User talk:Amaury/2018/October

2018 Archive Index: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

Game Shakers

Hey, do you know where this is coming from? Is it something Nickamore put out?... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Not that I can see, though I don't have my receiver on TeenNick much. Zap2it has "Snoop Therapy" listed for October 12, but there's no "upcoming airings" dropdown which shows the channel, and October 12 is less than two weeks away. See Knight Squad which has the corresponding dropdown for Saturday's episode. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, mine does have that, and the dropdown does show TeenNick. Can't know if that's accurate right now or not, though... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Bunk'd

I did not appreciate the post added to my talk page saying I was making "unconstructive" edits. Just because my edits were not agreed with them does not make them "unconstructive". Perhaps there is a debate on that, but if the goal of the edits was to help the page, then they are not "unconstructive" edits. Nor did I need the following lecture points. I have been on Wikipedia for a decade and know my way around and how things work. So I do not need to familiarize myself with the rules. Again, because one disagrees with edits, that does not warrant what was posted on my page. If my edits were made with a good intention - they are not disruptive. You disagreed with the edits. Disagreed with edits can not be labeled as disruptive if there was clearly good intention. A better idea would have been to discuss the edits, not label them and me in an absurd fashion. The proper way forward is discussing edits and ideas. Not intent on starting anything here, I just wanted to express my thoughts. --Jonathan Joseph (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jonathanjoseph81: You obviously don't know how things work; otherwise, you wouldn't be making those edits. The onus of discussion is on you, per WP:BRD. Once you keep making those edits, you are being disruptive. Plain and simple. Given that you've been here for what you claim to be a decade means that you should know better than to pull crap like this. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not hard to be friendly or cordial. You don't need to respond to people in such a hateful and unfriendly way with your negative tone and phrases such as "pull crap like this" , "you obviously don't know how things work", and "your logic is flawed" - WP:HOSTILE, be civil and respectful to others. I could say your edits disruptive as there are numerous sources to support my argument that the show has ended - which I have put up for discussion. And again, do refrain from speaking in such an unfriendly and hostile way from now on per WP:RUDE --Jonathan Joseph (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

And yet, there is still nothing that confirms the series has ended, so once again, you are wrong on all accounts. But good luck, if you want to keep trying. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I nowhere said I was going to keep trying. I did what you so friendly stated to do - start a discussion. Not that I was going to continue trying - I've moved on from this trivial event. And, if you continue with the violations of WP:RUDE, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HOSTILE I will take the proper precautions with your account in compliance with WP:CIVIL.--Jonathan Joseph (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I Am Frankie

OK, so I finished I Am Frankie season #2 last night. I really appreciated that they wrapped up nearly all of the season #2 storylines, and didn't leave us hanging with a "cliffhanger" like they did at the end of season #1. There was just one new "mystery" element introduced, vis a vis Simone, but I'm nearly positive that I've already figured that one out... So, now, if the show doesn't come back, I am satisfied with how it ended, but I will definitely watch if there's a season #3 after all (which the video you linked to on Geraldo's page hints at, but doesn't confirm...).

I just have one complaint about season #2 – I really don't like how they "memory-holed" Robbie and John(? the recurring student from season #1) and Byron, especially the latter. The way they just "forgot" about Byron was really sloppy, and they just needed to give us an explanation as to why he "disappeared" (e.g. his dad got transferred, or maybe he disappeared due to WARPA, etc. – but they needed to give us something on this, as Byron was too key a season #1 character to just ignore...). I also don't like that they dropped EGG and PEGS1, but I suspect this was budgetary dictated, so I'm not as unhappy about it (and they could always bring PEGS1 back in season #3!!...).

So, that's my $0.02... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: What did you think of the new main characters? Rachel, Zane, Simone, Cynthia, and Beto? Likewise, the new recurring characters? WARPA Tech, Sr. WARPA Tech, Dolph, and Lundgren. And yeah, I miss Robbie in particular, because he was pretty unusual and funny, what with his phone and that the fact that he was suspected of being an android by Frankie and Dayton, when it was actually Andrew who was the android. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Rachel was OK, probably the best introduction in the teen set. Zane was a poor substitute for Byron, IMO. I liked Simone, though my main problem with the character is that she never acted like an android (except for the couple of episodes where she was "memory-wiped"), and why she never acted like an android was never really explained (if someone had said they had stolen James' code for Andrew for her code, I missed it...). I liked Cynthia, though it was kind of obvious where they were really going with that character as soon as they introduced her IMO. Beto was, I guess, a "PEGS1"-type substitute, but I preferred PEGS1; also, they never did adequately explain what Cynthia was trying to accomplish with Beto... In general, I preferred the season #1 recurring characters, both the EGG crew over the WARPA crew, and I preferred John over the new high school NAH antagonists. And again, I really think they blew it by not bringing the WARPA Agent from season #1 back – that would have been a nice bit of continuity, and they could have used him in season #2. In general, I think they blew a lot of opportunities for continuity between seasons #1 and #2, and I'm not sure why they did that... One thing I did like about your video that you linked to – they pointed out that they keep mentioning Dayton's and Cole's Mom, but they never show her! – It would be nice to see her in season #3. Tammy's parents, as well... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Esme & Roy

Hey, can you take a look at the ratings at this article? They're claiming ratings there that basically aren't possible (i.e. too small to be measured!?!), and they're sourcing to Showbuzz Daily but I don't see this show even listed in the first source there. Thanks... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: They're in responses from Mitch Salem since they (obviously) didn't make the top 150, and they were never archived. (Comments disappear after about two weeks.) See the first comment here, for example. That first one is also wrong, and others may be as well. First one should be 0.04 million as the 0.01 in Mitch Salem's response is the 18–49 demo rating. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I am definitely... uncomfortable about this. It's one this to rely on Salem in the comments section if one specific episode drops below the Top 150, and he's asked about it. But I definitely don't think relying on comments from Salem in the comments section for the ratings of every episode is kosher (it's basically WP:USERGENERATED then, as it's not coming from publicly published ratings info). I'm inclined to pull the ratings from the table, based on your answer... I should maybe post to the Talk page about it first – any idea on what I should say if I do?... I guess I'll ping Geraldo Perez about this as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

We shouldn't be sourcing anything to comment sections in otherwise reliable sources. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@IJBall: On the Mitch Salem aspect, he works alongside Mitch Metcalf on the site, where they do get the info from Nielsen, so this is one probably one of those exceptions. I don't have any distrust for Mitch Salem. If a random user like myself posted that so and so got 974K, that would be different, of course. Everything comes from Nielsen, it's just that they only post the top 150. If they posted everything (new), it would be all the same. When they first started posting ratings in August 2014, it was only the top 25. Then they increased it to the top 100 in April 2015, and then to the top 150 we see now in November 2015. As for what to say, you could say that the ratings rock bottom, and probably shouldn't be included because of that, if that's a legit-sounding reason. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The issue is not that I don't "believe" the figures – the issue is that they aren't the publicly available ratings, which means we basically can't use them (they're effectively "not verifiable to a reliable source"). It's as Geraldo says above... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't really have any opinions on this article, though the same can be said for the ratings that make the top 150. They aren't available to the public. Nielsen's website doesn't have a page which lists ratings, we have to go to sites like Showbuzz Daily, TV by the Numbers, etc. I'm not seeing the problem here, personally. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

No, the Top 150 is publicly available – Nielsen is allowing Showbuzz Daily to use those, specifically for publication. But anything that's not on that list in not truly publicly available (i.e. it's "not on the official list"), and so is not really available for "public consumption". Comments in the comments section (esp. those that disappear within 2 weeks) don't change that fact. So I don't think Wikipedia is really "allowed" to report on ratings that aren't in the Top 150, at least if Showbuzz Daily is used as the source. (It might be fine for a "one-off", like I said above, but not in this case where it's a regular thing...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Becca's Bunch

What's wrong with including the catchphrases of the characters in Becca's Bunch? The article Fozzie Bear says something about that character's catchphrase. Rattatast (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears you reverted again something I've added to the article. How could they be trivia? I'm simply adding more to the descriptions. Rattatast (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:TRIVIA. It adds nothing of value to know what their catchphrases or instruments are. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess the catchphrases are trivial. The instruments, however, seem to play a role when Becca and her friends play as a band which is seen in more than one episode. Rattatast (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't comment on this, because I've never seen the show, but if they are always carrying the instruments with them, that could arguably be a "defining characteristic" of the characters. Still, it would have to be in more than just a few episodes for that to be justified for inclusion... But, like I've said, I've never seen the show, so I can't say if that's the case or not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

List of The Thundermans characters

Because Mike Evilman (or would it be just "Evilman"?...) was played by Eric Allan Kramer, I would consider that a "Notable guest star", if List of The Thundermans characters had such a section... BTW, I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but for guest stars we should always list the episode(s) they appeared in in their character summaries. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Andi Mack

Granted, several people have problems distinguishing that from which (I used to make that error myself when I was younger), but I'm not sure what your issue is about it being corrected ([1] [2]). You say there is no written rule? Check this, this and this. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Freaky Friday (2018 film)

Regarding this, see WP:BITE. I get that you're annoyed, but the personal hostility is over the top. You can be critical of their edits without suggesting they should quit Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll say what I want. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't. See the policy WP:CIVIL. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem here is that the user is not a newbie and WP:BITE does not really apply to them. The user has a history of blocks for edit warring and clearly hasn't learned their lesson if they're still doing it. And them thinking policies are optional means they really don't understand how Wikipedia works. Their continued disruption today has led to a report at ANEW. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Legacies (TV series)

Are you keeping a special "sandbox" version for this series? If not, would you be willing to?... I might want to keep track of simple "guest stars", and I won't be able to do that at the main article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: User:Amaury/sandbox/Legacies (TV series). I didn't source yesterday's since it's already aired, but since I don't watch the series, I don't know if there were name differences from the press release or (additional) guest stars not listed in the press release. That'll of course be up to you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Non-scripted television programs

Related discussion: List of The Dude Perfect Show episodes

@IJBall: Because game shows or other non-scripted series virtually have no story and therefore will likely never have summaries, should Crashletes and Paradise Run follow suit with their episode lists? Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I would say "Yes" to both – even if Paradise Run every gets a fourth season, I'd still be tempted to leave the LoE at the parent article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall:  Done. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)