Jump to content

User talk:IJBall/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

Bunk'd renewal

Starforce13 just added this. How exciting! This is also a record, as Disney Channel has never gone past four seasons for a series! Amaury • 19:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Ping Starforce13 correctly. Amaury • 19:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a first. I think it has to do with the fact they no longer have the original cast and producers. So, those 3-4 season contracts don't apply anymore. Either that or because they're trying to get more content for Disney+. But either way, it's exciting. — Starforce13 19:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Neat! I'm glad they're bringing May back. And it looks like they're holding on to entire season #4 cast, except for Scarlett Estevez (and she's probably busy with Lucifer...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@Starforce13: I could see Bunk'd possibly getting between 7 or 8 seasons. Since the fourth season was entirely new cast, other than Miranda May, it means costs were down and the fourth season could have just been looked at as a new series with its first season, even though it's not really a new series. Amaury • 20:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
That's how I see it too, Amaury. It's pretty much like a new series since the Rosses left after s3. And they don't have anyone in the cast who would be super expensive, causing the show to be costly. So, I can totally see season 7 happening. I liked Gwen - I wish Scarlett stayed. — Starforce13 21:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Starforce13: On another note, it might have just been rumors, but I seem to recall somebody saying that Wizards of Waverly Placed was renewed for a fifth season. However, the renewal was later canceled by Disney Channel because David Henrie did not want to do it or something to that extent. Amaury •
I've heard the WOWP season 5 rumors too but it's hard to tell how reliable they are. Whenever Selena or one of the producers says they'd be willing to do another season, someone writes an article about season 5. But hopefully they'll be back someday at least for Disney+. — Starforce13 22:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

IJBall, I think at this point for the lead, with how complex this series has been, I think it would be better to have a lead similar to I Am Frankie or The Adventures of Kid Danger. Don't include any cast at all and replace it with a little bit of premise. MOS:LEAD does of course say we can include starring cast in the lead, but like other things it doesn't mean we have to. It's just so complex that it would be better to not list cast at all. Amaury • 21:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I prefer something like we have now – open that the series was originally premised as a spinoff around the three Ross kids, but that May has starred the whole time and is now "the lead" of the show (however you want to say that...). I wouldn't mention any of the other co-stars in the lede, as none of them have been there as long as these four... Incidentally, I feel pretty strongly that the I Am Frankie lede should mention Hook, and the The Adventures of Kid Danger should likely mention Norman – that's pretty much par for the course for the ledes for shows with "titular" stars like these. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know, it's just really complicated at this point that I don't know if there's any way to word it so it sounds right. It just reads fairly clunky to me, especially if we're going to include renewal information in the lead which I feel is better in the production section only, but I won't really get into that here.
Actually, I Am Frankie and The Adventures of Kid Danger do mention Alex Hook and Jace Norman, it's just that it's by their character names rather than by their actor names, which is why I made the suggestion here. The lead I have at List of The Loud House episodes is probably a better example of what I'm trying to get at. We could have something like ...of Jessie and follows the many adventures that the camp counselors and children have at Camp Kikiwaka. I think something like that would work as it's short and to the point and would work even if there were only one season, without having to constantly adjust it with the many cast changes this series has had.
@Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: What do you guys think? Maybe among the five of us here, we can find some acceptable middle ground so it sounds as—and I don't know if this is the right word—professional as possible. Amaury • 21:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Amaury that we might need to condense it a little. I'm fine with mentioning that it was a spinoff starring the Ross kids. But I feel like the Miranda part would be giving her some sort of WP:UNDUE weight. Although she's the only one who has been in every season and is now credited first due to everyone else leaving, Lou isn't exactly the lead character like in the cases of I Am Frankie. The show doesn't revolve around her - it's an ensemble with no clear lead. So, I think mentioning that she's been in all seasons is mostly trivial with potential undue weight.
Speaking of I Am Frankie... I think we could do something like The series follows Frankie Gaines (played by Alex Hook).... A lot of shows do that eg. The Flash, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Others do something like It follows an ensemble cast led by... e.g Shameless. — Starforce13 22:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
May is the only cast member to star on the show through all 5 seasons – how is mentioning her in the lede "undue weight"?! Arguably, May now should be mentioned over the 3 Ross kid actors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but mentioning she's appeared in all seasons sounds like a trivia point. And since Lou is more of a supporting character, it feels like UNDUE to me. The Rosses were only going to be mentioned in the spinoff context as part of the core description. But they don't need to be there either. Honestly, choosing to list just some of the cast in an ensemble cast without a central character looks like giving them undue weight to me. So far, all the shows with cast structures like this either list everyone or don't mention anyone at all in the lede. I think that's why Amaury was suggesting getting rid of the cast from the lede altogether. — Starforce13 01:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@Starforce13: That's what I'm getting at, yeah. If we had the same cast since the first season without any changes, we would just list them all as we did before the third season premiered, but this series has been so complicated. (Even Bizaardvark wasn't this complicated.) Like, for one thing, I don't understand why they got rid of Xander, Jorge, and Tiffany and made these casting changes to begin with. I used to be in the camp that we just list them all, because that's what MOS:TVLEAD supports (Subsequent paragraph(s) should summarize the major points of the rest of the article: basic production information (e.g. where the show is filmed), principal cast of the show, critical reception, influences, place in popular culture, major awards, and anything else that made the show unique (emphasis mine), where the lead for Bunk'd would be like this, if I were still in that mindset:
Bunk'd is an American comedy television series created by Pamela Eells O'Connell that premiered on Disney Channel on July 31, 2015. The series is a spinoff of Jessie and stars Peyton List, Karan Brar, Skai Jackson, Miranda May, Kevin Quinn, Nathan Arenas, Nina Lu, Mallory James Mahoney, Raphael Alejandro, Will Buie Jr., Shelby Simmons, Scarlett Estevez, and Israel Johnson. In February 2020, the series was renewed for a fifth season.
However, I've changed my ways slightly now, and in a case like Bunk'd, I do actually support not listing any cast at all in the lead, as I've said. It's like you said, it's basically become an ensemble at this point, with all these casting changes. Instead, I would support replacing it with a basic premise of the series, like with the examples I gave of I Am Frankie, The Adventures of Kid Danger, and List of The Loud House episodes, that last one being one of the best examples, in my opinion. Just because MOS:TVLEAD says we can include principal (main) cast in the lead doesn't mean we have to, since it's only a guideline. As for I Am Frankie, I would support that, and I think it was similar to that at one point, but something like ...the series focuses on Alex Hook in the titular role of Frankie Gaines... would probably work better as I dislike using parentheticals as I think they're unprofessional, with a few rare exceptions. For example, saying what WARPA stands for or on character pages like List of Henry Danger characters, where we have "Character (Actor) is a character on this series." There it makes sense, but otherwise, I just think parentheticals are clunky and not professional. Amaury • 18:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
For something like I Am Frankie, I definitely think that should be the model – titular series should definitely include the name of the actor/actress who plays them in the lede. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
It looks like there's no opposition to include the Alex Hook in I Am Frankie lede. For Kid Danger, I would probably mention Cooper too because even though he's not the titular character, he's still technically a lead. And, yes, Amaury, I agree with you 100% on your reasoning for removing the cast from the sentence. — Starforce13 19:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Mackenzie Rosman

I would usually let something like this go, but...this is literally the first time where my having made this kind of edit has ever been an issue. (I would have posted this on her article's talk page instead, but that talk page is a disaster.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 18:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Erpert: It's basically WP:OR to add "former actress" to a WP:BLP without the subject themselves having said it. IOW, it's arguably a WP:BLP violation if we don't have a source from the subject herself saying she's retired. (Which, for example, we do have for people like Leelee Sobieski, and Cameron Diaz and even her lede doesn't say "former actress" right now...) Honestly, we don't know that Rosman has "retired from acting" – for all we know, she's doing local or regional theater, and just hasn't done TV or movie roles for a long time... Bottom line: We can't say it unless she has. Pinging Sundayclose in case they have anything to add. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@Erpert: I agree with IJBall. There are cases where actors did no film or TV for years for various reasons, then resumed acting. A few examples off the top of my head: Mara Wilson, Peggy Lipton, Anna Chlumsky (7 year gap). Who decides how long there are no screen credits before Wikipedia declares them "former actor"? It certainly isn't a unilateral decision by one editor. We always go with the sources, and that's especially true of a BLP. We don't know what Rosman thinks about future acting unless she tells us, and it would be arrogantly presumptuous for us to do so. Unless Rosman or her representative clearly states in a reliable source that she is retired from acting, we can't say that. Sundayclose (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The edit warrer is at it again on Dobrev's page.

Can you report them? I don't do the wiki diffs link that well. Kay girl 97 (talk) 04:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, somebody else will need to handle it – I'm about to be away from the computer for a little while... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Quenreerer reported by User:Amaury (Result: ). Thank you. Amaury • 04:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Liv and Maddie

This feels like a sock of Bambifan. What do you think? Some of the things are correct, like changing U.S. to American and changing the vernacular term "show" to "series," but overall, it feels like Bambifan-type edits, even if the other usual changes weren't made. Amaury • 21:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Just looks like a "gnome" edit, thought it might be worth it to check an interaction report with the IP and one of the more prolific socks... If it's Bambifan, they'll soon be back to try to restore the typical "Bambifan edits", and it'll be easy to spot. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Your edit summary

CLOSED
We're done here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What's with the shitty edit summary? Not every film section has that requirement, which seemed to be the case for her page given has lie...three? If you're policing that page perhaps make sure to have each entry sourced if you're gonna be snide about me not sourcing the entry. Cheers. Rusted AutoParts 21:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

What's with your inability to follow WP:BURDEN and WP:CRYSTAL? You've done this continually, for, what? – Two years now, or so? And, FTR, another editor (and, no, I won't name them – I'm not going to drag them in to this discussion, unless they want to join) actually thanked me for that very edit, so clearly I'm not the only one that has a major problem with you continually adding future roles to WP:BLPs without the necessary sourcing as per both WP:BURDEN and WP:CRYSTAL. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh cool someone thanked you for your edit, that validates your shitty remark. I’ve got no problem with someone pointing out I did something wrong. I do have a major problem with someone being rude about it for absolutely no reason. Rusted AutoParts 21:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
There absolutely was a reason. And don't pretend you don't know what this is about, and that you haven't been warned about this before – [1]. So this ignoring of WP:BURDEN has been going on for at least a year. --IJBall (contribs • talk)
I don’t regularly think back to a discussion I’ve had on here on a daily basis, so forgive me for not remembering our correspondence from 16 months ago. There’s never a good reason to be overtly snippy over a thing like that. It called being civil (I’ve had my own issues in that department but in this case I didn’t instigate the incivility). Do you want me to remember to source in the filmography, or do you want me to come away thinking “I don’t care much for this person and I now don’t wish to take into consideration what he’s telling me”? If it’s a guideline I’ll follow it but I tend to just mimic the way the table is formatted. I see a filmography table like Nicole Kidman’s, and it’s got a reference section, so I know to add a reference there. Tables like Lynd’s don’t and don’t have an abundance of sources in its section so linking a source doesn’t immediately leap to mind. Rusted AutoParts 21:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN is not just a guideline – it's a core policy. And that goes double when WP:CRYSTAL applies (also a policy). This is basic, and you're not a new editor. So consider this a final warning – from henceforth, you're not going to get a "snippy" edit from me when you do this: I'm just going to revert, as I'm fully within my rights to, as per WP:BURDEN. So if you wish to avoid that, start sourcing all additions like this from now on. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I wouldve actually preferred a revert. Would’ve saved a needless bickering. Rusted AutoParts 21:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done – I'll now just revert as per WP:BURDEN from now on. And if you want to avoid further conflict, don't just "revert back" if you add a source: do it in a separate edit. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
What’s the difference? Both serve the same function to add the source. Guessing you don’t want to see the “undid revision by” thing then. Rusted AutoParts 21:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
You should read WP:ROWN. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
So reverting to re-add the content with a source isn’t necessary? I’m just saying it’s just a weird stipulation to add in there, I’m not reverting to restore my edit to be like “hey screw you!” it would be to add in the source to the edit. I can just delete the edit summary saying “undid revision by” if it’s not something you want to see in the edit history. Rusted AutoParts 22:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
So you're trying to be confrontational? Because doing what you're saying is clearly confrontational. "So reverting to re-add the content with a source isn’t necessary?" Yes, reverting to re-add a source clearly is not necessary – you simply add it in a separate edit. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
How is that confrontational? I’m readding the content with the asked for source not reverting it just to revert it back without adding in the source. Im asking what makes making a separate edit of adding the same content back with a source, and reverting the edit, removing the “undid revision by” edit summary and adding the same content back with a source? I’m highlighting how your stipulation is strange, because both methods are the exact same thing. Rusted AutoParts 22:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
If I have to explain it to you, you're not likely to get it. But you don't seem to understand the importance of WP:BURDEN, so I wouldn't expect editor interactions to be your forte either. Case closed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Television series coming from an old decade to a new decade

Should it be "Season 1 (2019–20)" or "Season 1 (2019–2020)"? MOS:DATERANGE doesn't seem to be a help here. The closest would probably be: Two-digit ending years may be used in any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years; (2) infoboxes and tables where space is limited (using a single format consistently in any given table column); and (3) in certain topic areas if there is a very good reason, such as matching the established convention of reliable sources. Emphasis mine. But even that's not absolute, as we know, and we can do something like 2015–18. So a new decade really should be no different (eg, 2016–21), but I'm curious. Amaury • 19:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"2019–20" is OK, but "1999–00" is not – the latter has to be "1999–2000". That's why for LoE articles for shows that "span the millennium", I usually go to all 4-digit dateranges in the headers for consistency's sake. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:NACTOR

Do we agree with this? Because the user made it a point to revert 10 of my edits to various articles instead of just re-adding the link. Amaury • 20:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The relevant discussion is here. Based on that, there is nothing preventing anyone from taking this version to WP:AfD again, though I'm not sure it would be fruitful. Still, the current version is insufficiently sourced for my tastes, and I'm not sure the current version would withstand another AfD challenge. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixing my signature

Hi IJBall,
I saw that you fixed my signature in this edit. I meant to put it at the end of my signature so I reverted your edit. However, an editor told me to remove it so I am no longer using it in my signature. I hope you understand. Interstellarity (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

players

what was wrong? tournament was canceled. yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.33.28.139 (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You added a bunch of unsourced WP:COMMENTARY. Add only verifiable content backed by sources, and don't add a bunch of WP:POV nonsense. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Bella and the Bulldogs and Bizaardvark

If you're not already watching these, please add these to your watchlist. Amaury • 22:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

See also the history of Andi Mack, specifically the following diffs: [2], [3], [4]. I don't know about you, but I'm sensing either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet situation here, as the edit summaries in particular are virtually identical to the ones on Andi Mack. Amaury • 22:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@Amaury: Note the interaction report: [5]
I think that this is potentially a compelling circumstantial case – the Vietnamese articles stick out like a sore thumb as pretty strong evidence there. I think if you feel like it, filing a report to WP:SPI is arguably justified. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I think Geraldo watches the former. No plans to add Bizaardvark right now. But IMO there is little worse than "comma-MOS" warriors – out of all the things in the MOS to decide to be an "enforcer" on, that is about the most trivial (and most questionable – I still maintain that a comma in the middle of a daterange is utterly nonsensical, and I don't care what the MOS says on it). If people actually want to do something helpful, monitoring MOS:REFPUNCT would be a lot more useful... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll look into filing a report. In the meantime, Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968, are you guys still watching these? Amaury • 22:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
IJBall, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeremiestrother. I have to get to work, so I just did a basic report. If you want add anything, like the specific diffs for Andi Mack, Bella and the Bulldogs, and Bizaardvark showing the edit summaries, that would be appreciated. Amaury • 22:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 Confirmed socks (+1 more) at WP:SPI. Can't say I'm surprised. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Kristine Froseth

"Undid revision 946855216 by Staticshakedown (talk) - WP:BRD. For an edit like this, you need to demonstrate there is consensus for it, if someone objects. And I do."

I don't need your approval to make "necessary" edits to wikipedia pages, you just made that up. But I have no interest in going on a back and forth with you. Good day. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 20:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Then why did you post here?... But I appreciate you copying my edit summary, so it's clear to everyone what my point was. That's good. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Cooper Barnes

I'll let you handle it... since I'm not into the whole deletion process you've dealt with numerous times with things like this. Either way, just directing you to this. Magitroopa (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: I recently had a discussion with Geraldo Perez about this, and as a draft there's little I can do except take it to... WP:MfD(?), which isn't worth it. About all I can do is move it to the correct title, slap a {{Draft article}} tag on it, and then leave it. If no one touches it for 6 months (likely), it will naturally get WP:G13'ed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Isabela Moner

I'm having suspicions on this recent user. A new user without a user page or talk page and with little edits should not be "knowledgeable" on guidelines, etc. And of course they're only guidelines, in any case. Amaury • 15:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Ping Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968. If they revert again, they should receive a warning. Although I still have my suspicions. Amaury • 15:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
They're correct on the merits, so leave their recent edit. If this is Orchomen (et al.), it won't take long for them to reveal themselves. But just leave this edit – it is correct. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The main point of SURNAME is to not use just the given name as it is too informal. Using full name where it makes sense is mostly a style choice but shouldn't be overused. At the first use after the lead and as the first mention in the main part of the article mentioning early life, I think it appropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
That is true – in some contexts, it definitely makes sense to use the "full name" (generally to avoid confusion – I know I've done that myself at an article or two)... Anyway, based on the quick reversion behavior, this is likely Orchomen. I'm working so somebody else is going to have to start gathering evidence for either SPI or AIV on this one... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) IJBall, I agree with Geraldo Perez above, but if you personally believe it is correct, I recommend reverting the edit, anyway, and then making the change yourself to take responsibility for it. We can all then discuss it further if needed. However, this "new" user shouldn't have that luxury of having responsibility for the edit. If it is Orchomen, they certainly have the first part down (continuously reverting), but Orchomen doesn't normally quote guidelines, so I don't know. At this point, though, I think we can file a report for them edit warring. Add: But now that you think it is Orchomen, it might just be better to file the SPI. Amaury • 16:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
IJBall, Geraldo Perez, I've gone ahead and filed a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring‎#User:Belaythatorder reported by User:Amaury (Result: ). As it seems likely they'll get blocked, we can use that time to gather evidence without having to worry about them. Amaury • 16:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Blocked for 48 hours. I may ask the blocking administrator Acroterion to take a look and see what they think, but this gives us some time. Amaury • 16:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
It's now an indefinite block. Admin Bbb23 determined the user was a sock of Orchomen. (See Special:Contributions/Belaythatorder and User:Belaythatorder.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968 and Geraldo Perez: And he found a sleeper, too: User:Movedable. Amaury • 17:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 and television production

From my understanding, production was supposed to resume on March 23, but I don't know if that ended up happening, especially now with social distancing guidelines extended through the end of the month. By the middle of the month is when we're supposed to see the peak of this, so hopefully come May 1, we can start going back to our normal lives. I just find this unfair to the television industry, though, and I really hope the networks are understanding and make special exceptions, especially the broadcast networks which normally have a September–May schedule for episode premieres. In other words, I hope television series aren't canceled or don't get shorter seasons because of this. If a series gets an initial order of 13 episodes, but is meant to get a back nine order for a total of 22 episodes, I hope they will still get it. My understanding, at least for broadcast television, is they start filming in the summer, get enough episodes filmed for a series or season to premiere in the fall and then continue filming through the spring—or shorter if a series ends up only getting 13 episodes, as was the case with I Feel Bad since it didn't do well in the ratings department.

Let's say the first and second seasons are meant to have 22 episodes each. The way I see it is that they could see this hiatus from the virus as their break between seasons, finish shooting the remaining, say, five episodes of the first season, and then go straight to the next season. Either that or if they were only able to finish post-production and all that for 17 of the 22 episodes for the first season, air what they have left in the can, making the 17th episode the season finale instead, and then when they start the next season, they can start where episode 17 left off. Then the third second season can end up having 27 episodes instead. 22 like it was originally going to have and then another five because the first season was five episodes short. That way, while yes, the first season end up being shorter, the difference is made up in the second season, and there's still the same amount of story content overall.

As for kids networks like Nickelodeon and Disney Channel, I don't know if it will really affect them too much, and I only say that because they don't really appear to have a set schedule in terms of both episode premieres, as we both know they'll air episodes whenever—and that's why it's sometimes hard to determine seasons—and filming. According to the Wikias, Bunk'd's fourth season has 32 episodes now and their production is currently still on hold, while Coop & Cami Ask the World's second season has 31 episodes, though I don't know if their filming for this current season is already done. Plus, we still have Just Roll with It's second season, which according to the Wikia, has a filming schedule of roughly seven months, which is equal to 21 or 22 episodes, Sydney to the Max's third season, and maybe some season two episodes that still need to film. I'm not sure. Oh, and also Gabby Duran & the Unsittables' second season. Amaury • 19:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Danger Force

With all those guest star appearances from Henry Danger in the first episode alone, I've already created a notable section. Feel free to remove any you don't think are notable, however. It certainly helps with the whitespace issue without having to go contra-MOS by putting the ratings section above the episodes section. Amaury • 18:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't even gotten to this yet – I still have to watch the finale, "The Fate of Danger, Part 2" (prob. tomorrow). Then I'll get to this show... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Neither have I. I only went through it quickly for the infobox credits because I knew they weren't done correctly. I'm still quite behind on a lot of things, but I am making progress. Here is my progress to date for the kids networks:
  • Nickelodeon:
    • Henry Danger S5: Episodes 32–39 to watch
    • All That: Episodes starting from September 28 to watch
    • Power Rangers: Beast Morphers S2: Five episodes thus far to watch
    • Tyler Perry's Young Dylan: All episodes thus far to watch
  • Disney Channel: With the exception of the January 10 episode of Gabby Duran & the Unsittables, I haven't seen any of the 2020 premieres for the currently airing live-action series. Amaury • 21:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Actually, my attention right now has been on the broadcast networks. Of the series I watch on ABC, I am all caught up with The Good Doctor, A Million Little Things, The Rookie, American Housewife, and Schooled. I still have all episodes thus far of Emergence to watch, episodes 11–17 of Single Parents season 2, and the latest episode of The Conners. For CBS, I am all caught with Young Sheldon. To watch, I still have all of Magnum P.I. season 2, the latest episode of FBI, episodes 6–18 of God Friended Me season 2, episodes 2–8 and 10 of FBI: Most Wanted (I watched episode 9 as it was a continuation of the episode from FBI), episodes 12–18 of The Neighborhood season 2, and all episodes thus far of Carol's Second Act. And for NBC, I still have the latest episode of Manifest season 2 to watch, which I am doing now, and all episodes of New Amsterdam season 2 thus far. Amaury • 21:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Watched the pilot to Danger Force after I finished off Henry Danger with "The Fate of Danger (Part 2)". I liked the HD finale, but, so far, I don't care for Danger Force – it is missing the clever (adult-friendly) humor of HD, and feels more like Knight Squad (except not as good) than a "Dan Schneider" show (which, of course, it's not – which may be the problem!)... I'll give Danger Force a few more episodes to "find" itself, but I'm not all together hopeful that it'll ever recapture what made HD so special. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

A move request from List of Harley Quinn (TV series) episodes to Draft:List of Harley Quinn (TV series) episodes

Hi IJBall,
Can you move List of Harley Quinn (TV series) episodes to back Draft:List of Harley Quinn (TV series) episodes without leaving a redirect? Obviously, it is way too soon to split the article. — YoungForever(talk) 16:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@YoungForever: The content should be merged back to Harley Quinn (TV series), and it should be converted to a redirect instead. This is an instance where a move to Draft would be the wrong call... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I think I redirected correctly now. Can you check if I done it correctly? If not, please let me know so, I can learn from what I done incorrectly. — YoungForever(talk) 18:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks fine. The only other thing you should probably due is add a {{Merged from}} tag to Talk:Harley Quinn (TV series) to indicate the content was merged. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 Done, just added {{Merged from}} tag on Talk:Harley Quinn (TV series). — YoungForever(talk) 20:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Just Roll with It

Hi IJBall, User:Amaury has revert my good edits too fast and my edits are not disruptive. I am regarding about the article titled Just Roll with It for its debating. Just Roll with It is an American children's sitcom on Disney Channel. I am trying to edit carefully to remove the link Adam Small. If you click on Adam Small it would direct you to a Wikipedia article titled Adam Small who is an American composer not the co-creator and a writer. If I click on Adam Small the article is titled Adam Small who is an American theme song composer. And another person named Adam Small you may know him as the co-creator of the Fox late night comedy series Mad TV in addition to the co-creator of Just Roll with It. I read the premise on Just Roll with and it says Just Roll with It took place in Akron, Ohio as the setting so I put Category:Television series set in Ohio as in the city of Akron and it's located in Ohio the setting is mentioned in the article and User:Amaury remove the Category:Television series set in Ohio by mistake and User:Amaury thought it was disruptive editing. I am telling you the truth that I put Category:Television series set in Ohio as the setting and I remove the wrong Adam Small links who is an American theme song composer not a co-creator. So could you talk to User:Amaury never revert the truthful edits by my mistake and it's not disruptive edits. I tried to edit carefully removing the wrong Adam Small links and adding Category:Television series set in Ohio because Akron, Ohio is the setting for Just Roll with It. I am 100% positive that my edits are good I am editing truthfully. Go to the Just Roll with It and review my edits and if my are truthful talk to User:Amaury to never revert the good edits too fast and it's not disruptive edits. I will be happy for your reply. Thanks. 2001:569:74D2:A800:7CF9:9FBE:AB52:DADD (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

First: DO NOT EDIT WAR. You were clearly guilty of this at Just Roll with It – whether you were "right" or not, there is no excuse for this. Once reverted, the proper course of action was to go to Talk:Just Roll with It (better choice than Amaury's Talk page) and state your position. While you were right about the link going to the wrong Adam Small, the category you are insisting on adding is not nearly as clear cut – I agree with Amaury that, for this show, the location is WP:NOTDEFINING... But, regardless, once reverted you need to go to the Talk page and talk, and not edit war. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi IJBall, thanks for reviewing the edits at the Just Roll with It article, and I am sorry I almost edit war but I will be careful not to edit war. Also, I will do better than than I edit despite my explanations until my revert. I must talk to a user first before I edit or at an article's talk page for a resolution. Again I apologize and I will do better than that and that will not happen again. Thanks for your time and talk to you soon. Bye. 2001:569:74D2:A800:7CF9:9FBE:AB52:DADD (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

San Diego Trolley

Hi there, I'm confused about what you mean by "icons" - do you mean the ones next to the light rail lines or the ones that symbolize parking/bus connections/train connections? — C16SH (speak up) 04:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@C16sh: No, I mean these:  Blue Line, etc.
IMO, those should not be removed from List of San Diego Trolley stations. I'm more neutral on whether they should be removed from the individual line articles, but they should stay at List of San Diego Trolley stations – look at List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations (which is an WP:FL): BART uses colors which are included at that article, while San Diego Trolley uses "icons" (along with colors). One way or the other, either the icons should stay, or they should be replaced by "color boxes" like List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations. (In fact, color boxes might be the answer for the station tables in the individual line articles, though I'm OK with leaving the icons there). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying and pointing out the BART example. I'm going to restore some other parts of my changes but leave those icons as is. Color boxes certainly work too but I don't have a strong opinion one way or another.— C16SH (speak up) 05:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@C16sh: I have no objection to this – the other columns you removed didn't need to be there, and the other cleanup (like the table headers) looked fine. My $0.02 is that I would leave the current line icons rather than replacing them with color boxes – if other editors want to have that conversation some time, we can have it then... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Leah Lewis

Starklinson's at it again. Amaury • 20:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep, already saw it. This one is so bad right now that I think it would actually go down at WP:AfD... It's one of Wikipedia's great failings that editors like this can continue with this kind of nonsense because it "doesn't break any rules" despite the fact that the quality of WP:BLP articles being created here is very low indeed... In any case, he should be reverted at List of Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything episodes‎ as he can't even be bothered to link correctly (while also running afoul of WP:OVERLINK). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Merging of episode lists to parent articles

In similar relation to the merging back we did with The Lodge, I am starting to turn my thinking around, but only a bit. As much as I am all for splitting when we have second season information available, if there's no at least third season announcement, then perhaps it's not time, especially in cases where the second season ends up being the last season, such as with Nickelodeon. The only exception to this are Disney Channel series, since third seasons with them are pretty much guaranteed even before announced due to contracts, so I see no issue with splitting when second season information becomes available for those. Now, I'm sure episode count also plays a role here with regard to series with only two seasons. If you have two seasons equaling 26 episodes, then probably no split should be done. I also don't know if whether there are episodes summaries or not plays a role. And does the size of the parent article also play a role? Like, if the episode list only have two seasons with 10 episodes each, but the parent article has tons of information, then perhaps things should be left as is?

As such, I am listing the following episode lists of ended series or assumed ended series because it's been more than one year—or it's close to being one year, where it's pretty obvious they're not continuing—below and want to see which ones you think could or should be merged back to their respective parent articles:

Episode Lists
  • List of Max & Shred episodes (#Aired / #Produced)
    • S1: 26 / 26
    • S2: 8 / 8
    • Unaired: 1 / 1 (see missing prod. #204 or the existence of prod. #209)
    • Overall: 35 / 35

Amaury • 17:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: The general thinking in WP:TV is that it's not about "seasons", per se – it's about number of episodes. And, more than that, it's about the number of episodes with substantive episode summaries. That's why I actually opposed merging List of Sam & Cat episodes back to the parent article – yes, it's only "one season", but it's one season of almost 40 episodes with substantive episode summaries: merging that one back to Sam & Cat would have "unbalanced" the article.... Contrast that with List of Mech-X4 episodes – there the episode summaries are sparse (esp. in S2), so merging that one back to the main article is probably justified.
In general, the consensus at WP:TV is that about 40–50 episodes with substantive episode summaries justifies splitting out a LoE article as per WP:TVSPLIT. So, I'd look at each one of these, see how substantive the episode summaries are in total, and then consider whether merging back will "unbalance" the original article or not. In the case of Mech-X4, at least, I think the answer is that merging will not unbalance the base TV series article... List of Best Friends Whenever episodes, at just 30 episodes, is another that likely can be merged back. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Which means that when we split series like Stuck in the Middle, Andi Mack, Raven's Home, Coop & Cami Ask the World, and Sydney to the Max, it was fine to split them when we had season two information available. (Same for another Disney Channel series.) While they weren't or aren't yet at 40 episodes, it was clear they were or are going to get there with more seasons and such. (See Coop & Cami Ask the World, for example. Its second season will have 31 episodes, so when the second season ends, the series up to that point will have 52 episodes.) Plus, for Stuck in the Middle and Andi Mack, we had MPFitz1968 writing well-written episode summaries; for Coop & Cami Ask the World and Sydney to the Max, we have AJFU writing well-written episode summaries. And he's also writing episode summaries for Bunk'd—the third season is when I noticed him writing summaries for the series—and has also contributed heavily to writing, rewriting, or fixing episode summaries for K.C. Undercover and the first two seasons of Bunk'd. Starforce13 and Rtkat3 have taken care of most of the summaries for Raven's Home. (Recent episodes are still blank, but that's of course fine as there is no deadline for summaries.) But you get the point.
If I ever get around to cleaning it up, I could probably get Sam & Cat and its episode list really cleaned up. While it does have substantial episode summaries, how many of those are well above 200 words? As for series like Hunter Street, I wonder where that one stands. No episode summaries, but it is at 70 episodes. However, it still hasn't really been that long since the third season finale, and with a fourth season seeming possible now from what I mentioned earlier, it's probably best left where it's at. Amaury • 20:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't split out LoE articles for shows like Coop & Cami Ask the World and Sydney to the Max until they are renewed for a third season (and have substantive episode summaries, and aren't just "episode lists" with no plot summaries). At that point, splitting is generally justified as the series will get to at least 50–60 episodes. I'm usually not in favor of splitting out LoE's for shows that are just "at season #2", as they may only get to 40 episodes or less without a third season renewal (e.g. see Knight Squad...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
That was essentially my point and why I brought this discussion up in terms of what should be merged back. With a couple of rare exceptions because of other circumstances surrounding them (I Didn't Do It, Best Friends Whenever), Disney Channel series are guaranteed three seasons, because that's what actors are contracted for. You'll notice that Nickelodeon and Disney XD don't follow those same standards and series can often end after one or two seasons. So with series from those networks—actually, more so just Nickelodeon now as I stopped watching Disney XD after Mech-X4—I will hold off even after guides have episodes from the second season and wait until at least a third season is announced. For Disney Channel, not so much, especially in cases like Stuck in the Middle where you had substantial and well-written edit summaries from the get-go. In those rare cases where they stop after the second season, we can always merge back. I am changing my ways just a bit, but not that much. Amaury • 22:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

So here are the merges I've done so far, in alphabetical order, not in order done:

That just leaves the following to sift through:

Going off your that we split at 40 episodes minimum, two of these are over 40 episodes, one is right at 40, and two are just bordering at 40 episodes—the 39ers—so I may just leave these as they are depending on whether you think their episode summaries are substantive enough, and not WP:COPYVIO! I still need to perform a major cleanup of the Mighty Med articles and the I Didn't Do It episode list to look for COPYVIO, clean up the format, etc., so we can always re-asses those whenever I get around to that. It's why I went ahead with Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything after going through the episode list as I realized there was a lot of COPYVIO or highly likely COPYVIO, which drastically reduced the episode summaries. Amaury • 21:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:The A Girl

Can you see if you can find anything else from this? Even the littlest thing will help. Just to ensure it's safe for another six months. I just got it restored after it was falsely tagged as abandoned. Amaury • 01:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything. It's possible that this project stalled, and never went into production. (See, for example, the planned High School Musical 4...) Would not be the first time that happened (esp. with Disney)... My advice? Move it into your userspace (without leaving a redirect – you may need me to do that: just tell me what you want me to move it to...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah... let's do that. Amaury • 01:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@Amaury: I'm assuming you want it moved to User:Amaury/sandbox/The A Girl?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, please. Amaury • 02:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 Done – this seemed to work. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Need help with an improperly titled article, turned into a redirect but probably should be deleted

That editor who was trying to link actress Allie Bertram (in the Mako: Island of Secrets article) attempted to create an article about her, but misspelled "actress" (having one "s" instead of two, as in Allie Bertram (actres)). I moved the article into one with "actress" spelled correctly, but a redirect was left at the one with the misspelled word. I also turned the article (with the correct spelling of "actress") into a redirect to Mako: Island of Secrets, as the actress fails notability requirements. MPFitz1968 (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: The editor that created this is being disruptive – I already converted their earlier creation, Allie Bertram, to a redirect, so this is clearly an attempt to get around the process. I have now warned that editor... In terms of the new redirect, I will CSD the misspelling, but it's likely that the correctly spelled one should also go (as it's redundant to the earlier Allie Bertram redirect). Unfortunately, that one would likely have to go to WP:RfD... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Motherland: Fort Salem#Genre

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Motherland: Fort Salem#Genre. — YoungForever(talk) 14:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I Am Frankie

I don't know if it means anything, but TeenNick is marathoning the entire first season right now. Tomorrow there will be a marathon on the entire second season. Amaury • 18:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed it yesterday when they marathoned season #1. Unfortunately, I don't think it means anything – I think that TeenNick is just scrambling for "fresh" quarantine programming. IOW, I think this will have no effect on Nick's weird sudden abandonment of doing a third season... (P.S. And I am still waiting for TeenNick to run Knight Squad – at this point, it looks like that will never happen... Still, maybe they'll bring back Ned's Declassified... and other "older" programming during this crisis, to diversify their programming more. I'd like that, at least.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: TeenNick has really taken to scraping the bottom of the Nick archive vault now! – They're running an Every Witch Way marathon this weekend!! (Still no sign of Knight Squad though... 😠 ) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Knight Squad would be nice. On a related note, I believe we discussed this when we talked about your thoughts of the second season after it ended, but do you feel like I Am Frankie had a proper series finale? It definitely had a proper season finale, but did it also have a series finale feeling? Like, did it feel like everything was resolved and nothing was left open with a cliffhanger type deal or similar? I know there was that ending of the second season, but even with that...? Amaury • 16:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

A move request from Nine Perfect Strangers back to Draft:Nine Perfect Strangers

Hi IJBall,
Can you move Nine Perfect Strangers back to Draft:Nine Perfect Strangers without leaving redirect? It was moved prematurely by newbie editor. There are only two cast members who were cast for the series so far and filming hasn't even begin yet. — YoungForever(talk) 17:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@YoungForever:  Done. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Star Wars Resistance

CLOSED
Moved to article's talk page. Amaury • 17:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't know when it was added, but the article is saying the series ended January 26, 2020, with 19 episodes. The source being used in the series overview section for the season to support the series end date is a press release showing the programming highlights for the month of January. The only issue is nothing there states series finale. The programming highlight simply states the episode on January 26 as an episode premiere. So we shouldn't be putting an end date on the series nor the season, for that matter, until 12:00 AM on January 27, 2021. Add: People keep changing this on the templates, the majority of the time without summaries to at least try to explain it. Amaury • 16:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Starforce13 has provided more promising sources here and here. One or both of these could definitely replace the current source, though, unless I'm missing it, I still don't see anything that confirms January 26 as the season and series finale date. The sources just seem to confirm that the second season is the last, but no specifics other than that. The other caveat is that the last episodes in the second season are incorrectly counted. See Amazon here, which has "The Escape" as a single episode. In other words, only 18 episodes have aired in the second season. So what are your thoughts here? Ping Geraldo Perez as well. Amaury • 17:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I would go to the article's Talk page, and ping Starforce13 there – between the two of you, and any other editors that show up, you can probably come up with an agreeable solution... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Amaury • 17:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why doesn't individual episode summaries of Saved by the Bell merit their own Wikipedia entries but not any other show?

For instance, Wikipedia has an entire Category:Sitcom episodes category for individual episode summaries for sitcoms. Are you telling me, that an episode summary for a prime time series like Friends is more notable for inclusion than a Saturday morning teen show like Saved by the Bell!? And some of the episode summaries that I've found don't even have references thus far like this particular M*A*S*H episode, The Army-Navy Game (M*A*S*H). It doesn't have any "outside coverage" and yet wouldn't you complain about its independent existence on its own? And those Instagram posts that I added genuinely contain some important behind the scenes information on the "From Nurse to Worse" episode of Saved by the Bell outside of the stuff about Kathy Ireland. Did you take that into account or consideration!? And while we're at it, sitcoms that are far more obscure and not as popular as Saved by the Bell such as Cougar Town have individual episode summaries. The point is, why does a longer synopsis of a particular episode (instead of a few sentence summary in the "list of episodes" article), still not mean that it isn't notable to you. As if there needs some fuller "proof" that what happened in the episode (instead of what happened in real life for instance) isn't entirely accurate. BornonJune8 (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You also quickly came to the conclusion of redirected the article based on the opinions of only two people. One, @Kingsif:, said that there's some coverage of is as its own episode, but it needs more sources and a much shorter plot section. And you personally wrote it off as "coverage" that isn't worth the effort since they're from blogs. Again, what about the plot summary of the episode itself. Should that be taken into account on its own? And if Kathy Ireland wrote about her experiences working on Saved by the Bell in a book, then shouldn't that in itself make the "coverage" of this particular episode more notable than any other episode? Why should the first-hand information about her experiences on working on Saved by the Bell be strictly limited to her own article? Realistically speaking, the fact that she got fired from a guest starring role on Saved by the Bell is within the context of her own story, a bit of footnote. What I mean is that, it's presumptuous that everybody should be able to get such information about Saved by the Bell from Kathy Ireland's own Wikipedia article, instead of spreading the info elsewhere. And going back to the further opinions, it was only @Bilorv:, who believed that there isn't enough in the article that currently demonstrates a stand-alone episode criteria. So you have on user/editor who may be 50-50 on the scenario (but seemingly leaning towards that the article needs some slight improvement) to another who believes that the listicles are the only reliable coverage in their personal estimation. BornonJune8 (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi BornonJune8. I don't know anything about you so I'm going to explain from the top; if you already know any of this information then please know I don't intend to be patronising! Wikipedia has strict notability criteria. If a topic—be it a television episode or a type of soup—has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, then we can host an article on it; and if not then we cannot. (Our notions of "significant", "reliable", "secondary" and "independent" are somewhat different to ones used by other communities, as explained at the link I provided.) I do not currently see any such sources in the article; the listicles are not significant coverage; the sources from the show are not secondary etc. If the article is notable then it needs such sources, which may or may not exist, and in the latter case there is no argument you can make that will prevent deletion.
Wikipedia has existed since 2001, when our policies were understandably very different because back then we just wanted as many people editing as possible. Now we're a respected website we have much higher standards, but out of 6 million articles many fall through the cracks. That M*A*S*H* episode you link is likely notable because the television show has received exceptionally detailed coverage in reliable sources, including many books, but you are correct that it currently doesn't demonstrate notability. It was created in 2006, when things were different. Adding reliable secondary sources for the M*A*S*H* episode would be a very good place to contribute. — Bilorv (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Ollie's Pack

Editor failing to follow proper protocols. A report at WP:ANEW is probably appropriate if they revert again, but it probably shouldn't be me. Courtesy ping for Magitroopa. Amaury • 23:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I've added the 'children's TV program' stub tag to the article. I think this is justified – it's implicit in the sources already at the article, and for example this Deadline source ([6]) calls it a "new animated kids series". This is clearly a "children's TV series". --IJBall (contribs • talk)

I think I'm the editor in this case, I've been trying to do everything according to Amaury's messages. I opened a talk about the sourced sentence at Talk:Ollie's Pack. Guillyman (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Asher Angel

You reject the premise that [Asher Angel] is a [Singer-songwriter] when he evidently is. Why do you reject such a verifiable premise? Usefulwikiedits44 (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

One, this should have gone to Talk:Asher Angel. Two, Geraldo Perez, can you please explain the difference? – You are much better at this than I am. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Well this is regarding your issue in relation to YOUR rejection of Angels occupation. Hence, it is concerning you as far as I am concerned. Usefulwikiedits44 (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
First, learn to properly indent, or you'll find people will quickly ignore you in conversations. Second, quite aside from the singer-songwriter issue, the point is that it's not a notable occupation – lots of actors sing and "release songs and albums" (esp. these days), but that doesn't mean they have a notable career as a singer: that only becomes true if they actually chart. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
First see article at singer-songwriter. It has a specific meaning "Singer-songwriters are musicians who write, compose, and perform their own musical material, including lyrics and melodies", none of that was shown in the article to apply to Angel. That is beyond the fact that he has no notable credits as either a singer or a songwriter let alone as a singer-songwriter. That he is able to sing and possibly write songs is not a rare talent and look so be more a hobby than a notable occupation. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Candace Cameron Bure

Not long after this article's six-month semiprotection period ended, an IP has added the same personal opinion/original research comment into the article, essentially making claim that the series Diff'rent Strokes was better than Full House and that actors from the former should've been on Hallmark Channel instead of Bure [7]. That's what got the article semiprotected six months ago [8], and I'm just about ready to send it back to WP:RPP if this continues. Until then, perhaps some more eyes are needed at the article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

According to Jim edits

@IJBall: Why have all my recent revisions been reverted on According to Jim? Higher quality articles are being referenced for layout, with According to Jim's page revised accordingly. No matter what gets edited, you always seem to revert, no matter how big or small. What's the deal? Some revisions based on research were reverted with no reason/reference. Maybe try some edits yourself with references if you don't like the revisions. This could be a better article, but you keep reverting everything! CYAce01 (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Because they aren't improving the article – they seem to be what you "think" are improvements, based off some other articles that your are claiming are "better" (which is basically a textbook WP:OSE argument). They aren't following MOS:TV, they are "not-broken" type edits (like putting spaces in the section headings which you should do just because you "like" them that way), and they aren't actually making the article better... Also, I already opened up a discussion at Talk:According to Jim – you should have taken this discussion there (not here). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
So the articles with "Good article" status aren't better? Isn't that what the status "rank" is for?! Many votes were received to reach that status. It would seem they ARE better. The last revisions have followed MOS:TV, only to get reverted again regardless. The spaces in the headings are correct and actually how the edit menu buttons work. Try experimenting with it. I brought this discussion here because I had questions for YOU, not the article. CYAce01 (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
You've come to the wrong editor to make this claim, because I've come to consider the WP:GA/WP:FA process to be generally bullshit – I cannot tell you how many of those that don't do basic things like properly follow the relevant MOS's, etc. So, no – I don't care what's happening at a particular WP:GA, because I've found those that aren't following properly MOS:TV a lot of the time. And saying you "followed MOS:TV" and actually following it are two different things. Bottom line: Your changes are not making the article "better" – they're making it worse. And some of your earlier edits, such as to the 'Cast' table, were downright wrong (like this one, which is shockingly wrong, as the Sullivan twins weren't even main cast credited), in terms of MOS:TV and things like crediting order and level. And now you're edit warring on top of that, which means I think your judgement is actually shown to be worthless. If you want to try this again, self-revert, and then we can discuss changes you want to make at the article's Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
It honestly sounds like you don't care for wikipedia standards much. The process is what it is, whether any of us like it or not. You lose credibility while trying to enforce your own. All I'm trying to do, like most other good wikipedia users, editors, etc, is make edits where warranted. Reverting to old ways because everything else is "bullshit" is counterproductive. I can assure you, I've read many wikipedia standards, outlines, formatting write-ups, anything else they're called, before even my first edit. I've done the homework! And besides, how often are those "MOS" pages updated? Some Featured articles look really good and they don't follow the MOS exactly! CYAce01 (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
So, you, an editor who's been here for all of less than one year is smarter and "righter" than the editors who've been working in WP:TV (and MOS:TV) for a decade (and, to be clear, I'm not even talking about me...)?! Sure, thing, sport. Now, go run along and play somewhere else, because you're one of these "I know better than everyone else" editors (even though I've already shown that that's not the case, with examples, and you're also edit warring about this which shows you really don't understand how things work around here), and the rest of us don't have time for the likes of you. Now, shoo. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

NHL Network (1975 TV program)

You've moved NHL Network (1975 TV program) a year and a half ago after I tagged it. Are you sure it's a TV program? Asking as there is Category:The NHL Network (1975–79) affiliates which doesn't make sense for a TV program. --Gonnym (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I sort of remember this one. It's an odd case. The lede says that it's an "American television syndication package". That basically means a package of programs that was sold to independent television stations across the country. Then later it says "Games typically aired on Monday nights[13] (beginning at 8 p.m. ET) or Saturday afternoons." Again, that makes it pretty clear that the programming was hockey games, that were sold to TV stations.... So I would argue that some of those categories are probably wrong – Category:Television syndication packages is certainly correct, but Category:Defunct American television networks seems almost certainly wrong. Basically, they're trying to compare it to something like Prime Time Entertainment Network, but that almost certainly seems wrong in this case... Anyway, you may want to forward this to some place like WT:TV (not sure where else...) to solicit other opinions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Seth Carr

How this passed AFC is beyond me, but it shouldn't exist. Pinging MPFitz1968 who's kind of involved as well. See Knight Squad history. Amaury • 17:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree – whoever passed that out of WP:AfC should likely not be doing AfC. I fully believe it should be WP:AfD'ed, and if someone takes it there, I'm a sure "delete" vote. If somebody doesn't beat me to it, I may take it there myself, but I am very real-world busy right now, so I won't be doing that soon... Also, pinging Geraldo Perez here to look at this article, and see if he agrees that it solidly fails WP:NACTOR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Fails both NACTOR and GNG, only one significant mention, other 3 references just passing. One future main role. Lots of supporting roles. Got out of AfC because it had 4 references likely. Will likely end with no consensus on an AfD because of AfC support. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
That would normally be true. But this is clearly an AfC mistake – I think this one goes down if it goes to AfD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
It is an AfC mistake, I agree. Just my prediction on AfD. I'd support delete if listed there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IJBall/Archive_32&oldid=1141798724"