User talk:MPFitz1968/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MPFitz1968. 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 5

←

Archive 8

→

Unsourced and biased content on Andi Mack

I've requested another semi-protection due to the Asia vandal returning. As it's likely they'll return anytime a semi-protection expires, eventually we'll be at an indefinite semi-protection, which you won't hear me complaining about since it'll reduce the risk of vandalism and disruptive edits from IPs, at least. The only other thing I can think of since it's evident it's the same person is requesting a range block should it resume when the next semi-protection, if granted, expires. I'll clue in Geraldo Perez as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Looking thru the article's history on the IPs responsible for the content, it involves addresses in 180.191.0.0/16 and 180.190.0.0/16. Way too large for range-blocking, but I can't help thinking I've seen these addresses before, disrupting other Disney-related articles (and this was before Andi Mack even started early last year). MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I am noticing 180.190.64.0/18 is in the middle of a three-month block, after checking out an IP address in that range (which has edits logged at Andi Mack from a couple of months ago) here. MPFitz1968 (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

They've now shown up at Bunk'd and Raven's Home. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: There are also these kind of edits, like at Elena of Avalor ([1]). Now that I'm recalling, the IP range also vandalized Jenna Ortega at one time, linking her with some boxing organization [2], and List of Girl Meets World episodes, putting the series logo with various logos for cars [3] (I'll admit, having the "Volvo" one with the GMW logo did make me chuckle a little, but still inappropriate). In any case, I consider edits by IPs in 180.190.0.0/16 or 180.191.0.0/16 extremely disruptive, and should be reverted on the spot. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm still wondering if a range block would be appropriate. You originally mentioned the ranges were too large of a range, but then followed it up with one of those ranges already being blocked. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: A range as big as the one that got blocked (/18) is pretty large, but from the admin's explanation of the block, they were acting on a checkuser report and trying to stop sockpuppetry. Checking some of the IPs making edits to Andi Mack, even a /24 block is a potential collateral damage problem (obviously the IPs we're seeing go beyond /24). Example: Special:Contributions/180.191.111.54/24 (adding /24 to the end searches that subnet ... or in this case, the first three #s of the address are the same; /16 would mean the first two #s of the address are the same; numbers outside of multiples of 8 would start getting into looking at the binary representations of a particular # in the address). Will ping Geraldo Perez if he has more about this. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: They are owned by major ISPs in non-English speaking countries. /16 blocks are likely to have less collateral damage than the same /16 block for English speaking geo locations. The 181.161 range from the Chile is mostly vandalism and hoax edits creating bogus series and series extensions, and adding them to lists. Also shows up on other Chilean IPs. Not many people edit enwiki from Chile. I scan edits from that range periodically expecting vandalism and you may see insulting to me edit history summaries from that person when he edits. The 180.190 range is from the Philippines and one vandal using that range likes to add stupid images to articles and bogus company merger info related to those images. I generally just watch for those ranges expecting vandalism. Not much we can really do with large range blocks and they skip around enough that small range blocks are of dubious value but worth attempting if get a rash where a smaller range can be identified. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I Am Frankie

If it doesn't "overload" your watchlist, are you willing to add another one that you may or may not watch, but just keep a general eye on? I'm guessing that's what it's like for most Nickelodeon series, anyway, even when you had cable/satellite. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I can keep an eye on it. Not sure that watchlists can be "overloaded" from what I've read about them; it's more about the watcher's keeping track of as many articles as they are able or willing to. I have roughly 600 on my list right now, not that I actively read everything in the diffs except for obvious vandalism or disruption, or something that doesn't look right or is unsourced. Or some other items that catch my attention on the talk pages pertaining to how to deal with MOS-related details or inclusion/exclusion of material in articles (and of course my talk page, yours, IJBall's and GP's, just to name a few ;) ). MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. The latter of keeping track is what I was referring to.

In terms of live pages, I'm watching 412. I've got all the articles under "Tasks" in my sandbox—also in the Common Articles sub-page of my sandbox—as well as the talk pages of you, Geraldo, IJBall, Nyuszika, and myself, of course. Other than that, other articles on my watchlist are articles I've been asked to keep an eye on by you guys, the like BLPs or other television series. Also, if I revert an IP on articles I do watch and then see the same disruption on other articles I don't watch, those articles are added to my watchlist when I revert. Add: I've also got some other talk pages, including admins, on my watchlist, but I just mentioned you guys since you're the ones I regularly contact. Well, except Nyuszika since he's not currently active. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Andi Shack vs. AndiShack

A bit late on bringing this up (), but that was intentional on my part. I think we can ignore the sources in this case as even the opening credits sequence has a space. See here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I noted in my edit summary where I made the change (diff) that the closed captions in the "Crime Scene" episode also showed it as two words. (I checked the CC only for that episode; I was unsure myself which was right.) I'm OK with changing it back to two words, as well as any mention of it in all of the episode summaries and the parent article. If any objections come up later, we could open a discussion at either of the articles. (Don't know if there are any more issues with the word count/episode problem on the LoE talk page, but the change would increase the affected summaries by one word. Not a big deal.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

On the subject of that, shouldn't that plot tag be removed, then? Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: (edit conflict) Nah. Still working on trying to trim a few more of those long summaries, and anyone else is welcome to try. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, okay. You meant in the sense that there aren't any more issues in addition to the issues already raised with the summaries. That confused me. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Andi Mack and List of Andi Mack episodes

Rather than make a new section...

Pinging Geraldo Perez as well here. I'm pretty sure we're overreferencing again. Four references for the same thing? See here. The last reference about Kenya was also added to the LOE, though I don't think we need that much there, just a single source to support the relevant info in the lead since there's no Production section there is sufficient, in my opinion. Honestly, one reference should be enough for anything. Really basic example here that we wouldn't normally source due to the obvious, but for the sake of an example: Ice is frozen water. We have five websites reporting that ice is frozen water. Using only one of those sites would be sufficient for referencing. I get this point that was raised on the Andi Mack talk page: The gay character and coming out storyline made headlines on national/international news publications and media outlets ranging from The Washington Post to BBC News. ... Surely that merits it comprehensive coverage in the body of the article and inclusion in the lead. (Emphasis mine.) However, if all of those websites say the exact same thing, only in different words, I guess I just don't see why more than one reference is needed, personally. What does referencing something with more than one reference tell us, exactly? However, I'm not going to pursue anything there as I don't necessarily have a problem with it, though I will clarify this isn't really about Andi Mack specifically. Here, however, four references for the same thing is definitely overdoing it a little. Edit summaries would also be helpful. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Four saying the same thing is overdoing it. The best two would be reasonable to keep. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez:

Done. No idea if they'll try to reinsert them, but if that happens, we can always revert and direct them to the talk page and raise our points in the existing discussion. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: What are your thoughts the latest edits to Andi Mack overnight? In particular, this and this. For the latter, the U.S. part. I already have plans on removing the U.S. as it's pretty much unnecessary. It's obvious which Disney Channel this is based on the article. For the former, where they changed "and main character" to "as a main character," their reasoning was The Lodge's main character Josh actually being the first to be gay. However, should we be counting what happens on international Disney Channel series toward whatever or only count what happens on the American Disney Channel series? In this case, should we be counting Josh from Disney Channel UK's The Lodge as the first gay main character or should we only be looking at Disney Channel here and counting Cyrus Goodman from Andi Mack as the first gay main character? Thanks in advance. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: It is reasonable to qualify it as US Disney, harmlessly redundant at worst, clarifying to people not familiar with Disney's structure who may see a conflict. The real point is Disney as an international corporation made a decision to add gay main characters to their shows, whoever happened to air first was more by chance than anything and not really important, in my opinion, as to which was first. Still best to be as clear as possible if there is a chance of confusion in something people find important. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Hm. Point taken, I guess. One thing to note is that because it's in prose, U.S. should be spelled out. Although ... making him the United States Disney Channel's first gay main character sounds awkward to me. In fact, it already sounds awkward even as U.S. (Second to last paragraph in the "Production" section.) So perhaps that should be rephrased to read something like ... making him Disney Channel's first gay main character in the United States. As for the other issue, just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying Cyrus Goodman should be described to be the first gay main character on Disney Channel. Period. (In other words, the previous wording of "and main character" was fine.) Since the article only majorly covers stuff about what happens in the country of origin, people should know we're talking about the American Disney Channel, especially given the fact that we state in the lead that so and so series is an American series. However, while you may not find it necessary yourself, at the same time, you see nothing wrong with clarifying that Cyrus Goodman is the first gay main character in an American Disney Channel series. That's what you're getting at, correct?

Although now that I'm thinking about it, just with that small change, the context completely changes, in my opinion. Previous version: It is the first series on Disney Channel to feature a gay middle school boy and main character. Current version: It is the first series on Disney Channel to feature a gay middle school boy as a main character. Emphasis mine. In the previous version, we're quite clearly focusing on the fact that Cyrus is gay. However, in the current wording, the focus appears to shift more toward him being a middle school boy rather than him being gay. In other words, him being gay appears to be the secondary focus. I don't think the majority of people care about him being the first gay middle school male student, they just care about him being the first gay main character, which is what's groundbreaking here. What grade he is in is irrelevant to his sexuality, in my opinion. The gender, on the other hand, is probably more relevant. I don't really understand why, as they could have had a gay female main character, which would have also been groundbreaking, but I'm guessing there's a reason a gay male character is a bigger deal than a gay female character on Disney Channel. From my own research over the years, it seems that whenever we talk about homosexuality, almost everyone defaults to thinking about males, which might be playing a role in why a gay male main character is a bigger deal, though I have no idea why. Hopefully I'm making sense with all of this. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: The important first is Disney Channel's first gay male character no matter what Disney Channel outlet first aired an episode showing that. Firsts start to get watered down in importance the more qualifiers that are used. If you need to qualify it as Cyrus is first middle school boy main and Josh is first gay male main then that would be necessary for the second character and the extra qualifiers communicate to the reader there exists another character with fewer qualifiers. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussions of interest

I don't know if you or Geraldo Perez watch some of the project pages, such as WT:MOS, WT:MOSTV, WT:MOSFILM, and WT:WPTV, but there are a couple of recent discussions that may be of interest to you guys.

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#The broader problem of OR-based, TV/film-related labeling using reviewer and film-student jargon: Unless I'm misunderstanding, it's basically being claimed that on-screen credits cannot be used to determine or differentiate between main and guest and recurring guest actors and characters. As an example of that, the names shown on the opening credits sequence for Andi Mack should not be used to say those actors are main actors, if, again, I'm reading some of the comments right.
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed MoS change: actors' names (not) in plot sections: This is talking about the inclusion or exclusion of a parenthetical with an actor name within a summary of, what I assume to be, non-main actors and characters. Example: In this episode, Darth Vader (John Smith) visits his uncle's home. He later discovers that Jack, his uncle, is not home and goes to look for him.

IJBall and myself have commented on the second one, and IJBall has commented on the first one. He can also clarify if I've gotten something wrong here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't comment on the first one, because I found the idea that use of Primary source crediting in this way somehow constitutes "Original research" to be ludicrous. Also absurd was the idea that "recurring" isn't a "real" thing, but TAnthony basically smacked that one down pretty solidly by showing that reliable sourcing uses the term (often). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Brat

Pinging Geraldo Perez and IJBall as well in case they're interested. No idea if any of you have heard about this, but it's basically an online TV network on YouTube that produces episodes. All of their series can be found by visiting the article linked in the heading here. They're completely free for viewing. Some familiar faces you might notice include Nina Lu (Bunk'd), Chris Tallman (The Thundermans), Jason Earles (Hannah Montana), Mindy Sterling (Champions) among others. One of their latest new series, Hotel Du Loone, is basically a remake of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody, with some obvious references to the original series being made. Add: Their official website is here where ratings, among other things, are posted. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Bizaardvark

That IP was definitely a troll, not just an IP inserting unsourced information as there's no way a lot of those titles were even real. Not even the Wikia has anything like that. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hotel Transylvania: The Series

Need some more eyes here. IPs keep removing 2018 from the season one heading without explanation. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: How about this set of edits by an IP? I haven't tracked the episodes nor watched the series, but their changing the air dates and renumbering the episodes is typical vandalism IMO. MPFitz1968 (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you linked to the wrong diff, but yeah, those recent date changes were wrong: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/hotel-transylvania/listings/ https://tvlistings.zap2it.com/overview.html?programSeriesId=SH02704885 Ignore 23–26 for Zap2it. I'm not sure where those are from. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Just reported one of those IPs to AIV after they removed 2018 from the season one section heading three times. Checked geolocation of that IP and that of another IP that did the same thing earlier this month; couldn't find any common location (one in Florida and one in California), so probably not the same person. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Still could be – they could be using proxies... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury and IJBall: Now I'm seeing an IP changing the season one heading to "Season 1 (2017–present)", which is clearly against the MOS:TV guideline (where the word "present" isn't used in headings like this one), and I've reverted them twice in the last day or so, but they continue to restore the edit. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I see from that IP's talk page that they are evading a block of another IP, with their edits at HT:TS occurring inside the duration of that block, and I immediately reported them to AIV. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Saved by the Bell

You're up, here – I've reverted as much as I can today. Unfortunately, the protection from WP:RfPP was only pending changes, and not semiprotection. But if this IP doesn't quit soon, I think you may want to go back to RfPP and ask for semiprotection again... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I gotchu, bro! Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury and IJBall: I inserted my thoughts at the talk page of the currently disruptive IP [4]. I'd be thinking about having that IP blocked (for edit-warring), but if another IP/non-autoconfirmed comes and reinserts the info, or reverts one of our reverts, then it will be time to upgrade the protection level. MPFitz1968 (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Stuck in the Middle – "Stuck without the Perfect Gift"

Probably one of the best episodes of season 3B, if you will. That Harley and Aidan hug was so sweet and the best part, in my opinion. I wish it had been written that he had gave hugs to everyone to say goodbye—everyone present in that episode, anyway—as that was likely his last appearance. I may be a little biased because I'm a hugger and will hug my friends just because. It doesn't have to be a birthday or whatever. But that was still such a sweet moment.

Also, based on the image on the Wikia page for tomorrow's episode, it seems fairly possible that Isaak/Ethan will have one more absence. If so, that means he has been in 16/21 episodes and absent for 5/21 episodes. 76% attendance and 24% absences. I am quite curious as to how suddenly in season three, he started being absent. It's like Kali Rocha in Liv and Maddie and Karan Brar in Bunk'd having those unexpected absences in the fourth and second seasons, respectively, though they each only had one absence. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I'm not sure about the reason behind Isaak's absences, but I do recall he has been recurring in episodes of Fuller House. Filming there didn't appear to affect his involvement with Stuck in the Middle before. Perhaps other projects have come up? Other issues? Unless a reliable source comes out to explain that (which looks unlikely), we will never know for sure.

I do recall reading from SITM's Wikia about Aidan being in the finale. (It's also mentioning Rachel will be in it, too.) Of course, that's speculation until it actually airs, but I wouldn't say "Stuck Without The Perfect Gift" is Aidan's last appearance right now with that info being reported. As far as his hugging Harley after he reveals he's going back with his dad to Tokyo, definitely a heartfelt moment and you could tell from Harley's reaction about how much she will miss him. (Not sure about his hugging the rest of the characters; I seemed to be fine with how it turned out.) I kind of liked how they tackled her doing a complete 180 about him - probably coming about after what he did for Ethan to get his zombie film recognized by a huge name (fictionally speaking) in that industry, a completely selfless act after Harley criticized him numerous times for being completely selfish. She clearly did not like him. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I just watched part of the rerun of "Stuck with Harley's Bethany" earlier this morning. So funny. Aidan interrupts Harley's announcements and then she starts yelling at him, not realizing she turned the intercom back on when she slammed the paper down. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Definitely hilarious - and the chain reaction with Suzy and Bethany arguing with each other at the school's bake sale. BTW, I'm already in the middle of watching every SITM episode ahead of the finale - started doing so on Sunday, beginning with the pilot and progressing thru the episodes in order (well, I'm also catching the new ones along the way). Good thing I can cue them up on demand, with my having them all on Amazon. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Stuck in Harley's Quinceañera

Next best episode! One of my favorite parts was Ethan telling Harley that she wasn't just his BFF within the Diaz family, but also outside of it! The feels! Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The Suite Life of Zack & Cody (season 1)

Hi. I'm sorry about not following the right procedure when splitting an article. I just have a question, all I need to do is create the page but explain in the edit summary that it has content from the original article? Thanks! ManuelButera (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@ManuelButera: When splitting content from and article, in this case episodes from an LoE article into a season article, you need to start a discussion on the talk page of the LoE article to ensure other editors are fine with a split, per consensus. (See WP:SPLIT guidelines for what to do.) When you do an actual split, what you're splitting must be identified in the edit summary of the source article (e.g., Content split to <destination article>), and this must also be done in the article that gets the content (e.g., Content split from <source article>, whose page history serves as attribution). (See WP:CWW for why this attribution needs to be done.)

As for splitting from an LoE to a season article, it must be more than just moving the episodes, and I did notice in your making the season 1 article for The Suite Life of Zack & Cody that it contained a bit more substantial information relevant to what happened in that season ([5]), which would appear to be OK under the MOS:TV guidelines for a season article. Still, a request to split should've been done first. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, there should be a minimum of five seasons before even considering a season split. The series only had three seasons. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

3e428797

This editor is back. I've reverted them once before on List of Victorious episodes, but I'm pretty sure they're a sock as I vaguely remember they've edited other articles we watch, which aren't in this editor's contributions. Nothing decisive enough to prove it, though, and I'm not 100% sure in any case, so I'm not actually going to file anything. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Saturday ratings

Could you get Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn and Star Falls' ratings and the episode count updates for Raven's Home and Bizaardvark? At the college here checking stuff real quick on my tablet and getting work done isn't that easy on it. Charter is experiencing an Internet outage. Thankfully we can still watch TV since we moved back to DirecTV in December and only have Internet with Charter now. Thanks in advance! Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course I get back from the college, and guess what's back up and running? The Internet, of course. So, I mean, at least it wasn't like April 29–30 last year, if you remember that when I asked you to get the credits for Henry Danger and Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn. I still very much appreciate this. Thank you very much. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Amaury:

Done. And good thing you got the Internet back. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Oops, that was just for NRDD and Star Falls. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Disney Channel

I so wish you still had cable/satellite and that it had been priced a lot cheaper for the monthly bill. I don't think you ever really kept up with Nickelodeon in the more recent years, but you would love the new seasons of Bunk'd, Bizaardvark, and Raven's Home as well as the new episodes of K.C. Undercover and Bizaardvark that aired earlier this year. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Andi Mack – "Buffy in a Bottle"

Did you happen to catch that they "sneaked in" another adult joke in there while watching the episode? It was pretty much mirroring the the adult joke they had in the very first episode from the first season. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I'll probably have to watch the episode again to see if I spot it (don't tell me LOL). MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Andi Mack episodes

Some extra attention may be needed. I've given the recent IP a WP:DE warning. Your summary is already at 217 words, and that level of detail is simply unnecessary. I'll never understand why people feel the need to include, explain, or elaborate on every single detail. Instead of "the man suddenly appeared out of the shadows," we might see someone write "Mr. Smith suddenly appeared out of the shadows, but first he was lurking." First, we don't know who it is at that point, and just because we learn their name later doesn't mean we knew what their name was at that point. Second, suddenly appearing out of the shadows already heavily implies lurking. It's like the Sam & Cat examples you mentioned at the plot summary discussion. And I'm probably guilty of this myself per some of the summaries I've written for series like Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn, 100 Things to Do Before High School, and Game Shakers, but I make an effort to not state the obvious or act like we knew somebody's name at point X. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll let you deal with the latest edit by that 69 IP. Clearly they haven't paid that much attention to the series or they would know the context behind the bracelet. It's not exactly a hidden fact. Plus, once again, the summary is already over 200 words. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: While the summary (for "Keep a Lid on It") is above 200 words by roughly a long sentence, and believe me when I wrote it, I was trying to get the count down but essential info from the episode (Cyrus' changed feelings about Jonah, Andi's bracelet, Ham's decision to travel) wasn't allowing me to trim it much, the IP was attempting (with their latest edit, which ended up adding the fewest words, seven, of any of their attempts) to convey an essential plot point about the meaning of the bracelet. I was reading all the other summaries that pointed to the bracelet, which were roundabout about its purpose until the last part of the "We Were Never" summary (s2 e12): After Andi fixes the bracelet, Jonah tells her that it represents the two being "boyfriend" and "girlfriend", and he does not want to wear it because he is not into labels. Except for the summary size, I'm not thinking the IP's last addition about the meaning of the bracelet will hurt to be mentioned, so I'll leave it in the summary, for now. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

If you're okay with it, then I'm okay with it, too.

I always figure there's a reason you write things the way you do, and, unless there's an obvious typo, I don't really look for things to "fix." Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Justthefacts decided to revert it. Then they also removed the quotes you had around "crush," which I'm assuming you had there for a reason. I'll let you handle these since you were fine with the IP's edit. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I'm wondering why the quotes were taken off "crush", as we normally refer to one male and one female when talking about crushes, not two of the same gender - "crush" used in that sense may be euphemistic, as in Disney avoids using the straight-out terms that are not a problem with the strictly teen and adult demographics. Am I missing something? MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: @MPFitz1968: The IP's edit warring aside, why place quotation marks around crush? Crush refers to a romantic affection (gender or orientation is irrelevant), which is clearly the case here. Why would a crush Cyrus has (or had) be any less valid than a crush Buffy or any other character has/had? Particularly given that Cyrus is officially gay per Disney. Disney treats the crushes the same (the characters don't make a differentiation) and so should the article. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Justthefacts9: Looking up the word in the dictionary, you're right ... it makes no distinction on the gender: a feeling of love and admiration for someone, often someone you know you cannot have a relationship with ([6]); a brief but intense infatuation for someone, especially someone unattainable or inappropriate (Google search); a strong but temporary attraction for someone ([7]). So I would not have any problem with the quote marks taken out after seeing that. All the dictionaries I consulted indicate "crush" (as a noun in this case) to be an informal usage, but I don't know if this would be in conflict with WP:TONE. As this series is geared toward younger audiences, and the word is clearly used in the dialogues, may not necessarily be an issue, but if it is, might need to replace with "infatuation" or another related word. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

For the record, they already did so here. Also, back to what the IP added, while I have no problems with it now, I'm wondering if it could be rephrased? Maybe it's just me, but the current wording of "they become girlfriend and boyfriend" seems fan-ish or otherwise informal, if that makes sense? Again, maybe it's just me, though. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: @MPFitz1968: Regarding changing informal tone to a formal tone, a more formal term for "crush", which would still be readily understood by readers ("infatuation" might not be as easily understood) is "romantic affection" or "romantic feelings" (the former more formal than the latter) and a more formal phrase for "they become girlfriend and boyfriend" is "they enter into a relationship". --Justthefacts9 (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Justthefacts9: Trying to rework the sentences with the word "crush" in them, I came up with this: Cyrus later tells Buffy that he no longer has ~~a crush on~~ romantic affection[s] for Jonah, as his feelings have ~~changed into~~ become those of friendship. That leads Buffy to reveal she ~~has a crush on~~ is in love with someone; when she wants to keep it from Andi, Cyrus immediately knows who it is. (Don't know if I should use "affection" or "affections" here.) Turns out where I replaced "crush", it didn't affect the word count, though the other change I made, "have changed into" to "have become", I was intending to trim, as the summary is above the 200-word recommended max. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: It should be noted that a "crush" is not quite on the same level as "in love with" (the latter is more significant than the former), so it's best to consistently use the phrase "romantic affections". The phrase "they become girlfriend and boyfriend" should also probably be changed to "they enter into a relationship" (the former sounds like elementary school level language). --Justthefacts9 (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: How's this? --Justthefacts9 (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Justthefacts9: Looks good. Was trying to go for a variety of terms similar to the word "crush", but I'm okay with "romantic affections" used twice. Also made the more minor change in my rewrite of the sentences above ("changed into" → "become"). MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Great, it was nice working with you. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Just out of plain old curiosity, what did you believe that "crush" could have otherwise been referring to (regarding Cyrus' crush, or now former crush, on Jonah)? What did you mean by "euphemistic"? --Justthefacts9 (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Justthefacts9: At the time of that post, when I was thinking "crush" referred to a boy having one on a girl, or a girl having one on a boy, but not two of the same gender, I was making the connection with "crush" as a euphemism for "gay relationship". Disney is not going to allow use of "gay" directly in their series on Disney Channel, although who knows if they eventually will in the years to come? But definitely got a lesson on the true meaning of "crush" in the last few days, and "romantic feelings (or affections)" is a lot less offensive. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Modification of episode summaries

Random IPs have started showing up and modifying the summaries you've written. Do these edits make sense to you? Do you agree/Are you okay with them? Links below.

[8] – While he was pointing, he didn't specifically state his name.
[9] – As far as I know, there was nothing wrong with stating it the other way.
[10] – What was unclear about it before?
[11] – What's wrong with vagueness? Plus, I've never heard anyone say, "I'm in a romantic relationship with Adam Smith."
[12] – Again, what was not concise about it? It would help if the IPs would actually explain why they're changing XYZ, rather than just saying they're changing X because of Y.
[13] – This I can't even tell what was changed.

Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: From what I've seen in the edits, I don't have any problem with any of the modifications you pointed out - though one IP was mentioning frisbee being capitalized because it's a trademark. (Not sure on that one, but I'll let that stand.) As for the last episode's summary, which certainly has had quite a bit of modification and discussion after I wrote it, about its saying that "Cyrus immediately believes it is Jonah" vs. "Cyrus immediately knows who it is" (which is what I originally wrote): with his pointing to Jonah's picture in the yearbook and showing Buffy, it's as good as his saying Jonah straight out, but more importantly, the wording changed from "knows" to "believes" is actually appropriate. Sometimes, I can slip up with how I word some stuff. Adding "romantic" to the sentence about Andi and Jonah entering into a relationship does make it clearer, and I won't object; removing the word may still say the same thing in context, though it's hard to say whether the lack of wording will confuse the reader. The IP making that edit was clear in pointing the missing word out and how it can be interpreted wrongly. Some other edits where the wording was changed to make it clearer in meaning is certainly a goal of writing a good encyclopedia (or any writing for that matter), so as not to confuse or present an unintended inaccuracy. Sometimes, though, the writing is deliberately vague because the writer wants their readers to figure things out for themselves, like with mysteries. MPFitz1968 (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I guess I'm being a little "protective," if you will. Sorry, I know that sounds cringey. You work hard on these summaries, and then when someone, especially IPs randomly showing up, just starts making these changes, it feels like they're calling the person who wrote them—in this case, you—a bad writer. That's one of the reasons why I did this. It's "funny," because if anyone should be bothered by these, it should be the original writer. The discussion a while ago about shortening the summaries was different as it wasn't explicitly changing anything, it was just being discussed that some summaries should be shortened. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Lab Rats: "Armed and Dangerous" – Is this a trivial note?

Note: Adam's pressurized lung capacity from "Brother Battle" is prematurely shown in this episode.

I've removed it in my cleanup. It wasn't shown prematurely, per se, it's that "Armed and Dangerous" (September 29, 2014) is production #318 and aired before "Brother Battle" (October 20, 2014) which is production #312, where that ability was introduced. Hence the minor, in my opinion, continuity error. Is that worthy of a note? Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

What exactly makes something COPYVIO?

As sometimes it's not so simple and clear as it should be. For a few examples from Lab Rats, since I'm currently working on its LOE in my sandbox, as you know, see below. In bold are either the extreme similarities or verbatim wording.

S3 E16: Spike Fright

Current summary at LOE: Chase gets a girl interested in him, but Adam gets jealous and tries to ruin their date by having Chase turn back into Spike. Meanwhile, Leo and Bree suspect that Principal Perry has murdered a cook from the cafeteria and Donald. They then find out it was about a hamburger truck and they misunderstood everything.

The Futon Critic summary: When Chase finally gets a girl interested in him, Adam gets jealous and sabotages their date by purposefully causing Chase to turn into Spike.

S4 E2: Left Behind

Current summary at LOE: After sneaking some students off the island and to the mainland, the Lab Rats accidentally leave Spin and Bob behind and must retrieve them before Donald finds out. Meanwhile, Donald tries on Chase's mission suit and he and Leo scramble to get it off before Chase gets home.

The Futon Critic summary: After sneaking a group of their bionic students off the island, Adam, Bree and Chase accidentally leave Spin and Bob behind and scramble to retrieve them before Davenport finds out.

S4 E3: Under Siege

Current summary at LOE: When suspicious events happen overnight on the bionic island, everyone is convinced a new threat has emerged. However, this threat is revealed to be Leo, when his bionics glitch because Douglas never gave Leo a capsule.

The Futon Critic summary: When a series of suspicious events happen overnight at the academy, everyone is convinced a new threat has emerged.

For "Left Behind" and "Under Siege," I've completely removed the summaries in my sandbox. Now, here's an example using a longer summary.

S4 E6: Simulation Manipulation

Current summary at LOE: Adam and Chase each lead their own student groups against each other in a series of simulated exercises that will evaluate both student and mentor performance. However, after Chase's group fails at defeating the exoskeleton and defusing a virtual bomb, Chase decides to find a way to cheat and win. He tries to use his Override App to make his group do whatever he is thinking. However, it malfunctions and they mirror what Chase does instead. With no time to fix it, the third test starts. The test is a virtual maze that the students must do alone. While watching the students' progress on the screen, Chase mimics the maze, claiming it's his good luck dance. Chase's team wins, but Adam steps on Chase's foot to expose the Override App. Chase is then punished by Donald having Adam use the Override App on Chase. However, when Adam uses it to hurt Chase, Adam hurts himself in the process. Meanwhile, Leo wakes up to find the mentor quarters a mess. After cleaning up for six hours, he blames Adam and Chase. However, when he finds the quarters a mess again, he looks at the security footage and realizes that Bree is making the mess. Leo catches Bree in the act and Bree says that she just wanted to let loose because she had some freedom. The two start throwing junk at each other; when Leo is about to bury Bree in Adam's workout clothes, she stops him and wishes there was a way she could be messy and not have Leo clean up after her. Much to Donald's dismay, they use the exoskeleton as their cleaner.

The Futon Critic summary: Adam and Chase each lead their student groups against each other in a series of simulated exercises that will evaluate both student and mentor performance.

So here is the question: If the first sentence or two of a summary here is very similar or exactly the same as the summaries on The Futon Critic et al, does that make those portions of the summaries COPYVIO or is it okay in those cases? Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:CLOP – on this site, the bias definitely seems to be "if it's all close, treat it as plagiarism, and remove it". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

A recommendation and a question

I don't know if you ever watched Lab Rats, Mighty Med , and/or Lab Rats: Elite Force, all Disney XD series—and perhaps you already have one or more of those series on Amazon—and while obviously not all at the same time, if you're ever bored and have the funds, of course, and want to binge and re-watch a good series from the past or try a "new" series from the past if you haven't watched them, I would personally recommend the three aforementioned series on Amazon. The episode summaries for all three and in particular Lab Rats, especially its fourth season, all need improvement and need to be rewritten from scratch, and you're a professional. Although I imagine some of what's there now can probably be worked with. But ones like "Bionic Action Hero," like I mentioned on my talk page, are just all over the place and hardly make sense, plot-wise.

I'll ping AJFU on this as well since they're also a professional writer in case they're interested in helping out. AJFU, did you ever watch one or more of the three aforementioned series? I don't know if you watch strictly online or if you have a cable or satellite provider such as DirecTV like we do, but if the latter, the entire seasons of Lab Rats and Lab Rats: Elite Force are available on Disney NOW for no additional charge. Just sign in with your provider and boom! If you have DirecTV, it should do it automatically when you click an episode and choose DirecTV. A page will open and sign you in automatically and then take you back to the episode you've chosen. Unfortunately, Mighty Med isn't there, at least not now. Kickin' It is, another good series, but sadly not Mighty Med.

As for my question, with Stuck in the Middle over, were you thinking of replacing it with another Disney Channel series? Maybe Raven's Home? Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I may look into other series to watch. In the last couple of months, I did buy the first volumes (first half of season one volumes) for a couple of early 2010s Disney Channel series, A.N.T. Farm and Shake it Up, on Amazon. I am taking my time going thru each of those episodes. Don't know if I'll be bored anytime soon with what I'm watching, as Amazon Prime has a fair number of titles of other series that get my attention, both scripted and unscripted. Found myself watching old seasons of Survivor, The Amazing Race and Hell's Kitchen, among the unscripted, but more recently have been looking at real old series like The Donna Reed Show, Petticoat Junction, That Girl, Family Affair and the less old Family Ties and The Cosby Show. And plenty others I see in recommendations. But I can always expand my viewing of a variety of TV shows, whether I can immediately stream it on Prime, or purchase it. I also have all of Full House and season one of Step By Step on DVD, too, so doubt if I'll ever get bored with what I'm watching. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

So that pretty much answers my question as well. Oh? You can stream free, too? Cool. So since you probably won't be bored anytime soon, alternatively, you could see what you could do now for them, especially the Lab Rats ones in particular. While you haven't watched the episodes—and if you did watch the series, it's probably been a long time—it doesn't mean you can't improve them and make them concise and a little easier to follow. lol Lab Rats needs it a lot more than Raven's Home does, and I can actually take care of Raven's Home myself in that case since there's not a lot to work with. Mostly just copy-editing. For Lab Rats, since I've already copy-edited a lot and removed the COPYVIO ones, I would recommend working on them, again, if you're up for it, in my sandbox directly. I'm on season four now—watched the first episode of that last night—and should be done with by binge today or tomorrow, at which point my cleanup will go live. After that, I plan on going through Kickin' It to correct credits. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I watched all three. If I have some time, I might try to work on some of those Lab Rats summaries beginning next week. AJFU (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@AJFU: That would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The cleanup is live. If I would have known about the copyrighted content sooner, as in when I first started binging the series, I would have tried to have written summaries for the affected episodes. I did, however, attempt summaries for "Left Behind" and "Under Siege from the fourth season, though improvements can always be made. Thanks again, AJFU, for the upcoming help. And I can also watch the summary-less ones—or even binge the series again—again if necessary. In the meantime, I'm going to continue on and binge Lab Rats: Elite Force and then binge Kickin' It and work on it. Or maybe I'll switch it around. Who knows. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Need some help

As was discussed here: Talk:List of The Thundermans episodes#Redux 1 Season splits are not even considered until during a series' fourth season. At that point, further factors that potentially increase the chances of a season split happening are taken into account, such as number of episodes and if the series is continuing to season five and possibly beyond. In the case of Henry Danger, all of its seasons have had regular episode orders, including the upcoming 20-episode fifth season, and the first season had an extension. Now, I don't know if Henry Danger will ever be season split, but I've created sandbox pages just in case, so if a split is agreed upon down the line when the fifth season premieres or sometime around then, the process will be much easier, with most of the work already done.

There's one wall I'm running into, though. The way it's supposed to work is that the season articles contain the episode summaries, while the episode list is just a basic list, with no episode summaries. However, even on the season pages, the summaries are not showing up, and I can't figure out why. I used The Middle's season one article as an outline, and from what I can see, I did everything right, with using the episode list sublist template and adding the noinclude around the episode tables. I did notice I had to add the prev_season and next_season parameters to the infobox, which according to the template documentation for the infobox, I shouldn't have had to do as it should have added the links automatically, using the season_number parameter. I don't know if that's related.

Anyway, just have a look at any one of my season pages. I just added them to my sandbox here: User:Amaury/sandbox#Sandbox Subpages. The problem is clear. Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I can't seem to pinpoint what is causing the summaries not to display. May need to find someone who's aware of the technical issues concerning the {{Episode list/sublist}} template. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: A word about separate "season" articles – basically, there shouldn't be separate "season" articles unless there's substantial content aside from the episode table/summaries. IOW, you need a fairly hefty 'Production' section covering the season, and a decent 'Reception' section for that season as well. What I'm trying to say here is that it's very unlikely that the vast majority of Nick and Disney Channel shows will "qualify" for separate "season" articles – that really is reserved for The Game of Thrones and Walking Deads of the world... OTOH, if all you're doing is "experimenting" with this stuff in your Sandbox, that's fine too! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: That's basically what I'm doing, yeah. But it would also prove useful should the unlikely time ever come. I know the season articles for The Middle are also light on content, but from what Geraldo said, they are exemplars of the absolute minimum needed for season articles, but he did also explain that it should generally be able to be explained what makes one season stand out from another season. See, for example, The Middle (season 1). Although there it's probably more justified, with it having nine seasons. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, basically, if the choice is between an "overlong" LoE article that technically violates WP:SIZESPLIT, and "rinky-dink" separate season articles that consist of nothing more than an episode table with summaries, I'll always prefer the former over the latter. After all, WP:SIZESPLIT is just an "info page", but the "notability" standards for articles are actual guidelines... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: So no matter the seasons? Like with the The Middle, would you rather have all nine seasons with summaries in an episode list? What if there were 50 rinky-dink season articles? Would you rather those be all be in just an episode list with episode summaries galore? lol Also, can you help with the original issue? Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Short answer: yes – an "overlong" LoE article is preferable to "season" articles with insufficient notability. Remember: if a LoE article ever gets too long, you always have the option of what they did with Pokemon, and split the LoE article "in half" – e.g. List of Pokémon episodes (seasons 1–13) and List of Pokémon episodes (seasons 14–current). That's a much better solution than spinning out insufficient "season" articles. And, practically, most live-action series will not run enough seasons to even need "splitting" of the LoE article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)