User talk:Amaury/2016/June
 | 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. |
IP 80.41.134.57
Just a heads up, the IP vandal you just warned is a sock of the long-term vandal/troll Vote (X) for Change. I've already sent a report to AIV regarding them. If you seem them do this in the future, just revert their edit and check to see if a report's filed at AIV. No sense in warning them, WP:DENY and WP:RBI apply here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Amaury, I definitely see your point. However, an additional reason for my edit is that it solves a problem. Namely, that "grow up" (which is similarly surrounded by commas) cannot be taken out of the sentence and still have the sentence make sense— at least, not without impacting the overall meaning. That's why I removed both commas. Can you think of another way to solve that problem? Granted, it isn't a major problem by any means. :) Actually, it's quite a long sentence with many clauses. Reading it again, even my edit wouldn't have made it problem-free. 1980fast (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I saw this edit [1] and I see you were changing the names in there to match how they are credited. However, I came across a sentence like this, from "The Secret Gets Out" (S1 E3): "Charlotte figures out that Henry is Henry and he confirms it, getting fired afterwards." which makes absolutely no sense now (of course, Henry is Henry). Found a copyvio in that episode summary by the way [2] and removed the first sentence which matched what was in that source I mentioned in my edit summary. I'm thinking Kid Danger is Henry's superhero alter ego (though I don't watch the show), but I don't see where there was a problem using the superhero names in the summaries. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: Yeah, I thought that might happen as I used the find and replace feature. I'll take a look over it later and reword where needed. As for your query, Geraldo Perez might be better to answer this as he made a revert similar to this a long time ago over on Game Shakers, so I was just following his example. Here's one example, and I think there was another one (or more) somewhere, but I can't find it based on edit summaries looking at the article's history. Amaury (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Names per credits is generally for out-of-universe level official credit info. For an in-universe plot descriptions would expect the names to match what is used and supported by the actual plot of the episode as shown and what makes sense in context. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Geraldo Perez: All right, gotcha. So then, that has me curious. Was there another reason you reverted that edit I linked to in my last reply on Game Shakers a while ago or was that a different case? That also contained in-universe names, but only in the episode descriptions like Henry Danger did. Amaury (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- If those were the names that were actually used in the episodes, I made a mistake. It would be nice if the descriptions explained why a different than normal name is used, maybe as a nickname. I see a lot of name vandalism and when I see something strange by anonymous editors I try to verify as best I can but tend to be wary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Geraldo Perez: Gotcha, gotcha. I can indeed confirm that the characters in Game Shakers have used the names Dub and Trip, though they also use the officially credited names Double G and Triple G, so it seems like they're interchangeably used on this show. Amaury (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- That should be added to the character descriptions if they are common alternative names used by other characters - makes sense as nicknames. Still in an episode description using the official name may make it easier for a reader who is not immersed in the show fandom to tell what is going on. I was confused reading it as I didn't recognize the names. I guess in some ways it is a WP:TONEish issue of when it gets too familiar with nicknames in descriptions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Geraldo Perez: Gotcha, gotcha. I can indeed confirm that the characters in Game Shakers have used the names Dub and Trip, though they also use the officially credited names Double G and Triple G, so it seems like they're interchangeably used on this show. Amaury (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- If those were the names that were actually used in the episodes, I made a mistake. It would be nice if the descriptions explained why a different than normal name is used, maybe as a nickname. I see a lot of name vandalism and when I see something strange by anonymous editors I try to verify as best I can but tend to be wary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Geraldo Perez: All right, gotcha. So then, that has me curious. Was there another reason you reverted that edit I linked to in my last reply on Game Shakers a while ago or was that a different case? That also contained in-universe names, but only in the episode descriptions like Henry Danger did. Amaury (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Names per credits is generally for out-of-universe level official credit info. For an in-universe plot descriptions would expect the names to match what is used and supported by the actual plot of the episode as shown and what makes sense in context. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I've resolved all the name changes and restored them to what they were. [3][4][5] Took a while since this task was not as simple as clicking "undo" or "rollback" (revert). MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: Sorry about that. Hopefully I didn't upset you. I was going to get around to that today. You could have just reverted to the version before I made those changes. It would have been easier to re-apply my edits and remove the copyrighted summaries you removed by using the diffs. Amaury (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to let you know that I had to sort the writers of the "Danger & Thunder" episodes of Henry Danger as to how they were credited in the episode's credits since the first part and second part had two different writers helping Dan Schneider write that episode. I'm just letting you know that in order to clear things up. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Rtkat3: In this case, we don't have to match the credits exactly as the episode was a single 44-minute episode. Amaury (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- What if they come to a point where they start re-airing the episodes as separate parts just like they started doing to the first episode of Game Shakers? --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Rtkat3: That happens sometimes in reruns, but we only care about the first run and how an episode is sold on Amazon, iTunes, etc. They'll sometimes combine two separate episodes into one or vice-versa they'll split the episode into two parts. In both cases, however, the episodes are still two separate episodes or one episode, respectively. It doesn't matter that they were combined or split. It's also never consistent. For example, Henry and the Bad Girl from Henry Danger's first season, which had two parts and aired on two different dates, is sometimes combined into one showing and then the next time it'll be shown as two separate showings like how it originally was. That's why we only care about the original run and how it is sold by vendors. I can't remember where, and I didn't participate in it too much, but I know Geraldo Perez, IJBall, and Nyuszika7H have discussed this not too long ago. They may be able to provide more feedback on this. Amaury (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- This reminds me of Lab Rats vs. Mighty Med, which had cast from both shows as starring in the original run, but split into two parts for syndication (e.g. Netflix) with the other show's cast getting special guest star credits. Disney Channel Hungary even went as far as airing the second part of that, disregarding the first part, while we are still in the middle of Lab Rats season 3 – even though that episode does not affect the Mighty Med continuity at all, as the next episode continues from where the one before the crossover left off. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Anyway, if the three were listed like this in the original run, without "Part 1" or "Part 2" credits, then I'd say that's what we should use. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Rtkat3: That happens sometimes in reruns, but we only care about the first run and how an episode is sold on Amazon, iTunes, etc. They'll sometimes combine two separate episodes into one or vice-versa they'll split the episode into two parts. In both cases, however, the episodes are still two separate episodes or one episode, respectively. It doesn't matter that they were combined or split. It's also never consistent. For example, Henry and the Bad Girl from Henry Danger's first season, which had two parts and aired on two different dates, is sometimes combined into one showing and then the next time it'll be shown as two separate showings like how it originally was. That's why we only care about the original run and how it is sold by vendors. I can't remember where, and I didn't participate in it too much, but I know Geraldo Perez, IJBall, and Nyuszika7H have discussed this not too long ago. They may be able to provide more feedback on this. Amaury (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- What if they come to a point where they start re-airing the episodes as separate parts just like they started doing to the first episode of Game Shakers? --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I generally defer to Geraldo Perez on this kind of thing, but in the circumstances outlined (different writers and directors for the two 30-minues, pretty consistently rerun not as a 60-minute episode but as separate 30-minute episodes, two prod. codes(?)...) I think a good case can be made that they should be counted two separate episodes. However, in the case of "Danger & Thunder", it may be too soon to know all this yet... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think it best to stick with documenting the original showing. I put a paragraph split between the parts in the description but left off the labels as those labels are editor comments not official in-episode parting labels shown in the ep itself. I think adding part written in the table for the writers is too much info than is necessary for the table. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Geraldo Perez: Hm. I actually did see the part labels, similar to that one episode of Lab Rats: Bionic Island. However, even so, I agree that even if they're there we shouldn't include them as it makes the table cell clunky. And perhaps when Danger & Thunder started production, it was going to be two episodes, but obviously that's not what the final production turned out to be. In regard to labels, that's also why I feel the way I do about including the "teleplay and story by" labels, which we are currently doing on K.C. Undercover and Stuck in the Middle. The people who do the teleplay and story are still writers, so just "written by" is sufficient, and why people in that past discussion refused to understand that is beyond me. However, that's neither here nor there, and I don't want to get too off topic. Amaury (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't see the episode and depend on people who did for info. If there was a title screen with the words "Part 1" and "Part 2" at the beginning of the related segments shown then it can be justified to have those official labels show up in the episode description. Editor desecration as to whether needs to be in the summary and adds to understanding. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Geraldo Perez: Hm. I actually did see the part labels, similar to that one episode of Lab Rats: Bionic Island. However, even so, I agree that even if they're there we shouldn't include them as it makes the table cell clunky. And perhaps when Danger & Thunder started production, it was going to be two episodes, but obviously that's not what the final production turned out to be. In regard to labels, that's also why I feel the way I do about including the "teleplay and story by" labels, which we are currently doing on K.C. Undercover and Stuck in the Middle. The people who do the teleplay and story are still writers, so just "written by" is sufficient, and why people in that past discussion refused to understand that is beyond me. However, that's neither here nor there, and I don't want to get too off topic. Amaury (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think it best to stick with documenting the original showing. I put a paragraph split between the parts in the description but left off the labels as those labels are editor comments not official in-episode parting labels shown in the ep itself. I think adding part written in the table for the writers is too much info than is necessary for the table. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Amaury! I don't love this edit at Stuck in the Middle. I think it makes some of the character descriptions over-written... What do you think? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Yeah, I agree. Character descriptions are meant to be short descriptions of who the characters are, not what they do or find out in certain episodes. That's probably more appropriate for the list of characters article if and when we get enough characters, but for now, I say no. Amaury (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey – there's an {{incomplete}} template tag placed somewhere in this article, but I can't seem to find it... Any idea where it is?!... I'm thinking it should either be moved to the top of the article, or at least the top of a section, but I can't even find it in order to do that! TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- I was wondering that myself, and discovered it's part of that Boy Meets World template that's at the end. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed problem. Whoever put the incomplete tag in the template contents did not enclose it with noinclude, which led to it being transcluded to the article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that MPFitz1968. Personally, I'd be tempted to remove that 'tag' from the template entirely – in what way is the template "incomplete"?! It was added without Talk page comment, or even an explanatory edit summary. To me, this "drive by" tagging isn't helping the template or anyone else... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed problem. Whoever put the incomplete tag in the template contents did not enclose it with noinclude, which led to it being transcluded to the article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)