User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 12
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Geraldo Perez. 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I Am Frankie guest star credits
How do we handle a situation where Nickelodeon's generic end credits at the end disagree with a show's actual end credits, especially when the official ones don't list a character that was actually there? For example, the last episode of I Am Frankie's first season—and some others as well, obviously—had John (Justin Jarzombeck) in the episode and Nickelodeon's generic end credits had him listed accordingly, but in the show's actual end credits, he was not listed. See the other changes here. How should we handle this? Go with the show's actual end credits, go with Nickelodeon's generic end credits (which, outside of guest stars, agree everywhere else with the show's actual end credits), or combine the actual and generic end credits? Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- My $0.02 is to go with the show's actual end-credits. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I agree. I like reporting reality, even more so when we can back it up with a reliable source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @IJBall:, Geraldo, that's my feeling as well. What's making this more confusing for me in this case is that, for example, John was in that last season one episode as mentioned, but wasn't credited as a guest star in the show's actual credits. Although he was credited as a guest star in earlier episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Becomes a judgment call then. Looks like the appearance was not significant enough for a credit. Non-speaking or minor maybe. I'd say if going by the actual credits, then omit. Might be worth noting this situation on the talk page and how you are planning on handling it in case this becomes an issue in the future. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- He did talk a little, yes. Every time he appeared, he was in Nickelodeon's generic cast credits at the end. As far as I can see, though, this is the only show where the actual end credits and Nickelodeon's generic end credits disagree. With other shows, they agree. Another interesting tidbit is what IJBall mentioned on my talk page. Alex Hook, one of the main cast members who portrays Frankie, was also guest star credited in the last episode of season one for portraying Eliza. That one's definitely a bit weird because you can't be a main and guest cast member at the same time. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: If she's playing a different character she may get a guest star credit for that. Strange but it may be a way to give her more money with the extra credit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- He did talk a little, yes. Every time he appeared, he was in Nickelodeon's generic cast credits at the end. As far as I can see, though, this is the only show where the actual end credits and Nickelodeon's generic end credits disagree. With other shows, they agree. Another interesting tidbit is what IJBall mentioned on my talk page. Alex Hook, one of the main cast members who portrays Frankie, was also guest star credited in the last episode of season one for portraying Eliza. That one's definitely a bit weird because you can't be a main and guest cast member at the same time. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Becomes a judgment call then. Looks like the appearance was not significant enough for a credit. Non-speaking or minor maybe. I'd say if going by the actual credits, then omit. Might be worth noting this situation on the talk page and how you are planning on handling it in case this becomes an issue in the future. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @IJBall:, Geraldo, that's my feeling as well. What's making this more confusing for me in this case is that, for example, John was in that last season one episode as mentioned, but wasn't credited as a guest star in the show's actual credits. Although he was credited as a guest star in earlier episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I agree. I like reporting reality, even more so when we can back it up with a reliable source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Sam & Cat - IP edits claiming revelation of Cat's brother's name in another series is relevant to bring up in this series
This is potentially getting into edit-war territory, but the latest edit is logged under a different IP address. I've issued a level 3 for disruptive editing at that address and made note of the edits under a different one in determining the severity of the warning. I suggested to the user to bring this up on the talk page if they disagree with the irrelevance of the content they are adding, though I doubt any consensus could be built to include their edit. The addition of Cat's brother's identity in the Sam & Cat article, with the revelation being made in Henry Danger, is all-out trivia and completely irrelevant in the context of the earlier series, plain and simple. (Pinging Amaury and IJBall ... could use some more eyes at Sam & Cat. I'd hate to take this to RPP, and I doubt the admins would semiprotect at this point with the low level of disruption.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: Will keep an eye on it. @IJBall: Pinging you as it looks like pings using "U" still aren't working. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- Scratch that. Pings in general don't seem to be working again. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: If the IP gets insistent we can likely get the article protected for a bit as the IP is dynamic making it hard to communicate with. Should put a note in the talk page of the article first, though, to establish concensus. This issue is a bit of a fanish thing, somewhat philosophical, about what counts as canon for a fictional work. I think we should take the strict version of canon, if it is not in the work itself, it isn't canon. Extend a bit for directly related official show sites to fill in some things while the show is running such as official character names if not in credits. Stuff that happens well-after a fictional work is done should be ignored even if written by one of the creators. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Happened to see this. In case anyone's interested. MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H, IJBall. I may chime in myself, but I'll just really quickly say that I personally see nothing wrong with splitting once there's second season information regardless of the number of episodes for the first season. If the first season has less than 20 episodes, 20 total episodes will be reached during the second season, so why not just get it out of the way before the season starts when there's less work to do instead of waiting for that 20 total episodes mark? Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia contradictions you are unaware of regarding Orenthal Cornelius Hayes "Gibby" Gibson
You recently reverted an edit of mine on the List of iCarly characters Wikipedia, regarding character Gibby's full name. That being "Orenthal Cornelius Hayes "Gibby" Gibson". You reverted it back to "Orenthal "Gibby" Cornelius Gibson", which lacks the "Hayes" component. However, on the Noah Munck Wikipedia, in the Filmography section, someone has specified his name to be "Orenthal Cornelius Hayes "Gibby" Gibson", therefore the two Wikipedias contradict each other. Having said that, which article would you say is correct? Neither possess citations regarding the full name. If the List of iCarly characters's "Gibby" were to be changed, could one cite the Noah Munck article or is that against Wikipedia's policies? What do you prepose? I don't believe the two articles should remain this way as the names contradict each other. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- AlexanderHovanec In general, as per WP:TVCAST, character (and actor) names should be listed as per credits. If a name is not shown in the onscreen credits, then the "out of universe" common name should be the one that is primarily listed. In this case, the WP:COMMONNAME for the character is clearly just "Gibby". That is certainly how the character name should be listed in Munck's Filmography. In terms of the iCarly LoC article, the "header" should simply be "Gibby" – the character description can then mention the full name, provided that is sourced to a specific episode (with a timestamp). P.S. You can never "source" to either Wikipedia itself, or to an off-site Wikia – they are not considered WP:RS's. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- @AlexanderHovanec: I see that IJBall fixed the issue of the non-credited name being listed in Munck's article. As for the descriptions in the list article, part of the issue and why we so strongly require references is there are a number of editors who like to make up names for characters that are not based on what is in the show, sometimes maybe fanfic that gets embedded in their mind or other reasons. We need a reference so that others can verify that the name is actually canon. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This article is a mess. I could probably tackle some things about it (though it would take time), but there are more fundamental problems that need to be tackled first – for example, this article has "two" separate seasons airing at the same time, but then it also says that "season 6" is just "season 3" rebroadcast in HD which doesn't strike me as a "valid" season then (i.e. the "season 6" section should probably be removed, and it can simply be mentioned in prose that season 3 was rebroadcast in HD on [X] dates...). Another problem is that the "season 5" and "season 6" airdates don't match the 'series overview' table dates...
Anyway, any ideas here?... I'm not going to invest any time on this article until we can figure out what to do with some of its more fundamental issues... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I agree. I may make a pass if I get the time and motivation. So far I am just trying to keep it from degrading more from vandalism edits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- FWIW, I have now started a topic about this "season 6" issue at Talk:List of Oggy and the Cockroaches episodes – if there is no other feedback about this, I will simply (when I eventually remember to!!) remove the 'Season 6' section from the article and will try to convert the basic info into prose... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Your thoughts would probably be helpful over at Talk:List of Oggy and the Cockroaches episodes#"Season 6". One editor is using what I think is a primary reference to claim that "two seasons" of a TV show can be aired/released simultaneously. (It doesn't help that the Futon Critic "source" being used here doesn't even list "season 5" or "season 6", so the current U.S. airdates are unverified...) I'm trying to explain that that's not how TV seasons work... Anyway, if you've got a minute, a 3rd opinion would probably be constructive. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Geraldo, what do you think about this edit? I've reverted this previously on the grounds of it being unsourced and speculative, but I won't revert again on 3RR grounds. (Pinging Amaury and MPFitz1968 as well.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Henry Danger - Henry's dad
I think I'll wait until some more season four episodes air to see how he's credited, but before tonight's episode (see here) he was always credited as Mr. Hart. Is this something that we should change on the list of characters article if he's credited that way from here on out or should it still be Mr. Hart because the list of characters article covers the entire series, not just season four? Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Assuming he is playing the same character, which isn't obvious just based on the credits, both should be listed in the character article. The later credit doesn't override the earlier one. "Mr. Hart/Jake" as the header and the intro "Jake Hart" seems justified with an explanation that he is credited both ways. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Same character, yeah. But I'm going to wait on some more season four episodes in case there was a mistake somewhere or something. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
External links section
I'll ping IJBall as well since he seems to be an expert in this area.
Should the external links section only be on the parent article? While I haven't gotten around to fixing this yet, I just realized quite a while ago that when I added the external links section to various list of episodes articles a long time ago, the IMDB ones are not correct. For example "List of Henry Danger episodes on IMDB" which doesn't exist, though clicking the link will take you the Henry Danger since that's the ID that's being used. There are no episode lists on IMDB, though, so that link text is wrong. As such, I haven't been adding an external links section to recent episode list splits. So I definitely need to remove the IMDB ones, but I'm wondering if I should just remove the external links section altogether from list of episodes/characters article per my question above. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: This is generally how I handle this – links to the main {{IMDb title}} and {{Tv.com show}} pages from the main TV series article, and links with {{IMDb episodes}}, {{Tv.com episodes}}, and usually {{Epguides}} (where applicable), at the LoE article. I don't have any particular thoughts about EL's in LoC articles, but a link to {{IMDb title}} from there too is probably not out of line... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I agree with IJBall. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Getting concerned about this article, where IPs have been adding trivia notes at the end of episode summaries. Someone likes to point out Carlon Jeffery's (as Cameron Parks) last appearance or Aedin Mincks' (as Angus Chestnut) first appearance as a main cast member. (Examples: [1] [2] [3]) Gotten way past the point of disruptive, and I'm inclined to ask for semiprotection, except these edits are spread out timewise. Aside from semiprotection, may need more eyes on this. (Amaury, IJBall, if you're up to it ... another one to watch.) Note: I took out a lot of unsourced trivia/fancruft a few weeks ago from these episode summaries [4], and am working to keep it out. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Sheldon Cooper reference on I Am Frankie
Other than improperly being a raw reference, Geraldo, IJBall, is this really necessary? I haven't checked the link myself, but from seeing the URL, I don't think there's anything there that connects I Am Frankie, just a source more for the Sheldon part. Also, I don't know if that's a reliable source or not. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Not necessary and a bit trivial but somewhat interesting and supported by the reference. Editorial choice as to whether or not it belongs. I saw it and didn't see any strong reason to remove it. Actress stating how she modeled her performance. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's also why I left it alone. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much!
Hi Geraldo. I wanted to thank you for restoring my edit to "The Jungle Book" (2016). The user "Saiph121" removed my edit without giving any reason. Before reverting my edit back and getting into an editing war, I messaged him asking for an explanation but no response. This is the second time that this is happening to me. Just a few days ago, the user "Koala15" did the exact same thing.
A quick look at the Talk Pages of these two users clearly indicates that they have a habit of doing this type of vandalism - removing perfectly good content haphazardly. Both have been warned numerous times by admins but they simply ignore the warnings and continue as is. I wonder why the admins are not taking any actual action against these two repeat offenders. MissTique (talk) 05:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- @MissTique: Be careful about calling edits vandalism. Undoing edits in of itself is not vandalism but it is generally considered courteous to give reasons for undoing edits unless the edit being reverted is blatant vandalism. Unfortunately a lot of editors either forget or don't like to use edit histories. If you do get reverted you should ask why on the user's talk page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- I understand that vandalism is a strong word and I wouldn't throw it around if it didn't apply in this situation. But someone like "Koala15" who enjoys nothing more than reverting perfectly good edits all the time, has been warned about this behavior multiple times by multiple different admins, even has numerous cases opened against him in the Admin noticeboard, and he has not given any reason in his defense for such behavior is a vandal. Sorry, but that's just how I see things. Removing useful content is just as much vandalism as adding gibberish. You can check his Talk page and decide for yourself.
- Of course I understand that reverting edits isn't vandalism. That's what Wikipedia is all about, editing and re-editing things. Users add and/or remove content all the time to make articles better. I am aware of the rules of Wikipedia that is why when I add anything I make sure I have ample references to back it up. I usually prefer not to revert anybody's edits unless I am absolutely sure that they are incorrect and even then I give a reason as well as informing them on their Talk page, as a courtesy, why I undid something.
- And yes, I did ask on both the user's Talk Pages their reasons for reverting my edits, but no response form either of them.
- MissTique (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
DRN case closed
This message template was placed here by Nihlus, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "Talk:Beauty and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Overcategorization". The case is now closed: consensus has been reached on the talk page. If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you may refile the DRN request or open a thread on another noticeboard as appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this volunteer at his/ her talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Nihlus 21:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- Additional comments by volunteer: If further disagreements form where consensus is not achievable, feel free to refile.
Geraldo, you may want to take a look at the edits of 2606:A000:F8CC:9100:B105:2833:623B:833 when you get the chance. They added "comedian" to two articles I am watching without any support for it, and they've made a lot of edits today, so they may all need to be checked. Just so you know... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Geraldo Perez, my name is Andrew Solio, and i am sorry for editing the Jessica DiCicco article over and over again. It's just that i want the article to look like this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170128075127/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_DiCicco
Make sure you click on the URL and scroll down to see all the contents. That includes early life, career, filmography, live action, animation, feature films, direct-to-video and television films, video games, other roles, references, and last but not least, external links. And also, make sure you message me back after you're done. Thank you.
- @2601:18D:4700:949F:540E:E30D:8AB6:8940: You deleted 2/3ds of the article and removed a significant amount of referenced information. You reverted the article back to basically what is was on 30 August 2013 deleting all the edits that happened in the last 4 years. I don't consider that an improvement. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Pierce2000 and The Loud House
See their contributions. We're going to need some tags, though I'm not exactly sure which ones. Individual season articles are unnecessary. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Was the page move of this article kosher? The mover cited "NBC", which is not even used as a(n inline) source in the article AFAICT. Further, I believe her credits under this name have overwhelmingly been "Francia Raisa". I didn't revert that yet, because I wanted another opinion. But I don't consider this to be an "uncontroversial" page move... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'd consider it an unsourced change in how the name was spelled and an invalid move. Even if one source spelled it that way, all the rest match IMDb's spelling and that is how credited and COMMONNAME is how article should be titled. Also American born in US so unlikely diacritics in birth name and birth name in infobox reflects that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Geraldo, now we've got an editor who doesn't seem to understand WP:BLPPRIMARY – maybe you'll have better luck explaining this on the Talk page than I've had... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm getting nowhere here – hopefully you'll have more luck. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: This issue is one that has bothered me on a lot of bio articles. Many experienced editors are using public records to support birth info in a lot of different bio articles and this case is following that trend. In a sense evolving common practice is going directly against pretty clearly stated policy mainly because it is being overlooked and permitted to happen. I don't have the mental cycles to fight this issue so have been letting it slide if the info is plausible and IMDb says the same thing. I expect IMDb is getting the info from the same sources but if it is in IMDb it sort of indicates the subject has not objected to it as IMDb will remove the info if the subject complains and every actor is well-aware of their IMDb profile. Anyway this is a larger issue than just this one article and WP:BLPN and WP:RSN were not much help. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm getting nowhere here – hopefully you'll have more luck. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Geraldo, now we've got an editor who doesn't seem to understand WP:BLPPRIMARY – maybe you'll have better luck explaining this on the Talk page than I've had... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request
Your name is being listed in this resolution. Better comply. Saiph121 (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- WP:DRN#Talk:Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)#Overcategorization - Saiph121 should have provided a link when notifying. I'll comply if I choose to, might ignore this as the issue has been hashed to death on the talk page and a concensus formed there. Calling other editors biased is a bit off-putting. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've filed a new dispute resolution concerning the following disputed categories for the Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) article.
- Category:Feminist films
- Category:Films about narcissism
- Category:Films about bibliophilia
- Category:Witchcraft in film
- You need to explain your motives in your opposition in the inclusion of these following categories, because in my own judgement these are considered as "DEFINING" in which you disagree with that notion and even disregarding the sources that have been provided in this categories to be proven and justified in its reasons to be including in which the current consensus that has been ruled is completely biased and prejudiced. Saiph121 (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
207.233.110.70 is back at it. We probably need another block. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Discussion you'll be interested in...
As you are one of people at the forefront of this issue, you may want to take a look at this discussion in WT:TV – your reasoning on this I think would help a lot to explain this to other editors... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
181.161.31.29
Please use your Admin hat to block this IP – they've violated WP:3RR, and if I'm requesting it I don't see how you're involved. But it's not worth it to go to WP:ANEW over this... IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Can't, too close to being WP:involved to do that. It is at WP:AIV now, also sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Camilod with same type of hoaxing edits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- We're lucky then. But they're getting pissy in WP:AN about using AIV for "not obvious vandalism". They don't want 3RR, or even SPI stuff like this, there anymore. The problem there, of course, is that if they want us to report IP's like this one, they need to come up with less onerous processes than WP:ANEW or WP:SPI, 'cos most editors are not going to waste time to file something like this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Ratings
I know that we are not allowed to source comments, because Mrschimpf told me in my talk page. You don't need to tell me. CriticismEdits (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Responded to this on their talk; CE has been told before to stop using blog comments as sources, but hiding them under a note 'Note: No source given, it is at the comments. We are not allowed to source there, see my talk page.' is definitely still a violation for sure. Thanks for catching this. Nate • (chatter) 01:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Mrschimpf: The comments with ratings come from Mitch Salem, one of the people who run Showbuzz Daily. They're ratings that didn't make the top 150, so people request those, and they are perfectly fine to use as sources for viewership. Although archives of the comments should be created since comments disappear after a while. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm still very uncomfortable with using them though. A few of the ratings CE cited in the past had their blog comments erased for some reason or another, leaving just the post, and unlike blogs you can't easily hyperlink them, and it's a raw number that's subject to change with the usual VOD/Live + numbers. I prefer to err on the side of caution, especially since we've had Nielsen get on us via OTRS for the past for using numbers and DMA data they consider copyrighted and internal information for client's eyes only, which is what much of this info could be. Nate • (chatter) 01:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Mrschimpf: The comments with ratings come from Mitch Salem, one of the people who run Showbuzz Daily. They're ratings that didn't make the top 150, so people request those, and they are perfectly fine to use as sources for viewership. Although archives of the comments should be created since comments disappear after a while. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Watchlist request
Hello, Geraldo. I can't remember if this article is already on your watchlist or not, but if it's not could you add High School Musical (franchise)? There is a lot of questionable editing at this article, and I seem to be the only one watching it currently. Just today, someone has once again added what I consider to be poorly sourced "info" about High School Musical 4 (incl. to the "cast table", which is completely unjustified), despite the fact that there looks like there been no news reported in WP:RSs about this since 2016. (IOW, it still seems to be in development, with no ramp up to production in sight...) And also once again adding the Saturday Night Live skit which has nothing to do with this franchise. But, before I go reverting all the recent additions, I'd like another editor to take a look... But, longer-term, it would be better if more people were watching this article. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Did this happen to be a misclick? He has an article or are you planning on AFD-ing it? Just wanted to check because I'm sure you had your reasons if it wasn't a misclick. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I was cleaning up after a disruptive editor IPv6/64 whose edit pattern is reverting articles to some much older version. He occasionally makes good edits, missed this one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Chase Bechtel
This user keeps on adding false additions on the cast of Bullseye which I have removed twice on Toy Story 2. I have not found any cast information on it and is not been credited in the cast. Thankfully I've caught this as soon as the user has made the edits. I have also done it once to Toy Story 3 too. Iggy (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Iggy the Swan: New editor might not understand how we do things yet. I left a message on his talk page and we will need to escalate if this continues. Starting to edit war false information which will eventually lead to a block if it continues. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- I have already felt like this would be "edit war false information" and this user has been here for almost 2 months, started editing on Cars 3 here. As you said, if the user continues to do that, they will surely be warned enough times and hopefully some understanding. Iggy (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
IP revert at Talk:Daimler-Benz
Thanks. I should have checked its contributions before responding, and I'd have figured it out for myself. 
Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Btw, is this a stable IP. If so, should we to to get it blocked for vandalism and per NOTHERE? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- @BilCat: He's dynamic on an IPv6/64 range which is normally allocated to a single person. See Special:contributions/2605:6000:3D11:3200::/64. Seems to be his only edits stating that something is Jewish because he thinks the name is Jewish. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- OK. What about a range block, if he's the only user? - BilCat (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- @BilCat: I am considering that but edit intensity seems low now. I hope he just stops. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, understood. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Quick follow-up
Just a quick follow-up on this: User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 12#Henry Danger - Henry's dad. It seems like other character names in the credits have also changed for season four. For example, you'll notice Carrie Barrett and Winston Story are just credited as Mary and Trent, respectively, instead of Mary Gaperman and Trent Overunder, respectively, like in seasons one through three. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: If they show some credits with a full name and some with just a first name, going with the full name in the article looks reasonable as the short form is included. If the names are different I think it appropriate that both be listed as both are valid credited names. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
New Nickelodeon series: Star Falls
A quick star before class. Will add an info box later. Just an FYI if you and the others want to keep track: User:Amaury/sandbox/Star Falls. MPFitz1968, IJBall, Nyuszika7H. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm confused – the episodes guide is already at the main Robotboy article, yet there's also List of Robotboy episodes. Am I correct in assuming that the latter is redundant, and should simply be converted to a redirect? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: The last edit on the ep list page broke transclusion and my revert put it back to what worked. The main page cached the bad transclusion that did not exclude the stuff other than the overview. Had to purge the cache on the main page to fix it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Is this something that goes against MOS:BOLD? My understanding of the guideline is to only bold the article name, which, in this case, is Mech-X4 in normal case lettering. This is why in the episode and character lists, we only italicize the series name, because the actual article name is "List of X episodes" or "List of X characters" instead of just "X." Thanks in advance. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: We also bold stuff in the lead that matches a redirect to the article so it would be valid if there were a redirect for that. I personally don't like the "stylized as" BS in the lead as the infobox image with the logo generally gives that detail better so it is kind of pointless to try to match a graphic with text. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with removing the parenthetical altogether. IJBall is the one who added it back in May, though only because IPs kept trying to do this. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Editor choice, I guess. Doesn't need to be bolded as not from a redirect. All caps search leads to correct article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Editor choice, I guess. Doesn't need to be bolded as not from a redirect. All caps search leads to correct article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with removing the parenthetical altogether. IJBall is the one who added it back in May, though only because IPs kept trying to do this. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
You need to update Miley Cyrus
If you think that a BIOLOGICAL father is the same as a ADOPTIVE father, then you need to update Miley Cyrus which states he is a 'half-brother' ESAD-Hooker (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- @ESAD-Hooker: Thanks, I fixed that article, it comes up periodically on all the Cyrus articles. There are discussions at talk:Trace Cyrus that go into it more. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Infobox question/advice
Geraldo, could I ask you to take a look at Pasadena (TV series)? This issue is this – The article has an episodes table that already lists all the writers and directors for the series. However, the infobox lists all of them again – this definitely seems like overkill, and IIRC the infobox documentation recommends listing only a few of these in the infobox. What's the best way to handle this? List no writers and directors in the infobox? List only those that do multiple episodes? Etc. Thanks in advance. And any Talk page stalkers, feel free to offer your $0.02 here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Advice for writer is don't list if more than 5, should apply to director too. It is redundant to the ep list table main headers. I suggest removing both from infobox. It is excessive with that many and the ep list table does a much better job. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I know you didn't ping me, but I hope it's still okay if I give feedback.
In short, I agree with Geraldo. If they're already listed in the episode table, where it's preferred since you can specifically see which episodes were directed and written by those people, there's no need to list them in the info box. As for the five-item guideline in the info box, there are some rare exceptions, in my opinion, such as Hunter Street, which I already brought to your attention a while ago, where that can be ignored because if almost every episode has a lot of writers, then listing them in the episode table would make the table very "ugly" and unappealing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with your reverting of my edits to the Dan Schneider page. Your comment states: "Reference says unsubstantiated rumor. Does not belong in a bio article." It is true that the references say the claims are unsubstantiated, but I carefully worded my edit to state precisely that. I wrote: "uncorroborated rumors that had long circulated ... began to gain increasing scrutiny." This statement is plainly, factually correct, and the references that I cited are themselves evidence of that. It is not slandering the living person in any way because I make no claim as to the veracity of the rumors themselves. For all we know, the accusations are false, but my edit simply states a highly relevant biographical fact: at this point in time in this person's life, current events caused certain accusations against him to gain renewed scrutiny. --Rorysolomon (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Rorysolomon: Wikipedia should not be a vector to propagate rumors, particularly ones that are strongly defamatory if they turn out false. I doesn't matter how much we say it is an unsubstantiated rumor, it is still an unsubstantiated rumor. If something happens to him based on this or someone makes a specific accusation, and that is well-referenced in multiple reliable sources, then it may be appropriate in a WP:BLP article. Until then it is just defamatory gossip about a real person. See also WP:BLPGOSSIP. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
List of Zoey 101 episodes - disruptive IPv6
As you and Amaury may be aware, there's been an IP persistently putting in the ages of the actors in the series at the time of each season as notes at the beginning of each season's section, which is pure trivia and not really relevant to the episodes. But the latest edit is from a different IP in the same /64. At this point, I'm not yet inclined to ask for semiprotection of the article or a /64 range block, but this article certainly needs to continue to be watched. Will also ping IJBall regarding this. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Unattributed/undiscussed split at List of K.C. Undercover episodes
Splitting to a list of episodes article doesn't need to be discussed, in my opinion, as long as the split instructions are properly followed and there haven't been any previous issues. Individual season splits, however, I believe should be handled more carefully for the reasons we discussed at Talk:List of The Thundermans episodes#Redux 1. In addition, individual season splits aren't even considered until a series is at a minimum of four regular-sized seasons (20+ episodes). Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Just watched the article. Promotion began on Nickelodeon today during Henry Danger's "Danger Games." While we can't use this as it's not by Nickelodeon's official YouTube, this is the promotion, which states the title is just The Adventures of Kid Danger, and it is coming in January. We could use the promotion on the Nickelodeon channel per WP:PRIMARY for both the name change and premiere date, though it might be better to just wait for a secondary source, mostly for the date. Moving the article to remove Captain Man is probably fine, though. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'd wait – I want something solid on the title change before moving it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Amaury: The current article uses the press release for the title but does call it a working title. Would be best if we can get another press release or equivalent showing the final title. They might still change their mind even after the promo. Too bad the promo capture isn't on an official Nick outlet although there is little doubt this is authentic it is still a link to a copyvio if used as a reference. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Nickelodeon crossovers#"Crossover appearances" section. I'm trying to solicit more opinion on this from you, or any of your Talk page watchers. But it looks to me like this section will be impossible to source, and likely needs to go as per WP:V and WP:OR... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've posted several replies over there, but I'm wondering if you can take a look at my last one specifically, on "franchise" appearances and minor characters, and offer your thoughts. TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Do you know if TV Tropes is considered to be a reliable source? The article describes it as a "Wiki", so that doesn't sound promising... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Definitely not. It is basically all anonymous user edits, effectively same as wikia. Great source of entertainment though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Too bad – a couple more appearances could be "sourced" if TV Tropes could be used... So far, only the Big Time Rush cameos are sourceable (e.g. not even the iCarly stuff is sourceable, so far...). So, the rest of that list may need to be cut. (I haven't looked at the animated shows yet, but they're less likely to have sourcing available than the live-action shows, IMO.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Definitely not. It is basically all anonymous user edits, effectively same as wikia. Great source of entertainment though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Do you know if TV Tropes is considered to be a reliable source? The article describes it as a "Wiki", so that doesn't sound promising... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Consistency
Hi, GP. I'm not in the least obsessive about this very trivial section of an article of limited interest. However, I'm intrigued by your apparent fierce determination to retain two glaring formal inconsistencies which I tried to fix when my attention briefly flickered on to them. (I notice now that 'Beaver Mom' is also unvoiced before and after the fact.) Please rest assured I will not be revisiting. Bjenks (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Bjenks: You may wish to look at the last comments at Talk:Peep and the Big Wide World. Some people use IMDb and Wikipedia to create a false actor persona. No need to help them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Touché. Thks. The second part of my consistency edit should still be restored. Bjenks (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Just in case anyone's interested. MPFitz1968, IJBall, Nyuszika7H. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
General advice query
Hi, Geraldo. This concerns List of Vienna U-Bahn stations which is an article well outside your usual interests, but I thought I'd ask anyway... Lately, there has been an IP that has been making a series of questionable edits (e.g. [5]), and has been making wholesale changes to some of the station descriptions (e.g. [6]), all accompanied by basically nonsense edit summaries. Now, I have no way to really check if these edits are correct as I've never been to Vienna and I don't believe there's a handy source that covers this. But I have no reason to believe the IP's edits are accurate in any case, and I am tempted to roll the article back to before the IP started editing it... So, in your opinion, what should I do? TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: If I plausibly think edits on articles I am unfamiliar with are misinformation vandalism I'll likely revert with a "dubious unreferenced" edit summary and a unsourced warning on the IPs page. If the edits are plausible, I'll ignore and hopefully someone familiar with the topic will notice and take appropriate action. Your examples look like deliberate misinformation to me by inverting meaning so IP is likely a vandal. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Bubble Guppies
I wish Bubble Guppies will be back on the Air and making new Episodes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.133.43 (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm currently dealing with a disruptive editor, who is adding unreliable sources (IMDb and thefactsite.com) to back a statement about the singer being engaged. If you look at their recent edits ([7][8]), they are not consistent with the supposed fiancé's name, so I should be calling this dubious (as opposed to poorly sourced) and potential violations of the BLP policy. I could use some other watchers at the article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: I watched it earlier today. Not sure about these latest edits, though, so leaving them alone for now. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: I've started watching it and made some mods too. Explained on article talk page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Random though: articles as WP:Merging candidates?
Geraldo, I just noticed that there were 4 separate articles for Nickelodeon's Roxy Hunter movie series, starting with Roxy Hunter and the Mystery of the Moody Ghost. But I'm noticing that they're all sparsely sourced to entirely unsourced (IMDb not counting...), and there's nothing in these that suggest they shouldn't be at a single article covering all 4 movies at once. What do you think? – Are these worth pursuing as a WP:Merge candidate at the original Roxy Hunter disambig. article? (It's worth noting that even if the answer is "yes", I'm not likely to actually carry out a merge among these until about a month from now...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: None of them meet WP:NFILM but they have all been around for almost 10 years as articles so I am a bit loath to disturb them now. Even as a merged single article they still would not likely meet NFILM so really no advantage to a merge. They really shouldn't be articles but because of age I personally consider it not worth doing anything with them at all. Grandfathered in a sense. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Even considering their age, I'm not sure I see the potential "harm" in converting them to redirects to the main Roxy Hunter article. It's not like they'll be deleted... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: If you want to do the work to turn what is now effectively a disamb page into an article. I guess 1 article that you can figure out how to write in a way that meets NFILM or at least GNG would be better than 4 that don't. Like I said I don't think it is worth it but if you are looking for a project this may be a good one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've done something like this at least once before, so I know what to do/how to do it. But, you're right – what it'll come down to is whether I want to put the work into doing actually merging these or not... [shrug]... I may add merge tags to these in the near-term, though, to see if there any feedback. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: If you want to do the work to turn what is now effectively a disamb page into an article. I guess 1 article that you can figure out how to write in a way that meets NFILM or at least GNG would be better than 4 that don't. Like I said I don't think it is worth it but if you are looking for a project this may be a good one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Even considering their age, I'm not sure I see the potential "harm" in converting them to redirects to the main Roxy Hunter article. It's not like they'll be deleted... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Austin & Ally - Songs section
Could you take a look at this latest IP's edits? They're not vandalism or anything, I'm just not sure if we typically include "featuring" in these tables. Should we only include the actual artist? Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I know little about song performance credits but I have been assuming that ft. is essentially like a guest star credit for acting, a notable addition to the regular group. As long as the edit matches the actual credit which should be verifiable it is probably fine. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewing
 |
| Hello, Geraldo Perez.
As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, |
- @Insertcleverphrasehere: I have read the tutorial and might considering doing this, still researching what it would require me to do and how it would impact what I currently do. I tend to get overwhelmed sometimes, which is why I stopped doing regular admin work, and don't want to burn out (again). Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
iCarly
The ongoing disruption with episode numbering continues, with this IP. It looks like they were renumbering the episodes to what they were prior to a discussion to count the specials like "iGo To Japan" and "iParty with Victorious" as one episode each. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: I've watched the individual season articles. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the latest edit? I know we don't update ages and we only include the age at the beginning of a series, but I can't think of the exact guideline. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Fictional ages need to be sourced and that includes age progression through series. As long as info about ages covers the whole series and not just the last episode aired and is verifiable no real policy issue. Editorial choice as to whether or not it matters beyond the setup of the series info, generally trivia beyond initial premise info in my opinion unless eventful for the plot in some way. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Question regarding picture/audio format
Is there a source for these or are these just kind of WP:PRIMARY territory? I note that The Futon Critic usually has information on things like crew and camera setup, but nothing on picture and audio format. I've seen some articles with 720p (HDTV)—or HDTV 720p—as well as 1080i (HDTV) and NTSC (480i) for the picture format and stereo for the audio format, such as The Thundermans, and have left those alone, but I'm not sure if those came from somewhere or if people were just using how they watched it on TV for that, a form of WP:PRIMARY. Thank you in advance. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: The broadcast format is the same for all shows on a given network channel so shows on a network channel generally get tagged with whatever that is. If a network has multiple channels may differ on each. Should be mentioned on the network article so if show info matches I generally count it plausible and don't bother tagging it for a reference. Might not match video format sold on iTunes and Amazon for streaming as they are not restricted by the ATSC digital broadcast standards. 480i is one of the ATSC standards, NTSC analog is pretty much deprecated for anything current. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Quick question
I've just cleaned up the infoboxes on Crashletes and Jagger Eaton's Mega Life, and there's one credit in the end credits that's confusing me just a little bit. The credit is "Main Titles/Graphics - Farmer Brown," except with a line break instead of a hyphen. Would you take main titles to be referring to the theme music composer? I'm only asking because for the theme music composer for other series, I usually see something like "Henry Danger Theme" followed by "Written by" or "Theme music by." Etc., etc. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: That looks more like the credit for the graphics designer of the title sequence, not the music. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's what I was kind of thinking as well, but with the "slash Graphics" in there, it was throwing me off. I guess it's more like main title graphics and general graphics. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Update
Hi,
why are you reverting the changes on the Carlson Young page? They're substantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlsonyoung0 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Carlsonyoung0: Mainly because you keep adding a birthdate without a reliable source to back it. IMDb is not a reliable source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
To Geraldo and all of his TPS – we need move eyes on Carlson Young. The above poster continues to add poorly sourced info to a WP:BLP and is making changes that are generally not an improvement to the article. I've already reverted twice, and am not going to risk a third revert, but the other side is basically Edit warring and refusing to discuss at the article talk page. It's worth noting that this article has been plagued in the past by WP:SPAs who've made similar kinds of edits. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- It looks like a new editor that doesn't know how things work here. Edits appear to be good faith with poor sourcing mostly. WP:AGF and WP:BITE a apply. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- These edits looks purely disruptive to me – we've made the changes they want, and they're still at it, with no attempt at discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Looks like trying to get better sources, see my comments on the editor's talk page. Rotten Tomatoes does support the birthdate and I see nothing at RSN that says unreliable for bio info. Marginal though but I can't say definitively it is a bad source. Only real issue is occupations, writing and directing herself in a vanity project with no real notability does not make those occupation. WP:AGF does have limits and editor is stretching things here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- These edits looks purely disruptive to me – we've made the changes they want, and they're still at it, with no attempt at discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Would you or any of the others—IJBall, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H—be interested in tackling the latest edit request on the talk page? I'm not really sure how to go about answering the request myself. I can see that it's not sourced, but I don't know if that's enough to outright deny it since it's not a run-of-the mill simple request, like adding in an episode, but rather a complex one. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:List of The Lodge episodes#Using thousands instead of millions to represent the viewership data
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of The Lodge episodes#Using thousands instead of millions to represent the viewership data. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Is this a good or good faith, but bad edit? Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Good faith, some improvements, some unsourced bio info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I don't understand what "Starring cast per poster billing block and run time per reference attached." means. This is not a complete sentence, and so it does not make any sense to me. I don't understand what criteria you are using to delete the names of those two voice actors from the block.Inkan1969 (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Inkan1969: On the official posters for a movie there is a list of actors considered the stars of the movie. That is the Billing block. You can see that in the image of the poster in the infobox. Those actors are the ones to be listed in the infobox as starring, nobody else. There is a hidden note at the top of the list that explains that inclusion requirement. See also instructions at template:Infobox film/doc for the starring attribute. The runtime in the infobox has an attached reference. You changed it to something that conflicted with that reference. If you think the reference has incorrect information, you need to use a better source and change the reference as well as the data when you make a change. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The reference that proves Jim Cummings is voicing Winnie the Pooh in "Christopher Robin"
Geraldo, u keep deleting from the page on this wiki of the upcoming Christopher Robin movie that Jim Cummings is coming back to voice Winnie the Pooh, because it needs a reference. THIS IS A reference: http://www.tracking-board.com/brad-garrett-to-voice-eeyore-in-disneys-christopher-robin-movie-starring-ewan-mcgregor/
Look at the line in the article - "Three-time Emmy winner Brad Garrett will put his recognizable baritone to good use as the voice of Eeyore in Disney’s CHRISTOPHER ROBIN, which is also bringing back Jim Cummings as the voice of Winnie the Pooh, the Tracking Board has confirmed.
Key words, "which is also bringing back Jim Cummings as the voice of Winnie the Pooh, the Tracking Board has confirmed".
That line in the article should be enough confirmation for you that Cummings is voicing Winnie the Pooh in Chirstopher Robin. So, could U please stop deleting Jim Cummings from the page and this site and quote from the article as your reference, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.141.98 (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Coco is the best film ever. Have you seen it? Mike Littlejohn (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Situation needs monitoring...
Hi, Geraldo, I gather you are busy this holiday season. In any case, when you get the chance, you may want to monitor Son of Zorn, and an IP account that seems to be working in concert, in performing a series of undiscussed page WP:SPLITs of episodes lists that do not follow WP:PROPERSPLIT or WP:CWW. I just reverted one of these at Lego Star Wars: The Freemaker Adventures. Just so you know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Kim Fields entry
Hi Geraldo,
I am surprised, but glad, to see that someone is diligently curating Kim Fields's Wikipedia entry. I read the rules per your link, and my opinion is that you have taken a very technical interpretation that does not take into account some potential mitigating circumstances. My site is not promoting or selling anything. It has no advertising. It includes a LOT of info and memorabilia that is not found anywhere else on the web, including the Wikipedia page. Moreover, if Kim Fields ever asked me to remove something from the site, I would do it. In effect, she has control over the site, albeit indirect. I also grant that she is highly unlikely to exert any authority over the site, but that is because I am very careful to be respectful and accurate. So, if your conclusion remains that my site must be excluded due to the Wikipedia rules, I will live with it. But I will be disappointed nonetheless.
Finally, what could Kim Fields do to grant permission for my link's inclusion on her Wikipedia page? I can ask her to do whatever that is.
DrDuru KnwMgmt (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Duru
- @DrDuru KnwMgmt: The specific issue is WP:ELNO #11 which pretty much rules out any site that covers a person controlled by someone who is not an acknowledged expert in the subject. In practice that means multiple reliable sources can attest to that. A lot of this is to protect the person's reputation in a bio article and prevent inaccurate information being promulgated about that person. I am fairly sure your intention is to provide accurate information but we have no way of making certain of that. It is one of the reasons we require fairly good sourcing for information in a bio article. The best way to get your site referenced is for Fields herself to have a site (social media accounts can be used) she controls mention it. We could link to a site she directly controls as an official site (only one site is permitted by WP:ELNO) and she could link to your site from hers. That is pretty much the best we can do here. However, if you do have well-referenced information about her that is not already in the article, you can include it directly in the article using those references as support. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm smelling a sock here after their latest move at Liv and Maddie. Should an SPI be filed? Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Yes. Bambifan101 sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Filed! Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Looks like he is jerking the system - see edit history for User:Jjk~mtwiki long term gets his jollies from this type of crap. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, like their page move vandalism earlier today that I reverted. I guess some people just find pleasure in creating a big mess for others to clean up. It's definitely rather annoying. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- Already reported to AIV by bot. I've followed up there. Should be blocked shortly, so the SPI will likely end up being redundant. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, like their page move vandalism earlier today that I reverted. I guess some people just find pleasure in creating a big mess for others to clean up. It's definitely rather annoying. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Looks like he is jerking the system - see edit history for User:Jjk~mtwiki long term gets his jollies from this type of crap. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
On a side note, I asked for move protection of Liv and Maddie, and an admin has move-protected it indefinitely (requires template editor access). MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Merry Christmas 2017!
Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 01:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Shearonink (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching my mistake with the Cat:American films. And yes, I agree a local RFC might seem a bit much but Parent/Child Categories is an ongoing & persistent issue at this article. It's either this or file a report to AN/I & I would rather try all other possible remedies first. Shearonink (talk)
I find it somewhat fishy that those are the account's first edits, but aside from that, are those edits okay? I'm questioning the reliability of the two sources being used to source pretty much everything: Sweet High and CAAM, the latter of which has blog in the URL, and those are definitely not reliable sources. Now, Twist Magazine I think is okay, if I recall. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I don't like that reference and would like a better one but can't really justify rejecting it. Nothing at WP:RSN archives so hasn't been brought up. Might be worth asking at WP:RSN for another opinion though. Editor may be fan or publicist, or maybe her. I am a bit more trusting in interviews, I don't think people fake them and really it is the person talking about themselves so is somewhat of a primary source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I have cleaned some of these new additions up. But to say I am "dissatisfied" with a lot of these additions may be an understatement. IMO, the Twist source should be bypassed entirely in favor of the original Disney Channel PSA video (which I'm sure can be found on YouTube...). The Center for Asian American Media is almost certainly legit, and that one is actually an interview, so it passes muster and can be used as a proper source. I don't trust the Sweety High source at all, and have tagged it thusly – if a better source isn't produced soon, that bio info should be reverted to the previous version as per WP:BLPPRIVACY, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Hola soy Elvis Manuel Caminero Reyes
Mi información en la página de Natalie Alyn Lind Era correcta Elvis Manuel Caminero Reyes (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Elvis Manuel Caminero Reyes: There is a reference there - it disagrees and you didn't provide a better one so we go with what we have. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Elvis Manuel Caminero Reyes: Based on what? Where are you getting your information?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Articles for Creation Reviewing
 | |||
Hello, Geraldo Perez.
I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. |
Can you please take a look at this edit? In addition to ignoring WP:BRD, it is also ignoring long-standing practice in WP:TV. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- IJBall, Geraldo, for reference, edit warring warning has been issued, but after this I don't think I can revert anymore—even though it's only my second—since it's not clear-cut vandalism. User obviously doesn't get it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: "Long-standing practice" - please cite a guideline that says this? Typically, original airdate = production order = narrative order, so this isn't an issue. In the case of this series, episodes were aired out of production order, and that order is easily contradicted by the narrative progression. The airing order in this case is a jumble only due to the internal mechanisms of the TV programming business - not anything else. Wikipedia does not have to perpetuate that error. Also, most people consuuming this nowadays do so via straming services - which use the corrected production/narrative order rather than original air date. So seeing a list which doesn't match that is a surprise. Remember, Wikipedia:Readers first. -- Netoholic @ 07:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury and Netoholic: I have also posted to Talk:Earth 2 (TV series) about this, in case anyone wants to comment there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Production codes give the production order, that is why we list them. Episode number is the airing order. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury and Netoholic: I have also posted to Talk:Earth 2 (TV series) about this, in case anyone wants to comment there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey, good catch on the episodes 17 vs. 18 order thing – that misordering goes all to way back to when it was at List of Earth 2 episodes and before I started editing there. I'm a little embarrassed that I didn't catch that myself... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Geraldo Perez!
Geraldo Perez,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Iggy (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
"Full names were not in reference"
Did you even watch the video? -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- @AlexanderHovanec: Yes I did, not there either. I did check references provided. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)