→List of Wynonna Earp episodes: Final comment. |
Pyxis Solitary (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 456: | Line 456: | ||
::::The citation is a reliable, expert source that verifies the anticipated event. It verified the title of the episode and its air date simultaneously. Requiring TWO identical citations for the episode title ''and'' for the air date is neither policy nor guideline in [[MOS:TV]]. If you want this to be the preferred s.o.p. it needs to be clearly and precisely included in MOS. [[User:Pyxis Solitary|Pyxis Solitary]] ([[User talk:Pyxis Solitary|talk]]) 09:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC) |
::::The citation is a reliable, expert source that verifies the anticipated event. It verified the title of the episode and its air date simultaneously. Requiring TWO identical citations for the episode title ''and'' for the air date is neither policy nor guideline in [[MOS:TV]]. If you want this to be the preferred s.o.p. it needs to be clearly and precisely included in MOS. [[User:Pyxis Solitary|Pyxis Solitary]] ([[User talk:Pyxis Solitary|talk]]) 09:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::::{{re|Pyxis Solitary}} Use some [[WP:COMMONSENSE]] here. There are plenty of instances where the sources used for episode titles don't contain the air dates or are missing them—though there are later updates that add them when scheduling is more clear—such is the case with Screener and Nickelodeon, so it is not unreasonable to have sources for both the title and the air date for future episodes. It is not the responsibility of the other editor to read your brain and understand that the citation used for the title supports the air date; instead, this is, again, the responsibility of the original editor who added it. Better yet, to avoid issues, simply add a reliable episode guide, such as The Futon Critic and Screener, as column sources. [[User:Amaury|Amaury]] (<small>[[User talk:Amaury|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Amaury|contribs]]</small>) 14:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC) |
:::::{{re|Pyxis Solitary}} Use some [[WP:COMMONSENSE]] here. There are plenty of instances where the sources used for episode titles don't contain the air dates or are missing them—though there are later updates that add them when scheduling is more clear—such is the case with Screener and Nickelodeon, so it is not unreasonable to have sources for both the title and the air date for future episodes. It is not the responsibility of the other editor to read your brain and understand that the citation used for the title supports the air date; instead, this is, again, the responsibility of the original editor who added it. Better yet, to avoid issues, simply add a reliable episode guide, such as The Futon Critic and Screener, as column sources. [[User:Amaury|Amaury]] (<small>[[User talk:Amaury|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Amaury|contribs]]</small>) 14:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::::{{re|Amaury}} ''Screener''? "The voice for the ultimate TV fanatic."? You must be joking. As for ''The Futon Critic'': not only does it (word for word) regurgitate press releases, but it excludes IA's Web Machine from crawling its pages. Using TFC as a source is a wasted citation and future loss of information. There's no "common sense" in being tied to the same ol' same ol'. [[User:Pyxis Solitary|Pyxis Solitary]] ([[User talk:Pyxis Solitary|talk]]) 16:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::: My final comment on this is that [[WP:REFNAME]] exists for reasons exactly like this case. The column ref used for the future airdates in this episodes table did not include the airdate for the finale – so that air date required separate referencing, regardless of the titles sourcing. (And, as an aside, I will again note that each of those episode titles does not need to be referenced individually – doing that through column sourcing would be preferable in this case as well.) But, as I said, that's all I intend to say on this matter. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 15:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC) |
::::: My final comment on this is that [[WP:REFNAME]] exists for reasons exactly like this case. The column ref used for the future airdates in this episodes table did not include the airdate for the finale – so that air date required separate referencing, regardless of the titles sourcing. (And, as an aside, I will again note that each of those episode titles does not need to be referenced individually – doing that through column sourcing would be preferable in this case as well.) But, as I said, that's all I intend to say on this matter. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 15:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 16:09, 29 June 2017
Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:
- Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
- If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
- Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
- Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
- Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
- To initiate a new conversation on this page, please .
- You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Pinging Geraldo Perez – this is more a reminder to myself than to you, Geraldo: but the WP:SCOPE of List of films based on television programs looks like it needs to be (massively?) narrowed. Right now it's including a bunch of what are basically TV movies in the list (including some TV movies that basically aired as episodes of these series – e.g. I just removed Shake It Up: Made In Japan which should not have been included under any circumstances!). That list should be narrowed to just theatrically-released films that are based on TV series. FWIW. (And, again, this is more a reminder to myself...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- See also: List of television spin-offs to do the same. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
How to list specials
If there even is an "official" way. Prime example: List of Make It Pop episodes. There are two specials, and they are currently ordered by air date. The first one is listed between the first and second seasons and the second one is listed after the second season. I'm wondering if it would be more "official" to have a single table for specials and just list that table at the very bottom, regardless of whether it's in air date order or not. Kind of similar to Hunter Street, I guess. I don't know. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think it depends on what kind of "special" episode it is. "Retrospective special episodes" are usually listed in one table at the bottom of the LoE, and are not included in the overall series "episode count" (e.g. List of Once Upon a Time episodes; note: this would also apply to the Hunter Street (TV series) special). However, "specials" like the one at List of Make It Pop episodes are actual "special episodes" of the series – in cases like those, I think they're best handled as it is at List of Make It Pop episodes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I'll admit – in the specific case of The Thundermans, I don't have a clear sense on what to do... I think that one can be argued both ways. This does get to a point I've been making a lot recently – that Nick and Disney Channel TV shows don't have seasons in the way that, say, CBS, The CW and USA Network TV shows do... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
This does get to a point I've been making a lot recently – that Nick and Disney Channel TV shows don't have seasons in the way that, say, CBS, The CW and USA Network TV shows do...
Hm. At least to me, I think The Thundermans is the only one with that "issue." Everything else, again, at least to me, for both Nickelodeon and Disney Channel seems a little more clear on season premieres and finales. For example, List of Henry Danger episodes and List of Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn episodes on the Nickelodeon side and List of Bunk'd episodes and List of Stuck in the Middle episodes on the Disney Channel side. No official announcements on the season finales for those that I know of, but The Thundermans appears to be the only one causing confusion and the like. Although I suppose List of Game Shakers episodes could be another one with regard to Revenge @ Tech Fest (promo) and the gap between it and the episode before it, but that one aired on a Saturday, the day it usually airs. With The Thundermans, though, not only was that episode advertised as a special, it also aired on a Monday, which, for Nickelodeon and Disney Channel, isn't usually a day there are episode premieres. Granted, it was a holiday, but still. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)- Yeah, that's what I'm getting at – that Nick and Disney don't have formally structured "seasons": nothing is ever announced or advertised as a "season premiere" or a "season finale". And even their episode bundles on iTunes don't seem to follow a "season"-model... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think they've announced some season premieres and finales before with regard to TV commercials, but I can't quite remember. I can just vaguely remember the words season premiere/finale. I know that some series, like with Bizaardvark, have the premiere/finale tag on Screener, but they end up disappearing after a while. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe occasionally. But I think it only happens in the press releases. I can't remember a commercial ever using the "season finale" or "season premiere" tag on Nick or Disney... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) And with Screener in particular, you can't fully rely on it just because it has an episode under a certain season. Look over on List of Crashletes episodes, where there's that odd situation that it seems logical that the second season premiere would have been on September 9, 2016, the same day Jagger Eaton's Mega Life premiered, but the source that mentions the renewal on Crashletes clearly states season two premiering on September 16, 2016, a week after the season one finale, which was "Eaton It" and had a season one production code. I mean, that makes a little more sense that the gaps wouldn't be quite as big between seasons considering it's an unscripted series that doesn't require much work or money—is the former the correct term?—but to have all those season one episodes air daily back in July 2016, then have the season one finale on September 9, 2016, and then, finally, have the season two premiere just a week later on September 16, 2016, just doesn't seem quite right. Then there was an episode with a season one production code that aired during season two, but it's listed under season one on Screener. This isn't always the case as "Girl Meets Fish" with a season one production code is listed under season two, but with Crashletes it was different. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe occasionally. But I think it only happens in the press releases. I can't remember a commercial ever using the "season finale" or "season premiere" tag on Nick or Disney... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think they've announced some season premieres and finales before with regard to TV commercials, but I can't quite remember. I can just vaguely remember the words season premiere/finale. I know that some series, like with Bizaardvark, have the premiere/finale tag on Screener, but they end up disappearing after a while. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what I'm getting at – that Nick and Disney don't have formally structured "seasons": nothing is ever announced or advertised as a "season premiere" or a "season finale". And even their episode bundles on iTunes don't seem to follow a "season"-model... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Per our discussion, I've made the following changes with regard to Stuck in the Middle: [1] and [2]. If there are any disagreements or partial disagreements, feel more than free to let me know. Pinging Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H as well, in part because they were involved in the discussion regarding the addition of the shorts: Talk:Stuck in the Middle (TV series)#Stuck in the Middle: Stuck in the Store. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Yeah, shorts like that are not really like normal full-length or even double-length episodes. I have no strong opinion on including them in the series overview, but if we don't include them there and in the episode count, it should probably be moved outside the "Episodes" section heading, like at List of Once Upon a Time episodes. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: While "shorts" are not the same thing as "retrospective episodes", what you just did has precedent – List of Heroes episodes. However, if you are no longer going to include the 'shorts' in the series overview table, then I think the "Stuck in the Store" shorts need to be explicitly mentioned in the lede at List of Stuck in the Middle episodes – that was done with the webisodes at List of Heroes episodes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Good call. On another note, obviously, I won't change it back, but the other thing that still has me believe that "Thundermans: Secret Revealed" is a standalone special, alongside everything else I've already said here and on the article talk page with regard to the gaps and such, even including a link to the promo, is the two episodes preceding it: "Stealing Home" and "Back to School." Both of those aired on August 13, 2016, which is another indicator of a season—or series—finale: two or more new episodes on the same night. But maybe they just didn't want to air "Back to School" alongside Make It Pop's "Summer Splash" the following week on August 20, 2016. Or maybe they didn't want to air "Thundermans: Secret Revealed" alongside Make It Pop's "Summer Splash" on August 20, 2016. I don't know. If they had done either of these, though, it would have very likely boosted Make It Pop's "Summer Splash" ratings: 1.07 million total viewers. Also, just like it's not uncommon to leave a season on a cliffhanger and have the next season pick up where that left off, it's also not uncommon to just end a season with a typical episode, one that isn't specifically a season finale, but just an ordinary, run-of-the-mill episode, and then have the next season start with something having happened between it and the season finale of the previous season that we don't ever see, such as a marriage. When a series is popular enough or whatever requirements a series needs to get standalone specials, they'll usually make a special explaining what happened between the seasons, usually once the current season has already aired, but not always. It still just doesn't sit right with me, but, obviously, I'll leave it. I'm not going to be one of those disruptive editors. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The difference between being a good Wiki editor, and a WP:BATTLEGROUNDer (there's one of these at one of the rail articles I edit currently...), is realizing that consensus isn't always going to go your way and being fine with it when it's doesn't. It's happened to all of us, for sure. In the case of The Thundermans, the evidence is scant, but what there is does seem to point in the direction of including "Secrets Revealed" with one of the seasons. But I'd feel a lot better about it if this episode was listed at the U.S. Copyright Office, as I usually prefer to use that to make "final" calls like this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Skyvolt did make a good point, though, that it would have been more logical to have the season three finale be "Back to School" and then have "Thundermans: Secret Revealed" and "Thundermans: Banished!" as standalone specials. Although that would have made the season four premiere even more weird, and it's pretty weird to begin with as there were only two episodes before a hiatus, in that there would have only been one episode before a hiatus—"Happy Heroween." It seems more logical that season four should have premiered on January 7 alongside the season three premiere of Nicky, Ricky, Dicky, & Dawn. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The difference between being a good Wiki editor, and a WP:BATTLEGROUNDer (there's one of these at one of the rail articles I edit currently...), is realizing that consensus isn't always going to go your way and being fine with it when it's doesn't. It's happened to all of us, for sure. In the case of The Thundermans, the evidence is scant, but what there is does seem to point in the direction of including "Secrets Revealed" with one of the seasons. But I'd feel a lot better about it if this episode was listed at the U.S. Copyright Office, as I usually prefer to use that to make "final" calls like this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Good call. On another note, obviously, I won't change it back, but the other thing that still has me believe that "Thundermans: Secret Revealed" is a standalone special, alongside everything else I've already said here and on the article talk page with regard to the gaps and such, even including a link to the promo, is the two episodes preceding it: "Stealing Home" and "Back to School." Both of those aired on August 13, 2016, which is another indicator of a season—or series—finale: two or more new episodes on the same night. But maybe they just didn't want to air "Back to School" alongside Make It Pop's "Summer Splash" the following week on August 20, 2016. Or maybe they didn't want to air "Thundermans: Secret Revealed" alongside Make It Pop's "Summer Splash" on August 20, 2016. I don't know. If they had done either of these, though, it would have very likely boosted Make It Pop's "Summer Splash" ratings: 1.07 million total viewers. Also, just like it's not uncommon to leave a season on a cliffhanger and have the next season pick up where that left off, it's also not uncommon to just end a season with a typical episode, one that isn't specifically a season finale, but just an ordinary, run-of-the-mill episode, and then have the next season start with something having happened between it and the season finale of the previous season that we don't ever see, such as a marriage. When a series is popular enough or whatever requirements a series needs to get standalone specials, they'll usually make a special explaining what happened between the seasons, usually once the current season has already aired, but not always. It still just doesn't sit right with me, but, obviously, I'll leave it. I'm not going to be one of those disruptive editors. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: While "shorts" are not the same thing as "retrospective episodes", what you just did has precedent – List of Heroes episodes. However, if you are no longer going to include the 'shorts' in the series overview table, then I think the "Stuck in the Store" shorts need to be explicitly mentioned in the lede at List of Stuck in the Middle episodes – that was done with the webisodes at List of Heroes episodes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure there are more, but I just remembered a crystal clear case of a season premiere "announcement." Henry Danger's second second which was followed by the series premiere of Game Shakers. That night, even before the premieres, some of the cast from both series were there live, if I recall, during commercial breaks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Redux
Look! I'm copying you!
I've now made the same changes to Hunter Street: [3]. I've left the episode count alone, however, because the special is still technically an episode, and unlike Stuck in the Middle's shorts, this was a normal length airing like a regular episode. Although on an interesting note, it's not even listed on Amazon. Feel free to make any tweaks you see necessary. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- I've put subsections back in, because at the parent TV series article I think that works much better. And I've revised the episode count based on how they handle this at Once Upon a Time. But I fully agree with taking the 'Series overview' out (and not counting the special there) – again, that is also how they handle this at Once Upon a Time, so we're following practice elsewhere on that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
If this is still in your list, could use some extra eyes. Known disruptive user making disruptive—or very problematic at least—edits. Their talk page is practically full of nothing but warnings, and they've been blocked once. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- This falls under my "I won't watchlist currently-airing (adult) TV series articles to avoid conflicts with other editors" policy. However, I do check that article from time to time, as I watch episodes, to check on things. In this particular case, I'm not going to take a side – this is a content dispute, pure and simple, and should probably be discussed on the article's Talk page to see if other editors have any opinion on the matter. (Personally, I do not...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Done. (Although it needs to be discussed and left as before being challenged before changing it. Does nobody know anything?) Putting the issue aside for a moment, however, the user is still disruptive and shouldn't be excused generally speaking, in my opinion. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Having now started the discussion, if they ignore the Talk page, and continue adding it back, then they'll definitely be guilty of Disruptive editing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Done. (Although it needs to be discussed and left as before being challenged before changing it. Does nobody know anything?) Putting the issue aside for a moment, however, the user is still disruptive and shouldn't be excused generally speaking, in my opinion. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't know if you'll feel same or different on this, but I've got another issue that I believe is more "major," so to speak, than the ratings issue, so just letting you know. Contrary to the editor's claim, series can't "air" online. I know MPFitz1968 jots his credits down from viewing Disney Channel series episodes online before they air, but he waits until they air to insert the credits which is right. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well, there's an even bigger problem there – Chad Lowe was not in the first episode (that I can remember), so some of that may actually be fraudulent. (Also, if Katelyn Tarver never appears in another episode than the two she's already appeared in, she won't qualify as "recurring" either.) So those edits were problematic for a number of reasons. If they're repeated, and I see them first, I'll revert them myself. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It may be easier to verify credits once episodes have aired on TV, but I believe such official pre-air releases are valid sources. Anyone in the US who has a cable subscription and an internet connection can easily log in to Watch Disney, and not everyone has a cable subscription (or lives in the US) anyway, so TV is not much more of a publicly accessible source than the pre-air releases (which are also on Amazon and iTunes), and sources are not required to be publicly accessible to everyone anyway (we can't exactly provide a link to each episode's end credits, as that would be a copyright violation, and if not coming from an official distribution platform, it could well be faked). Usually, these are released the same day, so even if you can't verify yet, credits can be left in and corrected if needed when the episode airs if it's not blatantly obvious vandalism. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Like I said, those particular edits were problematic anyway – e.g. I for one generally oppose having a "Guest cast" section... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- On the more specific point, it should probably be determined by consensus at the article and its Talk page. I, for one, am with Amaury on this, and would prefer we stick to adding material as the episodes air on Freeform – the OnDemand and web stuff can certainly be used in the way Amaury suggests MPFitz uses them. But my preference is that we let the episodes air on Freeform and use that as our primary "airing source" for adding content. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It may be easier to verify credits once episodes have aired on TV, but I believe such official pre-air releases are valid sources. Anyone in the US who has a cable subscription and an internet connection can easily log in to Watch Disney, and not everyone has a cable subscription (or lives in the US) anyway, so TV is not much more of a publicly accessible source than the pre-air releases (which are also on Amazon and iTunes), and sources are not required to be publicly accessible to everyone anyway (we can't exactly provide a link to each episode's end credits, as that would be a copyright violation, and if not coming from an official distribution platform, it could well be faked). Usually, these are released the same day, so even if you can't verify yet, credits can be left in and corrected if needed when the episode airs if it's not blatantly obvious vandalism. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Producers
Just making you aware of this: [4]. It's not as groundbreaking as the whole Beyond fiasco with the starring cast being changed—and there were even differences in other credits, such as the executive producers—but I have a feeling we may still get stubborn people. Those producers were not listed in the pilot, but are listed from the second episode onward. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)Template:Z48
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
I've gone ahead and added it to my list. My magic eight ball said you were going to ask for more watchers at some point. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- I think I've been the only one watching this for a long-time. (It's now one of my top-edited articles, almost entirely due to reversions! ) It's been bad for a while now. But, yeah – it's likely to get worse, now that the premiere is approaching... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Somebody changed the poster art for this one – I do not approve: the previous poster art was superior. If anyone knows how to restore the previous version, please do so... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging expert Nyuszika7H. Relevant file page is here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- To update: Nyuszika7H reverted to the previous version, Philip J. Fry then reverted again to his version on the basis of image quality (how important is this really for these tiny images?...), and now I've figured out how to revert to the original image, and I've asked for further discussion at Talk:Descendants 2 before changing it again. Amaury, you may want to keep an eye on this image situation too... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- I found a better-quality version of the same poster we have been using with a Google reverse image search, and replaced it with that. This should resolve the quality issue. Other than that, movies often have multiple posters and there's generally no "One Correct Poster", so it's up to local consensus on a per-article basis. I agree that this one is superior as well. Also, I capped the size at 360px rather than 300px, as I've been doing with posters. It should be acceptable, as it's still quite-low resolution, and 300px is not a hard limit, just a guidance, and mostly used for square images like album covers. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Awesome! Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- To update: Nyuszika7H reverted to the previous version, Philip J. Fry then reverted again to his version on the basis of image quality (how important is this really for these tiny images?...), and now I've figured out how to revert to the original image, and I've asked for further discussion at Talk:Descendants 2 before changing it again. Amaury, you may want to keep an eye on this image situation too... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Also, I see Geraldo Perez is already watching this from the page history. MPFitz1968, you want to add this to your list? Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging expert Nyuszika7H. Relevant file page is here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Could use some eyes. Another content dispute? Maybe, maybe not, as I have suspicions some summaries are copyright violations. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- A talk page discussion has been started, for reference. I can't really think of a comment right now as class is starting in a few minutes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- I've tried rewording the first sentence of the synopsis for the episode in question (which is sub-optimal, as I don't think I've seen it...) so that it hopefully makes more sense/is better gramatically. If either of those editors then tries to replace that with their previous version, we'll know something is up... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages
Hello, IJBall. When you moved Hunter (U.S. TV series) to a new title and then redirected the old title to a disambiguation page, 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 "Hunter (U.S. TV series)" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I've asked someone with AWB to follow up on this. It should be taken care of soon. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!
I don't necessarily think we need to source it, but that aside, if people would just use proper edit summaries rather than "this series is X genre"—what, we're supposed to take their word for it by not providing any other information?—we'd save a lot of headaches. The genres I have listed on all the articles that I'm watching (and are in my sandbox) come from the general overview page on Screener for each series. All they had to write is that it came from the press release, and I would have looked to confirm and had no problem with it. But no... that's too difficult. "OMG! I can't be asked to use a proper edit summary! I'll die!" LOL! Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- In defense of Ruslan Kipkeev, they did try to source most of their genre additions (though not all of their sources were WP:RSs...). However, as it happens, I think "superhero" as a genre is only valid for Lab Rats: Elite Force and Mighty Med, but not the others. For example, none of the press around Lab Rats ever uses the word "superhero". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Question: If the episodes themselves are good primary sources, why are we saying a better citation is needed for his appearance there? Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn: Not-So-Sweet Charity. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: NickALive! is basically a blog, right? As such, it's WP:NOTRS. Frankly, that could probably be replaced with a Nick promo directly from YouTube, and then it would probably be fine... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Huh? I was referring to the episode guest starring credits on that Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn episode. Once the episode airs, it becomes a good primary source. I don't know where NickALive came from, haha! Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, so you're asking why that source can't just be removed? I guess it can be, now that the episode has aired... I usually like additional secondary sourcing, though, so if there's a reliable press source that mentions his appearance on that, then it could be added as "additional" sourcing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, I had a huge brain lapse. I thought that was tagged with citation needed rather than better citation needed. I didn't see the [10] there with the NickAlive source. But yes, that episode aired on May 20, and because NickALive is not a reliable source, my feeling is it shouldn't be kept, and the episode airing should be sufficient. If we find a reliable secondary source, we can insert that to back up our primary source as well. Now, I give you permission to smack me into next year. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, so you're asking why that source can't just be removed? I guess it can be, now that the episode has aired... I usually like additional secondary sourcing, though, so if there's a reliable press source that mentions his appearance on that, then it could be added as "additional" sourcing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Huh? I was referring to the episode guest starring credits on that Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn episode. Once the episode airs, it becomes a good primary source. I don't know where NickALive came from, haha! Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
If those were improvements, feel more than free to take responsibility. See also User talk:BU Rob13#Legends of the Hidden Temple (film). Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- No, they're not. That's the problem with Orchomen – many of his so-called "grammar improvements" are actually crap. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- For reference, any Orchomen IPs that edit your talk page, you can add here: User:Amaury/List of accounts and IPs used by Orchomen#June 11, 2017. Rob has already implemented some range blocks and will implement more as more IPs pop up. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sometimes I forget to do that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- For reference, any Orchomen IPs that edit your talk page, you can add here: User:Amaury/List of accounts and IPs used by Orchomen#June 11, 2017. Rob has already implemented some range blocks and will implement more as more IPs pop up. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your edit here, I was going thru the recent history in the article (last 50 edits), and this non-notable info about "love interests" has been inserted at least three times by at least three different IPs. I recall reverting the content once (and was inclined to do it again with the recent insertion, but instead managed to correct grammatical mistakes within the content - certainly whoever has been adding it doesn't know how to properly use 's). GP reverted this content once, too. As this is starting to become a problem, perhaps a hidden comment about keeping the character descriptions simple and relevant to the movie's overall theme and genre(s) may be in order. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: I think the problem is more whoever the editor is behind the IP's. Probably the same editor as at Descendants has been attempting to be add similar material to the cast descriptions at Descendants 2, but so far we've managed to keep it out. But it doesn't belong at either – at Descendants what they are trying to add is actually plot developments which belongs in the 'Plot' section not in the character descriptions. And it would likely be extraneous in any case... Let's keep an eye on this – if they persist, it may be worth looking into a range block or something, esp. if we end up following this up with a Talk page post. But, for now, let's see if anyone tries to add that back. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree on these details being more appropriate in the plot instead of in character descriptions. Also spotted another related, extraneous detail in the one for Princess Audrey and removed it [5]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: Ironically, I don't think that detail is extraneous – it is basically one of Audrey's established "traits". IOW, IIRC, that is something that happened before the events of the film, and is established early on, and thus would be OK to leave in the character summary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Noted, but I'm inclined to leave that detail out for now - it was included in the most recent IP reinsertion of the material [6]. At the beginning of the film, to my knowledge, Audrey and Ben are together, so the "ex-girlfriend" part happens later after Ben and Mal start going out. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can't remember the details. I thought I remembered that they were already broken up at the film's open, but I could be wrong... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Noted, but I'm inclined to leave that detail out for now - it was included in the most recent IP reinsertion of the material [6]. At the beginning of the film, to my knowledge, Audrey and Ben are together, so the "ex-girlfriend" part happens later after Ben and Mal start going out. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: Ironically, I don't think that detail is extraneous – it is basically one of Audrey's established "traits". IOW, IIRC, that is something that happened before the events of the film, and is established early on, and thus would be OK to leave in the character summary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree on these details being more appropriate in the plot instead of in character descriptions. Also spotted another related, extraneous detail in the one for Princess Audrey and removed it [5]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968: That didn't take long: [7], [8]. Looks like this IP is not going away. So we may need to look into other recourse, such as page protection and/or a rangeblock.
--IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm not sure range blocking will work, as I've seen at least two different IPv6 ranges, way broader than /64 or /48, and one IPv4 doing this, going back to early May. (2602:301:77E4:18C0:ACF6:7C91:7B72:59F6, 71.46.59.44, 2607:FCC8:900D:2900:EDCA:3390:520:97E2, 2602:301:77E4:18C0:C45C:CE2D:8E66:58D0) Most geolocate to Ohio, but the IPv4 geolocated to Florida, when I checked that earlier. And the level of disruption hasn't been too big recently for admins to protect the page. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- For now, I'm going with hidden note [9]. Likely not gonna stop the IPs, but other editors watching the page may still be informed. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Help!!! At List of The Loud House episodes, there is a vandal who thinks that Nickelodeon has S2 Ep11: "Pulp Friction/Pets Peeved". Can you look at the history? --Carmen Melendez (talk|contribs) 21:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging Geraldo Perez, who has more experience with circumstances like these... Checking... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Carmen Melendez: OK, I'm confused – why should "Pets Peeved" be listed before "Pulp Friction"? According to the airdates, it should be "Pulp Friction" -> "Pets Peeved". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Animated series like SpongeBob SquarePants and The Loud House are a huge mess with their Wikipedia episode listings as it seems editors just throw logicality out the window and don't order things by air date. However, there's also some network fault here for the weird ordering they do. Instead of airing two new approximately 10-minute segments (eg, 10a and 10b) they air one new 10-minute segment and pair it with an old one that already aired (eg, 10a and 2b, and later down the road 10b and 5b). For series like this, they should still be ordered by air date order, but if it were up to me, I'd just remove the numbering which would help alleviate some confusion. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: This particular article also has a Prod. Codes column – because that is included, there's no reason not to list the episodes at List of The Loud House episodes in airing order. For the animated TV series articles that don't have one, adding a "Prod. Codes" column to the episodes tables may be a way to solve some of these these issues – then we could consistently list the episodes in airing order, but editors would still be able follow the production order... (I'll admit – I don't edit the animated series articles often, esp. not any of the ones that have aired over the last 20–25 years!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Animated series like SpongeBob SquarePants and The Loud House are a huge mess with their Wikipedia episode listings as it seems editors just throw logicality out the window and don't order things by air date. However, there's also some network fault here for the weird ordering they do. Instead of airing two new approximately 10-minute segments (eg, 10a and 10b) they air one new 10-minute segment and pair it with an old one that already aired (eg, 10a and 2b, and later down the road 10b and 5b). For series like this, they should still be ordered by air date order, but if it were up to me, I'd just remove the numbering which would help alleviate some confusion. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
You've gotta be kidding me. Nickelodeon is wrong. An anonymous user who I call JeremyCreek is vandalizing. Can you pretty please block him once you see him doing Pulp Friction/Pets Peeved? Ah, never mind. I'll just talk to another administrator, an administrator that believes me. --Carmen Melendez (talk|contribs) 22:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- You still haven't explained the issue – "Nickelodeon is wrong"?! What does that even mean?... Also, waiting to see if Geraldo Perez has any comment on this. (P.S. What you are suggesting you will do is what is known as "Admin shopping", and it usually doesn't work out well...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like a basic content dispute that should be discussed on the article's talk page and dispute resolution followed if necessary. Episode lists are supposed to be ordered by airing date. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Geraldo Perez: I have posted a message at Talk:List of The Loud House episodes about this. We'll see if anyone takes notice. But the mere existence of the Talk page message probably justify anyone who now wants to put the episodes in order of air date.... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Carmen Melendez: Your editing history on this article is really odd and at times has crossed into the realm of disruptive. I find much of the above highly confusing. Could you please identify who JEREMYCREEK is and what edits (cite diffs please) you are referring to? Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Geraldo Perez: I have posted a message at Talk:List of The Loud House episodes about this. We'll see if anyone takes notice. But the mere existence of the Talk page message probably justify anyone who now wants to put the episodes in order of air date.... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like a basic content dispute that should be discussed on the article's talk page and dispute resolution followed if necessary. Episode lists are supposed to be ordered by airing date. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Just as an FYI, got a disruptive user over there. And what's ironic is that they're accusing me of labeling their edits as vandalism when I'm clearly not. Ha! Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: This article seems like a big bag of trouble. My advice? Keep an eye on it – the current editor you are having issues with looks to be a non-autocofirmed editor. So one possible route would be to request semi-protection at WP:RfPP (this article's had enough issues, that I think protection is quite likely to be granted). The second route would be to contact Admin Ad Orientem directly, as he's already commented on this. The third route is to look to see if there's any commonality among the various disruptive editors, and if there are is then file a report at WP:SPI... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, IJBall! I will go ahead and ping Ad Orientem just to make him aware since he's commented both here and on the article's talk page. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Semi-protected x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, IJBall! I will go ahead and ping Ad Orientem just to make him aware since he's commented both here and on the article's talk page. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: Now that the article is protected, I suggest we go about putting the episodes in airing order. There are a couple of ways to tackle this. The most obvious is to get rid of the "1a"/"1b" episode numbering scheme (which seems to be highly problematic in this particular case) and just go to a straight "1", "2", "3"... numbering scheme. (Another possible wrinkle here is also to eliminate the "No. in season" column, and just stick with the "No. overall" column...) So, my question is – Do you want to take a stab at doing this first? Or do you want me to try first? Also, do you think we need more Talk page discussion at the article on the particulars? Or do think we should just boldly reorder the episodes in terms of the airing order based on the discussion that has already taken place at the Talk page there?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Being bold should be no problem. With the last official regular day of spring quarter being on Friday, June 9, and my finals being yesterday, June 13, I am free until fall quarter, so I'd be more than happy to tackle it first, and then we can make additional changes as needed. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- I've begun this. But my God, it's a mess. I'm glad I'm tackling this and not SpongeBob SquarePants which has been running for a much longer time. Unsourced content, incorrect production codes, messy formatting, all of the episode summaries, except for the summary of the first episode, are all pretty much clear-cut copyright violations, etc. As such, I will be cleaning this up by creating everything from scratch and am therefore doing it in my sandbox to work on it little by little without clogging up the article history and should have it done by tonight. Also, I am leaving the director and writer credits as they are for now other than using the StoryTeleplay template where necessary as I really have no way to check the credits. I've set up a series recording, but that'll take a while. I'm also leaving the custom storyboard column in for now because I'm not sure if storyboard is the same thing as story which would go inside the StoryTeleplay parameter. If the credits are something you, MPFitz1968, and Nyuszika7H would be willing to help with once I'm done with the major clean-up, that would be a huge help. I'll post here again when I'm done, pinging Michael and Nyuszika. You thought sitcoms or live-action television series in general—Stuck in the Middle, for example, isn't labeled a sitcom, but rather a comedy—were bad? Animated television series are even worse as things are less clear—no clear distinction between guest stars and co-stars, just a credit labeled additional voices, seasons are more blurry, and so on. I also plan on cleaning up the parent article and performing a much needed character split. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Have you tracked down a source for the prod. codes for this show? TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, not ignoring you. Working on getting this done. Our handy-dandy
notebookThe Futon Critic has the production codes, and I've already made it a column reference alongside Screener in my sandbox. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)- All done, guys! (MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H.) Don't worry about the credits. I just took out those columns entirely as I felt it was more beneficial for this animated television series to have it set up that way for more neat and compact tables, and they're not absolutely necessary, anyway. Next stop will be the parent article tomorrow as well as a character split. That shouldn't take quite as long, and the only reason this took such a long time is because I re-created everything from scratch and filled it in as I went as it was more trouble than it was worth to try and go through the mess and attempt to fix things that way. However, the parent article doesn't have as many templates involved, so it's just a matter of going through, changing wording, cleaning the info box, etc. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I would advise posting also to Talk:List of The Loud House episodes explaining what you've done. That will update the other editors of the article what's been done, and possibly create a place for people who want to restore the writers and directors a place to discuss that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Will do. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Another thing I fixed was a plethora of rounding errors with ratings. For example, a 1.918 rating for total viewers was incorrectly rounded to 1.91 instead of 1.92. If the number that's being removed due to the rounding is 5–9, you round up—for example, 1.555 rounds to 1.56—and if the number that's being removed due to the rounding is 1–4, you don't do anything—for example, 1.621 rounds to 1.62. It's not that difficult of a concept. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- This won't automagically solve incorrect rounding that's already in the articles, but we could have users enter the raw value and make the template automatically round it with {{round}}. Except that uses a slightly different type of rounding commonly used by computers, defined in the IEEE 754 standard. At .5, it would round to the nearest even number, so 1.165 would be rounded to 1.16 and 1.175 would be rounded to 1.18, supposedly to reduce statistical bias in rounding due to always rounding half-values up. Either way, if we use that template, we need a discussion on WP:TV if we want to use that rounding format, or change the template or make another one to add an option for the normal round-half-up.
- It may be possible to write a bot to parse the citation URL and make sure the rounded value is correct. But I'm not sure if it would be easy, especially as sometimes there are multiple entries for a show on a single page. The best it could do is look for a value closest to the parameter's value and just check that for rounding. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Nyuszika7H: Yeah, it's not too big of an issue, at least not on the articles I regularly watch. On your suggestion, yeah, that would require discussion. As it is, I don't think it's standard convention. From quite a while ago, see Geraldo Perez's edits here, here, here, where what he did was then changed by another editor here. The number itself was later changed to 2.87 as the raw number was 2.869, not the 2.689 that the IP inserted, though that was just a simple mistake. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I would advise posting also to Talk:List of The Loud House episodes explaining what you've done. That will update the other editors of the article what's been done, and possibly create a place for people who want to restore the writers and directors a place to discuss that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- All done, guys! (MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H.) Don't worry about the credits. I just took out those columns entirely as I felt it was more beneficial for this animated television series to have it set up that way for more neat and compact tables, and they're not absolutely necessary, anyway. Next stop will be the parent article tomorrow as well as a character split. That shouldn't take quite as long, and the only reason this took such a long time is because I re-created everything from scratch and filled it in as I went as it was more trouble than it was worth to try and go through the mess and attempt to fix things that way. However, the parent article doesn't have as many templates involved, so it's just a matter of going through, changing wording, cleaning the info box, etc. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, not ignoring you. Working on getting this done. Our handy-dandy
- @Amaury: Have you tracked down a source for the prod. codes for this show? TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I've begun this. But my God, it's a mess. I'm glad I'm tackling this and not SpongeBob SquarePants which has been running for a much longer time. Unsourced content, incorrect production codes, messy formatting, all of the episode summaries, except for the summary of the first episode, are all pretty much clear-cut copyright violations, etc. As such, I will be cleaning this up by creating everything from scratch and am therefore doing it in my sandbox to work on it little by little without clogging up the article history and should have it done by tonight. Also, I am leaving the director and writer credits as they are for now other than using the StoryTeleplay template where necessary as I really have no way to check the credits. I've set up a series recording, but that'll take a while. I'm also leaving the custom storyboard column in for now because I'm not sure if storyboard is the same thing as story which would go inside the StoryTeleplay parameter. If the credits are something you, MPFitz1968, and Nyuszika7H would be willing to help with once I'm done with the major clean-up, that would be a huge help. I'll post here again when I'm done, pinging Michael and Nyuszika. You thought sitcoms or live-action television series in general—Stuck in the Middle, for example, isn't labeled a sitcom, but rather a comedy—were bad? Animated television series are even worse as things are less clear—no clear distinction between guest stars and co-stars, just a credit labeled additional voices, seasons are more blurry, and so on. I also plan on cleaning up the parent article and performing a much needed character split. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Needs watching
We'll need to keep an eye on the article for a while as we're got a user who not only thinks random line breaks in the titles like this are okay, but has been making wild accusations of vandalism toward editors. I don't plan on removing it from my list any time soon, but just generally speaking. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Do you remember our old "friend" MarioFan who we've had suspicions on? Definitely not Orchomen, but do you suppose there's a link between them and Luigi? Either sockpuppets or meatpuppets? I can't do any proper investigations right now as I'm on my tablet at a hospital. (Nothing major, just appointments for my mom.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't. But I do suspect a link between Luigi and Carmen Melendez/NickelodeonFan46 – unfortunately, though, the CU check at the SPI case did not prove a connection between even the latter two (and no mention of "sleepers" or other accounts was mentioned...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Also, I've now (temporarily) put this one on my Watchlist – the editors there can't keep reverting the episodes lists tables without discussing the issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Yeah, I saw. Part of my suspicions come from the obvious in that both names are characters in the Mario series. And thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I didn't catch that – you might want to run an "Interaction report" (which is linked to from my Userpage if you don't have the link handy) between MarioFan and Luigi1090, and see if anything turns up... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Results. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Yeah, I'd file an SPI report based on that!... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Okay. It'll have to wait until I'm back on my desktop in a few hours. Or would you like to take a stab at it if you feel it's semi-urgent? PS: I hope you guys don't feel like I pile all the work on you. I just like to see action, if needed, as soon as possible, and I can't do that on my tablet, haha! I didn't bring my laptop as I didn't want to deal with the crashing issues. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Not urgent (looks to be a long-standing issue), and I think you've interacted more with MarioFan than I have, so I think it's better if you file the SPI. Just be sure to include a link to that same interaction report, and any recent diffs where MarioFan and Luigi1090 reverted the same edits at List of The Loud House episodes. Also, definitely request a CheckUser, in case there are sleeper accounts... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Don't include IP 172.248.41.151 in your SPI filling, please – I intend to add the IP in the 'Comments by other editors' section myself. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Okay. It'll have to wait until I'm back on my desktop in a few hours. Or would you like to take a stab at it if you feel it's semi-urgent? PS: I hope you guys don't feel like I pile all the work on you. I just like to see action, if needed, as soon as possible, and I can't do that on my tablet, haha! I didn't bring my laptop as I didn't want to deal with the crashing issues. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Yeah, I'd file an SPI report based on that!... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Results. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I didn't catch that – you might want to run an "Interaction report" (which is linked to from my Userpage if you don't have the link handy) between MarioFan and Luigi1090, and see if anything turns up... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Yeah, I saw. Part of my suspicions come from the obvious in that both names are characters in the Mario series. And thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Aw, I'm corrupt. That really hurt my feelings! Excuse me while I go cry myself to sleep! Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm trying to take care of this through SPI, but they're usually pretty slow over there. On my end, I have a pretty thick skin, so I'll just remove obvious personal attacks, and continue to let them vent otherwise... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Touché. They can try to hurt me all they want, but they'll never succeed. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Socking?
Does anyone here smell any socks in the recent editing of this article? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem: I certainly suspected it, though I haven't looked at it closely for evidence or anything. @Amaury: What say you?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I have opened a preliminary SPI investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carmen Melendez. If anyone wants to add anything feel free. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Please continue to keep an eye on this article, and its Talk page. There is definitely something strange going on here, and it's difficult to make out how many disruptive editors there are, what with at least some of them seeming to edit while both logged in and logged out as IP editors... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's on my watchlist. Unfortunately so are very near 4000 other pages so occasionally things escape my notice, especially if I don't check every few hours. If you see something that you think might warrant my attention feel free to ping me or drop me a line. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
*phew*
Rough weekend, eh? Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- For you? Or for me? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Neither of us. Friday and Saturday night:
- Compared to the previous episodes of the current seasons for each of those, particularly Nickelodeon. What do you notice about The Thundermans, for example? Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Mid-June: ratings are likely to be bad, across the board, for the next two months, at least... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- You'd think they'd be higher during the summertime. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Mid-June: ratings are likely to be bad, across the board, for the next two months, at least... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Compared to the previous episodes of the current seasons for each of those, particularly Nickelodeon. What do you notice about The Thundermans, for example? Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
That's much better, at least for Andi Mack and especially Nickelodeon! Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I just reverted this—with a fantastic edit summary, if I may add!—as well as an edit on the episode list. As this feels like something that could become a problem, just making you aware. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
More on List of The Loud House episodes
I'm not destroying Wikipedia! Every Wikipedia's list of episodes about the animated series have the columns for writer/director/storyboard artist. So, not including them is an unacceptable and meaningless thing. Luigi1090 (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Luigi1090: What you are making is known as an "Other stuff exists" argument – just because other articles have certain formatting does not mean those other articles are actually "correct", or even are that those other articles are properly following Wikipedia's Manual of style. The spreading of incorrect or unnecessary practices from existing articles to newer ones is a phenomenon that one of our Admins, Cyphoidbomb, calls the "Campaign of Ignorance". I think somethink like that is going on at List of The Loud House episodes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Instead, they are really correct because follow the procedures taken from the TV presentation of an episode Luigi1090 (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- You need to make your points at Talk:List of The Loud House episodes, not here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well, technically, IJBall, my irritated "Campaign of Ignorance" screed refers largely to a strange dynamic within Indian TV articles, where there is a bizarre emphasis on dumbing down articles to virtually useless cookie-cutter templates, instead of providing useful data and context for that data. Yes, the spreading of that problematic mindset is an issue. However, deleting writer/director/storyboard info would actually be more consistent with the Campaign of Ignorance than including such content would be. Not sure what the beef is here. Director/writer/storyboarder is standard fare for animated TV series. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb: You can see Talk:List of The Loud House episodes for the details on this. But while your "Campaign of Ignorance" is addressing a specific Wikipedia area (Indian TV articles), the overall concept is generally applicable – i.e. that "bad practices" can spread from older articles to newer articles if left unchecked. And I find the animated TV series and voice actor articles to be generally problematic topic areas on Wikipedia – e.g. perennial violations of MOS:BOLD/WP:TVCAST, inclusion of questionable info (e.g. inclusion of storyboarder in episodes lists articles seems to me to be unnecessary trivia, etc.). The voice actor articles, especially, are virtually walled gardens of subjects that are often not notable, and which sport multiple problematic MOS practices, esp. in regards to Filmography tables. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well, technically, IJBall, my irritated "Campaign of Ignorance" screed refers largely to a strange dynamic within Indian TV articles, where there is a bizarre emphasis on dumbing down articles to virtually useless cookie-cutter templates, instead of providing useful data and context for that data. Yes, the spreading of that problematic mindset is an issue. However, deleting writer/director/storyboard info would actually be more consistent with the Campaign of Ignorance than including such content would be. Not sure what the beef is here. Director/writer/storyboarder is standard fare for animated TV series. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- You need to make your points at Talk:List of The Loud House episodes, not here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Instead, they are really correct because follow the procedures taken from the TV presentation of an episode Luigi1090 (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Talk page watcher here. I most definitely disagree with the removal any of the credits, and most definitely any of them, as this is standard to include for all television series. After the WP:BOLD removal of them was reverted, WP:BRD should have been followed; that is, after the bold edit was reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should have remained while the discussion talk place on the article's talk page. I recommend self-reverting the edit, having an administrator fully protect the article to prevent further edit-warring, and a post made at the WikiProject Television so that experienced contributors can give their opinion on whether the credits should have been removed. If none of this goes ahead, I would be more than happy to do it myself. Cheers. Nice day. -- AlexTW 05:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Alex, rather than jumping in with both feet as usual, it would help if you would actually read the Talk page discussion. As it is, the disruptive editors at the article in question never actually discussed the issues mentioned. If you wish, head to the Talk page there, and leave a comment. The rest of us will actually listen to constructive suggestions made there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- You assume that I haven't. I have. It seems that the edits were performed, and then the list of changes was posted with the "consensus" of only a few editors. A discussion was started before the edits, yes, but not concerning the credits; it only consisted of four posts about the ordering by the airdates. What should have happened is that the discussion should have been started first, a multitude of editors should have agreed, disagreed and/or discussed the proposed mass changes, and then the edits should have gone ahead. As it seems that these edits have caused a lot of disruption to the article and a number of editors have publically disagreed on it, the article should therefore be restored, and an appropriate discussion started and wait for a consensus between a number of editors. My list of what should now be done still stands. -- AlexTW 05:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- You are, of course, ignoring the whole issue where the episode list was out of episode airing order, and contained incorrect and unsourced info. In other words, you want to restore a version that was verifiably incorrect and unsourced. Rather than denigrating the efforts of Amaury who tried to clean up the mess, please head to the Talk page and make suggestions there, as I think you've said quite enough here. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion about the content should be held there, yes. However, the discussion about the editors that are ignoring WP:BRD by forcing WP:BOLD edits by restoring after the reverts, that discussion belongs on editor talk pages. -- AlexTW 05:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Alex, this is the second time that you have butted into a contentious area, and taken the side of editors who are disruptive (and likely socking), even ignoring the actions and comments of Administrators in the process – does this give pause for even a second?... In any case, I have asked you to stop posting on this topic here on my Talk page, and I'd appreciate if, for once, you would actually comply with my request. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The fact that the editors who disagree are one IP who was blocked for disruption and personal attacks and two users who are suspected of being sockpuppets means that that argument is irrelevant. Opinions from such users typically don't count and are usually stricken. Even an administrator was in support of what was done. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- No such thing as butting in, contributors are welcome everywhere. Just because those editors may have violated policies, which I am not commenting on, that doesn't make other violations alright. Especially given that on at least one occasion, WP:3RR was violated, so perhaps it doesn't belong on this particular talk page, but the violator's. So, sure, I'll take it elsewhere. Thanks, IJ. Always a pleasure. -- AlexTW 05:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion about the content should be held there, yes. However, the discussion about the editors that are ignoring WP:BRD by forcing WP:BOLD edits by restoring after the reverts, that discussion belongs on editor talk pages. -- AlexTW 05:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- You are, of course, ignoring the whole issue where the episode list was out of episode airing order, and contained incorrect and unsourced info. In other words, you want to restore a version that was verifiably incorrect and unsourced. Rather than denigrating the efforts of Amaury who tried to clean up the mess, please head to the Talk page and make suggestions there, as I think you've said quite enough here. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- You assume that I haven't. I have. It seems that the edits were performed, and then the list of changes was posted with the "consensus" of only a few editors. A discussion was started before the edits, yes, but not concerning the credits; it only consisted of four posts about the ordering by the airdates. What should have happened is that the discussion should have been started first, a multitude of editors should have agreed, disagreed and/or discussed the proposed mass changes, and then the edits should have gone ahead. As it seems that these edits have caused a lot of disruption to the article and a number of editors have publically disagreed on it, the article should therefore be restored, and an appropriate discussion started and wait for a consensus between a number of editors. My list of what should now be done still stands. -- AlexTW 05:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Disneylandlover2006
I definitely have had my hands full with this editor (contributions), particularly at the assorted Wizards of Waverly Place and Boy Meets World articles. They have been making extensive edits in the episode tables (at all the season articles of these two TV series) and I've caught them at least a few times now adding absence tallies [10] (or episode counts [11]) of actors, even going so far as to comment out the absence tallies. (While they wouldn't display in the article content, I'm thinking having them there, even if commented out, goes against WP:TVCAST.) There was also that bit about their adding co-starring credits to episode summaries earlier, which was addressed on my talk page a few days ago. I wouldn't mind a few more eyes on their future edits - will also ping Amaury, Geraldo Perez and Nyuszika7H regarding this. MPFitz1968 (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: I've been dimly aware of this editor for some time now, and I agree that some of their edits look to me to be problematic. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: Has this gotten disruptive enough that we should do something about it?... I notice they were back to doing it again today – definitely qualifies as disruptive editing IMO. Add: I've left a "final warning" at their Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Certainly the problem with their adding the absence counts (appearing in hidden comments - example from one of the Boy Meets World season articles: [12]) has gotten to the disruptive editing point. I've also noticed their doing some substantial additions to those BMW articles, mainly adding - or more accurately, expanding - episode summaries, which seem to be pretty long from glancing at it ... haven't really read any of them yet, but I have a feeling they need to be better summarized. And then I saw this at List of Girl Meets World characters [13] with trivial, original-research based conclusions. ("Riley is the Cory Matthews counterpart in the spinoff.", "Cory is now the Mr. Feeny and Alan Matthews counterpart in the spinoff." ... Geez, come on!) I'm not sure exactly where we go if this continues; this certainly doesn't look to be an AIV issue, but an ANI one, where it'll get pretty sticky. I haven't dealt with too many ANI reports, but I've seen a few I've filed go stale with no action taken. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I think I'm having enough of this user, putting in absence counts. (Will ping Amaury as he just reverted one of their edits, relevant to this, at List of Jessie episodes.) They keep doing that at the Boy Meets World articles, either commented out or not, and this is becoming a pain in the ass watching their edits. It may be time to file an ANI on this user regarding their disruptive edits, though it may be afternoon (a few hours) before I get around to it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: I would file a WP:ANI report, on the grounds of disruptive editing. Just make sure in the ANI report to include diffs where you, me and whoever else, left warning messages on their Talk page which went ignored. Also, if you can find any other evidence where this editor has been a problem (e.g. on other articles that you don't edit), that will probably help. Now, having said all that, this is quite likely to be the kind of ANI report that gets ignored. But at least it will be "added to the file" – if a second ANI report gets filed later on this editor, the first report will help establish that something needs to be done... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: I notice that Amaury also tagged them for a WP:COPYVIO. That is something that is more likely to catch someone's attention at ANI, so be sure to include mention of that (esp. if the source of the copyvio can be tracked down for easy comparison). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- In looking over the copyvio at List of K.C. Undercover episodes [14], I do see some scattered verbatim summaries they added, taken from Screener, though not for every added summary if I'm just going by Screener. Perhaps I might have to get specific about which episodes? (But even if one is a copyvio, that's a serious policy violation.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I filed an ANI report, though I'm still feeling it lacks some evidence. I have noticed inconsistencies across other articles, where they were taking out the absence counts in other articles (like That's So Raven and Cory in the House), but the general feel of their edits seems more disruptive than not. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I think I'm having enough of this user, putting in absence counts. (Will ping Amaury as he just reverted one of their edits, relevant to this, at List of Jessie episodes.) They keep doing that at the Boy Meets World articles, either commented out or not, and this is becoming a pain in the ass watching their edits. It may be time to file an ANI on this user regarding their disruptive edits, though it may be afternoon (a few hours) before I get around to it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Certainly the problem with their adding the absence counts (appearing in hidden comments - example from one of the Boy Meets World season articles: [12]) has gotten to the disruptive editing point. I've also noticed their doing some substantial additions to those BMW articles, mainly adding - or more accurately, expanding - episode summaries, which seem to be pretty long from glancing at it ... haven't really read any of them yet, but I have a feeling they need to be better summarized. And then I saw this at List of Girl Meets World characters [13] with trivial, original-research based conclusions. ("Riley is the Cory Matthews counterpart in the spinoff.", "Cory is now the Mr. Feeny and Alan Matthews counterpart in the spinoff." ... Geez, come on!) I'm not sure exactly where we go if this continues; this certainly doesn't look to be an AIV issue, but an ANI one, where it'll get pretty sticky. I haven't dealt with too many ANI reports, but I've seen a few I've filed go stale with no action taken. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Disneylandlover2006 has been temporarily blocked (appears we have convinced at least one admin enough that they have been disruptive). I have just purged the seven season articles of Boy Meets World of the absence tallies and hope it stays that way, but I have a feeling it won't and Disneylandlover2006 will attempt to restore this content after their block is over in about a day (or perhaps a sock). No doubt I'll need some extra eyes on those BMW articles - I haven't even gone thru additional edits they have made outside the absence counts yet (there likely is some WP:OVERLINKING in the "Absent" notes per episode). Amaury, Geraldo Perez, Nyuszika7H, if you all are also up to the task to monitor these articles, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- You know it! Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Did you say you have access to all seven seasons of BMW (like on DVD)? I recall at one point you may have mentioned that, but if you do, could you check the order of the main cast listing for each season? I definitely recall Disneylandlover2006 making some edits to the order of the list in at least one of the season articles, but I let it stand (for now). MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like a generally good faith editor who disdains collaboration and following our style guidelines. Knows what they want and won't compromise. I've been watching and hard to identify anything outright wrong other than the general disruption they were temporarily blocked for. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: I do. I can do it right now. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Did you say you have access to all seven seasons of BMW (like on DVD)? I recall at one point you may have mentioned that, but if you do, could you check the order of the main cast listing for each season? I definitely recall Disneylandlover2006 making some edits to the order of the list in at least one of the season articles, but I let it stand (for now). MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, added the BMW articles to my watchlist. I was going to add them anyway but I hadn't added them yet. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Update: I finished removing at least most of the WP:OVERLINKING in the BMW season articles, and I noticed some of the links to the character names that Disneylandlover2006 added didn't actually link to the characters themselves, but to people who have the same name, like Amy Matthews (a contractor who also hosts a DIY Network show) and Morgan Matthews (a former ice dancer). Fixed those issues hopefully, and something I know I'll watch more carefully. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: I will go through right now and watch all Boy Meets World articles. I meant to do that earlier and forgot. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Boy Meets World credit order
@MPFitz1968: Here you go.
Season 1:
- Ben Savage
- William Daniels
- Betsy Randle
- Will Friedle
- Rider Strong
- Lee Norris
- Lily Nicksay
- William Russ
Season 2:
- Ben Savage
- William Daniels
- Betsy Randle
- Will Friedle
- Rider Strong
- Danielle Fishel
- Lily Nicksay
- Anthony Tyler Quinn
- William Russ
Season 3:
- Ben Savage
- William Daniels
- Betsy Randle
- Will Friedle
- Rider Strong
- Daniel Fishel
- Alex Désert
- Anthony Tyler Quinn
- William Russ
Season 4:
- Ben Savage
- William Daniels
- Betsy Randle
- Will Friedle
- Rider Strong
- Danielle Fishel
- Lindsay Ridgeway
- William Russ
Season 5:
- Ben Savage
- William Daniels
- Betsy Randle
- Will Friedle
- Rider Strong
- Danielle Fishel
- Lindsay Ridgeway
- Matthew Lawrence
- William Russ
- Trina McGee-Davis
Trina McGee-Davis is listed as also starring in the end credits before the guest and co-star credits. Like with Girl Meets World and Corey Fogelmanis in season one, this is the same thing as starring and therefore she is a main cast member. The note in the season five article for Boy Meets World is wrong.
Seasons 6–7:
- Ben Savage
- William Daniels
- Betsy Randle
- Will Friedle
- Rider Strong
- Danielle Fishel
- Lindsay Ridgeway
- Trina McGee-Davis
- Maitland Ward
- Matthew Lawrence
- William Russ
From what I've seen, Boy Meets World from season two through season seven is similar to Degrassi from season 13 and onward as well as Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn in that main cast members are only credited in the episodes they appear in. (Absences can still be noted, though, of course, just not above the table like our disruptive editor was doing. Although it looks like it's incomplete, so I may go through the series at some point during the summer for corrections and other fixes.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Thanks. :) MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: Can you copy what Amaury just posted here to Talk:Boy Meets World – it would be good if there was a "permanent" record of this at the BMW article (Talk page) for future reference. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Done Found at Talk:Boy Meets World#Main cast credit order, per season. Included permalink to this list in the topic for attribution. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: Can you copy what Amaury just posted here to Talk:Boy Meets World – it would be good if there was a "permanent" record of this at the BMW article (Talk page) for future reference. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Re: Andi Mack
No issues with the edit, just an FYI, No one calls it a "(straight) drama" or a "sitcom". Comedy-drama is probably the best genre choice here...
, [15] (comedy), [16] (sitcom). Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- FWIW, I think you can probably rely on Futon's genre categorizations (generally), but I'm not sure I'd trust Screener's – calling "Andi Mack" a "sitcom" just further calls into question their reliability for me... But I think The NY Times' genre categorization works best here – this series is definitely not a "sitcom" (in any meaningful sense of the word!). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good project of going through all the articles in my sandbox since I changed the genres to Screener's quite a while ago and changing them again over to The Futon Critic's (or a combination of both). Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Actually, for that, I'd rely more on independent sources – i.e. I would check Deadline, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, TV Guide, NY Times or LA Times, whatever independent sources are cited in the article itself, and how they describe the TV series. I'd use Futon to supplement that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Quick question because, looking at this again, I'm confused now. Why don't you trust Screener? If we have other sources with more specific genres, yeah, go by those—or add them to what we already have—but, from my understanding, a sitcom is a more broad term that encompasses all of the more specific genres, such as comedy or drama, so calling Andi Mack a sitcom isn't necessarily incorrect? Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- No – "sitcom" is a narrower category (short for "situation comedy"). IOW, that's a subset of "comedy". Calling "Andi Mack" that seriously calls into question their credibility with me. And, IIRC, that's not the only time I've questioned Screener's genre judgement... Oh, one other thing: The very best source for TV series genres? – The press releases (e.g. from the network) about the show! Those usually can help you figure out what the genre is – Disney called Andi Mack "a single-camera family series" in its original P.R. for the series' pickup FWIW (though they called it a "comedic series" in the second season announcement). So "family" is a genre that can be added... But, still – no one has called it a "sitcom", except for Screener. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Quick question because, looking at this again, I'm confused now. Why don't you trust Screener? If we have other sources with more specific genres, yeah, go by those—or add them to what we already have—but, from my understanding, a sitcom is a more broad term that encompasses all of the more specific genres, such as comedy or drama, so calling Andi Mack a sitcom isn't necessarily incorrect? Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Actually, for that, I'd rely more on independent sources – i.e. I would check Deadline, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, TV Guide, NY Times or LA Times, whatever independent sources are cited in the article itself, and how they describe the TV series. I'd use Futon to supplement that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good project of going through all the articles in my sandbox since I changed the genres to Screener's quite a while ago and changing them again over to The Futon Critic's (or a combination of both). Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: A number of the Disney press releases on the show at The Futon Critic are not currently included in the article. I will add those soon, though I don't feel like doing it right this second... FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- So it looks like the general overview "sidebar" on The Futon Critic isn't the greatest, either. With Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, and Disney XD, it labels everything as comedy, unless it's a reality series, like Jagger Eaton's Mega Life, or a game show, like Paradise Run, in which case it labels them as reality and game show, respectively. Like, even Backstage is labeled as a comedy compared to Screener labeling it as drama and performing arts. In this case, Screener actually seems more accurate. So if we're going to use The Futon Critic, we should strictly go by the press releases as, like you said, they're the best source for genres, not the general overview "sidebar." The only downside is that not everything has anything for related news (press releases), such as Backstage, though most series do have news. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Henry Danger and Game Shakers crossover
There is no official title, but this is at least confirmation that there is a crossover from Dan's verified Twitter. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- If they want to add it, they need to source it! (P.S. I have no idea how a crossover between these shows will work – it seems like a bad idea, unlike The Thundermans crossover one...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) They are working on it according to Schneider, might actually happen. Could end up an episode on one or the other series or combined, he didn't say what the final output would be and probably doesn't know yet as it looks to be in planning stages. I see little value on adding much of this to articles until something actually gets scheduled. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Re: MarioFan
I'm not really "inviting" you, more as just letting you know due to our history with them, so don't feel like you have to comment or anything. While we don't necessarily agree with MarioFan's editing style and suspect he's a sockpuppet of someone, another user, in good faith, kinda-sorta unnecessarily jumped at them today with incorrect information. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Meanwhile, the SPI report on this front is in danger of being closed with no action – if you know anything more about that, or have any further evidence, please post it there. Personally, I'm surprised the interaction report isn't enough "evidence" on its own... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Commented. Unfortunately, I don't, but hopefully a CU will be reconsidered as, like I mentioned, even if it's negative, we'll have a base. Honestly, though, how can there be no connection? There just has to be. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm TonyBallioni. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Mount Gargash, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ignore this, side effect of answering your request at WT:NPR. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: Thanks for taking care of it. On my end, I'm trying to figure out how to get the #%^@ Page Curation Toolbar to appear!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Is there a link on your side toolbar that says "curate this article"? TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: Ah, got it!! I was seeing the "Page Curation" link at the top of the page, but I didn't think to look in the Toolbar on the side! Thanks!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Is there a link on your side toolbar that says "curate this article"? TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: Thanks for taking care of it. On my end, I'm trying to figure out how to get the #%^@ Page Curation Toolbar to appear!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Idea for The Loud House episode list
I have an idea on how to bring back the "Directed by", "Written by", & "Storyboarded by" info on List of The Loud House episodes! How about merging the columns for each two segments of each episode (except for double-length episodes) into one for both segments, similar to List of Kick Buttowski: Suburban Daredevil episodes? That way, the page won't be cluttered!Elijah Abrams (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Then we'd be back to square one as that would cause issues again with the air dates as two segments from one episode (eg, 103A and 103B) hardly ever air on the same day. That's why animated series are so complicated. Unlike live-action series (sitcoms and similar), animated series like SpongeBob SquarePants and The Loud House don't just have episodes, they have mini-episodes (segments) within those episodes. One episode is usually, at a minimum, two segments, unless there are specials and whatnot. In those cases, it would be one segment. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) My suggestion of the layout at Dawn of the Croods still stands. -- AlexTW 04:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Elijah Abrams: I advise suggesting this at Talk:List of The Loud House episodes. The one major issue I see though, is that the segments don't always easily lend themselves to combining into episodes that way (e.g. looking at the prod. codes, as Amaury indicates)... On my end, I think writers column can be restored, as long as it's verified. I still think a Directors column is unnecessary, and can be handled with prose like at Davis Rules. And I am still unconvinced that the 'Storyboarded by' is important enough to justify its inclusion – many animated series LoE articles do not include them, and it seems like trivia to me (though such crew could maybe be mentioned in the 'Production' section at the main TV series article...). However, Alex's suggestion (without the superfluous Directors column) may work. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
But I can't talk at Talk:List of The Loud House episodes! The page is semi-protected from users like me until July 1, 2017!Elijah Abrams (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Elijah Abrams: You should still be able to edit the Talk page – that's how non-autoconfirmed editors can make still make a {{Requested edit}} at the Talk page of even semi-protected pages. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: The talk page itself is protected: [17]. -- AlexTW 12:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, that's right – due to the recent disruption there too. Somebody could probably ask that the Talk page be unprotected now – it looks plausible that that disruption is over (and if it starts up again, the Talk page can just be protected again...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well then, i've made some suggestions for editing List of The Loud House episodes:
- Place the release dates for each segment into one column for each episode.
- Place the director credits into one column for each episode.
- Consider Alex's suggestion for combining the writer & storyboarded credits into one column.
- If suggestion 2 doesn't work out, then just write "all season 1 episodes were directed by Chris Savino, with "The Price of Admission" and "One Flu Over the Loud House" co-directed by Kyle Marshall". Elijah Abrams (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC
- So, what do you think?Elijah Abrams (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- It sounds like a solution is already being prepared by Amaury based on Alex's suggestion... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks so much!Elijah Abrams (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- It sounds like a solution is already being prepared by Amaury based on Alex's suggestion... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, that's right – due to the recent disruption there too. Somebody could probably ask that the Talk page be unprotected now – it looks plausible that that disruption is over (and if it starts up again, the Talk page can just be protected again...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: The talk page itself is protected: [17]. -- AlexTW 12:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Some questions on notes
- What is the difference between {{notelist}}, like we've done on Hunter Street and Beyond, and {{Reflist|group="Note"}}, like we've done on Stuck in the Middle and the Henry Danger character list? (Coincidentally, that's also done on Beyond.)
- Should the Notes section be a standalone section above the References section? Notes are kinda like "references," if that makes sense. Stuck in the Middle and the Henry Danger character list have the Notes section as a standalone section. Or should the Notes section be a sub-section of where the notes are coming from? For example, the notes about the previews and official premieres on Hunter Street and Beyond are a sub-section of the Season 1 (2017) and Episodes sections, respectively, because they have to do with the episodes. Similarly, the notes regarding the two actors' credit order being switched from the pilot on Stuck in the Middle have to do with the cast and characters.
- Does the placement of the Notes section depend on whether you're using {{notelist}} or {{Reflist|group="Note"}} because of whatever difference there might be between the two? The only difference I notice are visual differences next to the text where they're placed, but there has to be more than that. {{notelist}} shows [a], [b], [c], etc. whereas {{Reflist|group="Note"}} shows [Note 1], [Note 2], [Note 3], etc. Also, I tend to notice that {{Reflist|group="Note"}} is in the standalone Notes sections, but that could just be on the articles I've been editing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure – but I've seen {{notelist}} used with {{efn}}, while {{Reflist|group="Note"}} seems to be used with just regular <ref group="Note">...</ref> tags. But it may not matter.
- 'Notes' sections can go where you want. I think putting notes under the episodes table is fine in those cases where the notes are only in the episodes table. But when there are notes spread throughout the article, it's better to put the 'Notes' section right above the 'References' section at the bottom of the article.
- No, it doesn't make a difference there. Like I say in #2, it's really more of function of where the 'notes' are in the article, and how extensive they are in the article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- So, like, for Stuck in the Middle, making the Notes section a sub-section of Cast and characters for the parent article and Main characters for the character list would actually seem reasonable since those notes are only under one heading? (Or in the case of Stuck in the Middle's character list, a sub-heading of a heading.) Likewise with the character list for Henry Danger. However, if there were notes in the Cast and characters section, the Production section, etc., then standalone, as it is now, would be more appropriate since, regardless of how many notes you have, you only need one instance of {{Reflist|group="Note"}}. I'm not sure if {{notelist}} works the same way, though.
- For #1 in particular, I'll ping the others as well: Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H. Maybe there's really no difference and there are just two available ways to present notes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- That's basically it – it's just two different ways of doing it. AFAIK, there is nothing in the MOS that says 'Notes' sections have to go at the bottom of the article – plenty of articles have a 'notes' subsection at the bottom of the section rather than at the bottom of the article. Whether you do it the first way or the second really depends on what makes the most sense for that particular article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- It just depends on, like you said, if the notes are all in one area or not. Based on that, I take it you agree that the Notes sections would be fine as sub-sections for Stuck in the Middle (and its character list) and the Henry Danger character list? Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, at Stuck in the Middle (TV series), I think it would be OK to put the note at the bottom of the 'Cast' section. (However, I wouldn't use an actual section heading for that – I would use a
;Notes
"non-heading".) However, I think at List of Stuck in the Middle characters I would leave the 'Notes' section at the bottom of the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)- I completely forgot the non-heading part. I just changed it on Stuck in the Middle. Should we do the same thing on Hunter Street and Beyond or do you see an actual heading there more appropriate? Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Let's just say that I don't think a single note merits a "full" heading... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- In other words, the notes regarding the previews and premieres on Hunter Street and Beyond would be more appropriate as non-heading notes, right? I take it that when you say single note, you don't mean it as being a single sentence, but just being part of the same idea? In Beyond's case, though, we have two notes sections. One is using notelist for the preview and premiere stuff and then one is a standalone section, using the other way. Similar to when I asked about the Stuck in the Middle and Henry Danger character lists, where you said the Notes section was better as a standalone section, likely because it wouldn't look quite right being a sub-section of the Main sub-section, that one is probably fine left as a standalone section rather than making it a sub-section of Cast and characters or Main, I take it? I realize at the Stuck in the Middle parent article and Lab Rats: Elite Force we have the Notes section under Cast and characters; however, in Beyond's case, we already have Main and Recurring sub-sections. Apologies if there's any redundancy in this particular reply. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- IMO, neither of those need to be "full" headings, esp. the Hunter Street one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- In other words, the notes regarding the previews and premieres on Hunter Street and Beyond would be more appropriate as non-heading notes, right? I take it that when you say single note, you don't mean it as being a single sentence, but just being part of the same idea? In Beyond's case, though, we have two notes sections. One is using notelist for the preview and premiere stuff and then one is a standalone section, using the other way. Similar to when I asked about the Stuck in the Middle and Henry Danger character lists, where you said the Notes section was better as a standalone section, likely because it wouldn't look quite right being a sub-section of the Main sub-section, that one is probably fine left as a standalone section rather than making it a sub-section of Cast and characters or Main, I take it? I realize at the Stuck in the Middle parent article and Lab Rats: Elite Force we have the Notes section under Cast and characters; however, in Beyond's case, we already have Main and Recurring sub-sections. Apologies if there's any redundancy in this particular reply. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Let's just say that I don't think a single note merits a "full" heading... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- I completely forgot the non-heading part. I just changed it on Stuck in the Middle. Should we do the same thing on Hunter Street and Beyond or do you see an actual heading there more appropriate? Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, at Stuck in the Middle (TV series), I think it would be OK to put the note at the bottom of the 'Cast' section. (However, I wouldn't use an actual section heading for that – I would use a
- It just depends on, like you said, if the notes are all in one area or not. Based on that, I take it you agree that the Notes sections would be fine as sub-sections for Stuck in the Middle (and its character list) and the Henry Danger character list? Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- That's basically it – it's just two different ways of doing it. AFAIK, there is nothing in the MOS that says 'Notes' sections have to go at the bottom of the article – plenty of articles have a 'notes' subsection at the bottom of the section rather than at the bottom of the article. Whether you do it the first way or the second really depends on what makes the most sense for that particular article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- For #1 in particular, I'll ping the others as well: Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H. Maybe there's really no difference and there are just two available ways to present notes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: If Joey is right, and this is a WP:ACCESSIBILITY issue (and I have no reason to believe that he's not), and we have to use "full" headings for notes, then we might be better off going back to putting the 'Notes' section at the bottom of the page right above the 'References' section. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- On it. That's also why I reverted myself, because, unlike before, I wasn't entirely sure and confident in my understanding. I still believe bullet points for notes above the table don't hurt, but I'll leave that alone for now. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought I had already commented here yesterday, but apparently not. Anyway, the only difference between these is the visual appearance, and you have to take care to pair the note templates with the reflist/notelist template, but like on many things, there is more than one possible way to do it, up to local consensus.
{{refn|group=note|Text}}
with{{reflist|group=note}}
displays [note 1], [note 2], etc.- This note template is just a shorthand for
<ref group="note">Text</ref>
. (The reflist template is more complicated than just<references group="note" />
, as you already know, since it allows splitting into multiple columns.)
- This note template is just a shorthand for
{{efn|Text}}
with{{notelist}}
displays [a], [b], etc.
I tend to prefer the former, though I've sometimes used the latter when inserting a note into an infobox and wanting to avoid wrapping. The list of notes, if either they're in only one section or there are multiple sections with lots of notes, can be subsections, but they don't have to, it just tends to look nice. They can also be in a "Notes" section right above "References" (which is standard practice rather than a subsection of "References").
And yes, ; Notes
should definitely not be used as that is a MOS:ACCESS issue. When there is "Main" / "Recurring", I'd just put the "Notes" section below all those subsections if we do put that there. If displaying in TOC is not desired, and there are no other same-level subsections that really need to be displayed in the TOC, {{TOC limit}} can be used. Alternatively, a bolded "heading" ('''Notes'''
) can be used as a slightly-better-for-accessibility alternative than abusing definition lists with that semicolon. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Nyuszika7H: Yeah, I can see notelist being more beneficial on episode tables, like at Hunter Street, where it takes up less room such as next to the number of viewers. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Parameters
Look! Two discussions in one day in so little time. You're popular! Remember when you told me that the accessdate
parameter in the citing template is just a redirect and I should be using access-date
after I removed the hyphen when the Hunter Street article was still relatively new? (Although I eventually changed it back to what you did per your note on my talk page.) After that, I started going through articles and making those changes accordingly. And I'm still making those changes when I go through and do clean-ups slowly, but surely. Based on that, I've also been changing archiveurl
and archivedate
to archive-url
and archive-date
because I assume that the same applies there. Am I correct that archiveurl
and archivedate
(without hyphens) are also redirects like accessdate
is? Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's in the {{cite web}} documentation – yeah, those later one's have dashes too, so the undashed versions will be redirects. Note, however, that you don't have to change the undashed parameters to the dashed versions: that's basically a "not broken"-type edit. While I'm sometimes change preexisting refs's parameters to the dashed version when I add new sources to an article, I often don't. But when I add new refs, I nearly always add them with the dashed versions of those parameters. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
On the subject of disruptive editors...
(I saw your message at ANI for Disneylover.) Might be worth keeping an eye on Gameshakers71 as they just don't seem to get it. See, for example, well, all of their edits, such as today's. They've been reverted and warned multiple times by our group—myself, Geraldo, and Michael. Also, if Raven's Home is still on your list, might be worth keeping a closer eye on it. We keep getting people who insist on calling it a spin-off of Cory in the House. Of course it's not as it's a spin-off of That's So Raven; plus, a series can't be a spin-off of more than one series. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Honestly, I'm surprised one of you hasn't already taken Gameshakers71 to WP:AIV – early on they seemed like a vandalism-only account, and they don't seem to have gotten much better... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
List of Wynonna Earp episodes
Hello. You have twice deleted the date of the Season 2 finale in List of Wynonna Earp episodes. The date was released in advance and published in several sources. Variety is a highly recognized and respected entertainment industry news source and it is one of the citations used in the table.
- The guideline for OriginalAirDate in {{Episode list}} states: "This is the date the episode first aired on TV, or is scheduled to air."
- The guideline about Air Date in {{Episode table}} only states: "The inclusion (and optionally the width) of the "Original air date" cell."
If a WP policy is definitive, I abide by it. So ... can you please link to the policy/guideline in MOS:TV where it states that a forthcoming series finale date cannot be included in the episode table even if it has been released in advance by producers and/or networks? Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Pyxis Solitary: When I removed it there was no source attached to that date. Now there is, so it's fine. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- I reused the Variety citation attached to the episode title. I don't understand why you delete content without looking at cited sources. If you take the time to check sources provided you would see why they're cited. You, yourself, could have attached the Variety citation to the date, instead of just deleting it. Delete. Delete. Delete ... is not productive editing. And it discourages many new editors from participating in Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Pyxis Solitary: Let's assume good faith here and not accuse others of unproductive editing. If there is unsourced information, it is not the responsibility of others to find and attach a source, it is the responsibility of the original person who added the unsourced information to find and attach a source. Therefore, removing it is the best practice. It's better to have no information than unsourced information. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Please stop throwing WP:AGF around. It's the most overused finger-wagging weapon employed by way too many WP editors. You've come to the rescue of another editor and you're being defensive on his behalf -- without bothering to take a look at the edit. The episode was sourced. The citation was attached to the title of the episode. Did it have to also be attached to the episode's Air Date? Using a citation twice, one for the title and one for the air date? Where does it say anywhere in MOS:TV, or {{Episode table}}, or {{Episode list}} that you have to do this? And the deletion was unproductive because it was the deletion of a legitimate published source that contained both the name of the episode and the air date. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Pyxis Solitary: I did have a look and IJBall was quite correct to remove it, so I will defend a friend and fellow editor when you're showing up here with an unnecessary attitude toward them when you could have simply left a friendly note asking why X was removed. If I want to throw around WP:AGF when you're unnecessarily being heated toward a good faith Wikipedian, then I will. You are not the boss of me who can tell what I can and cannot do. Cool it with the attitude and aggression and accept that you're not always going to be right or that other editors aren't always to agree with you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Please stop throwing WP:AGF around. It's the most overused finger-wagging weapon employed by way too many WP editors. You've come to the rescue of another editor and you're being defensive on his behalf -- without bothering to take a look at the edit. The episode was sourced. The citation was attached to the title of the episode. Did it have to also be attached to the episode's Air Date? Using a citation twice, one for the title and one for the air date? Where does it say anywhere in MOS:TV, or {{Episode table}}, or {{Episode list}} that you have to do this? And the deletion was unproductive because it was the deletion of a legitimate published source that contained both the name of the episode and the air date. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Pyxis Solitary: All future releases must be sourced as per WP:CRYSTALBALL. And Amaury is quite correct – as per WP:BURDEN, it is not the responsibility of editors reading an article to check through all the sourcing to see if a fact is verified: it is the responsibility of the editor who adds the information to make certain that it is referenced to the appropriate source. You did that, once you referenced that date. But before you did it was effectively an unverified future event. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- You are misquoting WP:CRYSTALBALL. What it does specifically state is:
- "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included."
- "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable...."
- The citation is a reliable, expert source that verifies the anticipated event. It verified the title of the episode and its air date simultaneously. Requiring TWO identical citations for the episode title and for the air date is neither policy nor guideline in MOS:TV. If you want this to be the preferred s.o.p. it needs to be clearly and precisely included in MOS. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Pyxis Solitary: Use some WP:COMMONSENSE here. There are plenty of instances where the sources used for episode titles don't contain the air dates or are missing them—though there are later updates that add them when scheduling is more clear—such is the case with Screener and Nickelodeon, so it is not unreasonable to have sources for both the title and the air date for future episodes. It is not the responsibility of the other editor to read your brain and understand that the citation used for the title supports the air date; instead, this is, again, the responsibility of the original editor who added it. Better yet, to avoid issues, simply add a reliable episode guide, such as The Futon Critic and Screener, as column sources. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Screener? "The voice for the ultimate TV fanatic."? You must be joking. As for The Futon Critic: not only does it (word for word) regurgitate press releases, but it excludes IA's Web Machine from crawling its pages. Using TFC as a source is a wasted citation and future loss of information. There's no "common sense" in being tied to the same ol' same ol'. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- My final comment on this is that WP:REFNAME exists for reasons exactly like this case. The column ref used for the future airdates in this episodes table did not include the airdate for the finale – so that air date required separate referencing, regardless of the titles sourcing. (And, as an aside, I will again note that each of those episode titles does not need to be referenced individually – doing that through column sourcing would be preferable in this case as well.) But, as I said, that's all I intend to say on this matter. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Pyxis Solitary: Use some WP:COMMONSENSE here. There are plenty of instances where the sources used for episode titles don't contain the air dates or are missing them—though there are later updates that add them when scheduling is more clear—such is the case with Screener and Nickelodeon, so it is not unreasonable to have sources for both the title and the air date for future episodes. It is not the responsibility of the other editor to read your brain and understand that the citation used for the title supports the air date; instead, this is, again, the responsibility of the original editor who added it. Better yet, to avoid issues, simply add a reliable episode guide, such as The Futon Critic and Screener, as column sources. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- You are misquoting WP:CRYSTALBALL. What it does specifically state is:
- @Pyxis Solitary: Let's assume good faith here and not accuse others of unproductive editing. If there is unsourced information, it is not the responsibility of others to find and attach a source, it is the responsibility of the original person who added the unsourced information to find and attach a source. Therefore, removing it is the best practice. It's better to have no information than unsourced information. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I reused the Variety citation attached to the episode title. I don't understand why you delete content without looking at cited sources. If you take the time to check sources provided you would see why they're cited. You, yourself, could have attached the Variety citation to the date, instead of just deleting it. Delete. Delete. Delete ... is not productive editing. And it discourages many new editors from participating in Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Uh-oh!
Did I burn you out? Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- No. Other things to attend to. But it's likely I'll be taking List of The Loud House episodes off my watchlist soon – it looks like it's mostly "done", outside of some needed tinkering, and I don't like dealing with most of the animation series articles (for obvious reasons...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- No, totally fine. And I already knew it'd be temporary to begin with. I don't even remember how we got involved now. Hopefully this issue with Luigi dies down so we don't need to keep as close an eye on it. Although I hope you don't mind if I still pop in with quick questions since I'm still working on the parent article and a character list in my sandbox. There is the bigger, though not humongous, project, which is that the parent article, even with my clean-up, has a similar issue that we had with Liv and Maddie, but I know you said that, if you do end up looking at it, it won't be for quite a while. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Quick question on table captions
Based on what Geraldo told you, does that mean we should even use them at Beyond and Famous in Love for those really short notes above the episode tables? Or do we only use captions once there are two seasons which warrant a list of episodes article? Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Theoretically, yes, I think. (Though I think it becomes debatable if it's one-sentence of text or less?...) What I'm not sure about is the WP:ACCESS implications of a "regular" sentence before a table (e.g. Beyond) vs. a "list-element" before a table (Famous in Love). I'm going to ping Nyuszika7H and Joeyconnick to see if they know any more about this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I don't think that kind of note is appropriate as a caption, and setting it as a caption would make it bold and centered, which certainly does not make sense. I don't think a note before the table is an accessibility issue, especially since we have section headers. A one-element list might sound strange to screen reader users but it shouldn't cause any big problem. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Nyuszika7H: Ah, 'kay. But in cases like at List of The Loud House episodes, those captions for seasons 1—2 should be used as there's more content. For reference, and you may have seen it already from me pinging you, but from this sub-discussion here, it was Geraldo Perez who told IJBall somewhere that captions should essentially always be used because of accessibility stuff, but I'm not entirely sure what that was being based on, either, as I wasn't involved in that discussion, wherever it took place. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Oh, I thought you meant using the notes themselves as captions. Using something like the thing for The Loud House as caption makes sense, though I don't know how much it matters when there is just a short note or a few between the section heading and the episode table. It definitely makes sense for longer notes like in that case. When there is no note at all it looks a bit strange, though, like once when they were added (at List of Jessie episodes, I think), but we decided to keep it for consistency with the other seasons, but then they were removed. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Also, those horizontal lines look nice, but I wonder how they are for accessibility. And for the first episode of The Loud House, it looks a bit strange that it doesn't line up due to the separate story/written credits. And I'm relieved to see that the storyboarders clutter the table less than for other series due to there being only one or sometimes two, so I'm not entirely opposed to keeping them here, though the consensus at that WP:TV discussion that I linked to was not to include them. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Nyuszika7H: Yeah, that's how I feel as well, but I guess to someone who has impairments, it can make a big difference. And yeah, looks a lot better than what I had worked out previously if you look at this old version before I made the change. It reduced row height significantly. It shouldn't be an accessibility issue, I don't think. As for storyboard personnel, as IJBall originally felt the same way as I did that they shouldn't be included, the reason he gave is that they're front-end credits—see [18], for example—which means they're important credits, if I recall correctly. Although, obviously, we should use common sense. In season two, they started showing the producer on the front-end, but that never changed, so I don't need a need to add a column for that. In the case of storyboard personnel, each episode has different storyboard personnel. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Yeah, it's better than it was. The other option is separate rows per segments, though that's problematic with the viewership numbers being per-episode. Pretty much everything else is per-segment (except air date but that doesn't cause ambiguity unlike viewership numbers). As for the captions, when there are notes it doesn't bother me, though I could live with them for consistency within an article when there aren't notes for one or more seasons.
- Storyboarders are frequently credited on the episode title card or at the beginning of episodes along with writer and director. That was not explicitly mentioned in the previous discussion but I think they were aware of that. Also, seeing a bit more than trivial (though less than usual) variation with season 2's directors, I'm inclined to think that one should be put back over storyboarders (for season 1 there's only one that differs but if it doesn't cause space issues it's better to line up the tables), which is already standard, though it would be messy to fit directors, writers, AND storyboarders. I don't know if an RfC or something on the inclusion of storyboarders would be beneficial.
- Either way, for directors or storyboarders, we could put line breaks (while also keeping the appropriate credit separators) to make more space, and then perhaps the "No. in season" column could be brought back (though I don't know how it would look on smaller screens, mine is 1600x900). Also, I saw some writing credits with just line breaks as separators – I don't know how they're actually credited, but that might also need fixing. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, the viewership numbers makes it complicated because the numbers are for one showing in this case, just like with Andi Mack's premiere. In this case, it is actually two separate episodes, as seen by how it is sold, and that's how the production team intended them to be, but Disney Channel decided to show it as a one-hour showing when it first premiered—it's now shown as two separate episodes in reruns, though. That's why I was for having the first row be 13/Outside the Box in one sitting as, to me, it doesn't make sense to have two sets of ratings, which are the same, making it appear as if they were ratings from two separate 30-minute showings—for example, that was the case with The Thundermans on August 13 last year (#12 and #18 on the chart), where they simply had two new episodes, not two new episodes packaged as one by the network like with Andi Mack. when the ratings were actually from one 60-minute showing as seen by the length in the Showbuzz Daily article (#56). However, that also has its own complications, because when averaging the ratings, doing it that way, we'd be saying that it is the average of 11 episodes (entries) when 12 episodes have aired. In the end, everything just has its own complications, haha!
- @Nyuszika7H: Yeah, that's how I feel as well, but I guess to someone who has impairments, it can make a big difference. And yeah, looks a lot better than what I had worked out previously if you look at this old version before I made the change. It reduced row height significantly. It shouldn't be an accessibility issue, I don't think. As for storyboard personnel, as IJBall originally felt the same way as I did that they shouldn't be included, the reason he gave is that they're front-end credits—see [18], for example—which means they're important credits, if I recall correctly. Although, obviously, we should use common sense. In season two, they started showing the producer on the front-end, but that never changed, so I don't need a need to add a column for that. In the case of storyboard personnel, each episode has different storyboard personnel. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Nyuszika7H: Ah, 'kay. But in cases like at List of The Loud House episodes, those captions for seasons 1—2 should be used as there's more content. For reference, and you may have seen it already from me pinging you, but from this sub-discussion here, it was Geraldo Perez who told IJBall somewhere that captions should essentially always be used because of accessibility stuff, but I'm not entirely sure what that was being based on, either, as I wasn't involved in that discussion, wherever it took place. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- With regard to the writing credits, which ones specifically look odd? When I added the writers back, I had actually gone through each of the title cards on the Wikia and listed them how they were listed there, but it's possible I may have goofed up somewhere. Oh, and for reference, my screen is 1366 x 768. What about yours, IJBall? Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oops. Forgot to ping: Nyuszika7H. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- With regard to the writing credits, which ones specifically look odd? When I added the writers back, I had actually gone through each of the title cards on the Wikia and listed them how they were listed there, but it's possible I may have goofed up somewhere. Oh, and for reference, my screen is 1366 x 768. What about yours, IJBall? Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)