This is an archive of past discussions with User:IJBall. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
What is the difference between {{notelist}}, like we've done on Hunter Street and Beyond, and {{Reflist|group="Note"}}, like we've done on Stuck in the Middle and the Henry Danger character list? (Coincidentally, that's also done on Beyond.)
Should the Notes section be a standalone section above the References section? Notes are kinda like "references," if that makes sense. Stuck in the Middle and the Henry Danger character list have the Notes section as a standalone section. Or should the Notes section be a sub-section of where the notes are coming from? For example, the notes about the previews and official premieres on Hunter Street and Beyond are a sub-section of the Season 1 (2017) and Episodes sections, respectively, because they have to do with the episodes. Similarly, the notes regarding the two actors' credit order being switched from the pilot on Stuck in the Middle have to do with the cast and characters.
Does the placement of the Notes section depend on whether you're using {{notelist}} or {{Reflist|group="Note"}} because of whatever difference there might be between the two? The only difference I notice are visual differences next to the text where they're placed, but there has to be more than that. {{notelist}} shows [a], [b], [c], etc. whereas {{Reflist|group="Note"}} shows [Note 1], [Note 2], [Note 3], etc. Also, I tend to notice that {{Reflist|group="Note"}} is in the standalone Notes sections, but that could just be on the articles I've been editing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure – but I've seen {{notelist}} used with {{efn}}, while {{Reflist|group="Note"}} seems to be used with just regular <ref group="Note">...</ref> tags. But it may not matter.
'Notes' sections can go where you want. I think putting notes under the episodes table is fine in those cases where the notes are only in the episodes table. But when there are notes spread throughout the article, it's better to put the 'Notes' section right above the 'References' section at the bottom of the article.
No, it doesn't make a difference there. Like I say in #2, it's really more of function of where the 'notes' are in the article, and how extensive they are in the article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
So, like, for Stuck in the Middle, making the Notes section a sub-section of Cast and characters for the parent article and Main characters for the character list would actually seem reasonable since those notes are only under one heading? (Or in the case of Stuck in the Middle's character list, a sub-heading of a heading.) Likewise with the character list for Henry Danger. However, if there were notes in the Cast and characters section, the Production section, etc., then standalone, as it is now, would be more appropriate since, regardless of how many notes you have, you only need one instance of {{Reflist|group="Note"}}. I'm not sure if {{notelist}} works the same way, though.
That's basically it – it's just two different ways of doing it. AFAIK, there is nothing in the MOS that says 'Notes' sections have to go at the bottom of the article – plenty of articles have a 'notes' subsection at the bottom of the section rather than at the bottom of the article. Whether you do it the first way or the second really depends on what makes the most sense for that particular article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
It just depends on, like you said, if the notes are all in one area or not. Based on that, I take it you agree that the Notes sections would be fine as sub-sections for Stuck in the Middle (and its character list) and the Henry Danger character list? Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I completely forgot the non-heading part. I just changed it on Stuck in the Middle. Should we do the same thing on Hunter Street and Beyond or do you see an actual heading there more appropriate? Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
In other words, the notes regarding the previews and premieres on Hunter Street and Beyond would be more appropriate as non-heading notes, right? I take it that when you say single note, you don't mean it as being a single sentence, but just being part of the same idea? In Beyond's case, though, we have two notes sections. One is using notelist for the preview and premiere stuff and then one is a standalone section, using the other way. Similar to when I asked about the Stuck in the Middle and Henry Danger character lists, where you said the Notes section was better as a standalone section, likely because it wouldn't look quite right being a sub-section of the Main sub-section, that one is probably fine left as a standalone section rather than making it a sub-section of Cast and characters or Main, I take it? I realize at the Stuck in the Middle parent article and Lab Rats: Elite Force we have the Notes section under Cast and characters; however, in Beyond's case, we already have Main and Recurring sub-sections. Apologies if there's any redundancy in this particular reply. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: If Joey is right, and this is a WP:ACCESSIBILITY issue (and I have no reason to believe that he's not), and we have to use "full" headings for notes, then we might be better off going back to putting the 'Notes' section at the bottom of the page right above the 'References' section. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
On it. That's also why I reverted myself, because, unlike before, I wasn't entirely sure and confident in my understanding. I still believe bullet points for notes above the table don't hurt, but I'll leave that alone for now. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought I had already commented here yesterday, but apparently not. Anyway, the only difference between these is the visual appearance, and you have to take care to pair the note templates with the reflist/notelist template, but like on many things, there is more than one possible way to do it, up to local consensus.
{{refn|group=note|Text}} with {{reflist|group=note}} displays [note 1], [note 2], etc.
This note template is just a shorthand for <ref group="note">Text</ref>. (The reflist template is more complicated than just <references group="note" />, as you already know, since it allows splitting into multiple columns.)
{{efn|Text}} with {{notelist}} displays [a], [b], etc.
These are shorthands for {{refn|group=lower-alphe}} and {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}, and "lower-alpha" is special-cased to display the lowercase letters.
I tend to prefer the former, though I've sometimes used the latter when inserting a note into an infobox and wanting to avoid wrapping. The list of notes, if either they're in only one section or there are multiple sections with lots of notes, can be subsections, but they don't have to, it just tends to look nice. They can also be in a "Notes" section right above "References" (which is standard practice rather than a subsection of "References").
And yes, ; Notes should definitely not be used as that is a MOS:ACCESS issue. When there is "Main" / "Recurring", I'd just put the "Notes" section below all those subsections if we do put that there. If displaying in TOC is not desired, and there are no other same-level subsections that really need to be displayed in the TOC, {{TOC limit}} can be used. Alternatively, a bolded "heading" ('''Notes''') can be used as a slightly-better-for-accessibility alternative than abusing definition lists with that semicolon. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I definitely have had my hands full with this editor (contributions), particularly at the assorted Wizards of Waverly Place and Boy Meets World articles. They have been making extensive edits in the episode tables (at all the season articles of these two TV series) and I've caught them at least a few times now adding absence tallies [1] (or episode counts [2]) of actors, even going so far as to comment out the absence tallies. (While they wouldn't display in the article content, I'm thinking having them there, even if commented out, goes against WP:TVCAST.) There was also that bit about their adding co-starring credits to episode summaries earlier, which was addressed on my talk page a few days ago. I wouldn't mind a few more eyes on their future edits - will also ping Amaury, Geraldo Perez and Nyuszika7H regarding this. MPFitz1968 (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968: Has this gotten disruptive enough that we should do something about it?... I notice they were back to doing it again today – definitely qualifies as disruptive editing IMO. Add: I've left a "final warning" at their Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Certainly the problem with their adding the absence counts (appearing in hidden comments - example from one of the Boy Meets World season articles: [3]) has gotten to the disruptive editing point. I've also noticed their doing some substantial additions to those BMW articles, mainly adding - or more accurately, expanding - episode summaries, which seem to be pretty long from glancing at it ... haven't really read any of them yet, but I have a feeling they need to be better summarized. And then I saw this at List of Girl Meets World characters[4] with trivial, original-research based conclusions. ("Riley is the Cory Matthews counterpart in the spinoff.", "Cory is now the Mr. Feeny and Alan Matthews counterpart in the spinoff." ... Geez, come on!) I'm not sure exactly where we go if this continues; this certainly doesn't look to be an AIV issue, but an ANI one, where it'll get pretty sticky. I haven't dealt with too many ANI reports, but I've seen a few I've filed go stale with no action taken. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, I think I'm having enough of this user, putting in absence counts. (Will ping Amaury as he just reverted one of their edits, relevant to this, at List of Jessie episodes.) They keep doing that at the Boy Meets World articles, either commented out or not, and this is becoming a pain in the ass watching their edits. It may be time to file an ANI on this user regarding their disruptive edits, though it may be afternoon (a few hours) before I get around to it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968: I would file a WP:ANI report, on the grounds of disruptive editing. Just make sure in the ANI report to include diffs where you, me and whoever else, left warning messages on their Talk page which went ignored. Also, if you can find any other evidence where this editor has been a problem (e.g. on other articles that you don't edit), that will probably help. Now, having said all that, this is quite likely to be the kind of ANI report that gets ignored. But at least it will be "added to the file" – if a second ANI report gets filed later on this editor, the first report will help establish that something needs to be done... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968: I notice that Amaury also tagged them for a WP:COPYVIO. That is something that is more likely to catch someone's attention at ANI, so be sure to include mention of that (esp. if the source of the copyvio can be tracked down for easy comparison). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
In looking over the copyvio at List of K.C. Undercover episodes [5], I do see some scattered verbatim summaries they added, taken from Screener, though not for every added summary if I'm just going by Screener. Perhaps I might have to get specific about which episodes? (But even if one is a copyvio, that's a serious policy violation.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, I filed an ANI report, though I'm still feeling it lacks some evidence. I have noticed inconsistencies across other articles, where they were taking out the absence counts in other articles (like That's So Raven and Cory in the House), but the general feel of their edits seems more disruptive than not. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Disneylandlover2006 has been temporarily blocked (appears we have convinced at least one admin enough that they have been disruptive). I have just purged the seven season articles of Boy Meets World of the absence tallies and hope it stays that way, but I have a feeling it won't and Disneylandlover2006 will attempt to restore this content after their block is over in about a day (or perhaps a sock). No doubt I'll need some extra eyes on those BMW articles - I haven't even gone thru additional edits they have made outside the absence counts yet (there likely is some WP:OVERLINKING in the "Absent" notes per episode). Amaury, Geraldo Perez, Nyuszika7H, if you all are also up to the task to monitor these articles, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: Did you say you have access to all seven seasons of BMW (like on DVD)? I recall at one point you may have mentioned that, but if you do, could you check the order of the main cast listing for each season? I definitely recall Disneylandlover2006 making some edits to the order of the list in at least one of the season articles, but I let it stand (for now). MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Looks like a generally good faith editor who disdains collaboration and following our style guidelines. Knows what they want and won't compromise. I've been watching and hard to identify anything outright wrong other than the general disruption they were temporarily blocked for. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Update: I finished removing at least most of the WP:OVERLINKING in the BMW season articles, and I noticed some of the links to the character names that Disneylandlover2006 added didn't actually link to the characters themselves, but to people who have the same name, like Amy Matthews (a contractor who also hosts a DIY Network show) and Morgan Matthews (a former ice dancer). Fixed those issues hopefully, and something I know I'll watch more carefully. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Trina McGee-Davis is listed as also starring in the end credits before the guest and co-star credits. Like with Girl Meets World and Corey Fogelmanis in season one, this is the same thing as starring and therefore she is a main cast member. The note in the season five article for Boy Meets World is wrong.
Seasons 6–7:
Ben Savage
William Daniels
Betsy Randle
Will Friedle
Rider Strong
Danielle Fishel
Lindsay Ridgeway
Trina McGee-Davis
Maitland Ward
Matthew Lawrence
William Russ
From what I've seen, Boy Meets World from season two through season seven is similar to Degrassi from season 13 and onward as well as Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn in that main cast members are only credited in the episodes they appear in. (Absences can still be noted, though, of course, just not above the table like our disruptive editor was doing. Although it looks like it's incomplete, so I may go through the series at some point during the summer for corrections and other fixes.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
No. Other things to attend to. But it's likely I'll be taking List of The Loud House episodes off my watchlist soon – it looks like it's mostly "done", outside of some needed tinkering, and I don't like dealing with most of the animation series articles (for obvious reasons...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
No, totally fine. And I already knew it'd be temporary to begin with. I don't even remember how we got involved now. Hopefully this issue with Luigi dies down so we don't need to keep as close an eye on it. Although I hope you don't mind if I still pop in with quick questions since I'm still working on the parent article and a character list in my sandbox. There is the bigger, though not humongous, project, which is that the parent article, even with my clean-up, has a similar issue that we had with Liv and Maddie, but I know you said that, if you do end up looking at it, it won't be for quite a while. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Quick question on table captions
Based on what Geraldo told you, does that mean we should even use them at Beyond and Famous in Love for those really short notes above the episode tables? Or do we only use captions once there are two seasons which warrant a list of episodes article? Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: Theoretically, yes, I think. (Though I think it becomes debatable if it's one-sentence of text or less?...) What I'm not sure about is the WP:ACCESS implications of a "regular" sentence before a table (e.g. Beyond) vs. a "list-element" before a table (Famous in Love). I'm going to ping Nyuszika7H and Joeyconnick to see if they know any more about this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: I don't think that kind of note is appropriate as a caption, and setting it as a caption would make it bold and centered, which certainly does not make sense. I don't think a note before the table is an accessibility issue, especially since we have section headers. A one-element list might sound strange to screen reader users but it shouldn't cause any big problem. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Nyuszika7H: Ah, 'kay. But in cases like at List of The Loud House episodes, those captions for seasons 1—2 should be used as there's more content. For reference, and you may have seen it already from me pinging you, but from this sub-discussion here, it was Geraldo Perez who told IJBall somewhere that captions should essentially always be used because of accessibility stuff, but I'm not entirely sure what that was being based on, either, as I wasn't involved in that discussion, wherever it took place. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: Oh, I thought you meant using the notes themselves as captions. Using something like the thing for The Loud House as caption makes sense, though I don't know how much it matters when there is just a short note or a few between the section heading and the episode table. It definitely makes sense for longer notes like in that case. When there is no note at all it looks a bit strange, though, like once when they were added (at List of Jessie episodes, I think), but we decided to keep it for consistency with the other seasons, but then they were removed. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, those horizontal lines look nice, but I wonder how they are for accessibility. And for the first episode of The Loud House, it looks a bit strange that it doesn't line up due to the separate story/written credits. And I'm relieved to see that the storyboarders clutter the table less than for other series due to there being only one or sometimes two, so I'm not entirely opposed to keeping them here, though the consensus at that WP:TV discussion that I linked to was not to include them. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Nyuszika7H: Yeah, that's how I feel as well, but I guess to someone who has impairments, it can make a big difference. And yeah, looks a lot better than what I had worked out previously if you look at this old version before I made the change. It reduced row height significantly. It shouldn't be an accessibility issue, I don't think. As for storyboard personnel, as IJBall originally felt the same way as I did that they shouldn't be included, the reason he gave is that they're front-end credits—see [6], for example—which means they're important credits, if I recall correctly. Although, obviously, we should use common sense. In season two, they started showing the producer on the front-end, but that never changed, so I don't need a need to add a column for that. In the case of storyboard personnel, each episode has different storyboard personnel. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: Yeah, it's better than it was. The other option is separate rows per segments, though that's problematic with the viewership numbers being per-episode. Pretty much everything else is per-segment (except air date but that doesn't cause ambiguity unlike viewership numbers). As for the captions, when there are notes it doesn't bother me, though I could live with them for consistency within an article when there aren't notes for one or more seasons.
Storyboarders are frequently credited on the episode title card or at the beginning of episodes along with writer and director. That was not explicitly mentioned in the previous discussion but I think they were aware of that. Also, seeing a bit more than trivial (though less than usual) variation with season 2's directors, I'm inclined to think that one should be put back over storyboarders (for season 1 there's only one that differs but if it doesn't cause space issues it's better to line up the tables), which is already standard, though it would be messy to fit directors, writers, AND storyboarders. I don't know if an RfC or something on the inclusion of storyboarders would be beneficial.
Either way, for directors or storyboarders, we could put line breaks (while also keeping the appropriate credit separators) to make more space, and then perhaps the "No. in season" column could be brought back (though I don't know how it would look on smaller screens, mine is 1600x900). Also, I saw some writing credits with just line breaks as separators – I don't know how they're actually credited, but that might also need fixing. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, the viewership numbers makes it complicated because the numbers are for one showing in this case, just like with Andi Mack's premiere. In this case, it is actually two separate episodes, as seen by how it is sold, and that's how the production team intended them to be, but Disney Channel decided to show it as a one-hour showing when it first premiered—it's now shown as two separate episodes in reruns, though. That's why I was for having the first row be 13/Outside the Box in one sitting as, to me, it doesn't make sense to have two sets of ratings, which are the same, making it appear as if they were ratings from two separate 30-minute showings—for example, that was the case with The Thundermans on August 13Archived 2020-10-31 at the Wayback Machine last year (#12 and #18 on the chart), where they simply had two new episodes, not two new episodes packaged as one by the network like with Andi Mack. when the ratings were actually from one 60-minute showing as seen by the length in the Showbuzz Daily articleArchived 2017-04-11 at the Wayback Machine (#56). However, that also has its own complications, because when averaging the ratings, doing it that way, we'd be saying that it is the average of 11 episodes (entries) when 12 episodes have aired. In the end, everything just has its own complications, haha!
With regard to the writing credits, which ones specifically look odd? When I added the writers back, I had actually gone through each of the title cards on the Wikia and listed them how they were listed there, but it's possible I may have goofed up somewhere. Oh, and for reference, my screen is 1366 x 768. What about yours, IJBall? Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello. You have twice deleted the date of the Season 2 finale in List of Wynonna Earp episodes. The date was released in advance and published in several sources. Variety is a highly recognized and respected entertainment industry news source and it is one of the citations used in the table.
The guideline for OriginalAirDate in {{Episode list}} states: "This is the date the episode first aired on TV, or is scheduled to air."
The guideline about Air Date in {{Episode table}} only states: "The inclusion (and optionally the width) of the "Original air date" cell."
If a WP policy is definitive, I abide by it. So ... can you please link to the policy/guideline in MOS:TV where it states that a forthcoming series finale date cannot be included in the episode table even if it has been released in advance by producers and/or networks? Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I reused the Variety citation attached to the episode title. I don't understand why you delete content without looking at cited sources. If you take the time to check sources provided you would see why they're cited. You, yourself, could have attached the Variety citation to the date, instead of just deleting it. Delete. Delete. Delete ... is not productive editing. And it discourages many new editors from participating in Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary: Let's assume good faith here and not accuse others of unproductive editing. If there is unsourced information, it is not the responsibility of others to find and attach a source, it is the responsibility of the original person who added the unsourced information to find and attach a source. Therefore, removing it is the best practice. It's better to have no information than unsourced information. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: Please stop throwing WP:AGF around. It's the most overused finger-wagging weapon employed by way too many WP editors. You've come to the rescue of another editor and you're being defensive on his behalf -- without bothering to take a look at the edit. The episode was sourced. The citation was attached to the title of the episode. Did it have to also be attached to the episode's Air Date? Using a citation twice, one for the title and one for the air date? Where does it say anywhere in MOS:TV, or {{Episode table}}, or {{Episode list}} that you have to do this? And the deletion was unproductive because it was the deletion of a legitimate published source that contained both the name of the episode and the air date. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary: I did have a look and IJBall was quite correct to remove it, so I will defend a friend and fellow editor when you're showing up here with an unnecessary attitude toward them when you could have simply left a friendly note asking why X was removed. If I want to throw around WP:AGF when you're unnecessarily being heated toward a good faith Wikipedian, then I will. You are not the boss of me who can tell what I can and cannot do. Cool it with the attitude and aggression and accept that you're not always going to be right or that other editors aren't always to agree with you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary:All future releases must be sourced as per WP:CRYSTALBALL. And Amaury is quite correct – as per WP:BURDEN, it is not the responsibility of editors reading an article to check through all the sourcing to see if a fact is verified: it is the responsibility of the editor who adds the information to make certain that it is referenced to the appropriate source. You did that, once you referenced that date. But before you did it was effectively an unverified future event. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
You are misquoting WP:CRYSTALBALL. What it does specifically state is:
"Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included."
"All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable...."
The citation is a reliable, expert source that verifies the anticipated event. It verified the title of the episode and its air date simultaneously. Requiring TWO identical citations for the episode title and for the air date is neither policy nor guideline in MOS:TV. If you want this to be the preferred s.o.p. it needs to be clearly and precisely included in MOS. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary: Use some WP:COMMONSENSE here. There are plenty of instances where the sources used for episode titles don't contain the air dates or are missing them—though there are later updates that add them when scheduling is more clear—such is the case with Screener and Nickelodeon, so it is not unreasonable to have sources for both the title and the air date for future episodes. It is not the responsibility of the other editor to read your brain and understand that the citation used for the title supports the air date; instead, this is, again, the responsibility of the original editor who added it. Better yet, to avoid issues, simply add a reliable episode guide, such as The Futon Critic and Screener, as column sources. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury:Screener? "The voice for the ultimate TV fanatic."? You must be joking. As for The Futon Critic: not only does it (word for word) regurgitate press releases, but it excludes IA's Web Machine from crawling its pages. Using TFC as a source is a wasted citation and future loss of information. There's no "common sense" in being tied to the same ol' same ol'. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know who you are, but I suspect there's a two-headed sockpuppet at play here. If not that, then something definitely ... um ... peculiar. Ciao. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
My final comment on this is that WP:REFNAME exists for reasons exactly like this case. The column ref used for the future airdates in this episodes table did not include the airdate for the finale – so that air date required separate referencing, regardless of the titles sourcing. (And, as an aside, I will again note that each of those episode titles does not need to be referenced individually – doing that through column sourcing would be preferable in this case as well.) But, as I said, that's all I intend to say on this matter. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Now that you're back, if you're still planning on commenting when you have the chance to formulate a proper response, just a heads up that it was archived due to no comments for 72 hours, but I restored it. No reply to this message is necessary. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The template seems to be redundant now that there are automatic notifications, so...
So from a discussion on Twitter a while ago, I learned that each series on any network gets a contract for a certain number of seasons, and the number of seasons increases each time the contract is renewed, which I think is every season—I don't really know. Whether or not they get all those seasons, I'm guessing, is based on how the series do. For example, it appears The Thundermans is currently contracted through season five, but whether or not they get a fifth season is another story. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
That's not quite right – actors on TV series are contracted for a certain number of seasons (regardless of how many seasons a TV show actually runs). The usual contract term for actors is 5 years, but I think in some cases it's 7 years. What this means is that, say, Jack Griffo is contracted to do The Thundermans for, say, 5 seasons, even if he wants to leave before that point. (Now, an actor can leave before the contract is up, but they will have to negotiate with the producers about leaving early, and if the producers say "No!", then the actor is stuck: they either need to keep showing up, or they can be sued for breach of contract. Another way out is probably the route Benjamin King took from Liv and Maddie – a justifiable medical condition which prevents the actor from continuing.) So, yes – Nick could order a fifth season on The Thundermans, and it means that Griffo, Kosarin, et al. would still be on the hook for starring on the show whether they still want to do the show or not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
They're not actually leaving the series, but what about the absences of main characters you see? In most cases, I'm willing to bet it's just because they didn't need the actor(s) for the story line, not even for a very small part, like how Auggie only appeared at the end of Girl Meets World's "Girl Meets Demolition." In situations like that, it seems obvious that those are going to be "excused." A less common reason for absences, I think, is when the story line actually involves a plot twist, such as Max (Jake T. Austin) being turned into a girl by Alex (Selena Gomez) and Justin (David Henry) at the end of an episode on Wizards of Waverly Place. That lasted for a short number of episodes. Whether they actually wanted that story line or whether they did it because Jake T. Austin couldn't shoot some episodes for some reason, I'm not sure. Having to guest star on another series, being sick—nothing hospital-needing wise, just something like the flu—or having traumatic injuries like Drake Bell did, causing Drake & Josh production to be put on hold temporarily, are less common reasons for absences and those likely fall into the same category as Benjamin King's above even though they're not actually leaving the series—they are just not shooting some episodes. There are some cases, though, like with the aforementioned Drake Bell incident where production of a series must be temporarily halted since some characters are critical to the story line. Like in Wizards of Waverly Place, the critical actors seem to be Selena Gomez and David Henry as they were present for all episodes, but the other main cast members frequently missed episodes. More recent examples are Stuck in the Middle and Andi Mack, the latter of which has already seen Lauren Tom absent for three episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Certain actors, esp. child actors, are only contracted to appear in a certain number of episodes each season. In other words, they'll still be under a 5-year contract, but they will be contracted to appear in, say, only 13 episodes out of 22, or something. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Which is kind of odd if you think about it since whether you're there or not, you get paid the same as that is a perk of being a main cast member. As for child actors, I'm guessing they consider those who aren't teenagers (12 and below) to be child actors. Makes me wonder how they do it with Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn's actors who play the quads and have obviously never been absent—I think they are teenagers now, but they weren't when they started—as well as Maya Le Clark from The Thundermans, who was promoted to main cast for season four and hasn't been absent once. Other examples I can think of are Bradley Steven Perry when Good Luck Charlie first began as well as whoever played Charlie. I know with Full House they divided the work equally between twins Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen because of child labor laws. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
As I know this is already being watched, just mentioning that some extra eyes would be appreciated there. Looks like IKnowMyFacts is at it again. It's pretty much the same issue that Michael brought to your attention here: User talk:IJBall/Archive 9#One of the ratings tables at Pretty Little Liars. Not even talking about duplicating information, these are more appropriate for individual season articles, which K.C. Undercover is not big enough to have, and adult-oriented television series. Television series on kids' channels, like Nickelodeon and Disney Channel, don't even look at the general 18–49 demographic share rating because that's not their targeted audience, they look more at ages 2–11, which isn't even listed on Showbuzz Daily or other ratings sites, and total viewers, I think. I know that total viewers don't mean that much as networks care more about their targeted audience, and I know for sure that's the case with television series on broadcast networks since ratings are pretty much their only source of revenue, unlike cable/satellite networks which also get their revenue from subscriptions. Pinging Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, and Nyuszika7H as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
No issues with the edit, just an FYI, No one calls it a "(straight) drama" or a "sitcom". Comedy-drama is probably the best genre choice here..., [8] (comedy), [9] (sitcom). Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I think you can probably rely on Futon's genre categorizations (generally), but I'm not sure I'd trust Screener's – calling "Andi Mack" a "sitcom" just further calls into question their reliability for me... But I think The NY Times' genre categorization works best here – this series is definitely not a "sitcom" (in any meaningful sense of the word!). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a good project of going through all the articles in my sandbox since I changed the genres to Screener's quite a while ago and changing them again over to The Futon Critic's (or a combination of both). Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: Actually, for that, I'd rely more on independent sources – i.e. I would check Deadline, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, TV Guide, NY Times or LA Times, whatever independent sources are cited in the article itself, and how they describe the TV series. I'd use Futon to supplement that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Quick question because, looking at this again, I'm confused now. Why don't you trust Screener? If we have other sources with more specific genres, yeah, go by those—or add them to what we already have—but, from my understanding, a sitcom is a more broad term that encompasses all of the more specific genres, such as comedy or drama, so calling Andi Mack a sitcom isn't necessarily incorrect? Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
No – "sitcom" is a narrower category (short for "situation comedy"). IOW, that's a subset of "comedy". Calling "Andi Mack" that seriously calls into question their credibility with me. And, IIRC, that's not the only time I've questioned Screener's genre judgement... Oh, one other thing: The very best source for TV series genres? – The press releases (e.g. from the network) about the show! Those usually can help you figure out what the genre is – Disney called Andi Mack "a single-camera family series" in its original P.R. for the series' pickup FWIW (though they called it a "comedic series" in the second season announcement). So "family" is a genre that can be added... But, still – no one has called it a "sitcom", except for Screener. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: A number of the Disney press releases on the show at The Futon Critic are not currently included in the article. I will add those soon, though I don't feel like doing it right this second... FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
So it looks like the general overview "sidebar" on The Futon Critic isn't the greatest, either. With Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, and Disney XD, it labels everything as comedy, unless it's a reality series, like Jagger Eaton's Mega Life, or a game show, like Paradise Run, in which case it labels them as reality and game show, respectively. Like, even Backstage is labeled as a comedy compared to Screener labeling it as drama and performing arts. In this case, Screener actually seems more accurate. So if we're going to use The Futon Critic, we should strictly go by the press releases as, like you said, they're the best source for genres, not the general overview "sidebar." The only downside is that not everything has anything for related news (press releases), such as Backstage, though most series do have news. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Did you ever this see, IJBall? No rush, though, especially since you're now on a semi-wiki-break. Also, rather than make a new section, regarding the "References" section, I'm thinking there must have been a change made to the template to have it automatically change to two-column format when, it looks like, there are 11 or more references. (My personal preference was 15+ needed two-columns.) So it looks like using 30em may no longer be necessary. For example, take a look at and compare the "References" sections for Best Friends Whenever and Raven's Home, neither of which has 30em applied in the code. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Not yet – I've gotten side-tracked by... [sigh...] 13 Reasons Why and other Netflix stuff, and by stuff I had stockpiled on my DVR when I went out of town before. It looks like I've got a couple of Disney shows still on my DVR, but they're lower priority that a lot of this other stuff... My summer job wraps up this week, so it's likely that I'll get to stuff like Andi Mack next week... As for {{Reflist}}, I just glanced at the documentation, and didn't see any obvious change to the template. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, I do see it now. But I'm not keen in listing upcoming episodes without announced airdates (I'm not sure that it's kosher under WP:CRYSTALBALL)... IOW, we can't be sure that's not just a mistake on Zap2It's part. I think I'd advise we keep that one hidden until there's actually an airdate associated with it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to respond yesterday. Anyway, "Babe Gets Crushed" is an upcoming episode, it's just a matter of when it will air. Zap2it originally had it as airing on March 17, which was a Friday, but that was later removed. As long as we've got something, though, I don't personally see an issue in including it. If later events prove it to be inaccurate and the like, then we can just remove it or update it if there's new information. For example, at the time, Zap2it had the following dates for two of Henry Danger's episodes, but that was later proven inaccurate when those dates passed and nothing new aired: [12]. Just my two cents, as you like to say. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't necessarily disagree, either. Just pointing that out. In Henry Danger's case back then, we at least had air dates, just not the right ones. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello IJBall, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.
Technology update:
Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.
If you need a break from the Andi Mack "situation", FWIW as I expect a talk page discussion to be started: [13]. Joey is at least much more reasonable and easier to discuss with. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I will start watching the series tomorrow. Promise! You can even leave me a message on my talk page tomorrow morning as a reminder! Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
You should probably take a look at what I said over there... Yeah, the key words in that previous discussion were "...unless the "Last, First" authoring format has already been established." --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
And while I'm here (Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H), it seems we've got a revisit to a requested move on Talk:List of The Thundermans episodes. This is actually something I really don't know anything about, so figured you or the others would be better suited to answer. I'd be more than happy to take care of creating the season articles, it's just that I'm not sure on the exact criteria regarding when to create season articles. My very basic understanding is that if a series is four or less seasons, they're not needed, but I don't even know if that's right. In the case of The Thundermans, if it gets a fifth season, then it seems like it would be appropriate, but right now I'm not so sure. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm really skeptical that the Disney and Nick series need season-specific articles like that. There needs to be more to a season-specific episode than just an episode guide – it needs specific 'Production' section info, and perhaps more. I'm really not sure any of the "kids/tweens" shows meet that kind of burden... Anyway, I wouldn't oppose a split outright, necessarily, but I'm really skeptical that it's necessary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
On the subject of disruptive editors...
(I saw your message at ANI for Disneylover.) Might be worth keeping an eye on Gameshakers71 as they just don't seem to get it. See, for example, well, all of their edits, such as today's. They've been reverted and warned multiple times by our group—myself, Geraldo, and Michael. Also, if Raven's Home is still on your list, might be worth keeping a closer eye on it. We keep getting people who insist on calling it a spin-off of Cory in the House. Of course it's not as it's a spin-off of That's So Raven; plus, a series can't be a spin-off of more than one series. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm surprised one of you hasn't already taken Gameshakers71 to WP:AIV – early on they seemed like a vandalism-only account, and they don't seem to have gotten much better... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
So I got nostalgic and have been watching each season's opening sequence on YouTube: [14] I noticed for the fourth season, though, that T'Keyah Crystal Keymáh was no longer a main cast member and in fact seemed to leave the series entirely, and this isn't something I ever really noticed when I watched the series when it was regularly on and I was younger. Then after reading the parent article, I noticed she was absent for 17 episodes—not in a row—in the third season, only being present for about 49% of the season. Was this ever explained, both in regard to the character and the actress herself? Whatever it was—perhaps something like what happened with Benjamin King leaving Liv and Maddie—I'm guessing that her unusual amount of absences in season three led to her not being in season four. Also pinging MPFitz1968. Reminds me of a similar thing on Are We There Yet? where Suzanne (Essence Atkins) was absent for, like, the last ten or so episodes of the series, except for randomly appearing in one along the way. (On an unrelated note, I find it funny how there were only three seasons, but there were 18 episodes with season four production codes in season three.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: I haven't forgotten about this. Based on what you've got, we should list Jason Antoon, Nathan Stewart Jarrett, Tom Maden, Vanessa Williams, and Shawn Christian as 'Recurring' cast. If people like Tanjareen Thomas and Katelyn Tarver are to be listed, they should be listed under 'Guest stars/cast' for right now, not under 'Recurring' – I wouldn't oppose doing that (provided we limit those listings to those who appear in 4–5 episodes, or who are supported by independent sourcing...). One of us should add these soon – I may get to this tonight, if you don't get to it first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I need assistance with an IP, who I have suspicions may be Orchomen based on the way they addressed me in an edit summary. They've never used an IPv6, but there's a first time for everything. Sock or not, though, they were bold and now they need to discuss. Making mentions of this or that for a character isn't trivia when it's something important about them. We do it all the time, like on Liv and Maddie's character list. Of course not everything should be mentioned, but still. They're also removing other stuff they claim is excessive when it's not even that long. (Pinging MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H, and Geraldo Perez). Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Regarding the IP, they geolocate to Alabama, so I'm not so sure about it being Orchomen (unless they're hiding under an open proxy). As for the part they were removing about Paige taking a mixed-martial arts class, I think it's trivia personally and probably undue weight as her character description has that little bit added to it and the other main characters have nothing other than their briefer descriptions. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Okay. I'm willing to let that part go if a trusted editor has said that. Although I see nothing wrong with including what the IP removed here. If sourcing is needed, we can always use the Showbuzz Daily article to show that it premiered after that movie. It's not necessary in the lead, but I see nothing wrong with it in the Broadcast section. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaury (talk • contribs) 17:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I looked at that and that kind of info is only relevant, as far as I'm concerned, if that's how it was planned and such planning is important and verified by secondary sourcing. Those two sources are not particularly strong--they're way too jubilant, as if staff authors were embellishing on a press release. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The relevancy comes in when you consider that Disney Channel has almost always premiered new series after DCOM premieres, and those DCOM premieres can give a series premiere a big boost in numbers (inflation). You can see that the movie had an effect when you take a look at how the numbers drop in the next episode. For example, Liv and Maddie's premiere received 5.78 million total viewers following the DCOM premiere of Teen Beach Movie which received 8.39 million total viewers. The following episode for Liv and Maddie dropped to 3.60 million total viewers, and following that, between 1.80 million total viewers and 3.35 million total viewers is where the remainder of the first season stayed at. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Mild (edit conflict). That's correct – Broadway World is very likely to be re-reporting a press release, and the Corus Entertainment one actually is a press release! But it shouldn't be hard to find a stronger "mainline press" source to indicate that the series premiered aired after Adventures in Babysitting (2016 film), if it is felt that that is necessary... Personally, I think that info is quite relevant. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, I just discovered who you were talking about, and you (Amaury) were right with that earlier vandalism report; Widr might want to know that as well. I added a note to the SPI. Oh, geolocation doesn't mean much for this sock, I found after running CU, but DoRD knows this better than me. Thanks all, Drmies (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Done Found at Talk:Boy Meets World#Main cast credit order, per season. Included permalink to this list in the topic for attribution. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
![[6]](http://theloudhouse.wikia.com/wiki/Episode_Guide?file=Left_in_the_Dark.png){kind=link}
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and personal attacks by Pyxis Solitary. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Looks like IKnowMyFacts is at it again. It's pretty much the same issue that Michael brought to your attention here: User talk:IJBall/Archive 9#One of the ratings tables at Pretty Little Liars. Not even talking about duplicating information, these are more appropriate for individual season articles, which K.C. Undercover is not big enough to have, and adult-oriented television series. Television series on kids' channels, like Nickelodeon and Disney Channel, don't even look at the general 18–49 demographic share rating because that's not their targeted audience, they look more at ages 2–11, which isn't even listed on Showbuzz Daily or other ratings sites, and total viewers, I think. I know that total viewers don't mean that much as networks care more about their targeted audience, and I know for sure that's the case with television series on broadcast networks since ratings are pretty much their only source of revenue, unlike cable/satellite networks which also get their revenue from subscriptions. Pinging Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, and Nyuszika7H as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Watched
