User talk:IJBall/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Raven's Home

@Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: Please keep an eye here. Rowspan violations as well. And based on the latest summary, they're trying to impersonate another user to make themselves look special or whatever. Amaury • 17:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the edit itself – rowspan was used properly, it was sourced. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that we shouldn't be including popularity awards, like favorite male/female star, in the television articles. Those belong on the actor articles. Otherwise, we're just adding a bunch of bloat. Just like we shouldn't be adding every genre under the sun, as was done a while ago by a certain user on articles like Lab Rats (American TV series). Suspiciously, I might add, in that sense that they've never edited those articles before and suddenly appear at several articles you and I edit, but that's for another time. Amaury • 19:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, yeah, that I do agree with – in general I don't think any actor awards, aside from "whole cast" awards, should be listed at the TV show articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm generally cool with awards that say "actor for role in film/series". The major reason for the actor getting the award is because of the film/series production, writing, directing used by the actor and it reflects more than just actor skill. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Kel Mitchell

Grew up in Chicago, Kel Mitchell grew up not too far away from me, I grew up in Austin on the West Side, quit changing the personal life edits for Kel Mitchell because he lived in Austin when he was in Chicago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:80:13F0:99F5:567D:EE17:5D16 (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Nobody cares what you claim, anonymous IP editor – it's called WP:V for a reason. Sourcing (and it's the Chicago Tribune, quoting Mitchell himself no less! so he should know) says Mitchell grew up is "from" South Side, Chicago. Unless and until you can produce sourcing that proves something else, that stays. And your repeated attempts to remove validly sourced content (and replacing with an unsourced claim) is nothing more than Disruptive editing (which can get you blocked, and/or the article protected). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

User German Shepherd Fan2021

This person is back. I don't remember the exact details, but it originated as an IP, I think. It was either me or Geraldo you came to for help. I already reverted a few of their edits on the articles that are still on my watchlist from the last round of attacks. Amaury • 07:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Amaury: This editor is about 100% certain to be a sock of German Shepherd Fan2021. I would advise reporting to WP:SPI (and ask for a CheckUser for other socks). Regardless of the "correctness" of the edits or not (and most do seem to be correct), socking is a no-no. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/German Shepherd Fan2021. Feel free to post any additional comments you may have. Amaury • 20:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I've added Better Than My Life to the SPI. Amaury • 04:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Big Hero 6: The Series

I need eyes here and on the Disney Channel and Disney XD current/upcoming and former templates, as well as on the general programming pages. Unless this is a rare instance where I'm blind and missing something and it's actually mentioned somewhere and properly sourced, then we need to wait a year or until an official announcement. Please double-check for me, as, again, this could be one of those rare instances, but it doesn't help that people don't use proper edit summaries. "Now ended" tells us nothing. An edit summary that says something like "Series has ended. Please see X or Y on this page." would be much more helpful. Amaury • 17:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Series ending is confirmed: [1] It looks to me like there is at least one other source confirming this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I see that Geraldo Perez recently copy-edited the article, noting it is not an official announcement since it was just cast members stating that, and they don't speak for the series. Amaury • 20:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

"Big Hero 6 The Series will not return for a fourth season, EW has learned exclusively." Seems pretty definitive to me. They aren't saying the cast told them this. To me, the EW source is good enough to say that the series is done. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

They didn't directly name their source so dubious it is official to begin with, but they did gave evidence for their conclusion in the discussion about the cast gathering to reminisce. Fairly obvious their source was the cast, not something official as they are the only outlet that "learned exclusively". Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for butting-in here, but I would think The Futon Critic would be an appropriate/reliable source to use, correct? If so, see here. The episode is listed as 'series finale', so I would think a citation like this would be fine to use.

Either way, there is also this article from TheWrap saying the same thing about the series ending, as well as this video linked in that article- a video from the official Disney XD YouTube channel with the description stating, "Disney's Emmy Award-nominated "Big Hero 6 The Series" will conclude with the series finale on Monday, February 15 (7:30 p.m. ET/PT) on Disney XD and in DisneyNOW." Hope that is all useful information/sources to use. Magitroopa (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, those are actually usable. The text statement on the official XD YouTube channel can be considered an official announcement. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Disagree – EW is a WP:RS: when they say, "EW has learned exclusively..." that implies to me that they called Disney and either got a confirmation, or Disney refused to refute the claim (which is effectively the same thing as a confirmation). When RS's like EW, or Deadline, or Variety report "[We] have learned exclusively...", it means it's confirmed and that it meets our burden as per WP:V and WP:Verifiability not truth. This is not the same as a blog like Nickalive making the same claim – by definition, these are reliable sources who we can assume are fact-checking their claims. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

A grin

Hello IJB I hope you are well. In this edit I had to smile that the IB was commented on by IJB. The coincidence was probably only fun for me. As cold as it is where I am I have to get my grins where I can. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 04:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Stacy Farber

The show premieres in 4 daysVincelord (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, 1) Why not just wait, then? And, 2) The actual edit was poor – you didn't capitalize "Recurring role", and you didn't include referencing from The Wrap source (which you should do, esp. before the show has even premiered, but really should do in all cases anyway). So, why not just wait, and why not do the edit right? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Lindy Booth

Hi!, I just saw you reverted my edit there. I lived my life on Wikipedia seeing references outside of the parenthesis, in most articles, I hadn't read that policy, I will be doing many edits in articles where the reference is outside, to place them inside. Thank you! --CoryGlee (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The "Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis." part/exception of MOS:REFPUNCT is easy to miss, because it's further down the guideline. Lots of even experienced editors get this wrong because they don't know about it (and because it's contrary to the main guidance of MOS:REFPUNCT), so don't feel bad about not knowing about this before. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly! Thank you for your understanding, it's really easy to miss that. Thank you again for your patience. Have an extraordinary weekend!. CoryGlee (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Spelling of Gia Ré

The spelling of the actress Gia Ré in the movie Bring It On: Worldwide Cheersmack is indeed Gia Ré with a / on top of the e as it has been before.

Find attached on the right

Cast Bring It On Worldwide Cheersmack

the end credits of this movie with a clearly visible / on top of the e.

Thus I ask for your understanding that your repeated undoing of my spelling correction ist not justified.--Zoellner (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Zoellner: OK, based on the screenshot, you can change it then. This may be a case where it was missed when it was added to the article, or they changed the credits later... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Half-mast or half-staff

Hello, IJBall. I have very interesting question in Portal:Current events/2021 February 22, in American English, a flag that flown a half of mast is called "Half-Staff", but in United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and rest of English-speaking world, it was referred as "Half-mast". Due to fact the section about COVID memorial contains US subject, should the sentence that come from The Independent about the White House orders to fly half-mast can be called as "half-mast", as commonly use in UK, or "Half-staff, as commonly used in America? I am from Indonesia, but i taught more about English that used in the United Kingdom, which it referred as "half-mast". Thanks. 36.76.231.145 (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It should probably be "half-staff". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

So, can you change sentences from "The White House orders United States flags to fly at half-mast for the next five days in order to honor those who have died from COVID-19" to "The White House orders United States flags to fly at half-staff for the next five days in order to honor those who have died from COVID-19". 180.243.208.77 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Olivia Sanabia

Is it time for an article on her yet? I am aware that she's had major roles in two TV series, Just Add Magic and Coop & Cami Ask the World (so she likely would meet WP:NACTOR, probably barely at that), but at the moment, the article is scarce with any sources, just two, neither of which is reliable to demonstrate WP:BASIC. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: I meant to start a draft on her a while back, but I have no time to properly work on (or write!) BLP articles these days. If you're interested, I'd start a draft... My guess is that while she may technically meet NACTOR, she probably doesn't have enough in-depth coverage for BASIC. For instance, I've never seen an in-depth interview with or profile of her. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I've converted to a redirect, but it should be taken to WP:RfD, as there are two legitimate targets. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Just put an RfD up @ Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Olivia Sanabia. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968, Amaury, and Geraldo Perez: Well, I am not touching this now (seeing as I am generally the "villain" of the piece, apparently), but it clearly should be taken to WP:AfD immediately, unless somebody can find bona fide "in depth" coverage of her (and I doubt it exists). I probably should have just taken this directly to Draft originally, but I didn't think of it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Big City Greens

Anything that was good can be re-done, but there was too much to go through. WP:DE somehow got snuck in. Amaury • 04:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I think one of the culprits was User:Merrick Sulyma; the other looks like it was the 2600.* IPv6 editor. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Ginny & Georgia

Does this belong on the character description? The character didn't turn 16 until on a later episode on episode 7. This is pretty much like Legacies when some editors changed Josie and Lizzie's age to 16 or 17 on their character descriptions. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it does not. It should either be restored back, or the age should just be removed entirely (replace with "teenaged") to solve the problem. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

When you say restore back like back to 15? — YoungForever^(talk) 15:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes – either restore back to just "15 years old", or replace with "teenaged" to avoid the problem entirely. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I tried, the other editor is edit warring, claiming it is important to add that she is 16 or turning 16 on the character description. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I've changed to "teenage" – if they revert again, I would report to WP:ANEW, because at this point they will clearly be edit warring. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Tom Willett

You recently undid a link from the page Dear John to the BLP page Tom Willett without checking the history of the AfD: [2] and the newly created page for the actor: Tom Willett. They are not the same person. The article I created is in fact the actor associated with Dear John. I have reverted your good faith edit. It was a simple error. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

How is this my fault when you did not make it clear in the edit summary that this was a new article? All you said was "Linked Tom Willett to BLP page" – nothing in there about AfD or the new article. So, if you want people to understand your edits, be very clear in your edit summaries, esp. in a case like this one where you've placed an entirely new article in place of the old previous one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

DuckTales

@Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: I'm going to need more eyes on the DuckTales reboot related articles. See my contribs. Amaury • 20:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Raven's Home - Awards and nominations

That last award shouldn't be there per an earlier discussion that popularity awards belong on the actor(ress) page, but more importantly, rowspan is being misused, I believe. So I'll let you handle it since you're more "forceful" about that. Amaury • 17:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Kids' Choice Awards articles

Not sure if you'll have an answer for this, but worth a try anyways.

I'd love to cleanup all the Kids' Choice Awards articles, especially since some of the older years (such as 2010 or 2011) appear to need cleanup. Was wondering how exactly appearances/presenters should be listed in the separate ceremony articles. I'd say the way it is for 2020 is fine, as it's basically the 'odd one out' of them all being aired virtually due to the pandemic.

However, I'd think some sort of uniformity among everything else should be present. For example, the 2021 and 2016-19 articles all have a similar way of listing the presenters: in a table with what category they presented. However, you get into 2015 and some of the earlier years, and all of them are just listed out as only names.

Even the 2021 article is a bit repetitive, as it has both 2021 Kids' Choice Awards#Appearances and 2021 Kids' Choice Awards#Presenters, which are basically the same thing. I'd say only one of those sections is really needed, but the sources from the 'appearances' section certainly should not be removed. I'm also not entirely sure- would straight-out listing the presenters and who presented what categories be WP:TRIVIA and/or WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

So, I'm not sure how much help I can be on this, but I will say this – looking just at 2020 vs 2021 articles, I definitely prefer the 2020 article's layout, etc. I agree that 'Appearances' vs. 'Presenters' is basically redundant, and those should be combined. And, in general – don't use tables when a list will do the trick (so, again, the 2021 article is bad on this score).

I would pick whichever of the suite of articles looks "best" (and I bet it's the 2020 article), and then base the layout of the other articles on that. I also would not stress about trying to "fix" them all – it may be too much work to "fix" the older articles, and if you're the only guy doing that, you shouldn't stress about it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Yikes for for KCAs 2021! Not so much for Danger Force and Side Hustle since that's what they've been doing, which, yes, is terrible, but still. See here Archived 2021-03-16 at the Wayback Machine. For comparison (including only Nickelodeon, not simulcasts):

• May 2, 2020 Archived June 6, 2020, at the Wayback Machine: 0.85 million
• March 23, 2019 Archived March 26, 2019, at the Wayback Machine: 1.29 million
• March 24, 2018 Archived November 9, 2020, at the Wayback Machine: 1.87 million
• March 11, 2017 Archived July 15, 2018, at the Wayback Machine: 3.05 million
• March 12, 2016 Archived March 23, 2017, at the Wayback Machine: 3.32 million
• March 28, 2015 Archived April 2, 2015, at the Wayback Machine: 3.63 million

2017 was the last good year. And that's as far as I can go on Showbuzz Daily since they didn't start posting ratings until mid-late August 2014. It would take me forever to write up the rest using other sources, but 2014 was 5.03 million: 2014 Kids' Choice Awards. If you want to go through the years beyond that, be my guest. LOL But for my sanity, I'll just post what's available on Showbuzz Daily. Amaury • 18:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Isabela Moner

Is the latest move discussion even valid? Seems a bit strange that an IP with only four edits, one being the move request, is the one starting this. Amaury • 18:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Cobra Kai

In the last couple of weeks, probably near the beginning of this month, a characters table was established. It listed just the main characters first, and then a few days ago, recurring was added to the table. (The prose for each of these classes of characters was removed as they became part of the table.) I just removed the recurring portion of the table and restored the prose for that; it was violating MOS:TVCAST, where it states that the recurring should not be in the characters table for the main article, only in an LoC article if applicable. Interesting thing is the LoC article is for the set of Karate Kid movies centering around the character of Mr. Miyagi from the 1980s and 1990s (not the more recent releases of this franchise), and I'm not sure a table would be appropriate there. Anyway, I don't know if the main characters should be restored as prose or if the table as it is right now is okay. It doesn't seem to violate MOS:TVCAST. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

An example of how the table was with the recurring listed in it - a bit too much, honestly. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Basically, for a show that's run more than 3 seasons, either is allowed (for main cast only), but not both (IIRC about MOS:TVCAST). Now, IMO, in no way is a table preferable to prose character summaries in this case. What I would be tempted to do is remove the table and restore the prose if there were prose character summaries (as per WP:STATUSQUO), esp. if this was done by an IP editor, and in any case start a Talk page discussion on the subject. If it were me, in such a discussion, I would rather have the character summaries in prose than a cast table. (But some editors just are obsessed with having cast tables, in the same way that other editors are obsessed with using rowspan...) In the discussion, I would also bring up whether a separate LoC article for the show was warranted (if it is, the cast table would go there!). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Users Playmation Nobi and ManBoy2018

Please keep an eye on these until action is taken. The first one is very clearly a vandalism-only account. It seems they were removed overnight, presumably by the bot over staleness after I reported them at 5:37 PM yesterday. There was a huge backlog, and there still is. I re-reported them 26 minutes ago at 10:29 AM. The second one started as 24.146.222.120, trying to rewrite history by changing what a source from August 2020 said. Then they moved to that aforementioned user account, who is now resorting to personal attacks by refactoring my warning on their talk page. Albeit they're not the most serious ones, but still. Amaury • 17:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay. As I was writing this, the fist account was blocked. Amaury • 17:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I am giving up with regard to the second user on my talk page. Amaury • 06:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Anime RfC

Hi, about your move here. Could you please direct me to that particular RfC? Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: Took me a while to track it down, but it's: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Is “(anime)” a suitable disambiguator?. Basically, naming conventions for anime properly fall under WP:NCTV, and thus disambiguation for anime TV series should follow WP:NCTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It was a good outcome, disambiguators should be straightforward. Gotitbro (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

User Jackson Is 2021

I don't remember who the sock master is, but this person is back. Amaury • 02:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Amaury: Looks like it's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoatMans – pattern of either pro- or anti-MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE edits. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to comment there. I just added them to the SPI page. Amaury • 03:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Could 24.21.186.246 be this same editor, back to doing contra-MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE edits rather than MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE-compliant edits?... Any thoughts Geraldo Perez? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible. Generally #Episodes should be removed but the original editor was just playing around adding and removing it. This editor just seems to be improperly adding it to articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting...

Interesting... The WP:DE around the attempt to prematurely create 2021–22 United States network television schedule was also GoatMans using YA sock account. Now, fortunately, indef blocked as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

What About Your Friends? (Raven's Home)

@Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: Pretty sure this shouldn't even exist. Noticed it from this edit. Their reason for creating the article was "...it had a longer plot and discussed real life issues and more characters as well)". That is not a valid reason to make an episode article, at least not by itself with regard to the vaping part of it. The other two reasons definitely do not warrant an episode article. We barely have series that warrant their own season articles, let alone episode articles. I feel like this warrants an article less than even that LGBT episode of The Loud House ("'L' Is for Love") that someone tried to create back in 2017. Not that the topics covered in this episode of Raven's Home or that episode of The Loud House aren't important, but aren't enough reason by themselves to create episode articles. Amaury • 05:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Any thoughts? Amaury • 21:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the CNN and Deadline cites means that somebody will argue that it's "notable". This one probably can't just be converted to a redirect – it will need to go to WP:AfD. And considering that nobody took me up on taking Olivia Sanabia there, which is a much clearer fail, I would expect that there will be people at AfD who will claim this one is a "keep" despite the fact that just two sources is too weak sauce for keeping an article... One possible alternative? – Tag the article for merging to Raven's Home: if nobody objects after some weeks, then those two sources could be merged back to Raven's Home, and the article could be converted to a redirect at that point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: I've gone ahead and converted it to a redirect as it clearly does not warrant a standalone article. IJBall, I may need your move magic, however, though I could be wrong. The disambiguation appears to be unnecessary. There is an article for What About Your Friends, but the Raven's Home episode is titled "What About Your Friends?" Notice the question mark. Not sure, though, if that's enough disambiguation from a discussion we've had in the past on something similar, though I don't remember the exact discussion. Amaury • 20:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

As it's a redirect, for something that is very unlikely to ever be an article, I'm inclined to just let it be – it should pop up if anybody tries to search for "What About Your Friends?". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

What is the general take on this, though? If you have separate articles from different categories (series, movie, song, etc.) titled "Zombies and Brains," "Zombies and Brains!" and "Zombies and Brains?" should all of those be disambiguated or is the punctuation sufficient? I can't remember where we've had this discussion before, though. I think maybe the 2018 series Magnum P.I., but I'm not sure. Amaury • 20:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

If it was an actual article, I'm not sure if the "?" would be considered sufficient disambiguation under WP:SMALLDETAILS or not – it would probably be worth having a WP:RM on the question to settle it... But, on this specific question, I am generally disinclined to move a redirect like this to a "base title", esp. in this case where it's unclear if the "?" is sufficient or not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Right, that part I understood and am fine with you leaving it be. I was just asking on a more general level. SMALLDETAILS is the guideline I was trying to remember. Amaury • 20:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Party of Five

Will need more watchers on this article. There is an IP that has now twice changed the cast order so that the main characters are ordered strictly by descending age ... in this case, placing Matthew Fox ahead of Scott Wolf, which goes against the show's credit order (Wolf, Fox, Neve Campbell, Lacey Chabert). I've issued a level 3 warning on the IP for disruptive editing. MPFitz1968 (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

108.20.196.98 and TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52

I don't remember the previous IP that did it (I think it was last year), but the "nee" vandal is back. Also, with regard to the latter, I am not sure what to do. They've gotten plenty of final warnings, it's not even funny. I tried reporting them once to AIAV, but action was obviously not taken. Magitroopa gave them yet another final warning not too long ago. Amaury • 18:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

PS: On another note, I am so disappointed with the results on Isabela Moner (I am still going to use and link to Moner) because people don't understand how things work. This isn't like J.J. Totah -> Josie Totah. That one makes sense for obvious reasons, as does Lady Gaga, but Isabela Moner has obviously not gone through what Josie Totah has and is nowhere near as famous as Lady Gaga—and I'm not saying the latter to be rude, just starting the facts—likewise for Breanna Yde, who's also nowhere that famous, which someone tried to move a long time ago. Amaury • 18:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Amaury: TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52 is a problematic editor. Most of the time, the editor is adding WP:SYNTH information. For example, adding number of episodes for the season and the season finale date using The Futon Critic, but The Futon Critic for series still have "??? episodes" next to the current season and it also did not state the season finale date. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The later was previously blocked by Admin Drmies. If they persist with the disruptive editing (and what they are doing clearly looks like exactly that to me), then that's where I would go, rather than WP:AIV (which is hit or miss). Otherwise, I would take it to WP:ANI (where the odds of success are even lower than AIV). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

List of Hunter Street episodes

I'm contemplating merging this back into the main article, and this is taking into account the fourth season that is supposedly coming at some point. While it meets the metrics to be a standalone episode list—split when second season information is available (and it's clearly past that), which I still follow, or the series has at least 40 episodes (two seasons' worth of episodes), which it clearly is and is what you follow more—there are no episode summaries. And it seems apparent no one's interested in adding them. Thoughts? Amaury • 19:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Amaury: Without more extensive episode summaries, for every episode of the series, I would advise merging the contents to List of Hunter Street episodes to the Hunter Street (TV series) article, yes. The one caveat is this supposed fourth season (that may or may not exist) – if the airing of a fourth season comes to pass, and it ends up being another 20–30 episodes, then that would tend to justify leaving a separate LoE article... So, with that in mind, I would wait some time (until summer?) before carrying out any potential merge. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Kelly (Australian TV series) copyvio tag

Hi! I noticed you added the potential copyvio tag back in 2019. I can't seem to track down the source; do you think you could remember where you suspected it came from? Thanks in advance and kind regards, Sennecaster (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sennecaster: According to the diff of my edit, I suspected the series' 'Plot' summary may have been taken from IMDb. If it was not, the tag can be removed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, though I have a feeling that IMDb may have been the one to copy us... The majority of the wiki plot summary is from 2008, and it doesn't seem to copy or even close para on inspection. Thanks for tagging though! Sennecaster (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hm...

This seems suspicious. Just a bit. A random IP randomly showing up at a discussion that's been closed for ages? And either way, they clearly didn't read, as just like the other discussions we've had a bazillion times, such as with Zoey 101, Henry Danger, Bella and the Bulldogs, Best Friends Whenever, Game Shakers, etc., Amazon and iTunes sells the episodes in question for this and the series mentioned above as single episodes. That's what we go by. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about that. We're not just arbitrarily doing stuff. If these were two separate episodes that just aired back-to-back for the premiere, Amazon and iTunes would sell them as two separate episodes, like they do for Andi Mack's series premiere, which was actually two episodes aired back-to-back for the premiere, but for all of these other series, they don't sell them as such and sell them as a single episodes. Therefore, they're single episodes, whether it's this, "Sky Whale," "Cyd and Shelby Strike Back," or what have you. Amaury • 17:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion, for what it's worth. Regardless of the IP's legitimacy, there had been no comments since December 18, so the discussion was clearly over and the result was clear that the current way is correct. Reviving the discussion was pointless. Amaury • 17:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Young Rock

I have seen every episode since the beginning. Why are you trying to refrain me from making changes. It was the mistakes I was fixing and I already explained in my last edit that the main cast bill is not correct.2603:9500:A003:9D00:94A6:1606:BEC1:2792 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, let's see: You're just coming off a year-long block from which you have seemed to learn nothing, nearly all of the edits you have been doing are wrong, I've now already fixed the one correct thing you did... oh, and you've been edit warring over these wrong edits to boot!... If you actually want to stick around this time, you're actually going to have to discuss the changes you are trying to make, and you're going to have to realize that a lot of them are going to be rejected based on the content of your recent edits. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Hello, I'm Kp2016rockin. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, ICarly (upcoming TV series), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. kpgamingz (rant me) 16:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, the "Day of Fools"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful isn't it? (Except when the IP users ruins the fun with vandals) kpgamingz (rant me) 16:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User:‎Historyday01

I'm scratching my head on their edits at both Chicken Girls [3] and Cobra Kai [4], changing the classification of them both from streaming series to either web series or no adjective at all in front of "series". I remember there being some discussion somewhere regarding use of "web series", and perhaps deprecating it, but not sure where. Anyway, are those edits correct terminology? MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

They reverted themselves at Cobra Kai [5]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've put web series back at Chicken Girls – it meets all the definitions for that. I would not consider it a "streaming series" like Cobra Kai. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Finally made some progress...

I am fully caught up with Raven's Home. Only a million more things to go: All of the 2020 premieres for Disney Channels sans Raven's Home, of course, and the very first 2020 episode of Gabby Duran & the Unsittables, most of the 2020 episodes for Nickelodeon (I watched through January for Henry Danger), and most of the 2020 episodes for the broadcast networks: both the comedies and dramas. This is going to take forever. Add: And obviously the 2021 premieres to date. Amaury • 03:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Jade Pettyjohn

Hello. Is there anything wrong with the info box I added there? Thanks. Martinc1994 (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes – Infoboxes should not be implemented at articles "just because other articles have them". Infoboxes should only be added when there's enough content to summarize that use of Infobox is justified. Currently, use of one at Jade Pettyjohn is not justified because there's not enough info to summarize to justify one. IOW, most Stub and "short-Start" class (BLP) articles will not need, and do not justify, having an Infobox. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Please stop reverting me for no reason.

You were incorrect and I showed you that.Simonrankin (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Simonrankin: Yeah, that's not how it works at all. "I am right!" gets you nothing on Wikipedia, outside "style guides" hold no sway here, and edit warring can get you blocked. I advise you review WP:Bold, revert, discuss, and please self-revert in the meantime. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

For the fourth time now, it's right here. Please stop making mistakes and edit warring. That can get you blocked.Simonrankin (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Which part of "outside "style guides" hold no sway here" do you not understand? Which part of "you should discuss when you are reverted" do you not understand? And which part of claiming ""I am right!" gets you nothing on Wikipedia" is unclear? But, please, keep up with how you've been going – you won't last long around here. P.S. If you have nothing more to add than more of the same, then please don't post on my Talk page any longer – I will simply revert you if you're just going to keep going with the "I am right!" stuff. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll leave this to you. Amaury • 16:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Not for an article I don't care about. But once again clearly an incorrect interpretation of the MOS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Ooh. Double negatives, I should report you for that. Add: Likewise, though. I only have in on my list from reverting the user. Amaury • 16:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Amaury and Geraldo Perez: Simonrankin now appears to be block evading while editing as a logged out IP: 142.165.85.254. Geolocates to Regina, Sask., Canada. Please keep an eye out for this – if they keep it up, we should report the IP to AIV as block evasion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Update: IP has continued to EW, so I have reported the IP to AIV as block evasion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

There's an interesting pattern here, in which they revert at least six times on one page, before moving down the list to continue their disruption at other pages they disrupted as their now blocked account. Amaury • 01:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, IJBall. So we were correct that the named account was a sockpuppet, it was just of a different user. See User:Simonrankin, which an admin recently created with an SPI tag. Amaury • 01:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting – Cebr1979 used to frequent soap opera articles where I ran across them before (but where I managed not to trigger their WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior). The recent activity bears no resemblance to that. I have to assume the checkusers know what they're doing, and the IP's listed at the LTA page all do geolocate to Canada, so I guess it fits. But this surprises me... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

To update: another IP in the same recent range, 142.165.85.41, has now been blocked as well. I have also requested semi-protection for all three articles at WP:RfPP because Cebr1979 does not look to be Dropping the stick and walking away from this. (Interesting that at least one other editor also reverted Cebr on the same grounds of MOS:DATERANGE – it's good to see that other editors agree on the common sense of this!) Anyway, we'll need to continue to keep an eye out on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Add 207.47.182.57 to the "IP sock of Cebr1979" list. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this going to be the new Orchomen? Amaury • 18:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Worse – Cebr1979 has been around a long time, and has an unbelievable WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality: they are incapable of dropping the stick. This will basically be "whack a mole" until all of the IP holes are plugged. Orchomen, by contrast, operates in furious bursts, but doesn't seem to stick around much, and has been gone for a whole now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Curious question

If you were in charge of a network—let's say, for argument's sake, Nickelodeon—unlike what most networks do, I'm sure you would be fair and give each currently running series a fair amount of airtime in terms of repeats while the series is airing. My question is, once the series ends, how long would you continue to air repeats of the series? Two years, five years, et cetera? And would you treat each former series the same or would it depend on the series? Regardless of the answer to the previous question, would you air repeats of former series during the day or more during the late night to early morning hours (say, 11:00 PM to 6:00 AM) to allow for repeats of currently airing series during the day? Amaury • 23:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to think about this in terms of TeenNick, which is actually the channel I watch for Nick stuff. Nick itself doesn't seem to rerun stuff very long (outside of SpongeBob which they rerun far too much, and maybe a few other animated shows), which I'm not sure is smart. (But they know SB reruns get ratings, so, whatever...) In the case of TeenNick, I wish they kept some stuff longer – they've basically stopped running shows from the 2000s (except for the occasional Drake & Josh), which is too bad as the channel could definitely use more variety (esp. on weekends), and I'd love to see something like Ned's Declassified... again. But TeenNick doesn't seem to run anything pre-Victorious these days, outside of iCarly (which they also over-rerun). Of course, the other issue is the stuff they don't rerun, like Knight Squad (I still don't understand why TeenNick never reran the second season of this! it's very frustrating). But they rerun a lot of Henry Danger, some Thundermans and Game Shakers, and they've now started airing some of the new shows like Danger Force, Side Hustle, and even Drama Club and The Barbarian and the Troll, which I appreciate as I wouldn't see these otherwise... So, anyway, I'd like to see them rerun even older stuff, esp. so they aren't running iCarly all the time as they seem to these days. But I think streaming and Paramount has killed any chance of this, unfortunately. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

List of episodes/characters articles

This doesn't seem to be on all of them, as it's not there, or at least not as noticeable, on List of Henry Danger episodes, but it does appear to be there on the majority of pages. Have you noticed that extra whitespace is appearing now between where it says "a list-class article..." (or whatever type of class it is) and the first thing of prose? See, for example, List of Henry Danger characters and List of Bunk'd episodes. The parent articles appear to be unaffected and have the normal amount of spacing between the two aforementioned things. Amaury • 17:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Amaury: Clearly some technical issue going on. I just looked at the beginning part of List of Austin & Ally episodes along with List of Bunk'd episodes, and there is probably side-effects from template interaction. The two articles have two identical templates at the beginning before the prose ... {{Short description}} and {{Italic title}} ... but the Austin & Ally one has {{Use mdy dates}} in between, and that LoE doesn't have the extra whitespace, while the Bunk'd one does. I did notice the {{Short description}} content was recently edited [6]; I wonder if that's the problem. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone reported this yet? It is still an issue as of this morning, and if a template editor messed up, that should be reported back to them to fix this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

So...

Disney Fam Jam, in my opinion, for all intents and purposes, is basically Nickelodeon's version of Lip Sync Battle Shorties. Now, obviously, there are some differences.

Lip Sync Battle Shorties:

• Two hosts
• Three groups, featuring only children, competing against each other
• Three performances, with more emphasis on lip syncing
• Four featured songs—three for each performance and one as a closing song to the program
• A closing song, as mentioned above
• Special guests at the end of the program
• Two short seasons—10 episodes each

I'm not including the pilot here, which was double-length and had four performances and five featured songs, if I recall correctly. I can't remember 100% if the pilot had a closing song or if all five songs featured were for performances, but regardless, I'm not including the pilot in the above.

Disney Fam Jam

• Three hosts
• Two families competing against each other
• Two performances, with more emphasis on dancing
• Three featured songs—one at the beginning during a practice routine, with both families dancing to the selected song, and two for both performances, with both families dancing separately to their respective songs
• No closing song is used—it's just the program's theme music
• No special guests at the end of the program
• Regular-sized season for the first season—19 episodes

Matador Content produces both, so that may explain part of it. The latter even features some of the same songs from the former. On another note, I'm going to guess that there's an unaired pilot for Disney Fam Jam, as there's an episode with production code 120, but only 19 episodes aired in the first season. Amaury • 06:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:75.118.112.126 reported by User:Amaury (Result: ). Thank you. Amaury • 15:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

And Magitroopa. Amaury • 15:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Olivia Rodrigo

I corrected the recently added photo's formatting per our norms, though I question if the photo is fair use/attributed properly. Geraldo Perez? Amaury • 00:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Thanks! Amaury • 00:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for making the format of the author's names in Olivia Rodrigo's references consistent, as they were not consistent before I edited the article. Would you also like to make the date formats and italicization of Billboard consistent? I'm happy to help if you like. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Just remember that if you're going to do edits like this, you need to check the article's earliest revisions to make sure you're not running afoul of WP:DATERET and WP:CITEVAR – it's an easy step to forget: lot's of editors, even veteran ones, do forget to check (myself included, sometimes)... Feel free to fix Billboard. As for the date formats, they should now display in the RETAIN'ed format, so it may be less important to go through and actually change the refs to match what's displayed – it's up to you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It seemed that most references in the article were using last/first format, so it's possible that a change in consensus had been achieved per WP:CITEVAR prior to my edit. My goal was to have a consistent style per WP:CITESTYLE. I've fixed Billboard. However, some reference dates display in MDY format, while others display in YYYY-MM-DD format. GoingBatty (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, no, not without a discussion, esp. because the reference scripts default to last/first author format and can only be changed from that "manually" and most editors don't pay attention to any of that. And, yes – for refs, 'date' in MDY format, and 'access-date' YYYY-MM-DD format, is specifically allowed (see MOS:DATEUNIFY) and several of us do that on purpose because the most important part of the date feature of 'access-date' is when a ref was last updated which means year is the most important part of the date for that... But, bottom line, you shouldn't change any of this without discussion as per WP:DATERET and WP:CITEVAR – original article editors get to choose the formats, and those shouldn't be changed without a strong consensus to do so. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Will need more eyes here. Doggy's edit was fine at a second look, but the article is literally titled SOUR, all in caps, so any links should be as such. WP:NOTBROKEN complete applies, so MaranoFan's edit was incorrect, and I believe you've reverted them before for different reasons at, I believe, this article. Amaury • 19:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, it was all in caps before C.Fred moved it, which I just noticed. As such, I will now digress here as I trust C. Fred's judgment. Amaury • 19:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Amaury, chill with the extreme overreaction. The album is called Sour (the flavor), not an abbreviation: "SOUR" . Your edit was incorrect and you reached three reverts, then came here to seek a tag-teamer instead of opening a discussion on the talk page. I assure you I am not the one who needs an eye kept on them. Get a grip.--NØ 19:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read my updated response above, you would have seen that I digress because I noticed the article had been moved. When I last looked at it, it was titled "SOUR." If you had mentioned that in your second to last edit at the article, we could have each avoided our last two edits. Amaury • 19:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Liv and Maddie

Pretty sure it's block evasion from Bambifan. Amaury • 08:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

New Cook PVIs

IJBall, please be advised that the updates to the Cook PVIs are because new Cook PVIs for 2021 have been released. They are not unexplained changes. Source: https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/pvi/introducing-2021-cook-political-report-partisan-voter-index Muhibm0307 (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Muhibm0307: OK, so why didn't anybody before you update the source, then? And why did no one indicate this in their edit summary?! (So, yes, they were "unexplained changes" in those earlier edits.) I mean, thank you for finally doing that, but none of the previous editors could be bothered, and WP:BURDEN isn't a trivial thing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Missing production companies

Wanted to send this over to you to get a closer peek at. I know aren't even listed on their respective pages for some reason (e.g. Raven's Home, Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn, Best Friends Whenever, Kickin' It, etc), but I always try to add them there and they keep getting reverted. Got some proof for you that they are ACTUAL production companies. I've put some CLG Wiki links so you can find these logos on which shows they appear on (See "Availability" on those respective pages). They aren't reliable source links though, but I wanted you to read this message before we can ACTUALLY put those companies on these shows' respective Wikipedia pages.

• November 13th (Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn, Raven's Home)
• Entertainment Force (Best Friends Whenever, Raven's Home)
• Institute for Individual Education (Raven's Home)
• Kushellivision (Fam)
• Poor Soul (Kickin' It, Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything)
• 37 Monkeys (Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything)
• CSMO (Bella and the Bulldogs)

2001:8003:1C6E:6200:39EE:EED5:CD93:63EC (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not enough that there be production cards in the end credits – at least some of those production cards are simply vanity labels for the showrunners and producers for the show, and are not actually "production companies" in any meaningful way. The companies parameter in the Infobox is only supposed to list companies that are actually involved in the production of the show (i.e. those that actually fund production) – in general, these will be the ones mentioned in reliable source coverage on the production of the TV show. But that does not include "vanity labels" for some of the producers of the show. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The "Institute for Individual Education" is a good example of a vanity label – its description even says: "This is the production company of comedian and comedy writer, Warren Hutcherson." Your link for "Entertainment Force" even says, "This is the vanity card of Jed Elinoff and Scott Thomas. " These are not a real production companies in the way that CBS Television Studios or It's a Laugh Productions are. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply dude! The words "vanity card" and "production company" are technically nouns (I don't know how to explain that more properly), but I understand what you're actually talking about.

Now that I think of your Institute for Individual Education example above, I feel like we should put that company in the infobox on the Raven's Home page. However, I am debatable whether we also put the Entertainment Force and November 13th companies in there yet, since they were actually involved on that series. (though you already discussed about Entertainment Force's "vanity card" description in that link on your reply above)

And on topic of the November 13th company, the description in that link also says "This is the production company of Michael Feldman, creator of Nicky, Ricky, Dicky and Dawn and a former head writer and executive producer of Sonny with a Chance." Michael created said show, but I feel like if we're gonna even add that company to the infobox on that article, we should actually put "Productions" at the end, so that we can tell it's an actual production company involved in that series, and that we don't get it confused for the real date itself.

However, I don't really know about putting the other production companies in (Poor Soul for Kickin' It and Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything, 37 Monkeys for Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything, CSMO for Bella and the Bulldogs, etc) for now, but we might come back and discuss more about that in the future.

2001:8003:1C6E:6200:39EE:EED5:CD93:63EC (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

On the animation side, does Omation count as a vanity label for founder Steve Oedekerk or an actual production company. You be the judge.

I have a question into Template talk:Infobox television about this – I do know that not every vanity card matters. What I am less clear about is vanity cards to actual creator/showrunners (e.g. Entertainment Force) – I'm not sure if these count or not (or when they do and when they don't)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

When there is no "Productions" at the end of the name—for example, Entertainment Force—then it's very possible it's just a vanity label, as IJBall mentions. In that case, you need to look for secondary sources that confirm if something without "Productions" at the end of the name is a production company or not, as IJBall also pointed out. But when there is "Productions" at the end of the name—for example, That’s Not So Funny Productions—then it's clearly a production company and the primary source—the credits—is sufficient. For a related discussion, see User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 14#Recently added production companies to Stuck in the Middle and Andi Mack. Amaury • 18:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Amaury for your message. Seen that discussion in my spare time. 2001:8003:1C6E:6200:1470:FB2A:C582:F0D1 (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've been waiting for someone to comment at Template talk:Infobox television#'Company' parameter question, but so far nobody has bothered... I agree that some of these are more than "vanity cards". For example, Shondaland is listed at Grey's Anatomy and Mutant Enemy is listed at Buffy the Vampire Slayer. And I looked it up – Ref 42, which is Variety, actually actually mentions "Diphthong Prods." and "Entertainment Force". This makes me thinks that labels for show creators/showrunners are non-trivial and should be listed in most cases, regardless of whether the word "Production" is in their title or not. So, I now think that "Entertainment Force" should be included at Best Friends Whenever – if it's good enough for Variety it should be good enough for us.

In the absence of more guidance from WP:TV, I think we are going to have to fall back on "sourcing" – if a source like Variety mentions it, it should be included under the company parameter. But if no WP:RS mentions one of the cards from the end credits, then it is a vanity card, and should be ignored. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hunter Street season 4

Also Amaury- Obviously we still have no word/clue on what is going on with the series in the US, but it appears to be premiering season 4 in the UK on April 19. The full first episode of season 4 (labelled as a 'sneak peek') is here. Can't view it in the US, but I have a Google Chrome VPN extension, so I am able to view it. Should be noted that the video is from the official (verified, checkmark and stuff) Nickelodeon UK YouTube channel.

From the description of the video: An Unexpected Guest: It’s summer, and Oliver and Anika have a whole new mystery on their hands – figuring out who their real dad is! But an unexpected guest and an invitation to a high-tech summer school sends them in a different direction.

Opening credits are included in the video as well-

• Starring Kyra Smith, Kate Bensdorp, and Eliyha Altena
• Created by Melle Runderkamp and Reint Schölvinck
• Produced by Rogier Visser, Frank Jan Horst, and Willem Zijlstra
• Head writer Diane Whitley
• Directed by Erwin Van Den Eshof

I've also recorded the very end of it credits if that proves to be useful, viewable here (no VPN needed for this).

Hope this is all helpful... Magitroopa (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems like this is the promo for season 4 as well. Magitroopa (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Per recent reverts to the article, MPFitz1968 as well. Magitroopa (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

My take? Nothing on this should be added to the article unless secondary sourcing for it can be found. So that means finding a British source or sources announcing/confirming the premiere in the UK – that will be tough. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Not sure where it is in terms of reliability/trustworthiness, but could Radio Times be possible, as in this? Currently lists the first four episodes ("An Unexpected Guest", "Babies, Bunnies and Beards", "Sally Hunter", and "Quantum Problems and Dead Ends") for April 19-22. My only other idea would be using the Amazon UK page if/when the new episodes are added- though I would think the 'sneak peek' I had mentioned from the official Nickelodeon UK YouTube channel would work (the description also says, "Catch season 4 of Hunter Street, from Monday 19th April, on Nickelodeon!"...) Magitroopa (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Radio Times is UK's "TV Guide" – that's a primary source in my book, unless it's actually an article on the show. What I'd like to see is an actual article (secondary source) on season #4 and its premiere. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah... that's indeed the tough part of this. Will note that I found (I believe) the website for Blooming Media, the production company behind the series, with some information (here and here).

Most notably:

• "Aired in more than 120 countries – Fourth season in pre-production!"
• "Stay tuned for the fourth season that is in development right now!"
• "Blooming at work during the Covid19 pandemic – As most companies find themselves dealing with the worldwide corona lockdowns at this moment, Blooming managed to create a doable workflow in full respect of the current strict corona regulations, having allowed us to shoot our new season (4) of the Nickelodeon International hitseries Hunter Street in the past months. More productions are scheduled for shooting in the coming months..."

But yeah, in terms of secondary sourcing, the only things I've been able to find are fan-posts on social media, or articles from NickALive, which is very much WP:NOTRS. Only other possibility would be the show premiering here and getting some articles on it through the US premiere, but seems pretty unlikely with how it moved to TeenNick and its very minimal advertising/promotions. Magitroopa (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

IJBall, Magitroopa: The recent IP who's been blocked for edit warring and personal attacks may be a sockpuppet. All of their edits are to Hunter Street, except their very first one, which was to List of WWE personnel, which seemed familiar, and then I remembered the disruption on Hunter Street back in March by User:WWE and NFL superfan: Interaction report. Coincidence? Chances of that seem very low. Amaury • 19:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

And the recent revert on the talk page confirms my suspicions. Amaury • 19:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not the same person the hunter street stuff in March I let go of even though I did see that it is coming on April 19 in the UK I am not editing anything. The only reason I reverted the talk page on the hunter street talk was because I just didn’t understand why the thing was removed with the only reason being the person was blocked I just didn’t get why. user:WWE and NFL superfan • 4:12, April 13 2021 — Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Then you were deliberately not paying attention, because I specifically quoted the WP:NPA section of WP:TPO when I reverted your talk page post. It didn't escape my notice that you then removed the PA's before restoring that post. But I don't think we're buying your professed innocence here, because it definitely looks like you deliberately edited while logged out in order to WP:EW... Regardless, after your behavior on the Hunter Street talk page, I don't want you around my Talk page, so please don't respond here anymore unless asked to. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately don't think I've been able to find any secondary sourcing so far, but if nothing was cancelled last-minute (like Nickelodeon does in the US... sigh...), then season 4 premiered yesterday in the UK. Only 'possibly' helpful links I've been able to find are this tweet from NickelodeonUK, advertising the full first episode of season 4 on their YT channel, and this website with listings from Sky UK- though I think that would be similar to the Radio Times link, acting as a primary source. Magitroopa (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Also just found a few more links- Tweets from writers of the show ([7] [8] [9]) (unverified accounts, so WP:NOTRS- thought I'd mention them anyways just in case), website listings from Now (Sky), and possibly the closest I've been able to find for a secondary source, this link from Micheline Steinberg Associates. Magitroopa (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: As it's after April 19 now, I think we're stuck using Radio Times and the Nick UK tweet as sources. It would be nice to get an "after the fact" source to confirm that it actually aired, but if there isn't one (yet) there isn't one... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)