Jump to content

User talk:Amaury

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikiskideditor1 (talk | contribs) at 02:58, 18 August 2016 (→Game Shakers Edit requested. --> Game Shakers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

It is approximately 9:11 AM where this user lives.
Welcome to my talk page!

I have a few requests that I hope you'll respect while posting here:

  1. Be civil. If you don't agree with an action I made, please be calm and polite. We'll straighten things out a lot quicker without screaming and name calling.
  2. Sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~
  3. Start new discussions at the bottom.
  4. Start new discussions with a level three heading.
  5. I generally like to keep discussions together. If you post here, I'll reply here and leave you a message informing you of my reply. If I leave you a message on your talk page, I'll keep watching it, but if you want to make sure I notice it quickly, please feel free to tag me by typing {{re|Amaury}} before your main message.

Discussion Archives

Month 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
January
14
13
0
0
1
0
8
36
February
15
43
0
0
0
0
9
67
March
11
25
0
1
0
57
10
104
April
20
28
1
0
0
52
8
109
May
27
17
10
16
0
18
6
94
June
15
8
1
50
0
11
6
91
July
21
4
1
17
0
18
17
78
August
10
38
0
4
0
11
63
September
8
5
0
0
0
10
23
October
26
5
0
0
0
10
41
November
17
0
0
0
0
5
22
December
11
6
0
1
1
6
25
Total
195
192
13
89
2
198
64
753

August 2016

Girl Meets World - awards and nominations

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)[reply]

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

Plot tags and guest stars (continued)

This is a continued discussion from a discussion that originally started in July 2016.

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)[reply]

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

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: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0565611/ 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

100 Things to Do Before High School

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)[reply]

@Nyuszika7H: Are you going to be adding guest stars to the article? Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
 Done nyuszika7h (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Backstage (2016 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

MOS:CT at 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Game Shakers Edit requested. --> Game Shakers

Hi Amaury Amaury (talk, 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....

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amaury&oldid=735007758"