User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Geraldo Perez. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

→

Drewpalazzolo

Just something to be aware of. Last night I mass reverted this user's mass addition of unsourced distributors. The usual. When are people going to realize that the distributor is only for when there are DVD releases? One article doing it wrong does not set precedence for other articles. Amaury • 21:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Frozen 2

Hey Geraldo ~ nice to talk with you again ~ Can you tell me why I am unable to be automatically accepted ~ I was automatically accepted here ~ Thanks ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchellhobbs: You modified an version of the article that wasn't accepted so your edit wasn't accepted automatically. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ~ I thought I was demoted ~ LOL ~mitch~ (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Becky G

It's been there since Saturday, and I guess it would have been tagged by now if there were problems, but never hurts to check. 1) Are images like this in general okay to place there, or should there only be an image in the infobox? 2) Are there any WP:COPYVIO issues? Amaury • 15:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: COPYVIO issues aside, that image doesn't belong where it was placed. I kinda remember that image, or something similar to it, in the infobox at some point in the last few months to a year or so, and it's a relatively recent photo of her, definitely after 2011, the section the photo was placed in. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury and MPFitz1968: It is a free-use photo hosted on Commons that we can use anywhere we want based on editorial discretion. Photo description on photo file says extracted from a video that was dated 4 November 2017 so it does not belong in the 2011 section but could go in article in an appropriate place. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Geraldo and MPFitz1968: So, if there's consensus for it, that image would be most appropriate under the 1997–2011 section. Probably couldn't hurt to start a talk page discussion at Becky G, but what do you guys think? Should it be included? Amaury • 17:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: It is a 2017 image so would normally go in the 2016–2018: labeled section of the article. There is already a free-use 2016 image in that section that directly relates to something being covered in the text. Might add it towards the end of the section as it is a larger image and a bit later for her appearance at the time. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Derp. I think I misread both your and Michael's postings regarding the 2011 part. Amaury • 17:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to make any further tweaks if that doesn't seem right. Amaury • 17:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Sydney to the Max

I've got something weird going on here. The latest edit I made at 8:24 AM (PT) has caused the article to not show up on the Watchlist page, despite the article being watchlisted. Has this ever happened to you before? Amaury • 15:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

And now it's the same for your talk page, but I just did a test at AN, and it didn't happen. Amaury • 15:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: I've never seen that. I suspect a caching problems with the page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Your page has shown up again, now that you replied, but will likely disappear after I reply. So whatever it is, it's a problem on my end. Add: Your page did not disappear. Now the next time me or somebody else edits Sydney to the Max, it should show back up. Amaury • 16:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: I'm hoping this is not related to the problems that I've been occasionally seeing on the watchlist for what appears like months now, where it's not marking edits I have looked at as "read". And it's happening again going thru my watchlist just now. Sooo annoying! (I remember replying to you on the topic at village pump regarding that problem back in March, I think.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

List of The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius episodes

I can't assess this series of edits, so I'll leave it up to you... I'm guessing they are suspect, but you probably have a better idea than I do... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Cat question

Re: this edit at Siena Agudong – would that be considered to be a redundant category with Category:People from Kauai, or is it a legit category to add in its own right?... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: Category:People from Kauai is not a subcategory of Category:Actresses from Hawaii so not redundant. It is a good category to add to the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Dora production codes

Hi there, question regarding production codes. Recently, Nickelodeon/Nick Jr. has finally been airing Dora episodes that have been unaired in the US for the past few years. None of these episodes are showing up on Futon Critic as it believes all episodes have aired after a few years. The first 'new' episode aired this past month was "Dora Saves Fairytale Land", which as the TV promo for it stated, was a, "never-before-seen special". With Futon Critic not updating with these unaired episodes, the only source for production codes seems to be the Nickelodeon app on phones with the full episodes, listing this episode as "987". However, taking a look at the end of the full episode on the Nick Jr. website, they literally have everything included at the end of the episode, and lists the episode as "812-813". Basically, which production code should be used on the episode list page? Seems to be just like the case regarding "SpongeBob's Big Birthday Blowout" where Futon Critic lists it as "893", while most people believe it to be "254-255". -- I believe this all has to do with two part episodes, in which the "9##" or "8##" are being used for the full two parts together instead of the two separate parts like "812-813" or "254-255". Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: With conflicting authoritative sources we'd normally list both. They are both valid, one is the code for the merged episode and the other is the codes for each of the produced segments. Since the article currently is listing the as-broadcast codes, and if choice is to pick one, should stick with the as-broadcast codes for consistency with rest of article. Need to make sure it is clear in the column reference what the source of the information is. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Tangled cast

The section states that the other Stabbington brother does not speak at all. Therefore, your edit summary has contradicted what this says.
What credits are these that say "Ron Perlman as Stabbington brother", exact sequence of words? I've just checked the credits at the end of the film and they don't say this.
Please point me to the Wikipedia policy that states that 'Cast' sections must quote the credits word for word and grammatical error for grammatical error.

— Smjg (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I've just had a look at WP:FILMCAST. The only thing I can see is "All names should be referred to as credited" but "Stabbington brother" is not a name – it's a noun phrase describing a character. In English, a singular noun phrase has to have an article. Even if the "as credited" rule is extended to descriptive noun phrases, having the "a" there does not violate it – it is just a connecting word used to make the item grammatical. The "as" already isn't part of the credit. See also WP:COMMONSENSE. And what is "1 34 11 in film"? — Smjg (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Smjg: We don't use articles for the other descriptive credits listed as the credits shown in the film don't either such as for "Captain of the Guard" and "Big Nose Thug" and basically treat them as proper nouns or names for the purposes of the credits. Adding an article where it doesn't exist in the source is modifying the credit to not match the source so shouldn't be done. The only connecting word that should be there is "as" between the credited actor's name and role the actor is credited with portraying. IMDb uses "..." as the separator. These are sentence fragments as well so normal rules of sentence grammar need not be as strict. From an article maintenance perspective it is easiest to verify changes if we stick to the exact credits and IMDb is a convenient check I use and is usually right. I do have this movie, though, in my collection so if there is doubt on IMDb's accuracy I can go the the authoritative source. The 1:34:11 is the timestamp in the movie where the credits are shown. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm.

Who is "we"?
That there are other instances of the same mistake in the section isn't a justification. If fixing one of them makes it inconsistent, the right thing to do is fix all instances. Though it's got me wondering how we should be dealing with grey areas....
I disagree. It isn't modifying the credit to not match the source, since you're not claiming that the article is part of the credit, any more than you are claiming that the "as" is or that the overall sequence of actor's name, word "as" and character identity is the credit. If the credits of a film read

King	James Grey

then it isn't saying that James Grey played king, any more than it is saying that James Grey played a king, or the king, or somebody whose proper name is King.

To me, "Mandy Moore ... Rapunzel" isn't a sentence fragment, since you wouldn't use that sequence of words/punctuation within a sentence with the same meaning. And while it's true that the rules of sentence grammar need not be as strict, this doesn't mean we should throw all the rules of sentence fragment grammar out of the window.
What is this "article maintenance perspective"? I can't see how it has any impact on the ability to maintain the article.
As it turns out, the exact time position depends on the edition. In my copy, 1:34:11 is about halfway through the 'Technology' credits.

— Smjg (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Smjg: Another reason to not use an article is it is not clear without additional WP:SYNTH whether to use definite or indefinite in pretty much all of them. Is it the Stabbington brother or a Stabbington brother, the big nose thug or a big nose thug. Someone familiar with the film may know but you can't know from looking at just the credits. If you add the article it will look like it is part of the credit as the only word people know isn't is the "as" and expect the credited name to follow it. Best to keep it as just what the credit says without additions. I still oppose changing the credit list from the way it has been since I changed the list to match the credits in September 2018. 23:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Tom and Jerry

Hello... I saw that Warner Bros. Animation has announced new direct-to-video animated feature films for 2019 and 2020. Why not "Tom and Jerry Meet Frosty the Snowman", a crossover between Tom and Jerry and the 1969 Rankin/Bass holiday television special and the very first sequel to Tom and Jerry: The Movie (1992)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.57.136 (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

You didn't read my message about Warner Bros. Animation and all its animated motion pictures and television programs, most importantly about the Tom and Jerry franchise. It's still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.57.136 (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the subject or opinion on this. Best to raise this on the talk page of the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Alyvia Alyn Lind

Hello! Recently I’ve added the birth date to Alyvia Alyn Lind page as she’s posting birthday wishes from friends/family in her instagram stories, and I don’t understand why isn’t it appropriate to add here. Gallifreyaan (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gallifreyaan: See Wikipedia policy about this sort of information at WP:BLPPRIVACY. Basically it either has to come from her directly in one of her, and verified to actually be her's, social media accounts or be published in a WP:Reliable source. Stuff published in some other person's social media account can't be used as that can only be used for information about the account owner, not someone else - See WP:ABOUTSELF. Basically what you added was removed because you didn't provide an appropriate reference for it in the article and that reference is required. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

In addition, a social media post that verifies a "day of birth" without the year, or an age, is pretty much useless, and can't/shouldn't be used to source a WP:DOB (at least, not by itself...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Jeffrey Nicholas Brown

Just noticed this – this either needs to be immediately converted to a redirect, or formally taken to WP:AfD: its only "sourcing" is IMDb, which is completely unacceptable, and has been like this for a while. In addition, subject does not pass WP:NACTOR and I'd be shocked if it could pass WP:BASIC. Pinging Amaury here as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Redirect wouldn't work as too many potential targets, none of which give any real information about him. AfD looks appropriate. I did a quick web search and didn't see anything to support GNG. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Done – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Nicholas Brown. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

List of Salute Your Shorts episodes‎

Geraldo, I'd like you to take a look at the recent activity at this one. You may even want to offer your thoughts on the Talk page... But we've got conflicting sources here, and one of the sources is apparently incomplete when it comes to the airdates. So suggestions are needed. TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: I'd generally trust TVGuide over Amazon if there is a conflict but the LA Times article puts the TVGuide dates in doubt. Amazon and iTunes get their dates from the distributor as far as I know. I haven't checked iTunes but I'd be very surprised if they didn't match Amazon if they have the series. The TVGuide dates look weird for a series. My gut is that it is wrong. Need to keep the TVGuide as a reference for whatever it fills in but it looks like the Amazon dates should be primary. Need to note the conflict on the talk page and why one source is chosen over another. Historical records are iffy that far back. Would be nice if there were some other source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

iTunes only has about 10 episodes of this one, but I don't trust the dates... The issue here is – even if we go with Amazon as the "primary source", what do we do about the episodes that aren't listed there? Do we go with the "TV Guide" dates? Or do we just leave it "1991" or something?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: Go with the TVGuide dates if that is all we have. At the base of all this is WP:VNT, as long as we can back the data up with the best reliable source we have we are covered for WP:V. If we end up with incorrect information, it is on the sources we used, we have done our job to the best of our ability to get it right. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Cameron Boyce

The coroner's conclusion is out, and I have updated the article with such; just giving you a heads-up (and if you can find a better source, certainly use it). Nate • (chatter) 01:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Sara Parriott

And while we're on the topic of WP:BLP's, let me know if you think this one should be WP:AFDed. WP:ANYBIO does say "...or has been nominated for such an award several times" but in this case the sources for the nominations look to be no good, and so this may not qualify. Also, the article was created by a since-blocked editor. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: Got this as a reference for Emmy awards. IMDb is usually correct with awards so she likely actually does have 4 noms and 1 win. I think this article can be improved and meet notability guidelines. Just need to find the sources and article needs work. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Kira Kosarin

Geraldo, I would I like for you to assess this edit, especially in light of the conversation we had on the topic on the Talk page for the article. The second "source" was explicitly ruled out for this purpose (and so should be removed). So it comes down to what you think about the first source and its use for this. TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: The first source is a direct statement from her that she is Jewish so can be used per WP:ABOUTSELF. The second refers to a genetic test but also has the tag that it was something she already knew. Not sufficient in its own right but does support the first source. The first source is sufficient, though, for our purposes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Jet Jurgensmeyer

More eyes needed here. It's the usual – "releasing an album" doesn't make you a professional "musician", because everyone and their dog can "release an album" these days. Also, started as a "child actor" so that shouldn't be removed from the lede. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

India Eisley

I may need more eyes here – we clearly have a new editor that doesn't understand how WP:BLPLEAD (or WP:BRD) works. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Looney Tunes Cartoons

Just because information isn’t sourced dosen’t mean you can’t delete it, bub! Evelynkwapong539 (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Evelynkwapong539: Per WP:BURDEN you need to source info that is challenged, particularly the runtime=1000 and num_episodes=170 you added which is very dubious. At most 10 episodes have been released and each is 1-6 minutes. I also disagree with adding a non-standard character column to an episode list table. That type of info goes in the episode summary which describes what the characters are doing in the episode. If you want a special column instead, start a discussion on the talk page, give reasons, and gain consensus per WP:ONUS. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Will Looney Tunes Cartoons air on television this very September? Evelynkwapong539 (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Evelynkwapong539: I have no information about that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Zombies sequel

Geraldo, do you think this enough evidence that the sequel will be titled Zombies 2?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: Yes, but this is probably sufficient. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Ping @Amaury: here, because these may be enough to add some info on the sequel to the Zombies (2018 film)#Production section... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: The very first source, as seen in my sandbox here, had Zombies 2, so I don't think there was ever any issue. If the title later ends up changing, we can update it accordingly. Amaury • 17:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Zendaya

@Amaury: More eyes needed here – editor who does not understand MOS:DATERANGE, and is making the same old tedious arguments about "2019–present". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: how about you address me since I’m the said editor who apparently “doesn’t understand”. Rusted AutoParts 20:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

24.186.85.59

We still need to keep an eye on this IP, who keeps removing Instant Mom from Nickelodeon and visa versa. Geraldo has already come across them, and now both Amaury and I have as well. IIRC, somebody (possibly this same editor) has been at this a while, possibly for a year (or more?...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: He is just off a 3 month block that ended July 29. I dropped a warning for unexplained removal of content on his page, if that continues he can be reported to AIV but his intensity is low right now. His issue is Nick at Night being listed instead of Nickelodeon with main target Instant Mom and where it shows up. I note List of Instant Mom episodes lists Nick at Night as the outlet so this is inconsistent in the article as to whether or not the program block or the actual network should be listed. The article at Nick at Night indicated it is considered its own network for rating purposes and just shared channel space with Nickelodeon so this is not clear cut. This looks like an edit dispute at the base of it all with an IP who won't communicate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with anything you are saying, but it needs to be discussed at the Instant Mom talk page, where a consensus of editors can be established. (For one thing, it needs to be checked that the show never aired on "Nickelodeon" proper, because it may have premiered on Nick before moving to Nick at Nite – I dunno...) It should not just be removed/changed without explanation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: He shouldn't be removing apparently valid content without giving a reason. The warning messages about that inform him about that and if he persists can be blocked for it. He needs a history of warnings before being blocked but as he is coming off a 3 month block is on thin ice now and could be reported now to AIV as immediate resumption after block expired. The issue of Instant Mom network should be discussed on that talk page but consensus so far seems to be keep it as a Nickelodeon show in the main article and a Nick at Night show in the episode list. It is not a show I am familiar with or interested in so can't say what one is correct, but IMDb says Nickelodeon Network is the distributor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Stanley (2001 TV series)

Hello! I believe there is a mistake, I have not edited such a page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.237.250 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

You have a shared IP address and the person using it before you did edit that page. See Special:Contributions/64.237.237.250 Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Request

Geraldo, can you assess this edit please? I do not understand why this info is being removed – it appears valid to me... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: Infobox instructions say for distributor: "The names of the original distribution company or companies". IMDb, who usually gets this right, shows American Broadcasting Company as the original distribution company based on the dates shown in the list of distributors. That is the broadcast distribution on the original network so doesn't really need to be repeated in the distribution attribute. Nothing in the infobox instructions talks about home media as being special, it is covered in the home media release section of the article. I agree with the removal. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

In this case, I would think "distributor" should cover whoever originally syndicated the show into rerun syndication. This series definitely was rerun syndicated (for years!), so IMO that info should be in the infobox. (The home media distributor, not so much...) So, do we have any idea who handled the rerun distribution of this show?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: IMDb is likely accurate and correct but again it is IMDb so not a RS, just a sanity check. I don't see a syndicator possibility other than the original production companies or ABC. Subsequent releases may have been direct negotiation with the rights holders. I think the only time the initial distributor is a syndicator is if the show was released in syndication from the start. I see nothing in the the infobox instructions that would support rerun syndication being listed in the infobox unless that was also the company that handled the original distribution. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

So, are you saying we should list ABC for that? Or we shouldn't?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: I'd leave it out. We have no sourced information on how subsequent releases were handled or who owned what rights. I suspect ABC bought the syndication rights as well as the original broadcast rights from the production companies but that is my conjecture. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Another one...

These edits – yea, or nay?... I've never seen the show, but I'm guessing WP:NOTDEFINING?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: That IPv6/64 again. Those categories are not what the series is about. NOTDEFINING. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Erin Mathews

Good afternoon Monsieur Perez. I had done research on her a while ago and you know what I spotted? IMDb, Kat Versus the Kid Wiki, English Voice Over Wikia... They equal zero coverage of reliable sourcing.

In addition, someone should keep a wicked eye on this in case of disruptive editing occurs. If that happens, nominate for an AFD and redirect it to Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures or the aforementioned show. The former is a better option since it also aired on XD.

As for Kathleen who she costarred with on the latter, her page will not go away anytime soon. IJBall must be pinged.

Peace,

47.16.146.238 (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Descendants (franchise) genres

Just posting here that we need to be careful with this suite of articles – a long time ago, somebody (I didn't check who...) had apparently slipped in the word "fantasy" as a genre for 1, 2, and the "franchise" article, despite none of the sources (at least, none of the ones I checked, and I checked all of the "announcement" sources, incl. the Disney press releases...) using that term/genre, and at least at the 1 article, it remained in the lede and infobox for years. We need to make sure that somebody doesn't try to slip unsourced genres like this back in there... Pinging Amaury about this as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

How do you edit it Short Skull Baby (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Drew Massey & Alice Dinnean

And speaking of articles like Erin Mathews, I'm really struggling with whether I should take the above listed articles (and Erin Mathews too) to WP:AfD. All 3 look to be non-notable "voice"-type actors, etc. Drew Massey, esp. I can find no WP:RS coverage of. The other two look like they get passing mentions with respect to their jobs in various places, but no in depth coverage that I can see... Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: All should be at AfD, I see no possible redirect that makes sense. You have done a due diligence search for sources needed to show notability and found none. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll see if I can work up the courage to take them to AfD soon. I'll likely start with Massey's article, as the most obvious "fail" of the lot... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Cinderella (Disney character)

I added her parents because her father appeared in the prologue and is also the reason Cinderella has a stepmother and cinderella mentioned her mother EBCHA (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@EBCHA: They weren't credited characters in the the film and it is obvious that people have fathers and mothers. Description in article says her parents were dead. Father was at least shown in prolog, mother was never seen. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

109.79.131.144

The "Haley Tju vandal" is back at this IP... This is becoming a WP:LTA case – I'm wondering if it's time to apply for an edit filter?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: He uses a lot of Irish IPs and is highly dynamic. MO is adding fake credits, Tju is his current favorite, he'll move on to someone else if that is blocked. I can't see how an edit filter will help here. It's bit like playing whack-a-mole. Best is just be aware and revert his latest string of edits on any given IP before he moves on to some other one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Opinion query

Geraldo, what is your opinion on an edit like this? TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: They look reasonable to have in article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Dora the Explorer

Moved to Talk:Dora the Explorer § Series end date

– more appropriate for this Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

hive4media.com

So, I've stumbled upon this website(which is great for information regarding DVD&VHS releases btw) but for some reason, the references aren't showing up for me when I use them. For example, I've recently created the Home Video section on the Series 7: The Contenders article with the source but it redirects me to the main page of the website and not the source in question. Do you happen to know why is that? Timur9008 (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Timur9008: The link was truncated. The article was listed in the main page, needed to right click on the listed link for the article and copy link to get the actual article archive link. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. Thanks! :) Timur9008 (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox film#‎RfC: Is it relevant to list all composers for the film's music score and songs?

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox film#‎RfC: Is it relevant to list all composers for the film's music score and songs?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Laughing Place

Is it WP:RS? (Link.) It's the best source I can find for Disney Channel's Pup Academy, which I will be working on an article for soon today. The premiere was yesterday, with new episodes resuming on September 4. Amaury • 17:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: See this and notice about being a fan site at bottom of page "Laughing Place is a dedicated group of Disney fans, like yourself, who love Disney. Laughing Place is not endorsed by or affiliated with the Walt Disney Company, or its subsidiaries". I'd say no on its being a reliable source but the info is likely correct. Could use it and tag {{better source}}. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

We've also got this Archived 2020-11-07 at the Wayback Machine now, which proves there was an airing last night. See #90. Although, for some reason, The Futon Critic has nothing on this. However, Zap2it does, and it is a reliable source; the only problem is its dates still being a day ahead. Amaury • 21:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I've found more sources: Two for the series order and one for the series premiere announcement. These look better: [1], [2], and [3]. Amaury • 21:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Article has been created: Pup Academy. And pinging IJBall and MPFitz1968 as well, as more eyes are always helpful. Amaury • 04:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Disney Channel original series‎#Pup Academy

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Disney Channel original series‎#Pup Academy. Inviting IJBall and MPFitz1968 as well. I'm intentionally holding off on commenting for now, as I don't want to deal with this user. Last time I did it got me blocked, unfairly without warning. So I'll comment if I have to, but it's better if others comment first. They are also being disruptive at Pup Academy. That's all I'll say, Amaury • 14:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Pup Academy § Show nationality

– Further discussion about show's nationality better on show's talk page Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The Substitute

With an official series pickup order, I've moved this to mainspace now. As such, I've also moved the Chinese television series: The Substitute (TV series) -> The Substitute (2015 TV series). Ping IJBall and MPFitz1968 as well for more watchers. Amaury • 21:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Gabby Duran & the Unsittables

@MPFitz1968: Now in mainspace. The only thing I still don't know is if "the" should be capitalized or not. Usually, yes, prepositions like "the" aren't capitalized unless they're at the beginning or end of a title or they're part of the title itself. That's the confusion here. Is the name of the group "Unsittables," in which case it would be a lowercase "the," or is the name of the group "The Unsittables," in which case it would be an uppercase "The." Amaury • 21:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: It looks like the article name is titled the way Disney titles it, they don't seem to consider the the part of the group name. However see MOS:THEMUSIC and interminable arguments about whether the is capitalized for The Beatles which explains the variation in style over other reliable sources. Lower case the is reasonable in this case. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Olivia Hussey

Hi, Geraldo. I'm new to Wikipedia, so please be patient if I make any faux pas. Ha, ha. :) I was looking up Olivia Hussey's biography on Wikipedia. The world sees her as an English actress. I had read her biography "Girl on a Balcony", in which she states that her mother, Alma was born and raised in Argentina, and was actually of Scottich desscent. The Hussey family had been in the country for three generations, and as Olvia stated, "had every right to call Argentina their home." Yes, she went to live in England at the age of 7, but her roots shoulnd't be igorned. Olivia has stated that her mother tongue is Spanish. It's just a thought. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hynde17 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hynde17: See Talk:Olivia Hussey § A British actress??. She did nothing notable in Argentina and left early enough that it is uncertain she is even a citizen now. Olivia Hussey § Early life covers her roots fairly well in the article. It is not important enough to be in the lead as it is unrelated to her notable activities. See also WP:BLPLEAD. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Terminator: Dark Fate

You always seem to think in you retarded mind that 20th Century Fox are still in the business of distribution, in which thay are NOT anymore, I don't fucking care what the stupid reference says, Either you change the international distributor to Walt Disney Studios Motion Picture NOW or risk getting reported to Wikipedia staff. GOT IT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.189.233.224 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Terminator: Dark Fate § Distributor for more on this topic. Wikipedia is all about what the reference say per policy - see WP:V. You may be more effective in getting what you want if you provided references supporting it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The Angry Birds Movie 2

I would have reverted the same edit too but TABM2 is the top rated video game adaptation on Rotten Tomatoes, and the Critical response section does already have references that support that claim, so technically the lead doesn't need to repeat those references.

I still would reverted that edit because for WP:UNDUE emphasis, no need to include that detail in the lead. Also the writing was sloppy, it failed WP:RELTIME because it said "currently" instead of "as of September 2019".

The end result would have been the same but I wanted to let you know, as others might make similar edits. -- 109.79.173.32 (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Fishy.....

Hi Geraldo Perez, new editor Mr. Dinosaur watches dinosaur films popped up in my watchlist and something does not "smell right". I think they may be sock of Mildred huxtetter but thought you may be able tell since you have filed previous SPI reports. The reason they seemed suspicious is because they have some experience based on this edit [4] (although it could be completely innocent, edited as an IP, etc.). The connection to Mildred huxtetter is because they made this edit [5] which is the same edit [6] made by Cooking Kitchen, who was blocked as one of Mildred's socks. Any thoughts? Thanks! S0091 (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@S0091: Likely along with Valerie Kathryn Harper (talk · contribs) and 78.19.117.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) editing in concert doing same stuff on articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this reply. What a mess! Is it worth filing an SPI report at this time? S0091 (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@S0091: I started one. Add to it as you see fit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

You covered the one little kernel of evidence I had perfectly. :) Sorry, did not mean to create extra work for you. S0091 (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Mena Massoud

Having an issue with someone who insists on overlinking common terms and ignoring WP:BLPLEAD at this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

They are the ones clearly edit warring as they made the bold edit, not you. An all-in-one link like [[Toronto, Ontario, Canada]] would also be acceptable. The state or each level by itself, however, is overlinking, which is what the IP is doing. Amaury • 23:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't have to link US, Canada and Egypt as they are major geographical locations and countries. Subnational divisions are less well-known. Major global cities shouldn't need to be linked either but that is more contentious. Some people just like to link everything even if nobody will ever click the link. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's Go Luna!

This article probably need a closer watching – somebody tried to inappropriately and incorrectly split-out both the episode list and the character list last month, and nobody caught the split-out on the episode list (the characters split-out was successfully reversed). In general, the editing at this article looks problematic, so it likely bears closer watching... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Apple & Onion is another article which seemed to have massive problematic editing going on right now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Stuck in the Middle

Is this defining? Obviously, the series' main cast members/characters are Latin, but it's not a Latin television series, it's an American television series. Amaury • 19:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTDEFINING and WP:CATVER, I'd say no because it isn't mentioned as such in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar!!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 16:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Kathleen Barr

I just noticed Monday night that a randomized IPV6 number had inserted Didi Pickles from Rugrats as one of the credits for the Canuck bred and raised voice artiste originating from Toronto. Obviously bogus and untrue because everyone already knows that Melanie Chartoff voiced her.

If you can sometime would you mind warning them about putting hoaxes such as this like what FilmAndTVFan28 said to a 68 IP about inserting Dragon Tales being owned by Disney. Please notify your partners in crime about this ASAP.

Bye,

47.16.146.238 (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Puppy Dog Pals

I don't trust the 'Recurring' list here – aside from being just plum too long (to be believable...), I suspect it of being filled with patently fraudulent content. Suggestions?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless it's crystal clear, like Big City Greens, character lists for animation series articles should only include the main characters. Amaury • 00:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall and Amaury: Limiting the list to just the principal cast would be best and easiest. IMDb is likely correct for the cast list and anything that agrees with IMDb is likely correct absent verification by watching episode credits. IMDb does have a ep count per actor can verify with that and pick a cutoff number of episodes for recurring, 6 of 38 seems reasonable if choose to list recurring. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I've trimmed to only those characters that have appeared in 6 or more episodes (as per IMDb), as suggested. This was made more difficult because this is a 'Characters' list and not a 'Cast' list, and several actors voice more than one character... But the current list was including people that had just one episode appearance as per IMDb, and several more that were in just 2 or 3, which is not acceptable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Erin Sanders

Are the WP:ABOUTSELF cites used here enough to support the bio info added?... I say "no", but I'll wait to hear what you say. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: She directly states she is a Jew in that message. She doesn't mention Jewish descent at all. That is implied but she could be a convert too. Statement in article needs to match what she actually states. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll let you do the honors, then.

--IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

So this keeps being disruptively added to the article – Is it relevant enough to include, or should it just be removed? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: Trivial and trite, of course she does. It is like saying someone is Christian and celebrates Easter. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar!!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 15:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Images question

Geraldo, aren't edits like this frowned up?... What's the specific guideline? TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: Info is at Help:Pictures#Thumbnail sizes which states "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so". I would expect that "good reason" to be articulated when a forced size is set. Generally thumbnail size is a user preference so don't want to override that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

PenaVega articles

Geraldo, that IPv6 has been persistently disruptive at these articles for a while. I checked, and the disruptive edits at Makenzie Vega‎ from the same IPv6 2600:1700:5290.* go back at least 4 months. Is there any recourse here? Is article semiprotection worth trying? Or a range block?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: The IPv6 range is owned by WP:Sockpuppet investigations/M_Rob1119. This is long term and his MO is mostly unsourced name changes mixed in with some good edits. His intensity has dropped significantly to the point of just being a minor annoyance. Range blocks have been applied in the past to other ranges used but then he just moves to some other range, he's been on this one for a while now. Best recourse if hitting articles is protection of the article. I just generally watch the range and revert the bad edits I find. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Issue is, infrequency of disruption is usually grounds for declining page protection – I'm betting this is not persistent enough to get protection (or, if it's granted, it won't be for a long-enough period at the article to do any good...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: I've gotten protections on some articles when he does a bunch of edits in a short time but he generally he just comes back to it a few months later. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Diary of a Female President

Just to note one editor is insisting on adding unsourced future casting info. Need to watch this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I've done this before but never had someone like you erasing what I'm doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithivona (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean IMDB is not reliable? I literally received the list of names from the production! These kids have been working filming the whole summer. I added bunch of names to other shows, but I guess you don't follow those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithivona (talk • contribs) 21:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Smithivona: After a series has aired the credits become the verifiable source of credit info in articles. If you add info that matches the credits it can be verified. Adding credit info for future series requires references so others can verify the information. Wikipedia:Verifiability is Wikipedia policy, it is not a suggestion. The fact that you have gotten away with adding unverifiable casting information on other articles just means it hasn't been noticed. It should have been and removed. It does not set a precedent that it is OK to ignore our verifiability policy. As for IMDb see WP:Citing IMDb and WP:RS/IMDb. There are very few places we can use IMDb as a reference on Wikipedia. Your ability to add to the cast list there illustrates the point of why we can't use it as a source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Just Roll with It#"You Decide LIVE!"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Just Roll with It#"You Decide LIVE!". MPFitz1968 and IJBall as well. Amaury • 06:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The Futon Critic is of course no help here since its production codes for Disney Channel series are still screwed up. Amaury • 16:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Navia Robinson

@IJBall: WP:BASIC, WP:NACTOR? Amaury • 08:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to defer to Geraldo here. A lot of the so-called "sources" in this article are crap. But I didn't realize that Robinson had previously been in Free Rein – that, along with Raven's Home, is probably enough to credibly get her by WP:NACTOR for most people (even if my benchmark is usually higher)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: Squeaks by on WP:NACTOR. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

181.177.3.61

I'd say it's long past time to get this IP blocked for WP:DE, esp. now that their disruption is spreading beyond the Shake It Up suite of articles. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: I reported the IP to AIV late last night after their latest edit at Shake It Up (season 1) [7]. No admin action was taken on the report (my filing: [8]; result, went stale: [9]), so I guess the next stop is ANI or RPP.

Geraldo, I was noticing in that article that under the main cast section, Bella Thorne is listed ahead of Zendaya. This is also the case in one other place (in the lede), where Thorne is listed first ... but everywhere else, Zendaya is before Thorne. From the edits of the IP, I'm thinking they were going for consistency, but still, without a sufficient explanation, their edit is considered disruptive. I do have at least the first few episodes from the show (season 1) on Amazon and will recheck to see who should be listed first. I do recall them being credited in the same frame (like what we saw for Landry Bender and Lauren Taylor for Best Friends Whenever); could you please remind me again who should be listed first? Thanks. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Just checked credits, from the very first episode ... Zendaya is listed to the right of, and slightly above, Bella Thorne in the frame where they are both credited. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: See Talk:Shake It Up (American TV series) § CeCe and Rocky Where this is discussed. Equal billing listed alphabetically as per norm when put in a sequential lists was what was decided originally. Zendaya after Thorne. People need to explain what they are doing if they change the order and justify it. When changing order without explanation I presume the editor is playing favorites or making WP:OR determinations of importance. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Also see note in infobox that was placed there to reflect the discussion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

There's two issues here: 1) actor crediting, and 2) how the characters are referred to collectively on the show. It's been years now, but IIRC Bella Thorne is basically credited first (and is definitely "first" if you go alphabetically). Thus, I would say when referring to both actresses, it should be "...Bella Thorne and Zendaya". Separately, however, there's how the characters were referred to on the show. On that score, IIRC, the characters were (nearly?) always referred to as "Rocky and CeCe" on the show, not as "CeCe and Rocky". Thus, when referring to just the characters, I'd be tempted to go with "Rocky and CeCe". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. If the pair is commonly referred to as "Rocky and CeCe" in show dialog it makes sense to keep that in descriptions as that is effectively the common name of the pair itself. If articles are changed to reflect that reasoning, it should be explained in the edit summary, otherwise I assume arbitrary favoritism as the reason for the change. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Notifications

(talk page watcher) Pointless discussion. Amaury • 07:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I want to delete my notifications, how do I do that?

Also, I was not spamming. And I wasn't trying to violate copyright either. Please unblock my account from posting if it is.

I would also like the difference between revisions and the revision notifications at the bottom removed please. I also said that I want the alerts in the bell to be removed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kardallastx (talk • contribs) 03:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kardallastx: It looks like you already deleted the comments, as is your right after reading them per WP:BLANKING. You are not blocked but if you continue adding what looks like WP:SPAM you could be. See WP:ELNO for what is not permitted in external links, and WP:ELNEVER about links to copyright violations. For YouTube we generally allow links to the copyright owner's channels but that is it and only if it provides some value as an external link. The links you added appeared to be to the same YouTube channel which looks like driving viewers to a private YouTube channel, this gives the appearance of being WP:SPAM. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I want all of the alerts in my notifications removed please, and anywhere else they show. Also, please delete this conversation when this is all resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kardallastx (talk • contribs) 07:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2601:1C2:1700:B3A0:819A:109E:511B:D4E7

Pointless WP:NOTBROKEN edits from this IPv6. I've caught the ones at the articles I watch, but there's a lot more that I didn't get... Just so you know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Mildred huxtetter

With plenty of confirmed socks already there, I should think it is right for this user to have the ban tag on the user page. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 18:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: Yes, effectively banned per WP:3STRIKES. Usually the banned tag is placed as part of the SPI process. Sometimes admins get snippy if non-admins mess with the sock tags but probably won't mind in this case. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The Casagrandes

@IJBall: I may require assistance. Please see Talk:The Casagrandes#Lack of improvement and article history. Highly uncivil and refuses to follow proper procedures. "Main characters" is superfluous for just a single heading. The proper heading is "Characters" and then once we get recurring, etc., we add "Main" and "Recurring" subsections. Are we going to start having "Main cast" or "Main cast and characters"? I don't think so. Amaury • 05:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

America's Most Musical Family‎

More watchers appreciated. Ping IJBall and MPFitz1968 as well. I've got this as a start class as per the talk page, but that may be wrong and this may still be a stub. I'm not sure. Also, Geraldo, if you could check the categories and make sure there's nothing superfluous, per our discussion at User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 21#Categories, that'd be great. I've also got a draft at Draft:Disney Fam Jam, but that won't be premiering any time soon. Amaury • 17:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

65.190.212.37

Who is this?... This has been a very persistent, and what I assume to be long-term, "vandal". The edits are pretty much always the same: messing with production and distribution companies, and adding unsourced (and I suspect generally wrong) 'picture formats'. Is this a former editor who was blocked, and now continues as an IP? Or what? (And can anything be done about this?!)... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: Looks familiar but I can't recall where I saw it. A lot of what he is adding is false, though, basically Digital TV formats (480i) on TV shows that were released in analog (NTSC) TV before digital TV existed. False presumption they mean the same thing – they don't. Those should be reverted and IP warned for adding unsourced info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Now editing at 66.207.247.72. I'm going to be honest – I'm not going to revert all of the edits from this IP editor, just the ones at articles I watchlist. The problem is that this is exactly the kind of subtle vandalism that undermines the entire project, but is incredibly difficult to combat, and probably nothing can be done about it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: Just off 1 month block for this, reported as resumption after block expired. Blocked for additional 3 months now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, well that's good – means if they start editing at 65.190.212.37 again, we can probably report to AIV for block-evasion. So that's progress! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

And now at 66.207.240.34. Is this "range-blockable"?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: Range is Special:Contributions/66.207.240.0/21 and so far looks like only those two IPs have been used in the last year. If the range were blocked there looks to be no collateral damage. If he pops up in another IP in the range, then a range block would be the next step. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Now at 65.190.209.240. Still same MO – adding unsourced (and likely wrong) picture format to TV series articles. This is becoming a persistent nuisance. I wonder if an edit filter is possible... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: Or a range block. @Ad Orientem: Thoughts? Amaury • 18:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I will have a look, but my gut says this is too large for a rangeblock. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Range looks to be Special:Contributions/65.190.208.0/21 (65.190.208.1-65.190.215.254) with no collateral damage if blocked. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I blocked 65.190.208.0/21 and 66.207.240.0/21 x 6 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I would encourage an audit of the edits within those two ranges as I suspect a great deal of as yet unreverted vandalism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Raven's Home#Awards and Nominations

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Raven's Home#Awards and Nominations. Ping IJBall and MPFitz1968 as well. Amaury • 20:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Question with regard to Raven's Home and Andi Mack as well. Aren't the favorite TV actor/actress the popularity awards you were talking about that we shouldn't list? Amaury • 16:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

General popularity awards without a tie to a project should not be listed in any project article. If the award is for the person's performance in a role there is a much stronger link to the project. It seems common usage in other articles is to list them. Basically if the award itself mentions both the person and a specific role it is tied to both. I personally think popularity awards voted on by random people who care to vote are crap and don't indicate any sort of skill or artistic merit for a performance, just that people like the actor, but evolved consensus over many articles seems to want to include the major ones like the Kid Choice stuff. Teen magazine polls of who's your favorite and their "awards" are the ones most in need of pruning from any article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I may be missing one or two, but I found our past discussions on the matter, which I will link to on the Raven's Home talk page. Talk:Girl Meets World/Archive 2#Awards and nominations section - actor awards being moved to their individual pages, what about writers, directors, etc.?, Talk:Girl Meets World/Archive 2#Revisiting awards/nominations that belong in that section, and Talk:K.C. Undercover#Awards and nominations section. Amaury • 16:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Salma Hayek

Why did you delete the entry about Wetten, dass... and Dirndl? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverTwist78 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@OliverTwist78: One mention on a non-notable, non verified YouTube outlet. This is trivia and the expectation that some Mexican actress had anything to do with Germans choosing to wear German traditional clothing is laughable on the face of it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess you didn't live in Germany when this episode was aired and you don't speak German at all. You are so arrogant and conceited! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverTwist78 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Just Roll with It – "You Decide LIVE!"

The credits for this episode are all at the end, and the first set casting credits are as follows:

Starring:

Tobie Windham
Suzi Barrett
Ramon Reed
Kaylin Hayman
JC Currais

JC Currais is bold because he is usually listed as a guest star—he portrays The Gator. Per what the credits say, though, I think we just have to go with what they say and not second guess producers' choices, as I just did. However, he was probably just listed as such for the special and so we should still leave him under the recurring section. Amaury • 04:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's wait to see if he's ever main credited again. If he's not, I'd suggest leaving him under 'Recurring', but adding a 'note' to indicate that he was "starring" credited for the special. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

20th Century Fox

Hi Geraldo, You do know 20th Century Fox are NOT distributors anymore, right? Also, I have you aware that Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures now distributes their titles like X-Men: Dark Phoenix for example, I am aware that the Disney in credit notice has not appeared on 20th Century Fox titles yet, I have you know that the last ever film that 20th Century Fox ever distributed was Alita: Battle Angel, Oh and also, Following the credits for info is NOT always a reliable source I'm afraid, So yeah, Disney now handles distribution of 20th Century Fox titles (That also goes for Fox Searchlight Titles as well). I hope you politely take this information into account

Yours sincerely Pete Marsh (86.173.19.230) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.19.230 (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I am well aware of what is going on as I have read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#RfC on distributor of post-merger Fox films where this was widely discussed and the decision made to go with what the credits say. I suggest you follow the RFC decision. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

So, you want us to do WP:OR instead of what sourcing (credits) say?!... That's not how this place operates. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Billy Unger

What am I missing?! – I don't see anything in that Instagram post where he says he has two children. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: I had to use Google Chrome and log in to Instagram to see the full message he wrote. He talks of going to the beach with his son and son's mother and mentions his son is a big brother to some other child of unspecified sex. Using Safari, my normal browser, logged out, I just saw he posted something, not what the details were. Other details that were added that I deleted seem to come from other users, not him, so can't be used. He did not specify the other child's name or the name of the mother. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

John Leguizamo article lead

Hi there! I recently got into a dispute with another editor who insisted on adding "Colombian-born" to the lead of the biography of John Leguizamo. I know you have edited and remarked on this article in the past. I added a new section to the subject's Talk page regarding the addition of his birthplace in the lead and why I object as well as my sources for his having American nationality. I was wondering what your opinion was, and whether you could take a look and offer your opinions. Thanks! Apoorva Iyer (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much!Apoorva Iyer (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Apoorva Iyer: It is strange that you were reverted, you put the article back to where it was previously stable. This periodically comes up in the article either adding an ethnicity, Colombian-American, or his birth location, neither are appropriate. The editor who reverted you is actively on the article, I am surprised an experienced editor kept putting that back knowing the article history as he likely does. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am not entirely sure what happened. But the end result of the entire situation was that I and the other editor were blocked. Thankfully my block was lifted. Anyway, now that there is a Talk page, hopefully any discussion can be more civil. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

MacCready – Undiscussed page moves, merges, or redirects

See List of Boy Meets World and Girl Meets World characters for one example, but they've also been doing it elsewhere, like with Full House and Fuller House. They are two totally different series that should not be merged. Likewise, for Boy Meets World and Girl Meets World. Yes, both Girl Meets World and Fuller House are spinoffs, but they are still different series. What, are we going to merge their parent and episode list articles next? See their recent contributions linked in the header. I'll be reverting their other edits shortly. Ping IJBall and MPFitz1968 as well. Amaury • 23:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like you got the rest, Geraldo. Thanks. Amaury • 23:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Tagging of Template:Boy Meets World and Girl Meets World

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Template:Boy Meets World and Girl Meets World. I do not think that Template:Boy Meets World and Girl Meets World fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because "This criterion (R3) does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move" (WP:CSD). I request that you consider not re-tagging Template:Boy Meets World and Girl Meets World for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: R3 says "This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move,[3] unless the moved page was also recently created." and "implausible typos or misnomer" The redirect was created reverting a recent move to this location. The title makes no sense for where the redirect goes thus the misnomer part. I believe the delete request was valid under R3. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The moved page was not IMO recently created, merely recently moved. I don't think R3 applies, but you have a point. I'll delete under G6, housekeeping, as with the page having been at that name only for ma short mtiem, ther are not likely to be incomming links. Thanks for point the situatiojn out to me. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Disney owns Fox

Spies in Disguise and other films are distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B027:DA22:549D:7D0A:48A3:B51 (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

References disagree. The fact that Disney owns Fox doesn't mean that Fox has ceased to exist as an organization and can't have releases under its own label if Fox and Disney so choose and as references state is happening. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: Follow-up on problems with Zap2it air dates

Resolved. Amaury • 17:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@MPFitz1968: Since this affects all television series, have either of you tried contacting Zap2it via the Contact Us with the information posted in the original discussion on what is causing the issue? This is a pretty significant issue that should be fixed. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: I haven't yet, but that definitely is something to add to my "to-do" list. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: At some point, one of us should probably contact The Futon Critic about the issues for production codes of Disney Channel series, but that's not quite as big of a deal compared to this. Other Disney series seem to be okay (ABC, Disney XD), so it's only Disney Channel series themselves for some reason. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Any updates on this regarding Zap2it? Amaury • 22:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: No, though one reason is I haven't written to them yet. Got sidelined by a whole bunch of things and this kept getting put on the backburner. Going thru the "Contact Us" on their site thus far is proving to be challenging, about what category this falls under ("I am having a problem or have a comment about..."). I could use "Upcoming airings", since that comes the closest. "Recommendations" might work too, but the air date problem is more a glaring error that needs to be fixed than something on the site that can be improved. Hoping to write something to them in the days ahead regarding the air date errors. MPFitz1968 (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: I've contacted The Futon Critic at letters@thefutoncritic.com regarding the other issue: This appears to only be affecting all Disney Channel series. All other networks’ series are unaffected. This started sometime in early-mid May, as everything was fine before then. Production codes were being properly displayed as 101, 102, etc. Now the problem is, as of May, that production codes are displaying as, for example, V505 and don’t even match the seasons that a series actually has. See Andi Mack, for example: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/andi-mack/listings/ This one starts out okay, though that is not the case for the other Disney Channel series. As you can see with Andi Mack, it starts getting screwed up with "Better To Have Wuvved and Wost" which is actually production code 215; however, you have it listed as V301. The previous episodes before that beginning at V207 are also technically screwed up. The numbers are coincidentally correct, but that “V” shouldn’t be there. Andi Mack only has three seasons, and even your page says that under "Season(s)," but your listings imply five seasons. Like V511. I mean, just compare the season three episodes here (https://www.wdtvpress.com/disneychannel/shows/andi-mack/episodes/) to what you have. Seeing as this was fine before May of this year, is it possible that some software update caused this, but only for Disney Channel series for some reason? Is it possible to fix? Remember this is affecting all Disney Channel series. I only used Andi Mack as an example. Best regards, Amaury

I think I was clear enough. Amaury • 16:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: Finally got around to writing to Zap2it ... posted my comment/issue under "upcoming airings", the text below:

I have been noticing in the episode guide, not only with future episodes, but with past episodes as well, that the (original) air dates are one day earlier than when the episodes have actually aired, or were scheduled to air. From what I've seen, this appears to be the case no matter which TV series I look at on the site. And the dates shown appear to be time-zone dependent based on 0z (00:00 Universal Time Coordinated). I live in the U.S., and normally I see the air dates as one day earlier as I pointed out above, but when I switch my computer clock to UTC or a time zone east of that, those dates shift to the next calendar date. When clicking on the "upcoming airings" button by an episode yet to air (if it's within about two weeks of the air date), the difference becomes clear ... like with season 3 episode 1 of Elena of Avalor, which says "AIRING OCT 06, 2019", but after clicking "upcoming airings", the first date/time I see is "10/07/2019 at 10:30 AM" (I'm writing this on September 23, 2019, and the time zone is for the Denver, CO, US area). This bug in the dates I've noticed for several months now; could someone please look into fixing this problem? MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

And they responded to me via e-mail, saying they have alerted their technical team about the problem. We can only hope they get it fixed soon. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Swift response. Hopefully they fix it. The Futon Critic never responded to me. Amaury • 16:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

~~@Geraldo Perez and IJBall:~~ Notice anything? Amaury • 16:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

^ @IJBall and MPFitz1968: You two are who I meant to ping. Also, that just leaves The Futon Critic now. Last time I checked, they still hadn't fixed production codes for Disney Channel series. Amaury • 16:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Disney Channel production codes still not fixed. And I never even got an email back. Amaury • 16:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion at Talk: Candi Milo#YOB (Years of Birth) 1961 or 1966?

No response from there since September 25 and DOB looks vague and COMPLETELY unsourced. It should be removed entirely like you did to Jessica DiCicco on October 5. Please ping your buddies.

Fin,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Need You to Assess

Geraldo, I need you to assess this edit. This IP has been adding Mondo as a "production company" across a number of articles, while also changing the nationality from single-nationality to "[country]-Italian". I am guessing that at least the second part of all of these edits are incorrect, but I'm less sure about the first part. Anyway, need your guidance. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: Mondo TV looks to be a broadcaster and distributor, not a production company for this series. The reference added for support shows nothing more than that. Rest of article and external links show no Italian involvement at all. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

That's what I figured. We're going to need to keep an eye on this IP, because they are doing this at several different articles (and I think have done this from two different IP addresses...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: More than just that one IP, seems to use a range. Also looking at mondotv news and other stuff on that site and on some other articles listed as Italian-other animations, it looks like any time Mondo is mentioned as involved the Italian nationality gets added. Sometimes it is valid, sometimes Mondo is just a distributor. It should be clear in the article exactly what Mondo is doing. Mondo TV has more but looks like also does work with subsidiaries in other countries so even if involved with production, may not indicate Italian involvement. Just being listed on their site has little meaning without looking into exactly how Mondo is involved. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Gabby Duran & the Unsittables

Is sci-fi an official genre? I'm just asking because I know at Andi Mack and Raven's Home, in the infobox, we have, respectively, "Family comedy-drama" and "Family sitcom," with no line break after "family" because "family" is not a genre. Now here, is "Sci-fi <break> comedy" in the infobox correct, or should it just be "Sci-fi comedy"? Amaury • 16:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Sci-fi is just a common short form of science fiction and is a genre as the linked article states. So the series is both a comedy and it is science fiction, terms can be reversed in the description and mean the same thing. The break in the infobox looks fine to me. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

When is the location the characters live at ever defining? Because I keep reverting things like this as not defining. Amaury • 16:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: I don't see it as defining unless the setting has some impact on what the show is about. The fact it is mentioned in the article does seem to indicate it matters, though. It seems one of those census type categories that are commonly added to articles when a setting is mentioned in the article text. Category:Television shows set in Colorado lists a bunch of shows where the setting is dubious as being defining as does the whole category tree that is in. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Random-type question

Is it now time to put in a WP:RM to move Frozen 2 to Frozen II?... I haven't looked into the details (e.g. WP:RSs) at all, but I can say that all of the related advertising I see for this film are definitely calling it "Frozen II". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: https://movies.disney.com/frozen-2 still calls it Frozen 2 in any text about the movie but the logos stylize it as FROZENII pretty consistently. Looks like things haven't changes much with what Disney is still officially calling the movie. We would need to examine what the common name is again. I don't see this as a high priority right now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like WP:RSs are also starting to go with "Frozen II" – e.g. Deadline, Variety. But I agree that I'm in no hurry on this, and am hoping someone else tackles it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Disney international dubbings

Hello. I don't know if you are the right person to ask to, if not, I apologize. Maybe you've noticed, I've been taking care in the past few years of adding and keeping neat and updated all information about Disney's official international productions (especially in songs adaptations) and I think (correct me if I'm wrong) I've had your approval so far. However, the subject seems to be a bit controversial: I've met along the years people who've been reverting or removing some edits of mine, basically because they didn't consider them pertinent (I've had problems especially with one user who's come as far as threatening me to report me). True that these disagreements have diminished along the years, but my question is: if such content I deal with is removed, should I accept it because such edits are really not pertinent or do they have a right to some room in their articles, as I say? Thank you for your time and help. Ninahi8 (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ninahi8: I've noticed your edits on articles we edit in common since you began, I consider you knowledgable and your edits generally improvements and have seen nothing that you do that makes me question that. Edit conflicts with others are inevitable particularly with respect to judgments of what does or does not belong in articles. If there are no policy issues involved and both editors are editing in good faith, we need to fall back on WP:dispute resolutions procedures. Generally the onus is on the one making a change to established content if someone disagrees with the change. If something you do is removed you need to consider whether or not it is worth it from the point of article improvement to push it. Sometimes it is best to just move on to other stuff. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Ninahi8 (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)