User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

User:Js2Jo1989 and Soubrettes category

I recall seeing you revert their edit about the soubrettes category in a number of articles a few days ago, and now they are up to adding it back in. Even IJBall has reverted the user at a couple of articles for inserting that category and some other unsourced content ([1][2][3]). The user received a level 4 warning after your warnings to them, but for something different ([4]); they removed that warning from their talk page, so with what they are doing right now, this may be a point to go the AIV or ANI route, though at the moment I don't know which noticeboard to report them. It's also pretty late right now, so I won't tackle this until a later time. MPFitz1968 (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I have given Js2Jo1989 an untemplated warning about their disruptive editing and warned them that a block is imminent if they keep it up with adding the soubrettes category to the articles about female singers (also looked like they were adding tenor categories to some of the articles about male singers). I see another editor has (since my initial post) reverted their action across these articles. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: This looks to be a highly problematic user – on top of everything, Draft:The New Kids on the Block Story needs to be deleted as a hoax under WP:G3 – I'm a pretty avid watcher of Lifetime's TV movies, and I've heard nothing about this project (e.g. there is nothing at Deadline Hollywood about this, and there certainly would be if it was really in development). I'm tempted to say this one calls for an WP:INDEF under WP:NOTHERE... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall:I marked it originally as a hoax before it got moved to draft space, should have tagged it for speedy as I could find absolutely nothing to support the existance of that movie. I was holding out some small hope that there would actually be a reference added to support at least existance. Draft space is pretty benign for a place to work on stuff as long as his attempts to link to the article from mainspace get undone. Might be worth a speed hoax on the draft though now.

@MPFitz1968:He is in a grey area right now. He is permitted to delete messages on his page and we are mostly prohibited on restoring them, people who give warnings and report can ignore the deletions, though, but reports should mention old warnings deleted in case the admin handling the issue misses that fact. They are still in the edit history. Michael Bednarek, who appears to watch operatic themed articles has correctly deleted the bogus Category:Soubrettes in bulk from the non-operatic singers it definitely does not apply to and appears to understand what that voice type and others really mean, unlike an WP:OR analysis of a non-expert wiki editor. Warning the editor is necessary though before acting further. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Still seeing problematic/disruptive editing from this user. Pinging MPFitz1968 as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Just saw some of the edits (from the articles I'm watching - Selena Gomez, Hilary Duff, Debbie Gibson), and the reverting editor gave them another untemplated warning. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Nobody appreciates amateur musicologists adding opera singer voice type categories to pop singers articles. Has a high singing voice, female and is young, so got to be a Soubrette. More like someone learning a new word without understanding the meaning. Anyway got indefed for adding that unsourced bio category stuff and wouldn't quit when informed not to do that. Could get unblocked if shows understanding of why blocked so need to stay aware. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we're going to have (or already having) sockpuppetry associated with this account. I was typing in the user's name in the search box and saw two other similar names ... User:Js2Jo and User:Js2Jo8. Both were marked as sockpuppets of User:JJonathan, with a listing of other sockpuppets here (there's appears to be no formal sockpuppet investigation report filed). But looking at what is reported at User:Js2Jo1989 and User talk:Js2Jo8, this likely is the same person (going by what they list as their birthday and birthplace). They are definitely focused on updating articles about female non-operatic singers, and I spotted one of those older accounts adding soubrettes category to one of those articles, from more than 10 years ago ([5]). MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Looks like the same person. Means he's more likely to create another sock than ask to be unblocked. Good info for a SPI if he pops up again. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Your 2¢

Hi Geraldo Perez,
When comes edit warring, there is the 3RR rule. What about someone repeatedly reverted edit on episode count just he or she can do it himself or herself? Would this fall be claiming WP:OWN? Someone is doing this to me. Also, judging by his talk page this has happened multiple times before. — Lbtocth^talk 00:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lbtocth: Reverts should have reasons given in the edit summary, impolite at the very least to not do so unless the edit was blatant vandalism. Episode count should be factual information, though, how many have aired usually, and if someone puts the wrong number in it might get undone by someone thinking it was wrong. WP:OWN isn't about fixing what someone thinks is wrong information, if that is what is happening. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Um, the individual does this on various TV shows though. The individual reverted edits every episode count when someone else does it instead of him (after aired episode) and then manually put it in himself again. Wouldn't this falls under claiming WP:OWN? — Lbtocth^talk 17:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lbtocth: If this is something I've done, I apologize if my reasons were not clear. I do watch a lot of articles and checking for consistent and correct episode counts in the infobox and summary tables is one thing I do, but I try to leave a reason if I do revert. Generally though the number of aired episodes is only incremented after the latest episode has finished airing so best to wait to confirm that first before changing the number. Some editors are strict about that point. If it is not something involving my edits, it is best to seek clarification from the editor involved. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's not something you had done. I did asked the editor on his talk page and he refused to talk (he deleted my message without any clarifications). Thanks. — Lbtocth^talk 19:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Barney's Adventure Bus

This looks 100% like it should be converted to a redirect. The question is: To what? Any ideas what this should be redirected to?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I think List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos#Videos would work. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done! Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Recently added production companies to Stuck in the Middle and Andi Mack

After looking at a past discussion on this at User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 11#Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything, you mentioned that we should only be listing those companies that actually have "Productions" at the end in the credits. Those without "Productions" at the end are dubious and not actual production companies and shouldn't be listed as they are, quoting you: Likely just the company name used by some executive producer who a lot of times has no real role in making the show, just some ownership interest in the property and gets paid to use it. The only exception I can think of is something like Hunter Street's Blooming Media. There's no "Productions" at the end in the credits, but there's a reliable secondary source stating it as a production company. Another exception would be something like the Schneider's Bakery production company.

Would you please take a look at the latest edits to those two articles? For Stuck in the Middle, the credits just show "Horizon"; however, I looked on The Futon Critic and it has "Horizon Productions." The question is, what has more precedence here? The credits or a secondary source? We know that the credits are authoritative with regard to how people are credited, such as writers, but is that the same for production companies in that the credits would be authoritative over something like The Futon Critic? For Andi Mack, the only one that actually has "Productions" at the end is "MM Productions." The other two don't, which is why I removed them quite a while ago after our discussion. The Futon Critic has no studio information for Andi Mack, unfortunately. For confirmation on Andi Mack, here is the first episode on Disney Channel's official YouTube. Skip to 24:54.

I was going to revert at both articles, but decided to come here first. I'll ping IJBall and MPFitz1968 as well. Thanks in advance. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: FTR, I agree with Geraldo that only those production companies listed in the end credits should be listed (barring some weird exceptional example like Hunter Street and the secondary sourcing for Blooming Media...). The production cards in the end credits, satisfy WP:PRIMARY. But unsourced prod. companies should not be included. Period. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, rereading this, it looks like your question is more complicated... Not sure I can help here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I think you actually got what I was saying. Let me see if I can explain it another way. For the "company" parameter, we should only list companies that have "Productions" at the end of a series' credits. For example, "Nickelodeon Productions" or "It's a Laugh Productions." Using Andi Mack, for example, when watching the credits, you see "Go Dog Go," "MM Productions," and "Horizon" after all the credits roll. As can be seen, only the middle one has "Productions" at the end, so it should be the only one listed, which is how it was prior to the latest edit. It also goes back to the whole "names per credits," so adding "Productions" to the first and third of those Andi Mack companies really falls under WP:OR, unless there's a secondary source that says so and so is a production company. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: The basic problem is that the list of companies at the very end of the end credits don't usually have a tag that says what their involvment in the show actually was. It is basically a marker saying involved in some way, possibly production, distribution, ownership. If the company name has "production" in its name it makes it being involved in production more likely. If a company doesn't have "production" in its name but other reliable sources state it is a production company, then we have a much better claim for what its involvment was. The credits are still the principal source but secondary sources can back up what they are actually doing for the show. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

To add: I find that IMDb generally has the correct information for company credits on established shows, at least for the purposes of being a sanity check, as I think the info gets initially seeded from IMDbPro which is a reliable source but costs real money to use directly. They can be edited by users so can't use IMDb as a source, unfortunately, but I think this part of IMDb is a low vandalism target. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

So going by that, that means that for Andi Mack, "Go Dog Go Productions" for sure should not be listed as it's only shown on the screen as "Go Dog Go" per the YouTube video I linked to. Now, Andi Mack has no studio information on The Futon Critic, but Stuck in the Middle does. For the other one, on the screen for both series, it just shows "Horizon." The Futon Critic studio information for Stuck in the Middle has "Horizon Productions," so that can be kept in there for that series since a reliable secondary source has it. And I think keeping "Horizon Productions" for Andi Mack would also be okay? As mentioned, there's no studio information for Andi Mack on The Futon Critic, but since it's there for Stuck in the Middle and it's the same company, I imagine it's not a problem to keep it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Go Dog Go looks to be a short name for a real company. 3 employees listed, though, so looks like a vanity plate for producers where the only production work on the show they was collecting money to pay a couple of producers. Still if reliable sources says "Go Dog Go" and "Go Dog Go Productions" are the same thing we know that "Go Dog Go" is a production company. It starts to come down to WP:OR as to whether or not a company actually is the one who made the show or just was peripherally involved in some minor way. I'd say if you have some plausible way of backing up a company being a production company it should be listed. May need to document why on the article talk page if the connection is not obvious. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

So which way do you see yourself leaning with regard to "Go Dog Go"? Include or exclude? Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I'd suggest including it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. Okay, so as a question to that, should we leave it as is, with "Productions" at the end, or list it as "Go Dog Go" per how shown in the series' end credits? Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I suggest creating a redirect at that short name to the full name and doing a WP:NOTBROKEN link to the redirect. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

So have [[Go Dog Go]] in the infobox which redirects to Go Dog Go Productions. Got that part. The problem is there's no article for Go Dog Go Productions, or am I misunderstanding you? Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Then list it as shown in the credits without linking it at all. Unlikely to ever be notable for an article so a redlink would not make sense here. Leave a hidden note that states it is the as credited in the show short form of "Go Dog Go Productions". Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. See [6]. Feel free to tweak it if you feel it could be worded differently. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping them - And by the way, lack of the word "Productions" in the logo doesn't mean it's not a productions company. Most productions companies don't even use the word "Productions" or "Studios." So, that would have been a bad reason to refuse to give the companies credit. Also, don't forget what's seen at the end of the episode is the logo / card, not the full name. Logos are kept simple and don't always contain the full names and usually omit the words "Production". For example, Bad Robot Productions usually just shows "Bad Robot" on the logo/card at the end of its movies or shows. That doesn't mean its registered full name isn't "Bad Robot Productions" and that it shouldn't be credited as a production company. Same thing with Mutant Enemy Productions and "Go Dog Go Productions" and "Horizon Productions."

Oh and another thing, Deadline does in fact mention that both Andi Mack and Stuck in the Middle come from "Horizon Productions" (which is actually the main production company for both) http://deadline.com/2017/09/andi-mack-season-2-premiere-date-disney-channel-season-1-recap-video-1202164860/ http://deadline.com/2016/06/stuck-in-the-middle-renewed-season-2-disney-channel-jenna-ortega-1201773405/. I'm not even sure why on earth we would use logo wordings to determine whether or not to give company their production credit. Starforce13 (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Starforce13: We use what is in the credits as the primary source of information. If that is what is in the credits, that is what we are supposed to use in the article when we document what is in the credits. Only real issue is the company credits at the end are not necessarily production companies. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Yes, there are cases where some companies are not the production company such as distributors. But you can't look for the word "productions" in the logo to determine that. When Google uses its "G" logo instead of the full "google" name on some of its products, you can't say the product is made by a company called G. It's still made by Google, Inc. Some company logos don't even have words at all. And by the way "Horizon Productions" is pretty much the only production company that Disney includes in its press releases for Andi Mack and Stuck in the Middle. https://www.disneyabcpress.com/disneychannel/pressrelease/andi-mack-season-2-fact-sheet/. So, leaving that out simply because its logo doesn't have the word "Productions" wouldn't be smart at all.Starforce13 (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Starforce13: Productions in the name indicates a production company. Lack of productions in the name leaves what the company does undetermined, it may or may not be a production company, and needs other sources to clarify the issue. A short name might be a logo or might just be a short name for the company used in credits. Again need sources to clarify. What is in the credits can generally be used without futher reference, stuff that is not in the credits needs to be sourced. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez:, company credits at the end of the episodes use just logos, not names. You guys are mistaking logos for the full company names. So, that's why I provided those other links from Disney ABC Press and deadline to prove that the full company name is "Horizon Productions" for those who don't know anything about the company. Starforce13 (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding what is being said – some of the end-cards don't represent actual companies involved in the production: they represent vanity labels for some of the producers. That's whether they have "Productions" in the actual company name or not. We are only interested in listing those companies that are actually directly involved in the production of the TV show in question. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Oh I completely get that. My point is that the criteria you guys were using before by looking for the word "Productions" in the logo is the wrong criteria. For example, with Andi Mack and Stuck in the Middle, Horizon Productions is the actual production company that's directly involved with the actual production. Horizon Productions is kinda like the single-camera equivalent of "It's a Laugh Productions" for Disney. The other production companies are for the producers/showrunners. (((But they're still production companies. "Production" in movies and tv shows isn't restricted to the physical/technical component. It also includes development of the ideas, writing the script and teleplay even before filming and post-production. That's why most of those credited as "producers" are not even involved with the technical parts. A little research wouldn't hurt. But that's a topic for another day. ))). Anyway, we're good here. Just wanted to make that point clear for those not familiar with the TV/film industry and WGA definitions. Starforce13 (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

If there's no "Productions" at the end of the end credits for a series' company credits, as is the case with Horizon Productions, which just shows as Horizon for Stuck in the Middle and Andi Mack, we don't know if those companies are production companies, distributor companies, etc. In that event, we can only list them if we have clarification from reliable secondary sources stating X and Y are production companies. Since we have The Futon Critic's studio information for Stuck in the Middle and that Deadline link for both Stuck in the Middle and Andi Mack, it is totally justified to have Horizon Productions in the infobox for both series. If anyone were to remove it now and make some comment about it not being a production company because there's no "Productions" at the end, we would all be totally justified in reverting them and pointing them to these secondary sources. Hope this clarifies things. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Amaury:. I'm glad we're now all on the same page that Horizon won't be removed. Starforce13 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Kevin Quinn (actor)

I started a discussion at Talk:Kevin Quinn (actor)#Singer as there is a disagreement as to whether or not Quinn is a singer from a notability point of view. More contentious than I expected for this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

A Cinderella Story (film series)

Is this article on your watchlist? If not, I suggest adding it – I just have. It has the same kind of problems I've tended to see at High School Musical (franchise). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll add it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Knight Squad#Episode summaries

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Knight Squad#Episode summaries. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Natalie Alyn Lind

I'm sure I've asked this before, but is there such a thing as a "verified" Facebook account? (And, if so, how do you tell?)... I know I asked this before, but that might have been about Instagram, and not Facebook. TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Good question. Facebook likes to pretend all accounts map to real people but everyone knows that is not true. Her listed twitter account points to her verified Instagram account but neither points to her Facebook account which would have been one way to show that was her. I need to look into this some more. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: https://www.facebook.com/help/196050490547892 explains how to get verified and get a blue checkmark next to name. Natalie Alyn Lind does not have a verified facebook page and there is nothing to prove the page https://www.facebook.com/NatalieAlynLind/ listed is owned by her. As such the facebook reference on her page cannot be used. See https://www.facebook.com/MileyCyrus/ for what a verified account looks like. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow, making me go to Miley's page – that's mean!... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Cyrus Goodman and Andi Mack

Cyrus Goodman was created by an obvious fan. What's the best way to handle this? CSD or redirect with possibilities? Pinging IJBall as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I've boldly moved that to WP:Draftspace as a WP:Page mover. If you want to create a WP:BLP article, you need to start off better than that. (Incidentally, this also demonstrates why WP:ACPERM passing is so important – to prevent articles like this from being created in the first place...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I've also unlinked in Andi Mack, but editor/IP keeps readding. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Normally redirect non-notable character articles, such as this one, to where the character is covered in the show article or list of characters article that that character appears in and tag redirect with {{R with possibilities}}. Problem is that with a redirect anons can recreate the article. Moving to draft space as IJBall solves the problem too. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I missed that it was a character article (I thought it was a WP:BLP). If I had caught that, I likely would have converted to a redirect instead. Still, it wasn't a valid article anyway you slice it, and will likely be CSD'ed from Draftspace in 6 months time... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

PJ Masks

Please keep a close eye on this article – List of PJ Masks episodes was just CSD'ed for copyvios (apparently from the Wikia), so it sounds like it means that every single episode summary now back at PJ Masks needs to be removed/WP:NUKEANDPAVEd as a precaution. At the very least, every single summary needs to be checked against the Wikia, and those that are copyvios need to be removed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

My guess is that the Wikias may possibly have copyright violations themselves. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Graeme Bartlett shouldn't have deleted List of PJ Masks episodes per WP:G12. Wikia has the same unrestricted use with attribution that Wikipedia itself has. See license at bottom of page copied. It is, of course, plagiarism, but the only copyright violation was not adhering to the terms of the licence that requires attribution and the cure is to provide the attribution on the page. Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia has details. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

So what needs to be done?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I pinged the deleting admin in the above message in case I missed something I wasn't aware of, so plan to wait a day or so, then maybe do WP:REFUND on the list page. Main page needs {{Wikia content}} tag added to references section to cure the plagiarism. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I am prepared to restore the list of episodes page if the appropriate credit is given. It is illegal to copy a Wiki or Wikipedia page without the attribution as it was licensed with the -BY- clause. This attribution can be a link to the text that was copied. So does anyone actually know where it came from? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: Please restore the page. If you do restore the page I plan on adding the attribution tag to match what is in the source document PJ Masks that that list article was original split from at the end of the references section. That should meet the license requirements for attribution. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Restored. Another step is to see where the Disney Wikia got their plot summaries from. Their history attributes no other web site such as Wikipedia.; Hopefully Wikipedia contributors are the the genuine originators or the plot summaries, (and it's not copied from a TV guide). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: Thanks for restoring the article. Unfortunately we end up at the same state for most episode summaries, looking for copyvios. I actually think it more likely that on a fan wikia people who write the summaries have created original content from their own watching the episodes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

So if the fan wiki created the content first then we need to attribute them. You can look at the history on both Wikipedia and Wikia to see who came first, or even if it is the same author. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Whisker Haven

Is this another one that's on your watchlist?... If not, I advise adding it – as my two edits here show, some IP(s?) are having at it and probably just making up future content. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Programming "blocks"

Do TV network "programming blocks" get italicized? – I'm thinking of The Good Night Show here – or is it just for TV programs? I notice that The Sunny Side Up Show, another programming block, is not italicized. TIA... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, which infobox should be used for these?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Template:Infobox TV channel looks reasonable as an infobox as a programming block is sort of a subset of that. I would treat MOS:ITALICS as showing when italics are permitted so if something is not listed there don't use italics. Italics doesn't appear to be a valid use for name of a programming block. Generally seems more for major works of art in its various forms and some other specific uses. The Good Night Show, though, looks to be more of a variety TV show than a programming block so treating it as a TV series seems best. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The Sunny Side Up Show also looks more like a TV series than a programming block in my opinion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Both are described in their articles as "programming blocks", so they should probably treated as such. Now both look to be "hosted" programming blocks (prob. with "between the shows" segments), but I'm not sure that that really changes anything... Anyway, I'll switch The Good Night Show to {{Infobox TV channel}} when I get the chance... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Strange situation

See [7]. Then I realized the date. There was supposed to be a new Loud House and SpongeBob on Friday, but there was a last-minute scheduling change. There were reruns instead. However, I guess Nickelodeon forgot to remove the "premiere" tag from The Loud House, because its ratings still showed up on Showbuzz Daily Archived 2018-04-24 at the Wayback Machine, and they only cover premieres. They don't cover reruns. Here's the odd thing. It's listed on Amazon with a date of April 29 (though it should be 30 as for some reason Amazon has been a day off with everything for a long time), and they contractually can't sell episodes until after they have aired. I'm inclined to self-revert. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: So Amazon is selling it now but declaring first airing is 29th. Amazon thinks they can sell it as they are selling it, don't know how that works as they are supposed to wait for broadcast first. Something is screwed up somehow. Looks like viewing data is for the rerun as you note so is not valid for that actual episode. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Double Dare

Heads up on some big news: http://deadline.com/2018/04/double-dare-game-show-revived-nickelodeon-1202376321/ I'll try to start a sandbox later. IJBall, MPFitz1968. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Looks like this has already been covered at Double Dare (Nickelodeon game show). (Which reminds me – that article is mistitled, and needs to be moved...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Big Hero 6 article move

Geraldo, do you have an opinion on the recent (apparently bold) move of Big Hero 6 The Series? While some of the sourcing does refer to the show as "Big Hero 6: The Series" (with the colon), I'm looking at Disney's latest press release, as well as the series logo, and I'm seeing no "colon" in there... Should this be moved back? Or should a formal WP:RM be held?... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Yeah, it shouldn't have been moved. There is no colon in the official title per sources including the original one that was rejected as unreliable that was actually from the network's verified official YouTube outlet used to justify the colonless name in the first place. What needs to happen now is a RM discussion on the article talk page to get a documented consensus so we don't keep oscillating between the two names. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Champions (U.S. TV series)

May need you—and others—there, depending on how things go. It seems their only issue with my edit was the removal of summaries. Per the hidden notes, summaries should be 100–200 words; otherwise, they are understandably suspected of copyright violations. In any case, with that being their only issue, there was absolutely no reason to revert the entire edit, which also had obvious and clear improvements and general cleanup. They could have either restored them manually or asked me to. Their claim that I removed content without explanation was completely bogus. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Two sentences look to be potentially close paraphrasing, at the very least, of some teaser from a program guide. Someone who actually watches an episode is likely to get more then two sentences worth of info from their viewing so it is suspicious. Personally if it shows up after an episode airs and I can't directly identify an infringement, I tend to let this type of thing slide. Judgement call though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I've restored them per their reasoning that they couldn't find them on Google and your comment above. Whether this will be enough for them or not, though, I don't know. Will ping IJBall as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I should have done it from the get-go, but I've also added the more plot template to each of those episodes with a short summary. Also, as a summary of my cleanup, I also removed the Guest section as that is WP:FANCRUFT. All we really care about are the main and recurring guest star characters. Those who make guest appearances only once or twice are not notable unless otherwise stated, like with Boy Meets World alumni appearing in Girl Meets World as special guest stars. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm done with this myself... for now. Clearly they think they're right. Not only are they one of those who claims that guest stars don't belong, they're also going contra-MOS with how sections should be ordered and using a WP:OSE argument. The only way to verify who's actually recurring, for example, is by looking at the guest stars listed for each episode. Don't expect that others have watched the episode; plus, you shouldn't have to watch or rematch episodes just to verify whether someone's recurring or not. The information should be right there. This is why I create sandbox pages with some series, because I get sick and tired of people's whining that X doesn't belong, Y does belong, but it should be done this way, guidelines are top-down rules, etc. I enjoy working here, but there's going to come a point where I just outright quit or take a long or short break. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: This type of thing is one reason I tend to get burnt out periodically. Best to take a break or work on other stuff and drop articles that cause stress. I edit wiki as a hobby and for fun and a relaxation from stress. Don't need the hassle here. This one has an obvious WP:OWNer. If the article is generally looking OK with nothing blatantly wrong then likely not worth hassling over the relatively minor stuff. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Geraldo. Appreciate it. I do try my best not to let these things to get to me, but because anything's possible, even if it's 10 years from now, I could just lose it one day and blow up, quit, etc. For me, having sandbox versions helps me reduce the stress as I can do things properly without bother. I also likely take the actual articles off my watchlist. This is especially true for Beyond and Famous in Love which had a lot to drama involving an editor who thinks that guidelines are God. This editor at Champions isn't present on ABC's latest two new comedies called Alex, Inc. and Splitting Up Together, so hopefully my cleanups go more smoothly there. And here's the thing: I don't clean articles up with the mindset of making it my way—WP:OWN, like you mentioned the other editor is being—but rather that I'm making it look neater, etc. so it's much more inviting to guests browsing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Can promos be used to support a lack of airing?

I know we can use them to support future episodes per WP:PRIMARY, but what about the other way around? Nickelodeon has two types of promos: Those specific to series with either a quick "followed by" or "right after" at the end—like here—and then a general one which includes everything for the night. Nickelodeon's general promo for next Saturday only has Henry Danger and The Adventures of Kid Danger. Zap2it does have premieres listed next Saturday for Henry Danger ("Toddler Invasion") and The Adventures of Kid Danger ("The Sushi Sitter"/"Cheer Beast"), but it also has premieres listed for Knight Squad ("Wish I May, Wish I Knight") and Star Falls ("The Play"). With neither of those latter series being in the general promo for next Saturday, can that be used to support removing the air dates for them, or should we wait until either next Saturday passes and they don't air or Zap2it or The Futon Critic update? Will ping IJBall as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Evidence of absence "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" issue. I'd like to see better sources that are explicit about a reschedule to another date and that talk directly to the issue. Once the date has passed records of what has happened should be updated and we can use those as references for it not happening when scheduled. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Idrinkapplejuicies456

I'm concerned about the editing of User:Idrinkapplejuicies456. In addition to the WP:DE at 101 Dalmatians: The Series, they have a consistent pattern of removing maintenance tags from articles without explanation. Any ideas?... 02:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I've noticed. Persisting in removing maintenance tags without reason after getting sufficiently counseled by escalating warning messages can result in a block. Likewise adding unsourced info particularly if it can be shown to be false info. Just need to watch, warn and maybe he will start being an overall helpful editor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Or he will persist, get one attention focussing block, do it again then get indef blocked which is what happened. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

List of The Commish episodes

Looking for other opinions on this... An IP editor has slowly been adding synopses to this. The good news is that I've been checking them with simple Google searches, and they're not yielding any other "hits", which means they're not being plagiarized from internet sources. But they are the kind of short synopses that look like they might be coming from, say, old TV Guide issues. So, I'm not sure what to do here – removing them would essentially be "assuming bad faith", but they are on the suspicious side... Also pinging Amaury in on this discussion. TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Looks to be worse than even the Champions case above. One fairly short sentence for each of those summaries added. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. But, like I said, I don't want to "assume bad faith", unless I can actually identify a possible origin for these. And this most recent edit even looks like an attempt to make sure that the added synopsis is original(?). Anyway, I don't pay necessarily pay a lot of attention to WP:TVPLOT's "100-word minimum" thing, because there's nothing that really says an episode synopsis can't be good (and also not be plagiarism) at less than 100 words... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily assuming bad faith here, but one of the issues is, like Geraldo mentioned above, is that really all they got from watching the episode? I always thought this summary that I added—and similar summaries to other series—was short, but looking at it now, not so much. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: (edit conflict) You are doing due diligence in checking which is about the best we can do. I generally don't tag things as copied and leave them be unless I'm fairly sure. I suspect enough of a paraphrase from something to not flag a match. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Reverting Cars

You claim my edit is unsourced. It is not. The edit clearly says "Added a sentence from the already mentioned source to clarify a bit". This is the source: The Roads Not Taken With Pixar’s Cars Films.

Quote: “In Denmark there has never been car production because the country is too small,” said Jorgen. “Yet in the 1980s some enthusiastic folks got the idea of making a three-wheeled one-person car that ran on electricity. They put it into production and it worked great in the city, but out on the highway it was too slow. People also thought that (this) car was ugly.” “I thought that the electric car was ahead of its time, and it struck me odd that my fellow Danes didn’t agree,” (Klubien continued. “What happened with this car) reminded me of The Ugly Duckling by Hans Christian Anderson. This famous Danish character wasn’t accepted at first, but in the end it proved to be right on the money.”

Which is why I added the sentence: "It was inspired by The Ugly Duckling, an idea triggered by the poor reception his fellow countrymen gave the Mini-El car." I find this information highly relevant for the article as it clarifies the origin of the idea, and had it been included when the source was originally added, nobody would have removed it. The article doesn't specify the CityEl (originally called Mini-El, which the CityEl article clearly mention), but as it points out, only a single car had ever been produced in Denmark when the interview was made, and as the CityEl article will tell you, it was originally produced in Denmark. It was electric and with three wheels, and even has a picture of a yellow car that looks almost the same as the character drawn in the link. 84.210.7.162 (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I undid my revert per the above and the attached reference. Missed it originally. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Great. Everything OK then. 84.210.7.162 (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting Whisker Haven

Geraldo, I'm writing because I am concerned about the state of this article. After looking for sourcing for TV airdates – I was only able to find TV Guide for the purpose – I was only able to find airdates for the "season #1" shorts.

Now this Animation magazine source does seem to confirm a second season of 10 episodes (plus 3 "holiday" specials), and does seem to have some airdates for "season #2", but I can't find a definitive source for "season #2" airdates. (And it's strange that the website seems not to have all of these "season #2" shorts...) However, I checked the Disney Now app, and all of the episode shorts listed at the article through so-called "season #3" do exist, and can be found on the app – of course, none of that helps to establish airdates.

In the meantime, I have removed "season #4" from the article, as totally unverified (and it may even be fradulent).

I have already posted to Talk:Whisker Haven, basically about this.

Any suggestions here?... Also, pinging Amaury as I think he may be watching the article now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I expect fraudulent or someone's fanfic getting added as article content. I've seen that happen before and sometimes an editor will add something in good faith from a fraudulent source. You've made a reasonable attempt of verification, I can't think of other places to look. I'd expect some record, somewhere, even in sources we wouldn't normally consider reliable, backing up some of the details and if that cannot be found the unverifiable content should be removed. Documenting what you are doing and why on the talk page should induce people who think the content is real and want it in the article to provide sources. I can't think of what else to do here that you have not already done. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:50.105.96.203

IP has been inserting dubious (and quite likely incorrect) information concerning Peyton List (actress, born 1998) and a Sonic the Hedgehog character from an old animated series in that franchise (out before List was even born), Amy Rose. I've warned them twice about it, and they are now one step away from AIV. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Account break-in day

Geraldo, to follow up on this, there were multiple failed attempts to log/hack into my account earlier this morning. (Not sure it's related to this specifically, though it's a fair assumption...) As a sometime Admin, I figured I should let you know about this, in case my account does get compromised in a subsequent attempt... So, if my account starts doing a bunch of weird stuff at some point in the future, it's not me, and blocking it would probably be the correct course of action. Just so you know... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Interesting you mentioned that, after I saw that I received a notice about one failed attempt to log into my account, from a "new device". Can't say for sure whether it is the user we're talking about here, but gotta be suspicious if two or more of us have gotten these notices recently (as I know I reverted at least one of their edits, as well as warned them on their talk page). Of course, I will keep an eye on this kind of thing. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall and MPFitz1968: Was it something like this or similar? User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 32#Password Reset Request If so, as long as you have strong passwords, I wouldn't worry too much. I've had similar incidents happen when I used to be active on the vBulletin.org forum. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It was as MPFitz1968 described – I got multiple E-mails informing me about "multiple failed attempts to log into [my] account, from a "new device"". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

In my case, it was just a web notification (from the top of the page when I am looking at any page in Wikipedia). For some reason, it didn't go to my e-mail, even though it should based on my settings. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @IJBall: I still wouldn't worry too much as long you have strong password. I'm not an admin, obviously, so I'll wait for Geraldo to respond with his thoughts, but I've had the exact scenario happen on the aforementioned forum and possibly other forums as well—I don't remember. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: I've gotten those notifications as well before. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall and MPFitz1968: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Please help- who tried to break into my account?. Possibly related. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Got in late and just saw this. Looks widespread and a planned attack. If you have a good password unique to Wiki should be no problem. If not, well, this might be a wakeup to fix that. I got all the alerts today too. I expect the attack will find some accounts to break-in to so be aware if normally trusted users start acting strange. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess they don't like me. I've gotten those notifications other times, but nothing today so far. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Bunk'd

Ignoring the error of the extra S, is linking like this something that is normally or should be done? Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Since Christina Ross is not really described in the character section and neither is Morgan a link to some place that does describe who she is seems reasonable. It would be better, however, for that description to be in the article so a link was not necessary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Opinion

Geraldo, care to comment on this? My understanding is that if it's an unverified Twitter account, we can't use it. But two people have now removed my addition of a {{better source needed}} tag here. TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, guys. I've reworded the reason, given that the policy doesn't actually state that it needs to be verified. I'm not sure if this is a common misconception? Especially since I too believed that until recently. I've reworded the reason based on this. -- Alex^TW 16:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall and AlexTheWhovian: We can use accounts that are not verified by twitter but there needs to be some other way to match the account with a person. The account being mentioned in a reliable source or some other verified social media account of someone who would have compelling reason to know the person. On this show the writers have a verified group account. If it can be shown that the writer's group account follows this particular writers account, or the group account has posted in this account, we could use that as verification. Still a bit clunky and it would be best if we can find a secondary source for this type of scheduling info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

If it can be shown that the writer's group account follows this particular writers account, [...] we could use that as verification. They do. People followed by Lucifer Writers Room (#LUCIFERwriters) lists Ildy Modrovich (@Ildymojo). You may need to scroll down some. @LUCIFERwriters has also tagged @Ildymojo in multiple posts: [8][9][10][11]. -- Alex^TW 16:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I think that removes all reasonable doubt about that account mapping to that person. If using that account as a reference, though, should add a hidden comment in any cite using it about how the account was verified to be for that person. Other constraints of WP:ABOUTSELF still apply and scheduling looks to be outside of what this person is responsible for. Likely knows the plans so info is likely correct but still would be best to have confirmation in a secondary source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

So while we look for a secondary source, do you believe it would be acceptable to remove the tag, given the verification? -- Alex^TW 11:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: The verified by twitter is no longer the issue, but it should be noted in the cite how it was verified. The main issue remaining, and why the tag is still needed, is that he is not responsible for the scheduling and that goes beyond what we can use his words to support. Leaving it in is temporary anyway as events will make it moot or we do get a secondary source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Duly noted, thanks. Also, she* -- Alex^TW 05:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Descendants 3

Geraldo, BTW – this would seem to indicate production on the film has begun. Is it worth it to move it into Mainspace yet, under WP:NFF?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: IMDb still shows preproduction, but that is as of April 23, so no recent update. I'm pretty sure IMDb gets this from IMDb Pro so is reliable. The eonline source is going by social media postings of cast so info is a bit soft as to what is going on but unlikely they would gather there if principal photography hasn't started or wasn't starting soon. You could move the article based on the reference but it would be nice to see some other confirmation. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

While E! News isn't the greatest, it's more than just a cast photo – they actually state "Production on Disney Channel's Descendants 3 began in Vancouver Monday...". So, to me, it sounds like they checked(?). The only other thing I've found on production is Just Jared Jr., which is WP:NOTRS... I'll keep looking, but it's unlikely we'll do better than the E! News thing. The other big hint is that there have been two significant casting reports since April 23... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Title of article said rehearsals right now so production has started. WP:NFF says wait for principal photography (filming) to start. We are in a grey area as filming is pretty certain now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I'm improving the draft right now, anyway, so it'll be ready to go once start of filming has been confirmed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Lab Rats

I haven't yet done another, more thorough cleanup of the article or its episode list, but per WP:CHALLENGE, I'm thinking the Broadcast section needs to be removed as literally nothing in the section is sourced. Thoughts? Will invite the usual MPFitz1968 and IJBall as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I suggest tagging it with {{unreferenced section}} and leave it for a while to give people a chance to source the info. Nothing there is damaging so no real issue giving it time to get references and the tag itself notifies readers that the info may not be valid. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess I forgot to reply, but  Done. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#List of Happy Tree Friends TV episodes (season 1) misnamed?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#List of Happy Tree Friends TV episodes (season 1) misnamed?. Feel free to add any comments here, or there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop stalking me

Weird interaction with a sock puppet

Please stop stalking me and reverting all my edits.Ikrewrwe (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC) @Ikrewrwe: WTF, I reverted one of your edits. Now I do have an incentive to look further as I expect I may have reverted stuff you added while logged out. Some of your recent edits look disruptive so maybe this warning to me is preemptive of what you expect may happen. Hmm. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Another baseless accusation, you did this to me one year ago as well on another account. You are always the person smugly reverting my edits for no reasonIkrewrwe (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC) @Ikrewrwe: Admitted to WP:SOCKING, please give the name of your other accounts or list them in your user pages of all your accounts and give a reason why you are using multiple accounts. Yes I revert stuff that needs reverting, I usually give a reason unless it is obvious vandalism. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) You don't want problems? Don't make disruptive edits. Reverting BLP violations is not stalking, it's following policy. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Ah, (Redacted) are teaming up against me just like last year. No, this is not a sock account. I used to have a different account on my school computer. However, I left that school and forgot the password so I made a new account. Mweeeh mweeeh cry moreIkrewrwe (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Instead of accusing me of insulting you. Please address my point about how I am not a sock account.Ikrewrwe (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC) @Ikrewrwe: What is the name of your previous account? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC) I have no obligation to state that.Ikrewrwe (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC) DylannStormRoof (talk · contribs) is what a checkuser says. Edits do look similar so looks like I did interact in the past on another account. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Glad that this has been resolved. (P.S. I'd be tempted to formally "close" this discussion now, if it were on my Talk page...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't revert legitimate edits

These pages describe police misconduct in the body of the article. Don't delete the legitimate categorizations. Infocidal (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Infocidal: Categories were not supported by content in article, they are WP:OR personal opinions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

From LA Confidential "The three protagonists are LAPD officers. Edmund Exley, the son of legendary detective Preston Exley, is a "straight arrow" who informs on other officers in a police brutality scandal." From LA Confidential (film) "Officer Wendell "Bud" White, whom Exley considers a "mindless thug", is a plainclothes officer obsessed with violently punishing woman-beaters." From Cruising "Burns mistakenly compels the police to interrogate a waiter, Skip Lee (Jay Acovone), who is intimidated and beaten to coerce a confession before the police discover Skip's fingerprints don't match the killer's. Burns is disturbed by this police brutality, and tells Captain Edelson he didn't sign on for this so that they can arrest anyone just because he's gay." While literacy is not required to edit Wikipedia, it is recommended. Infocidal (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

If it is a major plot element important enough to be described in the article and that is a major theme driving the film then it could be considered a defining attribute of the film. Usually descriptions of the film point that out. If it is minor or passing mention or not covered in the article it is not defining. You originally appeared to be adding the category without consideration based on personal opinion. If you can justify it, fine. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Strange situation revisited

Looks like this has been rectified. See here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:List of The Loud House episodes#Credits for "Tripped!" and "Head Poet’s Anxiety"

Last time I checked, it's only okay if the episode is from the official website and it doesn't require your cable or satellite provider login—in other words, it's not behind a WP:PAYWALL. Being behind a paywall makes verifying difficult. Is that right? They watched the episode on some site called Watch Cartoons Online, which I think is definitely a no-no for here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: There is no restriction on using a reference if you need to pay to see it but with the amount of vandalism I prefer to see stuff that is easy to get to to verify. For stuff that will eventually be widely distributed and the lack of any need to rush things it is best to wait. We are not supposed to link to copyright violations so those links can't be in a cite. If a site is legally hosting content, it is fine but I'm not sure about Watch Cartoons Online. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

2016 PPG season 3 official proof?

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NjkyNTM2fENoaWxkSUQ9NDAzNjUzfFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1 Is this official proof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.161.101 (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That is a PDF copy of "TimeWarner Quarterly Supplemental Data" for "Q1 2018". A section on page 1 labeled "Select Original Programming for 2018" has an entry "Title: The Powerpuff Girls, Network: Cartoon Network, Season: 3, Premiere date: 5/21/2018, Date tagged with Footnote 5 which says "Expected premiere date". The PDF is hosted on http://phx.corporate-ir.net/ which redirects to http://business.nasdaq.com/intel/ir-management/index.html so it looks to be on a site we can trust. Makes the document itself a valid primary source hosted on a trusted site and supports season 3 with an expected starting date of May 21, 2018. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Something of interest

Remember WP Editor 2012? The editor who often edited the Nickelodeon series articles and would often remove air dates for episodes on the basis that they didn't think they were right—a similar example can be found at Talk:List of Henry Danger episodes#Number of episodes for second season. They're also one of the ones who would argue that double length episodes count as two episodes—for example, Talk:List of Zoey 101 episodes#Episode numbering—and then tell us that The Futon Critic's production codes such as 999 for double length or higher specials were wrong—although The Futon Critic has changed that since. And so on. Well, anyway, I happened to notice their name had a strike-through while looking at the Girl Meets World article history, so naturally I got curious and checked their block log and saw this: Block log. The random user who commented at Talk:List of Henry Danger episodes#Special production codes was them. I'll ping MPFitz1968 and IJBall as well in case they're interested since we've all had many interactions with them, particularly Geraldo, I think. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simulation12. That's a long casefile!... I remember some of those: for example, Lado85... And look who else is in there Amaury: Stuv3!! And also Esewe13... Add: Ah, those three were actually "cleared" in the SPI, or at least were not checkusered to the socker... This is a very bad, long-term, and prolific socker. Glad I've been made aware of this SPI casefile now. Should probably be upped to a WP:LTA case... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury and IJBall: Normally I trust SPI but I am dubious about match to WP Editor 2012. Did the unblock dance and declined, though. Interesting. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it alright that the List of The Powerpuff Girls (2016 TV series) episodes should be semi protected from unconfirmed users?

Eventhough the Powerpuff girls (2016) series has already been renewed for season 3 ,There isn't a single proof for its confirmation yet even though unofficial sources confirm it,These people however keep editing the Episodes wiki page without any confirmation as shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Powerpuff_Girls_(2016_TV_series)_episodes#Season_3_(2018-19)

Which is why I suggested maybe you should give a semi-protection to the article in order to prevent more vandalism unless if there is a confirmation and proof that the series is renewed for season 3 and then it should be edited with season 3 Belrien12 (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Tony Hawk

Just to let you know, you accepted an incorrect edit (he was born in Carlsbad, not San Diego). 2600:1011:B120:2ADE:5CBF:27A2:AD89:261 (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I went through the article history and checked the existing references that supported birth location that are in the article. Carlsbad was the original data but it was unsourced. References that were added later say San Diego. If that is wrong, need to source it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Speedster358

It seems very probable that is a sock of somebody. I was thinking Speedy135 due to the username (see: the SPI case), but the interaction report shows zero overlap. Still, this has got to be a sock, based on the behavior... Any ideas?

Pinging Amaury as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Likely socking based on new user with good editing ability, but I don't recognize who the master might be. He looks like an editor who pops up occasionally as an IP and pattern is making a rash of misnumbering episodes on various episode lists. IPs eventually get blocked for adding unsourced info or misinformation. If he keeps it up will likely get blocked. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Geraldo, IJBall, I reported them to AIV 21 minutes ago. Feel free to add anything else relevant to the report. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Amaury, IJBall, I have reported them to AIV again, after seeing their disruption at iCarly (season 7) ([12]). MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Which reminds me – I have a "proposal" for you, Geraldo, re: the "season #7" issue of iCarly (re: this), but I'm not ready to tackle it for a couple more weeks yet. So... stay tuned!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Geraldo, User:Speedster358 is using their user page as a "draft article" – Is this kosher? (It's also completely redundant with Draft:Descendants 3, I will note...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I mean, I've got sandbox pages that aren't drafts and are just for my own personal use, but this might be slightly different. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Yeah, "draft pages" in your userspace are A-OK. What I'm not sure about is using your "base" userpage as a draft article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: WP:UPYES Says OK but normally people use their sandbox or subpages. This just indicates a lack of knowledge of normal practices. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe – but considering they earlier tried to basically "blank" Draft:Descendants 3, I'm not assuming good faith here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Blanking is a separate issue. I am assuming right now a WP:CIR issue more than anything else but AGF is getting harder for me to maintain. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Michael's report at AIV was declined, but I've added a comment to the declining admin citing WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury and MPFitz1968: Interesting – it appears that Speedster358's account has now been globally "locked"! Not exactly sure how that happens – I guess the account was vandalizing more than just En Wiki... Anyway, it seems this is now one for the books. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Blocked for 1 day on the Slovenian wiki for harassment then account locked indefinitely globally as a vandalism only account. I guess the person who locked the global account looked into some more after the local block on the Slovenian wiki. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

SpeedsterSavitar, possible sock?

Amaury reverted their several disruptive edits at List of Austin & Ally episodes and reported them to AIV. Looking at the info for this account - the name is pretty similar and the account was created on May 7, one day after the 358 one was globally locked. Their only common article at this point is The Flash (season 4), but both accounts have been tied to various articles about Disney and Nickelodeon TV shows, so their area of interest is definitely in editing there. Still, I'm not completely sure whether this is a sock, but the name similarity immediately calls this into suspicion (though I know there are a handful of "Speedster" accounts in Wikipedia, but not every one is tied to Disney/Nickelodeon programming). MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Definitely a sock - see Special:CentralAuth/SpeedsterSavitar and note blocked on slwiki as sock. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

List of PAW Patrol episodes

Just to let you know, but this series of edits, looks questionable to me – I randomly checked and at least one of these episode synopses seems to contain a WP:COPYVIO, and not just from the Wikia but from a legitimate "source". As a regular watcher of this page, I thought you should be made aware... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The Fairly OddParents

I've asked for semiprotection of the article in light of recent edits by several IPs effectively stating the end of the series occurred on July 26, 2017, without providing any sources that the series has been officially cancelled by Nickelodeon ... and it is still less than a year since the last aired episode on that date. Will ping Amaury and IJBall - can you two also keep an eye on the article in case more disruption happens before an admin can deal with this?

I've also put an entry on the show's talk page to reiterate that the "last_aired" should not be changed unless one of the above conditions has occurred, as a topic regarding that (which I mention in the entry) has already been archived. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: I'm watching the article. People just can't wait 2 months when this resolves itself. A protect would be nice. Talk page notice will likely be as honored as the hidden note but can be pointed to in a revert message. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Nationality query

Geraldo, contra to this edit, I thought we didn't include "nationality" in most BLP's unless it differed from the obvious (e.g. the nation where their work is known for). Personality, I've always thought that including nationality in infoboxes was redundant and unnecessary about 95% of the time. Am I wrong? TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I've since reverted as it seems most Canadian BLPs don't have the Canadian nationality in the infobox, As far as I know or knew including nationality in infoboxes was absolutely fine ?, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: We generally don't include nationality in the infobox if it's "obvious" – e.g. born in a country, citizen of a country, did all the work in that country... Where we tend to include nationality-type info is in weirder cases like Phoebe Tonkin (Aussie actress who primarily works in the U.S.) or Breanna Yde... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

When you put it like that it does make a lot of sense, I just assumed I guess "stating the obvious" was fine, Okie dokie thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall and Davey2010: I see this is resolved. Generally people are citizens or nationals of where they are born and adding nationality or citizenship in the infobox is redundant with birth country already listed. Need to list it for the exceptions when it differs from birth country as there are cases such as born to diplomats or military on assignment out of their country or become naturalized in another country. Also assumptions about what a person's actual nationality or citizenship is might be wrong if not backed up with article content that directly supports it. Putting it in the infobox based solely on birth location is just making the same assumptions a reader of the article will make and really adds nothing of value and there is some chance it might actually be incorrect. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Production codes: WP:PRIMARY vs. WP:SECONDARY

In this particular case, what takes precedence? WP:PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY (The Futon Critic, Disney ABC Press, Copyright Office). I'm working on cleaning up ABC's latest new comedies—Alex, Inc. and Splitting Up Together—in sandbox pages here and here. Once I'm done catching up on episodes so I can add in the guest stars, I will clean up the actual articles. Anyway, unlike kids' networks, broadcast networks show "production # X" in the end credits. So for Splitting Up Together's pilot, for example, we have "production # T11.10115" in the credits, but The Futon Critic and Disney ABC Press list 101. Which one should be used? T11.10115 or 101? Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: The production code listed in the credits should be used. Don't know why the other sources don't match. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Thinking on this some more. The production codes used in Futon and ABC press are more production sequence numbers for that specific TV series - other TV series by the same company will likely have the same codes, the codes just need to be unique within a given series. The production number listed in the end credits is a code that is unique for that production across all shows that the production company creates and each series will have its own set of codes with no duplication with the codes used by any other series. It is a unique ID for that particular episode. T11.10115 has a series, season and episode encoded in it. 101 just has season and episode. We should still use the production number in the end credits as it is a better identifier. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems to depend – going off the U.S.C.O. database, some shows do use these intricate prod. codes, but other TV shows just seem to have "101", "102", "103"-type prod. codes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I haven't checked but have you seen a conflict between end credit production number and what USCO reports? I like the production number as it is stamped on every aired episode of the series that use it and trivial to verify so little need to hunt for sometimes hard to find other sources. The main purpose of even listing production codes in a list is to get some idea of production sequence which may map to creator's intended narrative order as some shows do air out of order and some people would like creation order info. Both production code and production number usually give that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I have not checked that, and the instances where I have seen this might not be easy to check (e.g. TV series that are a decade old, or older)... Personally, I haven't looked at the end-credits of a TV show for a prod. code since the 1990s!! I do know that the last series I checked prod. codes on that had "101, etc."-type prod. codes in the U.S.C.O. was Lab Rats, so somebody could check the end credits of that one to see if there's a fancy prod. code in there in the end-credits... But I think the "fancy" prod. codes tend to be for Primetime drama and comedy TV series, and I'm not even sure if all the TV production studios use the fancy prod. codes or not... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I've noticed only series on broadcast networks tend to show this number. Not sure if there's a reason for this, but I've never noticed a production number in the credits for, say, Nickelodeon and Disney Channel series. For Nickelodeon in particular, not even in a series' actual credits—compared to the generic credits Nickelodeon uses on television. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

On the subject of Alex, Inc., Geraldo, IJBall, can I get some additional eyes on the article, at least temporarily through tomorrow Wednesday? The series was canceled, but the series finale doesn't air until tomorrow Wednesday; thus, we shouldn't be adding the end date to the infobox, which hasn't happened yet, or the ending category, which has happened a lot. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: "It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings" – Yogi Berra. In our case the final episode actually airs. Watching. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Alex, Inc.

The series has been canceled, so effectively it belongs in the 2018 American television series endings category. So why the revert? Snickers2686 (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Snickers2686: Final episode hasn't aired. Series ending is not for end of production but end of broadcast run. Can't be sure of that until final episode has aired which is planned in a few days. No hurry to tag it ended before it actually has ended. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: I don't get why there needs to be a debate over the semantics of series ending vs. production ending, either way, multiple sources have stated it's not being renewed, so it'll wind up in said category eventually, hence why I added it. Snickers2686 (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Snickers2686: Shows are not over until the last episode has been proven to have aired. Some shows stop production but sometimes delay the airing of the last bunch of episodes sometimes a lot. If the final episode airs Wednesday as planned then it would be appropriate to tag the show complete after that episode airs. There is no hurry on this, we are likely only talking a few days here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Fine. Then you edit how you see fit since apparently I'm wrong. Snickers2686 (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Snickers2686: Just jumping the gun a bit. I'm certain the instant the final second of the last episode airs many editors will be falling all over themselves to edit the article to reflect completion. Pretty much normal behavior for ending shows. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Article title question...

Since I've narrowed the scope of List of films broadcast by Nickelodeon, do you now think the article should be moved to something like List of Nickelodeon original films? (You may also want to refer to Talk:List of films broadcast by Nickelodeon before answering...)

If you say yes, I'll probably put in a formal WP:Requested move for that soon. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: The new title better reflects the scope of the article and scope embedded in the title is easier to enforce. The formal RM is good to do as this could be contentious and needs to follow process for this to stick. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Template placed on File:Image of rapper Tay-K.png

You placed a template on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Image_of_rapper_Tay-K.png due to the fact "Subject is alive, free-use photo possible."

I edited it a little to justify why a free-use photo is most likely not possible but I felt like my original justification was enough. The subject in question is 17 years old and currently on trial for two capital murder charges which could leave him incarcerated for the rest of his life. I stated that originally on the image and I felt like that was enough to understand why there will possibly never be a free-use image released of him due to the fact that no free-use images can be taken of him (as he is incarcerated), though I have added the fact his career basically took off whilst he was incarcerated so he also did no tours nor did he ever do a concert where pictures would be taken. I feel like this is rational enough justification to allow the image, especially as it isn't compromising anyone commercial opportunities (the image was distributed by U.S Marshal Services.)CoughingCookieHeart (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@CoughingCookieHeart: Normally non-free-use photos of living people are deleted immediately as there is no possible non-free-use justifications that can override the fact that a free-use photo is always possible for a living person. The fact that one has not been found yet or that the person is currently in a location that makes it difficult for a random person to take a picture does not negate the fact that he will be in some location where a free-use photo could be taken now or in the future, or someone who owns a photo of him could release it for free-use. The U.S. Marshal service is using an existing photo owned by someone else for one of their valid uses. Their use of the photo does not mean it is free-use, just that they were permitted to use it. If they had taken the photo, then it may be public domain as a photo taken by an agent of the US Government, but that is not shown. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Isn't a free-use photo possible for a dead person if taken in the past though? and the idea in that situation is that the non-free use image will be deleted and be replaced. Prison is not a "difficult location", its literally impossible to smuggle cameras in to take pictures of the subject and if they are incarcerated for the rest of their life, it'll be impossible to take a picture of them. I don't know why this exception that's used for dead people shouldn't be used for people who are in places such as prison where images of them cannot be acquired ever again. Not to forget that Texas doesn't have conjugal visits where cameras can be brought in and the USA just ended face-to-face visits so theres no way anyone will be able to meet the subject in question. The reason I brought up where the image came from is because that means its been widely distributed for press release and that it's commercial opportunities are most likely already used up + the image is originally a selfie taken by the subject who won't be able to sell images whilst in prison of course. CoughingCookieHeart (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@CoughingCookieHeart: A sysop will evaluate what is in the justification within a week and make a decision to either remove the tag, or delete the image. As of now he has not been convicted of a crime and is presumed innocent. He may well be released. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)