User talk:Amaury/2019/August
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Amaury. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
User LTPHarry
Please don't accuse users of being socks without explanation! It isn't very nice. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- This user has been blocked on another account before as a confirmed sock and has known WP:DE issues, regardless. An explanation is not required when dealing with socks, especially LTAs. Not saying this one is necessarily an LTA, but it's why reverting socks is exempt from 3RR. Amaury • 21:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours due to edit warring and casting aspersions
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)- So straight to a block without warning or attempt to discuss. That's just wonderful. This seems punitive considering the time between the edit and time of block. Amaury • 03:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- So you don't classify LTPHarry's comments OR Rockstone's comments above as warnings or attempts to discuss? You don't consider an ANI discussion an attempt to discuss? You might have been able to avoid a "block" (and it's 24 hours; it's not 2 weeks or anything major) if you'd offered any explanation at all instead of reverting. pbp 05:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Purplebackpack89: Except the main instigator who wanted some action on me is an IP with only three edits. No "newbie" IP just happens to know about ANI, let alone how it works. Give me one diff that shows I received any sort of official warning from an administrator or an attempt for discussion from an administrator or even some sort of warning in general from anybody, because I don't see any. Add: And the block length is beside the point. It could have been one hour, and it would be the same thing. A block was the first go-to when there were no official warnings or attempts to discuss from an administrator. I have respect for all administrators, but this is honestly a bad block. I essentially have a clean record, so it makes no sense to go straight to a block. Amaury • 05:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- You could apppeal the remaining eight hours. pbp 15:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Purplebackpack89: Thank you kindly for the suggestion. Amaury • 15:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- You could apppeal the remaining eight hours. pbp 15:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Purplebackpack89: Except the main instigator who wanted some action on me is an IP with only three edits. No "newbie" IP just happens to know about ANI, let alone how it works. Give me one diff that shows I received any sort of official warning from an administrator or an attempt for discussion from an administrator or even some sort of warning in general from anybody, because I don't see any. Add: And the block length is beside the point. It could have been one hour, and it would be the same thing. A block was the first go-to when there were no official warnings or attempts to discuss from an administrator. I have respect for all administrators, but this is honestly a bad block. I essentially have a clean record, so it makes no sense to go straight to a block. Amaury • 05:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- So you don't classify LTPHarry's comments OR Rockstone's comments above as warnings or attempts to discuss? You don't consider an ANI discussion an attempt to discuss? You might have been able to avoid a "block" (and it's 24 hours; it's not 2 weeks or anything major) if you'd offered any explanation at all instead of reverting. pbp 05:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Amaury/2019 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
While I know I've been blocked before, that was way back in 2010, so I essentially have a clean record—or had until this recent block. Given that, while I have absolutely no problem with the administrator themselves, I believe this was a bad block, and it should not have been made. There were no official warnings or attempts to discuss from an administrator on either of the reasons given for the block—there weren't even any warnings in general, just a notice that I had a report filed against me at ANI—and given the time yesterday between my last related edit and the block—1:13 PM and 3:53 PM (PT), respectively—I feel that this block, regardless, is punitive, not preventative. Once the other editor started a talk page discussion on Descendants, I was discussing the issue. From what I've seen in the past, almost all administrators would be happy with that and just give editors warnings. Given my good-standing here, I just feel that a block is too extreme, when I could have just gotten a stern warning. Amaury • 15:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- @Bbb23: A personalized decline message would be far, far more helpful than a generic template decline message. In any case, the block is not needed to prevent damage or disruption. I explained all in the request. Amaury • 15:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
BTW, Amaury, I'm starting to believe that you are correct that 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:A4EE:4873:FD0E:E744 is a sock, per the DUCK test. However, you went about dealing with him in the wrong manner. pbp 20:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Amaury! I was quite bummed to read the ANI discussion and the block that your actions got you tangled into. I know you to be a very experienced and knowledgeable editor, and I know that this bump in the road is something you'll learn and move on from. I just wanted to send you a message to welcome you back, to encourage you to take what happened, self-reflect on ways that you can avoid this pitfall in the future, and apply it moving forward. I understand how easy it is to get caught up in the "sock puppet alert" mentality and how it can lead one to make assumptions as soon as you see something. I find myself doing it once in awhile, too... I'm sending you a message of understanding, compassion, and encouragement. If you need someone to talk to, please know that my user talk page is always open to you, and you're welcome there any time you'd like. Keep up the excellent work, take what happened as a learning opportunity, and move forward. We can do nothing about the past, but we can look forward and focus on the future. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: Thank you. Without commenting on my actions directly, I still feel the block was unwarranted, as there was no immediate need to prevent disruption. (See my comments above, especially regarding discussing the issue on that article's talk page.) And given my virtually clean history (my last block was back in 2010, which is considered a lifetime on Wikipedia, from what I've been told, and I've been editing without any major issues since 2012), why was there no warning first or invitation to comment from the blocking administrator? I'm sorry, I just don't think a block from the get-go was the right call without being given a chance from an administrator to comment and/or apologize, if needed. And I would say this about anybody in similar situations, not just me. But the block is over now, though I no longer have a clean record. I guess just forget about it and keep moving forward, right? Amaury • 05:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear of such frustration, and I'd probably be left feeling the same way if I hadn't been given the opportunity to explain or discuss the matter first. It's amazing what can be accomplished by simply leaving a note on someone's talk page and talking to them directly about the issues going on. This is part of the reason why I left you this message... I know that the situation wasn't pleasant for anyone (including yourself, of course), and I'm sorry that it happened. Please know that my message here encouraging you to look ahead to the future and take this as a "bump in the road" was certainly not meant to imply that your thoughts and feelings didn't matter, nor imply that situations and actions that occurred shouldn't be discussed and efforts taken to improve such discussions in the future. Nobody on Wikipedia has a "clean record"... lol. I may not have something legitimate in my block log, but many editors can vouch for me when I say that I've made more than my fair share of mistakes and bad decisions over the years that I've been here. Hell, my RFA almost went down the drain-hole due to issues that weren't in my block log. A block log obviously is important to keep clean, but in the end, if someone like me is a shitty editor and makes bad choices, a clean block log isn't going to do me a lick of good. ;-) Like I said earlier, I'm here and I'm available if you need help with anything, or if you need someone to talk to. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you need or want to. It's good to have you back... take things one step at a time, and it'll become a thing of the past in no time at all. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: I did not mean to imply that you implied that. You're one of the few who actually listened to me rather than just blocking me as the first line of "defense" or declining my unblock request with a generic template. That's my other concern. I have nothing at all against Bbb23, but they declined my request with nothing more than a generic template decline. First, I believe any legitimate unblock request deserves a personalized decline message if it's declined. The generic ones should only be used for illegitimate ones. In other words, ones that are just nothing but complaining, like: "I DID NOTHING WRONG UNBLOCK ME NOW1111..." Second, Bbb23 was quick to decline the unblock request, but never responded to my reply, and I can tell they've been active since declining my unblock request, so that's just a little disconcerting. Again, nothing personal against them, just that they were quick to decline, but not reply to me. Amaury • 06:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't think that your response implied that you believed that my message was doing such; I just wanted to make it clear in case it may have. :-) Yeah, that would upset me too. I believe that your unblock request deserved a legitimate look and a legitimate response. Had you just said in your unblock request that you understood and wouldn't continue (or something like that), it would've been enough for me to advocate unblocking you. I know that it's not something you'd do given this situation and how it was handled, but that's generally how I handle such requests... I give users the benefit of the doubt and I just unblock them. What's the worst that could happen? It continues, and I have to block them again. Big deal... plus, if anything, we know for sure that the user can't be trusted with their promises and their words. :-) I'm sometimes seen as the admin whose too lenient or assumes good faith a lot, but I say that it's a hell of a lot better than being seen the other way... as an admin who assumes bad faith, is a strict tight-ass that nobody likes, and someone that the community secretly does not respect. Admins (just like any user) have to earn the respect and support of the community with their actions and their words, and they have to show that they can be trusted, appreciated, and given respect. It's not automatic, as if being an admin makes you a god amongst men. That's the problem that many face when they're put into the role. They know how to push the buttons and take the appropriate actions, but they don't have diddly-squat for experience being a leader and someone who motivates and earns that respect... :-/ ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: I did not mean to imply that you implied that. You're one of the few who actually listened to me rather than just blocking me as the first line of "defense" or declining my unblock request with a generic template. That's my other concern. I have nothing at all against Bbb23, but they declined my request with nothing more than a generic template decline. First, I believe any legitimate unblock request deserves a personalized decline message if it's declined. The generic ones should only be used for illegitimate ones. In other words, ones that are just nothing but complaining, like: "I DID NOTHING WRONG UNBLOCK ME NOW1111..." Second, Bbb23 was quick to decline the unblock request, but never responded to my reply, and I can tell they've been active since declining my unblock request, so that's just a little disconcerting. Again, nothing personal against them, just that they were quick to decline, but not reply to me. Amaury • 06:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear of such frustration, and I'd probably be left feeling the same way if I hadn't been given the opportunity to explain or discuss the matter first. It's amazing what can be accomplished by simply leaving a note on someone's talk page and talking to them directly about the issues going on. This is part of the reason why I left you this message... I know that the situation wasn't pleasant for anyone (including yourself, of course), and I'm sorry that it happened. Please know that my message here encouraging you to look ahead to the future and take this as a "bump in the road" was certainly not meant to imply that your thoughts and feelings didn't matter, nor imply that situations and actions that occurred shouldn't be discussed and efforts taken to improve such discussions in the future. Nobody on Wikipedia has a "clean record"... lol. I may not have something legitimate in my block log, but many editors can vouch for me when I say that I've made more than my fair share of mistakes and bad decisions over the years that I've been here. Hell, my RFA almost went down the drain-hole due to issues that weren't in my block log. A block log obviously is important to keep clean, but in the end, if someone like me is a shitty editor and makes bad choices, a clean block log isn't going to do me a lick of good. ;-) Like I said earlier, I'm here and I'm available if you need help with anything, or if you need someone to talk to. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you need or want to. It's good to have you back... take things one step at a time, and it'll become a thing of the past in no time at all. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Now that the flick has aired, the next order of business here, aside from a 'Plot' section, is to add a 'Casting' section, and move of all of the casting sources from the 'Cast' section to the new 'Casting' section. Just sayin'... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Haven't seen it yet, but will get it when I do. Had 4:00-10:00 work. Amaury • 07:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- P.S. That probably also means dropping everyone below China Anne McClain from the "Cast list" – they can either be mentioned in a paragraph below the list, as is done at some film articles, or they can simply be mentioned in the 'Casting' section only. (On my end, I only finished watching it about 15 minutes ago!!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Except I think I saw a promo today that might have had Stony Blyden. I only saw the promo once, so I can't be sure... But I think it showed an older Stony Blyden. But no sign of the other two yet (and I find that really odd in Maemae Renfrow's case, as she shows no work on IMDb since S2...). Still, in a case where people only seem to be credited for the episodes they appear in, I'm not sure we need to record "absences" in this situation anyway. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just saw the promo again – now I'm not sure that it's Blyden. It may not be (the clips are too quick to be sure...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've now seen (another?) promo – it's not Blyden, as it's a new character with another name. In fact, it seems like they've introduced a new male teen character and a new female teen character to basically "replace" Blyden and Renfrow – I do not approve...
--IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC) - We've got a problem here – I just saw an episode, and it doesn't appear that Wilson Radjou-Pujalte is "main cast" credited at the start of episodes even for those episode he appears in. The main/front-credited cast is now just 3: Smith, Creyghton, and Bensdorp. OTOH, it looks like Jake does appear in the "title sequence" for the show (along with "Oliver" and "Jasmyn", who haven't even appeared yet, AFAICT!). So I'm inclined to change Radjou-Pujalte from "(season 2–present)" to "(main season 2; recurring season 3)". But this situation is really weird – we may need to start a Talk page discussion on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- BTW, I confirmed this last night – Radjou-Pujalte is listed as "Co-starring" in the episode's end-credits (along with the actors who play the Hunter parents). So I'm going to go ahead and make the change to the article I suggested above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: That's some weird cast changes there, with only three main cast, especially for a series like this. (PS: May check the Disney XD templates as well. Same IP stuff there. I'm trying to not get too into those things right now.) Amaury • 17:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- You may want to do what I just did at the Nick templates. But I would say consensus is definitely in favor of keeping the inter-template links. However, I think consensus is probably also in favor of ultimately deleting all of the "former programming" templates – if these aren't taken to WP:TfD now, I may wait until Gonnym gets back, and take them to TfD myself. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall:
Done. Amaury • 17:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall:
- You may want to do what I just did at the Nick templates. But I would say consensus is definitely in favor of keeping the inter-template links. However, I think consensus is probably also in favor of ultimately deleting all of the "former programming" templates – if these aren't taken to WP:TfD now, I may wait until Gonnym gets back, and take them to TfD myself. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@IJBall: The strange thing here is that unlike the second season, the new characters are appearing in the opening sequence in episodes before their official debut. @Geraldo Perez: How do we handle the problem here regarding Jake? See the opening sequence here, which clearly shows Jake; however, the problem, as IJBall stated above, is that his actor, Wilson Radjou-Pujalte, is not credited as starring, but rather as co-starring in the end credits, this series' term for guest stars. How do we handle this? We have conflicting info, with actor credits saying guest star/recurring for Wilson Radjou-Pujalte, but the character he portrays, Jake, appearing in the opening sequence linked earlier, meaning main character. Amaury • 04:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- The actor names are not shown in the opening sequence referenced, just the character names, so doesn't really count as opening credits, a credit being a mention of the actor, not the character. I suggest going with how the actor is credited. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@IJBall: You're already watching this, obviously, but I will need extra attention there. @Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: I'm going to need more eyes at the article. (And, even though there's currently no active disruption there, List of Hunter Street episodes probably wouldn't hurt, either.) IPs repeatedly removing the fact that Jake is recurring in the third season. Amaury • 16:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
It's been over a year since the last new episode of this one aired, so I've "called it", and put the end dates in. I'll leave it to you to update the lede at your leisure as you see fit... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll let you appraise the correctness of this edit... 
--IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Futon Critic recently updated with the August premieres for RMP. How does it work regarding 114? Up until now, none of the episodes have been separated into "1##A"/"1##B" for the series. Do they get added to the table separately like it is on Futon Critic in the A and B, or just put them in as one under "114" and give the airdate of the first (August 21) and maybe add a note saying the second part premiered on August 22? I haven't had this sort of scenario with a show until now. Magitroopa (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Magitroopa: Separate air dates; separate listings. Just like The Loud House or The Adventures of Kid Danger. Amaury • 02:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Need more eyes here – IP repeatedly adding unsourced content about her participation the forthcoming season of Fuller House (which won't be released until "late 2019"), violating WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Pinging Geraldo Perez as well. If it happens a couple of more times, semiprotection may be required. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Absolutely. Amaury • 18:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the listings on this page are a bit out of wack as of right now- production codes from Futon Critic are being used wrong (duplicate production codes are being used instead of combining or using "###A"/"###B" when necessary), since episodes are not being listed together, duplicate sources from Showbuzz Daily are being used throughout (viewership for the two 102's, the two 103's, and many more in the table), episodes are currently listed in production order instead of original broadcast order, as well as even listing the season number of episodes when there's only one season. That being said, I would love to clean this up. Only problem is, it is an Italian series (country of origin of series is Italy) being aired on Nickelodeon in the US. I have no clue if because origin country is not US that some rules don't apply, but thought I would give it a go anyways. Would love for you to check my sandbox for it to see if it is fine before editing up the main page already on Wikipedia. If the sandbox entry is good, I assume I can just copy/paste that and replace the current table in the main article? I think you're the right person to ask about this, but if I need to discuss/ask this somewhere else first, would love to be directed to the right place regarding this. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Please read the policy at WP:BRD-NOT carefully. WP:BRDREVERT says, "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle: If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted." Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Onus of discussion is not on me, it's on the two other editors and apparently now you as well. Amaury • 08:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- The policy literally states that the onus is on you if you have been reverted more than once. Please read the above message again. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Except I'm not the one who made the bold edit; therefore, WP:STATUSQUO applies and the previous version remains while discussion takes place and consensus is gained. You're going after the wrong user. I'm not the one who needs to read up on policies. For future reference, you may wish to actually check the article's history to determine who actually made the bold edit before just randomly saying that X user is the problem. Amaury • 08:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- You didn't make the bold edit, you made the revert, which is literally what I'm talking to you about. But for some strange reason, you keep justifying your BRD misuse and are now diverting the issue to make it seem like I'm somehow an incompetent editor. Clearly, you do need to "read up on policies", especially Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Toglenn was Bold[1], Toglenn was Reverted[2], Now Toglenn (and everyone else who's repeatedly adding the image back) needs to Discuss it...... The onus is on those who made a bold edit and were reverted to go to the talkpage and discuss it. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 15:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Nope. Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well that essay is horseshit and should be ignored in its entirety :). –Dave | Davey2010Talk 17:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Haha. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is cute. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Haha so is WP:THELASTWORD. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 18:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well, Zendaya didn't let her "feet-shamers have the last word". But maybe she'll let porno-shamers off easy, coz she loooooves bad boys who diss policy. ;) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- How old are you 5?, I'm going back to productive editing ... you should try it someday. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 19:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yessa massa. I do as massa says. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- How old are you 5?, I'm going back to productive editing ... you should try it someday. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 19:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well, Zendaya didn't let her "feet-shamers have the last word". But maybe she'll let porno-shamers off easy, coz she loooooves bad boys who diss policy. ;) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Haha so is WP:THELASTWORD. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 18:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Haha. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is cute. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well that essay is horseshit and should be ignored in its entirety :). –Dave | Davey2010Talk 17:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Nope. Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Toglenn was Bold[1], Toglenn was Reverted[2], Now Toglenn (and everyone else who's repeatedly adding the image back) needs to Discuss it...... The onus is on those who made a bold edit and were reverted to go to the talkpage and discuss it. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 15:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- You didn't make the bold edit, you made the revert, which is literally what I'm talking to you about. But for some strange reason, you keep justifying your BRD misuse and are now diverting the issue to make it seem like I'm somehow an incompetent editor. Clearly, you do need to "read up on policies", especially Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Except I'm not the one who made the bold edit; therefore, WP:STATUSQUO applies and the previous version remains while discussion takes place and consensus is gained. You're going after the wrong user. I'm not the one who needs to read up on policies. For future reference, you may wish to actually check the article's history to determine who actually made the bold edit before just randomly saying that X user is the problem. Amaury • 08:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- The policy literally states that the onus is on you if you have been reverted more than once. Please read the above message again. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
As you are familiar with guest vs recurring. — YoungForever(talk) 05:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ooh, yay! This discussion! Ping IJBall, because recurring is 5+ appearances. Amaury • 07:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @YoungForever: As I've said before, that's just a rule of thumb – the "cutoff number" varies based on the type of series, the number of episodes per season, and what the consensus is at the article. For some series (e.g. Famous in Love), the cutoff number needs to be large (e.g. 6 episodes) to avoid listing dozens of people. For other series, the cutoff number may be 5 episodes, or even 4. Personally, I don't like having the cutoff at 3 episodes, because even for "short-run series", 3 episodes is generally just a guest starring gig, and "recurring" means "multiple", and to me "multiple" is not 3 – it's at least "more than 3"... As for The Boys, the issue I see there is that the 'Guest' section is too "inclusive" – I'd cut August, Ingrita, and Demestre right now, and I'd discuss whether other relatively minor appearances (e.g. Brit Morgan, for one) should even be included... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @IJBall: This makes sense. Otherwise, the Recurring section would be clutter with cast and characters that appear from 1–3 episodes and the section is going to be incredibly long. — YoungForever(talk) 14:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- On another note: I honestly think there should be another discussion on MOS:TV to make it a bit more clear on guest and recurring as this seem to be an ongoing issue on TV series, editors tend even add cast and characters who only appear in 1–3 episodes on the recurring section including non-notable roles like the mailman, receptionist, or customer. — YoungForever(talk) 16:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @YoungForever: As I've said before, that's just a rule of thumb – the "cutoff number" varies based on the type of series, the number of episodes per season, and what the consensus is at the article. For some series (e.g. Famous in Love), the cutoff number needs to be large (e.g. 6 episodes) to avoid listing dozens of people. For other series, the cutoff number may be 5 episodes, or even 4. Personally, I don't like having the cutoff at 3 episodes, because even for "short-run series", 3 episodes is generally just a guest starring gig, and "recurring" means "multiple", and to me "multiple" is not 3 – it's at least "more than 3"... As for The Boys, the issue I see there is that the 'Guest' section is too "inclusive" – I'd cut August, Ingrita, and Demestre right now, and I'd discuss whether other relatively minor appearances (e.g. Brit Morgan, for one) should even be included... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Amaury/sandbox/Zombies 2
This could arguably be moved into Mainspace now (it technically meets WP:NFF, as filming has been completed, even if its lack of an "more exact" premiere date leaves it a little short on WP:TVSHOW...). But if you want to wait for a more specific release date, I would move it immediately upon that happening... However, in this case, I think we may need Admin help, or at least advice – currently, Zombies 2 is a redirect to Zombi 2. I'd argue that this deserves the Zombies 2 base title (we can always include a hatnote to Zombi 2...), but that's going to mean overwriting the current redirect, and even I as a page mover won't be able to do that. So you're going to need to think about which Admin you want to contact when you're ready to, and you'll need to explain all of this to them when you make the request. Just thinking ahead... --IJBall (contribs • talk)
- @IJBall: Looks like I'll need you. I made a small mess trying to do it myself. See my contribs. Amaury • 17:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem with the template is that the talk page hasn’t been touched in years and not many people would know how to view a template's talk page. Just saying, would you classify Pup Academy as acquired or original? Disney didn’t produce the series. Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I just saw a histmerge tag by IJBall that you already had a userspace draft for this. When the premiere date was announced and I couldn't find it in the main draftspace, I went ahead to create one. I should have probably checked with you guys first to see if there was some draft hidden somewhere; it might also be better to place drafts like these in the main draftspace for better visibility for anyone interested to collaborate. Starforce13 17:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Starforce13: I don't think it's a big deal in this case, as I think the WP:Histmerge should be pretty straightforward. And, yes – I've mentioned to Amaury that the advantage of Draftspace drafts is that they're "more visible" to other editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. Starforce13 19:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)