NOTE: This editor has Page mover rights, and is willing to do uncontroversial page moves (esp. round-robin page moves) upon request. Please make such requests at this Talk page by clicking on the "New section" tab above. |
Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:
- Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
- If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
- Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
- Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
- Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
- To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
- You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34 |
Threads older than 21 days may be automatically archived. |
List of films based on television programs
Pinging Geraldo Perez – this is more a reminder to myself than to you, Geraldo: but the WP:SCOPE of List of films based on television programs looks like it needs to be (massively?) narrowed. Right now it's including a bunch of what are basically TV movies in the list (including some TV movies that basically aired as episodes of these series – e.g. I just removed Shake It Up: Made In Japan which should not have been included under any circumstances!). That list should be narrowed to just theatrically-released films that are based on TV series. FWIW. (And, again, this is more a reminder to myself...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- See also: List of television spin-offs to do the same. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- And: Lists of actors by television series is another cleanup job... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
User Tom.Reding
I am intentionally manually reverting and am not pinging them, as I have no interest in crossing paths with them. This is because they are a good-standing editor, but these particular edits they are making right now are appearing to be disruptive. Please keep an eye on them and (manually) revert as needed, at least on the articles we watch. I'm not going to bother going through all of their edits (that would be contribution stalking), so I am only looking at the articles I have watchlisted. If they want those edits to stick, then they need to be providing a very descriptive edit summary explaining why they're doing that. "Enum 1 author/editor WL; WP:GenFixes on" explains nothing. This has been going on for a few days now. Amaury • 17:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I've seen these edits, and have been tempted to revert, but I'm not seeing anything in the guidelines for the citation template {{Cite web}} suggesting that use of author-link is wrong. In fact, in the documentation here, it's saying numerous times not to wikilink the author's name, and to use author-link instead. I'm probably missing something and may need some discussions where this was talked about. You're saying that author-link is reserved for Twitter accounts, but I'm scratching my head. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Please see the {{Cite web}} template documentation on this – it does indeed say to use
author-link
now, so you should not be reverting Tom.Reding on this. I don't know if this is a recent change or what, but the template documentation is clear on this point, and Tom.Reding is simply carrying out what the template docs instruct. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)- Then he needs to link to the page or a discussion regarding it. Per above, "Enum 1 author/editor WL; WP:GenFixes on" is insufficient and explains nothing. I shouldn't have to dig for this, or have MPFitz1968 link me to the page because it's why he thinks the user is doing this, and I am well within my rights to revert for insufficient explanation, as it is borderline disruptive. In any case, I hope your new year has been good so far. Amaury • 22:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
— YoungForever(talk) is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2020 and tomorrow will be 2021. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2022. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Coop & Cami Ask the World
Remember how long people kept claiming that the second season of Bunk'd was the last? Then the third? And finally the fourth? And they got proven wrong on each one. Same thing is going to happen here, or a year will pass without new episodes, and then we'll update as needed. But based on Disney Channel's record with things, such as the silent renewal of Bizaardvark's third season, it is way too premature to say the series has ended now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaury (talk • contribs) 23:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- While I personally think that in this case it is likely that the show is done (I thought season #2 was a huge step down in quality, and it wouldn't surprise me if Disney felt the same), it doesn't mean anything without word from Disney. It's called Wikipedia:Verifiability for a reason, and if you can't provide that you have no business changing article information. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Thanks for signing the above. I'm on my laptop right now while I wait for my HDMI to VGA adapter to arrive. My new computer doesn't have a VGA port, only HDMI ports, and the HDMI port on my monitor isn't working. Plus, I don't feel like hooking everything back up to my old computer, only to have to move everything back over to the new one tomorrow. Long story short, the key with the tilde is smaller than the number keys, unlike on my desktop keyboards, where it's the same size. Amaury • 00:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Reverting edits
Hello user! I saw that you reverted my edits to Olivia Rodrigo, saying that it was promotional and that "this isn't a fan site, but a historical record." My edit was verbatim, becoming Rodrigo's first number one single across all major streaming platforms, which is not failing any of the comments you made about my edit. This is a simply a fact, that is sourced and important for a reader of Rodrigo's page. I have made thousands of edits to Wikipedia and know what it is and isn't. Please keep in mind that you cannot own a Wikipedia page, and you shouldn't revert perfectly informational and proper edits, as the goal of Wikipedia editing is so that everyone can. Please consider reading WP:DONTREVERT, as my edit was not promotional and from a neutral point of view, like you said it was not. Also, this fact is already written in the song's Wikipedia page, anyways. :) Coreykai (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's not appropriate for the lede of a WP:BLP no matter how you slice it. What goes in the lede of a song article, and what goes into the lede of a WP:BLP are totally different things – WP:BLPLEAD is very clear
The lead section must summarise the life and works of the person with due weight. (emphasis mine)
Trumpeting what is happening this week is very much the definition of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. So, no, I have no regrets here at all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Birth place
Would you consider this bio of Rodrigo from the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media, whom Rodrigo is a panelist for, to be an RS in regards to confirming she was born in Temecula? – DarkGlow (✉) 01:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- @DarkGlow: Yes – that's almost certainly from Rodrigo herself, and the institute is a real thing so it should be a WP:RS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- @DarkGlow: I'm probably at my limit at this article. But a bunch of recent changes have been made, including removing the very source you're talking about, and again adding inappropriate stuff, so you may need to revert. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
TEŽ
Can I add Tatra Electric Railway to this article? It fullfiles some features of tram/light rail systems! Vladimir Skokan1 (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ping Yak79 2.0 here, to solicit their opinion. I don't know enough about this system, but it looks like it might be a "light railway" rather than a true light rail system. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Talk:List of Big City Greens episodes#Proposed rearrangement of Season 1
I've already commented, but... Amaury • 08:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
List of programs broadcast by Fox News
As I've been watching this a lot lately, particularly the primetime lineup, shouldn't we be holding off on this until it's actually Monday? Amaury • 02:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, technically, it should wait until the new lineup actually airs. I have no idea why some editors insist upon jumping the gun like this – it's pointless. But it's also not worth reverting in a case like this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Anatole (TV series)
Anatole technically is a preschool show. Why else would it air on Treehouse TV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkerstar Productions (talk • contribs) 15:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- It matters not a bit unless WP:RS's refer to the show as such. All genres must be sourced. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Legacies (TV series)
I actually had a look at that. The website does not currently have the titles for the third season episodes. All it has is Episode 3.1 and Episode 3.2. Amaury • 03:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- OK, you can revert if you like. But the WGA is definitely valid for episode titles when they're in there, and that edit summary implied that it wasn't. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- It should eventually update and fill out the titles, and it's why I chose to just give you the heads up rather than revert. Amaury • 03:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Lab Rats
I get what you mean when you say that the episodes should be in order of how they were first aired. But, if two production codes are for one episode, then shouldn't this account for two episodes, even if it was aired together in its first run? Not 100% sure how this works! - --Anthony hello123 (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)