Talk:Gabby Duran & the Unsittables

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Disney Low‑importance

	Disney portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Show Name

Just in case this comes up --- While some references use "Gabby Duran and the Unsittables" or "Gabby Duran & The Unsittables", Disney's official press release consistently uses "Gabby Duran & the Unsittables" unless it's in a title or subheading. Starforce¹³ 12:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to ampersands versus "and," what we ultimately title an article is based on the official logo (WP:PRIMARYSOURCE). When it was moved into mainspace, the Coop and Cami Ask the World draft was moved to Coop & Cami Ask the World because the official logo has an ampersand. In terms of what to capitalize, we ignore both sources and the official logo and go based on our MOS, which says not to capitalize prepositions unless they're at the beginning or end of the title or they're part of the title. That's the question here. Is the group called "The Unsittables" or just "Unsittables"? If the latter, we would have a lowercase "the," and if the former, we would have an uppercase "The." Amaury • 21:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that even the novel version uses "the", I think it's safe to say it's a "the" not "The". So, the group would be just unsittables.Starforce¹³ 21:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to notice that. Looks like they put an ampersand in the logo for one reason or another. Amaury • 18:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other version

The other version is in Gabby Duran & the Unsittables (version 2). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Anthony Appleyard: feel free to delete my version. We've manually brought over all the missing content and corrections from that version to this. Starforce¹³ 00:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gabby Duran and the unsitables

There are 20 episodes not 19 Super Zing (talk) 09:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

Should we add ratings for Season 2? Just asking. TheRavineStudios (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellation

Unfortunately, Gabby Duran & the Unsittables has been cancelled after two seasons. Nathan Lovejoy has confirmed through Instagram there will not be a Season 3. I don't know if this is reliable, but it seems pretty real. Should we edit the page and list it as an ended series?

Also, the show creator, Mike Alber liked Nathan's post about it not getiing a Season 3, so that should definitely say something about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacerocker07 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don’t understand how actors are less reliable than crew members as sources when they’re part of the same production. Lovejoy was pretty clear cut about his statement. If the show wasn’t canceled and he was just written off, he would say as much. Where did this idea that the actors are less reliable sources come from?--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This conforms to WP:SOCIALMEDIA where we can only use statements made in social media for personal information about the person themselves, not anything about third parties, such as what is happening with their employer. Actors seldom know fully what is happening between the production and the network. And they are not authorized as official spokesmen for either the network or production. As far as could be happening negotiations may be ongoing for continuation, or the show may be picked up again. One reason to wait for something official from someone or some source who can speak for the production or the network. Or a reliable secondary source with a reputation for fact checking. Otherwise wait for 1 year to pass with no word, then we can assume it isn't continuing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does the one-year rule also apply as a checkpoint for inclusion on “year in American television” pages or not because time passage isn’t a written source?--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages about this topic should match the information in this one for consistency, so the 1 year timeout on changing the final episode date from present if no word applies there too. When I check list pages or year in pages for being accurate the first pass check is does it match what is in the series article they link to. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in cases like these, especially when the network can still be so quiet despite how much has changed, if a year has passed sites haven't updated to be forward, we can use notes instead, so the source cell isn't blank--141.157.254.24 (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no blank source cell. Amaury • 04:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the article

Recently, I’ve been making edits to the article, and for some reason they keep on getting reverted. Here is a numeric list of what I’m editing:

1. First, I edited the character description of Wesley. In the 2nd sentence of his character description in the version of the article that other editors want to keep, it says that he shares the secret of Gabby’s babysitting. You do realize that “sharing a secret” is telling other people said secret, right? If anyone were to watch the “Wesley and the Fischman” episode, it revolves around Wesley finding out about Gabby’s babysitting.

2. Production codes: If anyone bothered to click the link for production codes, they would know that the URL does not work anymore, or is just non-existent. So I changed the source to the DGE Press website, and I editied the production codes section to exactly what the website has. If anyone bothered to notice, there are 2 pairs of episodes that have the same production code. "Dia de la Dina" and "Tailoring Swift" have the shared production code of 107. While the former-mentioned episode’s 107 production code is correct, Tailoring Swift's actual production code is 117, as per the DGE Press. And "The Darkness" and "Wesley Jr." have the shared production code of 108. While the former-mentioned episode’s 108 production code is correct, Wesley Jr.'s actual production code is 110, once again as per the DGE Press. But obviously, other people like to have a non-existent source that give incorrect production code info.

3. Plot summaries: it’s pretty stupid why people revert my edits about the plot summaries, as some summaries are poorly worded and thus, do not make sense. And even some of the info I am editing just comes from watching the episodes. If you were to watch the first 15 seconds of "Crybaby Duran", you would know that the actual name of Wesley's lost dog is Brisket, not Biscuit. And if you were watch the very end of "Olivia Gone Wild", you would know that Susie only swears to have revenge on Gabby. Not Gabby and Olivia, just Gabby. 2600:1001:B020:BCF4:E94A:1748:16C5:EA7E (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]