Amsgearing (talk | contribs) signing |
|||
Line 655: | Line 655: | ||
[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] |
[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] |
||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. [[User:Amsgearing|Amsgearing]] ([[User talk:Amsgearing|talk]]) |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. [[User:Amsgearing|Amsgearing]] ([[User talk:Amsgearing|talk]]) |
||
::{{re|Esuka323}} You seem to be interested in the ongoing dispute over at the article for ''Succession''. Think you might offer your thoughts or comments on this edit warring discussion? – [[User:BoogerD|BoogerD]] ([[User talk:BoogerD#top|talk]]) 22:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:38, 14 August 2018
|
Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Journal (episode)
Consider adding your position more clearly in the discussion. Per WP:AFDFORMAT, "When editors recommend a course of action, they usually do so in bold text, e. g., "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect", or other view. A number of tools which parse AfDs will only recognize bolded words." Thinker78 (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, BoogerD. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited At Home with Amy Sedaris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Early (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:BallInTheFamilyLogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BallInTheFamilyLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:MindOfAChefLogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:MindOfAChefLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:ReturningTheFavorLogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:ReturningTheFavorLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
A page you started (Sweetbitter (TV series)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Sweetbitter (TV series), BoogerD!
Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
To reply, leave a comment on Abishe's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Abishe (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
YouTube Red edits, Novemeber 20
On November 20, you edited List of original programs distributed by YouTube Red (your work is appreciated!). However, on this revision The reference for Impulse was removed (apparently replaced with a duplicate of the Cobra Kai entry). I am curious if you had intended to delete the entry for Impulse, or if you pulled a "me" (making the kind of error I have been known to make from time to time).
If you intended to remove the entry for Impulse, could you cite the info source that prompted the deletion?
Hope to hear back soon, otherwise (as the IMDB reference still indicates an ongoing production) I'll restore the entry from the edit previous to its removal. Cross-posting to the discussion page for the YouTube Red programs talk page in case others have relevant info.
Thanks! Dlairman (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
- Billions (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Scott Cohen
- Dice (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Chris Williams
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Continental (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Leitch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 21
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Producers Guild of America Awards 2017 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Ryan Murphy
- Ryan Hansen Solves Crimes on Television (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Steve Harris
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:FreeformSecondLogo.png
Thanks for uploading File:FreeformSecondLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Producers Guild of America Awards 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Loving (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Facebook watch
Regarding the edit. If that's a correct URL, why does it returns an error?--Joseph 10:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Funny, it didn't return an error for me. I'll point to two pieces of evidence to cite that Facebook intends the official URL of Facebook Watch to be www.facebook.com/watch: 1. The profile page that that keeps getting edited into the page lists www.facebook.com/watch as being the official url and 2. when one googles Facebook Watch the top result (an ad from Facebook) lists www.facebook.com/watch as the url. BoogerD (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- So, things are completely different based on locations. Maybe because of, it's exclusive availability to the U.S. For me it's returning Sorry, this content isn't available at the moment. And while Googling, the first thing I'm getting is Wiki article itself.--Joseph 10:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Funny, it didn't return an error for me. I'll point to two pieces of evidence to cite that Facebook intends the official URL of Facebook Watch to be www.facebook.com/watch: 1. The profile page that that keeps getting edited into the page lists www.facebook.com/watch as being the official url and 2. when one googles Facebook Watch the top result (an ad from Facebook) lists www.facebook.com/watch as the url. BoogerD (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Last Tycoon (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Warner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Infobox images on TV series
"A suitable image relevant to the show. The image does not need to be wikilinked and should exclude "File:" e.g. Example.png Typically the image will be the series' title card, although this is not mandated." Basically, until the title card is available, the poster should go in the infobox. Also, your rationale clearly states "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question." — Film Fan 22:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The article Untitled Blumhouse Television anthology series has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
WP:TOOSOON for an article on this series, which has no title or writers at this time.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Untitled Blumhouse Television anthology series for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Untitled Blumhouse Television anthology series is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Blumhouse Television anthology series until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Get Shorty (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steven Weber (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Oath (U.S. TV series), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Luis Prieto and Crackle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 15
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Impulse (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Cayuga
- Sharp Objects (miniseries) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to David Sullivan
- Trust (U.S. TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to FX
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ratched (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ryan Murphy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Cortes (miniseries)
Pages like Cortes (miniseries) make me a happy new page patroller. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hey, Oiyarbepsy! Haha. Why do you say that? BoogerD (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Because I don't like hitting the delete button or tagging lots of bugs and flaws. I like seeing new articles that already what they need to be. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Episode Tables
Hi there, I've noticed that you often change the colours when I've added new episode tables. Is this purely aesthetic, or am I doing something wrong? If so please let me know so that I can correct it in the future. - Racheal Emilin (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Racheal Emilin! No, you've done nothing wrong. The edits are not necessarily purely aesthetic. I've added colors when there are none and used advertising or logos to choose colors relevant to the series in question. I think most editors try and choose colors that are connected someway to the show if possible. BoogerD (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Ok great, that makes sense. I shall endeavour to do the same in future. Thanks :) -Racheal Emilin (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Racheal Emilin! No, you've done nothing wrong. The edits are not necessarily purely aesthetic. I've added colors when there are none and used advertising or logos to choose colors relevant to the series in question. I think most editors try and choose colors that are connected someway to the show if possible. BoogerD (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The Story of the 'Jinn' from the United States
Hello BoogerD , it's me again. ;) So as you can see I left your change on Jinn (TV series), because what you say might be true, but all sources (including many wikipedia entries) go against it. Do you have a good source that says the location of the distributor determents the country of origin. - Keep in mind that Netflix is the distributor here, not the production company, because it's not the same entity as Netflix Studios LLC. Also defintion the is apperenty not that clear cut...
"The International Federation of Film Archives defines the country of origin as the country of the principal offices of the production company or individual by whom the moving image work was made. No consistent reference or definition exists."
https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/45518/how-can-one-tell-the-country-of-origin-of-a-movie
So to be clear, I am not saying that the country of orign is the country the movie/series was filmed in, but the country where it was produced in, meaning where the principal offices of the main production company are. I hope that clears things up a bit. Have a nice day. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Abyss Taucher. See, Netflix is not merely distributing the series. They did not acquire it either in the sense that some independent production company produced it and then Netflix agreed to air it. Netflix is funding this series. They are the reason it is being produced at all. Other production companies may very well be involved but at the end of the day Netflix greenlit the show and gave it a series order. Just because other Wikipedia pages may have pages formatted in a certain way doesn't mean they are correct or that they abide by internal policies or the Manual of Style (see WP:OTHERCONTENT). My "source" as you put it is this: 1. Template:Infobox television and the information included on the page and 2. The fact that Neflix is not merely a distributor of content but also a producer as well. Similar to Sony Pictures Television except that SPT makes deals with networks to air their programs and don't own their own dedicated network or streaming service.
- I'd also add that the link you shared and the definition you provided is in regards to films. Motion pictures are an entirely different subject and the discussion of "country of origin" as is described in the above link does not pertain to this discussion. I hope I've been clear in reasoning and explanation. Hope we can continue to edit together. If you have further questions or concerns, please feel free to bring them up. Have a nice evening. Cheers, BoogerD (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- "They did not acquire it either in the sense that some independent production company produced it and then Netflix agreed to air it. Netflix is funding this series. They are the reason it is being produced at all." While that this is of course correct, founding a series/film does not make you (necessarily) a producer. A lot of Netflix Original content is produced for, but very little actually by Netflix (meaning in house). Now, we all know that the term producer" can be very vage, so yes, I can see how you coould see Netflix as a producer for giving money to the production companies to actually make the content. - And of course we can get along, in fact I think we do, disagreement doesn't have to mean an editing war. XD Have a good day.-Abyss Taucher (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- I've graduated with a degree in Media Arts & Design and actually interned for a production company out in Los Angeles. I say this not to sound immodest but rather to stress that I understand the production process a great deal actually. It honestly is not that confusing. It is simply a fact that Netflix is an entertainment company that distributes and produces its own content. Look at how the company is described in the first paragraph on their Wikipedia page, "In 2013, Netflix expanded into film and television production as well as online distribution. It is headquartered in Los Gatos, California."
- "They did not acquire it either in the sense that some independent production company produced it and then Netflix agreed to air it. Netflix is funding this series. They are the reason it is being produced at all." While that this is of course correct, founding a series/film does not make you (necessarily) a producer. A lot of Netflix Original content is produced for, but very little actually by Netflix (meaning in house). Now, we all know that the term producer" can be very vage, so yes, I can see how you coould see Netflix as a producer for giving money to the production companies to actually make the content. - And of course we can get along, in fact I think we do, disagreement doesn't have to mean an editing war. XD Have a good day.-Abyss Taucher (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'd also add that the link you shared and the definition you provided is in regards to films. Motion pictures are an entirely different subject and the discussion of "country of origin" as is described in the above link does not pertain to this discussion. I hope I've been clear in reasoning and explanation. Hope we can continue to edit together. If you have further questions or concerns, please feel free to bring them up. Have a nice evening. Cheers, BoogerD (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- The term producer or production company is actually not vague. If Paramount Pictures finances a Bad Robot Productions film or television series then they are producing it as well. If they had no hand in the film or TV series until after it has finished post-production then they are merely acquiring its distribution rights. It is true that Netflix acquires films and television series that have been produced elsewhere and then streams them in other regions with the label of "Netflix Original" without actually being involved with the production. But in those instances the shows or films were distributed by a foreign distributor or a foreign network. Derek is a good example. It was produced by Channel 4 in the United Kingdom and then Netflix acquired it and aired it as a "Netflix Original" in the United States and other territories. So how does all of this relate back to the case of Jinn and other foreign language shows that Netflix has given series orders to? It is simple: a foreign television network or streaming service did initially order the show. As the news articles announcing the series clearly said, Netflix gave the production a series order. Bottom line: An American entertainment company, one that produces and distributes its own content, is developing and gave a series order to their first Arabic-language television series. Jinn and many other foreign-language Netflix series are not co-productions with foreign networks. They are shows that were produced by an American company. I agree that edit wars are unnecessary but I would also say that this issue is not a matter of opinion. Jinn is not the same case as a series like Derek is on Netflix. The country of origin for Jinn is the United States because Netflix, the network/streaming service that ordered the series, is American. To say otherwise is simply incorrect and should updated to be accurate. Cheers, BoogerD (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Alright, you won me over. Someone should change the country of origin on all the other foreign Netflix Originals I guess. - Will be hard to make it stick. Pretty sure people will edit it back like creazy, at least at the beginning.-Abyss Taucher (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- The term producer or production company is actually not vague. If Paramount Pictures finances a Bad Robot Productions film or television series then they are producing it as well. If they had no hand in the film or TV series until after it has finished post-production then they are merely acquiring its distribution rights. It is true that Netflix acquires films and television series that have been produced elsewhere and then streams them in other regions with the label of "Netflix Original" without actually being involved with the production. But in those instances the shows or films were distributed by a foreign distributor or a foreign network. Derek is a good example. It was produced by Channel 4 in the United Kingdom and then Netflix acquired it and aired it as a "Netflix Original" in the United States and other territories. So how does all of this relate back to the case of Jinn and other foreign language shows that Netflix has given series orders to? It is simple: a foreign television network or streaming service did initially order the show. As the news articles announcing the series clearly said, Netflix gave the production a series order. Bottom line: An American entertainment company, one that produces and distributes its own content, is developing and gave a series order to their first Arabic-language television series. Jinn and many other foreign-language Netflix series are not co-productions with foreign networks. They are shows that were produced by an American company. I agree that edit wars are unnecessary but I would also say that this issue is not a matter of opinion. Jinn is not the same case as a series like Derek is on Netflix. The country of origin for Jinn is the United States because Netflix, the network/streaming service that ordered the series, is American. To say otherwise is simply incorrect and should updated to be accurate. Cheers, BoogerD (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Help
Hi BoogerD, I have seen the articles that you have created or collaborated and you have improved them a lot. For that reason I ask you if you can do the same with the television series Siren that premiered a few hours ago, I do not speak English fluently, and I am not good with words, you have created great articles. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.9.181.223 (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
"Needs citation"?
The citation,as made clear in my comment on the revision,is the credits of the series itself saying it's based on the format of the Dutch show. Just how is one supposed to cite that? 12.144.5.2 (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 9
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Genius (U.S. TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Robert Lindsay and Johnny Flynn
- Our Cartoon President (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to John Bolton
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:FacebookWatchLogo.png
Thanks for uploading File:FacebookWatchLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:ChampionsTV.png
Thanks for uploading File:ChampionsTV.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Contender (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freddie Roach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
Foreign Netflix Originals
The non-english Netflix original series are credited for their original produced country. For example, the series 3% is distributed worldwide by the american company Netflix but it was not produced by Netflix (it was produced by the brazilian company Boutique Filmes), The Mechanism (TV series) was produced by the brazilian company Zazen Produções and so on. Netflix itself use this classification in their platform. --Flaviohmg (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Correct. The country in which they are filmed is credited by Netflix and, due to the guidelines specified on the Template:Infobox television page, belongs in the Location section of the infobox. Netflix is not merely a distributor of these programs: they produce it as well. It has been made clear with me that many users do not fully understand film and television production on Wikipedia. Netflix funded this series and other foreign language ones on their streaming service. They were not written, filmed, and edited beforehand and then purchased by Netflix rather, they were reviewed by Netflix during the development process and then greenlit and ordered by them. If the series aired on another network or streaming service, particularly one in Brazil, then it would be appropriate to list Brazil as another Country of Origin. BoogerD (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- You have to consider that Netflix is now an international streaming company with offices all around the world and that's why they are producing original international content. These shows that I mentioned were written, produced and filmed in Brazil by a local company. Considering these series as an american production it's like buying a burrito in your local Taco Bell and saying that you are eating a traditional delicatessen from the "american cuisine". You should also note that identifying reliable sources are part of Wikipedia's articles written policy. I can't find any pointing that these productions are from the United States and considering that Netflix itself credits these production to their original countries of production.
--Flaviohmg (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- First off the argument that you are positing doesn't make any logical sense. Netflix may offer its services internationally but it is an American company. Just in the same way that Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and many other corporations have international presences but are still American companies were they are located. Netflix, I double checked, lists them as international shows. They don't have a specific disclaimer saying, "Such and such country is the country of origin". They merely note that the productions were filmed in places around the globe. My "reliable source" as to the country of origin is the fact that if you go to Netflix's wikipedia page you'll see that they are listed as an American company. BoogerD (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'll concede that I could possibly be outside of what the Wikipedia community would agree to on consensus. @Spartaz:, @AlexTheWhovian:, @Netoholic:. Can you offer some input possibly? I'd also point to User talk:BoogerD#The Story of the 'Jinn' from the United States. BoogerD (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- There are international productions like The Witch (2015 film) which was produced and financied by companies from 4 countries (UK, Brazil, US and Canada) but still credited as a film from the United States. Can't see the logic here. If you see most of products from Apple, Microsoft and Amazon there's a MADE IN CHINA stamp on the back. Because that is the country where it was PRODUCED and not where the companies are from.--Flaviohmg (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Again, I'll point you towards the explanations given in the above conversation on my talk page found here User talk:BoogerD#The Story of the 'Jinn' from the United States and the guidelines provided on the Template: Infobox television page. And, again, I'd advise against making comparisons to things or situations that are not comparable to film and television production such as fast-food restaurants and manufacturing. Though I'd rather not give more credence to the comparison you are trying to make, I'd point out that while those products made by those companies may be physically constructed in places like China they are still frequently developed and designed in the United States. BoogerD (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Copyright problem: First Wives Club (TV series)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as First Wives Club (TV series), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from http://deadline.com/2018/04/first-wives-club-tv-reboot-series-order-paramount-network-1202367717/, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
- If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:First Wives Club (TV series) and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, First Wives Club (TV series), in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
- If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:First Wives Club (TV series). See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
- If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:First Wives Club (TV series) with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.
It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at . Leave a note at Talk:First Wives Club (TV series) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Largoplazo (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Great Minds with Dan Harmon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IFC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Autopatrolled granted
Hi BoogerD, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — xaosflux Talk 00:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Handmaid's season 2 titles
The source is from here: https://www.serienjunkies.de/the-handmaids-tale/season2.html That's a well acclaimed site in DE. Do you think we can undo the undo? mynetx (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well, it's an American show and in English so I think it would be preferred to cite an American source in English. I'm not sure if there is anything in the Manual of Style or Wikipedia policy that says a foreign source couldn't be used but I'm almost 99% that another editor will remove the information with that source. Think you can find another site that includes that information? Most people update episode guides for Hulu shows by citing the Hulu Press website (see: https://www.hulu.com/press/show/the-handmaids-tale/?temp=synopses) which doesn't mention those episodes yet. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Do You Want To See a Dead Body?, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adam Scott (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Four Weddings and a Funeral (miniseries), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Howard Klein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
New Rocky and Bullwinkle series
Hello! I would like to ask you where to watch the new Rocky and Bullwinkle series free of charge? -- Gergő90 Talk 20:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
American Lion
Do have a source confirming that HBO has cancelled production? If so, could you provide it to the deletion discussion? (If not, then perhaps that page shouldn't have been tagged for for deletion in the first place?) - theWOLFchild 03:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
FYI
Thought you might find this useful: Help:Archiving a talk page. - theWOLFchild 03:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Joel McHale Show with Joel McHale, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Adam Scott and Jesse Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dallas & Robo, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Steve Little and Dale Watson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Impulse (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rebecca Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
It's very unlikely to get deleted on commons, too simple... Ronhjones (Talk) 19:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity @Ronhjones:, what's the point of having Template:Non-free title-card and Template:Non-free use rationale title-card then? – BoogerD (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Amazon Video Foreign Language Programming
Template:Amazon Video Foreign Language Programming has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Flordeneu (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Untitled Kristen Wiig comedy series
A tag has been placed on Untitled Kristen Wiig comedy series requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
June 2018
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Escape the Night, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Really? I removed one sentence, no longer relevant or overall pertinant, from the lead. The majority of my edit consisted of copyedits to create consistency between the article and other television series articles. I would've appreciated a more constructive message on my talk page if you wanted to discuss the edit I made. I am always here to work with other editors and to come to an understanding when disagreements are had. Hope you have a nice evening, BoogerD (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
My edits relating to Boris and Natasha from Rocky and Bullwinkle
Why were you undoing them? (Bennyben1998 (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Bennyben1998)
- They are unsourced changes. The characters which you changed the descriptions of were already properly described. They are not "mobsters" and Fearless Leader is not a "mob boss." They are spies that work for Frearless Leader, the dictator of the fictional country Pottsylvania. Unless you can find a reliable, secondary source that describes in the way that you wrote (which still really wouldn't solve the issue as many more sources exist that describe them as they were already described) than a discussion could be had about changing the way they are described. Hope that helps. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Periods and quotation marks
Greetings and felicitations. Per MOS:INOROUT the period may be inside or outside the quotation marks, depending upon the particular usage. Since "mixed or average reviews" is a phrase rather than a sentence or sentence fragment, the period belongs outside of the quotation marks. —DocWatson42 (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- All good my friend. I wasn't sure but you clearly seem to be knowledgable. Thanks for the heads-up. – BoogerD (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- All good my friend. I wasn't sure but you clearly seem to be knowledgable. Thanks for the heads-up. – BoogerD (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
who is the real creator of The InBetween, Moira Kirland or mystery creator
Um you better check this out on https://www.instagram.com/p/BkycyRbDN5u/
oh really could you find out on https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1203211/ please - Ben Folds Seven (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
and i posted the instagram picture under the name Craig Miller - Ben Folds Seven (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- IMDb is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. – BoogerD (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pose (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Billy Porter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Four Netflix templates
Hey BoogerD, are you interest in creating four Netflix templates after they made a decision (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 June 26#Template:Netflix original series)?
- Template:Netflix original current series
- Template:Netflix original continuation series
- Template:Netflix original ended series
- Template:Netflix original upcoming series
It's a split then redirect. — Landingdude13 (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe, I could create these templates while redirecting the old one. — Landingdude13 (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the Adult Swim airdates
I've decided to try to request clarification on this so we can avoid getting into an edit war, so feel free to come give your perspective over here if you'd like. (Sorry if I might seem a little irritated in the post itself...) Alphius (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Castle Rock
Hello @Sebastian James:! I hope your evening is well (if it is evening for you). I'm messaging you here in the interest of having a civil conversation about our disagreements regarding the Reception section of the Castle Rock article. I always assume good faith in my fellow editors and so I have no doubt that you are simply trying to improve the page, as am I. While I found some of your edit summaries to be a little "harsh" I understand that given the limited amount of space one is allowed to convey their thoughts in that one may not be able to adequately express himself.
So, a few things regarding the section: I think both of us are fine with the general content of that part of the page. I think what we are disagreeing over is simply the wording. Some of my thoughts on that:
1. The opening sentence of the paragraph give an overall summary in regards to how the series has been received by professional critics. I don't see how much sense it makes to move how Metacritic has described the series to that sentence when the paragraph already has a sentence about the Metacritic score. Additionally, that opening sentence doesn't include where that phrase in quotes comes from so its not really attributed to Metacritic right now anyways.
2. In the sentence regarding Rotten Tomatoes we seem to have a disagreement over the phrasing "review aggregation website" versus "review aggregator." I understand why the later seems more succinct but the phrasing of the former lets the reader know that a website is being referred to. I've seen it written both ways on a number of articles.
3. The use of a slash (/) versus the phrase "out of." In this case the slash serves as a sort of abbreviation of that phrase anyways and the use of "out of" is symmetrical with the following Metacritic sentence.
4. Lastly, would be the inclusion of the phrase used by Metacritic to summarize the critical response to the series. You can see my thoughts on that above.
So, I hope we can talk about this and hatch it out. I'd love to hear your thoughts. I promise to remain calm and civil and will do my best to express myself as clearly as possible. I'm pretty amenable and easy-going and very willing to collaborate and work with fellow editors. I take it you've been on here for awhile and so have I. Neither of us would volunteer so much of our time to the project if we didn't find it worthwhile and of some importance. Here's to future collaborations between the two of us. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi. Except for the reception of Great News, which uses "has received" and "/", the other examples' critical responses you stated are edited many times by you. So, I wonder why do you want Castle Rock's reception be like the ones you wrote, moreover call this "consistency". There is no rule that they should be written much the same, it is not mentioned in MOS:TV. My replies to your thoughts:
- 1. A reliable, sourced info is needed for the opening sentence when it implies a conclusion, per WP:SYNTH. Therefore, one shouldn't describe a film/book/tv series etc. "positively received" if none of the sources are comprised of that statement. Additionally, I might have added "according to Metacritic" after "received generally favorable reviews from critics", but I felt like I had to rewrite the sentence about Metaritic score.
- 2. "Review aggregator" is more convenient than "review aggregating website", because the latter is redundant. It is even more fitting not using any of these, because RT and MC are well-known websites, and one can look up what these websites are when they click the links if they don't know.
- 3. "/" is stated in RT pages. "Out of" is also redundant here, though not like review aggregating website.
- 4. I have already explained.
- I think that's all. Thank you for your contributions. I would love to collaborate. Warmthness, Sebastian James (talk)
- @Drovethrughosts: you are a prolific editor and one whom I've run into a time or two editing the Critical response sections of various television series articles. Do you have any thoughts on this discussion? I'd value your input. – BoogerD (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Redirects and drafts
Hi there. Instead of edit warring over this issue, would you like to join in the discussions at Template talk:There is a draft for this article where we are attempting to find a consensus on the best way forward. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
It didn't make any difference at all. I recommend you go check the difference. — Lbtocthtalk 01:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I did though. I tried out multiple widths. 73 was the largest one that would fit without making the table go under the template. I'm trying to figure out why we're not seeing the same thing. Maybe its a computer/browser thing? I have a Macbook Pro and I'm using Google Chrome. What about you? – BoogerD (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I am using a PC and Google Chrome. It's not under the infobox template at all using the 75 width. — Lbtocthtalk 01:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I also just tried on my sibling's Macbook Pro using Google Chrome and the 75 width is not under the infobox template. — Lbtocthtalk 01:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I'm stumped. I promise I'm not lying, haha. I've gone and looked at each of the different edit versions and the 75 is showing up wrong for me still and the 73 is working. Not sure what we do here. – BoogerD (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe it is the Zoom in/Zoom out thing on Google Chrome. Mine is 100% which is the default. — Lbtocthtalk 01:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I had the same thought. Checked mine and it is 100% or actual size. – BoogerD (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe, a display problem? That is if you recently changed your display settings on your Macebook Pro or accidentally pressed a button on your keyboard and didn't realized. (It really happened to me before by accident). I just checked my display settings and they are the default settings. — Lbtocthtalk 02:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I had the same thought. Checked mine and it is 100% or actual size. – BoogerD (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe it is the Zoom in/Zoom out thing on Google Chrome. Mine is 100% which is the default. — Lbtocthtalk 01:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I'm stumped. I promise I'm not lying, haha. I've gone and looked at each of the different edit versions and the 75 is showing up wrong for me still and the 73 is working. Not sure what we do here. – BoogerD (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I also just tried on my sibling's Macbook Pro using Google Chrome and the 75 width is not under the infobox template. — Lbtocthtalk 01:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I am using a PC and Google Chrome. It's not under the infobox template at all using the 75 width. — Lbtocthtalk 01:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I did though. I tried out multiple widths. 73 was the largest one that would fit without making the table go under the template. I'm trying to figure out why we're not seeing the same thing. Maybe its a computer/browser thing? I have a Macbook Pro and I'm using Google Chrome. What about you? – BoogerD (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Looking for Alaska (miniseries) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Looking for Alaska (miniseries) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Looking for Alaska (miniseries) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. QueerFilmNerdtalk 05:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of original programs distributed by Amazon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thriller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I thought Steven Spielberg is producing this show because he owns Amblin Television — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilVeRChAiRtommorow (talk • contribs) 23:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- He owns the production company, yes. But that does not guarantee that he will be credited as a producer on the series. There have numerous series that the company has produced that his name has not been attached to. You need a reliable, secondary source to add information like that to the article. – BoogerD (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
See also section in Who Is America?
Hey, BoogerD. Thanks for removing that see also section from Who Is America? I hadn't noticed that the links were already in the navbox. Cheers, 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
However, I hadn't noticed that you reverted multiple edits, reinserting the website_name
parameter into the infobox. Why is that? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- No problem. Didn't mean to re-add the parameter to the infobox. While you are here, do you mind answering a few policy/MOS questions I have? You seem quite knowledgable. – BoogerD (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, I'm happy to help. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Can you explain the addition/use of "ndash;" throughout the article? I'm not sure entirely understand its purpose or what it does exactly? Can't one simply use "–" instead? – BoogerD (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see any uses of
–
in the article, to be honest. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see any uses of
- Can you explain the addition/use of "ndash;" throughout the article? I'm not sure entirely understand its purpose or what it does exactly? Can't one simply use "–" instead? – BoogerD (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
See List of original programs distributed by Netflix. The family centered TV comedies are considered to be sitcom. Comedy is a broad term. Sitcom is less broader term. — Lbtocthtalk 23:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've been confused about the difference between the two for sometime, I must admit. What exactly is the difference? What makes Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt a comedy and not a sitcom? What makes Disjointed a comedy and not a sitcom? Why is Fuller House a sitcom and not a comedy? Is there something in the MOS regarding this? I'm hoping to find some clarity here. – BoogerD (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Sitcom is situation comedy where it includes everyday situations such doing laundry or eating breakfast. Sitcoms are confined in situations or space. Like Fuller House where they main characters are confined in space (they lived together). Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, Kimmy Schimdt only lives with Titus so, the main characters are not confined in space nor situation. Disjointed is actually a sitcom because the main characters are confined in the situation. Comedy is BROAD term whereas sitcom is more in depth term. — Lbtocthtalk 23:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- All About The Washingtons , the family are confined in space as they live together like Fuller House. — Lbtocthtalk 23:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- On second thought, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt is actually a sitcom because the main characters are confined to the situation. — Lbtocthtalk 23:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt: The main characters are always struggling with problems (which are real situations). Friends from College would be an example that is not tied to situation. In addition, sitcoms are filmed in a studio only whereas comedies also filmed outside the studio. — Lbtocthtalk 00:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Master of None, Girlboss are some other comedies that are not situation. — Lbtocthtalk 00:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Aren't the characters in Friends from College also always struggling with problems? Can't the same be said of Master of None? I mean isn't conflict at the center of all storytelling/drama? I think the definition is much more fluid than what you're trying to suggest. Also, seemingly contradicting your point, Kimmy Schmidt is not filmed in front of an audience and frequently films outside. – BoogerD (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Per compromise, on All About The Washingtons, I think sitcom should be added to the genre as it said on Netflix it is a sitcom. I am not going to delete the television comedy, I think sitcom should also be added part of the genre. — Lbtocthtalk 00:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Also, Friends from College is not tagged as a sitcom on Netflix. — Lbtocthtalk 00:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you should have known by now that adding episode titles before the released date have to have a reliable source. — Lbtocthtalk 06:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the arangement of the cast in Pose (Tv Series)
Hi, so I'm rearranging the characters in Pose, because it currently doesn't reflect who the main characters are. Evan Peters, Kate Mara, and James Van Der Beek are minor characters. Mj Rodriguez, Dominique Jackson , and Indya Moore are the obvious leads of the show and should be ordered as such. As an follower of the show I'd just like to see the proper character portrayed first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NomadB42 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @NomadB42:, I understand what you are saying but here at Wikipedia we follow what's known as the Manual of Style. It sort of like a compendium of guidelines to follow when editing and constructing articles. You can find a section of the Manual of Style regarding "Cast and characters" sections at MOS:TVCAST. In that section is a specific guideline that states: "The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list." I know many people have certain opinions about how things should be listed but we have guidelines here at Wikipedia in order maintain a sense of consistency among articles and prevent complete chaos. I hope that cleared it up a bit for you. Hoping you have a nice evening, BoogerD (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:BarryTitleScreen.png
Thanks for uploading File:BarryTitleScreen.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Reversions on The Enemy Within (TV series)
Hi there, I noticed you made several reversions without leaving a valid reason. My edits were based on grammar errors and such, and while they were not significant, and certainly didn't change the meaning of the article, I felt they were an improvement, as they used active vs. passive voice in several instances, cut down the amount of fluff without losing any meaning, and generally made the article more encyclopedic, while making it read less as if a superfan with a third-grade reading level had written it. I hope you will appreciate these edits for what they are, thanks. Amsgearing (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Never claimed ownership of the article. If an edit is useful or called for than it should stay. If it serves no purpose or, in fact, diminishes the article than it should be reverted. I'd be curious to see what grammar errors you are referring to as well as "instances of fluff." I'd also avoid using phrases such as "making it read less as if a superfan with a third-grade reading level" as it is unnecessarily aggressive and could lead to contention. – BoogerD (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Who Is America?
Please note that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source for contentious information - see WP:DAILYMAIL. Black Kite (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American Princess (2018 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patrick Gallagher (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Ways to improve In the Tall Grass (film)
Hi, I'm Devopam. BoogerD, thanks for creating In the Tall Grass (film)!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add relevant information to avoid WP:TOOSOON in current shape
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Devopam (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Netflix
Hey! The source is listed on here. [1] Vmars22 (talk) "Update: The Highwaymen and Untitled Dan Gilroy have been moved to 2019." 01:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Evan M
Actually wasn't "Potty Mouth" riding on his mother's Uber account? He might not even have the same last name. SlightSmile 19:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- I should have known. Would you believe I've never known someone with that name funny as it seems. I see from your contribs that you do a lot of good edits but still a reply here would have been nice. SlightSmile 20:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
August 2018
Your recent editing history at Template:Amazon Video original series shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. AussieLegend (✉) 04:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up @AussieLegend:. I came to that realization whilst in the middle of it at a certain point. I initiated my own attempt to resolve the various disputes by opening a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Template for Amazon Video Original Programming and informing the other editor on their talk page and making a corresponding post on the templates talk page so that other interested editors might be encouraged to join in the discussion. It is my intent to avoid continuing to "war" and I hope to see this all resolved civilly and respectfully. Hoping you have a nice evening, BoogerD (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The file File:StrangersTVLogo.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
File is not "being used as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question" as the non-free use rationale claims; there is already File:StrangersLogo.svg being used for that purpose. This file seems to simply be being used for identification for Zoë Chao, one of the actresses staring in the show. Chao, however, is still living so there's not real justification per WP:NFCC#1 for a non-free image to be used for identifying her; moreover, there's no specific sourced critical commentary about this particular image (for example, how she looks in character in the show, etc.) to provide the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Manifest
Maybe what's needed is a category for stories about airplanes going through the time barrier? There are several Twilight Zones that would fit that category. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- There's already "Category:Time travel television episodes" which might work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- On second thought, that category only seems to apply to television episodes and not entire series. I looked through it and saw that all of the other articles included in the category are for episodes and not series. Maybe wait an see if the first episode of Manifest gets its own article? Hmmm...Just don't think that including it in this category is appropriate given that it explicitly states "episode". – BoogerD (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Hulu
Hello, You recently reverted my edit on the hulu original programming template for the show Resident Advisors (TV series), stating that it was acquired and not original. Do you have any citations for that? As far as I can see, it first aired in the U.S. on hulu, and hulu is listed as its original network. Thanks Mjs32193 (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well to start, it was never listed as a "Hulu Original" back when it was first released and up through today. It has always been labeled as a "Hulu Exclusive" which supports the notion of its acquisition. Similarly, the Hulu Original bumper/ID does not appear before or after any of the episodes and the copyright to each episode is credited towards Paramount Pictures Corporation and Paramount Digital. I would look at the case of "There's Johnny" for a similar comparison. NBCUniversal produced the series and when their original plans for releasing it fell through, Hulu decided to stream it as a "Hulu Exclusive". They had no hand in its production and never labled it as an original though it did first air on their service. There's a clear distinction. I would be curious to see if a reliable secondary source citation could be found that supports the notion that Hulu produced Resident Advisors and would be open to such a change if that sort of information materialized. However, as it stands now all evidence points at the series not being an original like many other have been. – BoogerD (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Upon further research, I see what you are saying in that this show seems to be an exception to the typical classifications of "originals", specifically by Hulu's marketing. I still think this leaves a gap in television coverage on Wikipedia. Most traditional and streaming television shows are listed on the original programming pages of the network they first aired on. This first aired on Hulu, but is not considered an "original". I'm not sure how to handle a case like this but I don't think it should be simply ignored. It is also worth noting that unlike Netflix and Amazon, Hulu does not have its own studio, so all shows come from independent studios. Why Hulu decided to call this one an exclusive instead of an original, who knows. I may bring this up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television to get additional input on situations like these. This will likely become more of an issue now that FOX is selling their studio, and all shows that air on FOX will now be coming from outside studios. Thanks Mjs32193 (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Few further points. While Hulu does not have its own "studio" it does in fact have its own team of executives and producers. The streaming service itself funds its various original programs and pays the production companies involved with them to facilitate the creation of these series. That is the key difference in the case of Resident Advisors and There's Johnny: Hulu had no hand in their production. They did not greenlight them, they did not develop them, and the did not provide any funding for them while they were in pre-production, principal photography, or post-production. What they did do is merely pay a fee to acquire the rights to stream the finished product on their service. For what its worth, all the broadcast networks have always used outside production companies to help fill out their programming (note that the series Last Man Standing was produced by 20th Century Fox but aired on ABC) however in these many instances, the networks have bought pitches from those studios, given the productions a series order or a greenlight, and then funded and facilitated the production of those shows. That is now what happened here with the show we are discussing. Hope that clarified a few things for you. – BoogerD (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Upon further research, I see what you are saying in that this show seems to be an exception to the typical classifications of "originals", specifically by Hulu's marketing. I still think this leaves a gap in television coverage on Wikipedia. Most traditional and streaming television shows are listed on the original programming pages of the network they first aired on. This first aired on Hulu, but is not considered an "original". I'm not sure how to handle a case like this but I don't think it should be simply ignored. It is also worth noting that unlike Netflix and Amazon, Hulu does not have its own studio, so all shows come from independent studios. Why Hulu decided to call this one an exclusive instead of an original, who knows. I may bring this up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television to get additional input on situations like these. This will likely become more of an issue now that FOX is selling their studio, and all shows that air on FOX will now be coming from outside studios. Thanks Mjs32193 (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well to start, it was never listed as a "Hulu Original" back when it was first released and up through today. It has always been labeled as a "Hulu Exclusive" which supports the notion of its acquisition. Similarly, the Hulu Original bumper/ID does not appear before or after any of the episodes and the copyright to each episode is credited towards Paramount Pictures Corporation and Paramount Digital. I would look at the case of "There's Johnny" for a similar comparison. NBCUniversal produced the series and when their original plans for releasing it fell through, Hulu decided to stream it as a "Hulu Exclusive". They had no hand in its production and never labled it as an original though it did first air on their service. There's a clear distinction. I would be curious to see if a reliable secondary source citation could be found that supports the notion that Hulu produced Resident Advisors and would be open to such a change if that sort of information materialized. However, as it stands now all evidence points at the series not being an original like many other have been. – BoogerD (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:All About the Washingtons#Cast list
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:All About the Washingtons#Cast list. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48
Maniac billing
That’s absurd. The trailer idenitifies the people who’ll appear most prominently. Hill, Stone, Field and Theroux are in that grouping. Them being supporting doesn’t make them fall under recurring, those are two different things. Rusted AutoParts 00:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- The sources are not what determines who’s considered in the main cast, that’s for the producers to decide, and they have done so with the trailer by identifying those four. Shows aren’t similar to movies, them being considered supporting doesn’t dictate how many episodes they’re in. Recurring means they’re in most but not all episodes, and since we don’t know that yet it’s incorrect to call them recurring. Rusted AutoParts 00:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- First off, recurring means that you are credited among guest stars in multiple episodes. Various sources have confirmed that Theroux and Field will not be credited among the main cast (either in opening credits or end credits). Secondly, trailers are produced by marketing departments or even, in some cases, outside third-parties that exclusively produce trailers. The producers, writers, and directors of films and television series typically have little to no involvement in marketing. Here's a couple of articles confirming Theroux's recurring status:
- Additionally, here's two confirming Field's recurring status:
- Hope that clarified things a bit. – BoogerD (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Your marketing stance holds no water cause you’d be then implying that all trailers and posters billing blocks don’t count because the marketers make them. They make what they’re designated, they can’t decide who’s main and who’s not, that’s up to the studio. And you’re using sources that were gathered during initial production. This trailer is after the fact and is now identifying the primary actors in the series. Rusted AutoParts 00:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Except a poster's billing block is not the same thing as names listed in a trailer. It is true that Wikipedia policy is to order credits for films based on poster billing blocks and to order and organize credits for television series by the on-screen credits. I mean, ultimately, we will have the final confirmation come when the episodes are released. However, there is far more evidence now to suggest how the actors will be credited. I'd be willing to entertain the notion that Theroux or Field had been upped to the main cast/series regulars if some reliable, secondary source citations can be located. – BoogerD (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Your marketing stance holds no water cause you’d be then implying that all trailers and posters billing blocks don’t count because the marketers make them. They make what they’re designated, they can’t decide who’s main and who’s not, that’s up to the studio. And you’re using sources that were gathered during initial production. This trailer is after the fact and is now identifying the primary actors in the series. Rusted AutoParts 00:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hope that clarified things a bit. – BoogerD (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 14
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Documentary Now! (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to IFC and Rhys Thomas
- No Activity (U.S. TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Mark Berry
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
References
- 1, the references were fine. #2, your edit sumamry was misleading, as you did more than just reformat the references. Amsgearing (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Amsgearing: The references were reformatted to be consistent with all other references in the article. Additionally, a reference was removed as it was superfluous. What is cited in the body of an article does not need to be cited in the lead. – BoogerD (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- The rule is that they have to be the same style. Wikitext being vertical or horizontal doesn't matter. I asked this exact question of an expert on the talk page for citations when I started using vertical cites and the answer was quite clear.
- Also, you're removing factual information. Saying who announced something is more accurate than the nebulous "it was announced", and those sources said exactly that, so it's not superfluous either. But I'll move it to the body. Amsgearing (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Amsgearing: Once an established citation format has been set a consensus is need to change it or to use other variations per WP:CITEVAR.
- WP:CITEVAR specifically says "citation style", not "citation format". There's a difference but I think you know that, or you wouldn't have misquoted it. Style deals with parenthetical vs. <ref> tag, Harvard citations, etc. Format is horizontal vs. vertical and they can co-exist just fine, because, after all, they're the same on the article page. They're only difference in wikitext. And you STILL haven't explained why you're changing factual info. Amsgearing (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Amsgearing: Once an established citation format has been set a consensus is need to change it or to use other variations per WP:CITEVAR.
- Also, you're removing factual information. Saying who announced something is more accurate than the nebulous "it was announced", and those sources said exactly that, so it's not superfluous either. But I'll move it to the body. Amsgearing (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- The rule is that they have to be the same style. Wikitext being vertical or horizontal doesn't matter. I asked this exact question of an expert on the talk page for citations when I started using vertical cites and the answer was quite clear.
- @Amsgearing: The references were reformatted to be consistent with all other references in the article. Additionally, a reference was removed as it was superfluous. What is cited in the body of an article does not need to be cited in the lead. – BoogerD (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
You've also just violated 3RR. I'd like you to revert that last edit before I escalate. Thank you. Amsgearing (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Amsgearing: How about the fact that the dates in the new citations aren't formatted consistently with the other citations? Or the fact that by adding all the unnecessary spaces and formatting the citations in a horizontal style, you are adding to the overall number of bytes the article is made up of? There is no compelling reason for two citations to be inconsistent with all of the other citations found in the article. As for the "factual information", I'll admit that a change in sentence structure is appropriate and that a revert was unnecessary. – BoogerD (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think you were well within your rights to revert him. I just noticed the little issue on the page and figured you'd be discussing. On the 100 or so TV pages I've edited I've never seen this citation style used before. His 3RR threat is baseless and without merit. From what I understand in the event of a content dispute the status quo remains right? You were just keeping with that. Oh and not to mention he violated 3RR too by reverting my original edit that reverted him, see the page history. Esuka323 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Look, I always assume other editors on here are editing in good faith until given a reason to believe otherwise. I've engaged in a handful of contentious debates recently but I believe one characteristic of all of these discussions is that I've remained calm, respectful, and willing talk. I never try and carry a snarky attitude or exhibit some sort of rude behavior. It isn't conducive to a good editing environment and odds are that you will very likely end up editing with whomever you are disagreeing with in the future. If two editors create deep-seated animosity towards each other at one point then it will make working together near impossible in the future. I have no issue with other disagreeing with my positions or opinions. However, I only ask that they explain themselves clearly, present a salient argument, and act with as much politeness as possible. By the way, thanks for the kind words @Esuka323:. I appreciate all the work you do across Wikipedia especially as it relates to your updating of television ratings across numerous articles. Keep it up! – BoogerD (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Same to you, you do such great work creating and maintaining TV pages. Thankyou and don't let certain editors get you down. Esuka323 (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Esuka323: Easier said then done. I spent hours a few days ago in the midst of a debate, a respectable one mind you, between myself and three other editors regarding the inclusion of a character's middle name in a cast and characters section. In hindsight it's like, "why would you ever blabber on and on over something so small?" I ultimately just dropped the discussion; my 14-year-old dog had a massive seizure the next which wiped out all my energy and I realized that getting deeper and deeper in this discussion was only precluding me from doing more useful and productive things here on Wikipedia. I edit on here as a form of relaxation as I truly enjoy contributing to a worthwhile endeavor. I don't have the patience or stamina to get bogged down by arguments over minutiae. Having said that, after putting a lot of time and effort into an article (sometimes over many months in the case of television show) I do feel an obligation to maintain the quality of the work. I'm not saying that I'd ever claim ownership over an article I've created or majorly contributed to. Wikipedia belongs to everybody and only functions well when people collaborate and work together to bring articles to their best possible form. My impulse is to avoid confrontation but if the moment arises when I find another editor needs to justify something, than I'll ask it of them. I will say that I've had many instances of other editors asking that of me and causing me to realize that my edit my have been unnecessary or overzealous. On the flipside, I think I've caused others to perhaps reconsider their edits as well. I'm not some online troll who gets off on upsetting people. I like engaging in team work and participating in vigorous debates. My experience here as been largely positive and that being the case I will always assume that the other person is here for the same reasons as I am. – BoogerD (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Same to you, you do such great work creating and maintaining TV pages. Thankyou and don't let certain editors get you down. Esuka323 (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Look, I always assume other editors on here are editing in good faith until given a reason to believe otherwise. I've engaged in a handful of contentious debates recently but I believe one characteristic of all of these discussions is that I've remained calm, respectful, and willing talk. I never try and carry a snarky attitude or exhibit some sort of rude behavior. It isn't conducive to a good editing environment and odds are that you will very likely end up editing with whomever you are disagreeing with in the future. If two editors create deep-seated animosity towards each other at one point then it will make working together near impossible in the future. I have no issue with other disagreeing with my positions or opinions. However, I only ask that they explain themselves clearly, present a salient argument, and act with as much politeness as possible. By the way, thanks for the kind words @Esuka323:. I appreciate all the work you do across Wikipedia especially as it relates to your updating of television ratings across numerous articles. Keep it up! – BoogerD (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think you were well within your rights to revert him. I just noticed the little issue on the page and figured you'd be discussing. On the 100 or so TV pages I've edited I've never seen this citation style used before. His 3RR threat is baseless and without merit. From what I understand in the event of a content dispute the status quo remains right? You were just keeping with that. Oh and not to mention he violated 3RR too by reverting my original edit that reverted him, see the page history. Esuka323 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Amsgearing: How about the fact that the dates in the new citations aren't formatted consistently with the other citations? Or the fact that by adding all the unnecessary spaces and formatting the citations in a horizontal style, you are adding to the overall number of bytes the article is made up of? There is no compelling reason for two citations to be inconsistent with all of the other citations found in the article. As for the "factual information", I'll admit that a change in sentence structure is appropriate and that a revert was unnecessary. – BoogerD (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Amsgearing (talk)