User talk:Amaury/2017/June

2017 Archive Index: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

List of K.C. Undercover episodes

Amaury, MPFitz1968, Geraldo Perez – it looks like we're all going to have to keep an eye on this article. Unsourced or poorly sourced S3 premiere date is being added to the article. (FTR, I don't think I've even seen Disney Channel ads for season #3 yet!) If this keeps up, we may need to request semi-protection for the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hold up – maybe there's something to this: [1] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: I would remove the table and the entry from the series overview and just mention that in the Production section for now as there are currently no listings on either The Futon Critic or Screener. I'll go ahead and be bold and do that myself, but feel more than free to revert me if you disagree. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd leave them – a promo from Disney Channel is an acceptable primary source. Though it's true that they don't use the magic words "season premiere"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: I'll re-add it, then, if you feel a YouTube video from Disney Channel's official YouTube is sufficient enough for an episode table and series overview entry. Also, while not in the promo itself, the video description does have the magic words: Catch an all new season of K.C. and the Coopers! Season Premiere, Friday, July 7, on Disney Channel Also, I wasn't trying to imply that the video wasn't an acceptable primary source, just that I personally feel it would be better to wait until there are episode listings on The Futon Critic and/or Screener. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

My guess is that those sites will update with the new info on Monday – it looks like Disney just released that promo today. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Tomorrow sounds about right for Disney Channel's July schedule on Screener. Although for Nickelodeon, Screener usually has its next month's schedule a few days after that. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Bunk'd: "Camp Stinky Waka"

Technically it was the girls (Emma, Zuri & Lou). I Mean no harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourlaxers (talk • contribs) 02:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

We've been over this: Talk:List of Jessie episodes#Use of words. Girls are children. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

List of Henry Danger characters

It looks like the recurring characters here still need to be put in order of appearance on the show (as per WP:TVCAST) – for example, I'm pretty sure that Miss Shapen (and Dr. Minyak?) first appeared on the show before Schwoz did. (Note – I haven't checked List of The Thundermans characters yet, but it's possible there are similar issues at that one too...) Just so you know! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Unfortunately, it's been a while, and Charter isn't on the list of TV providers on the Nickelodeon website when attempting to log in to watch locked episodes, and most of the episodes are locked, so I can't view them without logging in, and, well, I can't log in, haha! I think it's something to do with Nickelodeon being a Viacom network or something. I don't know. That's really the only downside, if you want to call it that, since moving from DirecTV to Charter on April 15, but it's really not that big of a deal overall since I didn't log in that much to begin with as I almost always remembered to set a recording for episodes that would air that night, such as Henry Danger at 5:00 PM on Nickelodeon East, that I wasn't going to be there to see, and when I did forget to set a recording, the episodes I missed were ones from series that aired frequent reruns. The only series that I had to log in to watch an episode I had missed was for the first episode of either Power Rangers: Dino Charge or Power Rangers: Super Dino Charge—I can't remember which one—as I had forgotten to set a recording. At that point, I just set a recording schedule for the series so I wouldn't have to worry about it. Anyway, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H, is this something you guys could look at? Also, I could use some assistance on the parent article. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I might be able to figure out some of this on my end. But it's a low priority – I probably won't look at this until there's a slow day on the weekend... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Bizaardvark

Hey, do you know who added Ref. [1] to this article? It's supposed to "verify" that the theme song is sung by the show's two stars, but I actually don't see anything at the YouTube page, or in the video there, that actually verifies this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: [2]. There's nothing in the description of the video that says who sings it, but the video itself does provide sufficient sourcing that it is them singing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't really help anything, but just for reference, here's the finalized opening sequence used in what we see on television with an added break in the song that's not in the aforementioned YouTube video: [3]. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure it does (e.g. lipsynching)... But if they are credited for it in the show's end-credits, then that would be good enough, and then this "source" could then just be removed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Thankfully, most of its episodes can be viewed without logging in. Bizaardvark: Paige's Birthday Is Gonna Be Great. I have one recorded to clean up the info box at some point, but stops just before theme song credits show. Darn it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: I'm stupid. I linked you to a full episode on YouTube above and then forgot about it. Credits begin at 22:30. They're in there. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I see it too – we can just pull the ref then. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hunter Street (TV series)

See: Wikipedia:Database reports/Long stubs, and you'll notice one of your creations is pretty high on there! This probably explains why multiple editors have come by to "upgrade" the article to Start-class. But I just checked again – there are still only 6 real sentences of "prose", so it is still legitimately a 'Stub' IMO. If only we could find a little more sourcing to flesh the article out! – some more details about the second season would probably do the trick... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

List of The Loud House episodes

Extensive Discussion

Amaury, one comment on this – I think I would advise putting the "A" and "B" "numbering" back in with the prod. codes. That can be justified because they're there in the original Futon Critic sourcing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: Y Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:41, 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) 00:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Take whatever comments you have to the talk page. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: I moved the article to fix some grammatical stuff; however, I don't even know if it deserves its own article. See L Is for Love. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC) Already saw it. They're basing its "notability" on Refs. #7 & #8. I'd say that's tenuous... But you're asking the wrong WP:TV editor – I firmly believe that about 90% of Wikipedia's "TV episode" articles should be deleted as non-notable. IMO, only single TV episodes that are culturally significant should get standalone articles – that's basically just the MASH finale, The Contest, the Who Shot JR? episode, and a few others. Certainly, nearly every extant "cartoon TV show episode article" on Wikipedia should be deleted as non-notable for a standalone article. (And this one's no exception...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: Pretty much how I feel. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: This isn't anything worth getting into a "battle" over (honestly), mostly because that's not an article I'm interested in contributing to and it will likely be deleted eventually, anyway, but sigh, do people not know that Wikipedia has its own practices to follow? Not everything has to be exactly as per sourced. For example, if Screener" has "Liv and Maddie-A-Rooney," we'd make it "Liv and Maddie-a-Rooney" here on Wikipedia. Coincidentally, Talk:Liv and Maddie#Episode titles, -a- or -A-. LOL Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: As unreliable as Wikia is, the episode list over there contains images of the actual episode/segment title cards themselves, which would make less work for me since I wouldn't have to wait for the whole series to record which could take a long time. It would also speed up the process of restoring the "written by" column. What do you and Nyuszika7H think? I'm at 26 recordings right now and was getting ready to update User:Amaury/sandbox/List of The Loud House episodes again when I got curious about something regarding the characters and decided to check out the Wikia. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC) No objections. Do the images contain the "Storyboarded by" stuff. Alex's suggestion is to put Writers and Storyboarders together in the same column, which I don't have a problem with, as long as we leave the Directors column out... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: They do. Click on the images for the first two segments there and have a look: "Left in the Dark" and "Get the Message." Most are just "storyboard by," but some are also "written & storyboarded by." I'm not sure what the difference is, really. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: I'm pretty much done with the parent article clean-up, but I'm going to withhold from making the changes now as I still have one more thing to do. However, I could actually use your help if you're interested and when you have the time—MPFitz1968 and Nyuszika7H are more than welcome to help as well. Do you remember that one clean-up on Liv and Maddie where I removed irrelevant information from the lead—Liv being a girly-girl and all that—and moved it down to the Plot section as a separate paragraph from the one that was already there without really altering anything other than doing some formatting clean-up? That's when the whole fiasco with Kkjj flared up again. Then not too long ago, you, of course, cleaned up the Plot section by merging the paragraphs together, something that needed to be done regardless of whether or not Kkjj's disruptiveness happened. Well, there's pretty much an identical situation on The Loud House, and it's even worse than Liv and Maddie's was as there's much more bloat. In my sandbox, the lead was, of course, changed to match the episode list. As for the irrelevant information, most of what's there is already covered in other sections, so it's just duplicating information, which isn't necessarily a bad thing when the information is relevant, but when the information is irrelevant, it just makes a mess. So with regard to the current paragraphs in the lead: First Paragraph: Changed to match episode list lead. (Usually, it's the other way around in that the episode lists—and character lists when applicable—are changed to match the parent article, but I, of course, cleaned up the episode list first in this case.) Also, most of that information is already down in the Plot section where it's more appropriate. Second Paragraph: Not in the exact wording, but that's already covered down in the Production section where it's more appropriate, so it was removed from the lead. Third Paragraph: The online release information is completely unsourced. The film information is already mentioned down in the Film section where it's more appropriate. Both were removed from the lead. Fourth/Last Paragraph: This was moved down to the Ratings section along with the three paragraphs already there where it's more appropriate. There is where it's really similar to Liv and Maddie as I moved some of its lead down to the Plot section without really changing anything other than some formatting stuff, just like I did here with moving some of the lead down to the Ratings section without really changing anything. Some paragraph merging would be beneficial. As for everything else, like the Reception section, it's "okay," though some merging of paragraphs or other general further clean-up probably couldn't hurt. Relevant link: User:Amaury/sandbox/The Loud House. Oh, and regarding the episode list and restoring the "Written by" column, I should be able to have that done by either tomorrow or Saturday. On a semi-related note, you know, if Wikipedia had a user status feature where we could posts quotes and the like, you know what my quote would be today? Everything would be so simple if cartoons always aired two new segments (A and B) when they had new episodes instead of airing two new segments for a while and then changing to one segment each time there's a new episode with the other segment just being a repeat. It doesn't necessarily mean they have to air in production code order, but instead of "For Bros About to Rock" (113A) on June 6, 2016, "It's a Loud, Loud, Loud, Loud House" (113B) on June 10, 2016, "Ties That Bind" (109B) on June 7, 2016, and "Overnight Success" (109A) on July 20, 2016, just have "For Bros About to Rock/It's a Loud, Loud, Loud, Loud House" (113) on June 6, 2016, and "Overnight Success/Ties That Bind" (109) on July 20, 2016. That just makes more sense, especially when it comes to averaging "episode" ratings. I just used 46 as the number to divide by for season one and 29 for the number to divide for season two currently, both of which are correct, but still. Also, Nyuszika, for the series overview, I thought I figured out a way to have the Episodes column first and then the Segments column, which can be done by turning the Episodes column into a custom column. That works, but the only problem is that the original Episodes column built into the template can't be removed even if you remove the parameter where you place the number of episodes. It's not too big of a deal, though. On the subject, however, do you know if it's also possible to have custom parameters for the information box and ratings templates? For the information box, there would be a parameter under the number of episodes with the number of segments. There is, of course, the current solution to use a parenthetical to mention that, but just curious. For the ratings template, it would be pretty much just like on the series overview template. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC) You guys are, of course, more than welcome to make any other changes you see as being beneficial. You can just let me know here what changes were made or create a talk page in the sandbox and list the changes there. Whatever works best. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: I've only done the first episode for now as I didn't want to go through the whole thing and then go through again and change everything should something need to be changed. The writer column is currently set to 43 for the width, though that may need playing around—you're the expert there—and it actually doesn't look too bad. Your suggestion of removing the season episode number column and just sticking with the overall episode number column doesn't sound like such a bad idea and would give us a little more room. It didn't seem to make a difference when I removed it, but that could just be because I didn't make adjustments to the widths. If you still think that would be beneficial, I can go through and remove the season episode number columns before you play around with the widths. User:Amaury/sandbox/List of The Loud House episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Boy I don't like that... it's too "wide"/"busy". This is why I don't think it's a good idea to include the "Storyboard by:" stuff... Can you work up an alternate version of this episode in a table with separate "Written by:" and "Storyboarded by" columns?... I think without the "Directed by:" column, there should be enough room in the table to do them in separate columns. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: User:Amaury/sandbox/List of The Loud House episodes/alternative. I've set Aux3 to 43 as well, but that most definitely needs to be played around with. Thankfully, most everything else will be simple as it's only one segment. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Yeah, it's what I figured – there is probably no way to make this look good. In separate columns, like in the alt. version, is probably the better of the two. But they both look pretty bad to me. And there is no way that you can fit "Directors", "Writers", and "Storyboarders" together in the same table – the "Directors" column must stay out in this case: there's no other way to do it... This is probably where I punt on this article – I doubt there's anything more than I can add. So I'll leave it to you and others... But my final $0.02 on this is probably that the alt. version is the slightly better choice. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: The other solution is to not include the storyboard stuff for now. Probably shouldn't even be included at all as, from what you've said with regard to calling it trivia and the like, storyboard is probably about equivalent to co-stars which we don't list. But, anyway, at least this way we'll get the written by column restored and some progress made and we can figure out the storyboard stuff later. I did remove the season episode number column, though. Likely still won't be perfect, but have another play-around with the widths and see if it can look even a little better. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC) The problem in this case is that it's hard to argue against including it, if it's included in the "front credits", like in the image captures you linked to. If the "Storyboard" stuff wasn't in the front-credits (esp. if they were buried in the end-credits), I'd be 100% against including them. But, in this case, they're listed right there with the "writers" and "directors". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: Ah, yeah, that's a good point. It's times like this that I'm glad I watch and work more on live-action series articles than animated series articles as the credits for live-action series are much more clear on importance and the like. It's just like with the ambiguity on animated television series on who's a guest star and who's not. It's like Nyuszika7H mentioned somewhere, animated television series don't really list guest stars, just additional voices, so for animated series, the only guest stars we include are those in press releases, unlike in live-action series where the credits themselves are nice and clear. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC) The storyboard stuff will be there as well since it is there on the segment title cards, but for now, I still think I'll just restore the "Written by" column to at least make some progress and the storyboard stuff can be figured out later. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: Have a look at it now. I've removed the number in season column and made some tweaks to the widths. Let me know what you think. I think it looks much better. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Current WP:TV consensus (see here) and earlier practice seems to be against including storyboarders, though there wasn't a "big" discussion about it, but there certainly is a consensus and anyone wishing to include storyboarders should start a new discussion there. I mean, everyone working on a show is somewhat "important", but if it's so much clutter, we don't have to list storyboarders for every single episode, just mention any notable ones in prose or something. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Ah, thanks, Nyuszika7H. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC) I think it's better now, though you may get push-back on removing the "season #'s" (but I don't think it's a big deal. (No idea how you handle the 'Series overview' table for a show like this, though... I almost think it should be in "Segments" rather than in "Episodes"...) As to Nyuszika7H, I would generally agree, but this show is very specific in including "Storyboarders" in the front credits, so I think they need to be included. The previous discussion at WT:TV did not touch on the front-credited vs. end-credited distinction, so I don't think it's "binding" here. (And the previous discussion wasn't well attended enough to probably count as true "consensus" on the matter anyway...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: Regarding segments versus episodes, that's likely to be another tricky area because of sources used for the series, including renewals, using the term episodes. I've never seen a source use the term segment or something similar, such as mini-episode, for animated television series or for live-action television series that are similar to animated television series, such as Legendary Dudas. For example, [4], [5], [6], and [7]. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: Now that the season number column has been removed, I tried something with the layout with the writers and storyboard people merged. It looks a little bit better, but I think it's still too fat for the episodes with two segments: User:Amaury/sandbox/List of The Loud House episodes/alternative. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC) My advice is to fill in more and see how it looks. But you may want to do the same with the 2-column version – fill it in more – and then compare the two. If you do go with the first version, you will probably be able to put the "Season no's" column back in... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: Your wish is my command. Separated/preferred: User:Amaury/sandbox/List of The Loud House episodes. Merged/unsure: User:Amaury/sandbox/List of The Loud House episodes/alternative. First ten rows, excluding the headers. With either layout, you can probably tell that the one-segment ones are the better-looking ones, can'tcha? I know you essentially "gave up," but feel free to play around with them again if you actually feel like something's possible now (again). Probably should have had some filled in to begin with. :x Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC) Ask for opinions, at the Talk page. The first one looks better lower down, for sure. The second one is better if you people want to include the "season #'s" column too. So I'd try and see if there's any consensus preference at Talk:List of The Loud House episodes... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: As there's essentially already consensus to restore the "written by" column, I think I'll just go ahead and finish the one with the writer and storyboard columns separated and restore them. The one with them merged still looks too fat for my tastes. That'll essentially restore to how it was before and actually better than before as previously it wasn't really following proper standards. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC) OK. Once that is done, then one of us will just need to add the Directors info back as prose – I've already practiced doing that at Davis Rules, so I may do that myself after you've updated the tables. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: You're up! Here's the episode guide with the title cards, again: [8]. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC) OK, I've done what I can. It definitely works better with season #1 than season #2. But I don't see any alternative – there is no way to squeeze in another column into these tables. On my end, I will probably take this one off my watchlist in a week or two now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: Got it. On another note, as there's only a small amount of information before the tables, I don't think the table captions are necessary, and MOS:ACCESS is only a guideline. . As I vaguely remember this being brought up before, I had a look through your archives to make sure I was remembering right, and indeed I was. When Nyuszika7H was including table captions over on List of Liv and Maddie episodes and some other Disney Channel series—that was back when the start of each season section had absence tallies, trivial notes, and irrelevant information that was more appropriate elsewhere—you removed the table captions as not being necessary there as it was only a little bit of information before the tables, just like here on List of The Loud House episodes, so I was actually puzzled as to why you were including the captions, haha! Here is the relevant discussion: User talk:IJBall/Archive 5#Table captions. Anyway, yeah, for what it's worth. By the way, did you see my message above regarding there being bloat in the parent article similar to Liv and Maddie before I cleaned it up and you later further cleaned it up? The general clean-up for the parent article is done and still sitting in my sandbox for now. If you're not interested or don't have the time, that is totally fine. I just want to make sure you at least saw it. There may also be some irrelevant characters that shouldn't be listed and should therefore be removed, such as the pets. Like, what? Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC) Geraldo previously said that pretty much any text between the section heading and the table requires adding the table caption. And this is more than a trivial amount of prose-text, so I think the captions should stay. In terms of the parent article, I cannot promise that I will look that over any time soon – at the animation articles, I usually look for obvious MOS issues to fix, but I generally don't spend too much time trying to improve text and such... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: Ah, gotcha. Just for my own curiosity, and because I enjoy reading some discussions, do you or Geraldo Perez remember where the discussion where that was said took place? And no worries on the parent article. I'll probably go ahead and make the changes relatively soon as that's way better than what's there now. Other stuff can be done later. Now to figure out what characters, other than the main ones, should truly be listed in the character list. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC) It might have been at a User talk page – Geraldo's possibly, or a Talk page of another of our group (it could have been mine, but I don't think it was)... I don't remember that conversation taking place at an article Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: I know that the reworking of paragraphs and the like won't happen anytime soon, but quick question on something else. Since I'll likely be splitting the characters out into a list of characters article, as I know that earlier in this discussion you mentioned that animated television series are bit tricky with the cast/characters sections, when there aren't any character descriptions, either because there's a separate list of characters article or just because there aren't any, does this look okay? Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC) You want to do it as a 'Characters' list, never as a 'Cast' list, at animated series articles. I would do a 'Characters' list with a very short synopsis, and the details at the separate LoC article... Look around at some of the other animated series articles – maybe you can find some with separate LoC articles, and see what they do... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: Gotcha. So on the parent article, something like: Lincoln Loud (voiced by Grant Palmer in episodes 1–22 and Collin Dean in episodes 23–present) is the 11-year-old middle child and only son of the Loud family. And then at the list of characters article, the whole shebang: Lincoln Loud (voiced by Grant Palmer in episodes 1–22 and Collin Dean in episodes 23–present) is the 11-year-old middle child and only son of the Loud family who has white hair and a chipped front tooth. Lincoln has a passion for comic books and is often shown reading them in his underwear. He often cosplays as the fictional superhero Ace Savvy. He breaks the fourth wall on a regular basis by speaking to the audience about the chaotic conditions of his household. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC) Yes, exactly like that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: Yay! By the way, remember the pilot and shorts sections I removed from the episode list for being unsourced? Well, as I'm sure you saw from the Wikia episode guide, there are official title cards for them, so they do exist. Unfortunately, we can't really do anything with that without a reliable source. All we know is that they exist, but we don't know if the dates are correct and therefore can't include them here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC) They were seemingly released online. They must have been released somewhere! Does the Nick website really not have them?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: Unfortunately, no: [9]. Even tried looking through the general overview of the series. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC) It looks like the Wikia has the two video shorts themselves at the pages – as such, I think they possibly can be used as a source (as sort of a primary source) in this particular case. (You might want to double-check with Geraldo about this...) But I think it only needs to be verified that they exist. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: Gotcha. @Geraldo Perez: Do those look okay to use as sources? Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC) @Geraldo Perez: In case you missed the question above in all of the commotion between yesterday and today—a lot was done!—what is your opinion on the above with regard to the videos being used as primary sources? Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: I know you're planning on removing this soon, but just an FYI that Luigi is back at it again. Just reverted a bunch of disruptive edits that went against some standard practices, such as bolding. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC) I saw. You beat me to the reversion. While I'm still not sure that Luigi and MarioFan are socks of each other, I am becoming convinced that Luigi1090 is a disruptive editor – if this keeps up, we may need to let Admin Ad Orientem know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: Yeah, pretty much everything they did was contra-beneficial, especially things like removing the widths set to deal with the extra columns not present in live-action series. Admittedly, while I was working on this, while I know many, including yourself, don't like them, I was thinking of using the HRs for the "Title," "Written by," and "Storyboard by" columns as we could then remove the segment title labels (eg, "Left in the Dark") and reduce the row height even more. However, for now, I felt that what I did worked best, and it is the closest to, if not exactly like, what the series has. Before the clean-up, the formatting was just a big mess. Then Luigi went and re-introduced that big mess today, like unnecessarily using parenthetical statements when we can easily use templates for that. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: And now per their messages on my talk page below and on the article talk page, I have a feeling they have WP:CIR issues and don't understand terms and the like. I also get the feeling that English isn't their first language. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that, but when you're being disruptive... well... Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC) At the WP:SPI, Berean Hunter suspected that they were a prolific(?) socker on the Italian wikipedia. I don't know about this, but I do get the impression that English isn't their first language... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: On a related note, even though I've known it for a long time, English isn't my first English, but I make sense. As you may have seen from my user page, I was born in Cozumel. I then lived in Mexico City until my mom and I moved up here permanently in September 1998 when I was six (I think, if I'm doing my math right). My dad moved up here not too long after in 2002. I think it was either winter 2001–02 or winter 2002–03 as I remember there being a blizzard the day he was flying up here. Anyway, learning English wasn't too hard since I was young, and, according to many people, learning another language is easier when you're younger. Ironically, because I didn't use it much after that, I forgot a lot of my Spanish, haha! I've picked a lot of it back up thanks to my Spanish classes during high school and more recently during college, but I still can't carry full-on conversations, though I can understand the gist of what is said. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: I'll go ahead and ping Ad Orientem as Luigi just does not get it, and I think their language barrier is also causing some problems. Sock of MarioFan or not, they are being disruptive and have been disruptive since our first interactions with them, plain and simple. Additionally, with comments like Users Amaury and MAYBE IJBall, are making personal attacks against me because of my impeccable job on the page List of The Loud House episodes. (bold emphasis mine) on Cyphoidbomb's talk page and That's right AlexTheWhovian. Amaury and IJBall stop it from acting as the absolute leader of a Wikipedia's page, because they're not at all (Wikipedia is for everyone). on the article's talk page as well as accusing us of making personal attacks for which they no basis—and allegations like that with no evidence can be considered personal attacks in and of themselves—I'm sensing major issues in WP:CIR, WP:OWN—which is ironic because they're making those allegations about us—and possibly even WP:NOTHERE because of their socking on the Italian and other non-English Wikipedias. Honestly, even their replies in general because of the wording could be considered personal attacks. On top of that, they're refusing to heed the advice given and discuss on the talk page and are instead trying to stonewall their edits when they're clearly the only one who wants their messy/problematic edits. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC) Re Luigi: I have dropped a note on their talk page. If there is anymore trouble from that quarter let me know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC) Well, it looks like the work here is done! However, there are a few things that can improve List of The Loud House episodes: A synopsis is needed for "Ties That Bind." There should be a note each for "A Tattler's Tale", "A Fair to Remember", and "11 Louds a Leapin", concerning that the first mentioned segment marks the first time Collin Dean voices Lincoln, the second marks the last time Grant Palmer voices him, and the last mentioned episode marks the first time Rita and Lynn Sr.'s faces are shown. Will you please add the shorts (as well as the pilot) back onto the article? Even if they are web exclusive, it's no problem to have them on the article. Elijah Abrams (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC) @Elijah Abrams: I haven't really seen any of the series except bits here and there. That doesn't mean I couldn't write a summary, it just makes it a bit harder since I'm not familiar with the series. Maybe MPFitz1968 could help out here as he's able to log into the Nickelodeon website, though I don't know if he's seen the series himself. Could you clarify which segment and production code specifically is the last appearance of Grant Palmer voicing Lincoln Loud is and which segment and production code specifically is the first appearance of Collin Dean voicing Lincoln Loud? I note you mentioned segment names above, but it's not totally clear, at least not to me. That we're working on. Per the official title cards on the Wikia episode guide, we know they exist, but we can't use Wikia to source the release dates as it's not a reliable source. However, there are videos to the shorts there, at least two of the three, I think, from what IJBall said. We're just waiting to get confirmation from Geraldo Perez on whether we can use those videos as primary sources or not as we're not exactly sure ourselves. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC) We can use videos as primary reliable sources about the content of the video only if the videos themselves were hosted on a reliable source. Can't trust videos hosted on unreliable sources as too many ways to fake things to trust them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC) Thanks, Geraldo Perez! @IJBall: Where were these videos hosted? Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC) @Amaury: Try Nickelodeon's official website, they are a reliable source. Hopefully they are still there. Elijah Abrams (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC) @Amaury: Also: Maybe Rtkat3 can do a summary for "Ties That Bind". His summaries are good and aren't a copyright violation. "A Tattler's Tale" is 123B and "A Fair to Remember" is 122B. BTW, "11 Louds a Leapin" is 201. See my suggestion on Nickelodeon's website. Elijah Abrams (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC) Regarding #2 above, right, but I mean which one is the last one to feature Grant Palmer as Lincoln's voice? Whatever the answer to that one is lets us know when Collin Dean took over and, logically, it'd be the very next segment production-wise. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC) "A Tattler's Tale" (#123B) is the first segment to have Collin voice Lincoln. "A Fair to Remember" (#122B) is the last segment to have Grant voice Lincoln. Elijah Abrams (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC) @Elijah Abrams: That seems a little odd, though. If 122B is the last segment with Grant Palmer and 123B is the first segment with Collin Dean, what about 123A (One of the Boys)? Wikia isn't reliable, but that's what it shows for the Collin Dean's first segment (123A). Is that what you meant? Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC) @Amaury: Actually, in production order, "One of the Boys" (123A) is the first segment with Collin as Lincoln. In airing order, "A Tattler's Tale" (123B) is the first segment with Collin as Lincoln. Elijah Abrams (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC) @Elijah Abrams: Got it. 122B is Grant Palmer's last appearance and 123A is Collin Dean's first appearance. Actually doesn't really matter which order the episodes aired in because those episodes are still 122B and 123A. Which order they air in doesn't change the production code, but because of them not airing in production order, I'm trying to figure out the best way to note that. We can either make a note in the summaries or above the table. A small likely problem with the former is that airing-wise, the order goes back and forth got a bit, which means we may have to make additional notes for those segments explaining why Grant Palmer is voicing Lincoln again and the like. For example, after 122B, we have some pre-122B production codes. Likewise, with 123A, we have some pre-123A production codes that precede and succeed it. IJBall, what do you think? Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC) Some kind of note sounds fine to me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: Cool. Now, for the release dates of the shorts, since we have nothing reliable to support the dates listed on Wikia, I wonder if we should just use the dates the YouTube videos were uploaded on. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC) @Amaury: Nickelodeon released "Slice of Life" on their website April 15, 2016, and April 18 on their YouTube channelElijah Abrams (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC) Also, "Bathroom Break!!" was released on Animation Magazine's YouTube channel on June 5, 2014 (as the pilot) and on Nickelodeon's Youtube channel on April 18, 2016. Elijah Abrams (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC) Try checking the upload dates for the shorts on the videos themselves on YouTube. Elijah Abrams (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC) @Elijah Abrams: YouTube's dates is exactly what I was planning on going with. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC) @Amaury: Cool, and when do you plan on adding the dates, as well as the note on Lincoln's voice actors?Elijah Abrams (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC) @Elijah Abrams: Very likely sometime between tonight and tomorrow. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Okay, Elijah Abrams and IJBall. I've added a note and plan on adding a similar note to the "Shorts" section. Elijah, I'm aware that Sean Ryan Fox, who currently stars in Henry Danger, voices Lincoln in the pilot short—"Bathroom Break!!"—but is Lincoln voiced by Grant Palmer or Collin Deans in the "Slice of Life" short? Also, this is what I wrote for the note: Grant Palmer voices Lincoln Loud until and including "A Fair to Remember" (#122B). Collin Dean takes over as the voice of Lincoln Loud in "One of the Boys" (#123A). Although note that episodes and segments don't air in production order. It may need some tweaking, however, because I wasn't exactly sure how to word it given that the episodes and segments don't air in production order. The current wording seems to get the point across without it being too wordy, but I'm not sure if it makes sense. If these episodes and segments aired in production order, it wouldn't be a problem. Either that or air them out of production order, but if something significant happens in one of them, either in-universe or out-of-universe, such as Lincoln's voice actor changing, then all episodes and segments after that significant change should be episodes produced after that significant episode. In this case, all episodes/segments with production codes of 122A or lower should have aired before before 122B in whatever order desired, then it should have been 122B that aired followed by 123A, and then the remaining episodes. But, of course, that's not what happened. Live-action series also air most series out of production order, but they seem to handle this type of situation in a much better way. By the way, I do realize you're currently busy, IJBall, so no rush on even replying! Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC) @Amaury: Grant Palmer voices Lincoln in "Slice of Life". BTW, don't forget to note that Rita and Lynn Sr.'s (the Loud parent's) faces are revealed in "11 Louds a Leapin" (#201)!Elijah Abrams (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC) @Elijah Abrams:  Done. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Is it okay if I add a note regarding the directors of the shorts?Elijah Abrams (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC) @Elijah Abrams: We can just go ahead and add a director column for the shorts since there's more room with that table. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Amaury, they're hosted at the Wiki. Click on each of the "shorts", and it takes you to the specific Wikia page on that short. The videos are embedded in those pages towards the bottom. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: Got it. And looks like they're hosted by Nickelodeon's official YouTube, so per Geraldo Perez's comment, we can use them. I'll get to work and let you know when I'm done. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC) @IJBall: Done. That is sufficient sourcing to at least list them. Now we just need to find a source that supports the air or release dates. I've left those empty for now. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC) Hi, Amaury. How's life? So. Question for you. I'm wondering how you can state that the edits of the other contributors were disruptive, after you have both violated WP:3RR at the article, which is indeed a policy, and WP:CANVASS by failing WP:APPNOTE when you posted on the talk page of a user, pinging two more, when they weren't involved in the initial editors? I'm genuinely curious, and hope to clear things up. (I'm also posting here instead of the article's talk page, as it discussion behaviour rather than content.) Cheers. -- AlexTW 07:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Cut the sarcasm. No violations were made from either of us, and making such false accusations could be considered a personal attack as you appear to say a lot. It is not canvassing to invite some people you trust to a discussion. What would be canvassing is if I tried to coerce them into picking my side, which isn't the case here. If they want to agree with the arguments others have made and are for including the "directed by" and other columns, by all means, they are welcome to that. I was just inviting more people to the discussion. In any case, I'm not interested in discussing anything here with your battleground mentality. You're not welcome on my talk page. This will be my only comment on the matter. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC) No, honestly, genuinely curious. I can list the edits that violated 3RR, easy as, and to CANVASS is to request the attention of specific editors that you know will agree with you to a discussion, no matter how much innocence you claim that they might not, when you know that they will. It would be as if I requested the specific attention of those I edit Marvel and DC articles with. What would have been an appropriate is to post at a neutral and general location; for example, the two that I linked when I notified them. Cheerio. -- AlexTW 07:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC) @AlexTheWhovian: WP:CANVASS clearly lists "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" and "Editors known for expertise in the field". Also, Amaury never said we have to agree with him, nor do we agree with Amaury in every case. We all have our own opinions and consider project consensus, not just WP:ILIKEIT. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC) There are many more members at WP:TV and WP:MOSTV who have "participated in previous discussions on the same topic" than the three that were pinged/posted to (I mean, the very first dotpoint of APPNOTE is "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects"), so the intent was to clearly only message "friendly" editors, instead of gaining the view of neutral editors. This then violates "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions". It was clear canvassing. -- AlexTW 10:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC) @AlexTheWhovian: Like I said, we don't agree exactly on everything. Just look at the thread. We're not like sockpuppets reiterating the same thing, we bring our own arguments while agreeing with some things said previously, based on previous consensus as well. That said, WP:TV could have been notified, but it's not required to notify them for every single TV discussion if it's not necessarily a large-scale problem that can't be solved locally. I see no problem at all with asking some friends who are likely happy to help. Don't complain unless you see actual bias, or going against policies/guidelines or consensus. Removing unsourced information is common practice, and we never said the columns shouldn't be added back at all. Though an explicit source is generally not required for aired episode credits, if they're suspected to be incorrect I don't see a problem with temporarily removing them until someone can go through the episodes. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Not complaining and claiming it's a personal attack are two different things; claiming it's the latter could be considered an attack in itself. However, I'm far too nice to let that bother me. It was a "large-scale problem", 3RR was violated over mass-changes; changes which were removals and not temporarily hiding them. I saw canvassing. I noted upon it. That's all there was. Cheerio. -- AlexTW 11:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC) My latest edit on List of The Loud House episodes ISN'T distruptive and vandalic! See its talk page. Luigi1090 (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC) In my defense, the episode page for The Loud House episode L is for Love has quotation marks surrounding it's L due to how the page was created and I was trying to get the link for it fixed. I have added in the summaries ever since the List of The Loud House episodes page got reworked. Did I leave anything out? Outside of that, what do you think of the show so far? --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC) @Rtkat3: Yeah, that page wasn't created right, and it is also likely to be nominated for deletion as the episode, despite what it's about, doesn't really warrant its own article, so I haven't really bothered to fix it (again) or keep a close eye on it. However, per WP:NOTBROKEN, "L Is for Love" is redirecting to that page, so that's not a problem. As for the series, I've only seen bits here and there, but it seems like a cool series. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Hello? Amaury, where are you? I'm trying to have a talk with you. I would love to make a few small changes to List of The Loud House episodes, but i'm worried my changes will be removed by you. Elijah Abrams (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The Other Kingdom

Let's keep the end date on there. It will be 1 year tomorrow. 68.224.116.208 (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Unlikely, but there could still be an announcement made today. And there have even been cases of series being renewed after a year has passed from their last episode, but the current practice is to leave series that haven't aired episodes for a while as still running until a year has passed or there's been an official announcement. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

And if you want to get really technical, using this series, it won't be a year until 7:30 PM tomorrow. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Update: Just to let you know, with present on the source, the end date was showing. So I removed present from the end date source because of that. 68.224.116.208 (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no rush to remove it as it is not the 19th for everyone yet. There is no need to be so hasty. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The IP is right about the end date (of June 19, 2016) showing vs. "present" in the article's infobox. So whether the IP's edit or what was there is in the article, it has no overall effect on what shows in the article about that as of this moment. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Okay, that I did not notice. Thanks for that. So yeah, either way, it makes no difference, though it should be left with the note until tomorrow, and similarly, it should be left as current at Template:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons‎. Like with anything, there is no need to rush it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess a bot decided to change the text [10], similar to what the IP did, though it left the note. MPFitz1968 (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Yup. That seemed much more reasonable to me as the East Coast, which is inside the US, had already hit June 19. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Girl Meets World: "Girl Meets Goodbye"

In the final episode of GMW ("Girl Meets Goodbye") Shawn (and Katy) announces that he did indeed adopt Maya as his daughter; Katy acclimates herself to calling Shawn "Daddy", she then apologizes for what she will do in the future, and then announces to him and Katy that she's going to London with Riley and the Matthews.. (hence the changes I made to Shawn Hunter) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor2789 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Professor2789: Not exactly. Shawn shows adoption papers to Maya, thereby announcing his intention to adopt her, and he gives Maya time to decide. She does quickly accept, but the events in the finale do not show Shawn adopting her officially (that can be speculated to occur after the events in the finale, such as the signing of the papers and being recognized at a hearing or in a court of law, but it would not be appropriate to add that "Shawn adopts Maya", or words to that effect, to his or Maya's character descriptions without a reliable source saying so). MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

An example of "missing" production codes

Hey, so remember when we were talking before about "missing prod. codes", and I told you I knew I'd seen examples in the past of TV series that did have "missing" prod. codes?... Well, I've found an example now: List of Midnight Caller episodes – there are no episodes for the "missing" prod. codes. 445920 (season 2) and 446273 (season 3). So it definitely can happen! (even if it hasn't happened much over the past few years...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: On Talk:List of Bunk'd episodes, right? Yes, I do. Although there we ended up getting the missing episode, so it was produced, just didn't air during the regular lineup for whatever reason. Our sources are still missing production codes for some of the episodes, but now the number of episodes in the season two table match the number of production codes as "We Didn't Start the Fire" is 2-21, and there are 21 episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Andi Mack

I disagree about that for the sole fact that it's a 12 episode season. I'd understand if it was a larger season but since it's 12 episodes, 3 episodes could be considered recurring. Several shows with smaller seasons consider people who appear in 3 or more episodes as recurring. Joshie (New Horizons Await You) 01:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It really has nothing to do with episode count, especially considering there's a second season, and if he doesn't appear there at all, then he's not recurring if he only appears in three out of however many episodes total there are by the end of season two. I'm going to ping IJBall as this is an area he's "passionate" about and can better answer this. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Might as well comment under this header. What do you think we should do now that Andi Mack's first season is confirmed to be 12 episodes? I'm not sure I understand; you said "that's what the source now states" in the edit summary (so the source must have been updated somewhere) yet you contradicted yourself in the next edit. Why? Also, should we replace the source entirely if it's causing this confusion, perhaps to a more updated one to reflect the proper episode count? Percivl (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Your question first – this source states that 13 episodes were filmed. I haven't added the Disney press releases to the article yet, but I will try to check to see if any of those confirm a 13-episode order. If 13 episodes were filmed, it's very possible that there's an "unaired pilot" episode out there somewhere. The other possibility is that a 13th episode was held back and will air in season #2. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Percivl: It was a typo. I meant "not." This can be solved, however, with a little rewording. @IJBall: This isn't an official word from Disney, but looks like the mystery's been solved regarding the 13th episode. Read this. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It's been reworded. Alternatively, we can just remove the source entirely and write "The first season consisted of 12 episodes." This is similar to what was done on K.C. Undercover where 29 episodes were produced for the first season, but only 27 episodes aired due to the fact that some productions were merged for presentation. If you're interested, there is a discussion that took place regarding that here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't like doing that – it's revisionist. The "first season production order" did consist of 13 episodes (or, alternatively, you can say something like "13 episodes were ordered for the first season..."). The fact that one's been held back for season #2 doesn't change the fact that the original production order for season 1 was 13 episodes. (This is pretty much 100% analogous with what happened with Game Shakers, FWIW.) So, it's better to just leave that info as you have it now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Somehow missed this reply yesterday. Oops. :3 As what actually happened is more what we care about at the end, per Geraldo Perez's comment in that linked to discussion in my previous reply, I really don't see an issue with changing the wording to "the first season consisted of 27 episodes," "the first seasons consisted of 12 episodes," etc. As long as you remove the source, which is no longer needed there as the series overview/episode table supports that once a season ends, there are no contradictions with regard to the text disagreeing with the source and whatnot. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm very much against doing that, in regards to the 'Production' section (which is what I care about here), esp. as it would require removing sourcing. It should say something along the lines of what you have now: "13 episodes were produced for the first season,[source] but only 12 were aired [as one was aired in season 2 (this part's optional)]." Something like that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Yeah, and I actually don't really have any strong opinions on this, so I'm fine with whatever, just noting that I don't see an issue with the other way, either. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Doing that is controversial. The general consensus over at WP:TV is that you need more than 3 episodes to be "recurring" as opposed to "guest". I think a lot of us want to see 5–6 episode appearances. If Bowie appears again in season #2 (which is likely), he can be upgraded to "recurring" then. There's no hurry... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Episode count is also very significant, though 5–6 episodes is fine for "regular-length" seasons like this show. Someone recently tried to add a character as "recurring" for appearing in 3 out of 80 episodes in season 1 of Soy Luna... nyuszika7h (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Hm. And for some odd reason, Andi Mack's first season wasn't the standard at least 20-episode order. If Andi Mack's first season were the only season, then I could see that; however, since it's got another season, that becomes questionable. But, at the same time, I'm not sure if we go by seasons or by series as a whole to determine recurring status. Let's say that, hypothetically, the second season is 20 episodes airing-wise. We're also potentially looking at creating a "special" section since a Disney Channel commercial confirms that season two will premiere in fall, but there will be a sneak peek before the Descendants 2 premiere, which is likely the "missing" 13th episode from season one. If Marty doesn't appear in season two, then three out of 33 episodes would not be recurring if we're going by the series as a whole rather than each season. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: It's common to list recurring status for certain seasons in other show articles, though usually that is confirmed ahead of time, and they appear in much more episodes. I'm kinda on the edge about 3 episodes out of 12, even considering only that many episodes I'd probably want more than that, but I'm not sure. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering when it would be the right time to add character descriptions for the characters on this show. I'm just wondering. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rtkat3: Sorry, didn't see your message this morning. See this discussion, where IJBall suggested removing the descriptions altogether and simply writing that stuff in the Plot section. Once and if we have a character list article, we can add descriptions. This is due to the complexity of the story. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Once we get enough characters for the confirmed upcoming episodes, we might be able to start a page like they started some for characters from Stuck in the Middle and Bunk'd. In addition, we'll add Bowie to the character section once his fifth appearance happens. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rtkat3: That sounds like a fine plan to me, though I might wait until we see how many episodes they appear in. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Bunk'd

I did add a source, [11] that link right there, it added two seasons of Bunk'd to Netflix, now if the season wasn't over with, why would they add season 2, they usually add the season right after it airs on the Disney Channel, that's your source right there which I have provided. P.J. (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

That says nothing about season two ending on May 24. If there's a third season and we get a known premiere date on it, then we can add the season two end date. Or if there's no renewal and a year goes by without an announcement, we can add the season two end date. Pinging you, MPFitz1968, as I know you mentioned Netflix can only release seasons once they have finished airing, but you weren't 100% sure. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure as there can be exceptions, but generally Netflix will not release a season of a series whose rights are with another network until after that season has completely aired on the network, assuming Netflix has a licensing agreement from that network to stream the series, or that season of it. (Similar to Amazon or iTunes not releasing episodes of shows until after they have aired on their original network.) With that logic, I'd say season 2 of Bunk'd is done, but I'd still hold off on putting anything official in the article until it's reliably sourced. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about the US, but that's certainly not true for all regions. Many non-US countries including Hungary get Shadowhunters episodes the day after they air on Freeform in the US, and Canada and a few other countries get The 100 episodes the day after they air on The CW in the US too. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

IP 182.239.114.140

Who is this prick I keep seeing? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: No idea. I've dealt with them before just in regard to reverting them, but I wasn't actually involved in whatever the issue was, and I don't remember exactly what it was. It might have been sockpuppetry, but, again, I don't quite remember. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Jade Pettyjohn

My bad! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: No worries. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you must have reverted before I got to it, which is why I accidentally reverted you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Descendants 2

While I'd love to believe that Emma Lahana is in Descendants 2, I don't believe it for a minute. It does not appear that she's done anything since Haven (TV series)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Code Elektro

Would you take a look at this article and tell me if the sources pass muster or not? ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 01:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)