User talk:Amaury/2016/February
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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 noticed you are watching Bella and the Bulldogs. The article on that series' lead Brec Bassinger has fewer than 30 watchers and could use more. A current issue on the talk page could use some input. If you have time. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The summary says that Trish got extremely Angry at Dez, But you took the part about her being nasty to him out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.60.230 (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I put a redirect there as a speedy request would be unlikely to be honored for the reasons you gave. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to notify readers that the subject may be somewhat disturbing for some. 96.237.20.21 (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- @96.237.20.21: Wikipedia isn't censored. Amaury (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Amaury. This show had its preview on Disney Channel on Sunday, February 14, and I have been watching the article about it for a couple of weeks now. Recently ran into reverting edits made in the article up to the point that I would be violating at least the letter of WP:3RR and have stopped with making edits for now. I know recently added material by User:Madihelene contains stuff about future episodes normally not added until they have aired, or unless they are accompanied by a reliable source—directing and writing credits. I might revert these later today or tonight unless you or another editor steps in. If you could do it, that would be great, and thanks in advance. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: I am so sorry for not replying sooner. For some reason, I'm now only seeing this, though I'm sure if I tried, I'd remember that I saw it before. In any case, I added the article to my watch list yesterday as well as to my projects here. I'll try to get to it this weekend as well as revert general vandalism edits. Amaury (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The hunt for the Kikiwaka was the sub plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.60.230 (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Nickelodeon's schedule
I saw the post you posted on Geraldo Perez and thought I share what I found on what's going on. Instead of typing everything I am just going to give you the links. [1] [2] I know this is nothing official but what the wiki has gathered has been pretty consistent. Also The Henry Danger facebook/twitter did confirm that the show will return in march. As for Bella and the Thundermans will return that month as well. Will know more as the next several days unfold. WP Editor 2012 (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I'm increasingly concerned about the state of this article. In addition to a continuing parade of IP's trying to add questionable content to it, it already seems to contain a lot of questionable content, such as listing the rebroadcasting dates for theatrical releases (why?! – seems trivial...), and including hour-long episodes of various NICK series as "films". Now, I'm not much of a Nickelodeon expert, which is why I haven't tried to tackle it myself. But who are the current "NICK experts" on Wiki?... (I'm kind of assuming you are one?!...) I really think it might be a good idea if two or three of the NICK experts around here would go through that article, and trim it back to its bare essentials and refocus it on just NICK original films (a la List of Disney Channel Original Movies – doing this may also necessitate moving the article to List of Nickelodeon Original Films or something...). On my end, I'm offering to help out, though I don't know how much help I'd be... Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- To add some context, a variation of this article has already been deleted once: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of movies broadcast by Nickelodeon. An AfD of the current article in 2009 resulted in No consensus. There is some past resistance to narrowing the focus of the article on its Talk page, but there's also been some support for narrowing the focus to something like List of Nickelodeon Original Films. I think if several editors knowledgeable about this topic made this their concerted focus, they could overcome resistance and successfully narrow the focus of the article. The article's current wide focus almost certainly fails notability guidelines (the current article is almost completely unreferenced) and is objectively pretty unjustifiable (does any other Wiki TV list-article include theatrical film rebroadcasts in its listings?!!...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I do watch Nickelodeon a lot, but I think someone like Geraldo Perez might be better suited to answer this as he has more experience in that field in general. However, I can provide some feedback with what I do know. Films that are actually films, such as Nickelodeon's Splitting Adam, do belong there. However, episodes that are packaged as an hour showing (with commercials), such as Nickelodeon's Bella and the Bulldogs' premiere episode are definitely not considered films and therefore do not belong there. Amaury (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yep. That was the first thing I noticed – stuff like the Bella and the Bulldogs thing. (The only "series" bits that might qualify on that page are things like iParty With Victorious which at least was 90-minutes long, and never seems to be shown as 3 split-up episodes...) But the inclusion of the NICK reairings of theatrical films is the other thing that sticks out as inappropriately included. Also: let's ping MPFitz1968 as someone else who seems knowledgeable about NICK as well... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am seeing a bunch of theatrically released films, like Jurassic Park and E.T. The Extra-terrestrial, which makes me think that list is a collection of indiscriminate info. (And those films have likely aired on many other networks, cable or otherwise.) No doubt the list should be trimmed where Nickelodeon-based films are the focus, plus the article reorganized to that effect. Specifically speaking, the lead simply reads: "This is a list of movies aired on Nickelodeon, an American cable television channel network owned by the MTV Networks division of Viacom." That allows for any movie airing on NICK to be listed, so the lead obviously needs to reflect a narrower focus. By the way, I'll admit I've not been too much into Nickelodeon since Sam & Cat ended, so haven't been into watching the current group of shows, though some of them are on my watchlist. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm trying to think of the best approach on pushing forward on this. One approach would be to just start boldly rewording the lede and removing content, but I suspect there will be immediate push-back to that (still, this might work if we all put this page on our Watchlists, which I haven't done on my end yet...). The second approach would be to launch a formal RfC on the Talk page on changing the scope and focus of the article – the advantage of this approach is that if it's successful, the change to the article would "stick", but that will only happen if enough people participate in the RfC and vote to "narrow focus" to establish that as the "consensus". The third approach, which is kind of a short-cut to the second approach would be to hold a WP:RM on moving the page to List of Nickelodeon Original Films, which would force a narrowing of the article's focus. (A fourth approach would be to hold another AfD on it, but this time push for "Delete, and redirect to List of Nickelodeon Original Films".) I'm curious to hear what others think our best approach would be?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am seeing a bunch of theatrically released films, like Jurassic Park and E.T. The Extra-terrestrial, which makes me think that list is a collection of indiscriminate info. (And those films have likely aired on many other networks, cable or otherwise.) No doubt the list should be trimmed where Nickelodeon-based films are the focus, plus the article reorganized to that effect. Specifically speaking, the lead simply reads: "This is a list of movies aired on Nickelodeon, an American cable television channel network owned by the MTV Networks division of Viacom." That allows for any movie airing on NICK to be listed, so the lead obviously needs to reflect a narrower focus. By the way, I'll admit I've not been too much into Nickelodeon since Sam & Cat ended, so haven't been into watching the current group of shows, though some of them are on my watchlist. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yep. That was the first thing I noticed – stuff like the Bella and the Bulldogs thing. (The only "series" bits that might qualify on that page are things like iParty With Victorious which at least was 90-minutes long, and never seems to be shown as 3 split-up episodes...) But the inclusion of the NICK reairings of theatrical films is the other thing that sticks out as inappropriately included. Also: let's ping MPFitz1968 as someone else who seems knowledgeable about NICK as well... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'd support removing any entry that either doesn't have a reference or where the entry is not supported by content in the linked to article for those that have links. If Jurassic Park does not mention anything about Nickelodeon airing it then it should not be in the list unless it has a reference attached to the entry showing an airing. Entries that need references should be tagged with a
{{cn}}and given at least a month before removing them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)- @Geraldo Perez: So, to clarify, you're basically in favor of the "be bold" approach (i.e. the first one I mention below)?... On my end, I'd definitely be willing to search for sourcing for the Nickelodeon Original Films listed (e.g. like Splitting Adam) – I don't think that will be hard to come by – but I want to cut out all the WP:LISTCRUFT first... Geraldo – do you think leaving a message on the article's Talk page first, before boldly pruning, is the best approach here? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Given what the article WP:Scope is "list of movies aired on Nickelodeon" and assuming that doesn't change, and verifiability policy, I suggest tagging stuff with
{{cn}}before removing anything that could possibly be in the current scope. Remove entries only after a reasonable time to find references has passed. That gives people who care a chance but ends up pruning the article of things people don't care about. Anything that can be shown to be out of scope should be removed immediately. An alternative is, of course, to get agreement on changing article scope. That requires a discussion on the article talk page as you discussed below. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Given what the article WP:Scope is "list of movies aired on Nickelodeon" and assuming that doesn't change, and verifiability policy, I suggest tagging stuff with
- @Geraldo Perez: So, to clarify, you're basically in favor of the "be bold" approach (i.e. the first one I mention below)?... On my end, I'd definitely be willing to search for sourcing for the Nickelodeon Original Films listed (e.g. like Splitting Adam) – I don't think that will be hard to come by – but I want to cut out all the WP:LISTCRUFT first... Geraldo – do you think leaving a message on the article's Talk page first, before boldly pruning, is the best approach here? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I do watch Nickelodeon a lot, but I think someone like Geraldo Perez might be better suited to answer this as he has more experience in that field in general. However, I can provide some feedback with what I do know. Films that are actually films, such as Nickelodeon's Splitting Adam, do belong there. However, episodes that are packaged as an hour showing (with commercials), such as Nickelodeon's Bella and the Bulldogs' premiere episode are definitely not considered films and therefore do not belong there. Amaury (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, Amaury and MPFitz1968 – I've started the process of "trimming" the list, but I've procrastinated from real world obligations enough, and I've only gotten as far as 2002, so I'd appreciate your help here. My advice: trim anything that is 60 minutes or less from the list. That's going to be most of the "series" specials currently included, though you're going to have to check – it looks like a number of the animated "specials" are 3–4 episodes long, which means 90–120 minutes long when originally aired, so I'd leave those kinds of entries in. We'll have to tag the theatrical reairings later, as Geraldo Perez suggested – by tag-bombing them with {{cn}} tags. But I think the focus right now has to be pulling out all the 30 and 60 minute entries that are simply outside of the WP:SCOPE of the list-article's currently declared scope. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I was reading over this at WT:TV, and Favre1fan93 has challenged info about the writing credits at List of K.C. Undercover episodes. On the project talk page, as well as Talk:List of K.C. Undercover episodes, he/she indicates that story and teleplay credits are separate parts to the writing credit, and must be accurately reported in the episode list. I do recall your editing the writing and directing credits in a number of episode articles (Disney and Nickelodeon) such that the "&" or "and" is not used, and that each name is separated by a line break, which is why I'm bringing this to your attention. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)