User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Geraldo Perez,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks without header}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Geraldo Perez!

Happy New Year!

Geraldo Perez,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Class455 (talk | stand clear of the doors!) 17:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year, Geraldo Perez!

Happy New Year!

Geraldo Perez,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Page moves

Hey, Geraldo! In case you weren't already aware, I have Page mover rights, and would be happy to do round-robin moves for you on request – e.g. Anna Maria Perez de Tagle. If I'm around, it'll probably be faster/easier to just do a round-robin page move rather than forcing you to do a WP:G6 move request. FWIW... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: It would be great if you could do that on that page. I'll remember for the future. Thanks. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Because you've already placed the WP:G6 tag, I think it's best if I just let this one play out. But, yeah – in the future, don't hesitate to request this from me! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. An admin should get to it eventually. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey!

You can touch my edits! Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Surnames

Hey! This is Cena Arz. I hope Perez do deleted the Hatnote Surnames. Can you help it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cena Arz (talk • contribs) 16:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cena Arz: You are generally misusing name hatnotes, adding them when they add no value to understanding the article, and in a lot of cases adding incorrect information that is detrimental to understanding. You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mari Maurstad#Hatnote about name about one specific case that is illustrative. I suggest you avoid using name hatnotes unless you absolutely know you are correct and that the hatnote adds real value to understanding the non-standard naming conventions used in that article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Best Friends

Hey! You want to be friends Perez? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cena Arz (talk • contribs) 17:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cena Arz: Thank you for the offer, but I prefer to maintain a congenial yet professional level of interaction with other Wikipedia editors. There are some Wikipedia editors who I particularly like, admire and trust, and I hope that is reciprocated, but that develops over time usually based on interactions in areas of common interest. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Your recent reverts at List of Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn episodes and List of Best Friends Whenever episodes

Wow, that title makes it sound like you did something wrong, haha! You didn't.

Just to let you know, if you didn't already when you reverted there, any IPs that geolocate to the UAE are 100% Orchomen evading their block, and those that don't, but exhibit the same behavior, are webhosts. They'll always revert the very top edit of whatever article to get to us—myself, IJBall, MPFitz1968, Sro23, and Callmemirela—even if it ends up reverting ClueBot, for example. I don't expect you to actively get involved in the fight, but if they edit on articles that you or our group are watching, you can just revert them on the spot. You're also more than free to add them to the list here if they aren't already there. Also gives you a general idea of what to look for for the IPs, though it seems they've started to use some they didn't use before, such as the range beginning with two. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Stuart Little (film)

Although I did not make the original edit adding William Ross, I did a little research before some minor formatting. As well as IMDb having him credited as 'orchestrator', I also found this from the Library of Congress. Maybe not 'bogus' after all? Eagleash (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Eagleash: He is not listed as composer, which is what that attribute is for. IMDb music department listing has 4 orchestrators. That attribute per instructions is "Insert the name(s) of the composer(s) of the original music score." Which Ross, as one of the orchestrators in the film, is not. I am following the edits by that IPv6/64 who is adding mostly bogus music credits to articles so my edit summary may be abrupt, but I did check on IMDb to see who was listed in the "Music by" credit. Only Alan Silvestri is listed and only Silvestri should be listed in the infobox. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

List of Longest Running Disney Channel Original Series

Just happened to come across this after reverting an IP on the Girl Meets World episode list. I'm thinking it should be nominated for deletion as it's kind of WP:TRIVIA and basically repeats a lot of information. (MPFitz1968, IJBall.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not notable. (It's also mistitled – the standard titling for those kinds of articles is "List of longest-running...") The list of longest-running series on American TV overall would be notable. By longest-running "by network" lists should either be a small "Top 10"(or something...) list or table at the parent network article or something similar (e.g. at Disney Channel or List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel) or just mentioned in the text at the same... Considering that that that article is completely unsourced, it definitely wouldn't survive at AfD. I also notice that it's been almost exclusively edited by IP editors only... I'd suggest WP:PRODing this article first; if that doesn't work, it should go to WP:AfD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is pretty tolerant of list articles as long as selection criteria is well explained and contents are verifiable. Normal notability for articles is not necessary as long as the list plausibly presents the listed info in a useful manner to the readers. Lists like this are more navigation aids, than articles in their own right. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates has some info. This one should be renamed but I can't see a strong justification for deletion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Pretty strongly disagree – List of most watched Disney Channel series premieres was already deleted at AfD, and this one isn't all that different. Again, there is basically no precedent for "Longest-running series by TV network"-type articles (this is the only one that exists from what I can tell). I'm going to go ahead and WP:PROD it, and if that fails I'm going to run it by WP:AfD – I'm pretty sure it will fail at AfD just like List of most watched Disney Channel series premieres did (where they didn't even take to my suggestion to merge it!). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, we'll see how it goes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Kira Kosarin

Hi Geraldo. Someone added a 'Discography' to Kira Kosarin last night, but I'm not sure it's notable enough to merit inclusion. Can you take a look? Also pinging MPFitz1968 as this is within his area of expertise as well. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

My hunch is it's not notable at all. No extensive, independent coverage of any of the songs or her as a musician in that section, and the songs have not made any of the Billboard charts, particularly the Hot 100 (record chart criteria itself, even if the songs made another notable chart other than the ones published by Billboard, may be enough to satisfy WP:NMUSIC, but the tables in the discography show no chart rankings). MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Decided to revert the edits by that user, as they provided no reliable sources to establish Kosarin's notability as a musician. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Current mention in the life and career section that she is creating and performing songs and self-publishing them looks sufficient. Looks like a hobby. Not a notable occupation as no indication that any source has actually noted this as being important. I think the table is excessive. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Music composer

I'm fine with including only original musical score composers in the infobox, but you should probably address that at Frozen and Moana as those film infoboxes list song composers as well. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 17:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jedi94: That is what the instructions say in the template but it appears that guideline is generally ignored or makes no sense for musicals where the songs are a major part of the movie and not incidental or background. See Oklahoma! (1955 film) for a classic example, I guess. I have seen editors adding orchestrators and other people from the music department as listed on IMDb and those don't belong. Songwriters do tend to get listed in the infobox for musicals without the (song) parenthetical though and the article body generally covers their participation in creating the music for the film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Kidzworld.com

I can't remember if we've talked about this before, but what do think about Kidzworld.com as a "WP:RS"? I can find no mention of it at WP:RSN or WP:BLPN... BTW, this is in regards to these edits at Jodelle Ferland... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Look at me! I'm stalking you! It doesn't look reliable to me and falls right alongside Famous Birthdays. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This is what I suspect as well, but I'll wait for Geraldo to chime in too. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Per this I'd say no - "Kidzworld is the leading safe social network, for kids and teens." I don't see any evidence of fact checking and a lot of emphasis on user created content. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've left a message at that editor's Talk page letting them know about this discussion and its conclusion to give them the opportunity to remove that material on their own. But if it's still there later on, I'll go ahead and remove it myself (or leave it to one of you to! ). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Knight

On Matthew Knight, my personal cutoff is 3 years – if an actor hasn't had a credited role in 3 years, I assume that you can get rid of "–present" and change it to the last year with a credited role. So Knight is right on that cutoff right now, and it may be reasonable to change that to "–2014". (If he takes a credited role later, the "years active" can always be changed at that point.) My $0.02, FWIW... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Instructions for that parameter say "Date range in years during which the subject was active in their principal occupation(s) and/or other activity for which they are notable." I guess this is a judgement call but generally I'd like to see some indication that he has retired or dead to declare an actor not being active as opposed to just unlucky about getting notable roles. 3 years seems to be a reasonable to say functionally retired but should wait until 2017 is over to ensure a full 3 years with no activity. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no problem waiting until the end of 2017 to change that. But, yeah – if an actor doesn't have a credited role for 3 years, it seems reasonable to assume they have retired (even in the absence of an "official retirement announcement" source) unless a source can be produced showing significant work in theater or something. Two years, OTOH, isn't long enough, as some actors do have "breaks" like that in their released works sometimes either due to production vagueries among multiple productions or due to something like a maternity leave. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Good morning!

Just wanted to ask if you ever saw my last reply in this section regarding the accuracy of what you added to my sandbox? I hope I'm not annoying you—and please let me know if I am!—but, again, while I'm not trying to doubt or second-guess you, we're only human, so I just want to be sure it's fully accurate so we can all use it to its fullest potential. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It was as accurate as I could make it. I'll update if things change. I have done a massive purge on my watchlist as of the new year, I was getting a bit burned out again. I do Wiki stuff as a somewhat enjoyable hobby and when it starts becoming work I need to pull back a bit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. That's what I figured, but when I saw you reverting on Gamer's Guide, for example, and it wasn't indicated in the sandbox, at least not the episode list, I got curious. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I usually check all an editors recent edits when I catch a dubious one and articles end up on my watchlist again. How my watchlist grows out of control. I'll go over the list again. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, sorry to hear you're feeling burned out again, though this is actually a first for me in knowing that as I've never seen you burned out before. Always best to take a break or slow down in cases like this because I would hate to lose a friend and fellow editor like yourself. Once you regain your strength, so to speak, you can add or re-add more of those articles in my sandbox to your list. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Ride

IJBall, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H

I've just added an article to my sandbox for Nickelodeon—Ride. It's kind of similar to Backstage in that it also comes from Canada and the like. I've also just completed a tidiness as well as added episode and ratings tables. It was created not too long ago by Superchunk on January 8, 2017, so it's still pretty new and could certainly use more watchers. Additionally, if this is something of interest that you guys really want to keep an eye on, be sure to update my sandbox with your check marks, unless you're Nyu who watches everything, haha! Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I've seen the ads. It looks more like The Lodge to me. I'll probably sample it, though I'm not expecting to like it enough to stick with. I'll ponder whether to waitlist the article or not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Maybe Nickelodeon can do a better job with a foreign series than Disney Channel can in terms of ratings. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard about this show, and noticed the first episode was released on the Nickelodeon U.S. website a few days ago. It already aired in the UK earlier, but I've been waiting for a subtitled version to watch it. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

About WP:TVLEAD

Hello. After your edit on Kuu Kuu Harajuku, I've been wondering if the same thing applies to if there's only two nationalities mentioned (like in PJ Masks) as the example on the page given seems to imply? As the example also seems to imply, would it be okay if I still mention who produced it, or is there something I should change? Just making sure. Palettepony895 (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Palettepony895: TVLEAD supports mentioning the production info in the lead, just not characterizing a nationality for the show itself in the intro sentence if it is not tied to a single country of production. For more than two it seems pretty straight-forward to drop the nationality adjectives in the intro and keep to a list in the infobox. For two it is a bit more contentious and even though TVLEAD says drop them, common practice from what I've seen tends to list them both. You would be on firm-footing to drop the dual national adjectives from the intro sentence but you may get some pushback and need to defend that removal. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Disney XD Original Series

IJBall

Could use some watchers there. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Might it be worth a semi-protection request for the template?... As an aside, this is likely to be an ongoing issue – while Disney and Nick are probably the worst in terms of this, the recent trend is apparently for all networks to not officially "cancel" shows. So it's likely to be harder and harder to get "official" cancellation notices as sources for TV series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall:  Done Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Template:Disney XD Original Series Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation page query

Geraldo – what should you do with disambiguation pages that are no longer needed? I'm talking about American Housewife (disambiguation) here. Should it be WP:PRODed? Or is there a special WP:CSD for this? Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: I tagged for speedy G6 as orphaned disambiguation page. Really no need for it per the G6 criteria. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, cool – I didn't realize that WP:G6 covers this. That's useful to know... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Archive dates

That's useful to know. I thought it followed the same deal as the access date parameter. Looks like I need to go back to several articles (that have already been tidied) in my sandbox and do a mass update to viewership ratings in particular and update their archive dates. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The archive date is because there may be many archive snapshots that might show different versions of the same page and that identifies which particular one is being used in the cite. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

IPv6 table re-editer is back...

Geraldo, just a heads up that the IPv6 editor known for the pointless reformatting of Filmography (etc.) tables code is back at 2601:81:C401:7114:1DB7:1F12:6BC8:C234. So you may want to keep your eyes peeled for the return of these kinds of edits at the various actor BLP articles you watchlist, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:TVCAST discussion

Pinging as well: @Amaury, Nyuszika7H, and MPFitz1968:

Just a head's up to all who might be interested here – I am trying to get the "[character] names (only) as credited" thing "officially" written in to the WP:TVCAST guideline (as this has been common practice among many of us editors for some time now). The discussion is: here.

I'm hoping that some of you can do a better job explaining this than I have (I don't think I'm doing to great a job at this so far...). P.S. I hope this isn't considered "WP:CANVASSING" as we're only at the discussion/suggestion stage at this point anyway... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Johnny Test

An IP has been making a disruptive edit [1], making the assumption that the animated series is on hiatus based on a tweet by voice actor James Arnold Taylor [2]. I have reverted them twice, citing improper synthesis of the material in the source (namely Taylor's tweet), and warned them upon reverting the second time. Hopefully, they'll get why they were reverted, but if they continue to re-add their assumption, I could use some other watchers of the article. Thanks. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Scheduling changes

MPFitz1968, IJBall, Nyuszika7H

Just making a general note here just in case someone else decides to revert me for whatever reasons, which is very unlikely, but you know how stubborn people can be. In regard to Crashletes and Jagger Eaton's Mega Life, it looks like there was a scheduling change for whatever reason because reruns of The Thundermans and Henry Danger are instead being shown at 8:00 PM and 8:30 PM tonight, respectively. I don't know if it's because of the Valentine's Day special or what, but The Futon Critic now currently appears outdated as it disagrees with Zap2it, which seems to have more up-to-date information, so I will be making changes accordingly.

• http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/crashletes/listings/
• http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tvlistings/ZCProgram.do?sId=EP02453728&t=Crashletes&method=getEpisodesForShow&epYear=2
• http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/jagger-eatons-mega-life/listings/
• http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/jagger-eatons-mega-life/episode-guide/EP02499097?aid=zap2it

Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Make It Pop ratings

MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H

I just added a ratings section to the article here. The dilemma here is the season two finale. As you know, from a discussion quite a while back, the season two finale was indeed two separate episodes aired back-to-back for an hour special—and I need to change the table to reflect that on the episode list—and on Showbuzz Daily for that date, it's in there as one entry with one set of ratings taking up a 60-minute slot. The problem is how do I do this on the ratings table? Currently, I have the season two finale ratings in there twice for a total of 20 entries, matching with how many episodes were ordered for the season. However, I'm not sure if that's entirely correct because there was only one set of ratings. So how do I handle this? Have 19 entries, but have the calculation number be 20? Or what? Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Match the episode list entries. The season finale is listed as two separate episodes so is two for the average as well even if the ratings covers both consider that the rating for each episode. Won't matter too much for the average but keeps things consistent. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

So leave it the way it is now in other words even though there's only one set of ratings for the showing instead of two? I'm not quite understanding. (Feel free to make the change yourself if you're referring to something else.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, use the same rating for both as it covers both - consider it as the average of the two so for calculating averages it all works out. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Bella Hadid

Geraldo, I'm only putting Bella's full name with her nickname because that's how it's suppose to be, plz don't change it, thank u — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.56 (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

List of Sam & Cat episodes - the hashtag vandalism is back again

Looks like the user(s) who doesn't/don't like hashtags on the show's episode titles is/are back and removing those hashtags (IPv6 addresses beginning with 2601:241:200 or 2601:241:201, which in either case geolocate to Chicago and belong to Comcast). I managed to revert them but they were quick to revert back - fortunately, one address has been blocked, but I have a feeling they're just going to persist using other addresses in the range, and the article could use some watching again. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: If they persist may need to protect article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Jace Norman

Hope you are still keeping an eye on Jace Norman – I think you've dealt with this editor there too, but we currently have an IP editor that is making a series of basically pointless edits at that article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: I'm watching. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

IP's still at it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I noticed. Somewhat benign changes in references that look to be equivalent in reliability that cover same info. A bit annoying but I can't justify reverting it. Same info and still adequately referenced. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Another editor has reverted the IP's edits since your last update, IJBall. [3] MPFitz1968 (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

At some point arguing over which equivalently reliable reference to use is like arguing over which image to use in an infobox. Should be taken to the talk page for discussion, maybe one is better than the other. I have no preference here. Still it was not vandalism and I wish people would justify non-vandalism reverts with an explanatory edit summary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I did with mine. But the IP's desire to replace an 'archive link' is invalid reasoning – time and again the use of archive links has been upheld on the project. And all they've done is replace one primary source with another (if they'd actually dug up a secondary source, I wouldn't have had a problem with their edit). In fact, I think one of the two refs they replaced was a secondary source (I'll probably restore the referencing to that one.) But to top it all off, they're now basically edit warring to their preferred version. I'm not going to revert again, but I am going to leave an edit warring (soft) warning on their Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I was commenting on the last revert. Your edit summary was reasonable. And I agree, of course, archives are perfectly valid sources particularly with dynamic content on some sites that change or remove info, not just for dead links. His argument was that a single source directly supported the complete birthdate replacing two references needed for the separate chunks that could be argued to be synthesis (I disagree). Dan Schneider's site itself is reliable as a show runner about one of his employees so the counter argument is that it is a less reliable source than the original but we (I) have used it as a reference for bio info in other articles so can't complain much about its use here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Archive dates revisited

So I'm going through and fixing the archive dates per our earlier discussion that's now archived because I thought they functioned the same as the access date parameter. I've run into an interesting situation. As you can see, I added the viewership data for the first episode of Kirby Bucket's third season at 8:41 PM (PST) on January 18, 2017. I created the archive link myself about a minute or so before the actual edit here on Wikipedia; however, if you have a look at the URL, it says January 19, 2017. I assume this is because the site is on GMT (Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London). 8:41 PM here is 4:41 AM the next day there. So how do I handle this? And this likely a possible situation in other areas as well if I were to go back and look at the history of the other articles and edit times; however, I'll just focus on the archives I created myself. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Stick with the date the archive site gives back. The point of the date is to differentiate between potentially multiple snapshots on that site so should use what they think is the snapshot date to be consistent. Probably won't matter much if off by a day though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Will do. Thanks! Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Giving you a hard time

You revert at the Stuck in the Middle episode list, but according to my sandbox, you're not watching it or the main article. Hm... Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't until I replied to a ping on the talk page and the article itself ended up on my watchlist. Last edit matched talk page issue. I haven't decided if it is going to stay on my watchlist yet. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course. Totally your call. (Just update your entry spot if you end up doing so.) You know I just enjoy giving you a hard time. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

YA Question

Geraldo, I've got a Draft article – Draft:Badlanders – that is effectively identical to an article already in mainspace – Badlanders (TV series). (The latter has problems of its own, but that's not why I am here...) I'd like to get the Draft deleted – is there a CSD category that covers this? When I looked over the weekend, I didn't see a CSD scenario that covered "Draft article that's identical to an article already in Mainspace"... Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I tried a G6 with an explanation. Seems pointless to keep it and an admin might agree. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm kind of puzzled that there's no CSD criteria already for "Draft article that is substantially identical to an article already in Mainspace" – think there's any point in proposing the creation of one (maybe G14, or adding that to G6)?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

G6 is kind of a miscellaneous category allowing pretty wide admin discretion. What applies is copy and paste move because of the lost edit history and if it actually was a C&P move then history merge should be done which would delete the draft as part of the process. But the author did both so is really just demonstratively abandoning the draft. If someone creates an article independent of an existing draft so draft creative content was not used, the draft, in theory should just timeout as abandoned. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of middle name

On Anwar Hadid you deleted the middle name as per WP:BLPPRIVACY. Should the revisions of the article with this information also be deleted? If so could you please do that on your admin account? What about the data on Wikidata, should that similarly be removed? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: My personal policy is that I don't use my admin account to do any admin actions on any article I actively edit due to potential perceptions of WP:INVOLVED. Removing of info from the edit history is generally done for pretty severe defamation and copyright violations. The info should be removed from Wikidata though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I have removed it from Wikidata. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Gabucho

So I'm curious: What's the story with this sock? Sounds like it's been an issue since even before we met each other? Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hoax edits, proxy use, general disruption - see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Gabucho181. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Makenzie Vega

Please keep an eye on this one, Geraldo. Apparently Just Jared is reporting that she got married today. But I'm not seeing anything else on this, and I don't consider Just Jared to be a WP:RS, so... Anyway, this has already been added twice to the article without any sourcing at all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

IPv6 table re-editer, once again

Looks like he's back – diff. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Watching. I'll lend a hand. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of Jess Harnell filmography, I'm not even sure that article is notable on its own. It's only 22kB – under WP:SIZESPLIT there's no need for it be a separate article. I'm tempted to clean it up, and then merge it back to Jess Harnell and covert it to a redirect. (I won't have time to do that tonight, however...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done – cleanup and merge complete. I have also left a comment at Talk:Jess Harnell#Merged Jess Harnell filmography to propose a way forward on this. I have also put both articles on my watchlist – there is substantial what I consider to be disruptive editing going on at the various "voice actor" Wikipedia articles (I'm guessing at least some of that is coming from a series of IP socking editors, including the one who started this thread) and I find the various voice actor articles to be almost a Walled garden of generally non-notable subjects. At some point, I think we're going to need to tackle this area head-on, and it's probably going to involve deleting a good percentage of our extant (American) voice actor articles on the project for lack of true notability. FWIW... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Claudio Encarnacion Montero is Dead

Hello Geraldo Perez, I know you have been dong an excellent job as editor, you are really good at it. Well the case is that few sources say that Claudio Encarnacion Montero committed suicide by hanging, the guy is dead. So Geraldo I'd like you can update his Wikipedia page because you are Wikipedian. Thank you very much and have a nice day. greeting from London. Claudio Encarnacion Montero's suicide Claudio Encarnacion Montero is dead according to Listal He is dead according to this list He is dead according to this IMDb list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmysmithwalker (talk • contribs) 04:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jimmysmithwalker: Need something better than lists that are generated by anonymous users, a newspaper report, something that meets WP:IRS requirements. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, This editor has recently tried twice to list Montero on the Deaths in 2017 page citing dubious sources. The edits were reverted–Kiwipat (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Geraldo, should this article be tagged with either {{COI}} or {{Connected contributor}} tags? The article was created by Danielmedina2000 which looks to basically be a WP:SPI devoted to this article, and now we have Jimmysmithwalker who seems similarly focused on just this article... In any case, this article is now on my radar, and I have {{Notability}} tagged it – the subject does not seem to pass either WP:NACTOR nor WP:MUSICBIO, and looks to be an excellent candidate for either WP:PROD or WP:AfD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: I personally suspect the whole thing is a hoax and someone's attempt to create a web presence for a non-notable person. The more I look into this, the less real support I find. I think the contributors are all the same person. Also check wikidata and other language articles and see same people. There have been attempts to change his name, nationality and even kill him off. This whole thing is very suspicious. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've decided to WP:AfD this (for the second time, apparently!). Working on that as we speak... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

And now sent to AfD... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Third time actually, one got missed on the automatic scan. Still checking stuff. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Elena of Avalor

An IP included in their edit Elena and the Secret of Avalor as part of the episode list [4]. As I recall, that was advertised as a movie and I see on Amazon that it's separate from the season 1 episodes, so I partially reverted the IP, removing the Secret of Avalor one from the list [5]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: That IP reinserted Elena and the Secret of Avalor into the episode list [6], but added another source, linking it to the Watch Disney site for the series [7]. For the moment, I'm not gonna revert. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at Rowan Blanchard

User:Riarkle222 has made a couple of attempts on editing this article [8][9], which I haven't seen as actual improvements to it and I reverted both attempts [10][11]. Appears this article may need some watching. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: There have been a series of edits like this from editors with names like User:Riarkle222 – e.g. User:Riarklematthews. (See also – Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HelloImNotAdele.) It is worth noting that both of these account seem to originate from around the time that the HelloImNotAdele socks were operating (though, for whatever reason, they weren't identified in the previous SPI/checkuser). In any case, I think a WP:SPI filing might be worthwhile in this case, esp. if this keeps up – though the SPI probably can't ID them to HelloImNotAdele (it's been too long), I would still put them under that SPI case, and a checkuser could at least show if they are socks of each other... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: I see User:Riarkle222 hit again on March 4 – I definitely think if they edit disruptively one more time, one of us needs to file the WP:SPI report on this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done – @MPFitz1968: I have pulled the trigger on an WP:SPI on this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riarklematthews (User:Riarklematthews is actually the older of the two accounts, even though User:Riarkle222 tends to be more prolific). User:Riarkle222's creation of Peyton Elizabeth Lee (after being warned about this previously when they wrongly tried to create Peyton Meyer) was the last straw for me. (I have also WP:AfD'ed their article on A World Away which also looks totally non-notable.) As it is, I am convinced these two are socks of each other in any case. Either you or Geraldo can feel free to add comments to the SPI report if you like. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, there were more socks turned up than I was expecting. And based on the behavior of the more obscure socks, this one was pure WP:NOTHERE through and through. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:IPA?

Hey, anyone watching this page know how to use WP:IPA? MPFitz1968? I'm looking at Niall Matter, and the "pronounced May-ter" part in the lede should be in IPA, yes? TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: I haven't used IPA, though probably wouldn't be a bad idea to learn that guide sometime. Looking at the name, and how it's pronounced, I agree it needs the pronunciation guide in some form. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: I think the "May-ter" is more user friendly for English speakers who will immediately get that it is not pronounced normally instead of having to look at HELP:IPA to get the correct pronunciation. I can see using IPA for foreign phonemes that don't map to English but I prefer to see simple pronunciations when possible. Also, according to a video interview linked in the article his first name is pronounce "Nigh-all" not "Knee-all" as expected. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 Added --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

"Nigh-el" is closer when listening to the interview. ref 3. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Disney Channel original films#First DCOM: We've got a problem...

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Disney Channel original films#First DCOM: We've got a problem.... I'd especially like your input on this one, Geraldo. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)}

Lucas Adams

Lucas Adams, whom some of us know from Liv and Maddie, is a recently created article that is now at WP:AfD. I'd appreciate some more eyes on the article, as we have an article creator that's insisting upon including unencyclopedic info (e.g. dating), and removing article tags without justification. Pinging MPFitz1968 and Amaury for the same reason. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Watched. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Big Time Rush (band)

Note to myself to add back to my watchlist sometime in the future. IP editor is ignoring requests to discuss his changes and WP:3RRNO doesn't apply to this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This annoys me enough that I'll go ahead and add this to my watchlist, at least in medium-term... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I've reworded some of that again, but it feels... somewhat "awkward" to me. So feel free to further reword it, if you like. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

That looks better. Might be possible to improve it but OK for now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you still watching this one? Honestly, I trust your judgment more than mine on something like this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: If you don't mind, I can also help out. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Yes, this one needs watching. Unfortunately, it's also the kind of article that I'm going to get burned out on dealing with quickly, and end up having to take it off my watchlist myself! Probably the best thing to do in the case of article like this one is to have multiple dedicated watchers, so it doesn't fall to just one editor to revert everything. (That's what happened to me at List of metro systems and is why I eventually had to take it off my watchlist...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: It has been on my watchlist for a fair amount of time and still is. This one is generally low activity except for the occasional fan who hasn't moved on to other bands yet. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive IP at Invisible Sister

Amaury, IJBall

Apparently, this IP likes to unnecessarily change section headings [12][13]. I've already rejected their edits twice and warned them. May need some extra eyes on the article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Certainly. I'm already watching the article. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sleeping Beauty (1959 film)

I see you made some changes to the article I have a problem with that theven fairy tale was inspired by both the Brother's Grimm and Charles Perrault Disney just forgot to mention that in the credits not to mention the number of references the movie makespeak to the Grimm Brothers adaptation most obvious one being Aurora's other name Briar Rose — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disney1938 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Disney1938: I considered what was in the rest of the article but what Disney states in the credits of the movie is pretty much authoritative. Disney doesn't make mistakes like forgetting things when they put credits in films, that is a pretty serious well considered statement by Disney, their lawyers, and the production team of who they want and need to credit as the basis for the film. Likely Disney considers the Brothers Grimm contribution too minor, basically just the name Briar Rose, to give official notice and Brothers Grimm did themselves use Perrault's work as their basis for their version of the story. § Story Development in the article gives a lot of background and Disney built on Perrault's story inspired by a lot of different sources. I think sticking with the official credits in the infobox is best and use the rest of the article to go into more details about the creation process the best way to handle this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I copied the above discussion to Talk:Sleeping Beauty (1959 film) § "Based on" attribute in infobox. Further discussion should be on that talk page so other interested people can contribute. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: School of Rock

Thanks for the revert. It's Orchomen again up to their old tricks. IP locates to the UAE as usual. Reporting them now. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

PS: Yes, that was an April Fools' Day prank. I'm guessing you were just kind of joking back, though, LOL! Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It was funny but I'm trying to maintain a reputation as a good editor and final warnings are a bit of a stain on that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Note to self: text only; no images. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Many things

Is that Lsjbot creating articles in the Cebuano Wikipedia or some Arab-Israeli articles that is Extended confirmed protected?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cena Arz (talk • contribs) 23:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cena Arz: I don't understand the question. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

One for you...

You light want to keep your eye on Morsocreepy – based on the username and the edit summaries, I don't have a good feeling about this one... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: You were right to be suspicious of edit pattern. Was blocked as sock - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The love pony. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Sabrina Carpenter discography

User:EdgarYLeon just did another unattributed split at Sabrina Carpenter discography. It's probably better if you or someone else handles the reversion of this, as I don't want to look like I'm targeting this editor after their unhelpful, borderline disruptive editing at Sofia Carson. TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Followup

Same user: is this OK? Doesn't seem to be as per WP:NALBUM or Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Unreleased material... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

And they're still edit warring at Sofia Carson to keep versions of tables that violate WP:ACCESS. No communication. Etc. I'm starting to think this one needs a block, though I'm not sure if they've gone far enough to take to WP:ANEW yet. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: The edits to Cameron Boyce are disruptive as well, then. When I took a look at your diff, I noticed the username was the same. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: There's a wider problem with "Discography" tables in general, esp. at the "Disney TV star" articles – in that they all violate WP:ACCESS in terms of misuse of 'rowspan' (as per WP:DTT) – that we're eventually going to have to tackle. I decided to start with Sofia Carson, and draw a line there, but this issue basically affects all of these articles that have "Discography" tables. I'm putting off taking this issue on more widely, but it's likely that I'll try to tackle it this summer. Hopefully, those of you who watch these various articles will keep an eye on that for me when it happens!... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Geraldo, you may also want to take a look at Descendants: Original TV Movie Soundtrack which looks like it was moved without a clear justification (i.e. I don't see the current title used on the album cover or by any source...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree it should be moved back to original title. I also added the missing attributions to the talk pages. Trivial easy to do this with edit histories on a split. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: and I don't have permission to do the move when I tried. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Edit warring on the split reject I have been doing and I have used up my 3 reverts. Needs a edit war warning (so do I I guess), but I will stop. Further recreation needs a PROD for WP:NALBUM and then AfD same reasons. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I can take care of the move on my end. But I want this used blocked first. Let me know if you don't end up filing at WP:ANEW (they are certainly guilty of edit warring now!) – this one's bad enough that I'm tempted to see it taken to WP:ANI, and look for a longer block. This has gotten quite ridiculous... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Never mind – looks like the user was righteously indeffed... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of SpiringCord7 Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow – User:VICTORiAN 1 too. Look like we'll have to take a closer look at Victoria Justice and Victorious, etc... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive IP 79.78.252.174

Also pinging Amaury and IJBall

79.78.252.174 is adding unnecessary section headings for seasons in episode lists (like this Mech-X4 edit where there has been only one season so far) or changing "Season" to "Series" on U.S. TV series ([14]). Definitely need to keep eye on this one. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Transient dynamic likely. Also on 80.195.173.34 doing same. Geraldo Perez (talk)

I'll Let You...

...handle this one... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Bertrand

You're getting on my nerves. First off how is famousbirthdays an unreliable source. They have a contact page to establish that they are real. Also they have a page on their website that talks about their employees. Take a look http://www.famousbirthdays.com/team/ they have editors, writers, managers, director of marketing and so on. So explain to me what makes it an unreliable source. I'm just going to keep changing it back. Not to mention two users colluding to undo someones edits is wrong. Also when you google his name, google tells you that March 6, 2000 is his birthday - https://www.google.com/search?q=jacob+bertrand+birthday&oq=jacob&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i60j69i59j69i57j69i60l2.1365j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8. You don't have access to his birth certificate so I don't know how you think you can verify someone's birthdate AllSportsfan16 (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)have

@AllSportsfan16: Questions about reliability of sources are discussed at WP:RSN. Famousbirthdays was determined unreliable in this discussion there. Also see WP:BLPPRIVACY of what is required to add personal birth information to an article. A web search might find something that can be used, but there is a lot of dubious info on the web so need to be careful. False information can get very pervasive and show up on basic web searches. Need a solid reference. If he directly and unambiguously states his birthday on a verified social media site he controls or it is reported by a major news source we can generally accept it. As for collusions of editors, it might seem that way when all that is happening is multiple editors are following the rules. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: You and a couple of users decided that. Some of the comments don't make any sense, the website is not a fan site and you cannot edit it. You're not following the rules you're making them up as you go. Maybe you should take another look at the website.

@AllSportsfan16: If you wish to revisit the conclusion from that discussion, start new one at WP:RSN and make your case there. If something has changed since the last discussion that shows the source is now reliable, it needs to be discussed and documented. Until then I and most other editors take what is at WP:RSN as determinative until and unless it is overridden by a more recent decision. Trying to force the use of a source that has been determined unreliable at RSN will generally just end up with it getting removed by editors who do check there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Why bother you and the other ones that I've been dealing with will just come to the page and argue against me, there's no point. One editor says It doesn't strike me as a source "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I'd advise against using it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC). That's not a valid reason that's making stuff up.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@AllSportsfan16: Yes, I'll probably argue against it for the reasons stated in the original discussion. Other people might support you and if enough do then I get overridden and will accept the consensus. A discussion at WP:RSN is the only way to undo a previous decision made there. Famousbirthdays is basically rejected on sight by most editors currently when added to articles, largely because they don't say where they get their information, they do say they accept user submissions and they do not have a reputation for fact checking. WP:BLPPRIVACY is policy and birth info must be supported by solid references. Famousbirthdays isn't one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Here is social media tweet from DisneyXD wishing him a happy birthday, is that good enough for you https://twitter.com/DisneyChannel73/status/838808565943054338AllSportsfan16 (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@AllSportsfan16: That is not a verified twitter account (white check in blue surround) so doesn't look like an official Disney outlet. Even then they support month and day, not year so date is not complete. Best would be Bertrand on his verified twitter account, directly stating his full birth date. If we do get a source for month and day and another one for year, usually a dated news article stating his age at publication date, we would have full information if both sources used. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: This tweet from his official twitter account says that his birthday is March 6 and there was already another source on the article that supported the year is that good enough. https://twitter.com/jb_mixmatch/status/441582957333983232AllSportsfan16 (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@AllSportsfan16: That should be sufficient, I added it to the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced or poorly sourced content added and persistently restored at Disney Channel

A couple of IPs in the last few hours have added/restored content concerning the declining viewership being caused by their revised logo circa 2014, without providing reliable sources to back up their claim [15][16][17][18] (that last one coming in as I'm composing this message). Article needs to be watched (but in light of that most recent edit restoring the content, I'm taking it to RPP). IJBall and Amaury, if you could also watch this article please. Thanks. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, managed to get the article semiprotected for one year, after taking it to RPP. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Anything for you guys. Likewise, I've just added Beyond (2017 TV series) and Famous in Love to my list and plan on cleaning them up soon. I'll be adding them to my sandbox, so if you guys are interested long-term in watching these this, the more the merrier. That second one especially needs work given that it's incorrectly using the online dates for the original air dates rather than the TV air dates. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: On Famous in Love, I would advise bringing that up on the Talk page first, as the "airdates" thing can probably be argued either way, so it's best to get a consensus on what dates to use first... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I think there's a guideline GP pointed me to once saying to use TV air dates, though not because I had changed something to online dates, haha! One of the reasons is that we want ratings to match. For example, when the second episode premieres on April 25 and ratings are released the following day, those ratings will be for April 25; having the air date as April 18, but the ratings for April 25 won't make sense. I think another reason might be related to online episodes, in almost all cases, being behind paywalls. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, hey. An IP took care of that for me. For once, I'm thankful to an IP. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Heh. This doesn't surprise me, but I don't really mind it this time: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Full season online release alongside traditional week-by-week episode broadcast. I've already commented, and if you, Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, and Nyuszika7H are interested in contributing to the discussion, that would be great. The more the merrier, I always say. Everything seems calm so far, and that's always good, unlike with our past discussions there which always kind of seemed to start "heated," so to speak, even if it wasn't obvious—hopefully you get what I mean! Not trying to call anyone out specifically, just making a general observation. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

And at Beyond (2017 TV series), switch most of those refs to {{cite press release}}! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

One to keep an eye on...

I suggest that all of us keep an eye on 79.78.252.174 – their editing is mostly basically low-level disruption (check out their Talk page!), and the next time they start editing in the same way I suggest that one of us take this IP to WP:AIV... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

mc ride

ok sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.149.44 (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Big Hero 6 (film)

In regards to the sentence, it reads "he realizes that there's a much bigger world out there than really interests him". It is should be "that" instead of than. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wikicontributor12: I considered that but "that" instead of "than" creates a different meaning for the sentence. Using sic should be for tagging obvious mistakes in the direct quote. "Than" looks like a possible but not certain mistake - the comparison may be what was intended. I think adding [sic] when the intent is not clear causes more problems than just letting the quote stand. I did cause me to stumble trying to figure out what was wrong. Might add [that?] after the "than" if we are uncertain of the intended meaning. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for the response. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Breanna Yde

Geraldo, based on your most recent comment at Talk:Breanna Yde, do you think this edit is OK?... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

That was an ethnicity adjective, if we want dual national it should be explicit and should be covered in the article with references otherwise go with birth location. It looks like there are references available so something in the personal life section stating the info should be in article before changing the intro sentence. Into could then be changed to American and Australian actress to make dual nationality clear. Don't know when got US citizenship so can't be sure all notable activities were as American. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Does...?

Does this IP need to be blocked?... Based on this and this series of edits, I'm inclined to think it's possibly a vandalism-only IP. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks dubious and lots of unexplained and unreferenced date changes. Maybe WP:KIDSTVDATES. Watching. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Note this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Huh, thought so. I wonder if this was a WP:AIV report, or just that somebody caught it on the fly... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The person who added the last warning on the IP's talk page may have mentioned to AIV that he was blocked for this before. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Sofia Carson

Looks like I'll have to let you handle this one. Maybe you'll be able to get through... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: GP beat me to the punch, but the cavalry is here! Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: I have left a personalized follow-up to your templated message to that editor – accusing another editor of "vandalism" is absolutely not cool behavior... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

So...

Apparently you and EvergreenFir are "stupid fucking trollers." When did that happen? Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: My month would be incomplete without a random ping from Gabucho181... He was bothering me back when I adminned a wikia . EvergreenFir (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

About the IP user vandalizing the Sony Pictures article.

Hi.

It appears that the same person who is using different IP addresses is adding incorrect info to that article as well as the Sony Pictures template. See the history here. King Shadeed 21:01, May 15, 2017 (UTC)

See this as well. Anything in that 112.198... range is suspect. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I should've known... King Shadeed 21:03, May 16, 2017 (UTC)

Eyes needed at List of The Thundermans episodes

See the most recent edit which hasn't been reverted yet. I'm pretty sure it's one of these users on Twitter, following this ongoing discussion. It's all the same discussion, but for some reason Twitter doesn't show one long chain and you have to go to different replies to see other replies. I believe all of this is sufficient to follow the discussion:

• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23]

In addition, there is nothing in that source from today that says 32 episodes for season four. There's likely a WP:SYNTH violation going on. Clearly, they haven't seen the talk page. (IJBall, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Just noting they've now posted on the talk page. As an observation, I don't think they have a good grasp on how networks work. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Just because the article doesn't specifically mention "32" episodes doesn't mean you can't do the math. It mentions the total is 103. So, by subtracting from previous season counts, the 32 is obvious for anyone who can add and subtract. The only reason the numbers don't add up is because Wikipedia counts 1 hour specials as one episode. The actual counts are: 20 + 25 + 26 + 32 = 103. Season 2 is 25 because the finale was a 2 eps in one; S3 is 26 because of Secret Revealed; S4 was originally 13, then they got 13 more then 6 more. That adds up to 32.
Instead of just editing Wikipedia articles, get familiar with the actual content itself. Skyvoltz (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Skyvoltz: That has gone a bit beyond routine calculations permitted by WP:NOR. The production team and network may well still package some of those extra productions into extended length episodes so the aired count may be off. We generally like to see info directly supported by the sources without any interpretation. I am generally familiar with how networks and production teams work. Number of aired episodes may not match number of productions slots used to make them for a number of reasons. The article is documenting what has or is planned to be aired by the original network. Other outlets than the original network may package things differently. Best to keep these discussion on the article talk page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

So, you're saying when it comes to number of episodes, we should trust some Wikipedia users over the official press releases by the Network? Because when Nickelodeon makes press-releases about the numbers, it includes the actual 30 min ep counts, some of which maybe combined into one hour specials but that doesn't discredit the original press release's count. Skyvoltz (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Skyvoltz: What we are saying is that when it comes to the number of aired episodes we trust what actually gets aired over pretty much everything else even forward looking planning information released by the network. That is consistent with the article as it exists now. What is in the press release conflicts with what has actually happened as they seem to be double counting some of the long episodes they have aired to get the numbers they are publishing and may continue to do so with what they have released. Still best to raise the issue on the talk page and see if there is a consensus for WP:CALC to include your s4 calculation. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Skyvoltz: The issue is that they're counting production episodes which isn't necessarily the same as aired episodes – it is possible for these numbers to differ. We include the production codes as well, in case people want to keep track of the number of "produced" episodes. But if two or three production episodes are bundled together and aired as one that counts as one "aired" episode. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez:, yes, if we're talking about "aired" episodes, I'm okay with that. What I do have a big problem with is saying Secret Revealed isn't part of season 3 just because the promo called it special. There are a lot of other episodes promoted as specials and that doesn't automatically make them stand-alones. Besides the "special" promo which isn't a good excuse as mentioned, Nickelodeon lists the episode as part of season 3 everywhere Thundermans episodes are available including nick.com and Hulu. Otherwise we should also list all the other specials outside their normal seasons. I've added those concerns in the talk page. I would rather have the articles state facts than insist on a certain version just because that's what one particular user who barely knows about the show wants. Skyvoltz (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Skyvoltz: I've picked up that point back at Talk:List of The Thundermans_episodes#Redux – this discussion should probably continue there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Skyvoltz: (edit conflict) There was a pretty good discussion about this on the talk page, it wasn't based on just one opinion, I thought at the time it was well-considered and pretty persuasive to classify it as a standalone special as opposed to the normal special mostly because of the gap and the episode marketing at the time. Still consensus can change. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, in that discussion, only one user insisted on it not being treated as part of season 3. All the others were questioning the decision. But he rejected all forms of evidence from Nickelodeon and other sources and stood by the promo, which doesn't mean much since other episodes are promoted as specials too. And FYI, being a "special" doesn't translate to "standalone." Specials are part of a season too except in rare cases. Skyvoltz (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Skyvoltz: Looks like a new consensus may be forming. Although your last argument is strong for including it in Season 4 if it really were part of a two hour special event as claimed that got overridden by the network halloween timing issues. Secondary markets generally don't jerk the order around for issues such as that and try to air things in the order intended by the production team, not network marketing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Yeah, it's complicated. It's not unusual for season premieres to continue the story where the previous season finale left. Even season 3 premiere was actually a conclusion of the events in season 2 finale, A Hero is Born. Having the Halloween episode come in between kinda messed up the structure. If it didn't come in between, it would be easier to classify both Secret Revealed and Banished as specials in between seasons. Normally, Nickelodeon airs Thundermans eps in the intended order since they have a continuous season arc. And all the U.S. secondary distributors I know use the same order that the episodes aired on Nick. Skyvoltz (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Skyvoltz: The season ending on a cliffhanger is a well-hated feature of a lot of series. Main reason I like binge streaming content and check to avoid any cliffhangers. The two-hour special between season would have worked best and is likely what was planned until marketing got involved. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Yeah, once you involve marketing and holidays like halloween, things get messed up. For now, let's keep it as is and wait to see how they handle the season 4 finale, and the upcoming movie, Thunder in Paradise. Maybe after that we'll see a potential reliable pattern. Skyvoltz (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

How to Rock

This has gone on long enough! Is time to ask for protection for this article? (Would it qualify?...) Or do we just need a block/rangeblock on the disruptive IPv6 editor?... Whichever one, we likely need to do something, as nothing indicates this IPv6 is going to start following guidelines and drop this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I requested a page protect as he has changed IPs but still same person in that /64 range. With one IP normal dispute resolution with a non-communicative editor is possible (see Wikipedia:Responding to a failure to discuss), can't really do that with someone using multiple IPs. If get a reasonable protect should be sufficient for now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

House of Anubis

Are we OK categorizing this series as a "drama"?... I'm not sure what I'd call it ("suspense"? or "thriller"?... "mystery series" is probably the most accurate – that's what the "Touchstone of Ra" press release calls it), but I don't think I'd call it "drama", and I bet there aren't any WP:RS that call it a "drama" either... Just sayin'. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Screener calls it a mystery: [24]. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd go with just mystery as sourced. Drama but that is kind of a catch-all and mystery is a more specific genre. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Joey Bragg

Geraldo, I don't know if this one is already on your watchlist, but if it's not could you please add it? I just went through it, and it had two completely fraudulent entries in the Filmography. So I'd like more eyes on it... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Hi. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2017

Not an article I edit, though I know Michael does, but I came across it after reverting an IP's harassing message on Michael's talk page. We could use some additional eyes there. (IJBall.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for MPFitz1968. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Amaury. I watch a lot of articles related to the Billboard charts. The issue over at this article is over a line break on the artist credit for a recent number-one song which has five different artists listed. Fairly minor issue, and while I've reverted a couple of times preferring the line break, I'm not inflexible over it. But I've seen a couple of editors edit out the line break, and other editors reinsert it, and it going back-and-forth like that is not acceptable - it's edit warring, even as minor a detail as it is. The more serious matters at these articles have more to do with any vandalism which changes which song/album was at number one (kind of similar to when someone makes random changes to air dates in the television LoE articles). MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)