User talk:IJBall/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Cameron Boyce

Any chance you could elaborate here? What was incorrect? (Note that that also "reverted" all the ref cleanup that was done that's not part of the filmography formatting itself.) Amaury • 20:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Undue line spacing is a pet peeve of mine – you should never put unnecessary line breaks in a Filmography table... You can feel free to restore the "ref cleanup". But there was nothing wrong with how the tables were before your edit. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

If that was all it was, that could easily been changed back with the find and replace, unless I'm missing anything else? Amaury • 20:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't obvious what else you had changed – when I see big changes, I usually am not going to spend the time to figure out the intricacies, esp. with table code: I'm just going to restore. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The only other big change was adding rowspans to the years in the filmography section, which if I recall, is fine as long it's only for the years, right? Amaury • 20:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't care for that either – it's generally not necessary (it's purely an WP:ILIKEIT thing, so it's totally subjective editor-to-editor), and several in Filmography feel they shouldn't be used at all (I think they generally should not be used, except in rare cases...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

 Restored to 1:03 PM today, but without line breaks and rowspans. Amaury • 20:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

On another note, I didn't realize people could die from epilepsy. I mean, I know the seizures can be pretty violent, especially if they turn into grand mals, but still. Our last dog, a terrier mix, had them all the time before we had to put her down, but she didn't have epilepsy, despite what a vet had us wrongfully treating her for for over a year, she had insulinoma—or pancreatic cancer. She had a tumor in her pancreas which was screwing up her insulin levels because the tumor was not letting the pancreas do its job properly and her blood sugar levels would drastically crash to around 25, many times causing seizures. It was when she started walking around in circles that we had to make the decision. Anyway, of all the times for it to happen to Cameron Boyce, it had to happen to him in his sleep. Generally, someone passing away in their sleep is peaceful, but poor Cameron Boyce didn't die peacefully, he died while in distress. And I guess in a case like this, it would have made no difference whether he was asleep or awake when it happened, as either way he would have died while in distress. I can't imagine what it was like for Karan Brar and Sophie Reynolds to wake up to or find him like that, as I know they all moved in together back in May. Amaury • 22:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, neither did I. I can't think of another case I've ever heard of like this one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I just found this article by The New York Times. It explains things. See also Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. Amaury • 23:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Cameron Boyce Foundation

I'm thinking that newly added section would be more appropriate as a subsection of the Death section. What do you think? Amaury • 19:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I've kind of stepped away from that article for a while, honestly – there are bunches of changes every day, too much for me to keep up with. I figure I'll take a look again at that one in a few months, once the activity has died down, and make sure I think it's all good. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

In the meantime, though, I'll keep an eye on it and can take care of this. Amaury • 23:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Nothing personal

Please don't take that personally. Of course feel free to raise it on the talk page if you feel strongly about it. Unlike other people, I know you'll do the right thing. Sorry for apologizing. It's just how I am. But you're always reverting me, so I guess I gotta catch up, right? Obviously, I'm joking. Sorry for any errors. On my break and on mobile. Amaury • 21:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Friendly note

Given the recent events that transpired with me today (see User talk:Amaury#Notification of discussion on Administrators' noticeboard and the corresponding ANI thread), you may wish to be careful yourself on any article and avoid edits like this. I could even see people making a big deal out of something like this. Cheers! Amaury • 21:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

No, honestly, I'm not going to censor myself. Those edits/summaries both cover an IP who was a repeated offender. I usually try not to jump all over one-time IP's who edit like that. But when it's an IP editor who's a repeat offender, all bets are off, and I'm no longer under any obligation to assume "good faith". And I'm not gonna. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It's totally up to you, of course, and I won't stop you. I just wouldn't want you getting caught up in the same mess I was caught in today. Amaury • 23:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Please revert the IP at Liv and Maddie LOE and be super stern. It's the vandal from BTW. Amaury • 21:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for this IJB. Speaking as someone who is old enough to have seen one of the earliest you are 100 percent correct that the term no longer has any meaning. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 03:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes – the distinction between "limited series" and "miniseries" (which would have defined different TV formats 30 years ago) has been murdered by sloppy entertainment reporters and greedy television, etc. executives. The term no longer has any useful function for article title disambiguation on Wikipedia IMO, and should be retired. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

User removing the season episode number column in LoE articles

So far, this user did this in List of A.N.T. Farm episodes ([1]) and one other LoE article. And then they added an entry at Wikipedia:Teahouse ([2]) about wanting to remove this column. No clear justification IMO aside from an WP:IDONTLIKEIT mentality. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: For one thing, having the season number columns is what we go by to put the number of episodes in the series overview section. Amaury • 17:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Jack Griffo

Are you able to verify that? I don't have Netflix, so I don't watch that. Amaury • 15:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It's on my "To Do" list to get back to watching Alexa & Katie (prob. in August). So leave it for now – if it's wrong, I'll fix it when I get to watching... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I can confirmed that he is part of the main cast in the season 2 and he was recurring in season 1 though. I watch the TV series. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Removing notability tag

Why am I not able to remove the notability tag if I believe that I added sources to show notability? SL93 (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@SL93: Because, 1) you didn't add them inline. And 2) I don't think what you've added get Adulterers past WP:GNG/WP:NFP, the latter which says "If a topic has received significant coverage..." (emphasis mine). A couple of low-rung reviews and a passing mention in a book do not meet this standard. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

1) I'm not sure where you pulled that from. 2) I disagree. Feel free to AfD. SL93 (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@SL93: Reread WP:NFILM, especially WP:NFO, which states film notability can come if "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. (emphasis mine) This film was not "widely distributed", and the critics you have added do not come close to meeting this standard. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

You're confusing "Other evidence of notability" as the required thing. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." right from the top. SL93 (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@SL93: Correct – and what you have added does not satisfy "significant coverage". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

And I highly disagree which is why the deletion process isn't a one-editor ride. SL93 (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is a consensus-driven process, and we do not have consensus on this. Thus WP:STATUSQUO applies. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Stop trying to school me on deletion process and reverting, especially when I had no intention of reverting anything. I know how deletion works here and consensus after being a 10 year editor. If I really wanted to revert you, I wouldn't discuss it with you. SL93 (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

If you think it's a "Keep", I advise you to take it to WP:AfD, and make your case there. Right now, I'm probably still a "delete", because I don't think Wikipedia should be an "index" of every direct-to-video film ever released. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a shame that you think every direct-to-video film receives some sort of coverage. I suggested you take it to AfD since you think it's non-notable. Why would I take it to AfD if I want it to stay? SL93 (talk) 04:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Because I don't care enough to take it to AfD. But I do feel strongly that the 'Notability' tag should say. And that's all I intend to say on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

That's fine with me...just trying to get your view which somehow made you combative enough to start throwing guidelines and policies at me. SL93 (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

If you want to know what I think would justify removing the 'Notability tag? – A review in something like Variety or Los Angeles Times. But pretty much everything gets some sort of review by some kind of website here or there, so that should not be the standard. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Recurring

If we know characters are going to keep appearing, what are your thoughts on adding them at 2–4 appearances, a la what was done with Griff on Bunk'd, instead of waiting until 5 appearances? See, for example, Coop & Cami Ask the World (diff) and Sydney to the Max (diff). Amaury • 19:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

With shows like that, it's dicey. With Primetime shows, generally if someone has appeared in 3 episodes, and is in the "Next time on..." preview promo for the next episode, then I feel it's OK to add them. But with the Disney and Nick shows, there's no guarantee that someone who has appeared in 2 or 3 episodes will necessarily appear in more. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

What about someone like Kira on Andi Mack (diff)? The difference here is that, short of Disney Channel changing their minds and renewing the series, she has only appeared in four episodes and there is no possibility of her appearing in more. I'll ping MPFitz1968 for this one as well. Per our discussion at Talk:Andi Mack#Recurring characters, we know recurring isn't just about appearance count being five or higher... Amaury • 05:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Four episodes is a "judgment call". I'd open up a Talk page discussion and gauge consensus on the question. On my end, sometimes I'm against listing someone with just 4 appearances as "recurring", and sometimes I'm fine with it – it basically depends on the type of series, how many episodes it has per season, and how many "recurring" characters the show has. The latter factor is why I pushed to make the bar "6 episodes" with Famous in Love – on that show, listing everyone who appeared 4 times or more would be 2–3 dozen actors/characters deep. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:FILMOGRAPHY

I'm not seeing anywhere that states that's okay to do. I can understand at the main articles to list that, such as Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn, but filmography tables should be simple overviews. I could be wrong, but we don't care when they appeared in those tables, just what their roles were. Amaury • 07:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

As per WP:FILMOGRAPHY: "Do not list the number of episodes if the role is a starring or major recurring role if it is unsourced – if the role does not cover the entire run of a television program, list the seasons involved instead." (emphasis mine) So based on this, the "seasons" listing should haven't been removed from the Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn entry at Siena Agudong. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I still think it's pointless, but thanks. I couldn't fine that. Amaury • 16:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not pointless IMO – adding which seasons a recurring character/actor appears in aids in verification. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Jacey Sallés

Hello! I know you don't specifically edit British television/actor articles, but you're an experienced editor and I want your opinion. I made several cleanup edits on Jacey Sallés and an experienced editor has reverted them several times in favour of messy revisions. Could you take a look and perhaps give me your opinion on the state of the article? I personally think my cleanups were necessary and beneficial. – DarkGlow (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

You're right on MOS:DATERANGE. I also don't like terms like "semi-regular role" (what is this?...) – it should be recurring. Ditto the other one: 6 episodes is "recurring", not a "guest role"... In terms of the changes to the prose, those are totally judgment calls, so if you get reverted your only options are trying to work something out on the Talk page or leaving the previous version. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! In regards to the 6 episodes situation, it's classed as a guest role as Hollyoaks is a soap opera over here, so it's different to a normal series. – DarkGlow (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Charisma Carpenter edit.

Really? I thought that edit was okay what I did! :/ Govvy (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy: There are really only two solutions to this: what I've done; or "folding" video game entries into either the 'Film' table or the 'Television' table, and moving the list-entry there. But single-entry tables are utterly pointless use of a table – hell, even two-entry tables are pretty much pointless: that's not proper use of a table (basically, as per MOS:TABLES). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

All That

When you have split ratings, as is the case with Nickelodeon because Nielsen stupidly considers NAN a separate network, you just do a combined average. If one showing was split into one 30-minute part of 982,000 and one 60-minute of 1,108,000, you would do 1,108,000 * 2 + 982,000 = 3,198,000 / 3 = 1,066,000. The problem here is All That was split into 13-minute (#22) and 16-minute (#16) parts, so not sure how to find the combined average. See here Archived 2020-11-16 at the Wayback Machine. Since it's not 30 minutes each, I don't think it would just be the two numbers added together and divided by two. Amaury • 16:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I would, for simplicity. For WP:CALC purposes, I don't think you want to "over-think" it. Doing a "weighted average" would be "over-thinking" it IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

If you're curious, see here. By rounding to two decimal places, the answer is the same keeping it simple like I did: 0.83 million. However, by raw numbers, mine is different: 0.8345 million. Amaury • 17:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Zoey 101

@Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: Talks about a reboot. Amaury • 21:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, Gawd – I hated that show, especially after they fired Alexa Nikolas. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure TMZ can be considered a "reliable source" – this should be pulled from the Zoey 101 article, unless a better source can be produced. Pinging MPFitz1968 about this as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: WP:RSP indicates TMZ to be questionable in the reliable sources area: There is no consensus on the reliability of TMZ. Although TMZ is cited by reliable sources, most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available. Because TMZ frequently publishes articles on rumors and speculation without named authors, it is recommended to attribute statements from TMZ. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person. As I made one edit to the Zoey 101 article to directly attribute TMZ, per the above, after the mention of the reboot was originally added, I have doubts about whether this should be retained, especially when talks about such a reboot are in the early stages, with the likelihood of it never getting off the ground. So I would have no problem of its being removed because of the speculative nature of the reboot, as well as TMZ being a questionable source. (Also meant the above for IJBall.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

 Removed --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Alexis Nikolas was fired? For what? I always thought it was on good terms and was just akin to Alex Christian Jones or Olivia Holt leaving Kickin' It, the former due to a sick grandmother and the latter due to starring on I Didn't Do It. Amaury • 04:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope – Jamie-Lynn Spears and Alexa Nikolas clashed (on set). It's unclear if this happened in season #1 as well, or just in season #2 (apparently Britney Spears also yelled at Nikolas on set in season #2, which I think is actually appalling...). Anyway, despite Nikolas' Nicole being the show's "best character" (IMO), it was Spears' show, and so they canned Nikolas after season #2. At that point, I lost all interest in the show, and it definitely declined afterwards. (Which is ironic: I thought Victoria Justice was a big nothin' because of her Zoey role – but she made a believer out of me with Victorious, esp. post-season #1!!). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Street and Nickelodeon

On the subject of, I snapped on Twitter. See here. Amaury • 15:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

LTPHarry

They're back. And I'm pretty sure they're a sock. I just don't remember of whom. Amaury • 15:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

What made you think I am a sock account? I changed my username from LTPofficial because a Wikipedia message said I should a while back to avoid the fact I’m not really Luigi from the Mario series. My account has never been blocked. Luigitehplumber (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Disney Channel Original Series and Template:Disney XD Original Series

As I mentioned earlier, these should also follow suit. (For the ones from every single other network, we can let other people worry about that. We're just focusing on the kid networks sans Cartoon Network since I don't think any of us watches that.) Both of these are already correctly named—although "original series" should not be capitalized per our guidelines here that articles use sentence case for titles, unless, of course, it's a proper noun—we would just need remove former series and create a separate template. Is there any special approach this needs to be done at, or is it just the typical start a talk page discussion on the corresponding talk page, see if anyone objects, and then go ahead and perform the edit if nobody objects? Amaury • 15:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

If you're going to move them, move them first – I'd use WP:RM/TR for this purpose. But I agree the templates should be split, as Nick's was. So move them first, then split. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I was able to move them without needing help, so that's the first part done. Now should I go ahead and split or start a discussion first? Your response points to the former of just splitting them, but just double-checking. Amaury • 15:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Just boldly split then – the Nick template TfD discussion establishes the precedent for it, and shows there's likely consensus for this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

What do we do with series like Mech-X4? We still have until August 20 before we can mark it as over, but do we list it as former on the Disney Channel template, as is currently done, or current? Or do we not list it on the Disney Channel template at all and only list it on the Disney XD template? Basically, "ignore" that the first five episodes aired on Disney Channel? And I guess that question would also apply to List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel and List of programs broadcast by Disney XD. Amaury • 15:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd WP:IAR and move it to "former" now – we know it's not coming back, and leaving in the "current" template for just a month seems pointless... As for which template, I'd list it under both – it premiered on Disney Channel, but did eventually move full-time to Disney XD: so it's a show on both. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done with Disney Channel. Finishing touches, please. Amaury • 16:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

And Disney XD. I just can't figure out why there's such a big gap between the Former Disney XD template and the It's a Laugh Productions template. See, for example, Lab Rats: Elite Force#External links. It's not like that for the Disney Channel ones. Compare to, for example, Bizaardvark#External links. Amaury • 22:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I fixed it – you have to be very careful where you place the noinclude tags: they must be immediately after the 'close' tags. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

IPs (actually the same /64 so far) have been attempting to put the old Disney Channel shows back into the original template. I have added a hidden note at the top of the content, which hopefully will get their attention, but the template should still be watched for a while. MPFitz1968 (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: We could use your eyes as well. @MPFitz1968: We should all probably do the same for the Nickelodeon and Disney XD ones as well. Template:Nickelodeon original series, Template:Former Nickelodeon original series, Template:Disney XD original series, and Template:Former Disney XD original series. Amaury • 15:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury and MPFitz1968: One thing – right now, the "current" and "former" templates don't link to each other. They probably should (e.g. in the 'footer'). Linking these templates to each other should lead to less confusion... --IJBall (contribs • talk)

Before I continue, like this? Also, for the Disney ones, should we also include Disney XD on the Disney Channel templates and vice-versa since they're all Disney? Amaury • 22:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd list it first in the footer. And I might just list it as "Former series"/"Current series". No opinion on including Disney XD links or not... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just dumb, but what's considered the footer here? Amaury • 22:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I guess it's a 'See also' section with this template. But I'd put it in 'footer' (e.g. below code) in the Nick template(s). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Templates should not be linked to from articles, which is what will happen if you add it to the actual template (below). Just add it to the doc like {{U.S. network show templates}} (though it already appears there, so that's arguably a redundant link). --Gonnym (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: What are your thoughts on this? Also, for the Disney ones, should we also include Disney XD on the Disney Channel templates and vice-versa since they're all Disney? They're not the same network, but they're both Disney and have Disney in the name. (I say that because ABC is also Disney-owned, but doesn't have Disney in the name.) Amaury • 05:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by [Network]

• List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon
• List of programs broadcast by TeenNick
• List of programs broadcast by Nicktoons
• List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel
• List of programs broadcast by Disney XD

This is probably what we should tackle next when time permits. For one thing, they're a huge mess, especially when editing. We need to figure out what we should list and what we shouldn't. Additionally, we don't need to have sections for everything (original, acquired, pre-school, etc.) per WP:NOTAGUIDE. We should just have everything current, regardless of whether it's animation, live-action, CGI, etc., under one section, everything upcoming under one section, and everything former under one section. And maybe even limit the former listings to only things from the current decade, which, in this case, would be the 2010s: 2010–2019. Anything that's not in the current decade should be removed from the list; again, per WP:NOTAGUIDE. Amaury • 16:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Gabby Duran & The Unsittables‎

One thing I can't figure out yet is if "the" should be capitalized or not. In other words, is it "The Unsittables," in which case it would be capitalized, or just "Unsittables," in which case it would not be capitalized. Amaury • 05:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Dunno. I just suspect that whatever the MOS says on the question, I'll disagree with it... 06:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 9#Template:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 9#Template:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons. Ping Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968 as well. This and the Disney Channel one are two of the ones that need to be split: one for current and upcoming, I think you said, IJBall, and one for former. But they certainly do not merit deletion. Keep and split. Unfortunately, I have to get to work, so I cannot vote right now. Amaury • 15:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Commented there – I've made it clear that I favor splitting this template, and removing some content, rather than deleting it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Started a draft here: User:Amaury/sandbox/Template:Nickelodeon original series. Based on that, we may only need to separate based on live-action and animation. For the draft, I've removed ANYTHING animated: that includes cartoons, CGI animation, and puppet animations. If there's a mix of animation and live-action, such as puppets and live-action, I left it in. You can compare to the live template to see what I've removed and tweak it as necessary. I also removed anything that premiered and ended when the network was still known as Pinwheel, which I think was only one series. Amaury • 19:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it should still be split into "current & upcoming shows" vs. "former shows" navboxes, IMO – Gonnym may indeed be correct that the latter template isn't even needed (or is redundant), but I strongly think the "current & upcoming shows" navbox actually is useful, and is not simply redundant with other articles and categories... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Former removed. Amaury • 20:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to work up a "former shows" template in a different sandbox... But I think it's so big that further splitting "by decade" may be required... Which is why I somewhat agree with Gonnym that List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon is a better option than a series of "former Nickelodeon shows" navboxes... But I definitely think "current & upcoming" is still valid. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: The TfD discussion has been closed as "split". I've left Primefac a message on his Talk page asking what happens next... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to need you at both the current/upcoming and former templates, most likely. MOS:DATERANGE violations, etc. Amaury • 15:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Footer vs. 'See also' section and WP:EGG

Moved to Template talk:Nickelodeon original series § Footer vs. 'See also' section and WP:EGG

 – --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon

Your turn (diff). Amaury • 21:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, on Hunter Street, I'm not sure that's wrong – they're correct: the show is no longer airing on Nick. It's already included now at List of programs broadcast by TeenNick. I think the edit is correct, though a note should be added to indicate that season #3 moved to TeenNick. I don't know anything about the Nicktoon in that edit, so I can't speak to that.. I also don't know anything about the use of "after" in the edit – I would report the date the shows moved to the new network, not the "last time" they aired on Nick. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Ping FilmandTVFan28 to this conversation as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I was only there to remind the user to have proper manners. That's all. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: I think I would cite The Futon Critic's listings for Hunter Street, and move it to 'former' programming at the article, as discussed above... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources for "fantasy" genre of Descendants franchise

I didn't revert your deletion of one of my sources for Descendants (2015 film) as a "fantasy" film, since you left two sources and the statement in question. However, I must admit that I bristled a bit at your deletion of the source and the claim that "That's about "2", not "1"." The source in question, the forbes.com review of Descendants 2, states "As fans will remember, Descendants was a live-action, musical fantasy concerning the children of the famous Walt Disney heroes and villains," and goes on to very briefly recap the first film. But since you are the editor who asserted a lack of sources for the genre, I'm ultimately satisfied with your streamlining of the offered sources. --DavidK93 (talk) 05:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@DavidK93: Yep – keep the sources distinct: the ones primarily about "2" at "2", etc. P.S. You didn't also update Descendants (franchise) – if you can find an article on the entire franchise that describes the franchise as a "fantasy", that would be quite helpful. Note: On my end, I'm not thrilled with this, as Disney itself has never used the term/genre "fantasy" to describe these films, but I'm not going to object to solid secondary sources like EW and Forbes... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe tomorrow! It's 1:27 am here and I should have been in bed at midnight. But I believe more than one of the sources that I added to 1, 2, and 3 do describe the franchise as a whole as fantasy. --DavidK93 (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I put in the franchise fantasy genre and sources. --DavidK93 (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Descendants franchise

Thank you for clarifying. I noticed the summaries for the first 2 films were literally a word-for-word copy of the plot sections of the main film articles, so that's what I did for the third one. I personally don't see anything wrong with having detailed summaries on the franchise page (other than it violates WP:COPYPASTE), but you know better than I do. —Zuko Halliwell (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Zuko Halliwell: The franchise articles should be general summaries of the relevant articles – there would be no point in having dedicated articles on the individual films if all of the details were just at the franchise article. A good example of how it should be done, as it's a WP:FL, is List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films – notice that the plot summaries at the article are very sparse. In fact, most of the provided details on the films are on production and release, not plot. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm working on this, too. I wrote a much shorter plot description for the first movie, and I'll tackle the other two if nobody else does. --DavidK93 (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@DavidK93: Awesome! Thank you! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Joshua Rush

@Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: I don't have time to right now, so if one of you wants to get it: https://twitter.com/JoshuaRush/status/1158769734176956419 Amaury • 18:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

List of The Loud House episodes#Sort in production order instead of premiere order

Nope. Amaury • 18:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Zendaya

One revert isn’t disruptive and to not include -present is to suggest Euphoria will only air in 2019 when that is not the case. The -present acts as the date range because it’s an ongoing television series. Hell, just look at MOS:DATETOPRES, which is right below the one you linked me to. It shows a precedent on how to format ongoing series. Rusted AutoParts 20:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Please just read this. And note – multiple editors agree with me about this, incl. DarkGlow, Ebyabe, Amaury, and many others. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with you and your “multiple editors” logic but I won’t press further with this. I will ask you and your “multiple editors” to go through every actor/actress/filmmaker and employ this so we have some consistency on this site. Tired of the selective enforcement I see, so if you’re pressing for it here, do it Everywhere too. Rusted AutoParts 21:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: That logic is so flawed.. I don't/can't possibly edit every single actor/actress article, but whenever I do see "2019–present" (which makes no logical sense), I immediately change it. – DarkGlow (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn’t call it flawed, just unrealistic. Chalk it up to me being hyperbolic. Rusted AutoParts 21:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: (edit conflict) You're asking us to have eyes on every article where this is done "wrong" – that simply is not possible. But I can assure – we do "fix" this at every article that we see it at... Bottom line: What "2019" shows is that Zendaya appeared in Euphoria episodes that aired in 2019, which is 100% accurate. That has zero bearing about potential future episodes that may air in 2020 – even including that is pretty much a clear WP:CRYSTALBALL violation. So whether you look at it from the perspective of MOS:DATERANGE or WP:CRYSTALBALL doing "2019–present" is wrong either way – it doesn't become 2019–present until new episodes air sometime after "2019". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Disney Channel

This is unrelated to any recent edits of yours, but I'm curious: what are your favourite Disney Channel series and DCOMs from each decade? – DarkGlow (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Give me some time to think about that... (My last day of "summer work" is today, so I'll have more time to think about stuff like this over the weekend...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Feel like I wanna include Amaury in this discussion.. – DarkGlow (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

SpongeBob SquarePants

Pretty sure it's the other way around in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, no? See this diff. Amaury • 19:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: Reverted as per WP:LQ – one of those "fixes" may have been correct, but the others were not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Balala the Fairies (series)

I'm not sure what this is, do you think Balala the Fairies (series) is a franchise article? --Gonnym (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I think that article can just be moved to the base title: Balala the Fairies. Failing that, Balala the Fairies (franchise) would probably be the next best choice, though in it's current form it's just a list article so List of Balala the Fairies in media or something might almost be the more "correct" choice... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Joshua Rush again

@Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: Need more eyes here. People keep wanting to add WP:TRIVIA that is only appropriate for the Wikias. Amaury • 16:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I Am Frankie

I'm holding off on reverting for now, but this seems pointless. There is literally no point in it. Amaury • 14:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how that works, so I don't know if it's pointless or not. Need a cat expert to explain that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: Any experience here? Amaury • 15:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: Help:Category mentions that the stuff after the pipe is the sort key, but I have no idea why they'd use it in this situation. There's no odd sorting issues with "I Am Frankie" that I'm aware of (unlike with titles beginning with a, an, or the ... though those may already be taken care of in sorting of category entries). MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: It looks like the intent is to sort it above iCarly. Since iCarly is the weird one, that is where the sort key should go. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, I'm also remembering there's the DEFAULTSORT template that's used in many articles, which I believe also aids in the proper sorting inside categories. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Okay, gotcha. So the key is not needed for I Am Frankie. But hm. How is iCarly the weird one here? We would still sort it under "I" just like anything else, wouldn't we? Is the "problem" that it's all one word rather than "i Carly"? In either case, I would imagine it would still be C -> F per normal sorting order. Amaury • 15:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: Not sure if the lower case "i" and lack of space is causing a sort issue. Would need to experiment a bit and see but I think that may be the issue with the sort. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Isn't that one also only truly necessary if we have a situation with an article being the first of the title, such as The Thundermans? Amaury • 15:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: Right. Without DEFAULTSORT or a sort key, the title will be a straightforward sort according to the sorting rules in Wikipedia. I'm not exactly sure about whether that differs from computer sorting by ANSI/ASCII order or alphanumeric order, or something like that, but the sort key/DEFAULTSORT is intended to override the default order without it, like with the "library" sorting to ignore a, an, the at the beginning of a title, or to put it at the end, as in Thundermans, The. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: Without DEFAULTSORT or a sort key all the list articles would get listed under L in the category lists. That list article was missing the DEFAULTSORT which should have been there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarified that I Am Frankie has end after two season it was stated by TVSeriesFinale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVnetworkguy (talk • contribs) 23:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@TVnetworkguy: TVSeriesFinale is WP:NOTRS, and is not usable for this purpose. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, shows on Nickelodeon like Knight Squad, Cousin For Life, and I Am Frankie have all ended it run it been confirmed from most of the actors and the creators these show Nickelodeon quietly canceled them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVnetworkguy (talk • contribs) 03:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Please refer to the Talk page at those various articles – the "sourcing" you are referring to is insufficient for the purpose of Wikipedia: IOW, for various reasons, they aren't WP:RS for the purposes of verfiying that a TV show has "ended". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Family Reunion (TV series)

Hi IJBall,
I could use another pair of eyes on this as you are very familiar with MOS:TVCAST. An editor keep on adding the full name of a character. It's not how she is credited and when she was cast, her character only goes by her nickname M'Dear. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

How to handle "main cast" on TV shows is often tricky, because generally main characters don't ever have a "credited name" shown. So, for that, you look at how they are predominantly referred to in official press releases, the official TV series website, and then in secondary sources. But unless they are predominantly referred to as one name by secondary sources, and by another name in primary sources, it's usually not a problem (IOW, it's usually same name in both primary and secondary sources.) But, yeah – how they are referred to in passing WP:INUNIVERSE is definitely not how a character should be listed in the cast listing at the article – we've been having that issue at the Henry Danger articles, where people want to change a character name to "Charlotte Page", despite the fact that she is rarely referred to that way on either the show or in sourcing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

On the official press release from Netflix, she is cast as M'Dear only, not the full name when it was mentioned on an episode. In addition, most of the reliable sources only referred her character as M'Dear only, not by her full name. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I believe it. What I'm saying is that the only reason you'd list a name other than the one in the press release is if the other name is predominantly used by secondary sources. But a different character name mentioned in passing WP:INUNIVERSE is definitely not a reason to change the name. IOW, I'm saying that your reversion is "correct" in the absence of a lot of evidence that a different name should be listed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Joey Donnie06

Probably time for a report to be filed, per WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. Amaury • 00:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

List of Best Friends Whenever episodes

I'm on break at work, but need you to request help from Ad Orientem. This has gone on long enough. Ping MPFitz1968, too. Amaury • 02:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Thoughts? Should we try WP:RfPP? Or should we go to an Admin knowledgeable about this issue?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Talking to an admin may be the better route - perhaps one of the two who has blocked the IP. I recall one who refused to when we reported the IP to AIV because they deemed the edits not vandalism ... and actually the IP's edits haven't been, just disruptive because they haven't been getting it about the MOS. I was a little surprised on their last edit when they didn't use the "&", but there were still a couple of WP:TONE problems (including a word that I don't recall ever being used in the episode in question - "Gerascophobia"?), and it was for a summary that didn't really need to be changed. MPFitz1968 (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Amaury for this one as well ... Definitely related ... I just came across this at the disambiguation page for Cyd, made almost a month ago, prior to their block on July 21. I reverted it on WP:TONE problems ... plus I also objected about their use of "Cydney" for the name of the character (and I still forget whether she is ever referred to as that on the show). MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Ping Ad Orientem to this discussion. IP previously blocked for this before, multiple warnings, and still doesn't get it. We need a long-term block here. Edits are generally to the aforementioned page as well as its parent Best Friends Whenever page, but has also made their disruptive edits at pages like Fuller House, etc. Amaury • 07:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It definitely seems to me like either a deliberate WP:DE case, or if not then a WP:CIR case. But I lean in the direction of the former, as I think this comes off like obvious trolling. But, either way, this is either a WP:NOTHERE scenario, or it's a WP:CIR so severe that it ends up in the same WP:NOTHERE place... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• IP blocked x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Winnick

Your edit summary was needlessly rude. Rusted AutoParts 16:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Frankly, there was a reason for that – IIRC, it wasn't the first time you've done that. After being corrected on it previously, I would have figured you would have learned to correct that. Anyway, there's a reason that template exists, and it's supposed to be used in exactly those circumstances... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You May or may not have told me before, doesn’t make the response any less rude. It’s kinda hard to remember that when all these tables are different for different people. Rusted AutoParts 17:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Big City Greens

Stuff like this honestly pisses me off. Last time I checked, we're supposed to be using logos as they are, not modify them to be unique. By that logic, everything we have, like Henry Danger, should just be removed. I mean, we should just have Henry Danger as black text on a white background, amirite? Good thing we're not on Commons. Now to upload a logo here. Amaury • 17:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The "rules" on stuff like this is arcane, and I don't really understand it, but if I've got it right, the logos we use are supposed to be "reasonable facsimiles" of the actual logo, but not an "exact copy", as the latter is some sort of copyright vio. So you need to do a logo that's "close" to the original, but not "too close". Or something... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The applicable guidance is Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Logos. A reasonable facsimile is still a copy and so a copyright violation. To ensure that the United States fair-use provisions apply, the English Wikipedia community has laid out specific, narrow criteria that have to be met in order for non-free content to be reused. For logos, fidelity to the original is important to avoid misrepresentation. Through consensus discussion, it has been agreed that bitmap images should only have a high enough resolution so the content is recognizable to suit its purpose in the article (for logos, this typically means being able to identify the logo), but there is no hard rule about how high a resolution that should be. For vector graphic images, there is an unresolved debate about what this means. For a purely geometric logo (say, a circle), there is effectively no limit on resolution, since a circle scales up and down indefinitely. However for something more complex, say a crown, the vector graphic can trace the logo more finely or more coarsely. I'm not aware of any consensus on how to deal with this. Also, to avoid uncertainty over whether or not the vectorization itself is copyrighted, original logos from the copyright holder are supposed to be used, rather than a copy that itself might be an unauthorized copy.

Note some logos cannot be copyrighted under United States law: most notably, ones that are a simple combination of letters (even if in an unusual typeface). (Being able to copyright these types of logos would hinder people from just writing the corresponding product name in text.) Thus these logos can be used freely. isaacl (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

For example, the deletion rationale in the linked discussion regarding the Big City Greens logo is that the plank in the background adds just enough originality that the logo is not just a combination of letters, and so the logo is copyrightable. isaacl (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Henry Danger cast

Link Amaury • 04:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Departure

You have definitely made a mistake, this series has been fully transmitted in UK.90.200.171.171 (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Then it will be trivial to find a WP:RS backing that (e.g. a review). But myself and others have been looking for evidence that it has aired, and have found absolutely nothing. And, as per WP:BURDEN, you have to prove that it has aired with a WP:RS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

This seems conclusive "https://www.universaltv.co.uk/schedule/14-08-2019"90.200.171.171 (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd feel a lot better about a reliable Secondary source, like a review, to confirm, because TV channel schedules are not 100% accurate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Aren't reviews a wikinono because they are largely based on what may be unreliable opinions ?90.200.171.171 (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Not if it's from a fully published newspaper (e.g. The Times) or magazine, etc. That would be proof that, say, the pilot episode actually aired on the date claimed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Go on then, you could have found one by now rather than squabbling with me !!90.200.171.171 (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN – I'm not required to do the work that other editors want. (But, the point is, I have looked for "proof" that this show has actually aired (as have others), and no one has found any real proof that this show has aired...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Project Mc2

Pinging Amaury and Geraldo Perez. Time to watch this article again, as the familiar vandalism has returned [3]. The article got released from semi-protection about a week and a half ago, and it looks like indefinite protection from this vandalism will be needed soon. (Ah, I see you're still watching, IJBall.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Please (re-)report to WP:RfPP please. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Reported. I also have posted an AIV report on the particular IP doing it right now. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

44 Cats

Haven't gotten a response from Amaury regarding this, but thought I should ask you since you'd probably know as well. This is regarding the episode table on the 44 Cats page. You can check the question here. Thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: What I can tell you is that your sandbox version is much better than the current episodes table, and should replace it. Now, I don't love the use of hr line code for the titles – I prefer "Title A" / "Title B" (with no forced 'line break') format. But, aside from that, your sandbox version is much better than the current version. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

{{Episode list}} has native support for multiple titles (it also uses hr):

No.	Title	Italian air date	U.S. air date	Prod. code	U.S. viewers (millions)
3	"The Astronaut Cat"	December 11, 2018 (2018-12-11)	10 June 2019	102	0.60
	"Cat Traps"
"The Astronaut Cat": Cosmo dreams of becoming the first astro-cat in history, and for his birthday, the Buffycats decide to make his dream come true. "Cat Traps": Winston's garden is full of cat traps.

It's a stylistic choice that I don't like. Sometimes use of 'hr' lines make sense, but oftentimes it doesn't IMO (like in your example above). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Haven't looked into the details here. If this episode has several titles because of being broadcast in different countries or different translations then this is the correct usage as while you might dislike hr, MOS:SLASH is against the use of the slash (so unless you can find a better solution, this isn't really a stylistic choice). If the two titles are referring to two different episodes, then this isn't the correct usage, as that is using a quasi rowspan which it shouldn't.

Looking at the sources ([4]), these titles are actually two different episodes broadcast the same day. Also according to that source, the episode numbering used in the table isn't correct. So the above discussion is irrelevant here as the titles should be split into two separate rows. --Gonnym (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

No, it absolutely isn't – on Wikipedia, we follow broadcast order, etc., not production order, etc. So when two "segments" like this are broadcast together as "one 30-minute broadcast episode", we report it as a single episode in the episode table – e.g. [5] . As for 'hr' lines, I still despise them in most cases, and will generally oppose their use. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

So you are just ignoring the other source cited in that table which lists them as episodes and not segments? --Gonnym (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

When sources conflict, it comes down to WP:ONUS – IOW, it's editor's choice. And the way, Magitroopa/Futon is doing this reflects long-standing WP:TV practice. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Zendaya photo

Your turn. Good edit or not, it requires discussion, mainly per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. But also because the most, most recent image is not always necessary, per our discussion at Talk:Cameron Boyce#Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2019 and even previous discussions before that. Amaury • 08:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Ping Geraldo Perez as well, as he's been involved in these discussions before, too. Amaury • 08:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Consensus looks to be in favor of the new image. And in terms of image quality, the images are comparable – the new image may even be better than the previous one... The issue is when people switch to a lower quality image, just because it's "newer" – in those cases, the addition should be reverted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Still, shouldn't a proper discussion be held for an official consensus to form? It's just common sense, even if you're not thinking about BRD and STATUSQUO. You can't form a consensus through back and forth edits/reverts, there has to be an actual discussion. When somebody's bold edit is reverted, it does not give somebody else the "right" to re-apply that bold edit. Somebody made a bold edit, and I challenged and reverted it. Discussion should have been held then; instead, two other people went against the status quo and just reinserted it. At least the second person properly used an edit summary, but still. And I don't appreciate the finger being pointed at me, when I'm not the one who made the bold edit to begin with. (Not by you, of course, but see my talk page.) The only reason I'm not pursuing anything further is 1) because it's not really an article I work on, I'm just watching it to deal with vandals and other disruptive editors/IPs, and 2) I'm trying to tread a little carefully for now, given two past incidents, one of which resulted in a block (that was not really justified). Amaury • 15:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

It's current 3-against-1. Yes, you can "force" the issue by opening a discussion on the Talk page, but in this case I don't think it's worthwhile, because I'm pretty sure a poll of editors will pick the 2019 image. But, OTOH, yeah, Krimuk2.0 should not have put that in the edit summary, as it comes off as WP:Assume bad faith... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

That's also another reason why I'm not pursuing it further. If that's how discussion would turn out, anyway, just let it go and not have any drama, for once. But in general, that would be the proper course of action for any article. Amaury • 15:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO explicitly states Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. And as pointed out earlier, WP:BRDREVERT says, "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle: If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted." I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: That doesn't justify your edit summary. Instead, you could have gone to Amaury's Talk page, and posted there what you just posted here. The edit summary really was WP:Assume bad faith, esp. after this edit summary from Amaury. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I did. Anyway, friends have teamed up against me, so that's an end to that. Cheers! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not the proper response – now that's it's been reverted back by a second editor, an honest-to-God discussion should commence post haste on the Talk page there about the image choice... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

And I've just done just that: Talk:Zendaya#Which photo should be used? Since I pinged you above, inviting you as well, Geraldo Perez. Add: And, for the record, I never made any contact regarding this issue with Davey2010. I have no control over what he chooses to do. Amaury • 15:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Street season 3

Tweet. Whether final for the season or series, we'll find out soon, as I know there have been times where networks have been vague like that, and it was only for the season. Amaury • 15:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I also noticed this. It's almost certainly the end of the line for this show, though it's also guaranteed that Nick will never announce it officially.

On an unrelated note, TeenNick was running I Am Frankie, again, over the weekend. Well they wouldn't run it if it wasn't popular/good for the ratings. So, if that's true, then why did they not make a third season of the show?!!... Meanwhile, TeenNick has completely dropped School of Rock, and has pretty much never shown Knight Squad at all, despite the fact the show has long since "finished"! I cannot figure out why Nick won't rerun Knight Squad pretty much at all... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't remember how many since the Wikia page for it has been deleted it, but about seven episodes for a third season were apparently already filmed. I can't imagine they would marathon I Am Frankie just because. Amaury • 16:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Boys (2019 TV series)#Why is the "recurring" section limited to 4+ appearances?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Boys (2019 TV series)#Why is the "recurring" section limited to 4+ appearances?. As you are familiar with guest vs recurring.— YoungForever^(talk) 05:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Descendants 3 did not disappoint

I still haven't watched it, but look here Archived 2019-08-05 at the Wayback Machine. Amaury • 20:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

4.6 mil isn't super great, when compared to the previous two. But it's certainly a lot better than other recent DCOM's have done!... I'm still curious to see what Disney does with this franchise – I could easily see them continuing on with it, perhaps basing it around Anna Cathcart and Jadah Marie. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Remember, too, that those were different times. 2015 ratings were still booming, 2017 is when the decline was going on, and now the decline is either still going on or has kind of settled. In any case, considering anything else on Disney Channel in terms of new premieres gets 400–600K on average, that is an awesome number. Amaury • 23:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Just finished the film finally. Great film, but sad because it was the last project Cameron Boyce did, IIRC. Amaury • 00:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

MOS issue, concerning comma after the "from" year in a from-to construct

Pinging Amaury and Geraldo Perez. I forget where I saw a discussion about this among the four of us, though I'm not sure I saw this being an exception in the MOS (as in no comma after the "from" year). This edit at Andi Mack got me wondering. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't care what the MOS supposedly "says" on this – that is a date range and therefore no comma is needed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I just reverted them again (diff) and left them a warning. If they revert again, I recommend either you or Geraldo Perez revert and file a report. Amaury • 18:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

IJBall and MPFitz1968 Now having issues at Bizaardvark. Different editor; same "guidelines are God" BS. Amaury • 05:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

And Geraldo Perez. Amaury • 05:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: A discussion has been started at Talk:Bizaardvark#Comma, if you're interested. Amaury • 15:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#About the Guest section

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#About the Guest section. Amaury • 17:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@YoungForever: FTR, Hanna (TV series) is another article with an out-of-control 'Guest' cast section, IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep, Hanna's Guest section is way too long. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

List of The Lodge episodes

I don't remember where it was discussed, but I think it was Geraldo Perez who said we still do "season," etc. rather than series. See my revert here. Amaury • 15:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:The Lodge (TV series) § "Season" vs. "Series" Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Power Rangers

As I'm sure you're at least familiar, each Power Rangers "saga"—it's the best term I can come up with—contains two seasons, at least for years now, each season with a different villain and story, though there are of course elements used from the first season. For example, Power Rangers: Ninja Steel and Power Rangers: Super Ninja Steel. For listing purposes on templates and such, though, should we list as Power Rangers: Ninja Steel or Power Rangers: Ninja Steel / Super Ninja Steel? The latter of which is the current way. Is this akin to Liv and Maddie and Lab Rats, in which case we would list as just Ninja Steel in this case? Despite the Cali Style and Bionic Island additional titles for the fourth seasons, we still list them as Liv and Maddie and Lab Rats. Amaury • 16:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

No idea. Ping Geraldo Perez for his opinion.

Ninja Steel should be sufficient. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

P.S. The "former" template is probably going away eventually, so I'm not sure it matters much in the end... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It will again once Beast Morphers ends and the second season of it premieres with an additional word in the title, either before or after "Beast." Amaury • 16:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Pup Academy draft

There's a worthless draft at Draft:Pup Academy that can be deleted. That is not how to create an article, but coming from a random IP, it doesn't surprise me. Amaury • 04:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Legacies

The sentence needs to be rewritten, then, to clarify, because as it stands it is very confusing. Reading Alaric's old friend who saves Rafael and Landon from a werewolf hunter does not tell me whatsoever that Rafael is a werewolf. All this says is that two people are saved, so it doesn't matter the order, in any case, whether X and Y or Y and X. And whether or not he is a werewolf doesn't appear to be relevant in this regard per the aforementioned reasons. Ultimately, it's both him and Landon who are saved, so whether we list Rafael first or Landon first does not change the context. All of these are equivalent, for some other examples:

• Adam rescues James and Tyler
• Adam rescues Tyler and James
• James and Tyler are rescued by Adam
• Tyler and James are rescued by Adam

Maybe there's something I'm missing, but if I'm this confused by it, I can see others who also don't watch this also being this confused. Amaury • 05:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)