Talk:Middle School Moguls

Animation: American / Television Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Animated television work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Television: Nickelodeon Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Nickelodeon task force (assessed as Low-importance).

2010s Low‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Recent edits[edit]

No clue why every single one of my edits were reverted... everything I added/removed/changed is all perfectly fine.

Revert 1- Purely WP:OSE, just because another article has it, does not mean/dictate what is done here. The info is really unnecessary, the info/dates regarding when the show/product line/trademark was filed really doesn't matter much.
Revert 2- Perfectly fine to refer to it as the full title. No reason not to, shortening it doesn't 'help readers of this page' in anyway.
Revert 3- Perfectly fine to use the same citation multiple times, this is the source of the information. There is no reason to change/remove a citation just to 'not repeat a citation multiple times'. See WP:CITE#Repeated citations and WP:REFNAME. As long as the citation gives the information, it's perfectly fine to use. But there's certainly no reason to give something 4+ citations or something like that (unless it's necessary for whatever reason), 1-2 should do it. Press release is perfectly fine to cite multiple times, as this is where the information was from.

Hope that explains it all. Magitroopa (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magitroopa, I see what you are saying that the Justia information is unnecessary, but I can't agree with you there. Still, I'm willing to let that one go, because whatever. As for Revert 2, I still stand with calling in Deadline instead of Deadline Hollywood, and I have changed it back. As for Revert 3, WP:REFNAME, yes, does say "you can cite the same source more than once on a page by using named footnotes," and WP:CITE does talk about multiple citations, but I thought it was just common sense to not over-use a source and I stand by that. I added the other sources to expand the article and I didn't remove the press release, I just reduced the number of times it was cited. I honestly don't see a problem with that and I'm going to continue to do that on other pages. There really aren't that many reliable sources that talk about Middle School Moguls, so why not add more sources where I can? That was the point in reducing the citations. Historyday01 (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline Hollywood is perfectly fine and there is no reason to keep messing around with citations- they even call themselves by that name, even see the discussion regarding the article page. The citations have been perfectly fine for months, there's no reason to all of a sudden start changing things due to a personal preference. Please see WP:CITEVAR.

Also, please note that the author error/correction was not aimed at you- I had edited this article months ago and somehow didn't realize it was wrong then, and I'm usually making sure citations are correct! Magitroopa (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. I just think that Deadline is better and that's my personal preference. To each editor, their own. Historyday01 (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]