Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Hi I’m Sentai 01, and the reason I wanted to put on a poster for masked singer season2 was because masked singer season1 page has one. But I understand I had trouble from keeping it from deleted but maybe you or someone else can upload it. User:Sentai01 (talk) 1:01 9 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9004:50C:F03A:BD2B:C903:1413:1744 (talk)

Hello. How was anything that I did vandalism??? The show isn't an American co-production, its produced by ONLY Nelvana. The show has no adventure elements to it. The episode page split totally makes sense as the page would become too cluttered with it. Nothing of which I did was vandalism. CrypticalFiery (talk)

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that on March 18, 2021 Nickelodeon officially greenlit That Girl Lay Lay (actual title and confirmed title) for a 13 half-hour episode first season. I think an article needs to be created for this show. It needs to be added to upcoming on Nickelodeon original programming table. It is created by David A. Arnold and John D. Beck, Ron Hart, Carolyn Newman, and Will Packer serve as executive producers. The first episode is titled “Out the App” and it is written by David A. Arnold and directed by Wendy Faraone. I know IMDb is not really a reliable source but they have more official info about the show. Its set to premiere in June 2021. Just a heads up! :)

Just click on the link to see the official logo for the show. (Yes, this is the confirmed logo as I have spoken with David himself)

NickALive! -That Girl Lay Lay

I edited the Ollie's Pack because the series was cancelled. Do you think it wasn't cancelled?

From Kálló Gergő

Episode 7 of Lego Masters Season 2 already aired in New Zealand. As such, I know for certain that Maria and Phillip are the next team eliminated. If the issue was spoiling an episode that hadn't aired yet, I apologize, but the edit was not wrong.

Winner: Dave & Richard Second: Caleb & Jacob Risk: Bryan & Lauren Eliminated: Maria & Philip

I'm trying to make Wikipedia a better place, but you're reverting my edits for no good reason. Thomasfan1000 (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomasfan1000: (talk page stalker) He reverted your edits because of problems. One of the problems was that you added "American-Canadian" to the lead section. This is against the manual of style on TV lead sections. Don't fret, new users often make mistakes when they start editing Wikipedia. wizzito | say hello! 02:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that. But on the Thomas the Tank Engine and Thomas & Friends (franchise) pages, I didn't do anything wrong. Thomasfan1000 (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm doing a lot of editing on the Humf Page and he keeps reverting all my edits. CaptainHumf0187 (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Magitroopa. I thought that putting a new field in the TV series infox could be more relevant, ie adding "Target audience". We would put that in order to specify the audience that the series mainly targets, is this a good plan? Rayan wind (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This idea doesn’t make much sense, and is very narrowing CreecregofLife (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was removing details that I considered to be trivia. In addition, the citation was not messed up, I just removed markup that we don't normally use in citations. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ViperSnake151: Being the announcer of another show is certainly not trivial information- especially considering that's literally what he promoted a bit when unmasked on TMS, and is supported by a reliable source within his article. And just because you don't normally use the markup in citations, it does not give you the opportunity to remove it at your own whim. The markup is actually correct, due to the italicization of the show's name within the article title- and italicizing the show name is in fact correct, per MOS:CONFORMTITLE (specifically the fourth bullet point). Magitroopa (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the All That editing is coming from the University of Scranton network at 134.198.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Potential pblock needed? wizzito | say hello! 07:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was approached by an editor who asked on if the draft for A Loud House Christmas is ready to be submitted to be made as an article. I was wanting your opinion before I reply to the editor on my talk page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am just making sure to ask if we’re leaving the wording as is so as to not overcomplicate the situation so unnecessarily.--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CreecregofLife: What exactly do you mean? Is there something there that needs changing for some reason?... Magitroopa (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m just thinking we don’t have to say it’s the linear premiere of the episode or that it may premiere the day before on P+, we can just leave it as new without going into too much detail. CreecregofLife (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CreecregofLife: We really shouldn't get into the 'may' territory of things (WP:CRYSTAL). Given the circumstances (that it's a P+ original with occasional airings on TV such as this one), saying that it's the linear premiere of the episode might be good to include... however at the moment, it's still a bit unclear exactly what episodes are the premiere episodes on P+ the day before, given the fact that the episode airing on TV would likely be one of the first two premiere episodes, but The Futon Critic currently lists 201/202 for April 8, and that episode is listed as 205.

Just also remember that everything doesn't need to be changed immediately- wording right now is probably fine for the moment, but it can be easily updated (if necessary) once the premiere episodes for April 8 are officially known, whether that be however many days prior to then, or if it's only known once the episodes are released on April 8. Magitroopa (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/CaptainHumf0187; possible block evasion? wizzito | say hello! 15:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wizzito: Honestly, not entirely sure... seems to be the same as 86.128.56.162, HumfFan09, and BingHumfRoary, but none are (or have been) blocked. Based off of the edit summaries, maybe this is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Band1301, but I'm not thinking it's highly likely. Not even sure if a check for sleepers would be possible when it only has two accounts involved (1 master + 1 sock) and it's from a year ago (but if it is possible, I'm sure it wouldn't hurt...). Magitroopa (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this user, Special:Contributions/TheEditLover was the Bob the Builder reboot hoaxer at first, but this user seems to be different. My sock radar is going off. Does this sound familiar? Or am I going crazy? lol. wizzito | say hello! 20:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wizzito: From very quickly looking at the log history of the category creations of the user (see here for example), seems very likely to be part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EuanB2000, overlapping articles which does in fact include Bob the Builder. Magitroopa (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

lol of course wizzito | say hello! 20:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was just curious why my edit was just removed. I was just adding an upcoming episode to the wiki. How is that nonsense? It is an actual episode, it was confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.167.144 (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- do you have a source for this episode in question? Apologies for the 'nonsense' part, but it seemed quite similar to some of the other recent edits on the article from other IPs (such as this and this). Magitroopa (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://mobile.twitter.com/VincentWaller72/status/1511761143710183424 Proof that this is an actual episode 47.20.174.1 (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per previous discussions on Wikipedia (including this), Waller's Twitter account can't really be used as unverified social media accounts are not reliable sources. There is a verification method on these sites for a reason. And in this specific example, even if his account were verified, it still likely couldn't be used, as he says, "Not sure of the final title", meaning that "Patrick the Mailman" may not even be the title of the episode. Magitroopa (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your reversion of my editing changes to Canada's Got Talent. My changes clarified the timeline of events between the 2012 and 2022 seasons. I don't see anything wrong with what I wrote. Hikebladexcski (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hikebladexcski: Hi, we generally don't need to get overly detailed within the lead, especially if the information is mentioned later in the article (see MOS:TVLEAD). I would say the entire article needs some more cleanup (as well as the two seasons articles), but I did see the grammar issue(s?) you mentioned in your edit summary that I managed to bring back... how is this? Magitroopa (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This last version of the introduction is better, since it mentions that the show was not renewed immediately after season one. I'm okay with it. Hikebladexcski (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Monster Jam World Finals: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. 0xDEADBEEF (T C) 09:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On May 1, I created some edits to the cast of Dora the Explorer. I added the names of the characters that guest voices (like John Leguizamo and Cheech Marin) as well as supporting cast members like Leslie Valdes and KJ Sanchez. In addition, I added additional guest stars such as Richard Kind, Hector Elizondo, and Rosie Perez who were special episodes. The unmentioned source was the IMDb page of the show. (https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0235917/) I believe these changes should be kept because they are more organized and they give more information to the readers. NDW023 (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NDW023: Hi- IMDb cannot be used as a source as it is not a reliable source, I believe mainly due to being openly editable by people online- WP:USERG. See WP:RS/IMDB and WP:CITINGIMDB for more information on this. WP:RS may be of use/helpful to find a reliable source. Magitroopa (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need a good explanation of why the information for the SpongeBob SquarePants information is being reverted. I put the correct information there yet it got reverted and then you said that I was being disruptive. It is a small piece of information that does not affect the article and that makes me disruptive. I need an answer.

So, I tried getting the page protected because people kept removing the end date for the show, even though it's been over a year and no official news about a renewal has been made. However, I got denied because the admin thought it was unsourced and disruptive. Please interject and end this once and for all. BrickMaster02 (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BrickMaster02: Honestly, just from quickly checking the article/history, it doesn't seem like there's even been that much activity to warrant page protection for this- just a user or an IP here and there. It seems like the latest doing this is a rather new editor- you can direct them to Template:Infobox television/the instructions if needed. Also of note, checking the decline of page protection, the admin doesn't seem to say anything regarding it being disruptive, rather just unsourced. Even if that's the case, they might not be a regular TV editor here and might simply be unaware of what the template instructions say/the '1 year' thing. Hope this helps. Magitroopa (talk) 05:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, the official Disney General Entertainment Press website lists the production code for the second-to-last episode of the show as "317". However, BaldiBasicsFan reverted the change saying that "the press site is broken with the 307 code being repeated"…who cares?! If the official press site says it, then it is accurate. This has nothing to do with a production code for an older episode being repeated. Please put an end to this once and for all. BrickMaster02 (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you mean that the press site is accurate? It is a reliable source, but is not correct all of the time. The site can be buggy in certain areas. This is why I have use The Futon Critic as the source of codes, similar to The Loud House. Also, you have a good history of being hated by others, per what I saw on your user page. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "You have a good history of being hated by others." Says the guy who keeps requesting me to do edits on pages I could care less about. Who cares if it's buggy? The episode was an hour long, but has a SINGLE production code. Also, of course you use Futon for The Loud House, because Nickelodeon doesn't list episodes on press sites. BrickMaster02 (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This would be far more appropriate to discuss on the corresponding talk page... Magitroopa (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, I recently started a new section on the article's talk page. It came to my attention that there is an Adweek article surrounding the status of TV shows for the next television season, and Legends was listed as cancelled for The CW shows. However, none of The CW shows have been linked to their statuses, while the other networks have. Plus, no other media outlet (Deadline, Variety, etc.) has reported on it. I have no idea if the page should be updated with this information, so I wanted to ask an admin to give their thoughts on it. Thank you. BrickMaster02 (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the minor edits for what you did, but Donna Castricone, Helen Kafatic, Anna Michaud, Dina Buteyn, and Jennie Monica have served as line producers. So shouldn't Joe Crowley be added since he's a line producer? Just asking, and it makes sense to just put in 2022 since Marc and Vincent just started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaBradYT (talk • contribs) 02:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MegaBradYT: 1. The 'producers' list in the infobox should be for those credited simply as 'producer'- not 'line producer', 'co-producer', 'supervising producer', etc.

2. '2022' without the '-present' would be correct: it still is 2022, so including the '-present' does not make any sense unless they were to serve in the same role beyond 2022. Magitroopa (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the -present part, but if the producer list is only for producers and if the line producers I mentioned are on there, then why are they on there anyway? I know Dina and Jennie were producers, but Donna, Anna and Hannah never were MegaBradYT (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]