This user has page mover rights on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:IJBall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

  • Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
  • Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
  • To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
  • You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

List of films based on television programs[edit]

Pinging Geraldo Perez – this is more a reminder to myself than to you, Geraldo: but the WP:SCOPE of List of films based on television programs looks like it needs to be (massively?) narrowed. Right now it's including a bunch of what are basically TV movies in the list (including some TV movies that basically aired as episodes of these series – e.g. I just removed Shake It Up: Made In Japan which should not have been included under any circumstances!). That list should be narrowed to just theatrically-released films that are based on TV series. FWIW. (And, again, this is more a reminder to myself...) --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Very fast[edit]

Kickin' It[edit]

Not really an issue, but more of a general question. Is this correct? She was main cast for the first three seasons, before leaving to work on I Didn't Do It. She only special guest starred three times in the fourth season, which as we know does not recurring make. So is that correct? Does her previously being main cast count toward being recurring? Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

And this. Isn't that the whole point of a list of characters page, so you can not only go into more detail rather than a brief synopsis, but also really list a lot notable characters rather than just a few? In fact, I think that's basically what you stated here: User talk:IJBall/Archive 20#Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn. I find including a 'Guest cast' section less objectionable for a LoC article.. Although in our cases, we're limiting it to notable guest stars only. Those who receive a special guest star credit automatically qualify as notable, and then from there we go with who we think is notable—for example, main cast from a fellow series on the same network guest starring on another series makes them notable. At the very least, shouldn't it be discussed before outright removing it? Note that I'm not the one who added it, I just changed it to "Notable guest stars" so we're not listing every single non-recurring guest star, as that definitely does become excessive. I accordingly simultaneously added and removed from the original list. Courtesy ping for AngusWOOF so they can provide their thoughts, as they are the ones responsible for removing the section, and also because they participated in that semi-related discussion at Geraldo Perez's talk page here: User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 16#How to list guest stars when actor and/or character name changes?. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Kim in season 4, three appearances in that season could be recurring, but depends on how the editors for the series define recurring. Some go with 2 or more separate storyline appearances in a season, others are 3 or more. As for guest stars, I removed that from the List of Characters since those are usually stated on the episode lists themselves. For the names, yeah, we can go back to the discussion in the archive. I might have gotten some of those wrong, but it's definitely not appropriate to have "Sensei Ty / Ty". AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: Sorry for the incredibly late response. As for guest stars, I removed that from the List of Characters since those are usually stated on the episode lists themselves. That doesn't seem like a valid or logical reason for removal and I will have to respectfully disagree. If we are to use that logic, we shouldn't be listing recurring guest stars, either, since they're listed in the episode list as well. When there isn't enough content for a separate character list page, you typically only include main and recurring stars on the parent article, though you can include notable guest stars as well, provided you state which episodes they appear in. Additionally, bios should generally be brief. Then when or if a character list page is created, that's where you can not only go into a lot more detail in the bios, but also list a lot more non-recurring guest stars, within reason. We should not list every single non-recurring guest star, only the notable ones. Those who receive a special guest star credit are automatically notable. Likewise, if a main cast member from one series guest stars on another series on the same network or franchise, that also makes them automatically notable. For example, Kelli Berglund guest starring as Sloane on Kickin' It is notable because she is a main cast member on Lab Rats, and both series are from Disney XD. Similarly, Milo Manheim guest starring as Pierce on ABC's American Housewife is also notable because he is a main cast member on Disney Channel's Zombies, and ABC and Disney Channel are both part of the Disney network franchise. After that, for non-recurring guest stars who fall into neither of those categories, it should be discussed why they are considered notable. For example, a guest star from one series guest starring on another series on the same network is not necessarily notable. While I can certainly look at cutting back what I had a little for anyone who doesn't fit into those two categories I mentioned, I don't think outright removing the section is the answer. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The Casagrandes (characters)‎[edit]

I've converted this to a redirect as it's WP:TOOSOON for a character list. When and if the time comes, though, the current title is incorrect and should be "List of The Casagrandes characters." Can you move it to that location without leaving the current destination as a redirect? People are idiots and know how nothing works here on Wikipedia, as the move wasn't even attributed correctly. And yes, I know that sounds mean, but with the exception of my Wikipedia colleagues—included therein are you, Geraldo, and MPFitz—a few other users not listed there, and administrators, I am totally fed up with people here, users and IPs alike, and have lost all patience. Amaury • 05:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I should not move it without a redirect in this case, but I can move it to the correct title. --IJBall (contribstalk) 12:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
It looks like I will need your help with Knowledgekid87, as they're another dumb fan who knows how nothing works. See List of The Casagrandes characters, List of The Loud House characters, and Template:The Loud House. Amaury • 13:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Am I going to have to take this to WP:ANI per WP:NPA? This isn't how WIKIPEDIA works,if your edit gets undone then you discuss and achieve consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: See my edit summary: it is way WP:TOOSOON for this – the show hasn't even premiered yet!! --IJBall (contribstalk) 13:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Casagrandes (characters), the result was a keep. The characters also SHARE TWO UNIVERSES, as in they are also present in the Loud House. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This could be handled like The Adventures of Kid Danger, where List of Henry Danger characters serves as information for it. List of The Loud House characters can serve as information for The Casagrandes. Also, the result of an AFD is irrelevant, especially when there wasn't an overwhelming amount of keeps. Amaury • 13:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
It was split out as its getting its own series anyways. The characters are already established having appeared in at least 5 episodes of The Loud House. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree that that AfD result was not binding. @Knowledgekid87: The best course of action here would be to start "building" a detailed "character" listings either at The Casagrandes or at List of The Loud House characters, and split later. But a LoC article for a show that doesn't even exist yet is incredibly inappropriate. --IJBall (contribstalk) 13:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
No it was not binding, but you are not providing any policy related argument against what is presented there. The article is built up from their appearances in The Loud House, and is ready for the new show. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That doesn't matter. There have been no characters that have appeared in five or more episodes in this series. Their appearances on The Loud House are irrelevant. Get rid of your fan bias and learn how Wikipedia works. That would be like saying Nathan Kress' appearances on iCarly count as part of Sam & Cat. Hint: They don't. Amaury • 13:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Again stop with the personal attacks or I will take it to WP:ANI, stop assuming bad faith. Provide relevant policy like you do in discussions on why this list isn't needed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: Uh, sure I do: try WP:SIZESPLIT. The "article" was well short of the length benchmark suggested for "splitting out" a new article. Ergo, it is WP:TOOSOON to split. --IJBall (contribstalk) 13:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I will merge the information back into the main Loud House character article then. Thank you for discussing in a civil way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: After the series premieres, I would think seriously about moving the character information to The Casagrandes, as it probably belongs there in the near-term... --IJBall (contribstalk) 13:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, my initial move was because fans kept adding the info in the Loud House characters which bloated the list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────────────── Need more eyes. Continued WP:DE. Amaury • 13:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

And again, looks like I'm going to need assistance. Continued WP:DE and WP:OR. Amaury • 13:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Ping Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968 as well. Add: I'm not going to just revert the admin's latest edit, but that is the standard TV format and doesn't need to be sourced, per WP:BLUE, etc. Amaury • 14:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Or more like WP:PRIMARY. Amaury • 14:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

─────── I'm thinking it's time for a report at the appropriate venue, though it probably shouldn't be me. Amaury • 07:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Nickelodeon Productions[edit]

@Geraldo Perez: See here. They can't even bother to format it right, so I don't know how to vote on it. Amaury • 16:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Now fixed: link. I'm going to wait to see how that one develops before voting... --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Your question: "Who keeps doing this?! - Just SPELL IT OUT."[edit]

... in your edit summary here — that was me. I'm aware of MOS:US and please be assured there was no intention to be "too informal". Respect goes both ways, also there's no need to WP:SHOUT. Thank you. Wakari07 (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Wakari07: As per WP:COMMONALITY, you should just spell out "United States" and "United Kingdom" in most cases (even MOS:U.S. implies this). This avoids the whole "US" vs. "U.S." issue (and, to be clear, many Americans consider "US" to be incorrect in most contexts). --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

U.S. -> American and UK -> British[edit]

As you know, disambiguation by country for US and UK has changed—for example, Lab Rats (U.S. TV series) -> Lab Rats (American TV series). Should that not also mean that similar things also follow suit? For example, episode tables like at List of Raven's Home episodes. Should it not be American viewers (millions) instead? Amaury • 04:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

No, for tables and such you can still use "U.S." and "UK" (for brevity's/conciseness' sake). We changed article title disambiguation on this score on the grounds that "consistency" was more important that "conciseness". But that doesn't necessarily apply to non-article title content. --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The Substitute[edit]

Not sure what should be done regarding this Nick series...

To sum up the problem, two episodes each aired for Jace Norman and Lilly Singh earlier this year (one main episode, one "Revealed" episode). However, the series wasn't yet a 'full series' at that time. Fast forward to the end of August, and it was announced that the show would be getting a full series pickup of 10 episodes.

The first problem is regarding to two "Revealed with" episodes- should these be listed or no? Not sure if you've watched any of the episodes, but I would think this is equal to Henry Danger's "Henry Danger: The Musical" vs. "Henry Danger: The Musical Sing-A-Long" where the second one is the same thing but with a little something added on. In this case, I'm pretty sure the "Revealed with" episodes are literally just the exact same episodes as its sister episode, but with, "Pop-up bubbles" that, "feature show trivia and behind-the-scenes secrets". I would think then if we were to follow the same thing as HD, these two episodes should not be listed, or should somehow just be mentioned in the article than having them included in the episode table. Also worth noting that later on, Futon Critic updated and now list "(R)" next two the two Revealed episodes, indicating they seem to believe it is basically just a rerun. (Production codes are also the same as the original but with a "B" at the end.) Final thing worth noting is that Amazon/YouTube does not list the Revealed episodes, only the original ones.

The second problem is regarding the two actual episodes- should these be listed in the same table as "John Cena" and future episodes, or should the Jace and Lilly ones be moved to a separate 'Specials' section and have John Cena be the start of the first season? The press release mentioned about the 10-episode pickup, with the 'series premiere' in October (being the "John Cena" one that just aired tonight) It also later states the Jace Norman and Lilly Singh episodes as the first and second specials, but I'm not sure what the exact Wikipedia procedures would be to do.

Sorry for the long message, would just love to know how to tackle this as it is now a full Nickelodeon series. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The "Revealed" episodes definitely don't get separate entries. I doubt they're even notable enough to mention.
On the second question, I'm inclined to leave them in the "season #1" table for now. There can be a discussion about this at the Talk page, but I think there's nothing that really labels the two earlier episodes as "specials" (as per sources) that are distinct from the rest of season #1... --IJBall (contribstalk) 03:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

ANI (mentioned)[edit]

Hey IJBall, I've taken them to ANI and obviously have mentioned you, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. While I probably wouldn't have the time to file a report, I may have enough time to look for evidence. --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The Rolls from "Burke's Law"[edit]

... but at least it's 'sourced' now. : ) Cheers! Shir-El too 17:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sadie Stanley[edit]

Starklinson is at it again. Ping Geraldo Perez as well. Amaury • 07:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of List of The Tribe characters for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of The Tribe characters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Tribe characters until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Fyrael (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The Substitute (American TV series)[edit]

With the John Cena episode now having aired, what do we update that last sentence to in the Production section, tense-wise? I want to say "will guest star" -> "would guest star," but I don't know if that angle is correct anymore per this. Amaury • 16:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I would go with " was announced that John Cena would guest star in an episode..." P.S. As you probably know, I agree with Magitroopa that those "Revealed with" episodes don't belong in the episode table. Now, that doesn't mean that can't be mentioned – if there's any WP:RS coverage of them, I think they can certainly be mentioned in the article's prose. But I do agree that they don't belong in the episode table... --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so "would" is different than "had been," like on Sydney to the Max. Amaury • 16:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Amaury/sandbox/Kamp Koral[edit]

Need you to move that to draftspace, with no redirect. Also, unfortunately, Kamp Koral and now, as of today, Kamp Koral (TV series) exist as redirects, the latter of which is unnecessary disambiguation since there's nothing else with that title, so it's going to make things harder to move when the time is appropriate. (I just redirected the latter since it clearly does not meet WP:TVSHOW.) More idiots who don't know how anything works. My draft clearly has precedence. Amaury • 16:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sick today – can you try asking at WP:RMTR? If an Admin takes this, it shouldn't be much trouble... --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
It's okay. I can do it. I'll just have to request deletion of the sandbox link, which will then be a redirect. To clarify, moving my sandbox to draftspace isn't an issue. What's going to be an issue is moving it to mainspace in the future when the time is right because idiots don't know how anything works. And, man, that's several people now who I know who are or are getting over being sick. Amaury • 16:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
How are we feeling today? Amaury • 14:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Better. My brain was kind of fuzzy yesterday. But I'm feeling better today – just tired. Add: My main issue now is that my laptop is on the fritz, and I will probably have to take it in. This may impact my Wikipedia editing somewhat in the near-term... --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Bunk'd – Hazel[edit]

According to the Wikia, she returns in "Inn Trouble." So I believe that would change her thing to "(seasons 1–2, 4)." Amaury • 16:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, though probably more accurately as "(seasons 1–2; guest, season 4)"... --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
An IP just added the "guest" part ([1]), but I fixed their addition to conform with the above ([2]). MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, IJBall. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

On Gmail. Amaury • 17:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

E-mail is problem for me right now, with my main laptop out. Plan on posting to my Talk page until I get it back... --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it was on your talk page we discussed not using the below for the Nickelodeon templates, and I think it was GP who said it: Regardless, do you want the initial revert or...? Add: It was on Template talk:Nickelodeon original series itself. Amaury • 17:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
FTR, I agree with Alex's edit. I don't remember who changed it away from that format, but I like it better this way. --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
It was me during the cleanup because it looked neater. Amaury • 17:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
PS: It's situations like these where having a backup external email account like Gmail is beneficial. Face-wink.svg Amaury • 17:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

────────── Do you not have a regular ol' desktop? Amaury • 20:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Nope – haven't had a desktop computer in a long time. A laptop is all I need... --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
What is your laptop status? Are you up and fully running again yet? Amaury • 14:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Friday, at the earliest... Face-sad.svg --IJBall (contribstalk) 14:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's better than a month from now. Face-wink.svg PS: Do you want to comment on that discussion I invited you to on GP's talk page? I'm sure you would have by now if you wanted to, but because of your current status, it might be possible for to miss some things, so just checking. Amaury • 14:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Are you frolicking in the flowers now? Amaury • 23:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Repair people didn't even call today – looks like it'll be next week now... --IJBall (contribstalk) 00:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Repair people ended up getting back to me late Friday – I should have my primary laptop back Monday afternoon. Definitely will be nice to have that back, as it has all of my recent docs, and I can't do the things on my old laptop that I can do on my primary. --IJBall (contribstalk) 14:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

─────────────── Laptop is back from the shop! I should have unfettered access to my Email again. --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


Aw, look at that. That's another annoying pest (see List of Henry Danger episodes history) out of the way. Amaury • 23:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Definitely agree. Had to report Doof for disruptive editing, was editing satellite spacecraft pages, reverting newer sourced information and reverting to the variant with false information. Only one he was justified in reverting was page name due to me being unable to find a source for that, eventually found a FCC filing for the names and renamed again. Showed a lot of ignorance. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles[edit]

When you get a new laptop, I would recommend making this an article to fix. It's got the same problems that List of The Loud House episodes originally had. Fan idiots who don't know how things work and are ordering things by production codes rather than by air dates. Add: And MOS:BOLD violations, among other things. Amaury • 18:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Candi Milo[edit]

You may kindly wish your buddy Geraldo or yourself to remove the date of birth for this ChalkZone and Teenage Robot cast member, some webpages like MyAnimeList or Behind the Voice Actors which the former isn't a trustworthy site while the latter may or may not meet reliable sourcing mention a birthday of January 21, 1966 making her 53 years old. FYI You tube isn't that trustworthy anyway.

Regards, (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


I'm having suspicions here... And they have a talk page full of warnings. Amaury • 13:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Worth keeping an eye on... --IJBall (contribstalk) 14:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

All That (season 11)[edit]

So I've just done some digging through the credits of each episode to get all the important credits in a Google Doc. There are several things that I'm not sure if they should/should not be listed in the article in any way, here's what I'm not sure on:

  • Directed by- Not sure if this column should be included in the episode table, like how other shows (Henry Danger and Cousins for Life for example). There are way too many writers on each 'episode', which is why I didn't list them all out. There's also the problem that AFAIK, the 'episodes' are simply titled by "11##" (same for prod. codes, and the prod. codes are always the same as the title), and some skits are filmed in a separate week from when they were filmed (for example, script might be titled "Week 1106" and a skit from then might air on episode "1109")
  • Featuring- I think (?) this would be fine to have in the cast section. It's a sketch show like SNL, so I guess the rest of the 'featured' members can be added on.
  • Special Guest Starring + Guest Starring- There should probably be somewhere that it's listed, but not sure if it would be better under the cast section or in the summaries of each episode. There are some that are definitely worth mentioning (Kenan, Kel, Josh, Kevin Kopelow, etc.), but then not sure on some like the V.O.s or people like Mercedes Lomelino, who doesn't even have a Wikipedia page.
  • Co-Starring- This credit is (currently) only listed in the credits for one episode, "1108". Not sure what role Hans Holsen played in the episode (or what role he played that deserves to be labeled 'co-starring' in a show like this anyways...), but he is one of many writers for the show, being listed as one for "1101" (not sure if there's any others, but he's a writer for at least one episode).

Bit weird with the series on Nickelodeon in particular, especially since it's a 'revival' of a former series, but we're now able to get things like all these credits and viewership ratings for episodes, in comparison to seasons 1-10 which doesn't list any viewership whatsoever. Final thing I'm not sure on is one new cast member, Aria Brooks. It was announced today that she'd be joining the cast and that 13 additional episodes were ordered. I've included info about her joining in the 'production' section, but for the cast list, I added her onto the main members, but giving her a note of when her first episode is. Not sure if this is fine, but I'm basing it off of SNL articles, which has some people's first/final episode (example here for Kate McKinnon). Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Another problem is back, being the whole 'season 1'/new show vs. 'season 11'. I feel the original discussion never really reached a proper census on what should be done, and now we have some new info, being that Nickelodeon's recent press release refers to it as the 'first season'. I would say we can then change the articles to an entirely new series, but then there's the problem that the production codes still contradict the 'first season' thing entirely. Magitroopa (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Prod codes is just one way to establish a "season", but I'd hardly consider it conclusive. What really matters is how WP:RS, both Primary sources and Secondary sources, refer to it – Do they call it a "revival" or a "reboot" of All That? Or do sources predominantly refer to it as "season 11"?... But, I agree that a deeper discussion needs to be had about this either at Talk:All That (season 11) or at Talk:All That – depending on how that goes, then a followup WP:RM discussion can be held. --IJBall (contribstalk) 00:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
For this show, I would say "Co-starring" should not ever be listed, as the crediting level looks to be too low. "Featuring", I think I'd only include if they are truly "recurring" (e.g. 5 or more episodes, roughly...). I would think all "Special guest stars" should be listed, and I'd think that notable guest stars should be listed as well. --IJBall (contribstalk) 00:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


Interesting. Tell me more: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Uncivil user. Watching my contributions, as they admit to, regardless of the reason, is stalking/hounding. Virtually all of the stuff they brought up is everything that Ad Orientem already warned me about a while ago. Amaury • 03:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Mackenzie Foy[edit]

You struck down my edit yet saying it wasn't sourced, despite it being sourced in the career section. I added the necessary filming infortmation to it, but I honestly don't see why reverting my edit was remotely necessary. Rusted AutoParts 21:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You just deleted it again despite it being sourced. Don't erase sourced content to remove the rowspanning, Rusted AutoParts 21:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Rusted AutoParts: 1) The fact that the movie is now "in production" (i.e. filming) was not sourced. 2) You added a MOS:ACCESS violating 'rowspan' edit that I am quite sure you have been warned about before, and should never have added in the first place. Now that you've added the source, you can restore the film to the table, but not the MOS:ACCESS violation. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Which I have done. I also added the filming source right before you erased it the second time. Rusted AutoParts 21:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Which is what you should have done in the first place, rather than blindly reverting – you should have added the source, and restored it to the table, in a single edit. Also, you once again did not use {{TableTBA}} which I am quite sure I've discussed with you before. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
You're speaking to me as if I need to remember every single one of our interactions and feeling emboldened to scold me like a child. I'm not going to stand for that. Sourcing the filming hasn't appeared to be a prerequisite before with her other credits, aside from The Conjuring, why kick a fuss over this one? You could've easily sourced it yourself if it mattered so much, but alas, we're here at this pointless squabbling. It's restored and sourced, so this discussion is now complete. Rusted AutoParts 21:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Except the source you added did nothing of the sort – it did not show filming had commenced! I have switched to a Deadline source from today that does confirm that. Note that this is a requirement for adding future roles to WP:FILMOGRAPHY tables, as per WP:CRYSTAL (and WP:NFF). I have noticed that several editors are incredibly cavalier about this, adding films to Filmographies with no verification from sourcing that production has actually begun – anyone, myself included, is fully justified in reverting such edits as per WP:BURDEN, and as per WP:FILMOGRAPHY & WP:CRYSTAL. So, if you want to avoid future reversions from myself and others, please make sure that you have the correct sourcing lined up to verify future roles (and that such future projects are actually in production) before you add such roles to Filmographies. This is not some outlandish requirement. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I grabbed the wrong source. Apologies. But seems as though you have sourced it now. Something you could’ve done from the get go if you wanted the filming sourced, but let’s not push this further. I will ask where the filming sources for Interstellar and The Nutcracker are if for this article it’s mandatory to source the filming. I make sure to source the films articles with the filming sources to match up with NFF. But whether a rule of thumb is implemented on an article is hard to follow when it’s different for just about every article whether it gets enforced. Rusted AutoParts 21:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
"Required for future (i.e. unreleased) roles." (Again, see WP:CRYSTAL.) Already-released roles should also be sourced, but they are generally already sourced in BLP article prose, and don't need to be explicitly sourced in the Filmography (too). --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You are very much correct, and reading back through this I was just being an irritable dick. I’m sorry for that. Thank you for enforcing the guidelines when I didn’t remember to. Rusted AutoParts 21:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Ava Kolker[edit]

KarenHeart appears to be Starklinson 2.0. (And to clarify, I mean another editor who acts the same. I'm not making any sock claims or raising any suspicions in this case.) Amaury • 13:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

There's just too many articles to WP:AFD... This is another one that looks "OK", but when you look closer you realize the refs are almost certainly all "passing mentions" not "in-depth coverage". So it would need to be AfD'ed, and then it would have to explained over and over that, "No, the subject does not meet WP:BASIC..." And then half the time the other voters will just ignore you anyway. So, not worth the trouble... These days, I'm focusing my efforts on this front on older WP:BLPs that don't past muster, because those usually can get deleted at AfD. --IJBall (contribstalk) 14:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Amaury: I've removed bad sourcing from this one, but the article is a mess – it reads like bad PR, and may actually be an example of paid editing, judging from the looks of it. I'm not going to clean up all the WP:PEACOCK, but somebody needs to go through this, and cut out all the promotional nonsense. And an Admin probably needs to check out this editor to look for evidence of paid or promotional editing. --IJBall (contribstalk) 14:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I can do it when I get to the college today. I have no classes today and am just working in the library for five hours. (It's basically free time since I'm just there to answer questions as they arise and keep things neat. lol) Amaury • 14:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Ping our other BLP expert Geraldo Perez as well. Amaury • 14:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Amaury: It slides by under NACTOR, 2 major roles. Would likely be kept if sent to AfD. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
What are the two "major" roles? Girl Meets World was just a recurring role. --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I misread the article, I thought that was a major role. Doesn't meet NACTOR then as only one major role. Should be taken to AfD as TOOSOON and for lack of significant independent coverage as well. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
IJBall and Geraldo Perez: Cleaned up now, though now it seems pointless if we're just going to AFD it. Although I suppose we could draft it as well. Amaury • 17:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
She has a major role upcoming according to IMDb. Two interviews in article is only significant coverage and both publicity for roles. This one would be iffy at AfD as discussion will be whether or nor GNG met with the sources given. It should really go to draft space to incubate with redirect left to one significant role. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

It needs to be said - your work towards the main article regarding the television series The Tribe was much needed. It seems like an editor has recently been on a deletion craze against anything linked to this television series. At least you decided to put in the work to prevent any more pathetic prods, AFD etcs...Rain the 1 21:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I am working on a cast table for The Tribe article (I am currently watching through series 1–3, which I did not see before, and will then do some "spot checks" on the casting for series 4–5) which will replace the sort of "mess" that the current 'Cast' section is. I will then probably work up a draft of a new "List of The Tribe characters" article to see if a new version might pass muster. I also eventually intend to look more at the main TV series article to see if that can also be improved... But it will take some time. --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
That said, there are a number of WP:BLP articles of The Tribe cast members that likely do not meet notability requirements for biographies (e.g. WP:NACTOR), and which should be sent to WP:AfD. That's also on my informal list of things to do... --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
The BLP articles are not the best and I created some when I joined Wiki in 2006 and never improved them. Most are not notable as they haven't had any further roles so I was not surprised they were nominated for deletion. I did think it was a shame about the list of characters being deleted because I thought more could have been done. I am glad you are taking going to try and create a new version.Rain the 1 14:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)