User talk:IJBall/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:IJBall, for the period October 2016 onwards.
Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Another request

Hi I'm so sorry, I've never done this before so I have no idea how to do this. My name is Deanna Russo and you've been diligent about keeping my page factual. I'm contacting you for help in a couple things. I'm pretty inept about code as you can see from my paltry contributions. I see you're on a bit of a hiatus, but whenever you return, I trust your expertise in the matter. My hope is to learn quickly what I'm doing wrong and also be able to collaborate about my own content. Thanks so much for your help, IJBALL!! You can find me at FurdaFurdaFurda xo — Preceding unsigned comment added by FurdaFurdaFurda (talk • contribs) 16:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've helped her out. See my note at Talk:Deanna Russo. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: I'm actually concerned about this Calif. law and its effect on Wikipedia. I think I may bring this up at WP:AN... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, never mind – I missed the part of the law where it only applies to paid subscription sites like IMDb Pro... In any case, WP:BLPPRIVACY still controls the issue here on English Wikipedia. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's news that Signpost should cover... and one of their reporters should ask the WMF's legal team to give their response regarding the impact to Wikipedia. wbm1058 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Good point – pinging Bluerasberry, and also pointing to the relevant Talk page post. Bluerasberry – is this something the Signpost might want to cover?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I also posted a note on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#California Law AB-1687. wbm1058 (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This could be discussed more deeply somewhere else. I can confirm that there have been hundreds of requests, especially from actors, for changes to date of birth in Wikipedia. My first thought about the California law is that it would not change Wikipedia practice, since Wikipedia is not an original source of such information. If a date of birth is in Wikipedia, it should only be because a reputable publisher has used their own editorial discretion and oversight process to determine that it is appropriate to do so. Wikipedia relies on professional journalists and researchers in this field to set best practices and only follows their lead.

If anyone wants to have more discussion or contribute to a Signpost article then I would support but not start or lead the effort. If anyone wanted to get started, one way to begin would be to begin a discussion on a policy page and solicit for others to identify examples of requests for age changes so that people who would comment can more easily examine how these requests are made. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: ha ha, you have a rather rosy view of actual practice in this area. I haven't seen these hundreds of requests from actors, nor evidence of the edits made in response to these requests. What I do see on a daily basis is vandalism of birth dates, and edit-warring over birth dates. Very often the only source for birthdates I can easily find is IMDb. Wikipedia is the go-to source for birthdate information, for both Wikidata and Google. It's hard to find reliable sources for birthdates for B-level actors and musicians. When I do find multiple sources they often disagree, so we need to use judgement to determine which is correct. You might find an actor who was quite willing to reveal their actual age when they were 19, but now that they're pushing 39, they shave 2 or 3 years off their age, and the entertainment writers at fancruft magazines are happy to take the actor's word for their age. You think these "journalists" 'follow best practices' and take the time to ask the actor they're interviewing if they can show their driver's license to confirm the date? Maybe. Just don't be surprised if, after the first of the new year, after they've gotten their birthdates removed from IMDb, their next step is to come after us. What happens when their edit requests sit for months going unanswered? wbm1058 (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Wbm1058 Wikipedia is a summary of the information in the best available published sources by the most reputable authorities. Information which is not from publications by reputable authorities probably does not belong in Wikipedia. If someone objects to Wikipedia's mirroring of information from recognized authorities, then perhaps that person should start the discussion by commenting why the respected authority is wrong.

IMDB is not a reliable source for birthdates and so far as I know, the Wikipedia community has always agreed on this point. If there is no reliable source for information, then there is no route for including that information in Wikipedia.

As you say, there are many actors who promote their age at one point in their career and seek media coverage to highlight their age. Often actors change the way they report their age at different times in their lives. I am not aware of difficult decisions about this from the Wikipedia perspective. Either there are reliable sources or there are not, and either reliable sources agree or they are different. People may object when reliable sources publish something different than what they expect, but I see that as more of a problem with the original authoritative publication than of Wikipedia's reflection of it. I do not feel that Wikipedia has a duty to fact-check the world's most respected authorities and publishers, nor do I think that Wikipedia has an obligation to be more accurate than the world's best identified fact checkers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, does Wikipedia have an obligation to fact-check itself? Just as an exercise, I have randomly picked a bio that I've never seen before: Krista Allen. Identify for me the reliable source which supports the birthdate given by our article. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

As is per usual lately, I can find only one source for her DOB, since The New York Times dropped their actors database. (Sometimes, TV Guide will have DOB's, yielding 2 sources with the info, but usually there's just the usual one, which is not correct 100% of the time.) In general, actor DOB's are hard to come by, and will be impossible to come by if Hollywood.com ever stops publishing them... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

So is this a reliable source? How do we know that?

What about AskMen, they say 1972, not 1971.

Unfortunately the Internet has been flooded with lots of unreliable sources.

IMDb 1971

TV.com 1972

Rotten Tomatoes 1971

NNDB 1972

Gossip Rocks 1972

http: //www.aceshowbiz.com/celebrity/krista_allen/filmography.html [Ace Show Biz] 1972 - this one triggered a protection filter, so it must not be reliable

https: //www.themoviedb.org/person/21858-krista-allen [The Movie DB] 1971, lol, at least they cite their source. Most don't. Triggered a protection filter

How do we determine which year is correct? Toss a coin?

Honest. I've never heard of this girl. I picked her at random from the first page of Category:American television actresses. More study will be needed to determine the extent to which this is typical.

I don't know how anyone can make any money trying to sell this information. What it's coming down to is whoever can get their preferred date published on the most websites with the most Internet pageviews and wins the edit wars on sites where "anyone can edit" will determine the de facto reliable source birthdate. wbm1058 (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: At the bottom of Hollywood.com bios you'll notice it states "MOVIE, TV, AND CELEBRITY DATA PROVIDED BY AND IS THE COPYRIGHT OF BASELINE". Baseline is considered a reliable source – Baseline was what The New York Times used to use as its source for its actors/films database. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I believe what California Law AB-1687 is really targeting is Gracenotes' Studio System/Baseline database more than IMDb Pro. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. So, we have Baseline, IMDb and is All movie the other of the "big three"? They say 1972.

So if aging actors can take out the last remaining reliable tree(s) in the forest, or cherry pick which sites on which to demand "privacy", they can ensure that their correct birth date is published online. Obviously it's 1972 ;)

If we cite Baseline for too many actors' birth dates, as they are deemed most reliable, would that be a violation of their copyright? To have the most reliable encyclopedia, cite the most reliable source for everything? wbm1058 (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Wbm1058 You asked above if Wikipedia has to fact check itself. I am not sure what that means, but I think the article you shared has an inappropriate presentation of the birthday because it is without backing of a citation. I advocate for all statements on Wikipedia to be backed with a citation, and would support anyone who wished to remove unverified claims. As you and IJBall note, it is challenging to find reliable sources of information like age. When there is no reliable source identified, I think it is best to leave the statement out. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, right, I understand editors are individually responsible for their contributions. Given the sheer size and weight of Wikipedia, I think that ethically "the collective" should take some form of responsibility for its "collective work" but I understand there's no legal obligation to. I agree that in these situations the best thing to do is to leave the data out, so I suppose I will remove it. Though I generally wouldn't add such information myself, many editors, especially IPs and short-tenured contributors, do add these birth dates. It will be interesting to watch and see how long it takes for someone to restore a date. Given Wikidata's focus on gathering such data-bits, and the relative ease in gathering them, it might be a nice use of WMF donor's money to set up a professional department for collecting that data-bit. Any Wikipedia biography subject desiring their birth date be shown on Wikipedia would submit primary-source proof (driver's license, birth certificate) to a department of OTRS, who would certify it and post to the article, cited to Wikipedia OTRS. This would deal with California Law AB-1687 too, as subjects not wanting their birth date made public would simply not submit the proof. Policing all Wikipedia biographies for non-cited or inadequately cited birth dates would be a full time job. wbm1058 (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Wbm1058 Here are some issues you raise -

WMF partnerships including funding
whether Wikipedia should support the creation of primary information
The public expectation that Wikipedia employs all the staff of a journalism organization like a newspaper or magazine
the nature of OTRS
the nature of Wikimedia connections between facts and cited sources
access to and secure storage of sensitive valuable personal information, like identification records

I would talk about these and other issues with you if you cared. I care about some of these points. If you want to talk by video or phone, then email me. I am interested, but too many issues are raised here to make it seem useful to me for discussing in this conversation. If you want to isolate points and discuss them in their respective forums then start discussions elsewhere and ping me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, so to recap, I stumbled into this via my regular patrol for {{error}}s, and when I fixed this error, I noticed Deanna's message to IJBall about California Law AB-1687, which led to this interesting discussion. I'm brainstorming here, as I haven't thought specifically about this before. I don't know whether these issues have been considered in the past, or if anyone else has had my idea. I did a little more research – see here – IJBall and I have run into cases like this before. I've removed the birth date from that page. Yes, I would like to have a conversation about this, though no hurry if you're busy as I'm juggling several projects. IJBall, would you like to discuss this too? Can you email me, as I'm on Yahoo! and last time I tried I couldn't send outgoing mail as it bounced back to me. Once I receive incoming mail though, I can respond. wbm1058 (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll be honest – on my end, I'm super busy IRL right now, so I probably don't have a huge amount of time to discuss this. But if there was a centralized discussion somewhere, esp. about AB-1687 and its potential effect on En Wikipedia, I'd probably watchlist it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

IJBall and Wbm1058 - I anticipate progress on this front but not for some years. Right now, OTRS will check primary data sources in rare emergency situations which do happen regularly. There is documentation development on how to manage emergencies, and when that is in place, I think it would be easier to consider routine situations. There are lots of reasons to not do this routinely, and routine checks may not be allowed in the foreseeable future.

I also do not have bandwidth in leading this but would follow anyone else. I cannot imagine on-wiki discussion sorting this out more easily than voice conversation because so many unrelated groups have their own stake on how this should resolve. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Probably time for action

I don't know if you ever saw the reply—it's in my 2016 archive now—but Spencer replied and acknowledged the problem. Our (likely a sock puppet) user has struck again on Adventures in Babysitting (2016 film)‎, which I reverted, but I'm not going to play their games again, so that is the only time I will revert them for now. However, I know you mentioned wanting to open a report somewhere should the AIAV report fail, which it did, so I think it's time. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: I'm on a break, so I'm not touching this. But if you want a hint for a future SPI report, take a look at some IP editing (and IIRC, there was more than one) of the articles I created around the time Orchomen first started targeting my articles – I feel that there is no way that it's a coincidence... P.S. As of today, Orchomen is still targeting my articles, if you want to continue to keep an eye on them... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H, if you guys want to help out as well and don't mind getting involved, any help will be appreciated. More info here and on the discussion above that one. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Our little friend is back at How to Build a Better Boy, and I'm really getting tired of dealing with this idiot. Their edits can be reverted regardless of whether or not they're constructive since they're a sock puppet. I know you're busy, so when you have some time, I think it's definitely time to start a report. Not that I don't want to help in this regard, but I would just feel more comfortable if you did it as you've had more interaction with this disruptive sock puppet of whichever editor. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a sock puppet regardless of how often you repeat it. I don't think reverting constructive edits just because I made them is being here to build an encyclopedia either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orchomen (talk • contribs) 08:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are a sock puppet, and sock puppets' edits can be reverted regardless of whether or not they're constructive. It's clear that you're WP:NOTHERE and are WP:STALKING IJBall by the sole fact that you're only editing articles he's created or otherwise majorly contributed to and the fact that you replied here. I have a great idea: you need be blocked and leave us alone. We don't want you here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Lab Rats: Elite Force

Yeah... Obviously, I can't say with 100% certainty, but I feel like there's bound to be a second season. The announcements we have, as you mentioned, are ambiguous, and it wouldn't be fair to the audience to just leave them on a cliffhanger like that. And the fact that there's a cliffhanger in the first place leads me to believe there will be a season two; otherwise, they would have made "The Attack" an hour special or something similar. Nowadays, writers can usually predict when they might not get a next season and write their last or few last episodes accordingly, which was the case with I Didn't Do It's second season. The cliffhanger was okay with Mighty Med as it was a door to Lab Rats: Elite Force, but yeah. And yes, usually season renewals are announced about halfway through a show's current season, but the writers and producers could be trying to surprise their fan base by making it seem hopeless that a certain show will get a next season, and then boom! New season coming soon! Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: Well, the showrunner and the stars appear to be pretty convinced that there won't be a second season (really a sixth season, if you want to count it as part of Lab Rats...). I'm surprised that Disney would go to the trouble of putting together Elite Force just to cancel it after one season. But with the way Disney XD has run that show (e.g. with months-long gaps between new episodes), I find it plausible that it won't be coming back... I suppose it's possible that Disney may let them do a followup TV movie. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

If that does turn out to be the case, then that's pretty shitty on Disney XD's part, to not care at all about their fan base. In regard to the hiatuses—of any length, really—I don't know if that's a really good tell as that seems to be common with both Disney Channel and Disney XD. Nickelodeon does it as well, but it seems to be at least a little more consistent with airing new episodes once a week for longer periods of time than Disney Channel and Disney XD. (For example, have a look at 100 Things to Do Before High School#Episodes, List of Bella and the Bulldogs episodes#Season 2 (2015–16), List of Henry Danger episodes#Season 2 (2015–16), List of Game Shakers episodes#Season 1 (2015–16), List of Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn episodes#Season 2 (2015–16), and List of The Thundermans episodes#Season 3 (2015–16)—and, really, even the seasons before those as well, I'm just using the previous seasons for the example.) The last new episode of K.C. Undercover, for example, was on October 2, and the next new one isn't until November 6, a five-week hiatus, and it has a season three upcoming. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but Elite Force had a basically 6-month(!) layoff between Apr and Sep 2016, with just a single new episode shown in July. I found that unusual, esp. for a show supposed to be in its first season. I think that was a tipoff that Disney XD didn't have much invested in the show... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I do see your point, definitely, though there was actually an episode on July 25, 2016, so more like three months and then about two months after that. The final season of Lab Rats did something similar, having no new episodes after April 22, 2015, until July 1, 2015. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this cliffhanger is sad. And this is what they ended Mighty Med on a cliffhanger for – when there was absolutely no mention of Oliver's mother (at least tell us she died there too or something!) – I've seen unreleased episode titles on the Writers' Guild of America site, so they may have been planning to have a third season. Even if they had only one season of Lab Rats: Elite Force, it's shorter than the normal season size for either show, and I expected the finale to be a one-hour episode. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

List of Liv and Maddie characters

If you could keep an eye on this, that would be great. I could really use your help with an IP who's trying to basically POV push their edits. I suspect they're from the UK, and if this were a UK show, their edit would be correct. However, this is a US show, and in the US, we go by the words to determine singularity or plurality, not how many entities they contain, such as "group." I've already left them one warning. Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll temp watchlist it. However, the usual caveats apply – I'm pretty busy for the next couple of months, so there will be hours throughout the day where I'm not watching Wikipedia, so you'll probably need help from others as well... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks, IJBall. MPFitz1968, Geraldo Perez, Nyuszika7H, help from you would also be welcome. I think you three are already watching this article, at least I know GP is. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's on my watchlist too. After all, I was the one who created it (though there was not much content creation involved there, just a split with some cleanup). nyuszika7h (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Also, IJBall, MPFitz1968 and Nyuszika7H, Geraldo Perez has started a discussion on the talk page, so feel free to post any feedback you may have over there instead of here. :) Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: Take this to WP:RfPP. They may decline protection on the basis of it being a "content dispute". OTOH, though, this is clearly disruptive editing (without willingness to discuss) coming from an IP hopper... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm giving them a chance for now as they seem to have stopped. However, if anyone else feels different and wants to go ahead and file a protection request, there are no objections from me. :) Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hey, IJBall. So I added a Created Articles section to my user page, and I just wanted to see what you thought on this. Some of the articles on there weren't created by me per se; however, those were either prematurely created by others and were then redirected to the main article because there was only one season or whatever or because redirects were created by yourself, like with School of Rock, in anticipation that there would be information on whatever upcoming season very soon. However, because I'm the one who performed the splits when it was time, I'm considering myself the creator as that's when the splits should have been done. (I'm not including your redirects in this, just those who split prematurely.) I just wanted to see if that's good thinking. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: It looks fine. You may just want to split out the "article-from-redirect" conversions into a separate list with a summary sentence at the beginning restating what you said above. But some editors around here will object to saying an article was "created" when it was actually the conversion of a redirect to an article. (You'll notice on my User page I've split those kinds of articles out into a separate list from the articles that were actually "created"...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: Liv and Maddie

Keeping in mind that you're busy, I'll also ping the others since they were also involved in the discussion that I raised on the talk page of Liv and Maddie the last time this was going on: Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, and Nyuszika7H.

It looks like KKJJ's block has expired, and they're already back to doing what led to their block the last time—making changes without discussion that aren't really improving anything. So based on how disruptive they were before they were blocked, at this point I'm under the opinion that they've lost their ability to freely make changes and any edits that they want to make should be discussed first on the talk page. If anyone wants to leave a note on their talk page with a warning or similar, feel more than free, but I pretty much give up on them. (Why they're stuck on Liv and Maddie in particular is beyond me.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Michael and Nyu weren't involved last time, but feedback on the talk page would of course be more than welcome from you two, as always. Also, for reference, the previous discussion can be found under the title "Category disputes" on the talk page. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that this editor has lost the right to make major edits without discussing it first. It's probably best if more eyes watch Liv and Maddie for a while... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

New page reviewers

Hello IJBall. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Vivian Full

WP:BLPPROD explicitly states "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise)". There was already an external link to IMDB and therefore not eligible for BLPPROD. Adam9007 (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPPROD#Nominating: "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.) which support any statements made about the person in the biography. Please note that this is a different criterion than is used for sources added after the placement of the tag." - Mr X 00:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007 and MrX: Two points: 1) Yes, it says that, but the tag says something else, and I'm deferring to the wording of the tag. (Also, there is genuine debate as to whether IMDb even qualifies as a "source".) 2) Your interpretation on this strikes me as incredibly WP:BURO-y, especially coming from a non-Admin: in short, it does not improve the project to force editors like Geraldo and myself to go through a full AfD process on an article like Vivian Full, when the subject is clearly a WP:NACTOR fail – just let it get deleted via CSD: it's going to get deleted in the end anyway, and forcing us to jump through extra hoops accomplishes nothing (but increased burnout among long-time editors who you're forcing to jump through extra hoops...). I thought the whole point of the creation of the Patrollers group was so we could get some editors that could apply some common-sense to the article creation and approval process, not act in a way to keep around every crap article that's created by a drive-by no0b editor?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The template says "This article is about a living person and appears to have no references." Not "no reliable references". Adam9007 (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I quoted you the relevant wording in the edit summary: "All biographies of living people created after March 2010 must have at least ONE reference to a RELIABLE source..." Again, I find your approach on this to be very WP:BURO-y – BLPPROD was created exactly so it would be easier to get rid of articles like this. I can't figure out why some editors want to make it harder to remove articles that clearly aren't up to snuff... Bottom line: Let's give the article's creator a week to come up with a real WP:RS – if they don't, the article should go. It should not be forced to go through AfD until that time... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it says that. Nevertheless, BLPPROD does state that it is for BLPs with no sources only. BLP articles are still eligible for deletion via normal PROD. Adam9007 (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Thank you! While I still feel (strongly, actually) that articles that only cite IMDb are still subject to WP:BLPPROD, I'll take your WP:PROD as a fine solution in this case. (In fact, I think I'll see if I can "second" your PROD here...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

IJBall, I wish we could PROD BLPs that have no reliable sources, but consensus says otherwise. The BLP PROD process is strict (and bureaucratic) by design. You can look through the policies archives if you would like to understand why. I think you will find that most admins would not accept IAR as legitimate reason for bypassing the policy and deleting an article that had a least one source when it was nominated.- Mr X 00:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You may also want to look at this. Adam9007 (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's my quick take on this: practically, what is the difference between a {{Prod blp}} tag, and a {{Prod}} tag with a "Only source is IMDb" rationale, in cases like this? That's my point – insisting on a 'Prod' over a 'BLPProd' in this case is pure WP:BURO thinking. Worse, the {{Prod blp}} tag is actually less WP:BITE-y to newbie editors than the 'Prod' tag is, so why are we insisting on not using the 'BLP Prod' tag?! We are doing no favors to absolutely everyone, including the newbies, in this process by insisting upon a 'Prod' over a 'BLP Prod' on TV- and WP:FILMBIO articles which only link to IMDb. Hopefully somebody will run an RfC to explicitly exclude IMDb as a "source" under 'BLP Prod' so this ridiculousness can end... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

List of films broadcast by Nickelodeon

I've gone ahead and requested semi-protection for the article, for persistent addition (or re-addition) of unsourced content and specials which are not films. I reminded admins that the last semi-protection period lasted six months. Not sure if the article will get an even longer (or indefinite) period this time. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. Admins may decline, though, on the grounds that the disruption isn't persistent enough. FWIW, the IPv6 that I just reverted is a long-term disruptor at the article (their editing patterns is always the same – returning the article to a version previous to when I added sourcing to and trimmed the article back), and I suspect that that IPv6 editor is a different editor than the ones you and Geraldo Perez recently reverted at the article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Crashletes and Girl Meets World

Since it's been over a month, if you don't wish you post over there, you can just post here. I'm just curious if you had any theories on the matter I raised regarding Crashletes over at Talk:List of Crashletes episodes. Also, in regard to Girl Meets World, this may be of interest. Obviously, that is not a reliable source and it's all speculation, but it's still certainly worth keeping an eye on. There have been cases where speculation has turned out to be true. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

On the first point, I have no idea what is going on with Disney's and Nick's scheduling people. Some of their decisions (e.g. running 5 episodes of Best Friends Whenever nightly over a single week, twice, rather than running a new episode every 1–2 weeks) have been downright baffling... On the second question, I actually think the best thing for season #4 of Girl Meets World is if they do take it to ~~The Squiggle Channel~~ Freeform, and allow the show to "grow up" some, like the original Boy Meets World did in later seasons. If GMW remains stuck on Disney Channel, it'll remain creatively stunted. But, I suspect that Freeform isn't interested, which is why GMW is likely to be cancelled in the end, as Disney probably knows that the show is a wrong fit for them from this point forward. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure there will be an announcement one way or the other, and hopefully sometime soon. Disney Channel would be doing a huge disservice to their audience if they just quietly canceled the show and would likely lose many viewers. As it is, Disney Channel's ratings, for whatever reasons, have been doing mediocre at best, even with its popular shows, like K.C. Undercover with its up and down ratings, and the only exceptions to this "curse" that I can think of are Liv and Maddie and Girl Meets World—and Stuck in the Middle as well, though new episodes are currently not airing. I remember what you said about kids not following a "schedule," but why is Nickelodeon not having any issues in this regard? Its ratings go up and down as well, but usually not that drastically and they are usually more consistent.

Regarding your point on week of premieres, I don't personally see anything wrong with that, unless there's another angle you're coming from that I'm not seeing. From the ratings perspective, Best Friends Whenever's second season certainly hasn't been doing very well for God knows what reasons considering its first season did very well. It's very possible it's from the different scheduling, because if you look at the episode list, that one episode from season two we had on Sunday did okay in the ratings, but the different days can't be the only reason. (There was another one not too far from that one in ratings, but I'm focusing on the perspective of Sunday as that's when it aired during season one.) Even Bunk'd's week of premieres was mediocre, but it's been doing better than Best Friends Whenever. On the other hand, when Stuck in the Middle had its week of premieres for its remaining five episodes from the first season, it did very well. Nickelodeon did week of premieres for Make It Pop, Paradise Run's first season, and Crashlete's first season. I don't know if they're going to continue week of premieres with Paradise Run for season two, but so far the ratings are solid! Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, IJBall. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

If there's one thing I hate...

It's things like this. I'm glad we can't use sites like that as sources. When it says pending, sure, okay, as that's not a definite, but outright stating canceled is another thing. Liv and Maddie was not canceled as from what I know, it was agreed upon the series would be ending after season four. There's also a difference between being canceled and just not being renewed if you remember GP saying that in one of our discussions. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes – a lot of people have trouble distinguishing "cancelled" (in other words, the network pulls the plug on you and your show, often at the "last minute" and with no time to wrap things up with a proper "finale"), and "ended" (i.e. when the producers and production company (and often the network) all agree to end a show, nearly always ahead of time and with a planned proper "series finale"). For example, Austin & Ally and Shake It Up were "ended"; I Didn't Do It and Victorious (and Girl Meets World?!) were cancelled. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

disruptive Malaysian IP

It look like you caught the Malaysian IP editor in the midst of making yet another cut-and-paste move. This is why I refrain from making redirects to his/her preferred titles; I'm worried they would only encourage more cut-and-paste moves. If you do create redirects for the IP, I suggest requesting page protection. After a bit of frustration in cleaning up yet more disruption, including cut-and-paste moves, I raised the issue with an admin last month, and he said there isn't much that can be done. Semi-protection for repeatedly targeted articles seems the best course of action. At the ANI, someone proposed an edit filter, but I'm not sure how well that would work out. Maybe it's worth bringing up at WP:EFN if these cut-and-paste moves and related disruption continue. I've been informally trying to keep track of the IP editor so that I can revert any outright disruption, but there's still a lot of stuff that I miss. If this continues, especially the cut-and-paste moves, I'll eventually write up a long-term abuse report. That might assist in getting pages protected. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: That's for contacting me. I've come across this disruptive IP editor almost as much as you have, so I'd appreciate if you could keep me in the loop on this (if it's not too much trouble), as I too would like to see this IP dealt with once and for all – it's clear that they're not going to "improve" in their editing, and their continued efforts are quite disruptive. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: They're at it again at Special:Contributions/1.32.76.60, disruptively editing the My Super Psycho Sweet 16 suite of articles, trying to (RM) move Mercedes Masohn, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw some of that, but I didn't see the edits where the IP was blanking soundtrack info. I don't understand why he/she would do that. It could be because I sometimes remove film score tracklists, which MOS:FILM discourages. I don't really know what to do about that, as it seems there's a language barrier here that prevents anyone from explaining why these edits are unconstructive. The most frustrating thing is that these edits are probably not disruptive enough to get any more attention than the previous ANI discussion got. Masohn's article is already on my watchlist, actually. There's a bit of drama over her name every once in a while, but I never did any research to see what the sources say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi IJBall. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Rollback

Request it already, you big awesome! Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: Heh. Honestly, I don't like Rollback as it's too easy to misuse, and too easy to misclick! (though I've got some Java code already pre-loaded that would hopefully prevent the misclicking issue...). Besides, I felt dirty enough (i.e. I felt like a "hat collector") recently having to request New page reviewer rights. The one thing that may get me to request Rollback, at least temporarily, is if I ever decide to test Huggle out... However, what I sometimes think I would love to have is massRollback – but, again, I think it would be too easy to fall into a habit of misusing it, so I'd rather leave stuff like that for Admins to deal with. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello IJBall,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

List of Kirby Buckets episodes

Could use some extra eyes over there. (Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H, is it correct to assume you're all still watching this?) Check the history and it'll be obvious. It's pretty obvious season two is over, but until season three episodes are announced, we can't put an end date for season two, unless there's a source claiming such, which there isn't. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: My advice is post to the Talk page there, stating there exactly what you just said here. And then with any future reverts just leave a "See Talk page" comment. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Lost in the West

Please keep an eye on it. Thanks. Obviously doesn't realize how TV series articles work. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I've seen it. But the issue between you and Wikipedical on this is a pure content dispute (and one I don't have any opinion about). You guys will have to work it out amongst yourselves, and hope that a third party breaks the tie. But I definitely think there needs to be a Talk page discussion there to see if a discussion can do that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. >_< (Obviously, I am kidding.) And that depends on whether or not they're willing to discuss it, and so far, I'm not getting a good vibe. However, I won't get too into it on your talk page. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedical is a good egg – I'm pretty sure they'll be willing to discuss... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Care to comment at Talk:Lost in the West#Removing "Ratings" section? -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Not really – there are fair points on both sides, and I really don't feel strongly about it one way or the other. Also, I'm trying to avoid unnecessary conflict on this project, lest I burn out. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: School of Rock

Yay! Finally! A normal amount of episodes for School of Rock. I don't know why the first two seasons have a low number of episodes, and season one seems to be missing one if you have a look at the talk page.

Also, what do you think of the fourth season of Liv and Maddie thus far? Is it also suffering from what you like to call the fourth season curse or is it decent like Jessie's fourth season was? Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Liv & Maddie season #4, I think I've only seen the first 2 episodes so far, so it's probably too early to say. But, from what I have seen, it seems to be suffering in missing some of the recurring characters of seasons #1-3, like Artie, and Josh from season #3... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Valid point indeed. Thankfully, there's still plenty of time for them to appear, especially if it's another 20+ season. (I do know many people have been inserting 15 for the number of episodes, but unless there's a source that explicitly states that, it's just hearsay.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Matthew Underwood

Hi, I'm not going to edit war with you about the notability tag, but drive-by tagging like that really gets on my nerves. Tags have a habit of sticking around long past their usefulness, especially tags for issues like notability, and that one has already been there for six months. If nothing has been done about it in that time, it's unlikely anything ever will be. I would—respectfully—suggest that you file an AfD if you don't think the subject is notable and thus settle the issue once and for all rather than leaving the article in limbo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: My reply is to just note this – every article I '{{Notability}}' tag, I log, with the fullest intention of fully revisiting them to either WP:PROD or WP:AfD (or to remove the tags, as I've done once so far...). (In fact, a couple of articles I 'Notability' tagged ended up getting taken to deletion by other editors!) So, in my case at least, it's not "drive-by tagging". On my end, the only reason that I haven't gone through more of my Notability log list lately is that I've been extremely busy with real-life work over the past few months, and so I have had to mostly suspend WP:AfD activities. But Amber Barretto and Matthew Underwood are probably the next two targets on my "Notability" list when I can get back to doing more around the project... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Mary McCormack - Photo

Hi there, I have been trying to change the photo on the Mary McCormack page. The one on her page at the moment isn't a good representative photo of her (it was taken while she was heavily pregnant and is a slightly weird candid look, for her main Wikipedia photo). Because I'm new to this I made a couple of mistakes, and now whatever I do is almost instantly deleted... I have written to Zacmann08, who sent me a message about disruptive edits... To be clear, I'm not trying to be disruptive at all, just to choose a better photo of Mary.

I'm writing to you because you have recently edited the site, and perhaps you can offer me advice or assistance?

Thanks very much – 2605:E000:608A:1200:69D3:43CE:B0E2:96B5 (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The issue is this – on Wikipedia, for an image to be used, it must be freely available (i.e. not copyrighted, etc.) for use on a site such as this one. Basically, there are 4 categories of allowed images – see WP:Image use policy for details. Assuming you have located an image of McCormack that you think is superior (and I'm not finding any on WP:Commons, so if you can find one that is within our image-use policy, you might have to upload it to Commons...), the best course of action is then to go to Talk:Mary McCormack and propose a change to the image you prefer there. That's probably the best way to make sure you get consensus in favor of an image change... Good luck. (And pinging Zackmann08 so he can see this as well...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Series renewals

Okay, so going to something more general, and this is something I've been wanting to ask, as I know you've worked a lot in this department, in your opinion, what goes into considering any series for a renewal? Obviously, it can't be solely the total viewers. I'm sure the viewers in the target audience, such as 18-49, are also taken into account? Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I was able to answer this question ten or more years ago a lot better than I am now. (Also, I'm more knowledgeable about the broadcast networks than cable...) These days, there seem to be so many non-ratings factors (e.g. foreign sales, internet streaming markets) that go into renewal/cancellation decisions that it's hard to parse them. There's a lot of talk that we're at "Peak TV" currently (an opinion I share) – basically, that there's "bubble" in regards to TV programming right now, one that's about to "pop" esp. if/when there's consolidation on the internet streaming side and the TV networks start failing – so I think we're in a unique environment in regards to television, and I don't think it's going to last. IOW, I think we'll be soon heading into a TV environment where cancellations are going to become more common again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, changing it up a bit with a new question. In your view:

What are the tells that a series may be canceled?
What are the tells that a series simply just won't be renewed for another season?

Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

First one: when the network puts your show on hiatus, or airs your show irregularly with long gaps between new episodes. (The latter one is not a sure bet for cancellation, but it increases the odds significantly.) Second one: With a long running show it's when some of the show's most important stars (and/or the show runner) have publicly stated something about "wanting to move on", or when a show's stars' salary demands start getting unreasonable to the point that everyone would rather just cut their loses than negotiate for another season. (The latter case is rare...) For example, it was pretty clear that Pretty Little Liars wouldn't go past season #7 (thank goodness!!) when both the show's stars and its showrunner started hinting that season #7 would be the show's last. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

In regard to airing episodes irregularly, I agree, and there are obviously some exceptions, the biggest one being the Christmas season as there are usually approximately between two and four weeks of no new episodes. For example, there will be no new episodes of Disney Channel's shows after tomorrow until a currently unknown date. (Let's just hope that when they resume in 2017, they start off with decent ratings, am I right?) And sometimes the gaps are intentional for whatever reasons. For example, Henry Danger's second season did not resume in January this year along with the other shows after its last episode on November 28, 2015; instead, it resumed on March 19, 2016, and ran weekly through May 7, 2016. Then there was a break and there was no new episode again until June 18, 2016, and then there was another break before its final episode which aired on July 17, 2016. And yet it was confirmed that there was a third season. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Disney and Nick are probably in a different category, though I will note that I started thinking that things were looking bad for Lab Rats: Elite Force when Disney XD took such a long break between airing new episodes last summer... (And, by all accounts, the show does appear to be done for good now.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello IJBall,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Improve the tools: Vote here.
Reduce your review load: Vote here

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

Discussion at Talk:Stuck in the Middle (TV series)#Stuck in the Middle: Stuck in the Store

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Stuck in the Middle (TV series)#Stuck in the Middle: Stuck in the Store. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Dog with a Blog

See history. Perhaps you could answer that question, because I honestly don't know how to answer it. I was only following your lead from when you fixed an issue that one time since you said you hate scopes. (Please note that I'm not actually asking for any action on the article in this particular case, just feedback as I don't want to upset anyone. c:) Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't "hate" the "scope="col"" thing – I just remain unconvinced that that code is necessary even in WP:ACCESSIBILITY terms (IOW, unlike the 'rowspan' thing, it doesn't sound like not having the "scope="col"" coding really causes any problems for text-to-speech readers...). However, it is common practice to put that into Filmography tables (WP:FILMOGRAPHY even encourages its use), and I would not bother to remove it from tables that already have that kind of code, on basically "WP:NOTBROKEN" terms. Removing it from tables in which that coding is already used will almost certainly prompt a reversion from other editors. So, it's not worth trying to remove it, IMO... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I'm heading to bed, but if you'd like to invite Aussie to this discussion, by all means. From what I've seen, you've got great respect for him. I mean, I have general respect as well, LOL, but I don't really interact with him. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Earlier when I didn't know what they are for, I used to remove those (mainly on huwiki), because they made no visual difference, but then later I learned about what they are for. Theoretically, screen readers should be able to detect these are column headers for such simple tables, and perhaps even row headers in the first column, but it's good practice to include explicit scopes to make sure. The only one that makes an actual visual difference is ! scope="row", if the plainrowheaders class is used on the table. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Disney Channel ratings for Friday, December 2

MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H

Just in case anyone's interested, here are the results from Disney Channel on Friday in millions: http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-150-friday-cable-originals-network-finals-12-2-2016.html Archived 2017-01-19 at the Wayback Machine

Series	Rank	18-49 Viewers	Total Viewers
Liv and Maddie	23	0.24	1.09
Girl Meets World	14	0.28	1.20
Bunk'd	35	0.21	1.24

I expect K.C. Undercover and Best Friends Whenever from Sunday to be about the same given how shitty it's been going for Disney Channel. (Seriously, are they not properly advertising their shows?) If they did better, I'll be pleasantly surprised. We'll find out tomorrow morning. Although I will say this, even with the kind of bad total viewers for Liv and Maddie and Girl Meets World in particular with these last three episodes and these last two episodes, respectively, they're still high on the list with their rank and 18-49 viewers, which is good, the latter of which hasn't changed that much like the total viewers, though I could be wrong. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Nickelodeon ratings for Saturday, December 3, and Disney Channel ratings for Sunday, December 4

MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H

As I expected for Disney Channel. It's just really sad. You know, with the exception of Liv and Maddie which is already ending after its current season, what are they going to do, cancel or not renew all of their shows? That will leave them with nothing and in a worse position if they bring in a bunch of new shows. But yeah, I mean, Liv and Maddie and Girl Meets World were the only ones still doing well, and then the shit ball dropped on November 18. I know I keep saying this, but yeah... They need to fix this. Advertise their shows better, for example, and I don't even know if that's the reason, but whatever the issue is, they need to resolve it. Before you know it, we may see Disney XD's type of total ratings of 0.50 million viewers or lower on average on Disney Channel, and that wouldn't be good.

Series	Rank	18-49 Viewers	Total Viewers
Henry Danger	5	0.43	2.50
K.C. Undercover	37	0.22	1.04
Best Friends Whenever	61	0.17	0.95

Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional thoughts

IJBall, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H: So after looking at the top 50 charts again and actually paying attention to them, the total viewers, despite being lower than usual, are still average or a slight mix of average and above average based on the coloring, so maybe things aren't as bad as they seem? For example, going back as far as September when new episodes started or resumed, compare these charts for Liv and Maddie, Girl Meets World, Bunk'd, and K.C. Undercover, the most popular shows, when they made the top 50. (Although I'm sure even when they weren't in the top 50, they were still approximately average.)

Before total viewers dropped:

After total viewers dropped:

And if anyone has any feedback on the matter in general, please feel more than free to say something. And hopefully you don't mind that I keep bringing this up. I've just kind of turned it into general discussion now more than anything.

Based on how things have been going, I predict total viewers for Best Friends Whenever and Bizaardvark will stay on the low side for this coming Sunday's episodes. However, when new episodes for Disney Channel resume in 2017, hopefully total viewers start off strong. We'll see what the future brings, I guess. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

(MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H) Maybe now there's hope yet for good Sunday ratings when they're published tomorrow based on Disney Channel on Friday. I don't watch these shows, but they still did good, even in total viewers: http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-150-friday-cable-originals-network-finals-12-9-2016.html Archived 2016-12-20 at the Wayback Machine

#5: Lego Frozen Northern Lights: 0.47 million (18–49)/2.01 million (total)
#7: Elena of Avalor: 0.41 million (18–49)/1.71 million (total)
#10: Duck the Halls: Mickey Mouse: 0.35 million (18–49)/1.62 million (total)

Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Welp, there goes that. Hopefully 2017 starts off better. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Liv and Maddie season 4

I betcha anything the users who keep adding in 15 episodes for the season are getting it from good ol' unreliable Wikia: http://livandmaddie.wikia.com/wiki/Season_4 Under Trivia there it says This season has the least number of episodes out of all 4 seasons. There were originally supposed to be 20 episodes, but the season was cut down to 15 due to Dove Cameron filming Descendants 2. However, with no source, who's to say that's the reason? And if is, you'd think Disney Channel would have put filming for Descendants 2 on hold, which is one movie, so Dove Cameron could to do a full typical season's filming of episodes. And it's also possible that Disney Channel could expand the season and order an additional five (or more) episodes like they did the second season, which was originally supposed to contain 13 episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Backstage

Interesting. This is what it looks like with your edit, but it actually looked better before, at least for me, anyway. Maybe I'm blind. ;) Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: It may be a "screen resolution" issue. But with my laptop, further down the table the "September" dates in the Canadian air dates column were "text wrapping", which looked awful. It's possible that taking the column widths out, but using {{nowrap}} might achieve more desirable results, I dunno... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Give it a shot if you think it'll work. :) What is your screen resolution, by the way? Both my desktop monitor and my laptop are 1366 x 768. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It's the MacBook Pro default, which I think is 1280x800. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Amaury (talk | contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Hope you're having a good holiday! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)