Jump to content

User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Template:Girl Meets World

This template was recently added to Girl Meets World, List of Girl Meets World episodes, and List of Girl Meets World characters. Per normal standards, I reverted them on the LOE and LOC as those templates are only needed on the parent articles per removals that Philip J. Fry has done on other articles in the past that IJBall has agreed with. I've now reverted the editor twice on the LOE and LOC as they've refused to follow proper WP:BRD protocol. Here's the twist: The editor who added the template nominated the template for deletion, which I agree with as I don't see the template as necessary, but it also confuses things. Why nominate something for deletion and then go on an adding spree with it? Pinging MPFitz1968, IJBall, and KatnissEverdeen as well about this. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

With regard to the other matter at hand, about the templates not being needed in the LOE and LOC, in my opinion and per what seems to be standard practice, Template:Boy Meets World was recently added to them. Whether or not the editor saw the previous reversions, I don't know, but I'm not going to bother with that for now. There is, however, a discussion that was started about it earlier at Talk:Girl Meets World#Should "Template:Girl Meets World" be on episode and character lists?. Basically, from what was explained to me, is that LOE and LOC pages specifically focus on just that series' episodes and characters, whereas the parent article focuses not just on the series, but also, if applicable, the series it spun off from, which is why those templates are really only appropriate on the parent articles. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: The BMW navbox shouldn't be in the GMW ep and char articles and the BMW navbox shouldn't link those articles. The root article of a related series is sufficient. WP:NAV and WP:NAVBOX suggests strong links and a fair amount of article coverage which is not in the GMW ep and char articles with relation to BMW. I also don't see much point in the BMW navbox even existing. Pretty much all that is there is linked directly from the main BMW article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 Removed. As for the Boy Meets World template itself, I wonder if an AFD should be held. Would it be worth it? I would imagine there might be some push-back as there has been at the Double Dare discussions. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: It is marginal with with the 3 individual character articles. Likely not worth bothering with now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Removing the Girl Meets World articles from {{Boy Meets World}} is not helpful at this stage, as there's a TfD to delete the {{Girl Meets World}} template, on grounds of duplication, which is not existent if these links are removed. Having two parallel discussions is not helpful. When {{Girl Meets World}} is deleted, and it seems likely, the links need to be included at {{Boy Meets World}} and the navbox remain transcluded on the relevant pages. We need to keep the status quo until the discussion is complete. Ideally, both navboxes should be transcluded on the pages until the end of the TfD, to fully demonstrate redundancy. --woodensuperman 08:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
The users who are removing all navboxes from List of Girl Meets World characters and List of Girl Meets World episodes are really not helping. One or other of the navboxes will be on each of these pages after this TFD is over. --woodensuperman 14:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
In order to avoid a fork of this discussion, please could any further comments be made at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 July 31#Template:Girl Meets World --woodensuperman 14:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Question!

Was this Open Season: A Wild Holiday Adventure Sequel film real or fake? Matthulk (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Matthulk: I find nothing indicating it is real. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Genie (Disney)#Requested move 2 August 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Genie (Disney)#Requested move 2 August 2018. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Pete Davidson

Hi, you recently reverted an edit over at Pete Davidson that I partially accepted/adjusted. You reverted the addition of Ariana Grande to the |partner= parameter in the infobox with the edit summary "Not married yet", which doesn't really make sense to me since the parameter is specifically for "notable unmarried life partners" (see Template:Infobox person#Parameters). Given that Ariana Grande is notable and they are not yet married, I think/thought that this parameter is exactly for this kind/stage of relationship. (Now, if the |spouse= parameter had been added, I would get the revert, but then I wouldn't have accepted it in the first place of course.) I just thought you may want to reconsider your revert, but maybe there is some convention that I'm not aware of, in which case I would appreciate an explanation. Thanks. Felida97 (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Felida97: Life partner basically means equivalent to marriage for people who don't want to or can't get legally married. People who are engaged are not life partners or married. At this point all that can be said about her relationship is they are dating and engaged, not yet life partners or married. Basically being engaged means intent to be life partners, not that they are. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. But if "life partner" already meant that the people are not married, "unmarried life partner" would be redundant. So, the distinction, as I see it, is not between life partners or married, but between unmarried life partners and married life partners. And the link for life partner just redirects to significant other saying it's a "term for a person's partner in an intimate relationship without disclosing or presuming anything about marital status, relationship status, or sexual orientation". I would think they are each other's significant other right now and if we replace "life partner" with "significant other" in the parameter description (so it reads "unmarried significant other"), the parameter seems very appropriate. "Unmarried" just means the life partners/significant others are currently not married, just a status of their partnership. I would say being engaged means they are now unmarried life partners and intent to become married life partners. In the end, I don't really care whether it is mentioned in the infobox (since I didn't add it in the first place), I just thought it was interesting that you implied that they can't be unmarried life partners because they are not married yet. Felida97 (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@Felida97: Life partners needs to be more than just the person currently dating or it becomes somewhat meaningless as a classification. It was added as something equivalent to marriage in terms of commitment and intent for a long term exclusive relationship. It is generally shown as existing by actually having demonstrated that it is long term, exclusive, committed. See for example Johnny Depp and Vanessa Paradis. People who have dated for a short time, whirlwind romance, then getting engaged hasn't shown that, it just shows intent at this point. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I can agree with that definition (life partner as an equivalent to marriage in terms of commitment and intent for a long term exclusive relationship), then it makes sense to not use the |partner= parameter in this case. Felida97 (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk page

Hello. I reverted your revert. In my understanding, I am entitled to remove the question/comment, since no one had replied to it, and I am no longer interested. Cheers zzz (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Frozen

Frozen has gross $1.290 billion you can see this List of highest-grossing films Whitch also have the sources witch I been trying to add.Fanoflionking 16:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Fanoflionking: Change just that info with whatever reference the other Wikipedia article used to support the data, you can't use another Wikipedia article as a reference. As for whatever else you were attempting, it didn't work. I clicked on the superscript and got nothing, hovering over the link gave weird results. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
If you do not agree go to there talk page and discussion it there. Fanoflionking 18:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
@Fanoflionking: I have no problems with what is well-referenced in some other Wikipedia article and I am not disputing the content in that article as it is well-reference in that article. We cannot use that other article as a reference per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources § User-generated content. We can use references from other articles and if you wish to include info from another Wikipedia article you need to support it with the reference that article used as well. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

New live-action comedy ordered straight-to-series

Pinging the others from the fantastic four—or three, I guess, with Nyu inactive—group as well: MPFitz1968 and IJBall.

Draft here: User:Amaury/sandbox/Gabby Duran & The Unsittables. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Their Stuck in the Middle "replacement"?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
@IJBall: No idea. Is it giving you a Stuck in the Middle vibe? Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Not exactly, but somewhat. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn – Season and series finale

Normally, it would be WP:SYNTH to say so and so is the finale date or has X number of episodes simply based on an announcement as plans can change or there can be double-length episodes. So an episode order of 26 half-hour episodes could become 24 aired episodes if two of those are packaged as double-length episodes. Jessie is a prime example. When the fourth season renewal was announced and it stated that the series would go over 101 total episodes, we had a lot of people continuously inserting the number of episodes for season four by simply adding the number of episodes for the first three seasons and then subtracting that answer from 101, a clear example of WP:SYNTH. What they of course failed to take into account were the likely double-length specials in the fourth season.

With Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn, the fourth season renewal announcement doesn't mention how many total episodes the series will be put at after the fourth season, but rather it clearly states that the fourth season will have 14 episodes, and as the season wasn't extended like the second and third seasons due to the backstage drama which led Mace Coronel to leave, that info is still accurate. And there don't seem to be any double-length episodes this season, either, so this season will not only be 14 production episodes, but will also indeed be 14 aired episodes. Episode #414, "Lasties with Firsties," is scheduled to air August 4. I of course still recommend waiting until it airs, but once that airs, 14 episodes of the fourth season will have aired. Adding in the fact that we have a source confirming Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn—and School of Rock—is not continuing, even though there's nothing indicating #414 is the season and series finale, based on the number of episodes, would it be reasonable, in this particular case, to update the last aired both in the series overview and in the infobox on the parent article with the end date once #414 airs? This is a case where what was ordered will match what airs. Thoughts? Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Based on your description, I think it reasonable to declare it over when 14 episodes have aired and update the article to match that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree, based on 14 = 14, and that other sources state that the series ended after season 4. If this is a WP:SYNTH, it's a relatively mild one, and to my mind not an objectionable one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: Looks like we have a similar situation at Shimmer and Shine season #3. I'll let Amaury decide if putting a "season end date" there is appropriate or not (I just reverted an IP for doing this...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Is there an announcement that the series is ending after three seasons and is the number of episodes for S3 stated in the S3 renewal announcement? Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: Actually, it looks like it's been renewed for a 4th season (of 20 more episodes, I think). The issue here is that sourcing said that season #3 would consist of 20 episodes, and 20 episodes have aired. So, there's no "sourcing" for an end-date, but neither is there any sourcing to indicate that season #3 was expanded beyond 20 episodes... IOW, yeah, technically it's a WP:SYNTH to put an 'end date' on season #3 – but it's a logical inference that the 20th episode to air is the "season finale", even it it's not labeled as such... I dunno – in general, we need to come up with a better way of handling these kinds of situations. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. You didn't explain that. I know you said similar, but in my head, I was thinking virtually the same as NRDD. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@IJBall: I was just about to make the edit, but I only see 19 episodes for S3, with production codes 316, 319, and 320 missing and not on The Futon Critic. 317 has also been stricken out there. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, right you are! Good catch!! So it's premature to put an 'end date' there in any case... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Geraldo, IJBall: Promo for next Saturday just aired, calling it a one-hour summer finale. So further confirmation. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I find it very odd that they're calling it a "summer finale" rather than a "series finale". From all accounts, there's no chance of this show returning, so it's a crappy thing for NICK to do to not let the audience know that this is the true series finale... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
@IJBall: Here are the promos. There are two, one for each episode: Promo 1, Promo 2 Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Both Amphibia (TV series) and The Owl House (TV series) are two more examples of upcoming TV series articles that should not be in mainspace – only a single source indicating a TV series order, but no evidence of production start, and nothing even close to a "firm" scheduled premiere date. Pinging Amaury... Thoughts? (Note: I was tempted to post this to WT:TV, because I know this kind of thing has been complained about there recently as well...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinging the creator of these two articles, Keylonrocks7356, to this discussion as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Too soon for main space. Draft would be appropriate for now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes. Should be in draftspace as ordered does not mean for sure. A series on the Forever in Your Mind boys—including Ricky Garcia from Best Friends Whenever—was ordered, but for unknown reasons, production never followed through. Same thing with Right Hand Guy. Ordered, but never followed through for unknown reasons. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Keylonrocks7356 hasn't posted since August 2. Let's give them until the end of the weekend to comment. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon‎

MPFitz1968, IJBall.

Need some eyes here as well. The finale isn't until 8:00 PM tonight, and since it's two episodes, it won't finish until 9:00 PM. As with others, we should wait until both the East and West Coast airings have aired as there is WP:NORUSH. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Got my eye on the article, but I certainly am seeing a mess at that one. (Don't know if a trip to WP:RPP is in order here, as I've just gone into the article, which wasn't on my watchlist, but certainly a lot of IP edits that look quite questionable.) One edit I looked at, right after my first set of fixes there, was someone tampering with the Blue's Clues end date, which appears to have been falsified by someone else a little while back (probably around a week or so), and other IPs keep changing the false date to another false one. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
This is basically the bigger problem with these articles – they are massively subject to falsification, and it's questionable if they violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE and/or WP:INDISCRIMINATE... WP:TV probably needs to have a good long discussion about whether any of these articles are worth keeping, and if they are if they shouldn't simply be narrowed in focus to just current (and upcoming?) programming only. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Geraldo, MPFitz1968, and IJBall: I've come with a rough draft of what could be done here: User:Amaury/sandbox/List of Nickelodeon series and films. Everything in one place. My rough draft removes several pointless sections and merges them with others. For example, the preschool series are still animation, so I've merged them with cartoons. The unscripted series are still live-action series, so I've merged them as well. Acquired series have also been merged with the aforementioned live-action section. Rather than having a separate section for the minority, notes that they're acquired series can be added, as I've done so. I plan on doing a rough draft for Disney Channel and possibly Disney XD as well. But beyond that, I think it would be futile to try to get this updated everywhere as there are hundreds of networks. Feel free to mess around with my rough draft to try out different things. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I just made this edit, which not only re-added Star Falls because someone removed it for some reason, but also removed a bunch of pointless indicators that were removed a while ago by another editor, but were reinserted by some stupid IP. They're not on the Disney Channel one, and they shouldn't be here. So an eye should be kept on that as well. But I agree with IJBall. These should be restricted to only current and upcoming. And perhaps even restricted further by only listing those that are airing on Nickelodeon. If a series is moved to TeenNick, for example, it maybe shouldn't be listed on the Nickelodeon page anymore. If it later moves back to Nickelodeon, then I don't know. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

On another note, why does Disney Channel have both List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel and List of Disney Channel series while Nickelodeon and Disney XD only have the programs one? (At least for the networks we pay attention to most.) There doesn't seem to be any difference between the two? Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've requested semiprotection of List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon. Seems like a whole lot of unconstructive IP edits, though not necessarily vandalism. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Disneyluvr818

Haven't we dealt with this user before, who ended up blocked for being a sockpuppet? Pinging MPFitz1968 and IJBall as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: This editor's block log is empty, and nothing turns up when I search "Disneyluvr" at WP:SPI. Do you have any reason to believe that they're a sock of somebody?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@IJBall: The name is just really familiar. And while writing that sentence, I knew my feeling wasn't entirely wrong as I did a search. See User:Disneylover12377 who is blocked. I can't say for sure this account spelling it as "luvr" is related, but I wouldn't outrule it, either. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: I don't recognize who it may be a sock of. Name may just be a common theme. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Lab Rats episodes – Season two episodes "Quarantined" and "Parallel Universe"

The episode list of Lab Rats is my next cleanup project, which I am already working on here. I've run into a small dilemma. Copyright Office has all the season two production codes except #207. (Overall, it's also missing a lot of season three production codes, but everything else it has.) It also has no entry for "Quarantined," so by process of elimination, that would make "Quarantined" #207.

Now, this is where it gets tricky. The Futon Critic, which likely gets its production codes from Disney ABC Press for Disney Channel and Disney XD series, lists "Quarantined" as #205. Now, Copyright Office also lists "Parallel Universe" as #205. You can see the problem: conflicting information. Both the current version of the article and the Wikia, while I know it's not a reliable source, have "Quarantined" as #205 and "Parallel Universe" as #207. Although a lot of those codes are currently unsourced with just using The Futon Critic as a source as it only supports production codes through "The Rats Strikes Back." After that, it numbers things differently and doesn't list production codes again until the season four episodes.

Copyright Office is really no different than other sources and can also occasionally make mistakes, as IJBall pointed out here. However, I'm tempted on doing #205 for "Parallel Universe" as listed on Copyright Office and then #207 for "Quarantined" by process of elimination, despite "Quarantined" being listed as #205 on The Futon Critic. Not sure... Unfortunately, I can't find a picture of a table draft for either episode, which would clear things up immediately.

Here's the link for Copyright Office, if helpful: https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First Search "Disney Lab Rats" and choose to have 100 records per page just to make things easier. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Now things get complicated. There was another page since there were more than 100 records. The second page has "Quarantined" listed as... #205. So Copyright Office is listing both "Quarantined" and "Parallel Universe" as #205... Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: Copyright Office should be the authoritative source so I'd suggest going with whatever they state with nb footnotes on the conflicting codes explaining the conflict and listing what the other sources say. Same for 207 if using elimination, just list and and footnote an explanation. Also should explain what is happening on the article talk page. If Copyright Office has conflicting info pick the one that matches other sources as primary for the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay. So if I'm understanding you right, The Futon Critic has "Quarantined" listed as #205; Copyright Office has both "Quarantined" and "Parallel Universe" listed as #205. Since both The Futon Critic and Copyright Office say that "Quarantined" is #205, that would make "Parallel Universe" the one that Copyright Office is wrong on the production code. So "Parallel Universe" should be listed as #207, our missing production code, which agrees with what the Wikia has listed. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: Yes. Still need to explain on talk page for those of us who occasionally check references and to head off problems in the future. Notes in the article at points of confusion are also helpful. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll add the hidden notes while I'm cleaning it up. I'll go ahead and raise a talk page discussion now. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 Done: Talk:List of Lab Rats episodes#Production code conflicts and oddities. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Raven's Home

In response to your latest edit there, not sure if this helps, but she's basically a chauffeur driving people around. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I didn't recognize the term Scüt driver and what it means so I went huh? when I saw it. Likely most readers of the article wouldn't know what it means either thus the tag. I did a basic web search and found nothing so it looks like an internal to the show job name with Scüt driver basically meaning Uber driver without the trademark issues. If that is the case it should be made explicit in the article text what the term means. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Yep, could be changed to "...takes a job as a rideshare driver for a company called Scüt..." or something. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@IJBall and Amaury: If that is what it is, that looks appropriate - also similar concerns when when referred to in list of episodes summaries. I don't watch the show. rideshare driver should be linked for context if that description is used and accurate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Zoey 101 – "Welcome to PCA"

Is this substantial enough to have its own episode article? The article was previously a redirect.

Pages related to this redirect removal, as of this message:

Pinging MPFitz1968 and IJBall as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like "plot only" article to me. They try to "gild" with ref. #2, but that doesn't establish "notability" in my book. I doubt very much the pilot to Zoey generated enough press coverage to justify a standalone article. I'd convert it back to a redirect – you can offer up WP:Drafts to them if you do revert. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@IJBall:  Done. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: I agree, no justification for a standalone article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: Although any links to that redirect should not be piped to bypass it per WP:NOTBROKEN which says don't bypass valid redirect to sections. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Harvey Beaks

I've noticed your edit on Harvey Beaks' Wikipedia homepage of in which you mentioned Foo will be voice by Jaxon J. Smith for Season 3. But, the show isn't getting a third season, and I don't know Jaxon J. Smith at all. Why did you make this edit? Where are your sources to support the claim? (MapleTreeXZ: talk) 12:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@MapleTreeXZ: I do not edit as 184.103.144.73. Last edit I made on that article just removing some unnecessary repetition. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MapleTreeXZ (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:SELFREDIRECT, if an actor links back to the article, we shouldn't link it. For example, if Gus Kamp were a redirect that just redirected back to Best Friends Whenever, we would not link his name as it is pointless. That much is clear. What about this? There's a link to Ricky Garcia (actor) on the Best Friends Whenever pages, but that just redirects to Forever in Your Mind. It doesn't redirect back to Best Friends Whenever, but it still redirects somewhere. Should he be linked or not be linked? Does WP:SELFREDIRECT kinda apply to this as well? Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: In this case yes as there actually is some information about him at the redirect target other than just the first acting role a lot of actor redirects end up pointing to. I am a minority on this but I think it unhelpful to readers to redirect actor names to an article with no information other than a mention of being in a role. Unfortunately a lot of AfD results end up doing just that and in those cases I think it has no benefit to the readers to point to those redirects in other articles. Not the case with Ricky Garcia (actor) though as he is a member of a group and is discussed in that context in that article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Following WP:OVERLINKING with a balance

I'll ping IJBall to this as well as I'm sure he remembers how strictly I used to follow this.

The best way to follow this guideline isn't to just link a name or word only once again and then never again, but to link to it only once in each section. For example, a director should be linked to once in each season of an episode list, not just once in the first season and then never again.

What about something like this, though? In Lab Rats' "The Bionic 500," Joey Logano is mentioned twice, once in the summary and once in the credits. In a case like this, should he only be linked in the summary, only in the credits, or in both places, even though that would be linking more than once? Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

In that specific case, I would only link in the "guest credits", not in the episode summary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: Once per episode entry is sufficient. In my opinion it would be best linked on first use as assume people read from top and if interested would want to at least hover on a name the first time they see it. No need to link again in same entry. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Lab Rats viewership – Individual numbers vs. prime time average

As can be seen, the viewership data is missing for a number of episodes. The missing data for four of the season one episodes is a lost cause, pretty sure. They're not on The Futon Critic's ratings for those days as back when The Futon Critic used to post cable ratings, which they stopped at about mid-July 2014, they only posted prime time, which is 8–11:00 PM, and those four season one episodes aired at 7:30 PM. And I can't find them in other sources.

Moving on, there are other ones that did air in prime time that The Futon Critic didn't have because they weren't available at the time of their posting. In other cases, The Futon Critic provided them in the listing, but didn't provide the individual numbers because they weren't available and instead provided the prime time average. In either of those cases, other sources were deferred to. However, those other sources aren't always available, that I can see, hence some of the missing data. In those cases, should we just use the prime time average listed on The Futon Critic or leave them blank? For example, for "Three Minus Bree," which aired on June 30, 2014, all we have is this. (I can't find anything else.) It's at the bottom of the page, with an asterisk, showing that 0.44 million was the prime time average for Disney XD on that date rather than Lab Rats' individual numbers. As can be seen, Kickin' It and Mighty Med's individual numbers also weren't available.

So, back to that question again, in the case of Lab Rats, for example, should we put in 0.44 million for the viewership for that date or just leave it blank? I lean toward including it as anything is better than nothing, but just wanted second thoughts. Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: One of the purposes of having the ratings is to see how a show is doing over time. If we don't show the same thing we lose that. If you do put in a value that measures something differently from the rest then needs a footnote attached to explain why that value is a different measure than the rest. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. That's easy to explain. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Photo of Joshua Rush on his article

Photo added here. Removed here without explanation. And now re-added by the original editor who added it here. Thoughts? Is there a potential COPYVIO reason for it not to be listed? Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I would say yes on the COPYVIO, as I see the source of the image is from Getty, and I've been noting that as one source where their images are not compatibly licensed to be used in Wikipedia. (example of removal of recent Getty image use that made me note what I just said) MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: It from Getty Images and they never license Wikipedia to use their images - if this were uploaded to Commons it would be deleted immediately. Uploader makes a fair-use claim which never works for living people photos and thus will be rejected in two days and the file deleted then. It can either be deleted from the article now as we can't use fair-use images of living people or we can wait for the eventual file deletion in two days. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Andi Mack#Premise

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Andi Mack#Premise. On the Plot section in general, I supported the addition per the talk page. At the same time, for soap operas, which Andi Mack technically falls into, per the reasons stated in the second discussion on the talk page and why we avoided character descriptions, at least more complex ones, it may just be better to stick with a premise and leave the more in-depth explanation to the episode summaries.

However and regardless, a plot's been added now, and while I don't really have a problem with the content itself, though some copy-editing probably wouldn't hurt—I haven't read it yet—I'm wondering if the layout with the season headings is not really appropriate Wikipedia style as it's not really anything I've seen before. Each season and even each season part, in the case of the second season, could just separated with paragraphs rather than headings. Some feedback from you regarding that and any other thoughts you may have would be appreciated on the talk page. Thanks in advance. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Nickelodeon shows

Currently the article Anabel (Brazilian TV series) includes Category:Nickelodeon shows, presumably because it aired on Nickelodeon Brazil. But Category:Nickelodeon shows is just for U.S. Nickelodeon TV shows, correct?... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: It looks like it is for all Nick shows based on Category:Nickelodeon Australia shows being sub to it and its being sub to Category:Nickelodeon which includes all Nick outlets. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Coop & Cami Ask the World

The series' article is now in WP:MAINSPACE. More watchers would be very much appreciated. MPFitz1968, IJBall, Nyuszika7H. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Personal life: Denyse Tontz

I am new to having a wikipedia account and form looking at the policies it seems you have to have a confirmed source. Would Instagram count as a confirmed source or does it need to be in text form? Thank you for your time and consideration. Joefohere (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Joefohere: A verified account owned by Tontz can be used as a reliable source about herself and only about herself per WP:ABOUTSELF. It can't be used for information about others. As for the names of siblings, that is generally discouraged from being in articles unless that sibling is shown to be notable, generally by having an article. This is more for privacy reasons for non-notable people. Really doesn't add much beyond knowing she has siblings to give out their names even if there is a reference for that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Emily Alyn Lind

Ooops, thanks, I was looking for "dates", not ages. I will tell the OTRS poster to get the glamour page retracted as they dispute the numbers, and I think they should know. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Breanna Yde

Hey, just wanted to check. You're still watching this BLP article, right? I just reverted an IP who inserted Australian as part of her nationality, ignoring the talk page, and it wouldn't surprise me if this type of edit flares up again. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: It is still on my watchlist. Australian IP wants to claim one of his own. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

J.J. Totah

He recently portrayed Michael in NBC's Champions, but you're probably more familiar with him from his recurring appearances as Stuart Wooten in Jessie seasons 2–4 and his notable guest star appearances as Skeeter in Liv and Maddie's "Slumber Party-a-Rooney" and "Falcon-a-Rooney" in season four.

This article from Time was published today by J.J. Totah himself, about how he is now a she. She is now considering herself a male to female transgender—or transwoman—and goes by the name Josie Totah. How should we handle this at her article? People have already changed all instances of J.J. Totah in her article to Josie Totah. (See the first edit from today in the history.) Since all of her notable acting jobs to this point have been as J.J. Totah, a male, is this correct or should her name remain as J.J. Totah? Additionally, if all instances of her name being changed are correct, should the article be moved to Josie Totah or stay at J.J. Totah?

Pinging MPFitz1968 and IJBall as well on this. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: We shouldn't be changing credits and should continue to list how credited in all article. None of the existing articles should change other than the person's bio article. If the bio article does get moved the redirect will take care of getting to the correct article. This should be treated no differently than any other name change of an established notable person. As for the bio article itself MOS:GENDERID applies. If Totah is mentioned in other articles I suggest avoiding gender issues by avoiding pronouns when possible. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
So if I read WP:GENDERID right, that means that the latest series of edits after my last revert should be reverted, correct? Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: Yes and point to GENDERID as reason. This may be worth a note on the talk page of the article as this is contentious and people get upset no matter what happens. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
It looks like others are fixing the problems. This may settle out quickly. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 Done: Talk:Josie Totah#Recent revelation of male to female transgender. Feel free to add anything else you think is worth noting. I also decided to request semi-protection, given the matter and that this is a BLP article. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: That looks sufficient for now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Need advice...

I need advice on what to do with The Lying Game and its suite of articles – an IP (without properly following WP:MERGETEXT of course...) has merged the contents of The Lying Game (season 1) and The Lying Game (season 2) (and List of The Lying Game episodes) back to The Lying Game. If they had simply not followed WP:MERGETEXT properly, I would simply "fix" it. But, without any explanation at all, they've also removed the episode summaries from the episode tables upon merging. So I'm trying to figure out what to do here (i.e. revert? just copy the original episode tables over? etc.)... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Revert everything to before the merge attempt with a message to start a merge discussion and gain consensus first. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 Done – Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
By the way, am I IJBall now? Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Revert Thanks for Toy Story 2

Hi, I just thought I'd thank you for reverting my edit in Toy Story 2 as since I've mainly edited the plot summary in the past, I didn't quite see the notice in the infobox about the cast members (so that only Tim Allen and Tom Hanks could be included) and since that user I reverted had a history of vandalism which made me think he was vandalising again since that cast info seemed important to me at the time, I incorrectly reverted his edit on that basic without thinking or checking properly. Since I've realised my mistake, I've reverted the warning I put on that users talk page (and apologised to him in my edit summary). So I thank you once again for reverting this one edit and I will admit I've learned an important lesson from it as I will from now on check more carefully before reverting edits. Regards. Broman178 (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Question about a category regarding children's TV series

Does this list in Category:American children's comedy television series accurately reflect TV series geared toward children? I noticed your revert in Wizards of Waverly Place ([1]), and then saw other Disney Channel, and Nickelodeon, series listed in the category that are aimed at similar audiences age-wise as WOWP. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: That particularly editor (range 109.125.16.0/22) is adding that category to mostly teen targeted shows. Children per scope of the category should be pre-pubescents, not teens. He may be looking at the legal definition of child as anyone under 18 but that makes no sense in context of how we classify demographic targets for shows. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, I have trimmed that category. There may be quite a few left that don't belong in there, but I removed a lot of Disney Channel, Disney XD and Nickelodeon shows. In the process, I noticed in a number of articles under their awards and nominations sections some which indicate a children's program, but I do understand that the various awards organizations classify children's programming differently. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Probable ratings error with Kickin' It's episode premiere on April 16, 2012

I've run into an interesting situation while working on my episode list cleanup of the series in my sandbox.

What do you notice? The content between the two is virtually exactly the same—April 16 does have some shows not listed on April 23, but still. What else do you notice? The ratings for the listed shows that are exactly the same between the two are exactly the same—for example, the 10:00 PM Pawn Stars has 5.626 million viewers on both dates. It is virtually impossible for two separate dates to have the exact same content with the exact same numbers. While networks have schedules, particularly in prime time, it is still not probable that, say, a Monday's schedule for all networks will be exactly the same as the previous Monday. But the numbers, and the raw numbers at that, being exactly the same on two separate dates for all shows? That is 100% impossible. It would be one thing if it were just a show or two, as that has happened before—Henry Danger and Game Shakers both got 1.465 million viewers for their premieres on February 10 this year Archived 2018-02-13 at the Wayback Machine, and even there, that was just the total viewers, as other parts of their ratings were different—but this is different.

So how do we tell which posting is wrong? In this case, that's easy. Look at what we have here for the April 16 post: Kickin' It and Lab Rats. Hm. Why does something about that seem funny? Well, let's take a look at List of Lab Rats episodes#Season 1 (2012). Let's see. April 2012 premieres for Lab Rats are April 6 and April 23. Hm. Well, that answers our question. The post for April 16 has Lab Rats listed, but according to the episode table—and the schedule websites—there was no new Lab Rats on April 16. Therefore, the April 16 posting is wrong.

Now the question is how do we handle it? Do we leave the April 16 ratings for Kickin' It in, remove them, or what? The postings for April 16 and April 23 both say that the episode premieres of Kickin' It on those dates both got 0.655 million viewers, but we know that the April 16 posting is wrong. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I've been thinking about this for a bit and not sure what to do. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth § Editors are not truth finders suggests that we just report what the sources state. But in this case we are fairly certain some of the data is wrong and really don't want to put known bad data in the article, no matter what sources state. I suggest the data remain in the article as sourced but be tagged with {{unreliable source}} with a reason explaining why the data might be wrong. Not a real good solution but does leave marginal info tagged. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

JC Gonzalez

I am seriously debating taking this article to WP:AfD. The good news is that it does not appear to be a "hoax", a la Claudio Encarnacion Montero. But, looking at the IMDb entry, it does not appear like this one meets WP:NACTOR, despite an effort to throw a bunch of sources at the reader. And it really seems like either a WP:COI editor or some kind of vandal is trying to add this guy to every article theoretically possible, so deletion may be a solution... Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: It looks like a lot of text about very little accomplishments. I don't see enough accomplishments to meet WP:NENT and other references, most of which I can't read, don't seem to give significant coverage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JC Gonzalez (2nd nomination). Also, note that the article was created by a checkuser-blocked editor Siddfatima, so the IPs, etc. that keep trying to add this subject to multiple articles is likely the same socker editor (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Texancool) which may merit more reports to WP:SPI... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of iCarly episodes#Revisiting the merger

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of iCarly episodes#Revisiting the merger. And MPFitz1968. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Second opinion...

I'd like a second opinion on these edits to Sooty (2011 TV series), if you wouldn't mind. Thanks... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Noticed something interesting

I don't know if you've ever seen Kickin' It, but its end credits are bloopers or other funny moments from the various scenes that took place in an episode with the instrumental theme song playing. The bloopers and funny moments are of course specific to each episode.

In "Return of Spyfall" (S3 E21), Rudy has his first and only absence from the series, while Jerry and Kim only appear in the first 20~ seconds of the episode and never interact with Jack and Milton. The rest of the episode is all just Jack and Milton, alongside those who guest and co starred. This is where it gets interesting: In the end credits, some of the bloopers and funny moments shown are from scenes that did not even happen in the episode, and those scenes include the appearance of Rudy and Jack and Milton interacting with Jerry and Kim at the dojo.

It's weird. This would be one of the rare cases where an episode only has one plot as episodes will virtually always have at least one subplot. The only thing I can think of is that for this episode in particular they decided to include general funny or goofing off scenes not related to the episode in the end credits. And I'm pretty sure the scenes shown in the end credits weren't from another episode—they were from this episode, just not in the actual episode itself. Either that or after filming the writers decided to make some changes, which I guess is possible (?), to this episode in particular for some reason by shooting more scenes for the main plot and getting rid of the scenes from the subplot(s) to keep the episode at 22 minutes~, and what we see in the credits is from the original episode script.

Short of asking the writers, though, it's anybody's guess, of course. Still interesting. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Mighty End

Please stop putting, "Confirmed to be the show's last" on the Magiswords wikipedia page. You are sourcing an unofficial source, a fan blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:4682:4900:E8C5:6765:DC52:1032 (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

All I saw was apparent valid content removed with no edit summary stating a reason why. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Champions (U.S. TV series)#Josie Totah

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Champions (U.S. TV series)#Josie Totah. The issue relates to the earlier issue I raised with you, Geraldo, at User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 16#J.J. Totah. BoogerD pinged me earlier on the discussion there after having trouble with another user. The article could probably use some temporary additional watchers until this news settles down some more. I will go ahead and revert the ignorance of the user who is insistent on Josie Totah per what you stated in our discussion, Geraldo. This isn't anything strictly about people coming out as transgender and is no different than someone simply changing their legal first name from, say, John, to, say, Chris. Past credits don't change just because of a name change. Pinging IJBall and MPFitz1968 as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Joshua Rush

I'll ping IJBall as well on this.

This is kind of a revisit to an earlier discussion, where that photo was removed for being copyright, from a WP:NOTRS website to boot. When it comes to photos of actors, if we indirectly get permission from the actors to use certain photos, does that allow us to use them here? Joshua Rush himself made this tweet 10 minutes ago. If the answer is yes, I will leave it to either you or IJBall to take care of the process as I'm only experienced with licensing for series logos. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: It appears from the tweet Ryan West owns the copyright so Rush can't give a valid release. We would need a release from the photographer. Needs to be uploaded to Commons and release needs to be in the same location as the photo source or a message sent to WP:OTRS to let them validate the info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

As sometimes it's not clear whether something is a common word or not.

I am writing summaries for Kickin' It as I watch the episodes during the binge I'm currently doing of the series to correct credits and also clean up the articles, and I am trying to figure out if pawnshop is a word that should be linked in this episode summary for "Dude, Where's My Sword?" as I did or if it's common enough that people know what it is and it should therefore not be linked. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I'd say no on pawnshop. It is a fairly common word. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
How about work study? Is that also another fairly common one? Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: If the article linked to closely matches the meaning used in the narrative, that one looks reasonable to me to link. If the words have a looser meaning than basically academic credit for on the job experience, then it would be misleading to link. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. What would you say about the Star Wars lightsaber? It has its own article, but is it worthy of a link or is it common enough to not link? I kind of lean toward linking it since I don't know if it's a globally recognized trademark. Then again, if a lightsaber is only a Star Wars thing, then a link might not be necessary. In addition, a sentence of mine for "Seaford Hustle" currently reads: Later, things go wrong when Milton unknowingly helps Tom steal an original Star Wars lightsaber and gets Joan fired in the process. With Star Wars preceding "lightsaber," it should already be clear what is being talked about, in any case. Thank you kindly in advance for your thoughts. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: Common means generally understood to most reasonably competent English language users. Terms defined in a work of fiction may be known by the cognoscenti of that fiction but can't be presumed known to the public at large. It is reasonable to link "lightsaber" in that context as it can add understanding and may reasonably be clicked, or hovered over. I suggest linking Star Wars lightsaber as a phrase, though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Geraldo. I did just that. Finished summary, in case you're curious: "Seaford Hustle". Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

User:TTTE Thomas

Geraldo, if I recall correctly, there is a prolific sockmaster associated with Thomas the Tank Engine and related articles. I believe Ebyabe has also come across this socker. Do you know/remember anything about this? Based on User:TTTE Thomas's edits to both Thomas & Friends (series 22) and the suite of iCarly articles, I'm immediately suspicious... Ping Amaury too. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile, 24.86.176.49 is on a tear with misleading edit summaries and mostly bad edits... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@IJBall: I don't recognize who the master may be. As for 24.86.176.49, looks annoyingly disruptive changing date formats to mismatch nationality of articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Another series order from Disney Channel

Just a heads up: User:Amaury/sandbox/High School Musical: The Musical. IJBall, MPFitz1968. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I advise creating a redirect at High School Musical: The Musical, and tagging it with {{R with possibilities}} and {{R with draft}} (though it doesn't appear the latter will work with userspace drafts, unfortunately, so you may want to move it to WP:Draftspace...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@IJBall: A redirect to my draft page? Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: Sorry: redirect it to High School Musical (franchise) – I'd add a new section, with one or two sentences on the new project, to that in the meantime... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@IJBall:  Done. Draft:High School Musical: The Musical ~ High School Musical: The Musical ~ Franchise diff Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, that's good. It look like we're stuck putting drafts in Draftspace if we want to do the "redirect with {{R with possibilities}} and {{R with draft}}" thing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

WhiteArmor810

Please keep an eye on this user. They're an obvious sockpuppet of ForestArmor586, who was insistent that once a series ends, it no longer exists. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Plus using boldface inappropriately and all caps. Uggggh! So annoying. Clearly a sock. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968: I'm thinking it's time for a report. The question is: ANI or SPI? Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: SPI looks best. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 Done: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ForestArmor586. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: ForestArmor586 was blocked for only 31 hours last Friday [2], so technically, they are not evading a block. But clearly from WhiteArmor810's edits at List of Sam & Cat episodes in changing the tense of the verbs to the past, I'd say there's concern that they decided to create/use another account while on a block, based on the time of the account's first edit ([3]). MPFitz1968 (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968 and Amaury: The first sock edit occurred before the master's block had expired. By an hour but still it looks like the sock account was created to get around the block. What will likely happen is the sock will be blocked and be told to use the main account. That may get an extended block for socking. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, Geraldo (what I was getting at with my last comment). Also, I added some diffs as behavioral evidence at the SPI report. MPFitz1968 (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Disney Channel, a production company?

Came across this edit, which I then reverted. Stated in my revert summary that DC is not a production company, but I can't remember whether it is or not. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: It's a Laugh Productions is part of Disney so doubt other Disney units would separately be involved in actual production of the shows. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Kira Kosarin and Milo Manheim

You're still watching these, right? We've got a disruptive IP being especially disruptive on the former, and IJBall and I could use another hand. They've now received final and edit warring warnings. Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this IP has been highly disruptive, and is probably coming at this from a WP:POV. If this keeps up, either a block of the IP, or page protection, will be necessary here, IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@IJBall: Semi-related, but we've got a different IP now claiming that Kira Kosarin is not notable! Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Kosarin probably does not technically meet WP:NACTOR (her only really "significant role" is The Thundermans) – but she does appear to meet WP:BASIC pretty clearly (I should know – I referenced a lot of that!). Regardless, once the IP was reverted on the {{Notability}} tag, their only recourse is to take the article to WP:AfD. If they keep it up, it's pure WP:DE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: It is the same person. See Special:Contributions/2605:6001:EB41:A800::/64. Only the first half of a /64 IPv6 really matters to identify an editor (usually). Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Cyrus Goodman

This is essentially a followup to this: User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 14#Cyrus Goodman and Andi Mack. Meant to post this a lot sooner.

I don't know if Justthefacts9 knew of the previous attempt or not that was moved to draftspace, but on August 27, they did a lot of hard work and created the article, which now does meet basic notability requirements. With that said, it could probably use some more watchers. Right now it seems to just be me and Justthefacts9. Also, under "Character," is "U.S. state" something we should link or not? I imagine that "seventh grade" should be linked for the same reasons we linked "middle school" per that earlier discussion, but I'm not sure about "U.S. state." Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

How to list guest stars when actor and/or character name changes?

For User:Amaury/sandbox/List of Lab Rats characters, where I still have to apply the finishing touches to the cleanup, both IJBall and myself agreed that it was appropriate to list both credited names of Ashley Argota (S1 and Taylor) and Cole Ewing (S3 and Sebastian) since the differences were substantial. So that part is fine. Here is where it gets into the "unsure how to deal with it territory."

  • Will Forte is always credited as the voice of Eddy, except in "Human Eddy" (S4 E15), where the actor himself appears and is credited as Eddy. Currently, I have the section titled "The voice of Eddy" per credits, but I wonder if just "Eddy" would be sufficient for the sake of simplicity, even though we only have one appearance as Eddy.
  • Maile Flanagan is credited as Principal Perry through all but one of the season 3 episodes. From "Unauthorized Mission" (S3 E22) and onward, she is credited as Perry. I currently have the section titled "Principal Perry / Perry." Are both appropriate or should it be one or the other, and which one?
  • Jeremy Kent Jackson, excluding his first appearance in "Leo vs. Evil" (S2 E10), where he is credited as Shadowy Figure, is credited as Douglas Davenport for "Bionic Showdown" (S2 E14), "Avalanche!" (S2 E16), "No Going Back" (S2 E25), and "Sink or Swim" (S3 E1). For his appearances from "Taken" (S3 E8) and onward, he is credited as just Douglas. Currently, I have the section titled "Douglas Davenport / Douglas." Are both appropriate or should it be one or the other, and which one?
  • Telma Hopkins is credited as Grandma Rose for "Exoskeleton vs. Grandma" (S1 E5) and "Merry Glitchmas" (S3 E18), but for some reason is credited as Grandma Dooley in "Prank You Very Much" (S2 E22). I currently have the section titled "Grandma Rose / Dooley." Are both appropriate or should it be one or the other, and which one?

Now, I'm also starting more heavy work on User:Amaury/sandbox/List of Kickin' It characters, where there are similar instances.

  • Ian Reed Kesler is credited as Sensei Ty for seasons 1–3 and credited as Ty for his two season 4 appearances. Should the heading be titled "Sensei Ty," "Ty," or both?
  • Harrison Boxley is credited as Dark Knight King in his very first appearance in "Swords and Magic" (S1 E5). That's not a problem. This is where it gets tricky: He is credited as Sydney in "Hit the Road Jack" (S2 E14), "Fight at the Museum" (S4 E10), and "Full Metal Jack" (S4 E12), but he is credited as Sidney in "The Sub Sinker" (S3 E4) and "School of Jack" (S3 E18). In this case, the difference is only a single letter, so how should the section be titled?
  • Dan Ahdoot is credited as Falafel Phil for seasons 1–3 and "The Boys Are Back in Town" (S4 E1) and credited as Phil for the remainder of the fourth season. Should the section be titled "Falafel Phil," "Phil," or both?
  • Eric Nenninger is credited as Funderburk for "Kickin' It Old School" (S2 E14), "Return of Spyfall" (S3 E21), "Wasabi Forever" (S3 E22), and "The Boys Are Back in Town" (S4 E1). He is credited as Principal Funderburk for "The Sub Sinker" (S3 E4), "Jack Stands Alone" (S3 E7), and "Home Alone in School" (S3 E17). What should the section title be?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Listing both separated by a spaced slash " / " seems the most appropriate as both are official credited names, neither more correct than the other. If you do wish to shorten things the fuller of the two names would work but I personally would like to see both. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Here are my suggestions:

  • Major character name changes, reveals, and identities, use slash. "Shadowy Figure / Douglas Davenport". "Miss Heinous / Meteora Butterfly" (List of Star vs. the Forces of Evil characters), "Mysterious Narrator / Salem" (List of RWBY characters). In the case where the new identity takes over as the common name for more episodes as with Salem and Douglas Davenport, then the previous anonymous name can be removed.
  • For job titles, that really depends on whether the character's common name is always associated with the job (Principal, Professor, Sensei, Dr.) If they lose their title for a significant part of the series, then remove the title, but not if it's just an episode or two.
  • For "The Voice of Eddy", just list "Eddy" in List of characters, but use "The Voice of Eddy" for filmographies and seasonal and series cast listings. I would liken this to Darth Vader who would have a single entry in the character list but filmographies would show either "Voice of Darth Vader" or "Darth Vader". Or The Robot in Lost in Space, who is performed by Bob May and voiced by Dick Tufeld.
  • For Grandma Rose / Dooley, are they the same grandma? Did they mess up how she was credited? Slash might be okay.
  • Sidney vs. Sydney, pick Sydney for now and make an alias for Sidney with a mention about it in the character description. I liken this to Cece Parikh vs. Cece Parekh for List of New Girl characters

Regardless, the character lists are the best place to describe the variants whether it be alternative spellings and titles. It happens a lot in those anime series. And those variants should be aliases / anchors. Thoughts? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks. That answers that. For Jeremy Kent Jackson, would you personally include his Shadowy Figure credit as well or leave that out in that case? It doesn't really seem to be a "character" per se, more that viewers saw him briefly at the end of "Leo vs. Evil" when Marcus is talking to him at some unknown location and didn't really know who he was. He was properly introduced in "Bionic Showdown," where he is revealed to be the true creator of the Lab Rats.
Now, what about the case of Harrison Boxley from Kickin' It? That one's not a different name, just spellings changing back and forth for some reason. Would it be the same thing, regardless, though? "Sydney / Sidney." And similar to Jeremy Kent Jackson, would you personally include Dark Knight King or leave that out? That was more Sydney's persona for the LARP battle that took place in "Swords and Magic," his first appearance, and I'm guessing they credited him as Dark Knight King since the LARP was the focus. Although he was called Sydney by Jack in the episode. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: Thanks for the suggestions. That's also a good way to look at it. Also, yes. Same grandma. Her full name is Rose Dooley, who appeared thrice in the series. Two of those appearances she was credited as Grandma Rose, and one of those as Grandma Dooley. So the names themselves aren't wrong, just the crediting changed for some reason and was Dooley in the second appearance and then went back to Rose in the third appearance. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Using their most common revealed name is okay. I've been going through List of Food Wars!: Shokugeki no Soma characters and there are a couple of characters who are just known as "X's aide" or "Y's aide", but then get a proper name and reveal, after which they get a regular name onwards. You could add a note like: Sidney (sometimes spelled Sydney), or Perry (credited as Principal Perry for seasons 1-3). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Wizards in film

Hello, i've noticed you have used hotcat to remove a few articles from this category. The films you are removing do feature wizards/sorcerers as characters so I would read them before you delete them. I recommend you consult this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magician_(fantasy). Autumnleaves646 (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I have read the article guidelines. This page was added to this category a long while ago before you removed it. --Autumnleaves646 (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Autumnleaves646: I searched each article for the term used in the category. When I didn't find that term, I removed the category as the category was not supported by explicit article content. Different types of magic user are called different things in different works of fiction. If a magic user is not called a wizard, that magic user is not a wizard. Don't use J. K. Rowling as a lexicon authority for anything other than her works. I went through the category looking for problems and looked at each of them. Did a search for "wizard" and remove the category from article where that word was not mentioned. Category:Magic in film would be sufficient if looking for an overarching category. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not state or reference any piece of J.K. Rowling's work. Wizards themselves can be referred by other terms, it does not mean they are not wizards, the same is with witches. Plus this use of hot cat editing in my view is very dubious, considering the film Smurfs 2, which stars Gargamel, a wizard like in the first film, yet you removed this anyway. Fantasia, another point of dubious editing which I shall re-add to the cat in a few days, features Mickey as a wizard in the Sorcerer's Apprentice segment, was wrongfully removed. --Autumnleaves646 (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Autumnleaves646: Mickey is an apprentice Sorcerer, not a wizard, as that is what he is explicitly called in the story. If he were a wizard the story would call him that and they don't, so he isn't.
The words for different magic users mean different things. A sorcerer is not a wizard, a witch, a warlock, an enchanter or a shaman, he is a sorcerer. Don't make your own evaluations of what things mean. If a work of fiction labels a magic user, that is what they are called in that work of fiction. I use Harry Potter stuff as an example as that seems to have polluted what the terms mean. Just because Rawling called all female magic users witches and all male magic users wizards people seem to think that is defining for everything. Go by what the actual work of fiction calls things and don't make personal interpretations as to meanings.
For categorization it is a simple test, if word is not in the article, the category does not apply. Category:Fictional characters who use magic is higher in the category tree and more appropriate for characters without a subcategory and that can be confirmed if it is shown that a character uses magic in a work and there isn't a category for what he is actually called in that work of fiction.
Magician (fantasy) § Names and terminology has more on the terminology issue and also why I am a bit of a stickler about this and why I want to see source support for a particular term if used. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry no reference to J.K., but it is general synonyms/etymology, dictionary based terms, that's all. --Autumnleaves646 (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Autumnleaves646:Each fantasy world uses their own terminology for their own characters. Magic user is the only general term that covers the concepts. In the fictional worlds in question, the distinctions matter and have specific meanings. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I started a discussion about this at Talk:DuckTales the Movie: Treasure of the Lost Lamp. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons

Can I get another set of eyes here, please? IP persistent in violating MOS:DATERANGE. Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Mia Wasikowska

Hi. As you can see here, user Saradoll2000 continues to add false information about birth date despite the warnings by me and User:Oshwah. I wonder if you can help me to solve this issue, most probably with a page protection. Thanks. --Sebastian James (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: Saradoll2000 has two warnings about this. Each time it happens should get higher level warnings about adding unsourced bio info to the article. After a final warning can be reported to WP:AIV. There are insufficient warnings on page to do that now. In looking into the article it was not apparent to me how the reference supported the birth date displayed. The problem is people thinking IMDb is correct and changing it to what IMDb says. Somewhat good faith by people who don't understand we can't use IMDb for this type of info and who may have missed the hidden note that can only be seen if editing the article. I put the note visible in the cite to hopefully head off some of this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Bitsie Tulloch

Does MOS:QUOTENAME apply here?! I can't really say that I think "Bitsie" is a common "nickname" for Elizabeth!... Incidentally, this would seem to indicate that she's going by "Elizabeth" now, so it's possible the article will need a page move at some point in the future... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I've never seen it. Elizabeth has probably the most hypocorisms of any name in existence and this one looks like a variation on Betsy. The article says it isn't though and is not meant to be a short form of Elizabeth. Per QUOTENAME "it is not a common hypocorism" so can be in intro, so intro should read Elizabeth Andrea "Bitsie" Tulloch. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Even if the article does get moved, there needs to be a alternative name redirect left as there are too many credits using "Bitsie Tulloch" so that name in some form and bolded as a redirect target needs to be in intro. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, definitely. And I don't plan to move it soon – I'd want to seen months to a year of consistent crediting as "Elizabeth Tulloch" before I'd support a move. P.S. Even THR seems confused [4] – I think they originally had it as just "Bitsie" but then changed it later! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Acronyms

What is the proper or more preferred method of dealing with acronyms in terms of ordering? Acronym first; phrase in parentheses or phrase first; acronym in parentheses? Using I Am Frankie, for example, the current version: Sigourney is a scientist working for the company EGG (short for Electronic Giga Genetics) who has developed a teenage android girl named Frankie. However, should it be this instead? Sigourney is a scientist working for the company Electronic Giga Genetics (EGG) who has developed a teenage android girl named Frankie.

Although, honestly, if it were up to me, I would just get rid of the parentheticals altogether as people should be smart enough to tell what a later acronym stands for. For example: Sigourney is a scientist working for the company Electronic Giga Genetics who has developed a teenage android girl named Frankie. When the head of EGG Mr. Kingston... Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: MOS:ACRO says term in full with acronym in parentheses on first use unless most commonly known by the acronym. They use CIA as an example and, in the context of the show, EGG would be similar. So "EGG (short for Electronic Giga Genetics)" would be more appropriate. It is really a backronym anyway and the full meaning is really of secondary, thus parenthetical, importance. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. So WARPA (Weaponized Android Research Project Agency) is also correct, then? Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Amaury: That looks reasonable, although WARPA looks to be an actual descriptive acronym so could go either way. Still, parallelism with EGG. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
In other words, keep it consistent, right? Got it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Tangled: The Series WP:RM?

Geraldo, is it time to put a WP:RM in for Tangled: The Series to Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure? Based on the current results at Talk:Anne (Canadian TV series)#Requested move 12 September 2018 which is a similar situation (and old precedents like The Hogan Family), I'm guessing the answer is yes. I mean, I don't love WP:NAMECHANGES, but it seems to be policy. Pinging Amaury and MPFitz1968 here too. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Situation for Anne is a bit clearer as a third season was announced with the new title and the new title was also in use for the first season in some locations. I would like to see at least as many episodes for Tangled new title as for the old or a season 3 announcement with the new title and not something else again as a season 3 title before considering a move. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Making a new page for the show Kody Kapow

Geraldo I just wandering if I could make a page for Kody Kapow on wikipedia if you won't mind? Ppaul2405 (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ppaul2405: If you have sufficient content and references to meet WP:Notability and WP:Notability (media)#Programming, I, personally, would be glad to see an article created for that TV series. You may want to create the article in draft space first if you are unsure of meeting notability requirements, though. The article will likely get deleted if you can't show notability. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ppaul2405: Definitely this should be started at Draft:Kody Kapow first, as this article already has a problematic history – notability needs to be demonstrated before it belongs in Mainspace... --IJBall (contribs • talk)

So pilots have titles?

Both The Futon Critic and Zap2it list "Pilot" for the first episode, but while watching the premiere of I Feel Bad tonight—labeled as a sneak peek—because it was back-to-back episodes, instead of showing the end credits of the first episode at the end of the first episode, both episodes' end credits were just shown at the end of the second episode, "I Get Sick of Being Needed." The credits made it clear which credits were specific to each episode, such as guest stars, but instead of "Pilot" for the first episode, the credits for the first episode had "I Don't Want to Turn into My Mother" (the pilot), while the other episode specific credits of course had "I Am Sick of Being Needed." Which begs the question: As we know, sometimes pilots are different from the rest of the series (main cast, cast ordering, etc.)—and in some cases, like Stuck in the Middle, the pilot does not have an opening credits sequence—but do all pilot episodes have a title that just doesn't get released to the scheduling sites for some reason? Knight Squad's "Opening Knight," for example, is the pilot there, but it has a title. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I'm not sure but they likely all have a title, I guess some of them just don't become official and get published. The title published in the credits looks pretty authoritative though, but may need a note if using that in the article as it won't be supported by the normal references. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I also just noticed it's also shown during the opening title card transition from the cold opening. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, they don't. It helps when it's understood that "Pilot" is not an episode title, but an episode type. Surprisingly, most TV pilots do not have unique titles, and are just known as "Pilot". (Incidentally, that is generally why I don't put "Pilot" in quotes in Filmography tables, because it's not actually an episode "title", per se.) Now, there are definitely exceptions – some TV pilots do have unique titles. But that is more the exception than the rule. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geraldo_Perez/Archive_16&oldid=1045690836"