User talk:Amaury/2016/August

2016 Archive Index: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

Girl Meets World

I'm seeing you're reverting the added awards by User:Riarklematthews [1] and [2]. I checked the sources given for these additions, and it clearly identifies Girl Meets World in the listing for the award/nomination, even though the recipient is for an actor or other person involved in the show, so it's OK to keep in the list. (Probably good idea to still list show in the recipient column where it's not clear, or somewhere else to clarify that it's for the person's work on the show.) Went thru some discussion on that talk page a couple weeks ago about it: Talk:Girl Meets World#Awards and nominations section - actor awards being moved to their individual pages, what about writers, directors, etc.?. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: I know Geraldo Perez agrees with you on this issue, but I feel like we're opening a real can of worms but doing things this way, and really risk "double-counting" awards to both actors and shows. IMHO, all "Actor" awards (outside of those awarded to a TV show's cast "ensemble") should only be listed at the "actor" articles, while only awards to the TV show itself and to the show's crew (along with those previously mentioned cast "ensemble" awards) should be listed at the TV series articles. If we allow "actor" awards to be included in the awards listings at the TV series pages, we're going to get serious "awards" bloat at pages like Girl Meets World... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I was looking at List of awards and nominations received by The Big Bang Theory and Jim Parsons § Awards and nominations as an exemplar for what is done in major awards. I think if the award text is for acting done in a named series it should go in both. If it is a general award such as most popular actor or some such not directly linked to a series it doesn't belong in the series article. If the award is for the series itself and doesn't mention a person it definitely does not belong in any actor page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by The Big Bang Theory? Yep – "awards bloat". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I knew there must have been a reason for choosing that example. 😇 Still reliable sources generally consider Oscar and Emmy acting and directing awards towards the film or series count when documenting how well it has done WRT awards. Ben-Hur even mentions it in the lead. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Writing credits

Related discussion: Lab Rats: Elite Force

I just remembered this. About the writing credits, "Written by: John Smith & Jane Doe" is equivalent to "Story by: John Smith & Jane Doe / Teleplay by: John Smith & Jane Doe". And as for the parts, I don't really think it's trivia, not any more than "&" vs. "and" and story/teleplay, though it would make the director column wider than usual (as the credits are also split for that), so it may be best to just use a horizontal line. It isn't really excessive detail and avoids confusion – I would mention it since it had split credits in the original broadcast, not just syndication/re-runs (unlike the case of Lab Rats vs. Mighty Med where they changed credits for syndication, though they did have some split credits too). nyuszika7h (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

On the other matter, it depends, in my opinion. If it's something like the first and last two episodes of Digimon Tamers, where they premiered as hour showings (with commercials), then yes, having labels wouldn't hurt. Although in the case of Digimon Tamers, the names of the episodes were totally different, so it wouldn't necessarily be "part" labels. However, when you have some episodes, like that one from Lab Rats: Bionic Island, that when first planned were going to be two separate episodes, but they were later combined for an actual hour showing—not just two episodes put together like that Digimon example—then having "part" labels is unnecessary as the final product is a single episode. They had to combine the credits, so that's why you see "part" labels, but they are still not necessary as it is now a single episode, even sold as such. Now, if an episode were planned to be an hour showing from the get-go, then that obviously changes things and there will be no labels. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(I typed this reply a few hours ago and forgot to send.) If the credits say "Story by: Foo & Bar / Teleplay by: Baz" and you just put "Foo, Bar, Baz" as writers, then if interpreted strictly according to the WGA guidelines that would mean "Story by: Foo and Bar and Baz / Teleplay by: Foo and Bar and Baz" (if some separator other than "&" is used then "and" is assumed), so it's not entirely unfounded to claim it's incorrect, though I don't like their tone and the way they approached the issue either.

As for the "Part" labels, since we are already listing credits "properly", I don't really think it would hurt to have a horizontal line at least, but if you don't like it, I'm not going to continue arguing over this unless someone else brings it up and thinks we should do that. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: I'm sorry if I upset you. That was not my intention. I was merely giving my opinion. Although I do agree with your last few words regarding leaving it as is unless questioned like before on K.C. Undercover. I'm going to ping Geraldo Perez and IJBall since they were involved in the discussion. And I'll invite you as well MPFitz1968. GP is actually the one who suggested not including the part labels in this discussion about the writing credits. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

FTR, I have absolutely no opinion on this issue – outside of preferring that episode tables include episode writers, I have pretty much no thoughts on exactly how they should be "listed" within the table... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Thanks for providing your feedback. Even neutral feedback is appreciated. :) Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You didn't upset me, Amaury, I was talking about the WPTV editors' tone. Anyway, technically you can consider someone being confused over it being "questioned", though like I said I won't bother with it unless someone comes along again and suggests adding some indication. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Bizaardvark

Hi Amaury. I'm confused as to how you are indicating the change I made on the Bizaardvark page is disruptive. I'm not very skilled at making Wikipedia changes, I admit, but I was not doing anything inaccurate. In fact, I was trying to correct mistaken info on the page. "Johnathan McClain" is the actor on Bizaardvark. Not "Jonathan McClain." If you look at the episode, "First!" you'll see that. Also here: [3] His name comes first in the guest star credits at the end of the episode, and I was also just adding the "Recurring Characters" section because he has now been in two episodes, and it looks as though he'll be in several more. (He also appears as a recurring character on the Bizaardvark Wikia page. I don't want to disturb the process, just contribute. How do you feel it's disruptive? Thanks... Nipsyrusel (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nipsyrusel: Then fix the typographical error without re-arranging the credit order. And no, Johnathan McClain is not listed first, so I suggest you watch the credits again. You'll see Calum Worthy is listed first by himself followed by the rest of the guest stars. As for whether Johnathan McClain's character is recurring or not, he has still only appeared in two aired episodes. We don't base recurring status on future episodes, only aired episodes. And IMDb and Wikia aren't reliable and can't be used as sources. (IJBall, you may be interested in this discussion.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah. I see. You're right. I just looked back and saw Calum's name on its own card. Johnathan was listed first in the pilot episode and then I saw it at the top of the other guest star list. My bad. I will correct the typo without changing the order. I can see how that was disruptive. And I also understand the thing about aired episodes. And while I won't argue about what counts as recurring, I will point out that other pages for shows with recurring characters start the counting at two episodes. (Because to recur, by definition, means to happen more than once.) So I was going to put Johnathan McClain and Jimmy Fowlie in the recurring category, as they have both now appeared more than once. But since you appear to be the main editor for this page, I will play by your rules. I also see you just changed the typo. Unless you object, I plan to link both of those actors to their own Wikipedia pages, since it appears to have been done inconsistently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nipsyrusel (talk • contribs) 17:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nipsyruse: (Just as an FYI, you don't need to ping me when you're on my talk page as I'll receive an alert regardless.) I've already taken care of the typographical error. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nipsyruse: This discussion here Talk:List of Girl Meets World characters#Pappy Joe - recurring? may be of interest to you regarding the issue about "recurring". I flagged Pappy Joe's inclusion in the recurring list at that article because his two episodes were in "Girl Meets Texas: Part 1" and "Girl Meets Texas: Part 2", comprising essentially the same storyline in a multi-part episode. And I had to question whether two episodes was enough to classify as recurring, especially in that situation. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Any TV show article that has anyone with appearances in just two episodes down as "recurring" is wrong, just wrong. "Recurring" should be just that: actually "recurring" over multiple episodes. While there's been no formal "cutoff" proposed at WP:TV, it would be logical to assign "recurring" somewhere around appearances in 5 or half-a-dozen episodes. IOW, even "three" episodes should not be considered "recurring" in the strictest sense. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

100 Things to Do Before High School

The last message from myself is a response to an edit summary of Nyuszika7H's here.

So, I started watching 100 Things to Do Before High School today, and in the episode "Start a Garage Band Thing!", I knew I recognized the Froman twins from somewhere. And indeed, co-starring Benjamin Royer and Matthew Royer, from Best Friends Whenever... nyuszika7h (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Are you going to be adding guest stars to the article? Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I can add them, though they only list the actor names here, so it's not as simple as just copying them, though I guess most significant ones already have their character names in the "Recurring" section so can copy from there, and not that hard to get the rest. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done nyuszika7h (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: It is a bit tricky, but I still just go by the credits and include the actor names only, which is what I started doing a while ago over on List of The Thundermans episodes#Season 3 (2015–16) and what I did over on School of Rock#Episodes. People can then use the recurring section to figure out who's who for those who have guest starred in several episodes per IJBall's arguments. Amaury (talk | contribs) Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I added the character names, but in parenthesis to avoid creating the illusion that the character names are listed in the credits. (It may not be immediately obvious that they are not, but using "as" could be misleading.) I think it's useful info, though if you want to make it shorter I would be fine with removing the parentheticals after the first appearance of characters since those names are not explicitly listed in the credits and won't suddenly change from episode to episode. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: In parentheses is fine as, at least to me, it makes it clear the character names aren't part of the official credits. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Yeah, I don't know why that happens since you already have a break between the summary and the guest stars and any additional lines, such as absences. In my opinion, it looks more organized when editing to have the the plot template together with the summary. It might be worth inquiring about at the plot template talk page. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Backstage (Canadian TV series)

Hey, Amaury! As per this at the Talk page, it's probably time we added "recurring characters" to the cast list at Backstage. I count at least three that might qualify – Cassandra the senior(?) head "prima" (Madison MacGregor), Principal Durani (Dewshane Williams), and Maria Schiller (Pippa Leslie). I think all three of these have been at least 3–4 episodes each, and so could probably noted as "recurring". Am I missing anyone? Thoughts? Pinging MPFitz1968 in case he has any thoughts as well... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Posting here again, in case you didn't see this – last night, weird things were happening with Talk pages (e.g. I didn't get messaged or E-mailed last night even though somebody else posted to my Talk page...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: I did receive your message, as well as both notifications—on the site and by email—and meant to thank you and reply later, but forgot. As far as I can tell, you're not missing anyone. What makes this tricky is that there appears to be no guest star credits in the credits, or co-star credits, for that matter—not that we include them, but still. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed that Backstage seems to run "guest" credits near the start of the episodes. For example, I'm nearly positive I noticed a guest credit for Pippa Leslie near the beginning of "Showtime". And I'm pretty sure I noticed the guest credit for Madison MacGregor in an earlier episode. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Lab Rats: Elite Force

I don't want to argue too much about this minor issue, just forgot to mention it earlier – I understand using the same capitalization for "with" and "without" at Stuck in the Middle, but for Lab Rats: Elite Force, I'd say it would be to best to follow MOS:CT and capitalize "Coming Through in the Clutch". It doesn't really help consistency/aesthetics there, it's just a personal preference – no offense intended – so I don't think an exception is justified there. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: You're correct that "arguing"—I don't really like calling it arguing, at least between us and the others because we're good friends, and I hate it when I have conflicts with friends—over this minor issue is just silly, but there's certainly nothing wrong with either us voicing our opinions. :) (Which reminds me, did you see my reply above to that continued discussion?) I wouldn't include the story and teleplay even when/if I get around to removing the line breaks, but I suppose I can now understand the reasoning a bit—just a bit—behind using those labels. However, for titles, whether you have Going Through the Toy Store Is Awesome or Going through the Toy Story Is Awesome, it's the exact same thing, the only difference being that "through" is capitalized in one and not the other. However, I can "fix" it if it really "bothers" you that much. And no offense taken. PS: I also replied above in case you didn't get that alert as I had to fix the mention. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, we're friends, I just wanted to make sure you don't get it wrong. And yes, I prefer the capitalized form, but I wouldn't have brought it up if it weren't for the MOS – I think it's better to follow it unless there is a good reason to deviate (for me the Stuck in the Middle case is a good enough reason, someone may disagree in the future but let's not worry about that now) – and in this case both the sources and the MOS call for the capitalization. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Peyton Meyer

Got a problematic IP editor at Peyton Meyer today – if you could keep an eye on this one for the next 24–28 hours, that would be great. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: You got it, buddy! Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Game Shakers

Hi Amaury (talk | contribs), this my first time doing this via Wiki... apologies.... if there is any error I made.... As I notice you have reverted it after I have updated and corrected the Episode List. Where it should have as followed:

• Episode 1 and 2 for Sky Whale, as I remember when I was watching this show, it start of with two part not as one, as you have show it to be as.
• Episode 3 Lost Jacket, Falling Pigeons
• Episode 4 Dirty Blob
• Episode 5 MeGo the Freakish Robot
• Episode 6 Tiny Pickles
• Episode 7 Scared Tripless
• Episode 8 Trip Steals the Jet
• Episode 9 Lost on the Subway
• Episode 10 You Bet Your Bunny
• Episode 11 A Reggae Potato Christmas
• Episode 12 Poison Pie
• Episode 13 Party Crashers
• Episode 14 The Girl Power Awards
• Episode 15 A Job for Jimbo
• Episode 16 Shark Explosion
• Episode 17 Nasty Goats
• Episode 18 Babe's Fake Disease
• Episode 19 The Diss Track
• Episode 20/21 Revenge @ Tech Fes, which again two part again... not one... like Episode 1 and 2.

Also did try correct the ProdCode, but it was reverted by you again.... Revenge @ Tech Fes ProCode should be 124-125. As the link to approve this.... if you don't take my word for it.... [4] [5] [6] I hope this helps and willing to be able update the result to that page with correction! Wikiskideditor1 (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Wikiskideditor1: we can't use wikia and imdb as references as they are both edited by anonymous people and neither have a reputation for fact checking. Besides the information they have is wrong as shown by reliable sources such as Futon Critic. An episode of a TV series has one set of credits, opening and closing. The episodes you claim as two part episodes were broadcast as longer than normal episodes that were created using two production slots but merged for presentation - they were broadcast as a single episodes, There is no indication in any reliable source that they were presented as separate parts as you claim. Also the product codes in that article are supported by reliable sources as supported by the reference in the column header. You proposed change conflicts with that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: It's actually worse than you say in regards to IMDb. Let me give a specific recent example – I submitted a correction to IMDb about a week ago letting them know that an 18th episode they had listed for Miss Match did not in fact exist, as shown by a Variety source confirming that only 17 episodes were ordered/produced, and based on the fact that both the U.S. Copyright Office and the WGA database only listed 17 titles for the show (and did not include the episode title I was trying to get deleted), and IMDb still rejected the correction!... by citing the fact that Epguides, TV.com and something called watch-episodes.com stated that there were 18 episodes!! Talk about not understanding Reliable sources!!... This experience has pretty much solidified my opinion that IMDb can't be trusted for much of anything, considering that they won't even accept properly sourced corrections from users. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Amaury: Okay... that would be helpful from your message. Although I got to say I sure it is two part, even when I check it online to rewatch it again, and did watch it when it was on TV in July, as part of Nick Summer Fest. As this link show [copyvio link removed] it is 44 mins for Episode 1 and 2, when it normally is 20 minutes for Ep 1, and again for Ep 2... As I did watch it, and it was two part, but I can't seem approve it for you with example you gave me, such as Futon Critic..... Also same for this link show [copyvio link removed], it is 43 mins for Episode 20/21, when it is also normally 20 minutes.... I don't know if this give any better proof for you now, or still it will not to be change at all? Let me know =)

Update ==> I manage find site, you might trust very much.... this site is linking as to what I am trying to say to you.... http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/game-shakers/episode-guide/EP02254424?aid=zap2it. As it clearly shows it there very well. Please let me know your result now about this.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiskideditor1 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Wikiskideditor1: The length of an episode is fairly irrelevant. Longer than normal episodes are just that. Single set of credits means single episode. A two part episode would normally have part 1 and part 2 listed in the guides as part of the title and they generally air on different days although it is possible, but uncommon, to air them back to back. If two episodes are aired back to back there would be separate opening and ending credits for each of the two. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Amaury: Darn!... least I tried..... =/..... but very true, as I couldn't agree more from your reply. Oh byway... can you let me know if this site helps! I manage find site, you might trust very much.... this site is linking as to what I am trying to say to you.... http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/game-shakers/episode-guide/EP02254424?aid=zap2it. As it clearly shows it there very well. As I'm not sure if this going make any different, but do let me know again, for last try attempt =/ .... Wait for reply. Have Great Day! ~ Wikiskideditor1~ (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Amazon shows what was created and sold. Zap2it gets early info and Futon Critic is more reliable. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Amaury: Hi again, I had look at Amazon, and kind of understand by what you mean by it, reason why you would mark it as Episode 1 rather than two part episodes, looking at the running time, but I assume you will leave it as it is. Least I tried my best provide information reason why... But thanks for information between Zap2it and Futon Critic. I will leave it there as it is, since I was unable get it changes by you.... nice meeting you, and my first attempt of correcting the page though, lol =D. Have Great Day! ~ Wikiskideditor1~ (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Liv and Maddie

Hey, I noticed you had reverted one of my edits. I added that because that is what that section is used for, correct? The "show_name2" one I mean. It's meant to be used when a show changes it's title. I remember they did it with Hannah Montana, Degrassi: TNG, Lab Rats, and several others. That spot is to be used for that if at any time the show changes it's title (and is still the same show). Joshie (New Horizons Await You) 01:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ijoshiexo: There's no need for it in the information box. Mentioning it in the lead, like with Lab Rats, is sufficient. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: Then what is the point of having that section if there is no need? Several other articles also use that sub-title section while also mentioning it in text. I see a need for it. Joshie (New Horizons Await You) 03:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the |show_name_2= parameter is more appropriate when a show is released under different names in different regions (such as Binny and the Ghost which was released as Billie and the Ghost in the UK), not when seasons are given subtitles. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of this – is anyone else tired of Disney's stupid "shtick" of "renaming" their shows in their 4th seasons?! They did it with Lab Rats, now with Liv and Maddie, and I feel like they've done it some other time as well... Totally unnecessary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: I personally don't have an issue with it, but to each their own. :) Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Yep, there's Hannah Montana Forever (and also Jonas L.A., though that was for the second season – the show didn't last longer than that). nyuszika7h (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep! Those are the other examples I couldn't remember. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The Swap (2016 film)

Could you please add The Swap (2016 film) to your watchlist? – We've got a series of IP's who are insisting upon changing the release date to this to something contrary to the current source, and without adding a new source in its place... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Certainly. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverting the most recent IP edit there too would be super! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Beat you to the punch! Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: not liking "four" season shows – To go into more detail than I said on my Talk page, the "tween" shows seem generally only to have enough material to fill out two "good" TV seasons (Victorious managed to get through three seasons before really sliding in quality) – usually the third season is mediocre, and the fourth season is not good to terrible (I thought Austin & Ally's season 4 was the latter). The only series that I feel seemed to duck the "fourth season curse" pretty well was Jessie. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Wouldn't it have been interesting if Jessie's fourth season turned to have 26 finalized episodes? I don't know if it was just a coincidence or not, but the first three seasons all had 26 finalized episodes, whereas the fourth season only had the standard 20 episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Split attribution

Not a big deal, just thought I'd point out that {{Split from}} / {{Split to}} were supposed to be merged a long time ago according to the TfD (I posted about it at WP:VPM § TfD pending for Split from/to), and the notice at the top of those templates says not to use them in any new articles – though new and old transclusions alike can likely be automatically corrected with AWB when someone gets around to it – I recommend using {{Copied}} which is also simpler as you can place the same tag on both articles. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: The notice I see doesn't actually mention not to use it, just that it's being deleted. Anyway, could you take care of it on this one? I can see how you do it for future splits. I can't seem to figure out how it works. When I try it on the episode list article, for example, instead of showing where it was split from, I just see the word from surrounded by parentheses and brackets. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It says "Please do not use it on any additional pages" if you click through to the template's page. I'll help you with {{Copied}} later, have to go for a bit now. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Ah! Okay! And great, thanks! I'll hold off on Game Shakers, then, as it also has a season two entry on Zap2it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Which is an issue, as I don't like {{Copied}} – the older 'split' templates are easier to use. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done for School of Rock. @IJBall: It's almost the same. Not sure why it has so many parameters, but the four main ones are enough, I can't see any case where the other parameters would provide much value, they are not required.. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I recommend creating the episode list article first before splitting it off from a main article, or otherwise if the episode list article exists as a redirect the article will attempt to transclude itself in the "Episodes" section resulting in the page being messed up for a while. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Words of (unsolicited) advice

Everybody loves some unsolicited advice, right?! ... Anyway, I don't think an edit like this, esp. from an apparently first-time IP editor, merits a "Level 3" warning – in a case like that, I probably would have gone with a Level 1, though if I suspect anything "hinky" I default to a giving a Level 2 message. (Now this followup edit by the IPv6 was fully worth the "only warning" message, as they immediately repeated an edit that had just been reverted...) Just some unsolicited advice/my $0.02! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Sure, why not, haha! Noted. While you're here, did you see my message on GP's talk page? Are you able to help? Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

If you're talking about The Thundermans topic, I did see that a GP's Talk page, but I can't help you as I've seen no more than about half-a-dozen episodes of The Thundermans over its entire run. (In general, I watch much less Nick than Disney Channel, and even when some of the Nick shows turn up on TeenNick, I don't necessarily watch them, though the The Thundermans is one of the ones that I might get around to watching one of these days...) Sorry for the long-winded answer! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)