User talk:IJBall/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Hunter Street premiere date

So numbers for Saturday are finally in, a day late due to technical difficulties with the Nielsen company—Saturday and Sunday finals are usually posted around 6:30 AM PT on Tuesdays, unless there are holiday delays—and I noticed Hunter Street is in the list because a sneak peek did air after the KCAs for the last 30 minutes, I think. Showbuzz Daily shows it occupying a 26-minute slot. In guides, however, it was still shown as the KCAs taking up a two-hour slot, so that wasn't immediately clear. I think it was first episode, "The New Hunter," but I'm not sure. We'll see if there's an entry or not for the 7:00 PM showing on Monday, as reruns aren't posted, whenever Monday finals are posted—usually posted around 1:00 PM PT on Tuesdays, but they're also delayed. Once we figure out which episode was used for the sneak preview—usually the first one, but you never know—we should change the premiere date to March 11. Just like with other series, such as Austin & Ally which, according to Disney Channel, had a sneak peak on December 2, 2011, and later "officially premiered" on December 4, 2011, the first episode still aired on December 2, 2011, and that's what we should document, regardless of how Disney Channel labeled the first two episodes. Same thing here. I just want to wait, though, until we know for sure which episode was used for the sneak preview. Again, usually the first, but you never know. http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-150-saturday-cable-originals-network-finals-3-11-2017.html Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, no need to wait. The Futon Critic has it listed as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, yeah, that's odd, as my cable guide definitely did not show an episode of Hunter Street on Saturday night. But I think that Showbuzzdaily report can be used as a cite to source a March 11 premiere date. And, yes – it pretty much has to be the pilot episode that was shown, and not episode #2... OK, use Futon to source the date as well, then. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the other reason I wanted to wait, but I didn't realize The Futon Critic also had March 11 listed, which is used for our column references, so we're good there. And yeah, the KCAs were shown taking a two-hour slot, including commercials, but it was more, like, an hour and thirty minutes, and I guess they just didn't bother to show that. I don't remember if the same thing happened with last year's KCAs when the School of Rock series premiere was the lead-out. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't feel it's necessary to source the air date itself. The Futon Critic is already used as a column reference, so it's kind of redundant to have it again there, and Showbuzz Daily is already used for the viewers source, and, obviously, there couldn't be ratings there unless an episode has already aired on that date. The column references are sufficient, and it's really no different than with, again, List of Austin & Ally episodes as well as List of Make It Pop episodes, both of which had "previews" and "official premieres," but, really, the "previews" were the premieres, or any series in general, really, even those that didn't have "previews." I'm also trying to think of some other Nickelodeon and Disney Channel sitcoms that did this, but I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Screener also changed the date to March 11 at one point, but then changed it back for some reason. I won't remove the sources... for now. TROLOLOLOL Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The reason I think explicitly referencing the date in this case is a good idea is because the premiere was so "buried" that it didn't even show up in cable guides. Also, the other referencing at the article explicitly states a March 13 premiere date. (The only question here is whether we want to add a 'note' to the March 11 date to note that it was a "special preview" ahead of the "official premiere" date of March 13 – if we decide to go the 'note' route, then the note can probably replace the referencing. Otherwise, I'd advise leaving the referencing...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hm. I would think The Futon Critic, which does have March 11 listed, would be sufficient. We have sources that say March 13, yes, but just like the situation we had at Talk:List of Henry Danger episodes#Number of episodes for second season, where what was planned with regard to the episode count for season two isn't actually what happened, things can change, so it's the same thing here, I'd like to think. We now have The Futon Critic with newer/more up-to-date information—March 11—reflecting what actually happened. I'm sure we had sources saying December 4, 2011, for Austin & Ally, April 6, 2015, for Make It Pop, and March 11, 2016, for Stuck in the Middle, but what actually happened was different because of the "previews" which were really just the premieres: December 2, 2011, March 26, 2015, and February 14, 2016. I remember the Austin & Ally series overview used to have two dates for its season one premiere date as seen in this version of the episode list article, but GP replaced it with just December 2, 2011, in the following edit when he updated the table to use the template as that is when the series premiered, regardless of whether it was advertised as a "preview" or not. I'll invite the rest of the group and see if they have any feedback because you can never have too much feedback, right? Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Why we pretty much say "First aired" instead of "Premiere". First aired is descriptive and what we normally want. Premiere is a term that normal English would consider a synonym of "First aired" but has been usurped by channel marketing types for hype purposes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H

So I'm not quite sure how to handle this as it's never happened before. Ctrl + F Hunter Street here. As "previews" are the first episodes and first airings per GP above, when they officially "premiere" later, they are still listed as reruns by the network which aren't posted on Showbuzz Daily. For example, Make It Pop "previewed" on March 26, 2015, but do you see an entry for Make It Pop on April 6, 2015, when it "officially premiered"? Nope. However, it doesn't look like this was the case this time for some reason. I'm wondering if this one of those times we can make an exception and list the ratings for the first episode for both Friday and the 7:00 PM Monday showing? Unlike here on Game Shakers, where what people were doing was totally and truly unnecessary. Please advise. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The other "issue" here will seem to be the Ratings section. We have a 20-episode season, but we will be listing 21 entries in the calculations by the time it ends even though there weren't 21 episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

FTR, this is exactly why I am in favor of 'noting' all instances of "special previews" before "premieres" in episode tables. There have been a number of examples of this lately – Van Helsing (TV series), Falling Water (TV series), etc. I know some in WP:TV don't think it's necessary to note these circumstances, but I feel strongly that we do need to note them. When I get a chance, I'll probably go ahead and add a 'note' about this to Hunter Street (replacing the refs I added before when I do). As for the ratings part, your whole concern points up why this whole situation is fraught with more complications than first appears – for the episode ratings, I'd be tempted to either just quote the ratings for the "true premiere" (i.e. not the "preview"), or I'd be tempted to take the sum(!) of the ratings for both the preview and the premiere! (Either way, that will probably have to be 'noted' as well...) Or you could just list them both! (which may require using the {{hr}} formating that I dislike ... ) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I still don't feel it's necessary, IMO. If we didn't have The Futon Critic reporting March 11, then yeah, I'd say source the air date itself, but we do, so it becomes no different than any other air dates where the column source is sufficient. Anyway, the article is more up-to-date with its ratings, but I'm still working on something with regard to dealing with this minor dilemma, so try not to edit it if you can. c: Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

What I'm saying the fact that there was a "special preview" before the official "premiere" date needs to be noted. You can see how this was done at Van Helsing (TV series) and Falling Water (TV series) for examples. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I feel like that's good and should be sufficient. That way we aren't cluttering the date cell for that episode and the date itself is also evenly aligned with all the other dates. It's also the more standard way of noting things of that nature from experience, and thinking about it now, it couldn't hurt to make similar notes for Austin & Ally, Make It Pop, and Stuck in the Middle. Those just weren't as problematic because their reruns were listed as reruns by the network, unlike with Hunter Street. Although in the case of Austin & Ally, that was before Showbuzz Daily started posting numbers and I believe ratings are currently being sourced to Screener. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Other than you know what, Hunter Street is actually doing quite well, I'd say. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That surprises me – I thought it would do worse than Ride. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It's even doing better than Disney Channel! :o Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Accusation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

No, I am not Speedy135. Do not accuse without providing proof.Divide223 (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Divide223: Just to be clear – are you asking me to file an WP:SPI report?! Because that's how you gather proof of socking... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assistance needed at Hunter Street

There's a reason we use plainlist, but of course people don't care about that and would rather make it a disorganized mess. Please keep an eye on it. Thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

That IP is a strange one, and I've already got one eye on them. Some of their edits are good, but I suspect them of being one of our IP editors with problematic editing habits (the removal of 'plainlist' being just one of them). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

According to Template:Infobox television#Parameters, both {{Plainlist}} and {{Unbulleted list}} are allowed. {{Unbulleted list}} makes it easier to see when editing, so how is it disruptive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.135.226.182 (talk) 16:27, March 25, 2017‎ (UTC)

That is far less important than WP:BRD – you basically made a cosmetic change (effectively a WP:NOTBROKEN-type edit) that was reverted. At that point, you should have just let it go. Your preference for one over the other is effectively a WP:ILIKEIT-type edit, but when other editors don't agree, and there's no policy that favors your edit over the other, you should just WP:Let it go... (I will ping Amaury to let him explain why he feels that {{Plainlist}} is preferable (and I happen to agree with him on this...).) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to your claim, plainlist is easier to read as each thing—person, company, etc.—gets its own line. That is not the case with unbulleted lists as it's all one continuous line, except when it wraps. Have 10+ starring cast, for example, and it would be a nightmare. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Why didn't you just tell me this when I asked instead of giving me a final warning? I meant no harm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.135.226.182 (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Understood. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps because you failed to use edit summaries and your edits were typical of a disruptive user. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

That, of course, is also a fair point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Now how long will this discussion stay posted up here? Cause if you don't mind, I would like my part deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.135.226.182 (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, when you post to the Talk page of an article or another editor, that sort of doesn't become your call anymore, as per WP:REDACTED. What I can do is send this discussion to my archive ahead of schedule, if that's what you'd prefer. But I generally keep a record of all of my Talk page discussions with other editors, either here, or in my Talk page archives... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you make an expection just this once? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.135.226.182 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I would strongly prefer not to, but I will move this to the archives imminently. The odds of anyone finding this conversation there are extremely low... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:Amaury, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You don't always agree with me. That is a personal attack. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Ulch! April Fools... even as a kid, I never liked it! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Another renewal for Nickelodeon

They're on a roll. And episode increase as well for the current season. Hopefully they end up increasing the next one as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Question about recent reversion

Hi,

I can see your point re: the Notes column, however, the "aka" immediately follows the episode number. Because of this, I was initially confused, thinking that the "aka" referred to an alternate title for the episode mentioned in the Notes column. When I discovered, after some research, that it was instead an alternate title for the entire series, that inspired me to make the edit that I did.

Can you think of an edit that clarifies what is being referred to, and still maintains proper layout? That particular entry, as it exists right now, is confusing at best insofar as the same cell both lists a specific episode and gives an aka that applies to the entire series. I was just looking for a way to improve it. :) Thanks! 1980fast (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Just had an idea. What do you think of swapping the order of the info, such as: "aka: The Gil Mayo Mysteries: Episode: 1.7"

I think that makes it a lot clearer. What do you think? 1980fast (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@1980fast: No objection to flipping the order, as you suggest – that certainly works too. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Cheers! Have a great one! 1980fast (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Seven is the new eight...

I think I need to learn how to count... Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

It took me a second, but I figured it out.
(This does, once again, point up the need to be able to reedit edit summaries – even if the window to "reedit" them was only 5 minutes or something, it would be better than nothing. I don't fully understand the resistance to it...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Please forgive me for entering this conversation, but I must say I agree completely. I think it would be very useful, even if the window were extremely limited. I thought I was the only one who wished for that ability. 1980fast (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Official categories order?

Is there an official way to order categories? This edit was done, and it actually looks like an okay edit to me, unless there's a specific order we follow? (If we do, I wouldn't know what it is.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea. Categories are something I am only dimly aware of, and have no interest in figuring out the details. Luckily, there are some category "experts" on Wikipedia (I think Admin User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao might be one of them...), that you can track down. But when it comes to categories, I'm pretty much useless. [shrug] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries. MPFitz1968, Geraldo Perez, do you have any ideas on the matter? Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Alphabetical order is as good as any and makes stuff easier to find for people who want to click on a category. I generally ignore reordering and just look at whether or not additions or deletions make sense. Add: found this Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization § In what order should categories be listed within the article?. Importance or alphabetical seems choices and editor judgement. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Thanks! Determining importance can sometimes be hard, so I guess when in doubt, go alphabetical since that is also okay. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I recently came across an IP edit at Becky G [1], where their move of a category within the list seemed to have no rationale to it (and they left no edit summary). When I saw the original arrangement was alphabetical, I simply reverted [2]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: Ride

Definitely needs a second season! Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Disney Channel renewals

MPFitz1968

Apparently Disney Channel ratings don't mean much, but yet there's a rumor that declining ratings were one of the reasons GMW was canceled. https://twitter.com/basicdovely/status/844618307462422528 Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't buy that. I think Disney Channel realized that GMW had "aged out" of their audience, but were unable to get any other Disney TV network (e.g. The Squiggle Channel! Freeform) to take over the show from Disney Channel. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't buy it, either. But it's like arguing with little kids. See, in order:

I expect to get hate for the first two, but whatevs. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I like how people think they know what's going on:

• https://twitter.com/ratingsnick/status/845663160308711424
• https://twitter.com/ratingsnick/status/845663344933519360

I can't even find anything like that with a search, and you know how unreliable/gossip sites like to quickly get their hands on that. I still don't buy that Disney Channel doesn't care about their ratings—why their ratings suddenly took a steep drop on November 18 and have pretty much stayed like that since is still a mystery—but I think there is some very slight truth that ratings aren't the biggest factors in renewals for Disney Channel and Disney XD, though I think they still are for Nickelodeon, per an earlier discussion of ours regarding I Didn't Do It. I Didn't Do It had excellent ratings, but was canceled; Bizaardvark had not so excellent ratings, with some exceptions here and there, and was renewed (although I think that's also because Disney Channel has always seemed to give series at least two seasons, regardless of how the first season did, but if the first season didn't do so well, the second season, I guess, was a chance to bounce back to determine a renewal for season three or not), though I read somewhere that it made up for that in its delayed DVR ratings and the like and also reached an overall high total: http://deadline.com/2016/12/bizaardvark-renewed-second-season-disney-channel-1201871158/ If Disney Channel truly didn't care about ratings or didn't make money from good ratings, you wouldn't see ratings mentioned in articles, but they are, so... Also, Bizaardvark wasn't renewed until after 17 episodes of its first season had already aired. Bunk'd has only aired 15 episodes of its second season so far, so there's still time. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

When Disney Channel was a "premium" cable channel, a la HBO – and this was 25 or more years ago now – I'm sure they didn't care much about ratings back then. But since they made to switch to "standard cable channel", they have to care about ratings at least somewhat, no matter how deep Disney's pockets are. As for Bunk'd getting cancelled – I'll believe it when I see it (officially!)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Even though there's no official word and there's still an extremely very thin chance, Best Friends Whenever is one thing. Bunk'd, on the other hand, is still airing new episodes and isn't being "burned off" with weeks of premieres. Only exception is when season two premiered, but that's it, it didn't happen again like with Best Friends Whenever. Stuck in the Middle did it as well with its season one finale. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: How do you feel about a season three for Bunk'd? Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Kind of mixed about whether a season 3 will happen. I hope there will be, as K.C. Undercover now stands as the only active Disney Channel live-action series that is beyond season 2 (or slated to go beyond it, as it was renewed months ago for season 3, though no episodes have been scheduled yet). If Bunk'd bites the dust, too, then it's looking like Stuck in the Middle may become the second oldest active live-action series (and that's been out just over a year). On the other hand, when combining both Bunk'd and Jessie, that makes six seasons we've seen Emma, Ravi and Zuri, and certainly their portrayers are aging (Peyton List and Karan Brar are already 18+), so I don't know whether Disney will keep them around for much longer. (Then again, speaking of Jessie, didn't Debbie Ryan stick around well into her 20s?) MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Debby Ryan is currently 23 (birthday: May 13, 1993). Jessie ended, airing-wise, October 16, 2015. Her age then was 22 (2016 - 2015 = 1 and 23 - 1 = 22). So yup! Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

MPFitz1968

So not the best of ratings, but Bunk'd has been staying consistent for the most part, at least. Also, Michael, looks like Tangled has the curse as well: http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-150-friday-cable-originals-network-finals-3-24-2017.html#comment-171516 Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

IJBall, Michael, I also learned something interesting. We've touched on this before, IJBall. Ratings are a much bigger play for the broadcast channels, but for cable channels, such as Disney Channel, they're still important, but there are other areas of revenue for them. See: http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/the-sked-friday-ratings-3-24-2017.html#comment-171506 Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

IJBall, Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, I don't know if this is reliable, but this seems to imply or hint at a third season for Bunk'd: http://2017castingcalls.com/disneys-bunkd-season-3-casting-now-nyc/ Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It is planning info and the production team is being optimistic. They could still pull out the rug from under them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: So it is reliable, but not worthy of inclusion as it's not a for sure thing? Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Pretty much. It is reliable in that it supports there is a casting call and gives some idea of what the production is thinking about doing and the kind of cast they are looking for. Show info in that source may or may not end up in the finished product as it is real early planning. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Tom Hardy

So why don't you do the same with peaky blinders you didn't change that one Ale236 (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ale236: For the very simple reason that the start year on Peaky Blinders is 2014, not 2017. "2017–present" is completely redundant and nonsensical: Just "2017" suffices, as it is the "present" already. However, "2016–present" or "2014–present" is perfectly logical, as the start year isn't the present year. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

So from 2014 to 2016 it's acceptable you but putting 2017-present you think it's not logical because that's the start year and you know I put present because of the future seasons and indicate it will continue for futures season but probably when the series starts you're gonna put in present or 2017-2018 because that's what you're logic says but whatever jball im gonna edit it later — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ale236 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

If you're suggesting you're going to change it back to "2017–present", I would strongly urge you to not do that: 1) it's dead wrong (I'm not the only one who thinks that – most long-term editors in this area think it's also wrong), and 2) it's somewhere in the ballpark of Disruptive editing and Edit warring to do this (esp. when you consider WP:BRD). It's absolutely not worth it, especially over this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not worth it to continue this I can't wait when you say in 2018 that it's right because clearly that's the only better thing you have to do so in the end who cares it's gonna be 2017-present and you are just gonna accept it that's the bottom line and I'm gonna leave it here Jball I have better things to do than argue with someone like you good bye. Ale236 (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

His user name is IJBall. If you cannot get that correct, it is difficult to consider any of your commentary seriously. Thank you and have a lovely day. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 04:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: Best Friends Whenever

MPFitz1968

Finally got this done if you're interested in a more detailed timeline of the series like with Girl Meets World. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Saved by the Bell

Hi, I know you're making good faith edits to Saved by the Bell, but I'm in the middle of trying to add a bunch of new material, and your cleanup in the middle is causing me to nearly lose some work. Could I ask that you wait a bit and come back later? I have no problem if you engage in any clean-up of anything I miss later. Thanks so much! Chris the Geek (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chris the Geek: Adding a "bunch of new material" to a long-standing article is generally a bad idea unless you've discussed the changes you want to make on the Talk page ahead of time to gauge any issues. You actually would have been advised to do this in your sandbox first, and then point to that from the Talk page. In any case, a lot of the changes you are making are contrary to guidelines line MOS:TV, so that's a problem. And, yes, I know your changes are generally good faith, and seems to be improving the article, but not everything you're doing is following guidelines. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

So...WP:BOLD is no longer a general rule? Guidelines can be cleaned up in a bit. I'm not a newbie, just haven't been around in a while (I've previously brought articles up to featured article status), so please give me the benefit of the doubt. All I'm asking is a bit of time and leeway. Not saying that anything you're doing is wrong; it's just causing some edit conflicts. Chris the Geek (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chris the Geek: I think I mostly done "tidying up" your changes, so you should be able to proceed from my latest revision. WP:BOLD is fine, but the bigger the changes you want to make to a long-standing article, the better it is to initiate a discussion on your proposed changes first... (P.S. It sounds like you had another account in the past – may I ask what your old account was?) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm doing a WP:CLEANSTART so have no problem letting you know, but would prefer to do it in a non-public venue. Can I email you? Chris the Geek (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chris the Geek: Of course! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Just sent you the email. Chris the Geek (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chris the Geek: Thanks – got it! As I said above, you can now proceed with Saved by the Bell – just keep an eye on MOS:TV, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Chris the Geek – you seem to have access to Peter Engel's autobiography: does the autobiography give his exact date of birth? If it does, would you mind popping over to the Peter Engel article and adding the DOB to the lede of that article with a cite to the appropriate page of the autobiography? Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

He's unfortunately pretty vague with when he was born. The book starts when he's twelve with a recollection of his first television and never really gives an exact birth date. I'll keep an eye out and, if I can find it, I'll add it! Chris the Geek (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I made a post to the talk page that I'd love your input on. The gist is I'm hoping to establish precedent about whether the Lifetime biopic can be considered a reliable source or not. I know this is bound to be controversial. Chris the Geek (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Category renamed

Just to let you know, in anticipation of the proposal outcome I've reverted my listname page move. Also in January, I moved Category:Entourage (TV series) episode redirects to lists to Category:Entourage (U.S. TV series) episode redirects to lists. The MOS:TV touches on category naming style; however, it doesn't appear to be specific. Do you think the category move should also be reverted?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  11:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Cool! Thanks for that, Paine! On my end, I've been meaning to change to the proposed harmonized text over at WP:NCTV, but I've gotten sidetracked by work and a family visit. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"No deadline" – been sidetracked myself a bit, lately.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done – text at WP:NCTV has been harmonized with MOS:TV with this edit. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)