User talk:Amaury

It is approximately 6:30 AM where this user lives.

Discussion Archives

Month	2009	2010	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	Total
January	14	13	0	0	1	0	8	13	10	25	5	89
February	15	43	0	0	0	0	9	10	8	14	11	110
March	11	25	0	1	0	57	10	15	12	8	7	146
April	20	28	1	0	0	52	8	15	13	11		148
May	27	17	10	16	0	18	6	18	12	8		132
June	15	8	1	50	0	11	6	19	13	10		133
July	21	4	1	17	0	18	17	20	22	19		139
August	10	38	0	4	0	11	12	21	14	14		124
September	8	5	0	0	0	10	9	8	15	5		60
October	26	5	0	0	0	10	27	17	11	7		103
November	17	0	0	0	0	5	12	10	15	11		70
December	11	6	0	1	1	6	15	25	17	8		90
Total	195	192	13	89	2	198	139	191	162	140	23	1,344

April 2020

Kevin Quinn (actor)

Need more eyes here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Lab Rats: Elite Force

Re this edit, it looks to me like a good-faith attempt, though clumsily executed, to shorten the episode synopsis' length, as per WP:TVPLOT. Any chance you can look at the two versions, and see if there's some way to make the synopsis for that episode closer to the IP's shorter version?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

This is what edit summaries are for, but clearly IPs don't care. You're welcome to take responsibility for it, and I'll copy-edit it later. Amaury • 18:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look, and try to clean up their version... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Amaury. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Danger Force

Need more eyes here – the idiotic "superhero" fans are up to their usual nonsense of acting like the "superhero names" are the actual names of the characters, when there is zero evidence that they'll ever become the WP:COMMONNAMES of the characters on this show (and thus contrary to WP:TVCAST). At the very least, doing this is WP:RECENTISM. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

{{re|IJBall}|} You're in luck. I created it, so it's already on my list. Amaury • 16:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Just Roll with It

Hi, please hold on and do not revert my edits into your version. I want to debate on the article Just Roll with It. If you click on an article Adam Small it would direct to the article titled Adam Small who is an American composer not a creator or a writer. Adam Small is notably the co-creator of Mad TV in addition to the co-creator of Just Roll with It. Also, the sitcom is set in Akron, Ohio. So I put Category:Television shows set in Ohio because the setting Akron, Ohio is mentioned in the Just Roll with It article as the setting and you remove the Television shows set in Ohio by mistake. I am not disrupt the edits and I want a resolution with you to be solved. So look and investigate first and do not revert my edits to fast. This is to solve my edits and make my edits acceptable. I hope you can reply me back ASAP, Thanks. 2001:569:74D2:A800:7CF9:9FBE:AB52:DADD (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Do not revert my edits too fast and put the reverts on hold. This is an urgent message. I hope you can reply me soon to solve the problem. 2001:569:74D2:A800:7CF9:9FBE:AB52:DADD (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I've answered at User talk:IJBall#Just Roll with It if you wish to chime in. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Ronni Hawk

Could you, or whoever sees this, please try to revert this edit at Ronni Hawk?! – Every time I try to edit the article, I'm getting an error message... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, seems to be working now – I was able to revert. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you always bite newbies?

Your recent interaction with User:ToeFungii could have gone much smoother. All the guy wanted to do was split a compound sentence in two. Does that really require a talk page discussion for consensus, followed by a dismissive response when he tries to discuss it in the wrong spot? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Given that a) there is nothing complex about the sentence, b) their first change was incorrect, c) the second version created a choppy awkward lede, and d) they responded with a personal attack, the lack of smoothness was all on Toefungi's side. --bonadea contributions talk 19:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

That's one way to see it. Of course, you could also see it as a) it confused him, so he sought to prevent others from being confused, b) his first edit was an attempt at improvement, c) his second edit was suggested to him by a third party when he sought guidance, and d) all of his effort was snubbed by someone too busy insulting his grammar to address his questions. I'd be frustrated enough to insult someone too. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Plot summaries

WP:TVPLOT says summaries should be between 100 and 200 words but that doesn't mean that summaries below 100 words are automatically copyvios. Deleting summaries because you think they might possible could be copyvios is inappropriate, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and bordering on vandalism. If you think summaries are copyvios then do the actual work and confirm that they are copyvios. Don't just delete them because of a vague suspicion. You've done this to multiple articles, please don't do it again. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with AussieLegend too. I looked at the deleted plot summaries and none of them came close to copyright violation. By looking at the grammar and detail level, it's easy to tell these are written by the editor's own interpretation of the episode, not some modified synopsis. This seems to be similar to how you revert every IP edit as vandalism/disruptive edit without making an effort to verify if the IP is correct first. — Starforce¹³ 12:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I too think it's a very strange choice to delete short edit summaries just because you think there's a faint potential there could be a copyright violation. Children's TV articles often have short logline-style episode summaries. (Or very long, overly detailed ones.) I'm also concerned, Amaury, about weird choices like this, where you appear to want to die on a hill over a basic, typically uncontroversial WP:SURNAME edit. That edit, mind you, would have gotten you blocked had someone taken it to the edit-warring noticeboard. Are you burned out? Frustrated? Want to chat? Sometimes when people start making rash edits, it's a sign that they might need a wikibreak. It's probably best if you consider implementing that on your own, rather than having the community implement it in response to problematic edits. Let me know if I can help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: If you're going to accuse of me vandalism with no justifiable cause, then I would recommend that you don't post here. There was no reason to mass revert me, especially as in some of those edits, there were improvements made to summaries I did not remove. (And as far as I know, you don't watch the articles I watch, so I'm curious as to how you came about it.) If you had looked, you would have seen that. All you had to do was come to my talk page, discuss it with me, and I would have happily reverted or reinstated removed summaries in the cases where I made other edits myself if we came to an agreement. Also keep in that mind I only said suspected or possible copyright violations. If given the choice between no summaries and less than 100-word summaries, I would rather have no summaries.

Yes, MOS:PLOT is only a guideline, and it's why I added the wiggle room for a minimum of about 90 words, but anything less is easily able to be scrutinized as a copyright violation—still not a definite, but it becomes more possible—and we can only go so low. With rare exceptions. If there's an 80-word summary, but I explicitly know who wrote it and that they actually watched the episode—in other words, I know they know how things work here and that they would never write a copyright violation—then it will be left alone. You can't tell me those one to two-line summaries, which are about 20 to 50 words—sometimes maybe just a little bit more depending on if the words are short enough before going on to the second line—are all someone got from watching the episode. If given the choice between no summaries and well-written summaries, then in that case, I would rather have the latter of course. Are we going to start accepting 10-word summaries? Example: Brick goes to school and gets in trouble. Later, he and his mother Frankie talk about it. That clocks out at 17 words, and it is not a well written summary. There is no context to it. There are often blurbs from episode guides that are snuck in before an episode airs, not caught and reverted, and then just left in place, because when we see it, the episodes have already aired and we just assume they're not copyright violations. There are many television articles that exist right now, as we speak, that reek of copyright violations, mostly in terms on their episode summaries. Again, if given the choice between no summaries and underwritten summaries possibly being copyright violations or just not well-written, I would rather have no episode summaries. Amaury • 19:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Starforce13: Thank you for a much more reasonable message rather than assuming bad faith and accusing me of things like vandalism. If you had come to my talk page and raised your concerns, I'm more than sure we would have reached an agreement because you're reasonable to discuss with. AussieLegends seems okay with outright assuming bad faith of me. Anyway, responding to IPs is probably something I could improve on—we all have something we could probably improve on—but when over 90% of the IPs you encounter, and that's with not including the IPs who are sockpuppets/block-evading, make bad edits like this and the less than 10% who actually make either okay or good edits, like fixing a legitimate typo, rarely show up on the articles you watch, you can see the issue. Amaury • 19:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Then perhaps we should create a page like MOS:KIDSTVPLOT that's specifically aimed at children's television series with its own recommended summary length, like maybe 50–200 words. And notice I said children's television series, and not networks, since each series is different as you mentioned above. Disney Channel's Andi Mack, for example, is not your run-of-the-mill comedy—it's a drama and comedy mix—so on average, the summaries there are about 150 words. And then you have double-length episodes, where it's okay to go higher than 200 words (100–200 basically becomes 200–400), especially for a series like that, because there's a lot going on, and even when sifting through the details over what to include and not include, summaries can get reasonably long. There are other guideline pages specifically aimed at children's television series, so why not here as well? But even for children's television series, a well-written summary should be able to hit at least 80 words. Anything that's less than 50 words is for sure missing important key details, even for simple comedies, and it seems like users or IPs write them just for the sake of having an episode summary.

The Isabela Moner diff is irrelevant here. We were dealing with an LTA sockpuppet who we've been dealing with since at least late September 2016–that's when I got involved—so WP:BANREVERT applies. When this latest attack first began on that article on April 1, I myself reported the first in a string of sockpuppets that day to WP:ANEW, who got quickly blocked—the rest were just reported to WP:AIV because it wasn't immediately apparent that the first one was a sock. An admin never once batted an eye at me. It doesn't matter what kind of edits they make, we just revert them on sight pointblank, and it's what all of us involved who are still active and who the sockpuppet has targeted have been doing since 2016. And if we think the edits are actual improvements, we go back and take responsibility for the edits ourselves.

With all due respect, I don't appreciate your assumption of bad faith of me. There is nothing going on with me. I'm not burned out and I'm not frustrated. This is not the first time I've made edits to articles I watch en masse. I've done it quite a few times before. For some reason, it just seems to be a problem this time. For example, when the dead-url parameter still worked, but was becoming deprecated in favor of the url-status parameter, I went through the articles I watch and mass updated that. I've also done mass edits for simple things like getting at least the articles I watch inline with each other, like updating some things to make them more accurate than they were originally. And I myself have also removed or reverted summaries suspected of being copyright violations before without issue. The editors I work with have removed or reverted summaries suspected of copyright violations without issue. There should be no issue here. All that had to be done was to come here and discuss it with me, find out why I did it, and come to a resolution. Instead there was just mass reverting, when a lot of my edits also contained other improvements on fixes outside of just removing the summaries in question. Amaury • 19:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

There was no assumption of bad faith. I scrutinised your efforts to remove content without sufficient justification to, i.e. a clear reason to suspect copyright violations other than "if it's short, it's probably a violation" and found them an odd choice. I looked, evaluated, and concluded. There was no prejudice. As for the Isabela Moner thing, I didn't see any indication in those first reversions or in the ANI report that you were aware that this was an LTA sock. So I would still be careful even if they wind up being a sock. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I apologize if I came off the wrong way toward you. I probably read your last few sentences wrong or misinterpreted them and responded based on those misinterpretations. Admittedly, I'm not so much upset that this was an issue, more as to how it was handled, with my edits being mass reverted for the reason that MOS:TVPLOT isn't absolute. (Although I still don't understand why it's an issue, especially when I've removed summaries for this reason before, as I mentioned. I removed a few summaries I thought were COPYVIO when I did a major cleanup on an episode list back in January 2018, and there were no issues. But I guess the saying goes that was then and this is now, right?) While I definitely agree that guidelines aren't absolute, in many of the articles, the controversial edits of removing plot summaries weren't the entirety of my edits. By mass reverting, not only were my controversial edits reverted, but so were my non-controversial edits, like fixing MOS:LQ things or even copy-editing/improving or fixing grammar issues in the summaries I didn't remove. Also, yes, exactly. "If it's short (below 100 words), then it's probably COPYVIO" is how I look at things. But I say probably, because of course I don't know for certain. I would rather lean toward removing if I'm unsure than leave them and they end up being COPYVIO. I don't even want to begin to think how many articles that exist now reek of COPYVIO, especially the television ones. Take a look at this summary of Knight Squad's "Take Me Home to Knight" episode that clocks out at only 30 words: While wanting to bring his son Arc home so that he can stop pretending to be a knight, Zander ropes him in a scheme that would involve ransoming the king. A casual reader coming by the article won't really be able to tell what that episode is about, because there is, to my eye, not very much context. And even if readers understand, that's not the only plot of the episode, and even if that were the only plot, much more happens than just that. Amaury • 21:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of anything without justification. Two other editors, one an admin, have agreed that removing summaries just because of the faint possibility that they may be copyvios is "odd". I actually checked several and couldn't find any evidence that they were copyvios so there was adequate justification for reverting the changes. That you made some valid changes is acknowledged but there was no easy way to retain these when reverting the mass removals. By all means, restore the valid changes but wholesale deletion of summaries without adequate justification is unnaceptable.

You can't tell me those one to two-line summaries, which are about 20 to 50 words—sometimes maybe just a little bit more depending on if the words are short enough before going on to the second line—are all someone got from watching the episode. - Yes I can. In the last 12+ years I have seen plenty of ridiculously short summaries. Some were copyvios from press releases while many were not. As Cyphoidbomb stated, "Children's TV articles often have short logline-style episode summaries. (Or very long, overly detailed ones.)" Some are even posed as questions, like the press releases, but are not copyvios.

All you had to do was come to my talk page - I did, but you here you are, replying 11 hours later. It was far easier to fix the problem then.

anything less is easily able to be scrutinized as a copyright violation—still not a definite, but it becomes more possible - Unless it's definite, or at least HIGHLY likely, summaries should not be removed, even if they are short. It's clear from your contributions that you didn't spend any real amount of time investigating the summaries before deleting them. You had the option to improve the summaries, or reword them, but "I don't like it" is not a valid reason to remove content.

Even your latest edits are questionable. You've removed {{Plot}} tags from episode summaries that are quite obviously too long, like episode 36 in List of Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn episodes without any attempt to fix the problem.[1] That particlar article includes 29 episodes (out of 68) that exceed the 200 word limit. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: You accused him of edits that were "bordering on vandalism" which is completely beyond the pale. You are free to disagree with the substance of the edits. You are not free to accuse an editor who they thought were good faith edits of being "vandalism". You owe Amaury an immediate apology for this. I would encourage you to do that. Immediately. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no intention of apologising to an editor who should have known far better than to do what he did. Had he been an anonymous editor I would have left a template warning on this page. His reasons for deleting hundreds of episode summaries without first investigating were ridiculous. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

And I am appalled, but not surprised, that you would double-down on calling edits made in good faith "vandalism". Again, it's one thing to disagree with the substance of the edits (several here have), but it's another to call a "good faith editor" a "vandal". That is completely unacceptable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, Amaury is an editor who should know far better than to do what he did. He should apologise for making what constitute stupid edits and making work for other editors. Would you have done that? Do you agree with the edits that he made, or his subsequent removal of maintenance templates without addressing the identified problems? --AussieLegend (✉) 23:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Whether I agree with edits or not is completely irrelevant to my point: the edits were not "vandalism" or "borderline vandalism". And an editor with your tenure should bloody well know the difference. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Nice avoidance. As I said, an experienced editor should know better than to make such ridiculous edits. That he did make them makes them look like vandalism. Even Cyphoidbomb questioned whether Amaury might need a break. That's why I said bordeline vandalism and not straight out vandalism. I stand by my position regarding these edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not avoidance: you are completely missing (or ignoring) my valid point. If your objective was to inflame this all out of proportion, and get Amaury (and other editors such as myself) to simply ignore your points here, and going forward, you have surely succeeded. Because, I promise you, if Starforce13 or Magitroopa had come to Amaury's page, and said something like, "Hey, Amaury, I've been forced to revert your recent edits because you haven't proven that the episode summaries in question that your removed were copyvios. Please feel free to restore any of the rest of your edits, but the episode summaries should stay unless they're shown to be actual copyvios..." it surely would have gotten a much more receptive response from Amaury.

Aside from that, I actually agree that "too short" episode summaries can be removed simply on the basis of MOS:TVPLOT: "Plot summaries provide context...". An episode summary of simply "Jerry goes to the store." utterly fails to provide context, and can be removed on that basis. In general, episode summaries that fall below 50 words may very well fall into the "fails to provide context" category and can potentially be removed on the basis of MOS:TV on those grounds. So nothing about any of what Amaury did shows a "malicious intent" to subvert either Wikipedia or MOS:TV which is what you unjustifiably accused him of.

In short, an edit can be any of "ill-advised", "unwise" or even "wrong" without being "vandalism", and for you to accuse Amaury of that is beyond the bounds.

So, in the future, if you actually want people to pay attention to whatever your points are, please avoid the bull-in-the-china-shop (false) accusations. IOW, you of all people should follow Comment on content, not on the contributor. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

IJBall has pretty much summed up my points, which I fully agree with. As for plot tags, they are useless and don't work 90% of the time. They've been there for years and nobody's fixed anything, at least not on the articles I watch. Maybe they work more on higher profile television series, but not here. A plot summary that's above 200 words is apparently a problem, yet a plot summary that's below 100 word isn't? And if you're going to call my edits stupid, then you really have no position to comment here, because that's two things now. You've accused me of being a vandal and now you're saying my edits are stupid. You're the one who caused more work for yourself when you decided to mass revert rather than just come to my talk page and ask me about it and just leave it alone. Cyphoidbomb thought I may be needing a break, but he wasn't aggressive about it like you have been and was simply wondering, so your argument using him is meaningless. The only apology that is needed here is the one that I already gave to Cyphoidbomb for misinterpreting his message, but otherwise I did nothing wrong, and I will not be apologizing. And following today's events, my respect for you is waning. Amaury • 02:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not the tags work is irrelevant. They are there to identify a problem in the article. Many articles include maintenance templates that have not been actioned but we don't delete them for that reason. Plot summaries longer than 200 words are a problem for reasons that have been discussed at length. That's why the 100-200 word recommendation exists. It's meant to encourage summaries with some meat in them, not as absolute limits. Sometimes it's not possible to reach the 100 word limit, while at other times it's hard to cut a summary down to 200 words. I recently wrote one summary that is only 33 words and which adequately describes the episode. The alternative was a summary that contained far too much detail and which would have been 500 words long. Before deleting any summary you need to look at why the summary is that short and not just delete it. That's lazy editing and I do not respect editors who do that because it's not improving the encyclopaedia, which is what really matters. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Danger Force "Captain Mayonnaise"

Just wanting to ask in advance... is it fine to use the official YouTube playlist for adding an AltTitle? I know you usually go off of iTunes and Amazon, but I usually go off of YouTube, which usually updates at midnight ET. It's updated for the April 11 episodes of Danger Force and All That, adding "Captain Mayonnaise" as "Ray Goes Cray". Magitroopa (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: My $0.02 is that this is probably OK to use, though something more obviously directly from Nick would be better... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how more 'official' we can really get than this, unless we were to wait for Futon Critic to possibly update the title (which it may not even). Both Amazon and iTunes have updated now though, both using the "Ray Goes Cray" title. The only other thing I can think of is Nickelodeon's schedule on their website, though that's already been said to be WP:NOTRS in the past... Magitroopa (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Even the nick schedule website got updated to "Ray Goes Cray". Basically all the sources that continue to update their lists after the initial air date are all using "Ray Goes Cray". So, I don't think there's any question of whether the title is reliable. — Starforce¹³ 17:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: We can source it to Amazon. Nickelodeon can't be used a source for previously explained reasons. It's not that it's necessarily unreliable. Amaury • 17:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hunter Street (TV series) update?

Hey, I don't have time to watch this – what does he say?... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: It's worth the watch at about four and a half minutes when you have the chance. Posted on Thursday, to summarize, he basically says he is turning 18—not sure if he has yet, but that's a fairly minor point—and has taken industry art, I think he said, to follow his dreams. He stated the series has been renewed for a fourth season, but we of course know we can't use actors' statements as they are just employees—not for cancellations/endings or renewals. As such, we still have to assume the third season is the last, which makes adding a season parenthetical note for him unnecessary right now. He doesn't feel like he can balance pursuing his dreams and starring in the series, so he made the difficult decision not to return to the series in order to continue to develop not only as an actor, but a person as well. He basically feels that because he doesn't think he can balance the two, it would hinder his ability to develop as a person by staying on the series, or something to that extent. Amaury • 23:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, OK – so this is a decision that a lot of "child actors" end up making, to leave "the business" (often to my disappointment) to pursue other things. But it sounds like he articulately expressed the sentiment, so there's that going for him. Thanks. (P.S. I thought there was RS reporting that the show had been renewed for a fourth season – am I misremembering this?...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: Yeah, Sal was one of my favorite characters. And Daan Creyghton himself appears to be a pretty nice guy just from watching that video alone; he can certainly pronounce all of the names he mentioned with ease. (Like, Mae Mae Renfrow is pretty easy, but then you get to names like Wilson Radjou-Pujalte, and you try to pronounce the last names how they sounds, only to realize it might not be the right way to pronounce them.) The only "source" we have right now is this, which I showed you on your talk page back in February, but of course, WP:NOTRS. I think once we have a reliable source, we can add in Daan Creyghton's statement about him not returning, and only that, but right now it would make no sense since we have nothing (from a reliable source) stating the series has been renewed. On another note, I am happy it's renewed, but I Am Frankie needs to be renewed as well. Amaury • 15:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The A Girl

Hello, Amaury. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The A Girl".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It's Pony ratings

Been looking through a few cartoon articles, but still not sure what to do. I'm wanting to add the ratings for It's Pony, but came to a bit of a problem. The episodes "Unicorn" and "Plants!" aired on the same day (January 25, 2020) but have completely different production codes (103B and 101A), which is why they are currently separated in the episode table. Same thing goes for "Heston's Coat" and "Game Horse" on the same day (February 1, 2020) with different production codes as well (101B and 103A). How exactly should this be added to the ratings, as Showbuzz combines both into the same airing on those two dates? Best I could find would be The Casagrandes, like "New Haunts" and "Croaked", but those were aired on different days. Here's what I came up with currently... though incorrect since the ratings are listed twice. My guess would be to combine both pairs in the episode table and ratings table, resulting in raw ratings data from "Unicorn" / "Plants!" and raw ratings data from "Heston's Coat" / "Game Horse" and that the episode total would get lowered from 11 to 9 after combining them. Thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You can do something like the premiere of Andi Mack. See List of Andi Mack episodes#Season 1 (2017). Amaury • 23:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

So listing the 0.747 (for "Unicorn" and "Plants!") and the 0.567 (for "Heston's Coat" and "Game Horse") twice in the ratings calculations would be correct? I would think that leads to the incorrect average, as from Showbuzz Daily, those are for the full length of the show, not for each individual segment. Magitroopa (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)