This is an archive of past discussions with 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.
I strongly feel like the passages in the production segment of the article should be in the their own little passages Sarah afton (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
IP is making mass changes to TV series articles, some to the 'distributor' parameter of articles, but in general to the 'company' parameter. I doubt the changes are correct. Probably needs a mass revert. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: Not all edits are bad but a lot are. Last 3 month block for this IP ended Apr 19, 2022 and he resumed immediately it ended and very active. I'll watch and fix what is obviously wrong. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@Magitroopa: I'm aware. I've seen at least 9 -/16 and -/17 ranges being used by that editor, maybe more I haven't caught yet. ISP:TopNet using ASN:37705 see [1] - there's a lot. I can't think of much more to do than just report the ranges as they get used and identified. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: Article scope says: been broadcast under the banner "Nickelodeon Original Movie". Nothing about that in the article added so I'd judge it out-of-scope for article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Not sure which one of those is right in terms of what should be displayed - the IP address you reverted (e.g. here) has also changed those links as well by looking at these contributions earlier on. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@Iggy the Swan: That IP was part of a range, recently blocked, mostly making disruptive edits. Some were likely good but I consider any edit done dubious without checking. As for ViacomCBS and Paramount Global, it depends on the context and the sources. We should display the appropriate sourced name in the article without piping - the redirect works (MOS:NOPIPE). If the article is talking about the present state, the latest name. If the article is talking about the past, the name used then should be used. This normally comes up in credits and how information is sourced. A note such as "old name" (now "new name") may be appropriate if true. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
How do you think the lede of this article should be handled? "Kandyse" is not exactly a WP:HYPOCORISM of "Candice", but a completely nonstandard spelling, so I am thinking that in this case the "quote name" is actually justified. Though there are also other ways to handle this... Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: It isn't a hypocorism but an alternative spelling of her legal name pronounced the same way. I would prefer the construction, known as Kandyse McClure, following the name, though. I think quoted isn't appropriate here as it isn't really a hypocorism. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I think my preference is, "..., known [or credited] professionally as Kandyse McClure..." I think that's usually the best way to handle this sort of thing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
You're very knowledgeable on this stuff. Is the recently added category by the IP correct? It needs to be fixed to be alphabetical, but before I do that, is it WP:DEFINING? I know that if a series has twins, for example, like Stuck in the Middle, it's just a series with twins, but not about them, hence why we don't include the category about twins there. (However, the about twins category is correct on a series like The Thundermans.) Would this series be about supervillains or just with supervillains? I'm leaning toward it being about supervillains, but you're more knowledgeable here than I am. Ping IJBall as well. Amaury • 17:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
@Amaury: A TV series featuring villain protagonists seems to fit the category. From what I am reading, that is sort of the central premise of the series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
What exactly are we supposed to include under the notable works parameter? Because it seems like it's otherwise easy to just list everything under the sun. Amaury • 16:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
@Amaury: Should be limited to things he got a major award for or is specifically known to be a major contributor in. It isn't meant to be a copy of the filmography in the infobox. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay, so... Hm... Does status also count, such as whether a person is main or recurring? Should we only include those where the actor is/was a main cast member and has gotten a major award? Or does it matter whether they're main or recurring? Amaury • 16:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
@Amaury: I'd say more than just main cast, more something the actors is strongly associated with, like the lead character. It should be a major part of that person's career. It is a bit of a judgment call. Shouldn't be more than a few major projects listed. 16:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't exactly know the difference between single and multi-camera, so I just go by what the sources say. In this case, the "About the Show" section on The Futon Critic lists it as multi-camera ([2]). There have been two attempts now to change it to single-camera, one of those by a user I trust, but wanted more opinions. Thoughts? Courtesy ping for SatDis. Amaury • 00:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@Amaury: Go with what the sources say. If people think the sources are wrong, their WP:BURDEN to prove it. If it is contentious make sure the data is sourced in the article where it is mentioned. Edit summary sourcing is pointless. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@Amaury:@Geraldo Perez: Thanks for the ping and for calling me "trusted"! The show is definitely single-camera, as multi-camera setup is reserved for sitcoms. I agree that it should be sourced though - the best I could find was an interview with the show's cinematographer (you can safely assume they are a reliable source). I have added this in. SatDis (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What's Next for Sarah? until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
... has been reverted around 20 times now for violations of WP:SPLIT and has multiple final warning on his/her talk page. Wouldn't it be time for a sanction/block or something? --FMSky (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@FMSky and Samuelloveslennonstella: Should probably be discussed at WP:ANI for the excessive number of undiscussed splits done without due consideration. However WP:SPLIT permits and encourages WP:BOLD splits for obvious cases, a judgement call, and it only really becomes an issue if the split is redone after the revert of the first one. Still ignoring the messages and basically spamming splits where splitting is not needed is disruptive. I may take it to ANI at some point if it continues. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@DB1729: Thanks for the info. That IP was making lots of dubious edits and was blocked before so I just put the article back to the state it was before his edits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey dude my name is Jack I was the one editing the Puss in boots cast I was just wondering why you keep on removing my descriptions on the characters i’m not vandalizing the page or anything not trying to be rude but can you please stop 2600:1000:B11F:AD8:C04E:F981:32B4:F980 (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
puss in boots character descriptions
Hey dude my name is Jack I was the one editing the Puss in boots cast I was just wondering why you keep on removing my character descriptions I’m not vandalizing the page not trying to be rude but can you please stop 2600:1000:B11F:AD8:C04E:F981:32B4:F980 (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Well i’m sorry dude I just thought that I would add character descriptions I’m very sorry but I won’t stop it’s not vandalizing the page if I was vandalizing the page I would understand but i’m just adding character descriptions I don’t know what else to say to you dude 2600:1000:B11F:AD8:C04E:F981:32B4:F980 (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
That isn't how it works. You make changes, they get evaluated by others, if deemed not improvements to the article, they get undone. If you disagree, start a discussion on the talk page about it. I wasn't the only person undoing those pointless and obvious character relationship descriptions. That is just extra noise added to the article that has no value. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
DUDE I don’t know if you forgot but I literally told you yesterday don’t waste your time removing my stuff I’m just gonna put it back i’m sorry if you have a problem with it but I’m not vandalizing the page 2601:18D:67E:EF30:E906:E446:A260:BF75 (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Besides adding incorrect info that isn't supported by the references and persisting. That is WP:disruptive editing. Discuss this on the talk page if it matters but at the least don't add incorrect and unsourced info to articles. 16:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: I strongly believe that she should be described as a Spanish actress based on notable work but I know that would not be stable in the article. Spanish and Cuban was stable for a while but got changed in May. It is good to have the talk page discussion as no matter what is decided it will be changed because people aesthetically don't like "and" and prefer "-" even though "and" is grammatically correct and unambiguous in meaning for equal weight adjectives. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
According to MOS:TVPLOT, "For main series articles, plot summaries of no more than 200 words per episode should ideally be presented in a table...If appropriate, these articles could instead include a prose plot summary of no more than 500 words per season (such as Scouted) instead of an episode table, but an article should not have both an episode table and a prose summary." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
@Just Another Cringy Username: The guideline at the beginning recommends a "Plot", "Premise", "Synopsis", or "Overview" section at the beginning to give context to the rest of the article. At the very least something needs to be there describing the overall series in some manner in a bit more detail than what belongs in the lead. Episode summaries talk about the individual episode contents and don't give the overall description of the season or series. Most articles I have seen have something there at the beginning tell what the series is about. The Plot content in the Just Add Magic is excessive and should be trimmed a lot, but not removed completely. This was also brought up on the talk page and MPFitz1968 mentioned some plans to split the episodes out to a separate article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
LOL that was two years ago and they never did anything w/ it. This is my biggest frustration w/ Wikipedia. Everybody loves to talk about what we "should do" but everybody's afraid to do it.
I'm looking at the series articles cited in MOS:TVPLOT. Looks like some series articles do have a "premise" section, but it isn't necessarily standard. State of Affairs doesn't have one; they just go straight to Characters. The Blacklist has one, but their episode summaries are on a different page. If you really think it needs one, I would say a couple sentences sketching out the basic premise would be adequate. Policy seems pretty clear that anything more than that is not desirable. Speaking of that episode table, some of those summaries are looking awfully long too... Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Please advise what to do about this editor – just made the exact same edit at Katherine McNamara that I gave a Level 4 warning for back in March. This has going on for years now, I think. To be clear, what they are doing is specifically disallowed under WP:FILMOGRAPHY – "Use of rowspan formatting in "Year" columns (ex. #2) is acceptable, but rowspan formatting should not be used in other columns...". But they continue with the rowspan vandalism. I have no faith in WP:ANI at all. Are there any other options here? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: I doubt ANI would do much. Most that would happen is a message from an admin about the issue. However repeating after the warning could result in a block. Most edits are fine as far as my scan can tell. Not much that can be done other than just revert the somewhat rare periodic violation of the MOS and maybe drop a reminder message on his talk page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Left another (personalized) Level 4 warning for this. If they do it again, I may try WP:ANEW, as this is clearly slow-motion edit warring (and contra-MOS, to boot). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Does this pass WP:NALBUMS? Ping MPFitz1968 as well. It looks to me like only Ref #5 (Variety) and Ref #19 (USA Today) look like significant sources, but I'm not sure either of those actually count for more than "passing mentions" of the album itself. Everything else looks like minor internet site as "reviews", with nothing from something like Rolling Stone. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: (edit conflict) I'm going to think no on the NALBUMS notability. The article lacks something like a "commercial performance" section which would identify record chart success or sales certifications. It also doesn't have a section containing tables for the charts or certifications, so a pretty good indication that it wouldn't meet those criteria under NALBUMS. I checked the US Billboard 200 in the weeks following its release, going about a month out (the entire month of September 2020 in this case), and couldn't see it on the chart. I also looked at the Grammy Awards over the last two years, and no nominations. I discounted awards like the American Music Awards, MTV VMAs, etc., since it would have to have some sort of chart presence, either with the album itself or the songs on it (no appearance of any of those on the Billboard Hot 100 either), for it to be considered. Not sure about any international charting, outside the US, but I'm guessing no shows anywhere. All in all, I can't say it passes NALBUMS. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968 and IJBall: Charting is just one indication of notability for albums, though. Basically how popular the album it is. NALBUM is fairly clear that if GNG is met for an album it really isn't any different than for other topics that meet GNG. Still the significance of the coverage of the existing sourcing is open for debate. Means AfD for a full discussion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
How GNG is met matters – Is it passing mentions or not? Are the sources quality secondary sources or not? This is one of those articles that looks like it throws a bunch of crummy refs at you to obscure the fact that the subject is not really notable. The sources at this article aren't really covering an album – they're covering a celebrity. This is basically exactly what's wrong with WP:POPMUSIC-type articles on Wikipedia these days – they aren't encyclopedic, they're "fanish". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: Seems a reasonable argument to make at an AfD. Passing mention of the album when the celebrity is actually the topic being covered seems a pretty strong refutation of that source providing the necessary significant coverage of the album. Showing GNG isn't met when on the surface it appears it has been will be needed to sway the consensus. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is gonna need more eyes. Unsourced content (with possible hateful comments concerning recent overturn of Roe v. Wade), and once again, undue emphasis on her activism as a primary occupation. Pinging IJBall, Amaury. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Geraldo, I'm not at admin, so I can't check, but I am pretty sure that this was previously deleted from some reason or other, and User:Dhiego Allvez has just disruptively created it again. One, it's at the wrong title (and I have no idea if it passes WP:NALBUM yet). And two, I'm pretty sure this user should not be blocked for WP:DE on this. Just letting you know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Even though the result of that discussion was a redirect to Sofia Carson discography, I pretty much equated that as a delete when the user recreated the content into the above article (improperly disambiguated one). Definitely deserves an WP:ANI report if we're seeking a block. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
See what happens with the speedy I requested. Delete is cleaner as at wrong location. If not deleted, AfD results still apply to this article too. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
But still nothing has been done about the editor in question. At best, this seems to be a clear WP:CIR issue. And that's the best-case scenario... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
The editor is obstinate, not incompetent. Possibly not comfortable communicating in English. Generally articles he creates and other edits seem mostly ok and in my opinion his contributions are generally a net benefit to the project. He is somewhat encouraged in fact by WP:BOLD. I doubt much will be accomplished at ANI other than firmer warnings to follow group consensus. That is just my opinion, I wouldn't object to others pushing this at ANI, I just doubt it will accomplish much. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm likely going to need help here – editor keeps replacing portrait image at this article, after ignoring a talk page discussion that they started. At this point, they are officially edit warring. I've now given them a Level 4 warning, but they show no signs of stopping. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
And right on cue, they've immediately (soft) rereverted. I'm probably past the point where I can revert, but something must be done. If you think an WP:ANEW case should be filed, or something else, let me know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
A few hours ago, I reported the IP's block-evading edit at the existing WP:ANEW entry for the editor already blocked, so the admins know about this and could likely extend the block duration of that editor. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Geraldo, I would appreciate you looking at this, especially because this new editor is mischaracterizing what is going on (e.g. accusing me of WP:EW, which is patently false, etc.). Feel free to also look at my comments on their talk page. Despite me lodging an objection to their edits, they persist, along with their casting of false WP:ASPERSIONS. Feel free to handle this anyway you wish – I am not going to revert further, though I disagree with the edit and how this has played out. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: Seems to be responding to your inputs, only issue is order of presentation now. I suggest accepting the latest edit as he dropped the "best known" assertion, the major issue originally. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
No, the main issue now is the implicit personal attacks by casting WP:ASPERSIONS (and doing the same on their talk page in the conversation – it's another case of "I didn't do that, you did" argumentation), and edit warring to their preferred version. (I'm not sure that really can be described as "responding to my inputs" in all but a superficial way.) This is not a good way to start out editing, and this editor should know that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: I see frustration of a new editor and strong pushback to what he thinks is unfair treatment and a somewhat lack of understanding of our interaction norms. He is pushing things a bit too far but nothing will be accomplished by responding further to this and might end up discouraging a potential valuable editor. A continues pattern of behavior going forward may make it an issue. Be careful of WP:BITEGeraldo Perez (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Followup
May need additional help here on another matter – new editor who may be a "representative" of the subject (or claims to be?) making undiscussed changes including the removal of sourced content, adding unsourced content and adding a likely WP:COPYVIO image to the article. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Please keep an eye out here. The added cat looks redundant to me, but more importantly recent citizenship is not ledeworthy, esp. when done in a way that violates MOS:ETHNICITY. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: No information on how she is a dual citizen and when that happened based on reference in article. Could be naturalized, could be a parent is American and thus had it from birth. Not enough info to tell. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Sure. But no matter what, she is not notable as an "American actress" – all her formative earlier career work was as a Canadian. So "American" does not belong in the lede. Also, based on your changes, the article now contains some questionable cats that you may wish to remove. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: If she became an American national mid career and lived and worked in the US after that point with notable work in both countries she is as much an American actress as a Canadian one. My choice would be to change the lead to say she is an American and Canadian actress. I don't think becoming American is very recent as the article where she stated her citizenship was published in 2015 and she did have notable activities after that point. The only change I made to the article so far is to accurately reflect what a given source stated so the naturalization category could be removed and the acquired one remain. The other categories reflect having American and Canadian (definitely not the ethnicity tag Canadian-American) in the intro. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I think the American citizenship is recent – possibly within the last 5 years. But Big Sky is filmed in Canada, Wu Assassins was filmed in Canada, and Vikings... well, it wasn't filmed in either country. Polar was also filmed in Canada, though other recent films of hers look like they were filmed in Canada and/or the U.S. There is no evidence that she even lives part-time in the U.S. Based on all of that, "Canadian" seems like the correct description – that's where she started her career, and where she's still primarily working out of. The "American citizenship" looks mostly incidental. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: She asserted she had American citizenship 7 years ago and gave no indication it was recent even at that time, she seemed comfortable about having it and talked about how it made working on some projects easier. Still no info in the article about where she normally resides and works. Lots of projects shot in Canada for cost reasons, doesn't mean people working on them are Canadian based. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion on Raven's talk page about this where I commented. Beyond that MOS:GENDERID, while officially part of the manual of style, is effectively Wikipedia policy in terms of how it is enforced, so tread with care. I generally chose to not get too involved as the rules imposed to implement this annoys me too much. Basically the changes to the articles in question follow MOS:GENDERID as strictly interpreted. Only issue is level of reliable source support for the supposed gender change. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Okay, I will be careful, but basically this is another one of those instances where people are dumb and don't know how things work and believe that guidelines are binding top-down rules that we must absolutely robotically follow to the T. They're not, hence guidelines. Amaury • 21:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Need some extra eyes here – you may recall that that this whole suite of articles draws IP vandals, but right now it's the DAB page that's getting unwanted attention. Hopefully the IP gets the hint and nothing more happens. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
This edit added a number of her talk show appearances and other events that she was involved in (including Tiny Desk, which is done by NPR), but are things that bloat her filmography, as they are not necessarily works of hers, but her talking about those works. To what extent should we be including this stuff in her filmography. I'm thinking her SNL appearance last year is fine, but going into every talk show appearance is not. I reverted the edit. Will ping IJBall and Amaury for additional advice on this. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968: Revert – hosting something like SNL is considered notable enough to include. But general talk show appearances are not. This has been discussed, more than once I think, in WT:FILMBIO and the conclusion has always been that talk show appearances don't merit inclusion. I would think "podcast" appearances on podcast talk shows would also not merit including... As for Olivia Rodrigo, I have taken that one off my watchlist and have no interest in editing there: in general, the "pop music" articles are all edited too "fanishly" for my tastes, and I do not want to deal with that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Geraldo, a heads up that this editor is going around and mass changing the wording in articles. In some cases what they are doing is an improvement, but in many cases what they are doing is replacing their preferred term for a term like "tween" which is coming directly from sources. This needs to be monitored, and some reversions are going to be required here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
ICarly (season 1)
About tht edit I made, I didn't know that it was overlinking and contained original research. Sorry about that. Cwater1 (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I may need more or closer eyes here. This particular user has tried this before back on December 7, 2018, ignoring names per credits. Another user tried this back on November 14, 2021. Trying this a little less than four years later does not change things. Ping IJBall and MPFitz1968 as well. Amaury • 19:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that is literally a "names per credits" situation, and I'd want to see a firm talk page consensus to not follow that before changing it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The section should be converted to "Cast and characters" format, which would make it flow better, but regardless, yeah. Amaury • 20:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Request
Geraldo, could you please take a look at this edit, and other recent edits from this editor? – In the case of the edit in question, that last category added does not look correct to me. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate the back up, but remember that IPs are allowed to blank block notices. It's declined unblock appeals that they are not allowed to remove while blocked. If they want to remove the black notice, let 'em. No point in fighting them over it. -- ferret (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I may need some eyes here with a user I've had issues with before. Ping IJBall as well, as I believe you're the one who said somewhere that the infobox for films is only for theatrical releases. They're trying to use WP:OSE arguments. Them posting on the talk page does not mean they automatically have consensus for their version. Amaury • 09:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
@Horatio Bumblebee: Yes that supports the article move for Ryerson University, irrelevant to issue at hand, the name of the university the person attended and graduated from, what is on their diploma. That is what is sourced in the article and we go with that. That is why we have redirects to get people to the correct article if they care to click a link. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
That's a very pedantic argument. Fine, I am updating the categories to Category:Toronto Metropolitan University alumni - without making a reference to the fact that Ryerson is now called Toronto Metropolitan University - the cat will confuse some people. Making a reference to Ryerson now being called TMU would make things clear but if clarity is not desirable, so be it. Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
That makes no sense as the school has had several names over the years and so by your argument we'd need separate categories for Ryerson Institute of Technology, Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, Ryerson Polytechnic University, and Toronto Metropolitan University. If you want to create all those categories and populate them, you are free to but I'm done. Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanking
Hey sorry - I didn't mean to thank u for ur last edit. I pressed the wrong thing - and I tried to click 'unthank' as it was being processed - but it thanked u anyway for some reason. I have no idea what that source actually says and don't want to become part of a potential edit conflict I have no idea about. I also dunno who besides u can see I thanked u. Stephanie921 (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Can you please take a look at the current discussion about calling her a "television personality"? It needs a third opinion. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I added some recent things. One of them is that he reprised his Nickelodeon role of Frankini in 6 recent episodes of Danger Force, as noted in IMDB and other web sources, but I don't see very good WP:Reliable sources to cite for that. Can you add any? -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
@Ssilvers: Any aired episode is itself the "published" reliable source for the credits it lists - I assume he showed up in the credits. No need for anything else after it has aired. IMDb generally transcribes the credits correctly so is a convenience for the info, but ultimately everything can be verified by viewing the credits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Assistance
Hey! COuld you take a look at the recent edits by an IP on the article Shrek (franchise)? I'm not exactly sure if they are constructive or not (I mean, I know removing the width parameters is unconstructive as it breaks the layout on smaller screens) and would like a second opinion. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654516:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Geraldo, we have at least one editor (and one or more IPs?) that have been adding "location" details to the portrait image captions of WP:BLPs lately – e.g. this edit. In general, I know that only the year the image was taken matters, and other info like this in the image caption is considered extraneous. But is there an actually guideline on the subject?! I couldn't find anything specific after a quick search of WP:Caption and WP:BLP. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: From Template:Infobox person for caption "Caption for image, if needed. Try to include the date of photo, some context". Sort of editorial decision as to what matters here. For a generic image of the person where taken and specific date generally is irrelevant. Year is always important as people change appearance. Location makes sense if something about the location impacts the appearance of the person. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd appreciate more eyes here (I'd ping Amaury and MPFitz1968 as well, if I thought they were fans of the most recent Halloween film series!) – see the message I have left on the talk page of the editor in question (note: over 80% of this editor's edits have been to this one article!). But this looks like months worth of attempts to add low quality content to this article. I fear an intervention of some sort is going to be required here (possibly WP:RfPP and a WP:ECP?...). Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. That's why I think page protection is probably the best approach here if their editing continues like this. I think I may watchlist this page for a while... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm at 3 reverts here now, so you will have to get the next one if they add back poorly sourced stuff again. Also, if they do do it again, we should think about going to WP:RfPP as discussed... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Could you please review recent editing here (and at the talk page). Note that this will have spillover to Alexa PenaVega as well – issue is whether, 1) PenaVega is notable as a "singer" (personally, I've never heard anything about her being a notable singer, but apparently it's in the lede there (I haven't checked, as I don't edit that article)), and 2) even if she is a minor singer whether mentioning that at the article on her sister is even necessary. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: Alexa has been listed as a singer in her article since about 2007. Originally just an actress, then added occasional singer, then dropped the occasional. All her singing is in soundtrack albums for films she acted in, nothing notable independent of that. She should never have been listed as a singer in the first place for that, it is just an adjunct to her acting career. Serves no purpose to call her a singer in her sister's article, she isn't known for that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, I've made extensive changes to Alexa PenaVega due to this discussion – and I fully agree that the current article content there (which is also substantially undersourced) doesn't justify the inclusion of "singer" as a career. I've also (again) removed that from Makenzie Vega. If it's added back again, I'd appreciate a reversion on your end due to WP:3RR. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I've reverted the same editor at Alexa PenaVega, though I am not going to keep doing that because it's not an article I watch (or am particularly interested in). But the "singer" stuff should be kept out of that article IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
And now they've reverted again at Alexa PenaVega. If you start a Talk page discussion on this there, I will comment, but outside of that, I'm not touching this any further at that article. But this editor is clearly disruptive – indeed, if they revert again at Makenzie Vega they can and should be taken to WP:ANEW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
There is further discussion about this at User talk:NowLaterorNever which you may be interested in. This editor appears to be more interested in WP:WINNING, and may try to ignore the consensus at Talk:Alexa PenaVega. But I intend to restore my edit after several days for the reasons outlined in the linked Talk page discussion. If they revert again, I think a report to WP:ANEW will be in order. Also, note their conflict with a second editor at a second article, so this is looking ike a pattern. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Just a heads up that a random IP, whom I suspect is one of our disruptive editors abusing logged out editing, based on their summaries—they are far too familiar with some things here to be "new"—has decided to mark these as over. The TVLine article states the following: Indeed, I hear that Nickelodeon will not be moving forward with a third season of Side Hustle or a second season of Warped! Emphasis mine. While the source being used is otherwise a reliable source, we cannot use this per the reasons we discussed here: User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 13#Henry Danger. So just something to keep an eye on. Amaury • 01:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Going to ping IJBall, MPFitz1968, Starforce13, and Magitroopa as well. For Side Hustle, I think we can report it as over as there appears to be consensus for that on the article's talk page, but it would be using the tweet mentioned on the talk page, not the TVLine article. However, we definitely have nothing to use for Warped! Anton Starkman removing the series from his Instragram confirms nothing. Amaury • 01:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes "I hear" is used by reliable sources as an alternative way of saying they got the information from an industry source close to the subject. However, the way this article is presented as a Q&A, it's hard to tell whether "I hear" here means their industry source or rumors they've heard on the internet. If it were presented as an actual news article reporting the cancellations rather than answer prompted by a question, I would consider it more credible. — Starforce1313:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: I don't like it but it is mentioned in that linked-to article and the Once Upon a Time character article links to the Frozen characters as well since they were derived from them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Any differences between "favorite" and "favourite"
CLOSED
(talk page watcher) Simply fix the spelling if that is your only concern and it bothers you so much. This discussion is pointless, as Geraldo has explained to you his reason for reverting, and the spelling of the word wasn't why. You can't selectively revert portions of an edit, so the entire edit was reverted. Amaury • 20:54, 4 September 2022 (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 have no idea why you changed "favorite" to "favourite" on the "Toy Story" page. Toy Story is an American film, not a British film (or a Canadian film). I would say someone should definitely put "favorite" instead of "favourite" on the "Toy Story" page. "Favorite" is preferred in the United States; "favourite" is preferred in the United Kingdom (or Canada). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:6445:9FF1:31EF:D3D4:102F:668F (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, Toy Story is an American film. The Toy Story page should have had "favorite toy" insteated of "favourite toy" because Toy Story is an American film, not British; "favorite" is preferred in the United States, while "favourite" is preferred in the United Kingdom. 2603:8000:6445:9FF1:31EF:D3D4:102F:668F (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2022 (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.
@IJBall: Dubious as a reliable source and definitely doesn't support the categories added. Bio info looks to match what is in her IMDb profile and likely came from that. Site does have a Wiki article but I wouldn't trust it for bio info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Still having problems with this user (for previous history, see, for example, this) who seems to be, based on their name, a semi-WP:SPA account in terms of Pennsylvania-related topics editing. Current issue is overlinking at Alexandra Chando. Based on their user talk page history, they're now a fairly perennial problem editor. Any suggestions here?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: Most edits I looked at are OK. Some WP:SEAOFBLUE issues breaking single links into two separate ones which shouldn't be done. About only thing that can be done is drop a message on his talk page about this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
FTR, they just did the same thing a third time at Alexandra Chando, so I've left a detailed Level 3 warning at their Talk page. But I am not wrong – if they keep this up, eventually somebody is going to take them to WP:ANI, because it's been months and they are still doing these same kinds of edits. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ssilvers: "Pop Kabbalah" and seems a fad for a lot of celebrities. Need a pretty strong direct statement from the subject about religious beliefs. Don't see that in the sources. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
May need back up here – IP editor has been edit warring for months for the inclusion of trivial content (and also unjustified changing of "pronouns") that as far as I can tell has not gotten any substantive secondary source coverage. They're at it again today. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: Even her instagram list includes "she". Still it is a primary source not picked up or reported by any secondary source and not even expanded on. I'm for keeping the article easy for normal English readers of any level of competence to understand. Readers are the target for articles, not the person the article is about. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I am just leaving a note here that this editor, who Geraldo reverted last night at Isabela Merced, may be another one of these problematic WP:FILMOGRAPHY "rowspan vandals", in addition to their adding a 'Directors' column when they were previously told not to do this, and worst of all removing valid sourcing from Filmographies!! I have left a detailed warning message on their page about all of this, and if they persist with any of this from this point forward, they can be considered a disruptive editor, with all that that signfies.
@IJBall: It doesn't look to be defining for most of the people listed. Might be OK for network executives and major long-term employees where the link to the network is an important part of their notability, but seems pointless for people who just had some credits on some show that aired on the network. Same for a lot of the other "<corporate name> people" categories. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
At the very least, it seems like the name of the cat should be changed – perhaps to Category:Cartoon Network executives?... What I would like to know is do other categories similar to this exist for other networks? (CBS? ESPN?) Or is it a weird Cartoon Network-only thing?! If the latter, the cat should probably just go... But it seems like it needs to go to WP:CfD one way or the other. It's just that that's not my "beat"! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Did you not watch the video? It's the exact same short, except they gave it an actual title. I included the timestamp and everything. -- 68.84.184.241 (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The IP may actually have a point that this section is sourced to just WP:YOUTUBE videos, which don't cut it as proper (secondary) sources. I would be in favor of just cutting this section from the article. Let me know if you agree. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
YouTube videos are fine as references if the channel is official. I looked at the YouTube description and saw nothing that indicated it had anything to do with Descendants. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Please watch the video itself at this timestamp. As you'll see, it features the exact same short as the original citation. The difference is that at 11:56, it includes a proper title card for the short, which the original YouTube upload did not have. As this is the title that appears within the short itself, it should be treated as the "proper" title for the purposes of the wiki. -- 68.84.184.241 (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I did watch it and it is included as part of another video. Who knows what changes they made to make it fit in that one. The original source is direct and clear and also authoritative. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
What we know is the episode was released with the title "Date Night at the Museum". The release title is the official one. They might have had something else as a working title or a former title but that is not the official release title. What showed up in the video embedded in some other episode doesn't reflect what they initially released and anything that shows up there is not "official", might be an old pre-release version for all we know. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
It's not pre-release; this is an official upload of an episode of the Chibiverse compilation show which aired on Disney Channel just a few weeks ago, with a title given within the content of the episode itself, while the YouTube upload did not include one outside of the video title (which, I'll note, often differ from the official titles; see this official upload of Big City Greens S3E10, for example. Regardless, perhaps there can be a compromise via a cited footnote acknowledging the different titles, similar to my previous revision that you removed. -- 68.84.184.241 (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The initial release title is the "official" title. If the title changes in a later release, which this video is, it doesn't change the title it was released as. It is not uncommon to create works under one title and decide to release as something else. We go with what was released. The version that was initially released, minus the title card as they changed the title, is the official version. That the deleted title cards are include in a compilation video is basically trivia for the level of coverage in this franchise article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Geraldo, please take a look at this IP's recent cat edits, and make sure they are legitimate, and that this isn't coming from one of the frequent IP cat WP:DEs/vandals. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM as sourced or written. No significant coverage that isn't marketing and no evidence it charted. Unnecessary to merge as content in TV series article about the music is sufficient. Just redirect it to the section. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I've cleaned the article up some. The sad truth is that I bet the current version would survive at WP:AfD (though it still needs cleanup, and I have no idea why Ref #10 is in there!) – though the article should almost certainly be at That Girl Lay Lay (with the TV show moved to That Girl Lay Lay (TV series)) not where it is right now (which is not her WP:COMMONNAME). But if really needs to be edited down, as there's a lot of junk in there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Maybe you should read it before coming up with your novel interpretation. If you had, you would know that the first sentence says Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.WP:BLP is a serious concern and requires highly reliable sources. Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth per WP:DOB. Toddst1 (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
@Toddst1: The info there is well sourced. Day and month is sourced in one place, year in another. There is no original research or synthesis involved there at all. Also trivial calculations are excluded from being considered per WP:CALC. The info and sources meet the requirements of WP:BLP. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I am not using any admin tools to edit nor am I acting as an admin. I will provide that info by mail to any admin who requests it, otherwise it is private. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I've sent you an email about this if you want to discuss it privately, but nothing in WP:SOCKLEGIT allows for incompetence in your alternate account from being obfuscated from connection to your administrator account. Administrators who seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed. per WP:ADMINACCT. You don't get to hide problematic editing behind your WP:SOCKLEGIT to protect your admin status. Toddst1 (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I find this digression irrelevant to the issue at hand. Attacking me for incompetence because I disagree with your interpretation of policy is bordering on WP:NPA. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Misunderstanding of WP:NOR does call into question one's competence to be an admin - it was not intended as an attack. As you suggested via email, I've opened a discussion about this on ANI - not about competence, but about secrecy. Toddst1 (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall:2601:18C:0:390::/64 Seems to be the main culprit so protect of article would be excessive when one person is causing the problems. Need more warnings on the various IPs used including a final warning on at least one before going for a range block. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at List of programs produced by ABC Signature shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please take it to the article talk pageEquine-man (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Oops. Didn't realize I hit this article too many times in process of undoing bunch of disruptive and sock edits by those IPs. Couldn't self-revert as IP already reverted my edit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Need assistance here. Already reverted 3 times now. Other editor also edited while logged out. Check the edit history for issue. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: I'll watch for a while. Disputes about what belongs in an article should be discussed on the talk page. Might be worth starting a discussion about it and pointing to that when it gets added back to the article. Person adding the disputed info is supposed to do that when reverted but anyone can start a discussion. In my opinion if it is not specifically about this TV series, it doesn't belong. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
See also what I said at User talk:KıpçaK. It definitely isn't relevant at the article. Now, if the show were available on a streamer currently (which it doesn't look like it is), that might be worth mentioning in the article (if properly sourced). But we never discuss current "distributors" at articles like this, and even if we did we would need a far stronger (secondary) source than what they are using. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Gingy puss in boots
Hello my name is reedJenkins1234 i’m the guy who made the change that you removed I would just like to say that the change I put in is correct so I think you might’ve made a mistake if you look up on YouTube gingy in puss in boots the last wish you will find out that the change is true I just thought I’d send you a message about it I’m sorry if I seem rude I’m not trying to be 2601:18D:67F:5D0:F5F6:436F:D546:9CC (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I saw no mention of Conrad Vernon in that video which is the info you added. The official site for the film is a reliable source we can use, a YouTube video on an unverified account isn't. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: I read the Instagram message and didn't see anything that directly stated filming has started on the film. Maybe some implication I missed but can't see it. I note the film article exists with same sources to support WP:NFF. One source in film article about planned shooting schedule but the confirmation filming has started is that instagram message. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: Based on the category inclusion criteria in the cat page. Disney seems supported and is mentioned a lot in the article so CATVER for that met. The other cat isn't supported. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I will continue evading my block to continue the edit war until Vicky is officially in the Villains section. Even if the page gets protected, at the end of the day, once its protection is lifted, I’ll resume edit warring again. Thank you. Have a happy almost Halloween. 208.83.112.200 (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Continued addition of unverified, etc. cats, and there are more than enough warnings here (over a long period of time) that I suspect they've been blocked before. Probably time to look at taking them to WP:AIV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
IP just came off a 3-day block, and resumed the same hoaxing at various articles that got them blocked in the first place. If they do any more edits like that today, I suggest reporting them the WP:AIV immediately. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
In the last few hours, several instances of unsourced content were added to the article, including the insertion of what appears to be this singer's real name. I have made three reverts to the article during that time, all to remove unsourced material, so I should hold off on any more per WP:3RR. (I'm tempted to use #7 in the exemption list for 3RR, especially for the unsourced real name part, but I think I'll hold off.) If you could keep an eye on the article, I'd appreciate it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
