This 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 intentionally removed the summary and line color parameters since it's highly unlikely to have any summaries—and I also did that with Jagger Eaton's Mega Life, Lost in the West, and Paradise Run—but if it helps avoid problems, by all means. However, what's this category thing you're talking about? Amaury ( talk | contribs) 15:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@ Amaury: It's Category:Episode list using the default LineColor. It's not a big deal to be in a tracking category like that I guess, as a lot of them there are episode lists without summaries, but I think it's better to have those placeholders there in case someone decides to add summaries – it's just two parameters, they don't take up so much space. nyuszika7h ( talk) 15:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll re-add them to the other mentioned articles, then, at some point today. c: Amaury ( talk | contribs) 15:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

In regard to the ID, I just copied from Game Shakers, adjusting accordingly. What I did on Game Shakers was copied from what you did on School of Rock. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 17:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I got it wrong then, I don't remember, but I've fixed it on all three articles now. nyuszika7h ( talk) 17:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

There are definitely other factors to renewals than just the ratings, I'm pretty sure, particularly the live ratings. (And there are also the same day ratings, the ratings from DVRs up to a week, I think, and the online ratings if episodes are available before their scheduled TV air date, which they should—or at least I hope they do—take into account.) However, it's still sad to see the ratings for season two of Best Friends Whenever considering it did very well the first season, averaging 1.84 million viewers (1,840,000). There are still at least 10 episodes, I think, that need to air that are not yet known in the second season, but in the 10 episodes we have now, that's an average of 1.21 million viewers (1,210,000), which is a 0.63 million-viewer (630,000) drop. I mean, it's still over a million, which, in all honesty, is still a lot of viewers, but it's in the low millions. I just wish I knew what Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, and Disney XD consider good ratings as I could then determine what's good or not for any given show. Or, to make matters more complicated, maybe it's not even based on the network, but the show. I don't know. Like, the current ratings for Jagger Eaton's Mega Life could be considered good for that show, but bad for shows like Henry Danger and Game Shakers, both of which are doing very well for their third and second seasons, respectively, if you take a look at their episode list articles. The current averages are 1.77 million viewers and 1.50 million viewers, respectively. (And even School of Rock season two is doing okay. Not great, but okay. Its average is 1.21 million viewers, but that's only three episodes in, unlike Best Friends Whenever, which is 10 episodes into its second season.) And then you have Disney XD shows—the (current) sitcoms in particular: Kirby Buckets, Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything, and Lab Rats: Elite Force—that not very often make or go above 0.50 million (or 500,000), and the only time they go over that is on special occasions, like the Lab Rats and Mighty Med crossover which garnered 1.07 million viewers (1,070,000). The only exception I can see is the original Lab Rats, which frequently had episodes with ratings above 0.50 million: List of Lab Rats episodes. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 21:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure what's up with those low ratings, many of those shows are good despite having such low ratings. nyuszika7h ( talk) 15:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated to the above, but didn't want to start a new section.

Yeah, that's something really confusing for me. That's something IJBall would have to explain as he went through several Nickelodeon and Disney shows and changed their important to mid, so I just followed what he did. IJBall, for reference to what I'm talking about, see the history of Talk:Best Friends Whenever and Talk:List of Best Friends Whenever episodes. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 08:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@ Amaury: Hmm, did he change the lists to Mid-importance? My understanding of the importance scale is that list articles are "only included to cover a specific part of a notable article". However, that generic wording that's not changed by most WikiProjects to suit their own criteria, seems to be under-rating television series as "Low" when they should be "Mid", but since WPTV consensus seems to be that most TV shows are "Low", it's the criteria wording that needs changing, I guess. nyuszika7h ( talk) 08:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not too sure on the specifics, I just know he changed Nickelodeon and Disney shows to mid-importance. I think he even brought it up on someone's talk page once, though I don't remember whose. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 08:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Nyuszika7H, I didn't change the episode lists to "Mid" importance, just the TV show articles themselves. But I think it's pretty hard to argue that the TV shows themselves, at least, aren't "Mid" importance to WP:DISNEY and WP:NICK – and a few of the shows can/should probably be regarded as "High" importance. As to the episode lists, I have no opinion whether they should also be "Mid" importance, or "Low" – I'll leave that to other editors to make that call... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@ IJBall: I never argued that they aren't at least Mid-importance for the Disney/Nick projects, just the episode lists. nyuszika7h ( talk) 18:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand. What I'm saying is that I only did that with the TV series articles, because I don't have a strong opinion on how the episode list articles should be rated. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

20:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Stalking and harassment from Orchomen. IJBall said you're also a target of this user's antics, so you may be interested in this discussion. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 16:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you double-check me again here? Thanks! I followed what you did for Jagger Eaton's Mega Life, so I don't think I missed anything. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 18:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

16:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

If you're comfortable sharing this, of course, what's your first name? Feel like it would be easier to type that, LOL! Amaury ( talk | contribs) 14:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@ Amaury: I'd rather not share that publicly, but you can just call me "nyu", like many people on IRC do. nyuszika7h ( talk) 14:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand. And good deal! :) Amaury ( talk | contribs) 14:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Nyuszika7H, I need a template "expert" – can you please take a look at the recent template work of User:Cena Arz, and figure out if there's any merit to it?... Thanks. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 23:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@ IJBall: I don't really see the point in those templates. "should be referred to by the given name" contradicts MOS:LASTNAME, and it depends on context anyway. nyuszika7h ( talk) 14:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

One of their templates has already been CSD'ed by another editor. My suspicion is that they all should be. But I'm not a "template guy", so I don't plan to CSD-tag/ WP:TfD those myself... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 14:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I looked here, and it was 9:30 AM, not 5:30 PM, hence my converting to 4:30 AM for the default ET setting. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 20:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@ Amaury: That's a re-run, BARB lists the time for the premiere episodes as 17:30. nyuszika7h ( talk) 20:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention I looked at October 21, which is the future, but yeah. I looked for a time on BARB, but didn't see one. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 20:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget to update the UK ratings section. ;) Amaury ( talk | contribs) 18:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

17:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

16:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

One thing I know I always mess up on when splitting articles is the categories on the episode and character lists—although I've only created two on the latter. Would you double check my created articles and make sure the categories are correct? I know you've already fixed some, but I don't remember which. It's easier to see which articles are mine now that I added this section to my user page. Thanks! Amaury ( talk | contribs) 23:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Just a poke in case you somehow missed this. :) Amaury ( talk | contribs) 21:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

23:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

19:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

As our friendly neighborhood template expert/ Template editor, I have a question/request for you: Would it be possible to add a "TV"[/"Television"] argument to the {{ Notability}} template? I just added a {{ Notability}} tag to Americana (TV pilot) but was forced to use a "film" argument when what I really wanted was a "TV" argument with a link to WP:TVSERIES (which discusses the necessary notability requirements for TV series and TV pilots). Is doing this possible?!... TIA! -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 23:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@ IJBall:  Done You can now use {{ Notability|television}} or {{ Notability|TV}} (or lowercase works too). nyuszika7h ( talk) 23:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Awesome! I think I'll drop a note by WT:TV to inform the TV group... What would also be super great would be the creation of a category like "Television articles of unclear notability" based on such tagging, as I'd be the kind of editor that might occasionally peruse such a category looking for obvious WP:AfD candidates. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 23:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

15:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Nyuszika7H. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Alexiaya. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I never got a chance to say thanks, as I'm guessing that's what it was you did a while ago. :) /info/en/?search=User_talk:Nyuszika7H/Archive_4#Episode_list_categories Amaury ( talk | contribs) 14:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I know you're busy these days Nyuszika7H, but I thought I'd drop you a line to let you know that you should keep an eye on any article with a WP:FILMOGRAPHY table that you've improved. User:Ross Lynch Lovers (an editor I consider more disruptive than constructive, esp. in regards to Filmography tables) has a habit of undoing all the hard work that editors like you and I do on Filmography table and "fixing" them to their preferred version which doesn't even follow WP:FILMOGRAPHY (e.g. putting TV movies under 'Film' instead of under 'Television' where they belong) – they recently did that to your work on the Filmography table at Laura Marano, though I just restored your corrected version... Anyway, like I said – just a head's up in case you want to keep an eye on this. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious. What is your screen resolution? Mine is 1366 x 768 and those writers weren't wrapping for me. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 17:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@ Amaury: 1600x900 here. Interestingly, adding the nowrap tags made them not wrap at all, but previously it was "James Whitehouse & Hannah[newline]George". nyuszika7h ( talk) 17:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Because credits at the beginning of episodes are shown with the writer(s) first followed by the director(s), I wonder if there's a way to change the order on the table, because simply switching them around on the TV series—or list of episodes—articles doesn't seem to do anything. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 14:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@ Amaury: Unless you modify the code or use |Aux1= and |Aux2= instead, it's not possible, but I think it's fine to have director first as that is really a minor detail with no significance, and people have become used to seeing director first, even though writer is listed first in the on-screen credits for most (not all) series. It's slightly annoying when adding credits, but I just got used to filling in the writer field first. nyuszika7h ( talk) 14:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

21:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lost in the West#Removing "Ratings" section. If you have an opinion on this matter, your feedback would be more than appreciated. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 16:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Nyu (and MPFitz1968), if you're not interested in contributing to this discussion, then I will remove the invite within the next few days, assuming you're not interested, which is totally fine with me. I just don't want to clutter your talk pages. I'll leave them up for now, though, in case you're just busy or are waiting for the right moment if there is something you two want to say. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 00:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@ Amaury: I've been following the discussion over there, though I have no strong opinion either way about it. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 02:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@ Amaury: I read it first when you mentioned it, but then I forgot about it. I'm not really sure about it either. I can see their point somewhat but it doesn't hurt to have a table either, and using templates/parser functions to output something within a block of prose like that looks a bit weird. (For the record, averages are published but only for the big US networks, so not for Disney/Nickelodeon. It may be easier to notice vandalism with a single sourced average, but using that logic we should remove per-episode ratings, as editors shouldn't have to go through all episodes to ensure there are no mistakes or sneaky vandalism.) nyuszika7h ( talk) 08:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Those would be good statements for the discussion, but no worries, Nyu. Do whatever you're fine with, whether it's providing or not providing feedback over at the discussion. :) Amaury ( talk | contribs) 14:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

So I just got AWB permissions, and I was wondering if you could show me the ropes. The user manual is a little confusing, at least for me, and I would rather not mess anything up, so, like, a guide for dummies or something like that, haha! Although I guess I could always play around with it on my sandbox and the like. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 04:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I pretty much just learned things by trying (there's a preview before pages are saved), I can't really link you to a guide but I can help you with things. On the left side, you can make a list from many different sources – some common ones are "Category", "Links on page", "What links here" – or specify the list of articles in a text file (use "Text file (Windows 1252 / ANSI)" if you create it with Notepad), or add them manually one by one in the box below if there aren't too many. The most common task is "Find and replace". "Normal settings" is usually fine. There you can enter specific text to find and what to replace it with. If you want to match patterns rather than static text, that's when you use regular expressions (tick "Regex"). The only other one you will usually need is "CaseSensitive", the rest of the options don't usually need to be touched. There are many guides for regex as well, I can't recommend a specific one but I can help you with it if needed. Then when you've set up what you want to do with the page, go to the "Start" tab and click "Start". Each page will be previewed before saving, as I said, and you can click "Save" if the result looks fine (and there's a "Preview" button if you're not sure based on the wikitext diff whether it will appear correctly). nyuszika7h ( talk) 11:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That was my bad. :P I forgot to update the lead when I updated the info box and Characters section. I've been noticing it, but keep forgetting. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 19:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

18:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there any way that you could provide me with a list of the articles that are in my sandbox where you've fixed the directing, writing, and guest star credits? I know you've completed The Thundermans up through season three—the rest of it is obviously correct because of me, LOL!—as well as those few I asked for on Bella and the Bulldogs, but I don't know or remember what else. I'm just trying to keep track of where the guest star credits still need to be fixed—or credits in general, but guest star credits in particular. Thanks in advance! Amaury ( talk | contribs) 03:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll try, I'll have to look through my contribution history I guess. I haven't completely finished correcting for The Thundermans season 3 yet (though I've already seen even "Thundermans: Banished!"), but it looks like only one or two more don't have the full list there. nyuszika7h ( talk) 09:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Nyu! No rush! Amaury ( talk | contribs) 15:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

[sigh...] This is exactly why unconfirmed editors should not be allowed to create articles – this one was created by an editor whose only edit was creating this article! Anyway, I've PROD'ed in the meantime (though the odds aren't good that the PROD will make it – I'll probably have to AfD it in the end...). -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

19:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Stuck in the Middle (TV series)#Stuck in the Middle: Stuck in the Store. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 19:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, a second season is nice, but I find it interesting that it was renewed for a second season considering the UK ratings were even worse than US' ratings, unless that's normal there. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 17:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@ Amaury: Yeah, that's normal, there are less people in the UK, and The Lodge was frequently #1 on Disney, but always at least #2, IIRC. nyuszika7h ( talk) 17:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, God, they renewed this?! I panned it (esp. the "finale") elsewhere on the net... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@ IJBall: Aw, you don't like it? :( (I'm slowly, but surely, getting caught up on my DVRs, and the last episode I saw was Best Kept Secrets, so I haven't finished it yet.) Amaury ( talk | contribs) 21:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

20:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Amaury ( talk | contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Amaury ( talk | contribs) 08:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@ Amaury: Thanks, merry Christmas to you too! :) nyuszika7h ( talk) 14:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)