User talk:IJBall/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

New Nickelodeon Show: Legendary Dudas

Hi, there! There is a new show on Nickelodeon called Legendary Dudas that premiered tonight, July 9; however, there is no article yet for it, it seems, and I really have no clue in creating articles. Like, I know how to create a page and such, I just suck at starting things and the like. I know you and Nyuszika7H tend to put some focus on article creation, so I was wondering if either of you could assist in getting it started. I can take care of things like the episode table. Probably a good idea to start it as a draft, definitely, and I don't really care whose name it's under. :)

Here are links: The Futon Critic and Zap2it. As usual, the episode guide for Zap2it is laid out weird. However, also as usual, the episode listings are much more neat and accurate on The Futon Critic. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: I may be able to get to this in the next 12 hours. (I'm working on something else, right this second...) I'll put something together by tomorrow morning-ish, if Nyuszika7H doesn't beat me to it! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Why, thank you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury:  Done. Article created. I will try to find some more sourcing for the article (e.g. probably leads to the creation of a 'Production' section) while I take a break from my other project... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. Added to my watch list. I'll work on it tomorrow. Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, you guys are more than welcome to help as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Henry Danger

Please see the history of that article. I could use some help. I'm not playing his game again. Unless I'm wrong this time, which I'll have no trouble admitting. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

GP just made an edit to the page which makes it nicer. I just wish WPE would think more, especially in cases like last time where he was clearly wrong. That wasn't the first time we've had problems with him. For example, if you take a look at the history of Game Shakers, you'll see he got into it with GP on May 25. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to {{citation needed}} tag that. It's clear to me that it's WP:OR without a source... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I just would like to say WPE is correct. If you look at the original reference it says 20 episodes were ordered. But with the reference I added yesterday from Cooper, I Know Your Secret is the season finale. If you look at the production code from that episode it is 219 and since he stated that is the finale that is the last episode by looking at the production codes. --Bigteddy1 (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It's still original research. Cooper's tweet doesn't say anything about "19 episodes in season #2" (and, as a non-production person, his "word" on that wouldn't "count" for much anyway), just that the "season finale is July 17". I know it's frustrating for some editors, that "obvious conclusions" need to be sourced, but it counts as WP:OR otherwise. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Your Break

I hope your break doesn't have anything to do with what happened the other day and it was something that was already planned. I did indeed see the dispute, and I chose to avoid it—both the discussion itself and possible actions—as I generally don't like getting involved in personal disputes. I hope you can understand that and aren't upset with me in some way even though I wasn't really involved. From past discussions, you know I can easily compromise, but pretty much only if it's between me and somebody else, like yourself, not between somebody else and another person. And, really, if you think about it, the latter is illogical. I can't compromise if I'm not involved. ;)

Please don't let one dispute like that get your spirits down and keep you from doing what you love—editing Wikipedia, particularly anything having to do with railroads, something I know you really love. And if your break does have to do with that incident, take a break if you must, but please don't let it be permanent. Just take some time to cool off and clear your mind—at least a week, but no longer than a month, I would say. (I realize it's only a semi-break, but still.)

I hope my words mean something to you.

Your friend,

Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Cozi Zuehlsdorff

Why did you change it back to "Episode 7.1" for Made in Hollywood? I haven't seen that format before, and the article seems to suggest it does have seasons as normal. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: To discourage this kind of nonsense for filmography listings of episodes – e.g. "Stand Alone by Me" (Season 2: episode 11) – which has been proliferating in Filmography tables lately, and is undesirable for a number of reasons. In the case of that particular episode if Zuehlsdorff's filmography, I admit that I don't care how it's listed – "1 episode", "Episode #7.1", etc. But we need to stay away from "Season 7, episode 1"-type formatting as much as possible or we'll encourage IP and drive-by editors (and there's one problematic drive-by editor at article's such as Zuehlsdorff's that I'm thinking of in particular...) to do more of this hugely undesirable formatting like – "Stand Alone by Me" (Season 2: episode 11). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a big problem with that, but I suppose it's kind of redundant as episode numbers usually don't say anything out of context, and the title is already there – season could be useful, though the year gives an indication of that and listing it without an episode number would look weird. Maybe the episode names could be linked to the specific episodes on the episode list pages though (I've done that in a few places), what do you think about that?

I don't really have a problem with "Episode 7.1" either, it can stay like that if you think that discourages the IPs. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: I've never had a problem with people wikilinking to either episode list articles, or to individual episode articles (though few of those exist), from the 'Notes' column of filmography tables. The problem with the " "Stand Alone by Me" (Season 2: episode 11) " formatting can be best seen at an article like Bella Thorne where editors then insist upon "stacking" multiple episodes in the 'Notes' section (because the "Stand Alone by Me" (Season 2: episode 11) " formatting is so dang wide on the page!!) leading to a wider row in the table and an "undue" emphasis on that row. (In other words, why should Thorne's appearance on Scream be given greater emphasis in the filmography table than Shake It Up where she was the freakin' lead!?!)

Additionally, I find the "(Season 2: episode 11)" to be the kind of trivial info that Geraldo Perez usually suggests we keep out of these articles – if someone wants to track down an episode so badly, all they have to do is go to the "List of [xxxx] episodes" article and do a "search" for that episode title! This kind of info is too specific for a BLP filmography table, IMHO... Honestly, I've thought about having a discussion about this at either WT:TV or WT:FILMBIO, but I figure I probably wouldn't get much satisfaction from it. [shrug] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't feel bad, Nyuszika7H, he's picky with me as well. See here. That's right! I'm looking at you, IJBall! ;) Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

When I'm "picky", there's usually good reasons for it – i.e. I've thought about why things are better certain ways! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, okay, you are right, in cases like this one it's really unnecessary verbosity (though I was the one who cleaned it up at first and decided to keep that info back then). nyuszika7h (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Yep. And, as your diff shows, the real problem is the "stacking" of multiple episodes leading to "undue" emphasis (and unnecessarily wide table rows) in filmography tables. I think your solution of just directly linking to episodes in the episode lists (when applicable) is probably the best one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Eliza Taylor#Inclusion of E! Online awards

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Eliza Taylor#Inclusion of E! Online awards. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Small Request

If you could keep an eye on List of The Thundermans episodes, that would be great. See the history. I have a suspicion it's WPEditor 2012 logged out, and they are it again with removing perfectly sourced and valid information just like a while ago on List of Henry Danger episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Silent Cancellations (Revived)

I was going to post this on Talk:Bella and the Bulldogs as a response, but I felt it was more appropriate here. It's sort of a mini-rant, for lack of a better term.

Personally, I feel that any network quietly canceling a show is unfair to the viewers. They need to think about their viewers and always announce their plans, especially when it comes to series ending. They need to make it clear whether the show is being canceled, either by the network or the creators, or has truly gone as far as the creators intended. iCarly and Jessie from Nickelodeon and Disney Channel, respectively, are two examples of shows that were not canceled and ended when the creators intended for them to end. iCarly had five seasons, though for whatever reason Nickelodeon decided to split some of the seasons, thereby creating the illusion that there were seven seasons, and Jessie had four seasons, and that's pretty rare in regard to the former. While other networks, such as ABC Family, will go pretty high in season numbers—Boy Meets World, Malcolm in the Middle, and currently running The Middle are some shows that come to mind—it seems that even a fourth season for shows on Nickelodeon and Disney Channel, though I tend to lean more toward Nickelodeon, isn't that often as it's like they refuse to go past three seasons. The norm seems to be three seasons, and on occasion four seasons. Then you sometimes have those shows with only two seasons, such as Mighty Med, though I think that one was planned last-minute by the creators for the new series after the crossover, and on very rare occasions, you'll have shows with only one season, such as How to Rock. Amaury (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, this is a perennial issue going back decades. And, yes – it's totally unfair. I Didn't Do It was a pretty bad example of a network dropping a show in the middle of the night without even letting the series producers know so they could put together a more solid series finale. The A#1 worst Nick or Disney example of this is Victorious, though, which was cancelled with neither a "finale" episode nor a "wrap-up TV movie" ordered, despite being the most popular show on the network! However, what Disney sometimes does – renewing a show after it has come to a "logical ending" is nearly as bad: Austin & Ally's fourth season was completely superfluous (I still don't understand why Disney renewed it), and it was a total dud even if it did offer up a series finale that satisfactory wrapped everything up (that finale still can't erase the stain of the preceding 19 episodes!). Similarly, I remain deeply skeptical that Liv and Maddie's upcoming fourth season won't go exactly the same way, as the third season finale seemed to completely wrap the show up and would have served as a more than satisfactory season finale!... (Something very similar happened a few years back with CSI:NY, by the way...) Long story-short: The networks can get you coming or going, and you're going to get continually burned by them no matter what you do. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Compared to what's happened in the past—The Amanda Show is a very good example, where its Moody's Point sketch was left on a total cliffhanger, though its spin-off, Drake & Josh, did really well—I was personally perfectly fine with the final episode of I Didn't Do It. It didn't have that finale feel, but at the same time, it didn't feel like they were hinting at more. From a conversation I had a long time ago with Geraldo Perez, he mentioned that writers are pros and almost always, at least nowadays, are prepared for what might be their final season; as such, they try to make their last episode not leave any doors open.

For Austin & Ally, I read somewhere, I think here, that the fourth season was fan demand, where the fans felt that there was more that could be done. I don't even remember how the third season ended as it's been a while or if the show was canceled or had just ended at that point. And that's one example there that just because a season has ended and there's been no announcement of a renewal, it doesn't mean that the series has been canceled or ended. Usually, as I said earlier, shows are renewed for another season midway through their current season, but not always. Among all the possible reasons, perhaps the network is unsure on renewing or not, so perhaps they are negotiating with the creators. There's been no official word on 100 Things to Do Before High School, for example, and maybe that's what going on there. (It would be great if they did four seasons totaling 100 episodes as would make the most logical sense.)

Moving on to Liv and Maddie, it again doesn't bother me personally, because what you said about Austin & Ally's fourth season and its 19 episodes before the finale I did not notice as I don't really care about or look out for that stuff. Anyway, I suppose that could be looked at as a series finale for Liv and Maddie, but this is another one of those things where I personally feel they seem to leave the door open for something unfinished—life in California with the kids' aunt and Liv and Maddie's college experience, similar to how Boy Meets World kept going for a few seasons after high school, showing what Cory and Shawn's college lives were like. I wouldn't be surprised if Disney Channel made an exception for Girl Meets World because of its history and let it at least have seven seasons like Boy Meets World, if not more.

When it comes to networks deciding a show's fate, whether to renew it or cancel it, or perhaps even go on a hiatus while they work toward a decision, I think it mostly comes down to viewers—I say mostly as there could obviously be other reasons, such as an important main cast member leaving for one reason or another and there not being a way to continue the show without them. I feel like Bella and the Bulldogs has had good viewership for the most part. Networks need to remember that the viewers are in the millions. Even something like 0.94 is still a LOT of people. Disney XD's shows, for example, typically get below 1.00 viewers.

What I think it comes down to at the end of the day, though, is that they care more about money than their viewers. The actors of the various shows all appreciate their fan base, but the networks, not so much. Although I'm not saying that networks completely don't appreciate their fan base, either, but it's definitely different from the actors. Amaury (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The last paragraph is an accurate description indeed! It sometimes leads to particularly nonsensical outcomes to, such as when a low-rated network show is renewed because of overseas sales or potential syndication sales, while a higher-rated network show is cancelled despite having a larger audience. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking a cancellation is different than not getting the next season renewal which looks to be the case here. Shows go season to season and getting a renewal is a big happy deal for the cast and crew. Not getting a renewal is disappointing but generally not unexpected. Cancellation generally means they stop the show in the middle of a planned run - Sam and Cat being an example. My preference would be to consider a show finished if a renewal has not been announced in the normal upfront for the network, but that is not how the current TV MOS and editor consensus is now so we hang on for a year waiting to declare it done still indicating the show is active even when it is obviously over. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The usual "convention" in this case is the difference between "cancellation" and "ending" – "cancellation" is when the network pulls the plug on you and the TV show producers have no say in the matter (e.g. that would definitely include something like I Didn't Do It or Victorious); a series "ending" OTOH is generally when there's agreement between the TV series' producers and the network to "wrap things up" (which usually results in a "planned" TV series finale). When the network yanks you, mid-season, without even all the episodes aired, that's generally called "hiatus", though that's just a technical step before formal "cancellation". Recent examples of that is FOX's Cooper Barrett's Guide to Surviving Life or CBS's Angel from Hell. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I realize this is a bit old thread, but this reminds me of Spooksville. It was getting really interesting near the season finale, and Hub Network was even advertising it as the "season finale", and yet they didn't renew it, and it ended on a pretty big cliffhanger. nyuszika7h (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

IJBall, Nyuszika7H, Geraldo Perez, so I was searching to see if there've been any official announcements about a fourth season for Girl Meets World, and while I didn't find anything, I did find this, which was an interesting read. The rumors were, of course, proven false by Disney—this even happens to say that ratings have been excellent—but what I find interesting is how they mentioned they would make an official announcement if it were to ever be canceled or when they renew it. Probably due to its popularity in the case of the former because I Didn't Do It, while its final episode was a good series finale, got bupkis for announcements. Additionally, they went on to say that they know they've got a track record for three seasons, but didn't even mention how shows like Phil of the Future, Cory in the House, and I Didn't Do it only got two seasons.

Just an interesting read. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: I've been discussing TV on the internet for 25 years, and there's an old joke that when a network or a network executive expresses "confidence" in a show and says that "it won't be cancelled", it surely means it will be cancelled!!... Now I have no idea if any of this applies to GMW or not, but I don't believe any show is going to be renewed until I set my cold, dead eyes on an official renewal press release. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: I don't know what the tweets in that post are talking about, Dog with a Blog was cancelled/ended almost a year ago... nyuszika7h (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You know what else I don't get? Looking at List of I Didn't Do It episodes, it had generally excellent ratings. There were some episodes here and there that didn't do that well, like 1.05, but for the most part, they were excellent, so now I further don't get it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Boy Meets World season articles

Possibly some disruptive editing here: IP user 209.207.50.169 is adding back in things like who was present in all episodes for each season and rearranging the main cast order to their liking rather than show's credits. I've already reverted their edits in the season 1 and season 2 articles, but looks like they may go thru all the rest of the season articles. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, looks like that IP has stopped for now and didn't go past season 3. Gave them a level 3 warning after they reverted my revert in the season 1 article. Still looks like it needs watching in any event. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: OK, I'll try to keep an eye out for this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Cite author format

I didn't know this was an acceptable style, in fact I find it much better than "Last, First", it's pointless to use the reverse format as we are not sorting them by author alphabetically. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: A lot of problems (incl. title capitalizations) would go away if we simply had editors follow the sources. "Last, First" ref author format makes sense for science articles, as that's generally the format for how authors are listed in (scientific) journal articles, so that should be the author format for most of our "science-y" articles. But the popular press (e.g Variety, Entertainment Weekly, newspapers, etc.) pretty much never do "Last, First" author format and always do "First Last" author naming format instead. Because of that, I usually try to set up "First Last" author formatting at TV and BLP articles, unless the "Last, First" authoring format has already been established. But, in any case, WP:CITEVAR (and WP:CITESTYLE) is pretty clear that editors can do what they want, as long as they are consistent within articles. (Pinging Amaury, in case he's interested in this discussion...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: List of Lab Rats characters

If you could keep an eye on this just for a little while, that'd be great. Another editor who thinks we have to include every single guest star. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've actually noticed your tussling with that IP editor. I've left the IP a message at their Talk page about this. I'll also put the article on my watchlist for the short-term. Hopefully my message to the IP will sink in, and that will be that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! (I did see your reply shortly after you made it, just didn't have anything to reply with at the time.) If I'm honest, I don't think you have too much to "worry" about per se with character articles. The stubborn WP:TV editors seem to focus more on the main articles and episode lists from what I've seen. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: K.C. Undercover

This is something that's not worth risking a block over—not talking about me, just in general—but I hope it's still okay if I provide my opinion, or, as you like to say, $0.02. :P Sentences in a paragraph should all be about the same thing. In this case, the season three renewal information has nothing to do with the renewal and premiere information of season two. Just my $0.02. ;) Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It could be argued that that both sentences are about "renewal/season" info, in general, and so belong together. In fact, I thought about combining the previous "paragraph" in as well, as it's about season #1 info... In any case, in general, it's better wiki "writing" if paragraphs don't consist of just a single sentence. (And I'm not saying I haven't been guilty of that in the past as well – but I've been trying to fight the "single-sentence paragraph" urge lately...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking at it like that, I may just combine them here and on other articles. I'm fairly sure Rtkat is the one who separated them in various articles I'm watching, and I didn't really pay too much attention to it at the time. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, there are various types of edits that are "problematic", but don't rise to the level of "objectionable" – usually, I let those edits go at the time, figuring that I'll just "fix" them some time later on. It's usually not worth the hassle to chase those kinds of edits down when they happen... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

BR bracket an Issue?

How is the BR bracket an issue for causing line breaking in the table layout like what happened in the Joshua Leonard page?--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@AnimeDisneylover95: I didn't say that it "broke" the table. My edit summary was quite clear: including a line break there creates "undue emphasis" on that row of the filmography table – in other words, it makes the Scorpion row of his filmography table seem "more important" than the other rows in the table, when in fact it is no more important. Further, a line break there is completely unnecessary – just the semicolon between the years is sufficient. I would recommend that you remove the carriage return you put in there, and simply leave the 'Year' as "2014; 2016" (without the line break). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: I didn't intend to make the Scorpion page "important", since his character Mark Collins only appeared in one episode of the first season and remained largely absent throughout the show until the last two episodes of the second season, but the reason for the line breakages are used when an actor/actress who portrays/voices a character in a show remained absent for several year(s) during a show's run. Like for instance in Gwyneth Paltrow who played Holly Holiday in Glee she appeared for three episodes in the second season from 2010-2011, her character remained absent and doesn't appear in the show's fifth season in 2014. Alfred Molina who guest starred as Multi-bear in the Disney show Gravity Falls appeared in the episode "Dipper vs.Mannliness" in 2012, his character didn't appear again until the show's last two episodes (Weirmageddon parts 2 & 3) three years later in 2015-16, Annie Wersching who played Dr. Kelly Nieman in Castle appeared in the Sixth season episode "Disciple" in 2013 but remained absent until her character's return two years later in the Seventh season in the two part story arcs, and last but not least Eric Millegan who played Zack Addy on Bones made his last onscreen appearance in the Season 5 episode "The Parts in the Sum of the Whole" and remained absent for six years until his return in the episode "The Nightmare in the Nightmare" for Season 11. I can understand and respect your views that the line break with BR bracket looks unnatural to the filmography page and make the particular row of the actor/actress filmography table seem "more important" than the other rows in the table, but frankly IMO, the semicolon in between the years look very unnatural if you ask me.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Hello?--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing for me to really add here – when someone is a guest star on a TV show over non-consecutive years, generally the best way to convey that information in the Filmography 'Year' columns is either in "2014, 2016" or "2014; 2016" format – i.e. without a line break. If other articles are including a line break in situations such as this, it is suboptimal... (Now, there are some cases where a line break might be appropriate, but those tend to be for actors who have main roles on TV shows over non-consecutive years...) Beyond this, I really don't have anything more to say on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Still, the columns in either "2014, 2016" or "2014; 2016" without the BR bracket regardless of the actor/actress (e.g. main, guest-star, recurring) still looks strange if you ask me :/.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:SusanneSC#Pedro Fernández

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:SusanneSC#Pedro Fernández. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn and The Thundermans

They're sure popular for Nick. Have a look at the recent episode ratings. :) Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: Actually, unless I'm missing something, it looks like Henry Danger does the best among these, overall... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yup, all three are pretty popular. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

And I see that Bizaardvark isn't doing well – this does not surprise me, as I've been finding that one a disappointment. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I personally love the show. Then again, I love any sitcom by Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, and Disney XD, and is Disney XD's case, lower ratings—below one million—is pretty normal for some reason. Anyway, in my opinion, I think it's too early to tell. Only five episodes have aired, and the viewers for those five total to 7.12 million, which is very high, which averages to 1.42, which is fair. Best Friends Whenever's second season has also gotten off to a shaky start (average 1.24), and even Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn's second season, if you take a look, had a shaky start (average for first five episodes is 1.26) and even had some more ups and downs, which is why I personally think it's too early to tell with Bizaardvark or shows in similar places. And it's pretty normal for shows to do that. In Best Friend Whenever's case, I feel the new days partly played a role as new episodes usually air on Sundays, a weekend day, whereas Stuck in the Middle's new episodes usually air on Fridays, a weekday, so it wasn't as big of a change, if that makes sense, so it did better the week of July 18–July 22, 2016, compared to Best Friends Whenever last week: July 25–July 29, 2016. Now, for a show like Backstage, I think you have to be willing to give some leeway since it's a Canada original. If we were able to find a Canadian viewers site, I'm sure the viewers would be higher than in the United States. In a case like this, viewers are probably lower in the United States because many have already watched it in Canada.

I'm going to start a project in my sandbox in regard to viewership data on articles I'm watching probably sometime today and will work on it little by little. My focus will be more on shows that are still running, but I will also do it for past shows. I'll link to it when I'm done as I think you'll find it interesting. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Canadian viewers, as I said on the show's talk page, sadly Numeris only publishes the top 30 viewers and I haven't seen Backstage there, though I haven't checked every single week. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Backstage's U.S. ratings numbers matter much, anyway – the situation with that show and Disney Channel is analogous to Syfy with Wynonna Earp: they're getting the show on the side, and are essentially reairing a show produced in Canada with the Canadians picking up the bulk of the production bill. IOW, they're getting the show cheap. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

See, IJBall? Too early to tell. :P At least overall Bizaardvark is doing better than Legendary Dudas, especially that last episode, which I don't think will get past its first season. 100 Things to Do Before High School, however, should be renewed for another three seasons and have 100 episodes. ;) Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what happened with 100 Things to Do Before High School. One theory is that they decided that Isabela Moner was bigger than the show, and they decided they wanted her for other things. Another is that they expected Ned's Declassified...-level success from the show, and didn't get that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide was great—if I recall, I watched every episode on its first airing, but I don't remember 100%—though it looks like there isn't a viewers column, but since it had the typical three seasons, it must have done well.

There haven't even been any (even unofficial) tweets, so, I mean, there's still a chance. She does star in the upcoming Legends of the Hidden Temple movie; perhaps, Nickelodeon is waiting for that to air before making a decision for one reason or another. The show's viewership data for the first season isn't too bad. The total amount of viewers is 33.44 million, with the average being 1.3376 million—or 1.34 million—which is fair. While not considered reliable, sites like Wait with Us and When Will still report a pending status: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=100+Things+to+Do+Before+High+School+season+2 Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

"Pending" is officially true. But, realistically, if 100 Things... was going to be renewed, the announcement would already have come (see: Game Shakers) – this is another show that's going to be (or has already been) cancelled in the middle of the night without an official announcement (like I Didn't Do It). My guess is that if NICK tried to renew the show now, Moner's people would actually fight them on it, as like Bella Thorne it's more than plausible that Moner is going to have a big movie career after Transformers 5... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not getting my hopes up as, typically, like I've mentioned before, shows are renewed for another season midway through their current season, but I know for a fact there have definitely been cases before—albeit rare—where a show's fate appeared hopeless and then it was renewed. Take Mighty Med, for example. It wasn't renewed, but at the same time, in a sense it also kind of was since Lab Rats: Elite Force continues the events. Although to be technical, that wasn't a cancellation, it just wasn't renewed after its second season—there's a difference, which you elaborated on before. I can't remember what it was, but there was a show recently that didn't have any new episodes or development announcements/updates since sometime in late 2014 and about a month or so ago, it was renewed. So I mean, anything's possible. I wish I could remember what it was. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Assistance needed at Liv and Maddie

If you and the others—Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, and Nyuszika7H—could help out over on Liv and Maddie, that would be wonderful. Please check the article's history. Even after posting the message I did on the talk page, the user is refusing to listen and, what appears to now be, discuss to reach a resolution. I've left them the strongly-worded template for edit warring now. Thank you! Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

An interesting case – a definite mix of useful edits, along with problematic edits and borderline edit warring to push them. I just reverted one of the latter, but left another edit that added a 'Reception' section and is definitely an example of the former. But I feel like we're missing something here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi IJBall, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Girl Meets World

Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H

There's still no word on Girl Meets World's fate, but given its popularity and the fact that we're not even at the halfway point yet with the third season, chances are very high for a renewal. However, many rumors have surfaced, none of which have been proven true, but this and this might be of interest to you. One thing I want to comment on is that it wouldn't make sense for the fourth season to move to college as it wouldn't be logical to complete high school in one year—or season. Based on how schools in the US work, we have elementary school with grades 1–5, middle school with grades 6–8, and high school with grades 9–12. Given that, Boy Meets World's timeline was like this:

• Season 1: Middle School - Grade 8
• Season 2: High School - Grade 9 - Freshman
• Season 3: High School - Grade 10 - Sophomore
• Season 4: High School - Grade 11 - Junior
• Season 5: High School - Grade 12 - Senior
• Season 6: College - Freshman
• Season 7: College - Sophomore

For Girl Meets World, we have:

• Season 1: Middle School - Grade 7
• Season 2: Middle School - Grade 8
• Season 3: High School - Grade 9 - Freshman

Please correct me if I'm wrong on the specific grades.

Given how Boy Meets World went, it would be completely logical, and this is obviously hypothetical at this point, for Girl Meets World seasons four through seven to be exactly the same as they were on Boy Meets World, with the grades, and if the show goes past seven seasons, seasons eight and nine could be the children's junior and senior years, respectively, in college while season ten could be a season to show how they're getting along after college with their even more adult responsibilities and also act as a good series finale. Unless, of course, they go past ten seasons to show their children growing up unless Girl Meets World itself gets a spin-off, in which case no season ten as the spin-off would serve as showing their lives after college, just like Girl Meets World did after Boy Meets World ended.

Just something I thought might be interesting to discuss. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

While Freeform is probably starving for a sitcom right around now (the two they have are long in the tooth, though I think Young & Hungry is supposed to be getting a spinoff with Aimee Carrero and Ashley Tisdale), esp. a sitcom "hit", I'm dubious they'd take on Girl Meets World. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm skeptical – I think I'll believe it when it's officially announced. P.S. Boy Meets World actually began with Cory in sixth grade, a grade earlier than Girl Meets World's first season did. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Bunk'd

I didn't want to AGF revert you and have you get mad at me, LOL—then again, you do it with me :P—but if you look at the column you'll see we're using The Futon Critic as the primary source since it's much more reliable than Zap2it, hence the order. It also creates an inconsistency with the other titles and alternate titles. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: I get it. But it doesn't make sense to use Futon over the actual title reported for the aired episode. Futon is basing the title on a press release that was published a month ago – I don't see how that should be considered the "primary" title over the title as reported for the aired episode... There's no question that Futon is a good resource – but we shouldn't assume that Futon is correct 100% of the time. (Another place where I'm not sure we can trust Futon is with the weird prod. codes they report for some of the hour-long episodes of the tween shows – I believe those conflict with the U.S. Copyright Office at least some of the time.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression The Futon Critic corrects production codes as they correct everything else, something Zap2it lacks. However, other than that, it's all good, and from a discussion quite a while ago due to some issue that came up—I can't remember what—Geraldo Perez said it was a good idea to use The Futon Critic as a record for things that have already aired as Zap2it is more about early information and doesn't really bother to fix errors, especially once an episode's aired. For example, Austin & Ally episode Bad Seed & Bad Dates' air date is correctly listed as September 20, 2015, on The Futon Critic rather than September 4, 2015, like Zap2it lists it simply because it aired in Canada first. I know I keep bringing this up. Please don't hate me, LOL! Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It'll be interesting to see if Futon changes Bunk'd's episode titles in this case... All I know is that when I checked my online cable guide, I wasn't seeing the Futon title. Of course, the ultimate decider on what the correct episodes titles are will be the U.S. Copyright Office and the WGA databases. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, we've only ever used Copyright Office for production codes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

[This is more a note to myself...] When searching for Bunk'd at the U.S. Copyright Office, you need to search "Disney Bunk" ("Bunk'd" returns nothing...). It looks like they have less than half of the season #1 episodes in the database currently, though. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the online cable guides are just another programming guide feed similar to Zap2it and Futon so really is not much more authoritative. If the title is changed different guides get different snapshots. Amazon and iTunes get the actual episodes from the distributor along with the distributors description of content, not just a channel feed, and will have them labelled by the distributor. That should be the most accurate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Step by Step (TV series)

I've got a problem with some IPv6 users, who are editing the Syndication section of the article with dubious info [1][2][3][4][5], saying Nickelodeon or Nick or Nick at Nite or Nicktoons aired reruns of the show in 2013–14, instead of The Hub Network, and (obviously) not providing any source to support this. For the record, I don't recall "Step by Step" airing on Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite at any time since 2013, and I did provide a source to support The Hub airing it, or scheduling to air it, back in 2013. But I've already reverted these dubious edits three times in the last day, and am tempted to bring this to RPP. Not sure whether the admins would be on my side on this, with some other constructive IP edits in there, so I'll need some more watchers for this article. Thanks. MPFitz1968 (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @MPFitz1968: I can help, too. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: I'll keep an eye out (I actually saw you dealing with this earlier, and I don't think SbS has aired on any of Nick, Nick at Nite, or TeenNick in quite some time, so I don't believe the 2013–14 claim, esp. not without some sourcing. And I would take this to WP:RfPP if it keeps up for much longer... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

pageswap script for convenience

Hi IJBall, I've noticed that at some point, you performed a round-robin page move. I have several times before I thought the current move form was tedious. Anyway, I've written a script here (js) that semi-automates page swaps for convenience, and thought you may want to try it out. You'd simply click "Swap" and enter a page destination, the script performs the 3 moves as necessary (saves time having to manually go through the move form 3 times). (It doesn't correct redirects afterwards, that's still manual)

Anyway feel free to adapt this script as you see fit, cheers :) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Andy W.: Thanks for that. I haven't need to do a round-robin move recently, but I'll try to remember your script next time I need to! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Good catch!

Not sure how Ruthless and Bunny being listed as mains in the lead for Game Shakers went unnoticed for so long, especially by someone like me, or Geraldo Perez, LOL! Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Heh. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Input Requested

Hi, I noticed in an earlier discussion naming the Toronto subway, you had suggested that article should be moved to "Toronto subway" over Toronto rapid transit. I agreed with this an started a new move discussion. We would love to hear your support or opposition to calling it "Toronto Subway". Link can be found here. Mattximus (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikipedia loading issues

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikipedia loading issues. I'm trying to see if there are any others affected. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: Adventures in Babysitting (2016 film)

Could use your help. See history and my and Michael's talk page. IP refuses to understand. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Moscow Ring Railway

I don't think Moscow Ring Railway will be sharing tracks with freight, except on dedicated freight tracks and maybe during nighttime.

It's not a suburban rail because it never leaves city boundaries. I think it should be restored in that list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilyak (talk • contribs) 13:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You can check the Talk:List of metro systems Talk archives if you like, but the consensus at the article has been very clear – any system that shares track with either freight or commuter rail systems is, by definition, not a "metro". But you can try broaching this subject at Talk:List of metro systems – I honestly don't watchlist that article anymore... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The Girl and the Dreamcatcher

The Girl and the Dreamcatcher was moved to mainspace today, could you take a look and assess it? nyuszika7h (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H:  Done. While musician-related articles aren't my forte, based on article's current length and extent of sourcing, I rate it as 'Start' class (it'd need to be quite a bit "meatier" in content terms to get to 'C' class...). I do wonder if listas=Girl and the Dreamcatcher, The should be added to the WP Bio banner though... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I guessed right then, thanks for confirming. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Soy Luna episodes

I just noticed your edit at List of Soy Luna episodes. Thanks for the fix, the bolding instead of the link was just a mistake, I forgot to change it. :P nyuszika7h (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Eh, WP:TVLISTLEAD is one of those ones that's easy to forget... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually I didn't even know about that guideline, but I tend to always do it linked like that by convention. I'm glad it doesn't recommend (though doesn't explicitly discourage) things like "This is the list of episodes for ...", which really bothers me as it's completely unnecessary to state that, especially bolded, when the title already tells you that, and usually when you come to the article it's through another link so you already know what to expect. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

R.L. Stine's Monsterville: Cabinet of Souls

Here is the DVD cover for reference. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait, I'm not sure if I overlooked it or the other cover was different, because it was not this exact image I used, but one with just the back cover, and I couldn't find that one now. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Found the backcover image that matches the infobox cast list at the article: here --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I had a higher resolution copy, but that is good enough that I can read it with some effort. It's really strange, there are other discrepancies as well, on the first poster I used the writers are credited as "Billy Brown & Dan Angel" and the producers as "Dan Angel & Billy Brown"; on the second poster, the writers are credited as "Billy Brown Dan Angel" (making it look like one name), and the producers as "Dan Angel   William Brown". nyuszika7h (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do now, but this is a slightly higher resolution copy of the same poster, it's from Amazon and looks like an official release. No idea where the other one was released. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: I don't think the DVD cast list (order) trumps the cast listing from the film itself. Now, I haven't seen this film, so I haven't seen the credits order, but the IMDb listing is marked as "credits, in order", so I have no reason to suspect that the IMDb credits order is incorrect... @Geraldo Perez: What is generally done when there is a discrepancy between the credits order from a direct-to-DVD film and the credits order on the DVD backcover? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: I agree with what Nyuszika7H says basically. I'd generally go with what is in the film itself as that is the authoritative primary source for credits, other stuff is supplemental and who is considered starring may need external references such as posters or covers to see who is being marketed as starring cast when the film credits are not clear about that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Not 100% sure if that applies to direct-to-video films, but billing block is used in infobox for theatrical films. Also, I checked the credits earlier today, the "Cast" list in the article is correct and how they are credited at the end, including ordering and names. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: What's "billing block"? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The billing block is the thing at the bottom of posters where cast and crew are credited in a very condensed font, same font as you can see on that DVD cover. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: So film articles often have different cast listing (orders) for the 'Cast' section and the 'infobox'?! That's pretty much the exact opposite of what WP:TV does!!?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's weird, but that's what they do. I guess one reason is because film credits don't always have an obvious cutoff point for notable and less notable roles. But then you have complicated situations with pretty significant characters (Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward) not being credited on the poster of Moonrise Kingdom because they are child actors... (That one uses a different style of "billing block", the condensed font is the most common but it generally applies to any form of cast listing on the film poster.) Though it seems the infobox does currently list them even though previous talk page consensus seems to be against that... But that's getting a bit too off-topic here. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: List of Girl Meets World episodes

I don't care myself, but just wanted to make a note that there's a universal "rule," so to speak—by which I mean there's no actual rule, haha!—that Episodes is used on the main articles of shows while Episode list is used on the—no pun intended—list of episodes articles. I don't know why, but that's how it is, and you're kind of fighting the system here as you would have to go through thousands of articles to change this, and I could see someone else reverting you due to it being inconsistent. Again, I don't really care myself, just sayin', LOL! Hope your day's going well! Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: There may be no "rule", but at a List of [...] episodes article, I'm of the firm opinion that a section header like 'Episodes list' is completely redundant, and a simpler header of just 'Episodes' is preferable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of The Thundermans episodes#Thundermans: Secret Revealed is a special

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of The Thundermans episodes#Thundermans: Secret Revealed is a special. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Reply on Talk Page

Hello, IJBall. You have new messages at Amaury's talk page.
Message added 05:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I know you're probably burned out on this by now, but I feel like you're better qualified to respond to messages like this since you're sadly more involved. As such, I thought this may be of interest to you. It's different numbers, but the same IP. Whether the case over on RFPP is different or not, though, I'm not really sure. Regards. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Copied template

I just remembered that you found {{Copied}} confusing, and a while ago I understood how it works and clarified the documentation – the four "basic" parameters are really the only ones you need, |to_diff= and |to_oldid= are just alternatives for |diff= which contains both. Perhaps |date= may be useful to include as well, though not required, I have managed to overlook that parameter so far. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

 Already done --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Your talk page comment got removed

Just as a heads up, the disruptive Mostly Ghostly IP editor blanked one your talk page posts. You might want to keep tabs on your talk page posts when they involve move discussions. There's a fair chance they'll get blanked. I've had it happen to mine, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, seriously?! I just want to be on a mostly-wikibreak right now!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

A small favor to ask

You're always asking me for favors; it's only fair I get to ask for some, too, right? :P

Would you take a look at the very recent history and diffs of Bunk'd and send a note to Rtkat on why he shouldn't be listed (yet)? You're more passionate about this, so you'd be better at explaining it. :) Thanks! Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: I'm not a regular viewer of Bunk'd – how many episodes has Timmy been in so far?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure only three at most, and two of those were only a co-star credit. MPFitz1968 could probably help out here as he's a regular watcher. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I remember at least three episodes where Timmy appeared in season one, but I don't recall anything more than a co-star credit anytime he was on. But the most recent episode looks like the first time he receives a guest star billing. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, MPFitz1968. So that makes four total appearances; however, you also have to consider the crediting and scripting. Even some co-stars have a small noticeable amount of lines, but in Timmy's case, I'm pretty sure his actor had no lines and was always silent in his season one appearances. As such, there was nothing really that significant with the Timmy character in the first season. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm going thru the pilot episode, on Netflix ... I do recall him being mentioned briefly when Gladys refuses him at camp because his check doesn't clear, but the end credits on that one show not even a co-star credit. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Gladys dismisses Timmy during a campfire gathering, when she welcomes all the campers about seven minutes into the episode. Timmy doesn't have any spoken lines, so probably reason he doesn't have any credit at all. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I do recall Timmy in "No Escape", but I needed to look up his other season one appearance. IMDb indicated "Bride and Doom", so I checked that episode out on Netflix, too. In "No Escape", he's not credited at all likely because, again, no spoken lines. "Bride and Doom" has him listed as a co-star (he does speak in that one, coming to camp with a check from his parents, but Hazel rejects it because the name of the camp is spelled wrong on the check). MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Summarizing then, two uncredited appearances, which do not count toward recurring status at all, and a co-star credit which I'm thinking also doesn't count. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've looped Rtkat3 in on this conversation, as you both have already made a pretty strong case that Timmy doesn't qualify as a true recurring character at this time (sounds like he's closer to a recurring "extra"). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

In my defense, I thought recurring characters would be for those who made more than two appearance just how Griff became after his three episode appearances on Bunk'd. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rtkat3: Five or six episodes is a better measure of "recurring". Three episodes doesn't really qualify as recurring status. (I'm guessing in the case of Griff, he was added after 3 appearances because it was already clear that he'd appear in more episodes yet to air...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Rtkat3: From reading IJBall's thoughts on the matter quite a number of times, two is much too low, and even three is questionable. You also have to consider how often they appear. For example, if they appear for five episodes, but are then never seen again, are they really that notable? It's questionable. In Griff's case, all of his appearances have been as a guest star since he has a significant role, unlike Timmy's case where Friday's episode was his first appearance with a significant role which therefore gave him a guest star credit. All of his other appearances were not notable as he was not even credited or he only received a co-star credit at most, and co-star credits signify very minor roles. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Zap2it#Name change to Screener

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Zap2it#Name change to Screener. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)