User talk:MPFitz1968/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Discussion at Template talk:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons#Crashletes and Other Non-Distributed Shows
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons#Crashletes and Other Non-Distributed Shows. I don't know if IJBall has any more feedback, but I'm done discussing it with this user. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh, I don't know, but it's impossible. They clearly already have two editors disagreeing with them (or kinda, sorta three if you count General Ization's warning) and refuse to get it. If you, Geraldo Perez, or Nyuszika7H are interested and have something else to provide in terms of feedback, feel more than free, but don't feel like you have to. Just putting this out there. (This goes for anytime I invite you guys to discussions.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- On my end, the other editor is making a series of unverified claims. I don't know if the other editor is correct or not, but I have found nothing to confirm that say Crashletes belongs in a different category from the other Nickelodeon Original Series. Even if it is a "coproduction" with Nick and another production house, as I suspect it is, I don't see anything that would lead to it needing to be excluded from the "Nickelodeon Original Series" template listing. IOW, as long as Nick is involved in the production of these two series in any capacity, it would seem that they would still qualify as "Nickelodeon Original Series". In the absence of any kind of WP:RS showing that these shows aren't Nick-produced shows, my feeling is that they need to stay in the list. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Andi Mack
Its last two ratings were decent, I suppose, but if this very likely boycott—I mean, what else could it now?—weren't going on, based on how other series like Girl Meets World did with at least their first two seasons, each of the ratings thus far would be at least a million more, in my opinion, like: 2.24, 2.19, 2.27, 2.40, and 2.41. Now, I know that total viewers don't really determine whether a series will be renewed or not as networks look more at the demographics, but still. I just hope all this dumb stuff going on is over by the time Descendants 2, Raven's Home, and the third season of K.C. Undercover roll around. It's just not fair to the series or the network, though I hope the network is taking whatever's going on into consideration. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like Nickelodeon didn't have quite as a good a night, but occasional drops are to be expected, it's when they become consistent like with Disney Channel that it becomes a problem. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Even if Disney Channel's ratings weren't tanking due to the very likely boycott, I think I may have exaggerated a bit as ratings overall have dropped to a new level that's now considered "good" even before ratings started declining and over two million total viewers now seems not as common anymore. You really only see two or more million for series premieres, specials, etc. So instead of the figures above, probably more like: 2.24, 1.69, 1.77, 1.90, 1.91. Although because of the first two episodes being available online for an extended period of time before the television premiere, maybe more like 1.74 just because of that. What do you think? Does that sound about accurate? Also, total viewers aren't really that important and aren't really a factor in renewals as networks care more about their demographics/targeted audience, but it's still interesting as that's the information we provide here, mainly, like in the episode tables. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm thinking the perceived quality in their programs, in comparison to earlier shows or good ones that had just ended (or got cancelled in the case with Girl Meets World), may also be a reason for these low premiere viewership numbers we've been seeing. GMW had more than 5 million viewers with its premiere, the same with Austin & Ally and Shake it Up (SIU had more than 6 million for its first episode), and even Jessie, Good Luck Charlie and A.N.T. Farm had decent starts at more than 4 million viewers. That's just earlier this decade, in comparison to Stuck in the Middle and Bizaardvark, neither of which drew even 3 million in their first episodes (and haven't been able to get to that level at all during their runs so far, but still they each get a second season at least). Of course, we have to factor in the online availability of these shows ahead of their airing on Disney Channel, so the numbers we're used to seeing before that have changed. Not sure Disney will ever have huge ratings attractions like Wizards of Waverly Place or Hannah Montana again. Nearly every episode of those two, from what I've seen in the articles for those shows, was drawing at least 3 million viewers, and even some would be above 5 million (for episodes well into their runs). The finale of WOWP ("Who Will Be the Family Wizard") drew nearly 10 million, definitely why it's one of Disney's greatest shows ever. Times have definitely changed.
As for Andi Mack, there's no doubt this show is getting praise for breaking new ground on a network that wouldn't have allowed this kind of stuff in the past, even recent past. And rightly so, despite parents and religious organizations prompting people to boycott Disney because of the content, plus other recent taboo topics in other shows and films (touching on the LGBT spectrum). Quite upsetting to see such strong reaction against this, indeed. I have been raised Catholic, and yeah these things are pretty sensitive to the way I was brought up, but I was also taught to be tolerant (and welcoming) of those who are different. We need to bring these things out in the open, not bottle them up away from children, as they are already seeing this happen in their normal lives. Disney has represented in their shows an ideal form of family for many who have watched over the years, and hopefully we can achieve this way again in the future, but reality tells us otherwise. AM's premiere numbers look shocking (less than 1.25 million for the first two episodes - or the one-hour premiere that they ran), but taking into account its availability online well before the premiere on Disney Channel, not that unexpected. Perhaps taking out the boycott and other factors that have led to a drop in ratings across the board, Amaury, your recent quote of numbers for the first five/six episodes may be about right. As for its future, I think Disney will (and should) renew it for a second season; there's definitely an upward trend, though slight each week, in the overall viewership, so that's a good thing. And the first season is expected to be pretty short - even shorter than the 17 episodes that SITM had. I was reading somewhere, in an article which featured an interview with Joshua Rush (Cyrus) [1], that the season will have just 13 episodes. Certainly enough episodes to break out the story, but not enough to further develop it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- I know you likely know what I meant, but just for the sake of it, I should clarify that when I said this:
ratings overall have dropped to a new level that's now considered "good"
I meant in regard to networks like Nickelodeon and Disney Channel which both have the same targeted audience, I believe, so ratings should be about the same, putting aside boycott matters and the like. A rating like 0.5 (18–49)/1.69M (total) would be terrible for a broadcast network for ABC.
- I know you likely know what I meant, but just for the sake of it, I should clarify that when I said this:
- What you said is pretty much how I feel. I'm not religious myself, but I am for equal rights and all that. If someone is not, okay, fine. It's their right, and if they don't want to watch a network at all because of their decision for some series—keyword: some—then don't watch it, but don't boycott and try to ruin them over something like that. Not that controversial things like this aren't important, but boycott over something that actually matters and can cause harm. For example, if a store promotes racism and violence toward other races, or, at the very least, just doesn't do anything about it, then yes, boycott that as that is something that is harmful. But a network choosing to move in a new direction to show acceptance toward a race, sexuality, or what have you is in no way harmful.
I don't see anything obvious myself, so would you be willing look over these edits and see if there are any grammar issues or things that could be worded better? Thanks! Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Seconded. It would be good if both of you would look those recent edits over, esp. with an eye towards any copyvios... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Just for reference, new episodes are indeed returning in June per Nick's commercial—specifically, June 3 according to Kira Kosarin on her official Twitter. Of course she doesn't speak for the show, and there's nothing on The Futon Critic or Screener yet, so we just have to wait. Although that note was trivia, anyway. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Backstage
For IJBall's eyes as well. And, actually, this might be the suspicious IP you already mentioned to me a while ago, IJBall, though I don't know/remember. Based on edit summaries, I'm getting a feeling it could be our good ol' sockpuppeteer; however, I don't have a 100% conclusive feeling because 1) they don't geographically locate to the UAE and 2) they're an IPv6 IP. Even the IPs that haven't geographically located to the UAE have all been IPv4 like the more usual ones. This IPv6 IP has been editing since March 22. If you guys think there's at least enough evidence to have this investigated, it might worth to either file an SPI or contact Rob directly and see what he thinks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Regardless, this is one of those IP editors that is convinced that "their way" is the only way. I generally find this type of IP editor tedious... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: You said it! I would undo everything they've done on Backstage, but that would just cause a headache. I'll just keep an eye on them and see what happens.
Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Just keep to what you think is the best version – some of what they've done was OK. But their most recent edit is wrongheaded – and if they keep to it several times more, they'll be guilty of WP:3RR... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Which is now the case, and they're clearly WP:NOTHERE, either, as they're also harassing me. Not that it really bothers me, but still. Thanks, Sro23! Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well, 31.218.15.118 is clearly Orchomen. That points in the direction that all of these IPs may be Orchomen... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, based on editing history, 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:ADF3:C706:1C77:4C80 is definitely not Orchomen. But they've been blocked before (in April) for violating WP:3RR, so they would seem to have issues with Wikipedia's collaborative style of editing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Not Orchomen, but still disruptive. Got it! Although I'm curious: Why do you no longer think this is Orchomen? I also find it literally funny that they're saying I should have remained indefinitely blocked when they're doing the exact same thing that led to my indefinite block (and previous blocks related to the same thing). Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the assist, Geraldo Perez! Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ignore comments like that about your block – that was over 5 years ago, which is a lifetime in Wikipedia editing terms. No one who knows anything about this place will hold a >5-year-old block against you. In any case, the IPv6 has confirmed that they have a total WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality – Sro23 has already reported them to AIV (and I added on the Orchomen sock), so I expect both to get blocked imminently... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Not Orchomen, but still disruptive. Got it!
- @IJBall: Which is now the case, and they're clearly WP:NOTHERE, either, as they're also harassing me. Not that it really bothers me, but still. Thanks, Sro23!
- Just keep to what you think is the best version – some of what they've done was OK. But their most recent edit is wrongheaded – and if they keep to it several times more, they'll be guilty of WP:3RR... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: You said it! I would undo everything they've done on Backstage, but that would just cause a headache. I'll just keep an eye on them and see what happens.
@IJBall: I love a good game, especially when I can play games, too! 
Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
You can also see that Amaury is going around to different admins kissing their butts ("Hi, Rob! I hope you are doing well") in an effort to get them to do what he/she wants, rather than taking it to a noticeboard. They apparently think that going through the backdoor this way will prevent scrutiny of their case. Perhaps this Amaury needs reminded of their own block history.
LOL! Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)- Well, they got blocked again, this time 2 weeks. I'm personally staying out of these uncivil battles, but one thing that comes to mind as to how I describe that user ... refer to the GMW episode "Girl Meets Rileytown". (If I later get comment by that IP in 2 weeks because of my comment, or on their talk page while they still have access to it, I don't care.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2017. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You are being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. The table is not "ruined", nor is it "too large" just because there is no line break. The table fits the page perfectly without the line break, and the line break is completely unnecessary and purely arbitrary. I agree with removing the line break there, as well as the editor who also removed it [2]. Please seek consensus on the talk page before adding an unnecessary line break. 67.10.167.124 (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@67.10.167.124: (edit conflict) This all started with this decision by another editor to line break to shorten the artist's column [3], shortly after the song "I'm the One" was added to the list, and I allowed it to stand. Now, just because I didn't have a problem with that edit, and that I reverted any attempt to put it the other way, doesn't mean I'm not flexible with how the entry looks. But to see these subsequent edits (which includes reverts from me) - [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] - cannot be allowed to continue as this is edit-warring, and pretty much over a trivial matter altogether. I am deciding not to continue reverting over this particular problem, but I'd rather not see the back-and-forth and back-and-forth between other editors on this. There are others who think the artist column shouldn't be so wide, and then others including you that think there shouldn't be a larger row length for one entry. It's not gonna make any difference since whatever device someone is using (phone, iPad, etc.) to look at the article may format the rows and columns however it pleases. But in my saying that, having the line break in there may be a bad idea as it could force the text into possibly an undesirable location. Anyway, I'm okay with your edit at the article, but I'm not okay with the back-and-forth tug-of-war on such a minor matter. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Question
I'm hoping you'll know the answer to this – Did the (2010?) song "Wham Bam" by the band Clooney never chart anywhere? Considering how ubiquitous it is, it will surprise me if this is that case, and surprises me that there is no Wiki article for either this (version of) the song, or the band. TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I can say it's never hit the Billboard Hot 100, and searches at Billboard's web site are not showing anything pointing to the band (I doubt George or Rosemary Clooney are members), the song, or either's apparance on any of Billboard's charts. So clearly not big in the U.S., but I'm not completely sure about international charts. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Music albums
To whom it may consern, I have reliable sources such as ATRL, and I also find it rude of you to delete my edits from the Wikipedia site. You have no right to remove my edits because Wikipedia allows people to edit things such as album sales. Your album sales statements are incorrect because they are from heavily dated. In constrast, mine are from current research and relevant sources. I would hate to constantly fix what you have broken. C0500496 (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- @C0500496: It is not rude and he is well within his rights to revert additions of unsourced material. If you can't provide a reliable source, then don't even put in the information to begin with. The responsibility is on you to find a source, not have us find a source once you've inserted unsourced material. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Bizaardvark and Bunk'd
Must have been my error. Thanks! Although summaries would help. Silly IPs.
On another note, this is by no means a reliable source, but it must have come from somewhere, and if is true, we'll likely be seeing something official soon. (Click the image to see the whole thing.) IJBall. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Stuff like that irritates me: Liv and Maddie wasn't "cancelled" – it was ended. It's a important difference. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Indeed. I even replied to the tweet and mentioned that, though it wasn't the user who wrote that, it was that Renew Cancel TV site which is a hit or miss on whether it can be used as a reliable source because it sometimes uses Tumblr posts, such as with Best Friends Whenever, as sources which aren't reliable. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
For airing on a Wednesday at 10:30 PM and having no promotion, as far as I know, the ratings are pretty good, I'd say. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, The Futon Critic now has Bunk'd listed as airing in summer 2017. It was spring before, and summer doesn't technically begin until June 21, but yeah. That leads me more to believe that there is a season three and it just hasn't been official announced yet. (Again, the site linked to above had to get it from somewhere.) The reason for this is that when a series ends new episodes (there are still reruns, but those don't count in this regard) and it's pretty sure that it's over or canceled, but there's just no official word, they'll have the status listed as "on hiatus or fate to be determined", and when there's been official word that the series is over, they'll have the status listed as "canceled/ended (X-Y season." (See [13]].) And neither of those is applicable in this case. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:The Lodge (TV series)#"Season" vs. "Series"
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Lodge (TV series)#"Season" vs. "Series". Don't know if the ping went through, even with re-signing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Discussion of WOWP
Hi, MPFitz1986! I saw that in the Wizards of Waverly Place articles you reverted my edits for adding co-stars. Shouldn't they be included as for giving credit to the actor/actress? Thanks. - Disneylandlover2006
- (talk page stalker) Co-stars are just minor background characters and shouldn't be listed. Only those receiving the guest star or special guest star credits should be listed. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Disneylandlover2006: Per Amaury's reason above. Also, co-stars are more likely to involve characters not referred to by proper names (e.g., "Co-stars: Danielle O'Loughlin as Older Woman, Renna Nightingale as Girl", which I saw in your edit for the second episode of season 2 - "Beware Wolf" [14]). MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Credited as "co-star" stays out, as per this earlier discussion. Only "primary" guest-stars, who usually get a "starring" credit in the end-credits, or who are credited immediately after a show's opening credits, are considered "notable" guest roles. This is basically from WP:TVCAST:
"Remember to follow the notability guidelines when creating a cast list: not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed and even fewer will deserve an individual article."
--IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
June 2
I won't do the whole shebang again since I have sandbox pages for that now, but seeing how Andi Mack did by itself and now with Stuck in the Middle back from hiatus as of 8:00 PM today, what ratings do you foresee for both series? (I would ask about Nickelodeon as well, but you don't watch much of that from what I remember.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Could be better, but not bad. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Sorry for not responding here earlier when your original post was added, but regarding that, I wasn't predicting any major change to Andi Mack's viewership numbers with Stuck in the Middle back from its break. Appears I was right, maybe a slight dip, though Stuck in the Middle appears to have improved some in the numbers over the past couple of episodes. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Nickelodeon did great. Nickelodeon's Sizzling Summer Special received 0.29/1.59 million. The Thundermans held its ground pretty well after being on hiatus for such a long time, only losing 0.07 million for total viewers to its episode on March 4: 1.59 million. After there being a week off for Memorial Day last week, Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn's slight drop isn't too surprising. Same deal with Andi Mack on Friday. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- That special annoyed the heck out of me. The first two specials didn't include any of the Game Shakers in the main cast. This one didn't even include any of the Game Shakers at all (nor did it include Kira Kosarin among the "main" cast).
--IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I reverted this as questionable. Unfortunately, all of the season one episodes on the Nick site are locked. If you're able to, would you sign in and see if you can confirm that? Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I just did quick glances at three random episodes from season one ... "Mo' Danger, Mo' Problems", "Birthday Girl Down" and "Let's Make a Steal" ... they all list Christopher J. Nowak as a producer in the credits shown at the beginning of each episode (and listed first, before Jeffrey Goldstein). I actually looked at that edit earlier, too, but had no idea at the time. Just based on what I saw, the edit seems accurate, at least for season one. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Was it just him and Jeffrey Goldstein? Or was Kim Sherwood there as well? Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- For the three episodes I saw, it was Nowak then Goldstein, both listed as "producer", but then with Sherwood, it said "produced by". MPFitz1968 (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any real difference between "producer" and "produced by"—not that I know of, anyway. We can re-add Nowak, in any case. And while I'm here, could you confirm if Sarah Jane Cunningham and Suzie V. Freeman only appear for season one of Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn? They're already listed there, and I didn't remove them when doing my info box clean-up because I wasn't sure. I'm seeing Barbara Brace in season three, and she's likely in season two as well, though I haven't seen any season two episodes lately. If it's not too much trouble, of course. Thanks, man! Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Only checked one season 1 episode for Cunningham and Freeman - they are listed as supervising producers in the third episode "Get Sporty-er". Won't go thru all the season 1 episodes on the Nick site for now, but I'm thinking Cunningham/Freeman should stay listed. As for season 2 episodes, none are available to watch on the site at this time, but season 3, different story (quite a few are accessible). MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any real difference between "producer" and "produced by"—not that I know of, anyway. We can re-add Nowak, in any case. And while I'm here, could you confirm if Sarah Jane Cunningham and Suzie V. Freeman only appear for season one of Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn? They're already listed there, and I didn't remove them when doing my info box clean-up because I wasn't sure. I'm seeing Barbara Brace in season three, and she's likely in season two as well, though I haven't seen any season two episodes lately. If it's not too much trouble, of course. Thanks, man! Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- For the three episodes I saw, it was Nowak then Goldstein, both listed as "producer", but then with Sherwood, it said "produced by". MPFitz1968 (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Was it just him and Jeffrey Goldstein? Or was Kim Sherwood there as well? Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of The Loud House episodes#Episodes need to be listed in order of air dates. Could use some opinions here, particularly on the use of the "directed by" and "written by" columns as well as a custom "storyboard by" column for this specific animated series (as animated series articles are tricky to begin with). IJBall has already provided some suggestions, but on the two people who have commented, one was a disgruntled (now blocked) IP just venting without providing anything useful and the other just keeps saying that they should be included, using WP:OSE arguments, without really actually explaining why.
Geraldo Perez, Nyuszika7H Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Are you experienced with this template? While working on the major clean-up for List of The Loud House episodes in my sandbox—User:Amaury/sandbox/List of The Loud House episodes—I am trying to place a custom column after the Episodes column titled Segments. In the particular case of this animated series, I can see some extra information being useful rather than just trivia, and that way I could also remove the note, thereby putting more focus on the episode table directly. I've tried to do this, but I can't get it to work quite right. First, it places the custom Segments column before the Episodes column instead of after the Episode column; second, it covers both rows rather than just the season one row. Thanks in advance. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Hmm, I'm confused over what you're telling me you were doing. I haven't done too much with the template itself outside of how I've seen it used in LoE articles I'm watching, so I'm not familiar with putting custom columns in the table. MPFitz1968 (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Have a look at the "Auxiliary columns" section of that template page for an example using Stories and Episodes columns if that helps. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I suspect that I've been fiddling with this template more than MPFitz1968 has. In any case, to help answer your question, take a look at what I did with the series overview table at List of It's a Living episodes – I think that example may help you figure out what you're trying to do... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: So it looks like you explicitly not only need an aux row for the second season, but some text there as well, such as TBA; otherwise, that 52 would be filling in both rows. Now it's just a matter of figuring out how to get Segments to appear after episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think you can move it right after the episodes column currently. Though personally I don't mind the placement too much either way, it might also make sense to go from bigger to smaller. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: So it looks like you explicitly not only need an aux row for the second season, but some text there as well, such as TBA; otherwise, that 52 would be filling in both rows. Now it's just a matter of figuring out how to get Segments to appear after episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I suspect that I've been fiddling with this template more than MPFitz1968 has. In any case, to help answer your question, take a look at what I did with the series overview table at List of It's a Living episodes – I think that example may help you figure out what you're trying to do... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Have a look at the "Auxiliary columns" section of that template page for an example using Stories and Episodes columns if that helps. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Would you have a look at the latest editing and see if that can be confirmed, that Hunter adopted Maya? And if so, what time stamp? Primary references don't cut it for this and it needs an explicit secondary reference. It's not the first time I've had problems with this user. Pinging IJBall as well if he'd be willing to help out. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm withholding from reverting the latest edit. No use getting into it with a stubborn user who just wants their way. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- "a stubborn user who just wants their way". First off, I was not the original editor who added that information. The "stubborness" is from the fact that you based your edit on a "personal evaluation" because you couldn't remember what was said in the episode. You could have easily looked at List of Girl Meets World episodes and saw the episode summary. We've had issues before because of your signs of OWN with the page and your unwillingness to come up with a compromise to that previous issue. Also, a primary source would be fine here as it can be directly quoted. --JDC808 ♫ 18:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My transcription from "Girl Meets Goodbye" at approximately the 9:29 mark of the episode, up to 10:28 (stamps are approximate, as Netflix seems to want to show how much time is left in the episode, at least on my computer, not how much time has passed since the beginning):
Riley: OK, crazy people. Can't just make life how you want it.
Topanga: Yeah, things happen, like our decision that you guys are going to help us with. Us now!
Shawn: She's right. This has - this has nothing to do with us. I'm just gonna leave that here. (Shawn presents some papers to Maya)
Maya: Whoa - hey! ... You wanna adopt me?
Riley: Yay!!!
Maya: I don't know how I feel about this.
Both Riley and Maya: Yay!!!
Jonathan Turner: You know, Maya, I talked with Shawn and your mom about this. I always regretted that I never adopted Shawn.
Cory: Well, you know my parents tried to adopt Shawn, but he preferred to stay a street urchin.
Shawn (to Maya): I know this is a difficult decision to make.
Topanga: I'll tell you what's a difficult decision. Ours!
Shawn (to Topanga): Yeah, can you hold your little Topanga horses? (to Maya) Take all the time you need.
Maya (looking at the papers): I'm Maya Hunter. (She gives Shawn a hug, then Shawn, Katy and Maya hug together)
What I got out of that is that Shawn presented papers to Maya requesting to adopt her, but he hasn't officially done so. He's allowing Maya to make a decision. The embrace (hug) at the end of that transcript suggests that she wants Shawn to adopt her, but again, it's not official unless they were standing before a court or a hearing where someone like a judge would make it official, and nothing was signed. This was happening at the Matthews residence. So to say "Shawn adopts Maya" is inaccurate based on what I interpreted; if this were to be true, it does need a reliable source to back it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I remember something about the wedding in the series finale. But I don't remember whether Maya "was" adopted, or whether they said Maya "would be" adopted – someone would have to rewatch the series finale to check. Also, JDC808, Amaury is correct that the source to the episode that you added should include a timestamp to the scene in question (quoting the specific line of dialogue would be even better...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- IJBall, just to note, I added that source before seeing Amaury's post here. I didn't know the exact timestamp or quote at the time of adding the source. --JDC808 ♫ 18:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- That's something you should have added and known from the beginning rather than adding it—or, in this case, undoing—and expecting other editors to know what's going on. The onus is on you to make it clear with a source. As it is, per above, Shawn does not officially adopt her, just shows Maya the papers to allow her to make the decision. Saying he adopts her as a fact from that is WP:OR. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Just the same, don't base an edit on a "personal evaluation" as that straddles the line of OR. As per above, she accepted his offer to adopt her. The statement was not entirely wrong. --JDC808 ♫ 18:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Personal evaluation and WP:OR are the same thing, so your statement there is not correct. She was not officially adopted, so "Maya was adopted by Shawn" is entirely wrong. She was not. She accepted the adoption offer, but nothing was ever signed. Get over yourself and accept that. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Just the same, don't base an edit on a "personal evaluation" as that straddles the line of OR. As per above, she accepted his offer to adopt her. The statement was not entirely wrong. --JDC808 ♫ 18:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- That's something you should have added and known from the beginning rather than adding it—or, in this case, undoing—and expecting other editors to know what's going on. The onus is on you to make it clear with a source. As it is, per above, Shawn does not officially adopt her, just shows Maya the papers to allow her to make the decision. Saying he adopts her as a fact from that is WP:OR. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- IJBall, just to note, I added that source before seeing Amaury's post here. I didn't know the exact timestamp or quote at the time of adding the source. --JDC808 ♫ 18:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I remember something about the wedding in the series finale. But I don't remember whether Maya "was" adopted, or whether they said Maya "would be" adopted – someone would have to rewatch the series finale to check. Also, JDC808, Amaury is correct that the source to the episode that you added should include a timestamp to the scene in question (quoting the specific line of dialogue would be even better...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
If you could add this article to your list and keep an eye on it at least until end of day tomorrow, that would be helpful. The only places where it's already the 19th are places like the UK and Japan; however, since this series originated in the US, those other places are pretty much irrelevant. See article history and my talk page. Thanks in advance! Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- It is the 19th now, but they just have to do it that way, don't they? They can't just do a normal edit? LOL {{U|IJBall}. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Recent disruptive IP
Could this possibly be Orchomen using a web-host (since the IP geolocates to Europe)? Do you see any similarities, other than undoing with no reason? Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Their wording on the talk page, particularly "it's clumsy," something that's common with Orchomen, makes me wonder even more. I think I'll add this IP to the examination section of my sockpuppets list for Rob to investigate. Then we'll know if it is Orchomen or just your run-of-the-mill disruptive IP who undoes everything to try to stonewall their changes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's possible. May be too "clumsy" with their edits to be Orchomen, though... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Added: User:Amaury/List of accounts and IPs used by Orchomen. @IJBall: LOL! Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I've filed a report at WP:AN3 for their edit-warring as well. Had to make some changes regarding whether they have discussed anything on Andi Mack's talk page (originally said that they refused to do so). MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Added: User:Amaury/List of accounts and IPs used by Orchomen. @IJBall: LOL! Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's possible. May be too "clumsy" with their edits to be Orchomen, though... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Screener (website)#Requested move (June 15, 2017)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Screener (website)#Requested move (June 15, 2017). For you and your Talk page stalkers, as we use Screener/Zap2It as a TV article source as much as anyone!... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if this is already on your list, but, on top of what I asked here, which is now in your archives—no rush!—with the season three premiere now known, might want to keep an eye on the episode list just in case we get IPs trying to add the year to the header. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Re: The Thundermans
Thank you. I knew I forgot something. I think I got thrown off by our other helper at the episode list taking care of the credits. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Netflix?
Who here has the Netflix?! Do you MPFitz1968? What about you, Amaury?... Well, whoever has the Netflix, when you get around to watching You Get Me (film), could you please double-check the end-credits to see how the characters are credited? (e.g. whether their last names are included, or it's just the first names?...). TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: We don't have Netflix, unfortunately. Are there no press release sites similar to Disney ABC Press for this series? Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- I have Netflix, I'll check it out soon. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Ratings template question
So, as you know, when ratings for series are averaged, we have the calc function round the average to two decimal places, just like we manually round ratings to two decimal places when posting them to the episode tables. For example, the current average for Andi Mack's first season is 1.34 million total viewers. (The non-rounded number isn't very nice, though it can be sometimes if it comes out to three decimal places, for example.) It's even explained in the hidden note: round2 displays the result to two decimal places; please don't remove/move the ) or change the rest to show more or less decimal places
. My question is, if that's the case, why is it that if the average ends in zeros or a zero, the zeros aren't shown? For an example, have a look at Henry Danger's second and third seasons, using the article's version on April 11 when the ratings for April 8 were posted so you can see both versions of the zeros not being shown: [16]. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Will ping Nyuszika7H as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- I can't really give a better reason than just because it was written that way.
{{padright:number|4}}will work as long as the number of viewers is less than 10 million and has at least one digit after the decimal point.I'll make a wrapper template to handle this properly later.nyuszika7h (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC) - Update: I found an existing template to do this. Use {{decimals}} and just put the expr without
round2in as the "number" parameter. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)- (edit conflict) @Nyuszika7H: Ah, cool! Thank you, Template Master Nyuszika! But yeah, because I see that that rounds to two decimal places, so I'm sitting there wondering, like in the case of Henry Danger, "Why isn't it displaying 1.80 and 2.00?" Haha! Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Nyuszika7H: Ah! Unfortunately, I'm not really understanding what you're saying, though. I'm not seeing any number parameter, for example, unless it's labeled something else. Could you clarify or show me on Henry Danger and I can use that as an aid in the other articles if it's not too much trouble? Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- I can't really give a better reason than just because it was written that way.
Well, I'm seeing this has been resolved. Thanks, Nyuszika7H. I had been wondering myself about that problem a while back when it was just the Girl Meets World ratings table we had this calculation of average in, and why it didn't show two places to the right when that hundredths place was a zero. (I remember bringing that up with GP, though I forgot where that discussion was, but he apparently didn't know about that decimals template at the time.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging Geraldo Perez just for future reference in case he's ever asked again.
Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Liv and Maddie episodes#Netflix has wrong order. Inviting you a nice and calm discussion for once. Geraldo Perez. 
Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Andi Mack season one finale
Do you think we could see ratings of 1.50 million or more for the season one finale? And if there are good ratings there, hopefully they boost Stuck in the Middle. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hopefully, SITM will get a boost anyway with Olympic gold medal gymnast Laurie Hernandez in that episode. But I'm thinking Andi Mack could crack that 1.50 million mark. I noticed on Friday's lineup, ahead of those two new episodes, that Disney Channel will rerun the first 11 Andi Mack episodes (2:30 to 8:00 pm on Disney's east feed) to set up for that season finale. I'm hoping that'll also help boost the new episodes' showings. We'll see. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- I forgot about Bizaardvark's season premiere. Hopefully that premieres well! Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This is just a personal hypothesis of theirs and nothing official, especially with the events that took place in tonight's episode with both Andi and Cyrus looking back in that one scene, but what do you think about this? Personally, I didn't really notice anything of that nature and saw it more as just Cyrus trying to fit in, like how Frankie was trying to fit in at high school in tonight's season two premiere of Bizaardvark. Skyler (in a reply to that tweet) basically hit the nail on the head with his second hypothesis and said pretty much the same thing I said. I don't really know how to explain that one aforementioned scene in tonight's episode, but it doesn't necessarily have to mean anything, either. Sometimes people try to look too hard for something that may or may not be there with anything. Although in general, I don't really look too closely into any series for potential hidden meanings and the like and just watch them for the entertainment. Having said that, since I'm all for equality and the like, it obviously wouldn't bother me if they did head that way—and it would be such a historical event considering they would never in a hundred years have had the stories that they have in Andi Mack in years past, though you can bet people will be getting their pitchforks should that happen—and I've seen more in-depth story lines regarding that on Degrassi. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- So from a conversation I started on Twitter and from the replies made to the tweet (see here), this looks to be true for season two as it was mentioned by the producer, though I'm surprised we haven't seen articles about this on news sites like Deadline that Cyrus has a crush or whatever on Jonah, but from more replies to that tweet, it looks like it was mentioned in a New York Times article. Anyway, they were just being really subtle about it, I guess. And those apparent hints I mentioned earlier can be found on the Andi Mack Wikia: [17]. Also, from that same conversation, it seems like the Josh character from The Lodge, Skye's best friend, will be coming out as gay in season two, plainly with no hints or anything. This is something that's already been done by Nickelodeon with The Loud House—bisexual, lesbian, gay dads with an adoptive son, you name it!—it's just that with Disney, as you know, this is definitely not anything they would have done in the past. And I know this isn't the first time they've done something like this as they did have a lesbian couple in one of the last episodes of Good Luck Charlie, but from a reply made by Jonah Cyrus to the tweet I linked you to last night [18], it seems that the reason that Andi Mack is more profound about this and people are jumping to it more is because of the way it's being executed.
Tbh Degrassi overdramatizes everything. So far AM is handling "Jyrus" beautifully. Unlike previous Disney/Nick shows that randomly throw in gay characters out of nowhere, AM is allowing audiences to get to know and fall in love w/ Cyrus first b4 introducing him as a gay character. The point is to show that Cyrus- whether gay, straight, bi, pan or whatever- is just another human being. IMO it's the best way to approach this kind of storyline, especially for the more "close-minded" audiences. Shows like Degrassi make coming out to be such a dark and depressing subject. It scares young audiences, especially those in the closet. Viewers need more shows like Andi Mack to see that being queer is normal and is just another part of life.
- So from a conversation I started on Twitter and from the replies made to the tweet (see here), this looks to be true for season two as it was mentioned by the producer, though I'm surprised we haven't seen articles about this on news sites like Deadline that Cyrus has a crush or whatever on Jonah, but from more replies to that tweet, it looks like it was mentioned in a New York Times article. Anyway, they were just being really subtle about it, I guess. And those apparent hints I mentioned earlier can be found on the Andi Mack Wikia: [17]. Also, from that same conversation, it seems like the Josh character from The Lodge, Skye's best friend, will be coming out as gay in season two, plainly with no hints or anything. This is something that's already been done by Nickelodeon with The Loud House—bisexual, lesbian, gay dads with an adoptive son, you name it!—it's just that with Disney, as you know, this is definitely not anything they would have done in the past. And I know this isn't the first time they've done something like this as they did have a lesbian couple in one of the last episodes of Good Luck Charlie, but from a reply made by Jonah Cyrus to the tweet I linked you to last night [18], it seems that the reason that Andi Mack is more profound about this and people are jumping to it more is because of the way it's being executed.
- (edit conflict) This is just a personal hypothesis of theirs and nothing official, especially with the events that took place in tonight's episode with both Andi and Cyrus looking back in that one scene, but what do you think about this? Personally, I didn't really notice anything of that nature and saw it more as just Cyrus trying to fit in, like how Frankie was trying to fit in at high school in tonight's season two premiere of Bizaardvark. Skyler (in a reply to that tweet) basically hit the nail on the head with his second hypothesis and said pretty much the same thing I said. I don't really know how to explain that one aforementioned scene in tonight's episode, but it doesn't necessarily have to mean anything, either. Sometimes people try to look too hard for something that may or may not be there with anything. Although in general, I don't really look too closely into any series for potential hidden meanings and the like and just watch them for the entertainment. Having said that, since I'm all for equality and the like, it obviously wouldn't bother me if they did head that way—and it would be such a historical event considering they would never in a hundred years have had the stories that they have in Andi Mack in years past, though you can bet people will be getting their pitchforks should that happen—and I've seen more in-depth story lines regarding that on Degrassi. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- I forgot about Bizaardvark's season premiere. Hopefully that premieres well! Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- In any case, Disney is really breaking ground here, which seems to be working. Of course we'll have the close-minded parents and other people getting their pitchforks, but what Disney is doing actually makes me happy. I will ping IJBall and Nyuszika7H (who watches The Lodge) just in case they have any interest in this. So, Michael, how about you? If you're fine discussing this, did you notice anything or are you more like me who just viewed it as Cyrus trying to fit in without focusing too much on looking for hidden messages? Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Holy moly at those ratings, particularly for Andi Mack! But Bizaardvark season two premiered well, too! Stuck in the Middle was decent, and it's gotten around those ratings even before the decline started. IJBall! Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
REDNOT
You reverted me here, citing WP:REDNOT and I honestly wasn't aware that this advice to avoid red links to people had crept into our (considerable) tome of style guidance. However, you will note that there is an ongoing RFC at WT:REDLINK about this topic and so far there is considerable support for allowing such red links. I would appreciate you restoring my edit, since it seems healthy to provide red links that invite creation of an article on a potentially notable person. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Spike Wilbury: I wasn't aware of the discussion, but thanks. I certainly will look at it. Not sure where I stand with allowing the red links on people's names, but I certainly wouldn't want an article loaded with a lot of red. One or two red links might not be a problem, but having them for every person who is not the subject of an article in Wikipedia, and especially if the person is not notable enough to have one, would be ridiculous. At the moment, I have no reason to restore the edit you pointed out - big question mark on whether Brittney Wilson passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines to warrant an article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, a sea of red is not good, nor is creating red links for things which are unlikely to ever become articles. My problem with the IP editor is that he indiscriminately goes around removing mass numbers of red links for no apparent reason, and has been warned about doing so for several months. Thanks for the consideration. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Don't know if you're still watching this, but might be worth keeping an eye on it. More users not knowing it's names per credits. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's still on my watchlist, though I don't watch the show so I'm not truly caught up on the credits themselves. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 20:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Got the mail (which I remember seeing in my inbox this morning, though had to step out for a while), and responded to it in e-mail, so you should have that in your inbox. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)