User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Happy New Year 2018!

Happy New Year!

Geraldo Perez,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Earth 2

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing.

"Episode order", like any other information in an article, must be WP:Verifiable. Your edits continue to insert unsourced information synthesized from air dates. The accepted episode order is given in reliable sources in the edit you just reverted. I suggest that you self-revert until you can provide contradictory reliable sources for the accepted order, or point to a Wikipedia guideline that covers your edit on technical grounds. -- Netoholic @ 10:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, a warning here for "disruptive editing". That is a bit petty. Keep this discussion on the talk page of the article where your spurious claims that a table ordered by well-referenced dates isn't verifiable as being ordered by a date sequence when examination of the table itself is sufficient to verify the order is correct. Geraldo Perez (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the source used in the article for air date information places the episodes in narrative, not airing order. -- Netoholic @ 11:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

and TV Guide gives the order and dates listed in the article. Keep discussion on article talk page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is about your disruptive edits in violation of WP:V and WP:SYNTH. This is the second instance of you talking about sources, but showing that you haven't read them. -- Netoholic @ 11:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I have made no disruptive edits with respect to the Earth 2 (TV series) article and your accusations that I did are spurious and vexatious. Keep to the talk page discussion. My comments on this page are for my talk page archive record to show the warning message accusation has no merit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

And will be also used to demonstrate SYNTH violations, exacerbated by inattentiveness to sources. -- Netoholic @ 11:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Asserted, not demonstrated. Spurious accusations continue. This is bordering on harassment now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Netoholic reported by User:Amaury (Result: ). Thank you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Request...

Geraldo, could you please look at this series of edits, and determine if they are valid? Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Lots of dubious stuff in the article but the addition of a non-starring actor to the starring list and unrelated listing of names from some other project stood out. According to what I can find there are only 3 starring actors listed at top of poster. Can't read billing block on the poster so can't really be sure about the starring list so left it alone in infobox as it was before the IPv6 edits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Zap2it update

IJBall, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H

Thanks to Elijah's comment on Talk:List of The Loud House episodes#Zap2it, I've realized that Zap2it has made updates to their website and that the old links now lead to a 404 page. They were working earlier when I checked something for Andi Mack around 4:20 PM, so they must have updated the site sometime after that. On a related note, hopefully this resolves the issues the website sometimes had.

In any case, I'm trying to figure out the best way to update this because there's one minor drawback. Just like before, when you go to the episode guide, it defaults to the current season, with the old URL being like this: https://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/i-am-frankie/episode-guide/EP02762342?aid=zap2it However, unlike before, there are no season specific links. Now, when you click on the season dropdown menu and click another season, it doesn't actually load a new page like it used to and give you that https://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tvlistings/ZCProgram.do?sId=EP02631750&t=Andi+Mack&method=getEpisodesForShow&epYear=2 URL. How do I explain this? It's kind of like Twitter in some areas. On the homepage, when you click the link that says "See X new Tweets" or "See new Tweets" if there have been a lot of new tweets, the page doesn't reload, it just brings up those new tweets using Java, I'm guessing, and I'm guessing that's what Zap2it is utilizing now. The URL now looks something like this: https://tvlistings.zap2it.com/overview.html?programSeriesId=SH02631750&tmsId=SH026317500000&from=sl&aid=gapzap (Andi Mack). The only thing I can think of is to add a hidden note explaining that the episode guide defaults to the current season, though only when there's more than one season, and to see other seasons, just click on the dropdown menu. I can take care of the mass updating, no problem, it's just that I want to see feedback on how to deal with there no longer being season specific links. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't look like a direct link to a particular season's episode guide (or even the episode guide specifically rather than the overview) can be made. Just add some note like "Episode Guide – Season 2". Also, a URL like this is enough, the other parameters are not needed: https://tvlistings.zap2it.com/overview.html?programSeriesId=SH02631750

Also, it's JavaScript, not Java, the difference is quite big. It's like calling a hamster "ham". ;) nyuszika7h (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Just point to the closest page you can use in the cite. Navigation to the information being cited is fairly obvious and easy to find for verifiability. A note as part of the cite on how to find the information shouldn't be necessary here as it is fairly obvious. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Geraldo. @Nyuszika7H: What's the reason for that part in the URL, then? (Although it looks like it's automatically added, anyway, when I click your link above, for example. I don't remember if it worked the same before, but I know you made a similar comment with the old layout. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit to Constantine Maroulis

Hi Geraldo Perez! I just wanted to let you know that it looks like you misclassified this edit to Constantine Maroulis as vandalism several days ago. Just wanted to remind you to double check before rolling back. Otherwise, keep up the good work! – Zntrip 20:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zntrip: Thanks, I try my best but sometimes make mistakes. I was undoing vandalism edits in a dynamic IPv6 range and missed a valid one that looked like the vandalism ones made by others in that range. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries, we all make mistakes (I should know). Just wanted to give you a heads up. – Zntrip 00:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Need advice, re: List of Naturally, Sadie episodes

Geraldo, I am in the process of renovating and standardizing the episodes list at List of Naturally, Sadie episodes, but I've run across an issue – according to the U.S.C.O., 26 episodes were produced for season #1. (Or, at the least, 26 episode scripts have prod. codes.) However, I cannot verify that episodes #102 or #108 ever aired – they are not listed at Epguides, IMDb, or TV.com. Further, neither iTunes nor Amazon carry this show (and a search of my Apple's TV app turned up nothing...). These two episodes seemed to be included at the article before I started my "renovations" there (though likely by drive-by IP editors). For now, I have chosen to "hide" the two episodes in question from the general readership... Any other advice on how to handle this? TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I would expect that "date of publication" in the USCO record would match original air date as airing is how TV episodes get published. Checking other entries, though, it looks like date of publication does not match the airing dates in the ep list for the other episodes. Hmmm? I guess one option is to use the USCO data for published date as the source for airing dates on all episodes which would resolve the issue of including those two but creates a disconnect with the other sources of info. Might work to include those two episodes using the USCO dates with a note about the airing date, the date of publication date, being different from the other dates. An explanation of what is happening should go on the article talk page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, surprisingly, the "date of publication" at the U.S.C.O. doesn't work as nearly as often as you might think. In some cases, the episodes all have a "bulk date" of publication (which seems to be the case for Naturally, Sadie – remember, this show is Canadian, and I believe it aired in Canada first, before the U.S.). In other cases, the "date of publication" listed in the U.S.C.O. is close to the actual air date, but off by 1–2 days to a week. So you generally can't use U.S.C.O. to verify airdates – just prod. codes, episode titles, often directors, and sometimes episode writers...
So, I'm basically stuck here – I still have nothing that verifies that those last two season #1 episodes ever aired, or were even produced at all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed something, though – U.S.C.O. has some entries that describe the season #2 episodes as "episodes 27 to 52 : television series". So that does imply that episodes #25 & episodes #26 aired as part of season #1. This is all very... odd. I dunno what to do here – "TV Guide" also only lists 24 episodes for season #1. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I think it is safe to say they were produced as they are copyrighted and I presume it is somewhat fraudulent to register something that doesn't exist, aired is another issue. Might add them to the end of the season table without an episode number or airdate to at least have a record of what we do know. Maybe not count them in the episode count for the season as can't verify they aired. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Geraldo, I have definitely seen unaired, and even unproduced, episodes included in the U.S.C.O. before – in the latter cases (which are rare, admittedly), it's usually for episodes scripts that were written up for a TV series around the time it was cancelled: i.e. episodes for which scripts were written but which were never filmed. However, I am assuming that this is probably not the case with Naturally, Sadie. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and at the least, I plan to mention the two "missing" episodes in prose in the 'Season 1' section. I don't intent to include them in the episodes table until I can find some proof that they were actually produced... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

To add even more confusion to this, the two "missing" episodes (#102 & #108) are available on YouTube. So this implies that they did air somewhere. I have no idea what to do now – there must be airdates for these two episodes (if not in Canada or the U.S., then at least somewhere internationally...), but I have no idea how to track that info down...
So I'm back to asking advice – should I go ahead and put these two episodes into the episodes table now, and just leave the "airdates" cells blank?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I'd suggest exactly that. You found proof of real existence and support on USCO. They should go in the article with what we know and can source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The Fairly OddParents - Cancellation rumors section

Is that section even necessary? As far as I can tell, it's just a bunch of speculation, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia articles. We should only be reporting pure facts, and, as far as I know, there aren't ever exceptions in that regard. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: No it is not appropriate with the sources used. I left a comment on the talk page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent Edit Source

Source for the new "Written by" credits are http://www.imdb.com/title/tt7810980/reference

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babyfett1 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Babyfett1: We generally don't use IMDb for future credits. WGA tagged stuff is usually OK though, but that is about it. Won't matter in 2 days when the ep airs and credit info will be in the episode itself. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Babyfett1: There will sometimes be press releases on sites like The Futon Critic stating who will be appearing as guest stars in an episode, and those can be used on Wikipedia, provided you source them. Once the episode airs, though, the sources can be removed since the episode becomes a WP:PRIMARY source. A lot of the times, those that are listed as guest stars in the press releases are actually those that we see listed as special guest stars in the credits. Hope this helps. Just remember that IMDB cannot be used to source anything as it contains user-submitted content. It can only be used as an external link. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. The IMDB is pretty reliable, but I understand your policy. Also, just so you know, the episode was pre-released on NickJr.com and couple weeks ago, so the credits in this case are truly verified. Thanks again for weighing in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babyfett1 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Babyfett1: IMDb is generally about as reliable as Wikipedia is itself, which is actually pretty good considering how it is written. IMDb is a good sanity check on stuff but there are far too many errors and active vandalism to truly depend on it as being authoritative. It is a good start to gather info but for stuff that needs to be referenced such as unaired episode info we can't trust it. Early streaming of episodes is a complication. Info is good but it is more difficult to verify as access to the streaming is generally restricted. Usually no hurry to get info into articles so can wait if needed if sources are soft. We are writing for the long term. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Categories issue

Geraldo, Category:2010s American sitcoms exists, but it looks wholly redundant with Category:2010s American comedy television series – what needs to be done here?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed this IP has been making the following changes, replacing the latter with the former. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Sitcom is a subcategory of Comedy, shouldn't be redundant, but should be in the lowest level that fits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

In regards to television, the terms are synonymous, if not downright interchangeable. There almost certainly should not be a "sitcom" category of there's already a "comedy" category. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I tend to agree but the only way to get this fixed is to start a discussion at WP:CfD to get the subcategory deleted/merged to the main category by the bot. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll think about that... In the meantime, I've just been reverting the IP editor that Amaury is referring to – I'd rather leave those articles in Category:2010s American comedy television series... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Please continue to keep an eye on this issue – an IP just tried to change to the unnecessary "sitcom" category at the Lab Rats articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I think we may have socks of Son of Zorn. See the talk page of the IP I just reverted on Max & Shred. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ack. Doesn't look like it's been reported to WP:SPI either. But I'm going to let Admins handle this – this is a job beyond mere simple editors to deal with, as it looks to involve IP socking, the mass creation of categories, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard in relation to consensus dispute on Non-notable awards

I've filed a new Dispute resolution noticeboard to address the current consensus dispute on Non-notable awards in the main article of Beauty and the Beast that will rule out a resolution that awards belonging to film critic organizations with direct-linked articles to Wikipedia should be considered as notable awards. You're invited in this resolution to state your reasons. Saiph121 (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Tangled: The Series#Ratings average

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tangled: The Series#Ratings average. IJBall, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H. If any of you would be willing to, would you consider commenting with your opinions here? Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Paramount Network

I have a RMT request in to move the title without the parenthetical, and a hatnote on the page to the disambiguation; of course we're getting the low-edit accounts messing things up. Sorry if I'm stepping on any toes on this. Nate • (chatter) 04:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: List of Henry Danger episodes

Geraldo, doesn't this go against WP:ACCESSIBILITY? When IJBall and myself tried that at Beyond, Joey brought it to our attention that we were violating that guideline on the talk page. That's why we have the notes for Stuck in the Middle, List of Hunter Street episodes, and I Am Frankie as they are. However, I see IJBall added the TOC limit template when he added the season two table at Beyond, which is probably accessibility-compliant what we could do for List of Henry Danger episodes, Stuck in the Middle, List of Hunter Street episodes, and I Am Frankie. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I was wrong. I didn't like a sole subheader in a section. Should be a proper notes section before the references section to collect all notes for an article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Instagram?

Are there "verified" Instagram accounts like there are verified Twitter accounts? If there aren't, how can anything from Instagram be used as a source?!... The specific issue in my case is this. Pinging Amaury to this as well. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Instagram help "Managing your account/Verified badges" indicates that Instagram verifies ownership same as Twitter. Uses same checkmark symbol. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, so that's not a verified account. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Need to click on the name. https://www.instagram.com/thegreenhouseacademy/ looks to be verified. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that's irritating - At least with Twitter, the checkmark is on the main page... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I'm always wary of stuff being spoofed so rechecked the link you posted originally. It looks like it is just an image link pointed to by the main page where it does appear as an image. This page just gives the full-sized image and addition text. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hollywood.com

Just so you know, it looks like Hollywood.com has dropped their actor bio/filmography pages, just like nytimes.com did before them. The good news is that it looks like these kinds of Hollywood.com pages have been archived by the Wayback Machine... But the bad news is that it means it's going to be that much harder to cite actor/actress DOBs going forward. Anyway, just so you know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Thanks for the info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Recognize

Hi GP, happy new year. Do you recognize this guy? It looked like REPARADOR (aka Duque Santiago) to me based on geolocation and hostile edit summaries. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: My first thought was Gabucho181. Seems a bit similar, but not sure. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

List of A.N.T. Farm episodes

An IP edit changed how the titles of the episodes (for season one only) were capitalized. I was looking in some sources (Futon Critic, Zap2it ... even Amazon) and noticing that the convention is for just the "ANT" part of each title to be capitalized, though I'll say even in the sources they weren't always consistent with keeping the rest of the letters lower case. Anyway, I reverted the IP edit, going by what the sources were doing ... for the most part. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: We are supposed to be following MOS:CT and ignoring all the funny stylizing of the title of episodes. I wouldn't want to change it, though, without a discussion on the talk page as I expect that to be somewhat contentious if we lowercased most of the "ANT" stuff without a consensus to do so. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Milo Murphy's Law Town

It seems to be Murphy confirmed on the Milo Murphy's Law wikia that Milo seems to live in Phineas & Ferb hometown Danville. There are even references in some episodes like this image from the episode, We're Going to the Zoo. You can see on the sign on the right that it says "Danville Ski Slope". So how do you know Milo's town is Swamp City? You don't even have a cite to prove it. LPCDDude (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@LPCDDude: Cite 5 in the article says "Swamp City" and said it was used instead of "Danville". We can't use Wikia as a reference. That Danville exists is a given since the shows are in the same fictional universe so the image doesn't give the setting of this one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes for TV movies

Geraldo, is this edit correct? In the same way that TV movies should be listed under 'Television' in WP:FILMOGRAPHYs, I've generally been under the impression that TV movies should use {{Infobox television}} rather than {{Infobox film}}? (For one thing, the latter is missing the 'network' parameter which would seem to be something you'd obviously want for TV movies...) So, which is correct?... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Beyond (2017 TV series)

May need an additional (temporary) eye or two there. Pinging MPFitz1968 as well. Disruptive IP using unnecessary three-decimal precision. Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I don't know if this is the same IP, but I remember we've had an issue just like this before. I remember you asked for some more watchers at another TV series article this was going on at sometime last year. Unfortunately, I don't remember which article it was. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I just hit you on your Talk page about this – I suggest reverting until they discuss... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The IP has responded a few times on my talk page now, but clearly they're not understanding anything. As such, I've given up and just put them down to trolling nonsense. If anyone else wants to have a go at trying to explain it, feel free, because I don't know how else I can explain it. And it's not something that really needs to be explained in extensive detail. Their whole reasoning that it invalidates things is bogus. So when something costs $18.12 before tax, should the tax be $1.48584 rather than the proper $1.49 for a total of $19.60584 rather than the proper $19.61? LOL! Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: This is basically an editorial choice on how many digits to display. Excess precision serves no purpose though and 2 digits after the decimal is usually reasonable. Rounding sourced data is covered by WP:CALC so in of itself is not an issue. Once an article establishes a style such as this changes need to be discussed to gain consensus for a change. WP:ONUS is on the one proposing a style change to justify it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Haha! That's what I've been trying to tell them, but they refuse to listen, so I've done what I can, I guess. If they persist, I guess just eventually file a report at ANI or something. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft question

Can Draft articles, such as Draft:El Tigre: The Adventures of Manny Rivera (season 2), be tagged with under WP:G3 with {{Db-hoax}}? (If so, I'm guessing this one should be...) TIA... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I'll give it a shot. Draft articles are supposed to be serious attempts at creating articles that will eventually end up in main space, it is not a sandbox to experiment in. A hoax will get deleted in main space, so no point in permitting it to be a draft article either. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of K.C. Undercover episodes#K.C. Undercover: The Final Chapter - episode title sounds like it will be the series finale, but...

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of K.C. Undercover episodes#K.C. Undercover: The Final Chapter - episode title sounds like it will be the series finale, but.... It's essentially moot now since Zap2it has the finale tag on Friday's episode. (Although we can only take season finale from that, not series finale, as there's no official announcement in that regard.) However, just in case you or IJBall want to provide two cents if you have any, I'm inviting ya'll. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Your edits at Ice Age: Collision Course

You reverted my reversion of vandalism. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 02:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to let you know, both RT and Metacritic say it recieved negative reviews. On Wikipedia we usually note that it has negative reception due to that. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 02:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: It also received some positive reviews per RT, no need to summarize, the data following speaks for itself in this case and don't need to explained it for the reader. I didn't see the original removal as vandalism, just lack of a reason in the edit history. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

lack of a reason in the edit history. .... That's exactly vandalism. Please read WP:Vandalism: it says "The unexplained removal of encyclopedic content," constitutes it. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 02:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: My reinstating the edit, with a stated reason, on the other hand, was not vandalism. It is a separate edit and stands on its own. I agreed with the original removal for the reasons I stated. We don't need to summarize what is directly following. Just state the data and let the reader make the conclusions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see this before restoring on Ice Age: Collision Course. Iggy (Swan) 09:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

CinemaSins

CinemaSins may be a humor site, but it does have the narrator constantly saying how much he hates certain movies, especially Beauty and the Beast (2017 film). Says so in the video's about and a couple times in the video itself. He does this a lot. Cineplex (talk) 11:03 PM, 4 February 2018 (EST)

@Cineplex: The whole shtick of the site is humorous takedowns of pretty much everything. They don't do serious reviews and we shouldn't take them seriously either. We don't need joke stuff in a wiki article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Rollback

With respect, I don't think that this was an appropriate use of rollback, per WP:RBK. The preceding edit was clearly made in good faith, and its reversion merited an explanation. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@PinkAmpersand: It was a mistake, I undid my edit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The Fairly OddParents

Pinging IJBall as well. Need some extra eyes. The video the IP used is from Butch Hartman's verified YouTube, but it still doesn't explicitly mention anything about The Fairly OddParents' status. And just because he's leaving doesn't necessarily mean The Fairly OddParents is over. Albeit unsourced and reverted, there was an earlier edit mentioning a renewal, so there's that possibility. Look at The Loud House. Chris Savino being fired had no impact on the series, which is continuing its run. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Geraldo, IJBall, not really sure how to handle the recent re-addition of the series being over by Elijah as there were a lot of other edits after his. As you mentioned in your earlier revert, Geraldo, production being over for now does not mean the series is completely over nor does it mean there aren't still episodes out there that haven't aired. It hasn't been a year yet, so that's definitely still a possibility. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

86.162.36.106

Someone is going to need to take a close look at the edits of IP 86.162.36.106 at the Teen Titans articles after MPFitz1968 caught them doing flagrant date vandalism, etc. at List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes, etc. If they keep at this, a block may be in order... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything episodes

May need some extra hands. Persistent addition of trivia. Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

ANI

FYI WP:ANI#Range_block_request_-_American_categories_vandal EvergreenFir (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Now here. I see it has been handled. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Jenny Slate in "Incredibles 2"

Would it be okay if Jenny Slate is in the voice cast of Disney/Pixar's upcoming sequel "Incredibles 2"? 2602:306:31FD:5AE0:E6CE:8FFF:FE20:F8D0 (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Only if there is a reference supporting that addition to the cast, otherwise no. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

K.C. Undercover

An IP (12.5.161.31) made a total of 11 edits to K.C. Undercover in the last hour or so, which included removing a reference which was backing Marisa's last name, per a press release at Disney ABC Press. After my revert, I then discovered the reference was a dead link, with no archive of it (at webcitation.org or archive.org). Disney ABC Press still has the "fact sheet" with the show's press release information on their site [1], though not likely to stay there too much longer with the series having ended. If/when that information disappears, how will we be able to combat the occasional change of Marisa's last name from "Clark" (per press release) to "Miller" by editors? MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: [2]. Also, add this link:

javascript:void(open('https://web.archive.org/save/'+encodeURI(document.location)))

To your bookmarks for the future. When you're on a page you want to archive, click the link and it'll automatically create an archive. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: (edit conflict) You can force an archive, see Wikipedia:Using WebCite, to make sure we have a stable copy. We could just drop the last name if we can't find a live source to back it up or drop a hidden note and maybe a note on the talk page about the issue if we choose to keep it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: This archive link seems to work - http://www.webcitation.org/6xSs82y1L

OK. Thanks, Geraldo and Amaury. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Knight Squad and a friendly reminder

Would you and MPFitz1968 be willing to add this new Nickelodeon series to watchlist? Thanks.

Also, Geraldo, just a friendly reminder. Did you ever see my calling the group message here? I realize that was around the holidays, so it's possible you oversaw it, and because it was that time, I didn't really want to "push" it, so to speak. Then I forgot about it as I meant to post a friendly reminder earlier. If you could go through this thoroughly when you can so it's most accurate, that would be wonderful. So if there's something on there I have listed as you watching, but you're actually not, that should be corrected, and vice-versa for pages you are watching that I have listed as you not watching. And so on. In addition, if there's something there that's, for example, not on your watchlist, but you want to watch it, by all means! MPFitz already updated that a while ago, just waiting on you, IJBall, and Nyu. Cheers! Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: My interests have moved on a bit and I am watching a lot more random stuff now. I still watch most what is in the table but much more cursorily as it looks to be well covered by you and others and there is less for me to contribute. Generally I'll do what I can to help but I don't want to commit to anything, and updating your table feels like making a commitment, as it starts to feel a bit too much like work obligations and less like a hobby. I have no issues with you tracking my edits and updating on my behalf but I don't plan on updating it myself. You can always ping me if you need help on anything you think I can contribute to and I'll do my best to help if I can. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, Geraldo. It wasn't my intention to make it feel like that (work obligations, etc.), and I apologize if it did. My only intention with it, as I mentioned in the group message, was for it to be as accurate as possible simply so that if I'm having a problem, I don't have to bug and potentially annoy you guys by posting on your talk pages since if I look at that list and see that you're watching X article, I know you'll see the disruption going on. It's also why I started it in the first place. In regard to what you mentioned about commitments and all that, that's one of the reasons why I wasn't so "strict" on it, so to speak, in that I wasn't asking you guys to update it every single week and more, like, two times a year. I didn't want to across as some "boss." If it came across like that from the very beginning, I do apologize once again. And if the others also feel like this, I apologize to you, too.

So any recent edits, including your reverts to the recent disruption where unexplained reordering was occurring, I can update on your behalf and say you're watching? I take it you have the options like "Add pages and files I edit to my watchlist," "Add pages and files I move to my watchlist," and "Add pages where I have performed a rollback to my watchlist" all checked? The only problem would be determining when you're no longer watching something since I think you clean out your watchlist every year, but I might be wrong. Although since it's just a general guide, I suppose it doesn't matter too much, either. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: It was light nagging and not annoying.🙂 I just take commitments seriously and am careful making them even by implication. I follow a lot of vandalism and dubious editing runs and try to clean up after the them as best I can. I generally don't watch pages I just undo edits on. I generally watch pages I make a substantial edit or improvement on and bio pages where unsourced bio info was added. If you see multiple edits from me on a page I am likely watching it, a single edit is likely part of a cleanup pass. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Tish Cyrus

I made some revisions on her page. Most of the information you have up about her in erroneous. I have known her for 22 years. I don't know what you want in the way of citations other than I know first hand that most of your information about her is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettye77 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bettye77: We can't depend on your assertion that you have personal knowledge as everything in an article has to be verifiable and have a source available if challenged. However anything in the article that you think is wrong and that does not have a good source and is personal information about the subject should be removed with an explanation based on lack of a good reference per WP:BLP. If you do remove something make sure to leave an edit summary explaining why or your removal will likely get undone. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Revert

It's pretty fucking sad that for 3 whole days you waited at that article just waiting to revert[3], I've been busy for the last 2-3 days however had you looked a bit closer you would've seen I left that article under my to do list [4] so I was clearly going to source it at some point, In future show some common courtesy and leave a fucking message like a normal human being. –Davey2010^Talk 02:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: The person who added the info in the first place should have added the requested reference. If it is correct, and I think it isn't, trivial to add info back. I left it alone for 3 days, sufficient time if the source were readily available. Network acting as agent for employees looks extremely unlikely. I put article back to stable state before dubious unsourced info was added. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

That's my point .... I've barely been on so as such I've not done any searching at all so in that respect sufficient time if the source were readily available" is irrelevant ..... I would've searched and if I couldn't find anything then I would've removed this myself, Had you gone to the talkpage and said "Dave I think the info is bs" then I probably would've searched a lot quicker and again if I couldn't find anything then I would've binned it, my point is THEREISNOTIMELIMIT on things and although "burden is on me" etc etc I have a life of my own and can't be here 24/7, Had you came to my talkpage instead of reverting you would've had your desired goal as well as a nicer message. –Davey2010^Talk 02:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I felt uncomfortable leaving the info in the article in the first place as I thought it dubious at the time and likely the first person who removed it thought so too. Your edit history message led me to believe you just needed a little time to edit in info you already had so I left it alone in expectation of a somewhat immediate addition of references. I thought the edit history messages were sufficient communication for this issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Por amar sin ley

Hi, I'm sorry to bothered, but I'd like to know if it's really important to include non-notable actors to a cast list for the invited actors. As many actors appear accredited in the opening theme, but not all have an extremely important role or have some dialogue. For example in the case of Por amar sin ley, it is a soap opera and well it is obvious that it will have too many episodes, so in each episode guest actors appear, but many of them are not remarkable. Include all these names to the list of guest cast, would make that section is too long and really it seems unnecessary to go there mentioning actors who do not even have an important role.--Philip J Fry / talk 07:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Philip J Fry: Did they actually get a "Special Guest Star" label in the credits as asserted by the section header? If so I find that surprising as that is usually a very rare credit to give out and normally given to well-established notable actors. Seeing a number of names listed without a linked article makes me dubious they actually got that credit or if they did the production team has seriously degraded what that credit means for that show. Usually we list a recurring cast section in articles for guest stars who reappear in a significant number of episodes. I think a list of every guest star that ever appeared even once is excessive. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Well indeed they are credited in the opening theme, and the incredible thing is that they are not very remarkable actors, and in fact they do not even have a character, they only appear as extras in an episode, but they are also accredited. The problem persists is that the user Telenovelafan215 insists that they must be mentioned because they appear accredited. Then I would not know what to do in this case, because it seems a little irrelevant to mention all these people.--Philip J Fry / talk 16:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Philip J Fry: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information applies here. If an actor is being listed that is not the main cast there should be some reason other than just listing them in the article. If they didn't play a significant role or at least recur they shouldn't be listed. If this is a dispute with just a single editor you may need to follow WP:DR process and get a consensus on the talk page of the article as to how to handle this issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

How to handle "child actors"?...

Geraldo, as I'm sure you know, we've had a simmering issue with the ledes of certain "child actor" articles. As far as I know, this issue hasn't been discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia... And I understand the problem – as written, the lede of a number of these articles start with, "[So-and-so] is an American child actor. [He/she] is known for..." As written, that lede would be fine for those actors that only had careers as "child stars" and then retired in their teen years or died (e.g. Heather O'Rourke). I like the way Shirley Temple handles this issue, so I am wondering if we should start changing the ledes of some of these articles once they "age" into the teen years, to something like: "[So-and-so] is an American actor who began their career as a child actor. [He/she] is known for..."

What do you think? Pinging Amaury and MPFitz1968 to this discussion as well... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The intro is in the present tense so I think it should reflect what they currently are based on their last notable acting credit. If they don't have a notable non-child acting credit they become former child actors as they age out of that. I agree Shirley Temple is a good exemplar. I think your suggested change is a good one as long as they were notable as a child actor at the start of their career. Ron Howard is another good example of this issue being covered, it may need more explanation if the career is complex. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've revised the lede to Joshua Rush, as per our ideas here. We should all probably be on the lookout now for all similar type WP:BLP articles that will need to have their ledes revised along the same lines... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Tupac214

Definitely disruptive, per edits at The Thundermans and its LoE article in recent days, as well as The Fairly OddParents. This user needs to be watched. So far, I've given them a level 3 warning for disruption, which was about a couple of days ago. Was almost inclined to go to level 4, but in any case, the continued disruption could land them at AIV/ANI. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Big Hero 6: The Series

"Baymax Returns" is not a single episode, so new episodes should be airing but we don't know yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4701:C4A0:9541:9FBB:7D63:DA24 (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

See discussion on talk page of article. Addressed there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Does National Amusements own Viacom or not?

I have seen the National Amusements page. Is it the parent company/owner of Viacom? Hey guys! Welcome to my signature if you're reading this, I love ya! ~ Akram 04:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolAkramTV (talk • contribs)

@CoolAkramTV: Viacom is a publicly traded company owned by the shareholders. It has no "parent" and the "owner" is each of the shareholders. If Redstone wants to buy back the 20% of the shares he doesn't currently own, then and only then would his front company NA be the owner. NA treats Viacom and CBS as divisions as it controls them so they functionally are parts of NA. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Zombies

Would a semi-protection request be appropriate now? Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I requested one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting

Geraldo, a bunch of categories were just added to Zombies (2018 film), and I'd appreciate if you could take at look at them as you're better at this than I am, though it looks like too many cats to me. Thanks... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't like categories that don't have a somewhat explicit tie to something stated in the article. Categories shouldn't be the primary information source about the topic of the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

We could use your followup thoughts at Talk:Zombies (2018 film). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Revert

Hi:

What do you mean by irrelevant info? Paola Andino was born in Puerto Rico, so I added it to the article. If what I wrote is wrong, what about the term Puerto Rican-American. Could it be added? Esteban16 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Esteban16: See WP:OPENPARA context section. Nationality belongs in intro. Her birth location has nothing to do with why she is notable so does not belong in the article lead section.Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

List of Henry Danger episodes

Need some help. They're ignoring talk page comments, specifically where you state to stick with the originals as they support the merging into a single presentation as shown on Amazon/iTunes unless they are no longer listed, which is why I changed the ones I did. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I'm watching the article. If we can't source the original merged code then we can't support keeping it particularly if our original source changed. A dual production code just means that two production slots were used, not really important otherwise if the final output is one merged episode. Same date and iTunes and Amazon support should be sufficient to show single long episode if challenged. If we can find an archive link that supports the original it might be worth using that to support the original code. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. In this case, the ones they're changing—999 and 995—are still listed on The Futon Critic for the original airings, so they should therefore remain as that and not be changed. The ones I changed—994 and 991—were no longer listed on The Futon Critic and so I changed them on Saturday per your comments on using what we can support. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Per the above—If we can't source the original merged code then we can't support keeping it particularly if our original source changed.—since 999 and 995 are still supported for "The Danger Begins" and "Danger & Thunder," respectively, I'll go ahead and revert one more time since there's no valid reason to remove the special production codes as reruns should be ignored as you stated on the article's talk page. Anything further from WP Editor 2012 around this time will likely need to be handled by one of you guys since this likely isn't a clear exception. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I was too focused on writing a long summary, haha! Thank you! Appreciate it! Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

How many pages have you reverted

I saw that you reverted my perdiction recently Well I was curious if you can count your reverts and tell me how many you did Brownspoof (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Brownspoof: I don't keep track and fail to see the relevance. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

That's alright Perez I think you have done like millons since you've been here for 7 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownspoof (talk • contribs) 03:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) And the relevance of that is what, exactly? Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

In the vein of this, this needs to be deleted. But which CSD would it fall under? – WP:G2 perhaps?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I smell a rat... Is this perhaps a sock of someone banned?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:FILMCAST

Geraldo, just so you know, re: edits like this one, WP:FILMCAST now contains the text "All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source." (WP:FILMOGRAPHY does now, as well.) So feel free to explicitly refer to any of WP:FILMCAST, WP:TVCAST, or WP:FILMOGRAPHY when making these types of edits/reversions. FWIW... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I take that to permit common names supported by reliable sources as being permitted when there is no credited name, the credited name being the authoritative source if it exists. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the appropriate take IMO. In the case of films, as almost all film credits list the character names, the listed name should generally be the credited name, unless a secondary source is supplied to support a (different) "common name". In most cases that won't be an issue, and the credited name should be used, though in the discussion that took place somebody mentioned the example of the credited "Diana" vs. the "Wonder Woman" "common name" for the titular character of the 2017 Wonder Woman film... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Also if a reference is not attached the presumption is the info is from the credits and need not be further sourced. If a non-credited name is used then it should both not be in the credits and have an explicit source. I am uncomfortable needing to watch the complete movie to verify stuff. I would have no problem with mentioning a common name in supporting description if it adds value to the character description. I would not like seeing the credited named overridden by another name if the credited name exists. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, yes, correct, I think – the credited name should be used, unless a source (and pref. more than one, IMO) is used to support a "common name". The one place where this becomes a "problem" is for the main cast of TV series, where in a lot of cases the main character names are not listed in the credits – in those cases, we're going to have to rely on some sort of "common name". For current TV series, the network's "official website" will usually provide a main character's "common name". For older TV series, well... I dunno. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I'd be more explicit, when listing credits the credited name must be used if it exists – it is the official name. Well-sourced common name only if no credited name. Common name can be added as supplemental information if a different credited name exists. Things like people adding last names is likely just adding unimportant in-universe trivia. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Trying to get that exact wording into either TVCAST or FILMCAST is probably going to involve some heavy lifting – even adding the current wording to FILMCAST was not entirely unanimous. Basically, some editors will want the discretion to use, for example, a sourced "Wonder Woman" over the credited "Diana" (though I personally believe the former should only happen after a Talk page discussion on the issue first, even with sourcing...).
But my original point was when you revert these kinds of edits, you can now cite any of these MOS's in the edit summary to buttress your case for reverting. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I understand and I appreciate the information. I think a consensus discussion on an individual article should be necessary to override the credited name with something else in cases such as Wonder Woman and even then I would strongly oppose overriding what the production team thought was the correct name to use for the character. I would, of course, accept consensus but I'd be very unhappy about it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, in the specific case of Wonder Woman (2017 film), I believe the cast listing may be wrong right now – she was credited as just "Diana", not "Diana Prince", in the film's end credits. But the revised wording was added to FILMCAST just recently, and it is my hope that the added wording will cut down on this kind of thing going forward... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Lilimar

Geraldo, so how to handle this, in this case? E.G. See this edit. Born in Venezuela, but all of her notable roles are American. So, what to do?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Moved to US age 6, presumed legally residing and working in US so is an American actress based on where notable activities occurred and where residing per WP:OPENPARA context. She has no links to Venezuela other than birth location and descent. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually looking at article Cuban descent is more likely relevant based on parents and reference 2 basically says she is an American citizen. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

So what's the best way to handle this? Maybe no nationality in the lede at all?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Context nationality or resident and notable activities should be mentioned. Ethnicity should not be mentioned and Venezuelan-American is an ethnicity tag for a type of American so American means same thing. As to how to handle I'd suggest a note on the talk page referencing WP:BLPLEAD Context to discuss the issue and return to Venezuelan as context until discussion decides what to do. This may be contentious so needs talk page documentation. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 11#Re: Bizaardvark

Geraldo, IJBall, and MPFitz1968: An update on that discussion and the subsequent sub-discussion. It appears that production episode #215 was his last episode. See List of Bizaardvark episodes#Season 2 (2017–18). However, surprisingly, despite being fired rather than just leaving, he is still in the opening credits sequence, with no changes to the theme song at all. Whether he was still paid for those episodes, I have no idea. The opening credits sequence for Stuck in the Middle S3 was also not changed. However, while Ronni Hawk, who left on good terms, is still shown, her name was edited out. Bizaardvark's opening credits sequence and theme song will definitely change in the third season, though. It has to. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: It looks like as part of his negotiated exit they are paying him for the whole season. Likely because he didn't break the terms of his contract but they wanted him gone anyway. Strange thing to do but this was a strange situation. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Henry Danger

Jace Norman has confirmed that Henry Danger has been renewed for a fifth season on this Facebook video here. Skip to 3:24 and watch for about 30 seconds. Is this something we could use, tagging it with {{better source}}, or should we wait for something official from Deadline, etc.? Will ping MPFitz1968 and IJBall as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe... I'd really like another source confirming. The other concern there is it looked like that was an Aussie show, and I'd worry that they count the seasons down there differently, and that maybe their "season #5" is our "season #4". But if the show has been renewed, the mainline American press should pick it up. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Amaury: It is reasonable to include in the article with clear phrasing that this is something Norman stated but not stated as a fact that there is going to be a fifth season. He doesn't speak for the show. Before taking it as fact we should have a reliable source that is not a personal account of one of the employees of the production. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

its a show that is recorded at universal studios and it even has a united States website, I am thinking Nick will be confirming more soon.2600:1700:8FC0:8C30:8D86:FD29:A093:2675 (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Jace does know what he is talking about and does speak for the show since he is on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simulation60 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Simulation60: Generally in most organizations only a very few employees are authorized to officially speak for the organization as a whole. Norman just works there and there is no indication that he was authorized by the production company he works for or the network to be an official spokesperson for the show. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Geraldo, MPFitz1968, and IJBall: Update. Here is something official from Deadline: Nickelodeon Parts Ways with TV Series Producer Dan Schneider. However, because of the way it's stated, I don't think we can use this as a confirmation for a fifth season of Henry Danger: I hear the network intends to move forward with a fifth season of Schneider’s remaining live-action Nick series, Henry Danger. That's more a of gossip-y type tone. We can use it for Game Shakers, which I've already done, but not Henry Danger, in my opinion. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I agree "I hear" is too soft a statement to be more than passing gossip. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Geraldo, MPFitz1968, and IJBallThe whole article seems opinion based when taking about wrapping Game Shakers and Dan not wanting to share the studio next door. WP Editor 2012 (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you think, Geraldo? The Game Shakers portion sounds pretty solid to me, but I could be wrong. Also, may need some temporary extra attention on both Game Shakers and Dan Schneider (TV producer)‎. I know you're watching the former; not sure about the latter. Similar to Bizaardvark and Jake Paul, all we should state on the Game Shakers article is that it was canceled. Any additional detail should go on Dan Schneider's page. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: That reference was solid on only Game Shakers, the rest is gossipy and speculation based on that on the writer's part. Stuff that is not about the show itself seems off topic for the show article and info about the show runner belongs in the show runner's article. We need to watch Schneider's page as there is defamatory content being added that is referenced to speculation and innuendo. If some source directly state that was why he was fired, fine, but the oblique references are carefully not saying that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Bunk'd S3

This is semi-related to the above in that it comes from an actor who doesn't speak for the series, as we know only the network and/or showrunners can make such announcements, but would this also be reasonable to include with the better source tag? Pinging MPFitz1968 and IJBall once again as well. On the subject itself, it's honestly not that surprising. From my understanding, series on Disney Channel—or the actors, I can't remember—are contracted for three seasons. For the series that get four seasons, those are considered a "bonus." Whether or not series get those contracted three seasons depends on various factors. They are, however, guaranteed two seasons as Disney Channel has never canceled/ended a series after one season. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Handle this how Geraldo suggested above – something like: "Skai Jackson reported on social media that Bunk'd would end after three seasons." (Except, you have to be even vaguer than that, as Jackson didn't actually say what I just said...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: She's being coy and making implications without directly stating something. Best we could say is that she was working on the final episode of the series at the date of the tweet. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Geraldo, IJBall, this doesn't necessarily confirm anything, but here is something of interest regarding Skai Jackson and an upcoming role. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Meg Donnelly

Need some help at the article, unless I'm wrong on this one, in which case, feel free to point it out. Thanks. Will ping MPFitz1968 as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Riele Downs

Geraldo – Riele Downs has been recreated, again. I see nothing to indicate that she is notable yet, even now. Further, this article has a very strange revision history (go to the "earliest" edits to see what I mean – it look like it started as a draft for someone else...). Bottom line: it looks to me like this one should be deleted again (I can't tell – was the first deletion a WP:PROD? or just a bold conversion to a redirect? Because I can't find an WP:AfD on this one...), or converted back to a redirect... Thoughts?... Pinging Amaury as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: It was deleted via PROD but old article was a sentence saying Riele Downs is an actress known for her role as Charlotte in the children's sitcom Henry Danger with some categories and a stub tag before being deleted. This article looks significantly more fluffed out and arguably meets NACTOR with 2 listed main roles and on the face of it significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Would need to evaluate more to be sure. I'd say let this bake for a bit to see where it goes. Redirect would have no good destination. As for the funny edit history, he moved the article from his draft space 26 March 2018‎ taking all the old edit history for his work in progress on this and other articles along with the move. Messy. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, what WP:NACTOR really means (and lots of people don't pay attention to this at AfD) is that two or three "main" TV roles will usually be "notable", but what really determines that is how much secondary coverage there is. In Downs' case, there is basically no coverage, which is not surprising as what she's done are "kids shows" which generally don't get much press coverage in their own right, especially for the "non-lead" roles... I need to think it over, but I'm on break, so I am inclined to take this one to WP:AfD, and to WP:PROD Lulu Lambros (which definitely doesn't pass WP:NACTOR...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

School of Rock

Pinging MPFitz1968 and IJBall as well for this.

I'm going to need some extra attention on School of Rock and List of School of Rock episodes. I know you and IJBall are watching both pages and Michael is watching just the episode list, just drawing light to it. The series finale is coming up; the problem is there is nothing indicating that on Zap2it and using the 20-episode source to state that April 8 is the season and series finale is WP:SYNTH. We saw what happened with Jessie, where Debby Ryan stated there would be 101 (production) episodes total and people tried to match that, but with some episodes merged for presentation, there were only 98 episodes, airing-wise. Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Need your opinion...

Geraldo, what do you think of these edits?... I don't think I object to the addition of the sourced content, but I do have concerns about the added categroies (which don't strike me as WP:DEFINING in this case...). Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: The bisexual categories are not supported by the article. The LGBT ones are. They don't strike me personally as defining but it seems important to a lot of editors that people who have identified that way be added to those categories so I'd leave those alone as I don't want the hassle of defending removing them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks – I've trimmed the bisexual categories, but left the LGBT ones. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

List of PAW Patrol characters

Boldly WP:MERGE this back to PAW Patrol – yes or no?... It doesn't look nearly long enough to justify a standalone article IMHO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I suggest tagging it with a proposed merge tag and dropping a note on the talk page first as described in WP:MERGE. I'd support the merge and if nobody opposes give it a couple weeks or so and then do it. More stable that way. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done – see here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Joshua Rush

I'm not too familiar with BLPs in regard to what's considered trivia, but Drmies reverted an IP earlier for adding trivia, which was improperly verified as it was, and this user just now reverted it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I'd say it was valid referenced content appropriate for that section. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I looked at the sources a bit more. They don't seem to be reliable ones. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

As a general rule, I advise following Drmies lead on this stuff – they're a long-time Admin, and they're rarely wrong about either WP:BLP or "fluff in articles" type edits... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I agree. I am loath to second guess long-term experienced editors. I will when I think it necessary but that seldom turns out to be the case. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't take my word for it--but something called "writeyourstory" to verify Jewishness, that doesn't look good to me. The other part, about languages, that all-too frequently is just BLP fluff. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Victorious episodes

I have caught two IPs over the last few hours (one v4 and one v6, but both geolocating to Minneapolis) changing the sequence of several episodes in the table, plus at least one air date change (on "The Breakfast Bunch") [5][6]. This also appears to include changing production codes for at least a couple of episodes. Article needs watching, but if more different IPs show up, this may end up being requested for semiprotection. MPFitz1968 (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

On my end, I've finally watched listed Victorious and the LoE article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Mech-X4#Cast/Cast and characters format vs. Characters format

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mech-X4#Cast/Cast and characters format vs. Characters format. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that.

Whenever I've typed down about the episode being somewhat controversial, I did not know it was incorrect. When it showed Weasel saving I.R.'s wedding by Weasel marrying I.R., it looked like a reference of same sex marriage since Weasel and I.R. are male animals. I figured people viewed it the same way. Kristie Ann Webb (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kristie Ann Webb: I don't know whether or not it is controversial but without some reference from a reliable source stating that it is it is likely nobody cared or noticed. It looks like a personal evaluation which we shouldn't be adding to Wikipedia articles (see WP:NOR). I suspect that with current cultural norms nobody really cared. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand. Unless I really know about anything or anyone, I really shouldn't add details. You will have to forgive me for that. ✌🏻 Kristie Ann Webb (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep It Spotless

Can I get a couple more watchers, even if only temporary? (MPFitz1968.) Having trouble again with a user replacing sourced info with unsourced info and who I have a hunch is a sock. See User talk:IJBall#Keep It Spotless and the article's history for context. Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nicky jam el cangri --Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Chloe's Closet

Geraldo, if you've got this one watchlisted, you are now doubt aware that I just put a fair amount of work into cleaning up this article. I have no idea what to do about the airdates issue, but I am much more confident about the airdates that were in the original versions of the article. If you have any more ideas on what can be done about this one, I'd love to hear them... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: What you are doing to clean up the article looks good. I am not sure where the airdates came from although I trust the earliest ones over later changes because of pervasive date vandalism. I can't think of much more to do on that article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Big City Greens

This article could use more eyes on it – basically, some IP editors are using a Tweet to change the airing network, etc. for this show. Earlier sourcing said it was going to be a Disney XD show. I don't know if that's changed, or if the pilot episode is getting a special "preview" on the Disney Channel, but whatever is going on it's not clear from the IP edits. So we need more mature editors to figure this out. Pinging Amaury and MPFitz1968 for the same reason. I have also posted to Talk:Big City Greens about this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Will probably need eyes on this again, as we have an editor who is ignoring the ongoing discussion (and the points I have made) at Talk:Big City Greens. Pinging Amaury as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Never took it off my watchlist. Still keeping an eye on it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

List of OK K.O.! Let's Be Heroes episodes

Just a note to self, again, to watch this. Last ep was a long one and people insist on double counting it. I started a discussion on the talk page but that seem to be being ignored. Maybe I'm missing some MOS TV guideline about this. Sigh. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Editing here has been disruptive enough that I think applying for semiprotection at WP:RfPP is in order. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Bibi Bourelly

Bibi said in a post on twitter that she is a dual citizen German and American, i provided the evidence and you keep changing it. Stop and look at the evidence Nichelle1999 (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nichelle1999: I commented in the article talk page and on your page about this issue. I believe it is resolved now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this correct?

I thought we didn't do this on disambig. pages if the link was a redirect? Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Looks wrong. Linking on the term itself should be clear as to where the target is ending up which redirects hide unless it is to an alternate title where it would not be a surprise destination. Redirects in the description part are OK as it is obvious in context it is going to the character portrayed. WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:DABPIPE seem to cover this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Another one

Is this kosher? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: IMDb lists 4 distributors, original theatrical one is one that generally goes in infobox. WP:FILMDIST wants to limit the list. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! episodes

This articles looks like it's really being hit, fairly persistently, by date vandalism(? it's certainly unexplained date changes with no attempt at communication), esp. from an IPv6 at 2601:440:c600:92c0.x. I'm wondering what you think we should do here? – Apply for some longer-term semiprotection at WP:RfPP, or look for a rangeblock of the IPv6? Considering that there may be more than one IP engaged in this, I'm thinking semiprotection is the better bet... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up: I've gone ahead and applied for semiprotection at WP:RfPP, after the IPv6's latest "sneaky revert" of my attempts to restore a decent version of the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I see it was protected. I've been mostly offline for the last few days so hadn't noticed what was happening. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I've added TV Guide as a source for airdates (and episode titles). It's incomplete (is there a way to get the TV Guide guides to load all of the episodes in a particular season?! it only seems to be displaying half of each season's episodes...), and I think at least a couple of the listed airdates are probably in error, but it's better than nothing and seems to confirm that a lot of the article's current airdates are likely correct. However, I can't find anything to verify the listed prod. codes, and I'm tempted to just remove them. I've posted to the Talk page about all of this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I expect the article data originally came from some wikia somewhere and the production codes from some source we would not consider reliable. Still it might be worth it to see if there is a wikia article that might have references we could use. Other possibilities is some of the original data did come from something like TV Guide that no longer lists it. I am not aware of any way of getting more info out of TV Guide than is currently there, some other guides may have more. There might also be info in old versions of the article that got removed. If the info that is currently in the article has been there a long time and is stable I would tentatively assume it was originally sourced and the source lost. I mistrust recent changes without a source and wish editors who do make changes would at least tell us where they are getting the information. With pervasive date vandalism, I mistrust any edits from editors that won't at least communicate with us. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Olivia Rodrigo

Do you think this one passes muster yet? Before the upcoming movie role, I would have said "No", but now I'm starting wonder... It's definitely more developed that Draft:Cree Cicchino as of right now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I'd say it's marginal now, likely too soon. I personally don't count credits until release particularly as IMDb still lists it as Pre-production and that film doesn't seem to meet WP:NFF yet either. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

OK. It does seem likely that that film has filmed by now, though it doesn't look like there's anything to confirm that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)