figure it out. Mind has also been focused on way too much outside of Wikipedia and Andi Mack, so my recalling details within the episode offhand will be difficult. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's the scene at The Spoon with Andi, Cyrus and TJ. See 8:19 here. Once you think about it a bit, you get it. (I know I didn't get notice it at first until Nickandmore pointed it out on Twitter, and even then I didn't get it. Then I did.) Then it makes more sense why it mirrors a joke in the very first episode of the series, where Andi has to go to her first class. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Sorry, I might've re-watched "Buffy in a Bottle" not too long ago, but can't figure it out. Mind has also been focused on way too much outside of Wikipedia and Andi Mack, so my recalling details within the episode offhand will be difficult. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
If you're interested, Twitter tweet. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
My under Sourced, under reasured page
Plese take over the page List of Billboard 200 top 10 albums I tryed but I failed, I guess I'm not good at this wikipedia uploding so I Will stick to editing Kay gee 2019 (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Kay gee 2019: Creating pages can be more difficult. Anyway, it looks like you were trying to create an article containing the albums making the top 10 on the Billboard 200 during 2018. The title of the article needs to be more precise, as in List of Billboard 200 top 10 albums in 2018 (the convention for this group of articles) - clicking that currently redirects to List of Billboard 200 number-one albums of 2018, though, as no one has followed thru on making the list for the top 10 albums. You would need to get to the redirect itself (starting point), and then edit that to make it an article listing the albums which ranked in the top 10 of the Billboard 200 during the year.
Now, having said that, I have concern about this kind of article, as this type of list is not likely to survive a deletion discussion, another problem regarding creation of articles (the subject of any article must be notable, not be something that violates Wikipedia policies or copyright, not be some indiscriminate list, etc.). There has been at least one deletion discussion, pertaining to listing the top 10 albums from earlier years. I would advise you to look at the deletion discussion here. MPFitz1968 (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)