Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

If there even is an "official" way. Prime example: List of Make It Pop episodes. There are two specials, and they are currently ordered by air date. The first one is listed between the first and second seasons and the second one is listed after the second season. I'm wondering if it would be more "official" to have a single table for specials and just list that table at the very bottom, regardless of whether it's in air date order or not. Kind of similar to Hunter Street, I guess. I don't know. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it depends on what kind of "special" episode it is. "Retrospective special episodes" are usually listed in one table at the bottom of the LoE, and are not included in the overall series "episode count" (e.g. List of Once Upon a Time episodes; note: this would also apply to the Hunter Street (TV series) special). However, "specials" like the one at List of Make It Pop episodes are actual "special episodes" of the series – in cases like those, I think they're best handled as it is at List of Make It Pop episodes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: I'll admit – in the specific case of The Thundermans, I don't have a clear sense on what to do... I think that one can be argued both ways. This does get to a point I've been making a lot recently – that Nick and Disney Channel TV shows don't have seasons in the way that, say, CBS, The CW and USA Network TV shows do... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This does get to a point I've been making a lot recently – that Nick and Disney Channel TV shows don't have seasons in the way that, say, CBS, The CW and USA Network TV shows do... Hm. At least to me, I think The Thundermans is the only one with that "issue." Everything else, again, at least to me, for both Nickelodeon and Disney Channel seems a little more clear on season premieres and finales. For example, List of Henry Danger episodes and List of Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn episodes on the Nickelodeon side and List of Bunk'd episodes and List of Stuck in the Middle episodes on the Disney Channel side. No official announcements on the season finales for those that I know of, but The Thundermans appears to be the only one causing confusion and the like. Although I suppose List of Game Shakers episodes could be another one with regard to Revenge @ Tech Fest (promo) and the gap between it and the episode before it, but that one aired on a Saturday, the day it usually airs. With The Thundermans, though, not only was that episode advertised as a special, it also aired on a Monday, which, for Nickelodeon and Disney Channel, isn't usually a day there are episode premieres. Granted, it was a holiday, but still. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at – that Nick and Disney don't have formally structured "seasons": nothing is ever announced or advertised as a "season premiere" or a "season finale". And even their episode bundles on iTunes don't seem to follow a "season"-model... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think they've announced some season premieres and finales before with regard to TV commercials, but I can't quite remember. I can just vaguely remember the words season premiere/finale. I know that some series, like with Bizaardvark, have the premiere/finale tag on Screener, but they end up disappearing after a while. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe occasionally. But I think it only happens in the press releases. I can't remember a commercial ever using the "season finale" or "season premiere" tag on Nick or Disney... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And with Screener in particular, you can't fully rely on it just because it has an episode under a certain season. Look over on List of Crashletes episodes, where there's that odd situation that it seems logical that the second season premiere would have been on September 9, 2016, the same day Jagger Eaton's Mega Life premiered, but the source that mentions the renewal on Crashletes clearly states season two premiering on September 16, 2016, a week after the season one finale, which was "Eaton It" and had a season one production code. I mean, that makes a little more sense that the gaps wouldn't be quite as big between seasons considering it's an unscripted series that doesn't require much work or money—is the former the correct term?—but to have all those season one episodes air daily back in July 2016, then have the season one finale on September 9, 2016, and then, finally, have the season two premiere just a week later on September 16, 2016, just doesn't seem quite right. Then there was an episode with a season one production code that aired during season two, but it's listed under season one on Screener. This isn't always the case as "Girl Meets Fish" with a season one production code is listed under season two, but with Crashletes it was different. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Per our discussion, I've made the following changes with regard to Stuck in the Middle: [1] and [2]. If there are any disagreements or partial disagreements, feel more than free to let me know. Pinging Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H as well, in part because they were involved in the discussion regarding the addition of the shorts: Talk:Stuck in the Middle (TV series)#Stuck in the Middle: Stuck in the Store. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Yeah, shorts like that are not really like normal full-length or even double-length episodes. I have no strong opinion on including them in the series overview, but if we don't include them there and in the episode count, it should probably be moved outside the "Episodes" section heading, like at List of Once Upon a Time episodes. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: While "shorts" are not the same thing as "retrospective episodes", what you just did has precedent – List of Heroes episodes. However, if you are no longer going to include the 'shorts' in the series overview table, then I think the "Stuck in the Store" shorts need to be explicitly mentioned in the lede at List of Stuck in the Middle episodes – that was done with the webisodes at List of Heroes episodes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Good call. On another note, obviously, I won't change it back, but the other thing that still has me believe that "Thundermans: Secret Revealed" is a standalone special, alongside everything else I've already said here and on the article talk page with regard to the gaps and such, even including a link to the promo, is the two episodes preceding it: "Stealing Home" and "Back to School." Both of those aired on August 13, 2016, which is another indicator of a season—or series—finale: two or more new episodes on the same night. But maybe they just didn't want to air "Back to School" alongside Make It Pop's "Summer Splash" the following week on August 20, 2016. Or maybe they didn't want to air "Thundermans: Secret Revealed" alongside Make It Pop's "Summer Splash" on August 20, 2016. I don't know. If they had done either of these, though, it would have very likely boosted Make It Pop's "Summer Splash" ratings: 1.07 million total viewers. Also, just like it's not uncommon to leave a season on a cliffhanger and have the next season pick up where that left off, it's also not uncommon to just end a season with a typical episode, one that isn't specifically a season finale, but just an ordinary, run-of-the-mill episode, and then have the next season start with something having happened between it and the season finale of the previous season that we don't ever see, such as a marriage. When a series is popular enough or whatever requirements a series needs to get standalone specials, they'll usually make a special explaining what happened between the seasons, usually once the current season has already aired, but not always. It still just doesn't sit right with me, but, obviously, I'll leave it. I'm not going to be one of those disruptive editors. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The difference between being a good Wiki editor, and a WP:BATTLEGROUNDer (there's one of these at one of the rail articles I edit currently...), is realizing that consensus isn't always going to go your way and being fine with it when it's doesn't. It's happened to all of us, for sure. In the case of The Thundermans, the evidence is scant, but what there is does seem to point in the direction of including "Secrets Revealed" with one of the seasons. But I'd feel a lot better about it if this episode was listed at the U.S. Copyright Office, as I usually prefer to use that to make "final" calls like this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Skyvolt did make a good point, though, that it would have been more logical to have the season three finale be "Back to School" and then have "Thundermans: Secret Revealed" and "Thundermans: Banished!" as standalone specials. Although that would have made the season four premiere even more weird, and it's pretty weird to begin with as there were only two episodes before a hiatus, in that there would have only been one episode before a hiatus—"Happy Heroween." It seems more logical that season four should have premiered on January 7 alongside the season three premiere of Nicky, Ricky, Dicky, & Dawn. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure there are more, but I just remembered a crystal clear case of a season premiere "announcement." Henry Danger's second second which was followed by the series premiere of Game Shakers. That night, even before the premieres, some of the cast from both series were there live, if I recall, during commercial breaks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Redux

Look! I'm copying you!

I've now made the same changes to Hunter Street: [3]. I've left the episode count alone, however, because the special is still technically an episode, and unlike Stuck in the Middle's shorts, this was a normal length airing like a regular episode. Although on an interesting note, it's not even listed on Amazon. Feel free to make any tweaks you see necessary. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I've put subsections back in, because at the parent TV series article I think that works much better. And I've revised the episode count based on how they handle this at Once Upon a Time. But I fully agree with taking the 'Series overview' out (and not counting the special there) – again, that is also how they handle this at Once Upon a Time, so we're following practice elsewhere on that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Could use some eyes. Another content dispute? Maybe, maybe not, as I have suspicions some summaries are copyright violations. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

A talk page discussion has been started, for reference. I can't really think of a comment right now as class is starting in a few minutes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I've tried rewording the first sentence of the synopsis for the episode in question (which is sub-optimal, as I don't think I've seen it...) so that it hopefully makes more sense/is better gramatically. If either of those editors then tries to replace that with their previous version, we'll know something is up... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IJBall. When you moved Hunter (U.S. TV series) to a new title and then redirected the old title to a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Hunter (U.S. TV series)" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've asked someone with AWB to follow up on this. It should be taken care of soon. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added it to my list. My magic eight ball said you were going to ask for more watchers at some point. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I've been the only one watching this for a long-time. (It's now one of my top-edited articles, almost entirely due to reversions! ) It's been bad for a while now. But, yeah – it's likely to get worse, now that the premiere is approaching... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Somebody changed the poster art for this one – I do not approve: the previous poster art was superior. If anyone knows how to restore the previous version, please do so... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging expert Nyuszika7H. Relevant file page is here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

To update: Nyuszika7H reverted to the previous version, Philip J. Fry then reverted again to his version on the basis of image quality (how important is this really for these tiny images?...), and now I've figured out how to revert to the original image, and I've asked for further discussion at Talk:Descendants 2 before changing it again. Amaury, you may want to keep an eye on this image situation too... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I found a better-quality version of the same poster we have been using with a Google reverse image search, and replaced it with that. This should resolve the quality issue. Other than that, movies often have multiple posters and there's generally no "One Correct Poster", so it's up to local consensus on a per-article basis. I agree that this one is superior as well. Also, I capped the size at 360px rather than 300px, as I've been doing with posters. It should be acceptable, as it's still quite-low resolution, and 300px is not a hard limit, just a guidance, and mostly used for square images like album covers. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, I see Geraldo Perez is already watching this from the page history. MPFitz1968, you want to add this to your list? Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think we need to source it, but that aside, if people would just use proper edit summaries rather than "this series is X genre"—what, we're supposed to take their word for it by not providing any other information?—we'd save a lot of headaches. The genres I have listed on all the articles that I'm watching (and are in my sandbox) come from the general overview page on Screener for each series. All they had to write is that it came from the press release, and I would have looked to confirm and had no problem with it. But no... that's too difficult. "OMG! I can't be asked to use a proper edit summary! I'll die!" LOL! Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

In defense of Ruslan Kipkeev, they did try to source most of their genre additions (though not all of their sources were WP:RSs...). However, as it happens, I think "superhero" as a genre is only valid for Lab Rats: Elite Force and Mighty Med, but not the others. For example, none of the press around Lab Rats ever uses the word "superhero". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Question: If the episodes themselves are good primary sources, why are we saying a better citation is needed for his appearance there? Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn: Not-So-Sweet Charity. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: NickALive! is basically a blog, right? As such, it's WP:NOTRS. Frankly, that could probably be replaced with a Nick promo directly from YouTube, and then it would probably be fine... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Huh? I was referring to the episode guest starring credits on that Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn episode. Once the episode airs, it becomes a good primary source. I don't know where NickALive came from, haha! Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, so you're asking why that source can't just be removed? I guess it can be, now that the episode has aired... I usually like additional secondary sourcing, though, so if there's a reliable press source that mentions his appearance on that, then it could be added as "additional" sourcing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I had a huge brain lapse. I thought that was tagged with citation needed rather than better citation needed. I didn't see the [10] there with the NickAlive source. But yes, that episode aired on May 20, and because NickALive is not a reliable source, my feeling is it shouldn't be kept, and the episode airing should be sufficient. If we find a reliable secondary source, we can insert that to back up our primary source as well. Now, I give you permission to smack me into next year. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

If those were improvements, feel more than free to take responsibility. See also User talk:BU Rob13#Legends of the Hidden Temple (film)‎. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

No, they're not. That's the problem with Orchomen – many of his so-called "grammar improvements" are actually crap. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

For reference, any Orchomen IPs that edit your talk page, you can add here: User:Amaury/List of accounts and IPs used by Orchomen#June 11, 2017. Rob has already implemented some range blocks and will implement more as more IPs pop up. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes I forget to do that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

If this is still in your list, could use some extra eyes. Known disruptive user making disruptive—or very problematic at least—edits. Their talk page is practically full of nothing but warnings, and they've been blocked once. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This falls under my "I won't watchlist currently-airing (adult) TV series articles to avoid conflicts with other editors" policy. However, I do check that article from time to time, as I watch episodes, to check on things. In this particular case, I'm not going to take a side – this is a content dispute, pure and simple, and should probably be discussed on the article's Talk page to see if other editors have any opinion on the matter. (Personally, I do not...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done. (Although it needs to be discussed and left as before being challenged before changing it. Does nobody know anything?) Putting the issue aside for a moment, however, the user is still disruptive and shouldn't be excused generally speaking, in my opinion. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Having now started the discussion, if they ignore the Talk page, and continue adding it back, then they'll definitely be guilty of Disruptive editing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't know if you'll feel same or different on this, but I've got another issue that I believe is more "major," so to speak, than the ratings issue, so just letting you know. Contrary to the editor's claim, series can't "air" online. I know MPFitz1968 jots his credits down from viewing Disney Channel series episodes online before they air, but he waits until they air to insert the credits which is right. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's an even bigger problem there – Chad Lowe was not in the first episode (that I can remember), so some of that may actually be fraudulent. (Also, if Katelyn Tarver never appears in another episode than the two she's already appeared in, she won't qualify as "recurring" either.) So those edits were problematic for a number of reasons. If they're repeated, and I see them first, I'll revert them myself. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It may be easier to verify credits once episodes have aired on TV, but I believe such official pre-air releases are valid sources. Anyone in the US who has a cable subscription and an internet connection can easily log in to Watch Disney, and not everyone has a cable subscription (or lives in the US) anyway, so TV is not much more of a publicly accessible source than the pre-air releases (which are also on Amazon and iTunes), and sources are not required to be publicly accessible to everyone anyway (we can't exactly provide a link to each episode's end credits, as that would be a copyright violation, and if not coming from an official distribution platform, it could well be faked). Usually, these are released the same day, so even if you can't verify yet, credits can be left in and corrected if needed when the episode airs if it's not blatantly obvious vandalism. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, those particular edits were problematic anyway – e.g. I for one generally oppose having a "Guest cast" section... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

On the more specific point, it should probably be determined by consensus at the article and its Talk page. I, for one, am with Amaury on this, and would prefer we stick to adding material as the episodes air on Freeform – the OnDemand and web stuff can certainly be used in the way Amaury suggests MPFitz uses them. But my preference is that we let the episodes air on Freeform and use that as our primary "airing source" for adding content. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Producers

Just making you aware of this: [4]. It's not as groundbreaking as the whole Beyond fiasco with the starring cast being changed—and there were even differences in other credits, such as the executive producers—but I have a feeling we may still get stubborn people. Those producers were not listed in the pilot, but are listed from the second episode onward. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your edit here, I was going thru the recent history in the article (last 50 edits), and this non-notable info about "love interests" has been inserted at least three times by at least three different IPs. I recall reverting the content once (and was inclined to do it again with the recent insertion, but instead managed to correct grammatical mistakes within the content - certainly whoever has been adding it doesn't know how to properly use 's). GP reverted this content once, too. As this is starting to become a problem, perhaps a hidden comment about keeping the character descriptions simple and relevant to the movie's overall theme and genre(s) may be in order. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: I think the problem is more whoever the editor is behind the IP's. Probably the same editor as at Descendants has been attempting to be add similar material to the cast descriptions at Descendants 2, but so far we've managed to keep it out. But it doesn't belong at either – at Descendants what they are trying to add is actually plot developments which belongs in the 'Plot' section not in the character descriptions. And it would likely be extraneous in any case... Let's keep an eye on this – if they persist, it may be worth looking into a range block or something, esp. if we end up following this up with a Talk page post. But, for now, let's see if anyone tries to add that back. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree on these details being more appropriate in the plot instead of in character descriptions. Also spotted another related, extraneous detail in the one for Princess Audrey and removed it [5]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Ironically, I don't think that detail is extraneous – it is basically one of Audrey's established "traits". IOW, IIRC, that is something that happened before the events of the film, and is established early on, and thus would be OK to leave in the character summary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Noted, but I'm inclined to leave that detail out for now - it was included in the most recent IP reinsertion of the material [6]. At the beginning of the film, to my knowledge, Audrey and Ben are together, so the "ex-girlfriend" part happens later after Ben and Mal start going out. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't remember the details. I thought I remembered that they were already broken up at the film's open, but I could be wrong... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: That didn't take long: [7], [8]. Looks like this IP is not going away. So we may need to look into other recourse, such as page protection and/or a rangeblock.

--IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure range blocking will work, as I've seen at least two different IPv6 ranges, way broader than /64 or /48, and one IPv4 doing this, going back to early May. (2602:301:77E4:18C0:ACF6:7C91:7B72:59F6, 71.46.59.44, 2607:FCC8:900D:2900:EDCA:3390:520:97E2, 2602:301:77E4:18C0:C45C:CE2D:8E66:58D0) Most geolocate to Ohio, but the IPv4 geolocated to Florida, when I checked that earlier. And the level of disruption hasn't been too big recently for admins to protect the page. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

For now, I'm going with hidden note [9]. Likely not gonna stop the IPs, but other editors watching the page may still be informed. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I just reverted this—with a fantastic edit summary, if I may add!—as well as an edit on the episode list. As this feels like something that could become a problem, just making you aware. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Help!!! At List of The Loud House episodes, there is a vandal who thinks that Nickelodeon has S2 Ep11: "Pulp Friction/Pets Peeved". Can you look at the history? --Carmen Melendez (talk|contribs) 21:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Geraldo Perez, who has more experience with circumstances like these...  Checking... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Carmen Melendez: OK, I'm confused – why should "Pets Peeved" be listed before "Pulp Friction"? According to the airdates, it should be "Pulp Friction" -> "Pets Peeved". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Animated series like SpongeBob SquarePants and The Loud House are a huge mess with their Wikipedia episode listings as it seems editors just throw logicality out the window and don't order things by air date. However, there's also some network fault here for the weird ordering they do. Instead of airing two new approximately 10-minute segments (eg, 10a and 10b) they air one new 10-minute segment and pair it with an old one that already aired (eg, 10a and 2b, and later down the road 10b and 5b). For series like this, they should still be ordered by air date order, but if it were up to me, I'd just remove the numbering which would help alleviate some confusion. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: This particular article also has a Prod. Codes column – because that is included, there's no reason not to list the episodes at List of The Loud House episodes in airing order. For the animated TV series articles that don't have one, adding a "Prod. Codes" column to the episodes tables may be a way to solve some of these these issues – then we could consistently list the episodes in airing order, but editors would still be able follow the production order... (I'll admit – I don't edit the animated series articles often, esp. not any of the ones that have aired over the last 20–25 years!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You've gotta be kidding me. Nickelodeon is wrong. An anonymous user who I call JeremyCreek is vandalizing. Can you pretty please block him once you see him doing Pulp Friction/Pets Peeved? Ah, never mind. I'll just talk to another administrator, an administrator that believes me. --Carmen Melendez (talk|contribs) 22:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You still haven't explained the issue – "Nickelodeon is wrong"?! What does that even mean?... Also, waiting to see if Geraldo Perez has any comment on this. (P.S. What you are suggesting you will do is what is known as "Admin shopping", and it usually doesn't work out well...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a basic content dispute that should be discussed on the article's talk page and dispute resolution followed if necessary. Episode lists are supposed to be ordered by airing date. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: I have posted a message at Talk:List of The Loud House episodes about this. We'll see if anyone takes notice. But the mere existence of the Talk page message probably justify anyone who now wants to put the episodes in order of air date.... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Carmen Melendez: Your editing history on this article is really odd and at times has crossed into the realm of disruptive. I find much of the above highly confusing. Could you please identify who JEREMYCREEK is and what edits (cite diffs please) you are referring to? Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, got a disruptive user over there. And what's ironic is that they're accusing me of labeling their edits as vandalism when I'm clearly not. Ha! Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: This article seems like a big bag of trouble. My advice? Keep an eye on it – the current editor you are having issues with looks to be a non-autocofirmed editor. So one possible route would be to request semi-protection at WP:RfPP (this article's had enough issues, that I think protection is quite likely to be granted). The second route would be to contact Admin Ad Orientem directly, as he's already commented on this. The third route is to look to see if there's any commonality among the various disruptive editors, and if there are is then file a report at WP:SPI... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, IJBall! I will go ahead and ping Ad Orientem just to make him aware since he's commented both here and on the article's talk page. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Now that the article is protected, I suggest we go about putting the episodes in airing order. There are a couple of ways to tackle this. The most obvious is to get rid of the "1a"/"1b" episode numbering scheme (which seems to be highly problematic in this particular case) and just go to a straight "1", "2", "3"... numbering scheme. (Another possible wrinkle here is also to eliminate the "No. in season" column, and just stick with the "No. overall" column...) So, my question is – Do you want to take a stab at doing this first? Or do you want me to try first? Also, do you think we need more Talk page discussion at the article on the particulars? Or do think we should just boldly reorder the episodes in terms of the airing order based on the discussion that has already taken place at the Talk page there?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Being bold should be no problem. With the last official regular day of spring quarter being on Friday, June 9, and my finals being yesterday, June 13, I am free until fall quarter, so I'd be more than happy to tackle it first, and then we can make additional changes as needed. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I've begun this. But my God, it's a mess. I'm glad I'm tackling this and not SpongeBob SquarePants which has been running for a much longer time. Unsourced content, incorrect production codes, messy formatting, all of the episode summaries, except for the summary of the first episode, are all pretty much clear-cut copyright violations, etc. As such, I will be cleaning this up by creating everything from scratch and am therefore doing it in my sandbox to work on it little by little without clogging up the article history and should have it done by tonight. Also, I am leaving the director and writer credits as they are for now other than using the StoryTeleplay template where necessary as I really have no way to check the credits. I've set up a series recording, but that'll take a while. I'm also leaving the custom storyboard column in for now because I'm not sure if storyboard is the same thing as story which would go inside the StoryTeleplay parameter. If the credits are something you, MPFitz1968, and Nyuszika7H would be willing to help with once I'm done with the major clean-up, that would be a huge help. I'll post here again when I'm done, pinging Michael and Nyuszika. You thought sitcoms or live-action television series in general—Stuck in the Middle, for example, isn't labeled a sitcom, but rather a comedy—were bad? Animated television series are even worse as things are less clear—no clear distinction between guest stars and co-stars, just a credit labeled additional voices, seasons are more blurry, and so on. I also plan on cleaning up the parent article and performing a much needed character split. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Have you tracked down a source for the prod. codes for this show? TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, not ignoring you. Working on getting this done. Our handy-dandy notebook The Futon Critic has the production codes, and I've already made it a column reference alongside Screener in my sandbox. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Y All done, guys! (MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H.) Don't worry about the credits. I just took out those columns entirely as I felt it was more beneficial for this animated television series to have it set up that way for more neat and compact tables, and they're not absolutely necessary, anyway. Next stop will be the parent article tomorrow as well as a character split. That shouldn't take quite as long, and the only reason this took such a long time is because I re-created everything from scratch and filled it in as I went as it was more trouble than it was worth to try and go through the mess and attempt to fix things that way. However, the parent article doesn't have as many templates involved, so it's just a matter of going through, changing wording, cleaning the info box, etc. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: I would advise posting also to Talk:List of The Loud House episodes explaining what you've done. That will update the other editors of the article what's been done, and possibly create a place for people who want to restore the writers and directors a place to discuss that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Will do. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another thing I fixed was a plethora of rounding errors with ratings. For example, a 1.918 rating for total viewers was incorrectly rounded to 1.91 instead of 1.92. If the number that's being removed due to the rounding is 5–9, you round up—for example, 1.555 rounds to 1.56—and if the number that's being removed due to the rounding is 1–4, you don't do anything—for example, 1.621 rounds to 1.62. It's not that difficult of a concept. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This won't automagically solve incorrect rounding that's already in the articles, but we could have users enter the raw value and make the template automatically round it with {{round}}. Except that uses a slightly different type of rounding commonly used by computers, defined in the IEEE 754 standard. At .5, it would round to the nearest even number, so 1.165 would be rounded to 1.16 and 1.175 would be rounded to 1.18, supposedly to reduce statistical bias in rounding due to always rounding half-values up. Either way, if we use that template, we need a discussion on WP:TV if we want to use that rounding format, or change the template or make another one to add an option for the normal round-half-up.

It may be possible to write a bot to parse the citation URL and make sure the rounded value is correct. But I'm not sure if it would be easy, especially as sometimes there are multiple entries for a show on a single page. The best it could do is look for a value closest to the parameter's value and just check that for rounding. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Yeah, it's not too big of an issue, at least not on the articles I regularly watch. On your suggestion, yeah, that would require discussion. As it is, I don't think it's standard convention. From quite a while ago, see Geraldo Perez's edits here, here, here, where what he did was then changed by another editor here. The number itself was later changed to 2.87 as the raw number was 2.869, not the 2.689 that the IP inserted, though that was just a simple mistake. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Needs watching

We'll need to keep an eye on the article for a while as we're got a user who not only thinks random line breaks in the titles like this are okay, but has been making wild accusations of vandalism toward editors. I don't plan on removing it from my list any time soon, but just generally speaking. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you remember our old "friend" MarioFan who we've had suspicions on? Definitely not Orchomen, but do you suppose there's a link between them and Luigi? Either sockpuppets or meatpuppets? I can't do any proper investigations right now as I'm on my tablet at a hospital. (Nothing major, just appointments for my mom.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't. But I do suspect a link between Luigi and Carmen Melendez/NickelodeonFan46 – unfortunately, though, the CU check at the SPI case did not prove a connection between even the latter two (and no mention of "sleepers" or other accounts was mentioned...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, I've now (temporarily) put this one on my Watchlist – the editors there can't keep reverting the episodes lists tables without discussing the issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, I saw. Part of my suspicions come from the obvious in that both names are characters in the Mario series. And thanks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: I didn't catch that – you might want to run an "Interaction report" (which is linked to from my Userpage if you don't have the link handy) between MarioFan and Luigi1090, and see if anything turns up... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Results. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Yeah, I'd file an SPI report based on that!... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay. It'll have to wait until I'm back on my desktop in a few hours. Or would you like to take a stab at it if you feel it's semi-urgent? PS: I hope you guys don't feel like I pile all the work on you. I just like to see action, if needed, as soon as possible, and I can't do that on my tablet, haha! I didn't bring my laptop as I didn't want to deal with the crashing issues. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Not urgent (looks to be a long-standing issue), and I think you've interacted more with MarioFan than I have, so I think it's better if you file the SPI. Just be sure to include a link to that same interaction report, and any recent diffs where MarioFan and Luigi1090 reverted the same edits at List of The Loud House episodes. Also, definitely request a CheckUser, in case there are sleeper accounts... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Don't include IP 172.248.41.151 in your SPI filling, please – I intend to add the IP in the 'Comments by other editors' section myself. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Aw, I'm corrupt. That really hurt my feelings! Excuse me while I go cry myself to sleep! Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to take care of this through SPI, but they're usually pretty slow over there. On my end, I have a pretty thick skin, so I'll just remove obvious personal attacks, and continue to let them vent otherwise... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Touché. They can try to hurt me all they want, but they'll never succeed. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Socking?

Does anyone here smell any socks in the recent editing of this article? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I certainly suspected it, though I haven't looked at it closely for evidence or anything. @Amaury: What say you?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have opened a preliminary SPI investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carmen Melendez. If anyone wants to add anything feel free. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Please continue to keep an eye on this article, and its Talk page. There is definitely something strange going on here, and it's difficult to make out how many disruptive editors there are, what with at least some of them seeming to edit while both logged in and logged out as IP editors... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist. Unfortunately so are very near 4000 other pages so occasionally things escape my notice, especially if I don't check every few hours. If you see something that you think might warrant my attention feel free to ping me or drop me a line. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not destroying Wikipedia! Every Wikipedia's list of episodes about the animated series have the columns for writer/director/storyboard artist. So, not including them is an unacceptable and meaningless thing. Luigi1090 (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Luigi1090: What you are making is known as an "Other stuff exists" argument – just because other articles have certain formatting does not mean those other articles are actually "correct", or even are that those other articles are properly following Wikipedia's Manual of style. The spreading of incorrect or unnecessary practices from existing articles to newer ones is a phenomenon that one of our Admins, Cyphoidbomb, calls the "Campaign of Ignorance". I think somethink like that is going on at List of The Loud House episodes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Instead, they are really correct because follow the procedures taken from the TV presentation of an episode Luigi1090 (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

You need to make your points at Talk:List of The Loud House episodes, not here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, technically, IJBall, my irritated "Campaign of Ignorance" screed refers largely to a strange dynamic within Indian TV articles, where there is a bizarre emphasis on dumbing down articles to virtually useless cookie-cutter templates, instead of providing useful data and context for that data. Yes, the spreading of that problematic mindset is an issue. However, deleting writer/director/storyboard info would actually be more consistent with the Campaign of Ignorance than including such content would be. Not sure what the beef is here. Director/writer/storyboarder is standard fare for animated TV series. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: You can see Talk:List of The Loud House episodes for the details on this. But while your "Campaign of Ignorance" is addressing a specific Wikipedia area (Indian TV articles), the overall concept is generally applicable – i.e. that "bad practices" can spread from older articles to newer articles if left unchecked. And I find the animated TV series and voice actor articles to be generally problematic topic areas on Wikipedia – e.g. perennial violations of MOS:BOLD/WP:TVCAST, inclusion of questionable info (e.g. inclusion of storyboarder in episodes lists articles seems to me to be unnecessary trivia, etc.). The voice actor articles, especially, are virtually walled gardens of subjects that are often not notable, and which sport multiple problematic MOS practices, esp. in regards to Filmography tables. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Talk page watcher here. I most definitely disagree with the removal any of the credits, and most definitely any of them, as this is standard to include for all television series. After the WP:BOLD removal of them was reverted, WP:BRD should have been followed; that is, after the bold edit was reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should have remained while the discussion talk place on the article's talk page. I recommend self-reverting the edit, having an administrator fully protect the article to prevent further edit-warring, and a post made at the WikiProject Television so that experienced contributors can give their opinion on whether the credits should have been removed. If none of this goes ahead, I would be more than happy to do it myself. Cheers. Nice day. -- Alex^TW 05:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Alex, rather than jumping in with both feet as usual, it would help if you would actually read the Talk page discussion. As it is, the disruptive editors at the article in question never actually discussed the issues mentioned. If you wish, head to the Talk page there, and leave a comment. The rest of us will actually listen to constructive suggestions made there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

You assume that I haven't. I have. It seems that the edits were performed, and then the list of changes was posted with the "consensus" of only a few editors. A discussion was started before the edits, yes, but not concerning the credits; it only consisted of four posts about the ordering by the airdates. What should have happened is that the discussion should have been started first, a multitude of editors should have agreed, disagreed and/or discussed the proposed mass changes, and then the edits should have gone ahead. As it seems that these edits have caused a lot of disruption to the article and a number of editors have publically disagreed on it, the article should therefore be restored, and an appropriate discussion started and wait for a consensus between a number of editors. My list of what should now be done still stands. -- Alex^TW 05:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

You are, of course, ignoring the whole issue where the episode list was out of episode airing order, and contained incorrect and unsourced info. In other words, you want to restore a version that was verifiably incorrect and unsourced. Rather than denigrating the efforts of Amaury who tried to clean up the mess, please head to the Talk page and make suggestions there, as I think you've said quite enough here. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion about the content should be held there, yes. However, the discussion about the editors that are ignoring WP:BRD by forcing WP:BOLD edits by restoring after the reverts, that discussion belongs on editor talk pages. -- Alex^TW 05:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Alex, this is the second time that you have butted into a contentious area, and taken the side of editors who are disruptive (and likely socking), even ignoring the actions and comments of Administrators in the process – does this give pause for even a second?... In any case, I have asked you to stop posting on this topic here on my Talk page, and I'd appreciate if, for once, you would actually comply with my request. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The fact that the editors who disagree are one IP who was blocked for disruption and personal attacks and two users who are suspected of being sockpuppets means that that argument is irrelevant. Opinions from such users typically don't count and are usually stricken. Even an administrator was in support of what was done. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

No such thing as butting in, contributors are welcome everywhere. Just because those editors may have violated policies, which I am not commenting on, that doesn't make other violations alright. Especially given that on at least one occasion, WP:3RR was violated, so perhaps it doesn't belong on this particular talk page, but the violator's. So, sure, I'll take it elsewhere. Thanks, IJ. Always a pleasure. -- Alex^TW 05:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Rough weekend, eh? Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

For you? Or for me? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Neither of us. Friday and Saturday night:

• Stuck in the Middle: Stuck in a Good Deed
• Andi Mack: Home Away from Home
• The Thundermans: Super Dupers
• Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn: Quad for Teacher

Compared to the previous episodes of the current seasons for each of those, particularly Nickelodeon. What do you notice about The Thundermans, for example? Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Mid-June: ratings are likely to be bad, across the board, for the next two months, at least... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

You'd think they'd be higher during the summertime. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That's much better, at least for Andi Mack and especially Nickelodeon! Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no official title, but this is at least confirmation that there is a crossover from Dan's verified Twitter. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

If they want to add it, they need to source it! (P.S. I have no idea how a crossover between these shows will work – it seems like a bad idea, unlike The Thundermans crossover one...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) They are working on it according to Schneider, might actually happen. Could end up an episode on one or the other series or combined, he didn't say what the final output would be and probably doesn't know yet as it looks to be in planning stages. I see little value on adding much of this to articles until something actually gets scheduled. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really "inviting" you, more as just letting you know due to our history with them, so don't feel like you have to comment or anything. While we don't necessarily agree with MarioFan's editing style and suspect he's a sockpuppet of someone, another user, in good faith, kinda-sorta unnecessarily jumped at them today with incorrect information. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Meanwhile, the SPI report on this front is in danger of being closed with no action – if you know anything more about that, or have any further evidence, please post it there. Personally, I'm surprised the interaction report isn't enough "evidence" on its own... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Commented. Unfortunately, I don't, but hopefully a CU will be reconsidered as, like I mentioned, even if it's negative, we'll have a base. Honestly, though, how can there be no connection? There just has to be. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm TonyBallioni. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Mount Gargash, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ignore this, side effect of answering your request at WT:NPR. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thanks for taking care of it. On my end, I'm trying to figure out how to get the #%^@ Page Curation Toolbar to appear!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there a link on your side toolbar that says "curate this article"? TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Ah, got it!! I was seeing the "Page Curation" link at the top of the page, but I didn't think to look in the Toolbar on the side! Thanks!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I have an idea on how to bring back the "Directed by", "Written by", & "Storyboarded by" info on List of The Loud House episodes! How about merging the columns for each two segments of each episode (except for double-length episodes) into one for both segments, similar to List of Kick Buttowski: Suburban Daredevil episodes? That way, the page won't be cluttered!Elijah Abrams (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Then we'd be back to square one as that would cause issues again with the air dates as two segments from one episode (eg, 103A and 103B) hardly ever air on the same day. That's why animated series are so complicated. Unlike live-action series (sitcoms and similar), animated series like SpongeBob SquarePants and The Loud House don't just have episodes, they have mini-episodes (segments) within those episodes. One episode is usually, at a minimum, two segments, unless there are specials and whatnot. In those cases, it would be one segment. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) My suggestion of the layout at Dawn of the Croods still stands. -- Alex^TW 04:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Elijah Abrams: I advise suggesting this at Talk:List of The Loud House episodes. The one major issue I see though, is that the segments don't always easily lend themselves to combining into episodes that way (e.g. looking at the prod. codes, as Amaury indicates)... On my end, I think writers column can be restored, as long as it's verified. I still think a Directors column is unnecessary, and can be handled with prose like at Davis Rules. And I am still unconvinced that the 'Storyboarded by' is important enough to justify its inclusion – many animated series LoE articles do not include them, and it seems like trivia to me (though such crew could maybe be mentioned in the 'Production' section at the main TV series article...). However, Alex's suggestion (without the superfluous Directors column) may work. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

But I can't talk at Talk:List of The Loud House episodes! The page is semi-protected from users like me until July 1, 2017!Elijah Abrams (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Elijah Abrams: You should still be able to edit the Talk page – that's how non-autoconfirmed editors can make still make a {{Requested edit}} at the Talk page of even semi-protected pages. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: The talk page itself is protected: [10]. -- Alex^TW 12:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that's right – due to the recent disruption there too. Somebody could probably ask that the Talk page be unprotected now – it looks plausible that that disruption is over (and if it starts up again, the Talk page can just be protected again...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well then, i've made some suggestions for editing List of The Loud House episodes:

1. Place the release dates for each segment into one column for each episode.
2. Place the director credits into one column for each episode.
3. Consider Alex's suggestion for combining the writer & storyboarded credits into one column.
4. If suggestion 2 doesn't work out, then just write "all season 1 episodes were directed by Chris Savino, with "The Price of Admission" and "One Flu Over the Loud House" co-directed by Kyle Marshall". Elijah Abrams (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC

So, what do you think?Elijah Abrams (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like a solution is already being prepared by Amaury based on Alex's suggestion... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks so much!Elijah Abrams (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Look! Two discussions in one day in so little time. You're popular! Remember when you told me that the accessdate parameter in the citing template is just a redirect and I should be using access-date after I removed the hyphen when the Hunter Street article was still relatively new? (Although I eventually changed it back to what you did per your note on my talk page.) After that, I started going through articles and making those changes accordingly. And I'm still making those changes when I go through and do clean-ups slowly, but surely. Based on that, I've also been changing archiveurl and archivedate to archive-url and archive-date because I assume that the same applies there. Am I correct that archiveurl and archivedate (without hyphens) are also redirects like accessdate is? Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It's in the {{cite web}} documentation – yeah, those later one's have dashes too, so the undashed versions will be redirects. Note, however, that you don't have to change the undashed parameters to the dashed versions: that's basically a "not broken"-type edit. While I'm sometimes change preexisting refs's parameters to the dashed version when I add new sources to an article, I often don't. But when I add new refs, I nearly always add them with the dashed versions of those parameters. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)