User talk:Kevinbrogers/Archive 11

Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

List of Conan episodes

Bizarre. That guy's edit, last night appeared to really break that list page bad--the season 5 episode table was down in the citations, which were themselves only a single column instead of two, other stuff wasn't displaying properly, etc. But loading up that version today, it's not doing it.

Maybe a Wiki-problem, but anyway, it doesn't seem to be doing it anymore so clearly my revert is no longer necessary. Just wanted to explain, that's all. -- DigiFluid (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

173.64.99.252

I blocked per your AIV report because they clearly had it coming. But, in the future, mindful of WP:DEW, I'd try to report similar behavior to WP:ANEW the minute they cross the three-revert line or before you get tempted to. I'm not saying you'd deserve it, but some admins might have blocked you for this as well. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Be careful....

A sper the warning above, I'd suggest you be careful not to cross the line when it comes to breaching the three revert rule. I completely agree with the reversions at List of iCarly episodes, but you've breached 3RR by reverting 5 times in 24 hours. The limit is 3 times. I understand that it's frustrating but sometimes you just have to tolerate those who choose not to discuss. Usually, somebody will come along and revert so you don't have to, or you can always request page protection, but sometimes you just have to wait. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Not that I'm trying to be difficult, but what five times are you referring to? I only see four edits on February 6, and the last two were simply extensions of my second edit that day. I can't really tell based on the wording at WP:3RR if the final three should count as one revert or three. Kevinbrogers (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I miscounted. You only made four reverts, which still breaches 3RR:
  1. 22:10, 6 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 475468934 by Thomasfan5034 (talk)")
  2. 22:42, 6 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 475474361 by Thomasfan5034 (talk) while I agree, the discussion is still open.")
  3. 22:43, 6 February 2012 (edit summary: "rv. discussion is still open")
  4. 22:45, 6 February 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Thomasfan5034 (talk) to last version by Kevinbrogers")
3RR says, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert". Since there were "intervening edits by another user", each of your reverts count as one edit. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I must, respectfully, disagree. The edits were so close in proximity that they were virtually occurring at the same time. If I remember correctly, it was just a matter of seconds that separated our edits. I thought these would be consecutive, it just happened that his interrupted my edits. I won't pursue this any further though. Funny how we can argue over an article for over a month but then fight to preserve it's current state. Kevinbrogers (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
An uninvolved administrator might see it as "just" edit-warring, not as a 3RR breach. It's best not to get into a situation where someone has to decide. Yes, it is funny. It's a shame more editors have not weighed into the RFC. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

regarding Chapters Seven, Eight, Nine, et al.

I saw your note about the dates. By the looks of things every episode beyond the sixth will be 9 days later in the USA, assuming NBC shows all of the season. We don't get episodic press releases like what are collected from NBC, FOX, ABC, etc. on The Futon Critic; you simply actually have to go read the schedule on Global's website. Zap2It has taken the stance that the Canadian episodes are mistakes or something and a few days ago had them mostly as 'unknown episode' but has since made most of them "Chapter Seven" for some strange reason or/and have the correct title and air date for Global but then say the original air date is the one for NBC which is many days later. It is a total mess. And a lot of people will go there and come wanting to correct it here. It seems the people who moderate these sites and manage the database can't understand how a show could be on in Canada first. Since it is possibly in your watch list i thought to thank you and inform you that you might get to make more of that type of edit. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 13:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely a mess. Perhaps we should add a note somewhere on the page, or maybe do what has been done at List of Chuck episodes and place a "(Global)" tag off to the side of the air dates. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Victorious

So I moved everything back to A Christmas Tori and Blooptorious in Season 2 and The Breakfast Bunch as the Season 3 premiere, but there's people moving A Christmas Tori to Season 3 and Blooptorious (Season 2) into season 3 because of this reference. TV Guide is listing Blooptorious in Seasoan 3 (same as with Weseales on Deck as Season 1, not two). Nick promoted January 28th as the season premiere but iTunes lists only A Christmas Tori in Season 3 and not Blooptorious. Should we make a compromise? Move Blooptorious to Season 2 and leave A Christmas Tori in Season 3 per iTunes? - Alec2011 (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not as familiar with Victorious as I am with iCarly. It appears that there was a 13-episode order for season 2. However, their last word on the matter seems to be the January 28th promotion. If that's correct, we should have "The Breakfast Bunch" as the season 3 premiere. When/if Nickelodeon reverses this (in the form of DVD releases, press releases, or other stuff), we can move it back. I took a look at TV Guide, but I also looked at Zap2it, and they have conflicting information. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I forgot that I talked with Geraldo Perez about this, but thanks. I was thinking that as well. I left it alone because of all the changes people made. I'll fix it as Nick did state a January 28th premiere and since those other 2 contradict themselves, they cannot be used. I will make the changes. As always thanks for you help. - Alec2011 (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"&" vs. "and"

What is your thoughts on the "&" and "and" rule? I made this edit saying the credits in the episode say "Teleplay By: Michael Poryes and Gary Dontzig & Steven Peterman" then AussieLegend reverted saying it's poor English and he says Correct English would dictate use of commas first, followed by & for 3 or more. We discussed it more here. Ever since if there's more than 2 writers I've used "Name 1, Name 2 & Name 3." Now on the iCarly page for Season 5, the credits are written as " Written by Dan Schneider and Matt Fleckenstein" using an "and" between their names. Now by WGA standard, that means the writers did not work together "&" means they work together. Anyway, I say a lot of "featured" list of episode pages and they use "name 1 & name 2" so I changed it but someone changed it back until I said "it's Wiki standard to use "&" for 2 names, regardless as most pages use "&" just to show 2 writers wrote the episode.

Now, going back to the "name 1 & name 2 and name 3 thing" I made this edit and SchrutedIt08 reverted it so I did it again and Drovethrughosts said "Darabont seperated with 'and'" so I made a compromise and went with "Teleplay by: Charles H. Eglee, Jack LoGiudice and Frank Darabont" as another pages "Glee Season 1" used this, however SchrutedIt08 said "It actually isn't bad English. There's no need to compromise, since there's no good reason to have it any other way." I reverted again saying "Yes it is, you don't list things like one & two & three and four, you separate with comma's, one, two, three and four." Finally SchrutedIt08 stated "Show me a specific Wikipedia rule that supports your position. Do not revert again with discussing, otherwise you'll be breaking the three revert rule."

Using "John Smith & Jane Doe & Smith House and Doe Green (as an example)" is used in credits on TV shows, but it's poor English. If it's 3 names I agree to use "John Smith, Jane Doe and Smith Hous" but "John Smith & Jane Doe and/& Smith House" is bad English. Is my way wrong? I don't see a rule that states "it's wrong" or that we have to use what the credits say on screen (Even though it's used for reference on who wrote the episodes). I would think we need follow Proper English and just write the writers names (if more than one in a list), regardless of how they collaborated on the script. Is this all of a matter of opinion? - Alec2011 (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like AussieLegend also thinks we should use proper English in the credits. I don't see anything about this in the manual of style or in the TV-specific guidelines at WikiProject Television. This might be a matter that could be taken there to see if there's a consensus on what should be done. I personally think we should go with what the episode credits say (using things like Jeffrey Lieber and J.J. Abrams & Damon Lindelof). This way, we preserve the information about who worked together and who worked separately. Since the information is in a table and not in the middle of a sentence, I see no reason to correct grammar here (and I'm usually really picky about grammar). The best example that comes to mind is Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl where the credits list writers as Ted Elliott & Terry Rossio and Stuart Beattie and Jay Wolpert. Clearly, the first two worked together, while the last two worked independently of the others. I think that information is important and (if it were an episode of a TV series) should be listed as such in the episode table. Whenever I type in writers, I always go with whatever the episode says (of course, from what I can remember, I've never dealt with an episode from more than two writers before). Again, though, there is no statement anywhere in policy that I can find that specifies which format should be used. Kevinbrogers (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I understand, we should use what the credits do say. I was wondering because some pages use comma's and some don't. So ether way is correct I'm assuming as there's not really a rule for saying which one is better to use. What about for 2 writer though? Is the credits say John Smith and Jane Doe with an "and" should we put that in the column? - Alec2011 (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I would just go by the same rule, using whatever is mentioned in the episode. It appears that there's really no consensus (though I suspect that if it were brought to a more widespread decision, most people would prefer proper English). Personally, since there's never been a problem with it in the past, I type whatever I see on the TV if I'm adding the information, but I only change the existing information if there's a clear pattern on the page already (just to keep consistent within the article). I think as long as it's consistent within the specific TV series, it doesn't matter either way for Wikipedia purposes. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)