This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I started noticing that episode title yesterday in the Comcast listings for April 7, and it has a one-hour block (Disney Channel advertising a one-hour series premiere). Will not make any changes to the way the episodes are listed for the time being—definitely not until after the show gets started then, plus what Disney Channel runs on April 9, where Screener has "13" and "Outside the Box" right now. My hunch is that "Tomorrow Starts Today" will be both "13" and "Outside the Box" combined (plus I saw the episode teasers at Screener which seem to suggest that). I just don't see any other possibility, given that "13" and "Outside the Box" are marked at Watch Disney as episodes one and two, and the original arrangement at Screener had it that way, too. But as I said, for now, I'll leave the episode listing alone. This is sounding like what DC did with "Stuck in the Waterpark - The Movie" (Stuck in the Middle season 2 premiere), except that was shown initially, both on DC and Watch Disney, as the movie, then was broken up on DC into the two episodes "Stuck in the Waterpark" and "Stuck in the Aqualympics". Here, the two episodes are already individual at Watch Disney (I'm guessing the various Disney apps have something similar, but I just refer to the Watch Disney portion, which is what I access on the computer). Not sure how we will handle this once the one-hour premiere happens, and then "13" and "Outside the Box" air as individual episodes. The rule of thumb is how it originally airs on DC, but not sure about exceptions like how the episodes were laid out on the Disney apps, and even DC's YouTube page, which has only "13", weeks ahead of the premiere. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 15:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Based on the prod. codes you just added, I would also be willing to bet that "Tomorrow Starts Today" is in fact a 1-hour combination of the episodes "13" and "Outside the Box" – and, in fact, Futon Critic confirms it here. Dunno how we want to handle this, but I'm always in the camp that says we shouldn't just go by the first airing practice on this, and we should look how Disney Channel airs these episodes subsequent to the premiere... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 12:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Amaury: I think we should go back to listing this as two episodes, with the alternate titles. I don't think Screener just made those titles up – they came from somewhere... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 13:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that iTunes is selling "13" and "Outside the Box" as separate episodes. Disney is also consistently rerunning these as two separate episodes. I reiterate again that I think we need to split these episodes into two entries in the episodes list. Pinging: Amaury, Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968 for further comment. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Amazon is also selling the premiere from April 7 on DC as the two episodes "13" and "Outside the Box"; Watch Disney has had it this way since March 10. (I'm also noting the episode "13" is free at Amazon, which was not the case when I checked that a few weeks ago.) MPFitz1968 ( talk) 18:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Amazon also shows it as two separate episodes, so I agree. Unlike Best Friend Whenever's Cyd and Shelby Strike Back, this is one of those instances where two episodes were indeed shown back-to-back, it just wasn't immediately clear because there weren't credits in-between. However, it would be better to just list it as 1–2 rather than having two separate entries as there will only be one set of ratings because it did occupy a 60-minute slot, just like Make It Pop's season two finale. However, if, for some reason, there are two separate 30-minute ratings, then I think it would be appropriate to separate it into two separate entries. I'll invite Nyuszika7H as well since he appears to be back. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 18:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict × 2) DC is currently (on the east feed) rerunning the premiere, but it shows "13" in the TV listing (the first half), with "Outside the Box" scheduled about 5 hours from now. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 18:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. I'm all onboard with listing things like this as one entry when they are consistently shown and sold as a 1-hour episode. But when the only time is shown as a "1-hour episode" is in its premiere airing, and every other airing (and online sale) has it as two episodes, then it should be split in the episodes list. So this case is different than even Game Shakers' "Sky Whale" which is sold online as a 1-hour episode, even though it is often rerun as two separate episodes. This one is the most unambiguous case yet that it's actually two separate episodes, that were simply bundled together, once, for their premiere... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The premiere airing and how vendors sell them is what matters. In this case, the premiere airing and selling vendors don't match, so we should be going with the latter which is more authoritative–two separate episodes. This situation is almost identical to Stuck in the Middle's season two premiere, except that there it is sold as a 47-minute episode. This situation, though, is just a bit tricky because there will likely only be one set of ratings, not two. The other option would be to use HRs, and this is one of those situations I feel it would be appropriate. Although this is certainly a strange situation overall, because anytime you have a single The Futon Critic entry with Part(s) 1 & 2 at the end of the episode title which indicates a single one-hour showing, it usually always matches how vendors sell that episode, but that isn't the case with Andi Mack's premiere here. Have a look through some of the one-hour Lab Rats entries on The Futon Critic and Amazon. Although that series had a situation as well. As you can see, The Vanishing on The Futon Critic doesn't match with Amazon and is two separate 30-minute showings because the network changed it last-minute, I guess, and it wasn't reflected in scheduling guides, at least not on The Futon Critic. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 19:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggest it be listed as two separate entries in the table. Two episodes with separate names and sold that way. Use rating info for combo for each entry if not separated in referenced it will the the average of both and will work out for overall average if listed twice. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 19:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This is tricky, but I think I also agree that if it's consistently sold as two separate episodes on Amazon and iTunes, we should list it that way (undecided on whether we should list it as "1–2" or two separate rows), and not how Disney decided to mess with it in the "special" premiere airing, especially if they change it for re-runs. I simply can't comprehend why networks mess up episodes so much instead of being always consistent, especially "in-house", airings within the same channel/network. nyuszika7h ( talk) 14:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@ Nyuszika7H: The network and the production team generally work together on specials but it looks like the production team and the distributor created and sold two separate episodes to Amazon, iTunes and the network, but the network, for whatever money-making marketing reason they divined, decided to merge the first two episodes they bought into their own version of a special. It is annoying to try to document this as we generally go with what is broadcast for episode lists backed up with what is sold and distributed – generally they match. This is why we have talk pages to hash out the problem cases and decide what to do with abnormal situations. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 16:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Andi Mack is an American sitcom" ^{citation needed} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.106.38 ( talk) 03:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No citation is needed for that. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 03:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, IJBall

Just as an FYI, Disney Channel promo commercial is advertising the episode on June 23 as the season finale. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 04:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Huh – the 'Production' section says there were 13 episodes produced, but June 23 is only episode #12, so there's a descrepancy. I wonder if there's an unaired pilot out there somewhere... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 05:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

"Bex later discovers Andi is infatuated with a boy named Jonah Beck and arranges to have her be with him, which includes a frisbee lesson with him."

there is no need for two "with him"s in this sentence. it's clumsy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.26.214.132 ( talk) 20:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Bowie, Marty, Britanny (and probably Iris) should all be accepted as recurring characters. There is no predefined number of how many times a character should appear to qualify as a recurring character. As long as you guest star more than once, you're a recurring character. Even when you look at Recurring character page, it says more than once. These characters (besides Iris) have appeared at least 3 times. In addition, they play key roles on the show. I would understand if it was someone like Gus who gets only 1 line with no significant story. But Bowie, Marty etc have key roles. So, what criteria are you using to reject them as recurring characters? What's the minimum number of times to qualify as a recurring character and where is that defined?

Bowie was the main focus on 3 episodes: Dad Influence, Terms of Embarrassment and Best Surprise Ever. Marty played major role in 3 episodes and an introductory role in one. Brittany played a major role in one episode and a lesser role in 2 episodes. We can wait for Iris' second major episode. But at minimum, Bowie, Marty and Brittany should be acknowledged as recurring. Some shows even list guest stars and (co-stars) who appeared in just one episode. We should respect the show and give their cast the credit deserved. Starforce13 ( talk) 22:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

MOS:TVCAST. At this point, we don't know if they will return for season two or not. Yes, it's very likely that characters like Bowie and Marty will return given their role in the series' story, but until season two premieres, we can't say anything as fact. (Saying something as fact right now would be WP:OR.) There is no rush. If they appear in several episodes throughout season two, then we can add them, but they currently have not appeared enough to be considered recurring. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 22:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Recurring doesn't mean multiple seasons. It means more than one episode. Even if they were not to appear in any other season, they're still recurring. There is no such a thing as having "not appeared enough." They play major roles in multiple episodes. They deserve the credit and they've earned it. Starforce13 ( talk) 23:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. If a series has four seasons equaling 100 episodes and a guest actor appears for five episodes—not necessarily in a row—in the first season and never again appears for the remainder of the series, they are not recurring. By definition, recurring means to continue appearing throughout a series, not just appearing for a few episodes and then never appearing again. Ham is a good example of a recurring character as he's appeared in almost all episodes thus far. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 23:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict) A recurring character doesn't need to be in every season of a series to be considered recurring, but does need to be in a significant number of episodes, story arcs, etc., during their run on the series, whether it's for just one season or two, or every season. Mason (Alex's boyfriend) on Wizards of Waverly Place was only in seasons three and four, and he is still considered recurring because of how many episodes (and story arcs) he was a part of. Even Zay on Girl Meets World appeared in just seasons two and three, but is recurring given how frequently he was in those episodes. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 23:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@ MPFitz1968: Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense. Based on that, these characters are not recurring... yet. And to make a clarification myself, I wasn't necessarily saying they need to be in every season, but they need to continually appear throughout the series, which is what I think you were basically saying with your Mason and Zay examples, but please correct me if I interpreted what you said wrong. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 01:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@ Amaury:, no they don't need to appear throughout the series. They need to appear on multiple episodes and have major roles/arcs. These characters have met that criteria. And besides, they've been from the first few episodes to the last episode so far. You can't deny the status by assuming they won't show up in future seasons. They should be judged by what has aired already. And even if they cease being recurring, we could do what other shows do and mark them as recurring in specific seasons if it's so important to not give them the credit. Check out what shows like The Flash, Buffy, Agents of SHIELD etc do. Bowie has been pretty much the main story arc of the season. Marty has been the major character in Buffy's development arc this season (besides Buffy). Starforce13 ( talk) 01:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. How other articles do things sets no precedence over other articles. I'm not assuming they won't be in season two, I'm saying we don't know if they will be in season two or not. Including them based on the sole fact that they'll likely be in season two is pure speculation. Also, who said anything about not wanting to give them credit? They are credited in the table. As I stated, there is no need to rush this. Once season two premieres and we see who appears as guest stars—and how frequently—we can make changes accordingly. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 01:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what happens in season 2. They're recurring because they've appeared in multiple episodes so far and they've had major roles / arcs. They deserve to be credited. We don't need to wait for future seasons to make the decision. They're already qualified even if the show were to end today. And I'm using other shows as reference because those are some of the top shows managed by a lot of experienced admins and they've been on for a long time unlike Disney shows where there aren't as many experienced wikipedia users updating the articles. Starforce13 ( talk) 01:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

And where did you get that definition from? Please stop making up your own rules to make things go by what you want. Starforce13 ( talk) 23:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Think what you want. I even linked you to a page that explains it. If you can't or refuse to understand it, that's not my fault. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 23:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

These are qualified recurring characters. They've appeared in multiple episodes and have major story arcs. You can't dismiss that with your own rules. If you don't know how it works, at least compare with other top shows with high qualified admins that have been refined over the years. I suggest looking at shows from top networks like ABC, Fox, CW... etc. Don't rely on Disney and Nick shows which you've taken control of to define your own rules. Starforce13 ( talk) 23:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion alone doesn't determine this. There has to be consensus beyond what's in WP:TVCAST (which is very clear that two episodes is not to be considered "recurring", so your original statement is flat out incorrent), and at most articles consensus is that a guest actor needs to be in about 5 or 6 episodes to be considered "recurring". The other editors at this article do not agree with your lower definition of "recurring" (and I certainly don't either). If you can't sway them to your position, then that is that. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 01:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@ IJBall: Question: Does the number of episodes in a season play some role in this? Like, is it five or six appearances regardless of whether a season has 13 episodes or the standard 20 episodes? Or is it five or six appearances using the standard 20 episodes as a base? Amaury ( talk | contribs) 01:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It depends on who you ask – some people at WP:TV say that the total number of episodes should be a factor; I'm one of the editors that thinks it probably shouldn't matter and that "recurring" should be about "5 episodes or more" regardless of series length. In the case of Andi Mack, however, this is a pretty moot point, as the show has already been renewed and is going to be 20–30 (or more) episodes when all is said and done, so there is no reason to drop the cutoff for "recurring" below about 5 episode appearances in this case anyway. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 02:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@ IJBall:, the characters I listed have been in at least 3 episodes. And Marty and Bowie have appeared in at least 4. They're all playing major roles and have major arcs. Also, WP:TVCAST doesn't have a 5-6 episode rule. As long as the character has been in multiple episodes and has a major role/arc, they are recurring. Starforce13 ( talk) 02:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:TVCAST does have a "local consensus determines recurring" rule, though. I have been quite clear in the past that I'd like to see Bowie appear in a fifth episode (in season #2) before listing him as recurring. From what I have seen only Ham and Amber really qualify as "recurring" based on the season #1 episodes. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 02:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@ IJBall:, so you and @ Amaury: are the local consensus?

You need to establish a new consensus – that's how the process works. So far, no other editor has come out in favor of the changes you want to make. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 02:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That's because there are very few people willing to contribute to these Disney / Nick show pages anymore because you guys reverse everything they do by making up your own conventions and rejecting the facts. So, these pages end up with very little and irrelevant content compared to non Disney/Nick shows. I hope it doesn't sound rude but even by looking at the content most of you guys actually contribute - besides reversing edits - you just do the trivial stuff that can be obtained by casual watching or looking at listings without deep understanding of the show. Starforce13 ( talk) 03:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

A couple of recent edits by IPs [1] [2] have been adding at least Bowie to the recurring list - one of them also adding Marty. I believe the consensus at the moment is not to add them until they have appeared in at least one or two episodes in season two if I went thru the discussion here correctly. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 17:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is no reason not to wait until season #2 airs, to reassess who is "recurring" or not. Impatient IP's should be pointed to this discussion... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 03:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I have now had to remove this twice, added in by IPs in 180.190.0.0/16 ( [3] [4]). Clearly, most of it is unsourced, but also of concern is mere mentions of other TV series or events (like the 2017 NBA playoffs, Stuck in the Middle and K.C. Undercover). I'm scratching my head wondering what they have to do with the broadcast of Andi Mack outside the US. One part that seems noteworthy within all of the text, which has a source [5], is its not running on Disney Channel in South Africa (or DStv). The text, as written, just seems odd and irrelevant, and perhaps taking those parts out mentioning other shows would be more appropriate - plus adding in sources to support where the show is airing. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 15:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It is one of two sources supporting the statement It is the first series on Disney Channel to feature a gay middle school boy as a main character, which has drawn considerable media attention and was reported in the news as "historic". ( Link) I initially flagged the source for "Subscription required", as I was unable to read it, with the site talking about a basic digital subscription. Then I subsequently reverted since I was able to read it in Firefox; I was getting the subscription bit in Chrome. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 22:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Strange. No issues here with as Chrome, my default browser. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 22:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

No issues accessing the Washington Post article here either, but, if need be, more sources can be added to support that statement (there are plenty of reliable sources available to support it). -- Justthefacts9 ( talk) 19:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The whole concept of the show is that Andi's "sister" Bex is really her mother. It is a well sourced fact and was addressed in the very first episode. However, User:Amaury claims that there is "a reason" to not include this in the article. Per WP:SPOILER, we don't hide plot details. There is no logical reason to hide this information in the article. JDDJS ( talk) 01:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER has nothing to do with it. However, I'll let IJBall explain since he's the one who originally removed it. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 01:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I actually don't necessarily have a really good answer on this. I personally don't think this should be included in the character summaries, but should instead be included in the "Summary" (i.e. "Plot") section. In fact, I think we should switch from a "Characters" list to a "Cast" list (a la WP:TVCAST), and just eliminate the character blurbs and instead just have "Peyton Elizabeth Lee as Andi Mack..." etc. so this isn't an issue there. In the specific case of this show, "character blurbs" are just going to prove to be problematic. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 01:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That I have no problem with. JDDJS ( talk) 01:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@ JDDJS:  Done. I've switched to a 'Cast' list. Go ahead and revise the 'Plot' section, and let's see what you come up with... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 01:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@ IJBall:  Done, but I am not necessarily attached to this summary. If somebody else wants to rewrite it, as long as they include the part about Bex being Andi's mother, I won't mind. JDDJS ( talk) 01:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we want to add more of the various "character summaries" (e.g. for the "grandmother" and Andi's "crush") to the 'Plot' section, rather than the 'Cast' section, for this particular show. But I admit I don't have a clear idea on how to do that. Hopefully others will be able to come up with something on that front... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 01:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@ MPFitz1968: Is this another series you're planning on focusing on in regard to adding episode summaries and the like? Amaury ( talk | contribs) 01:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@ Amaury: I'm having thoughts of working on the episode summaries here, and also perhaps a couple of other Disney Channel shows that are lacking them (hint: see Liv and Maddie: Cali Style - thankfully that'll be coming to Netflix soon as well). MPFitz1968 ( talk) 01:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've tried my best to fit Celia and Johan Beck into the plot summary of the series. But others (not User:Orchomen) please feel free to improve the wording. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please remove the huge spoiler posted in the 'Premise' section. I didn't know this show existed before today. Saw it playing on a television, looked up what it was and BLAM you spoiled the biggest thing in the show when I was trying to find out a vague basic premise. What are you even thinking by having that in there? Why is it so important to spoil things for everybody? Why are you spoiling something as if it makes you so special you watched a show and know what happens so you just have to tell everyone. I don't care if it's in the first episode. I'd like it to be a surprise in the first episode.

WP:SPOILER. We don't hide spoilers here. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 06:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Two edits ( [6] [7]) made by Cedancer5678 are making the claim that she portrayed Buffy Driscoll in the originally filmed pilot. If this can be reliably sourced with an explanation about why the change in casting to Sofia Wylie, it would be more than a trivial detail about the series that can be placed in the Production (or a "Casting") section. But the sources used in Cedancer's edits (from Instagram and Tumblr) are far from satisfying the reliable source requirement (see WP:USERG), and there appears not to be a reference that I can find at present talking about this casting detail which would satisfy WP:RS. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 17:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The Premise section focuses only on the lead character with no mention of any meaningful information regarding the other main characters whatsoever. Perhaps it would be appropriate to include at least some information regarding the other main characters? -- Justthefacts9 ( talk) 19:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, it is a "Premise" section. The premise is the concept of the book. The plot, on the other hand, is what happens in the book — all the events that make up the story. More info here. They're referring to books, but it of course applies to anything. However, I do not disagree with adding more information to the section. We probably have more than enough information to add to the section that we can convert it to a "Plot" section. And as it is, some rewriting could be done, anyway, as the grammar and sentence flow in the current version isn't the best. There's also a related discussion a little bit up at Including the concept of the show in the article. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 20:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Nothing to do with plot. The article lacks a proper section on the series' characters. Compare for example the "Cast and Characters" section on the Gilmore Girls article. Brief introduction to the series' major characters and how they interact. Dimadick ( talk) 09:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Should be both. The Premise section should be converted to a Plot section and the Cast section should be converted to a Cast and characters section. This would be consistent with the articles for the other current Disney Channel shows (such as the article for Bunk'd). -- Justthefacts9 ( talk) 21:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

"Cast and characters" is only appropriate when there are character descriptions which we're not doing here due to the complexity per a discussion above. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 21:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Could be a short description of the characters based on the basic facts that are known about them from the episodes. -- Justthefacts9 ( talk) 15:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The recent transformation of the Premise into a Plot summary is looking like overkill with detail, and probably needs to be summarized more concisely. In fact, I came across this in the WP:TVPLOT guideline: If the plot summaries are moved to a separate list of episodes ... or to individual season articles ... then the plot summary at the series article should be replaced with a simple overview or premise section that allocates around 100 words per season (such as a logline for each season in non-copyrighted language). (Emphasis mine) With the LoE containing summaries for every episode, simply restating what's in those summaries under a Plot section here would be excessive. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 22:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Quite a bit of a delay, but the summaries for Seasons 1 & 2 have now been condensed in accordance with MOS:TVPLOT. -- Justthefacts9 ( talk) 04:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason as to why the names of publications of sources aren't linked to their Wikipedia articles in the references in this article? It's fairly standard throughout Wikipedia for the names of publications to be linked to their Wikipedia articles in references (it's also helpful in discerning which publications are reliable sources, as a publication which has its own Wikipedia article would almost certainly be considered WP:RS). -- Justthefacts9 ( talk) 04:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@ Justthefacts9: It may be helpful for readers who want to know more about the publications used, though I have no preference either way for linking/not linking them to their Wikipedia articles. Note, whether a publication qualifies as a reliable source is not dependent solely on their having a Wikipedia article (yes, I did note the would almost certainly be considered WP:RS there, but I'm thinking there are plenty of publications documented as Wikipedia articles that would fail WP:RS). MPFitz1968 ( talk) 16:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@ MPFitz1968: Agreed, which is why the statement was qualified with "almost". A source with its own Wikipedia article and a source that qualifies as WP:RS is not necessarily synonymous, but there's a large degree of overlap. -- Justthefacts9 ( talk) 20:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@ Amaury: Regarding repetition of links to Wikipedia articles in references: shouldn't this be treated as different from links within a given section? Readers are unlikely to view the References section separately as compared to reading the popup reference box which appears when hovering over a reference number. -- Justthefacts9 ( talk) 20:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

See WP:OVERLINKING. Now, like with anything, you don't want to be too strict. I learned this the hard way. So if the word comedy is mentioned in the infobox, lead, Production section, Broadcast section, etc., you can link to it in each of those sections. Now, if each section had the word comedy twice, you'd only link the first instance. You get the point. It's appropriate to link a name or word once in each section. In the case of References, there is only one section for them; therefore, you would only link something like Variety in the first instance and that's it. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 21:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@ Amaury: Right, that certainly makes sense for the actual prose sections of articles. When it comes to references, however, readers are more likely to view the popup reference box which appears when hovering over a reference number than they are to view the actual References section, which is why it may be helpful to link to the Wikipedia article of a source in each reference (which are considered to be footnotes). -- Justthefacts9 ( talk) 05:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

MOS:REPEATLINK states: Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. (emphasis mine). As a "reference number" is a footnote, it appears OK to repeat a link for a publication that is common to multiple footnotes/references, so I'd agree with Justthefacts9 here. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 07:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The new opening titles scene for Season 3 ( see here) shows Trent Garrett / Bowie Quinn as a main cast member / character. Should the article be updated to reflect this? Are there any sources which qualify as WP:RS to support this? -- Justthefacts9 ( talk) 10:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Can someone make “Sofia Wylie” a separate page? Warsong66 ( talk) 01:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@ Warsong66: WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article on the actress, as per the discussion here. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 01:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Sofia Wylie's name should be hyperlinked to her separate wikipedia page

 Not done Sofia Wylie has no article on Wikipedia. L293D ( ☎ •  ✎) 22:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, discussions must take place when an edit is disagreed with. Normally, the onus of that is on the editor who initially made the edit, but I guess I have to be the better person here. Furthermore, until the issue is resolved, the article must stay in the WP:STATUSQUO version, so that last edit to the article is wrong. There is no virtually no difference between "that" and "which" and both basically mean the same thing. And thus, despite an earlier false claim, a comma is not needed before "which" to make it correct. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 23:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The change from 'that' to 'which' is unnecessary. It just being nitpicky. I also agree that a comma is not needed before "which" to make it correct. — Lbtocth ^talk 23:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@ Lbtocth: Just to clarify, it's the other way around. "Which" is what is currently in the article, though the context is different now thanks to the other editor wrongly taking out part of the sentence in their last edit here and not following WP:STATUSQUO. They are claiming that "which" is incorrect in the original sentence, when it's not, and want it to be "that." In any case, you hit the nail on the head. They are just being nitpicky and are refusing to follow proper Wikipedia protocols to boot, because they think they are right111. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 00:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Properly ping Lbtocth above. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 00:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I read it wrong at first (replying to the other way around). — Lbtocth ^talk 00:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@ Lbtocth: Absolutely no worries. Just wanted to clarify it. Either way, your point is totally spot-on. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 00:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I find it annoying that some editors constantly feel the need to reword every sentences to what they think is correct/better, I think they are fine as long as the sentences are in proper English. It's claiming WP:OWNERSHIP of articles. NOTE: I am saying this in general as I see a lot veteran editors do this. — Lbtocth ^talk 02:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Amaury is correct that there is virtually no difference between which and that in almost all contexts and the words are often considered to be grammatically interchangeable. Nonetheless, it does appear that that is preferred over which in the context of the sentence in question (see here and here), as Erpert appears to prefer. Either way, the issue here does seem to be exaggerated, though. -- Justthefacts9 ( talk) 21:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

We said this: a distinction that has drawn considerable media attention and was reported in the news as "history".

That's not what the sources say, sure they use the word "history" but within the phrase "set to make history" - this has a different meaning. Saying something is "history" means it is in the past, it's old, no longer relevant. Saying "set to make history" means historic, i.e. important or potnetially important within history. I therefore changed this so it has the correct meaning, and added a source actually using the word "historic" instead of "set to make history".

Please don't revert, but if you disagree with my edit propose some alternative that isn't misleading.-- Pontificalibus 07:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

There's no denying that Andi Mack has made some pretty awesome history; however, I will reiterate what I said at Talk:Joshua Rush#Cyrus' sexuality here: By definition, Cyrus is not openly gay. The definition of being openly gay is that said individual doesn't hide who they are from the public and people know they are gay and it's there for people who don't they're gay to know. If they're in a relationship, they might also hold hands, show some affection, etc. in public without worry. With Cyrus, only Buffy (S2 E1) and Andi (S2 E13) know so far. The rest of the main characters and the recurring characters don't know nor does the whole school. That's what we would informally call being closeted. In addition, at least at this point in time, Cyrus' sexuality and feelings toward Jonah seem to be more of a side story. That could very well change as the rest of the second season airs and when the third season airs in that it becomes for prevalent. But for now, his story has only been a central point in "Hey, Who Wants Pizza?" and "Cyrus' Bash-Mitzvah!" It was also briefly indirectly mentioned on "Friends Like These." Amaury ( talk | contribs) 14:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, but don't see any rationale for removing the paragraph on Cyrus's sexuality entirely. I moved it to the "reception" section as it mentions the awards given in relation to this aspect of the show.-- Pontificalibus 14:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

FTR, I don't even watch this one. But I agree with Amaury that from the description, the word "openly" should not be used, so I have removed it. Also, the recently added section looks to be guilty of WP:OVERLINKing – when you go to more than about 3 citations to source something, you've used too many... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 14:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No issues other than number of links is excessive and needs to be pruned to just a few of the more reliable and representative ones. Mainstream outlets more than advocacy outlets would be best to show notability. Whether to call "openly" or not should be based on what the sources say. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 15:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Meh. This is one of those cases where sources can't always be trusted, as they tend to throw the word "openly" around in a way that's not accurate... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It is also one of those terms that mean different things to different people. In my mind it just means not trying to hide it but not necessarily making a big deal of it either which does seem to apply in this story as reported in this discussion. If the word meaning is not widely agreed upon then leaving it out is best. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 16:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@ IJBall and Geraldo Perez: WP:OVERLINKING taken care of. Not only in number of sources, but also general linking. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 18:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the term "openly", it is probably best to leave that out, given the ambiguity surrounding the term. Now, the much more important issue here is of notability. The gay character and coming out storyline made headlines on national/international news publications and media outlets ranging from The Washington Post to BBC News. It's not everyday that a particular aspect of a children's show on a kid's network makes headlines on national newspapers and international broadcasters (in fact, there's virtually no precedent). In fact, no such extensive coverage has ever been otherwise given to this series, at all - or, in other words, this particular aspect of this series is more notable than the entire series itself. Surely that merits it comprehensive coverage in the body of the article and inclusion in the lead. -- Justthefacts9 ( talk) 07:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

At this point it would outbalance what is in the lead currently and would start to make the article look like a WP:COATRACK. Coverage in article now is reasonable. If lead were expanded beyond the current minimal skeleton then possibly a one sentence mention, in balance with the coverage of the rest of the show might be appropriate. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 14:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Justthefacts9 brings up a point about inclusion of " Category:American LGBT-related television shows" in the article, quoting the category's criteria [8]. The category deal[s] with or feature[s] significant lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as an important plot device. (This is longer than what was quoted by Justthefacts9.) I'm not totally on board with inclusion, as all there has been regarding Cyrus' coming out is his feelings and talking about it, though the latter part of the quote from that category's criteria indicates that there doesn't have to be explicit "same-sex" interaction. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 07:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

See IJBall's summary here from a while ago for another perspective as well. Basically, at this point, it doesn't seem to be a story that's in a substantial amount of episodes. Right now it's only been in two episodes. The premiere and mid-season finale of the second season, and even there, it appears to be more of a B story type deal. Obviously, that doesn't mean it's not important as it's certainly broken ground, but I don't think it's defining at this point. Perhaps once Bex and Celia as well as, most importantly, Jonah find out would it be defining. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 07:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

No objections regarding the removal of the category, based on the points raised here. On the other hand, the rewording from "top-rated" to "most popular" is perhaps helpful to readers for whom "top-rated" may not give the correct connotation of being the most watched (some readers may assume, for example, that "top-rated" refers to a quality rating of some sort by critics). -- Justthefacts9 ( talk) 14:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

We should be using neutral language per WP:TONE. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 14:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I was getting the impression that Justthefacts9 decided to replace "top-rated" with "most popular" because of the notion that they are synonymous. The source used does say the series is the "No. 1 series this year among girls and top-rated in its time period among kids 6-14. [emphasis mine]" I am not sure that "most popular" is 100% synonymous with "No. 1" or "top-rated" ("No. 1" is definitely a quantitative measure based on the context of that statement, as well as "top-rated" - though the latter can also be qualitative outside of that statement; "most popular" is pretty much qualitative and normally used as a conclusion for the other two terms, either of which would be needed to definitively support that). As I pointed out in my edit summary, it's best to stick to the source. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 14:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not particularly important either way, so no issue with maintaining the wording as it is. -- Justthefacts9 ( talk) 20:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this category should be added. If it were simply "LGBT shows" I'd say no, because this is not an LGBT show but a show that happens to have some LGBT content. But the category is for LGBT related shows, which this is because it features "significant lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender characters or issues" and this is supported by the sources. -- Pontificalibus 17:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

(Warning: Spoilers. Don't keep reading or watch the video if you keep up with this series and haven't seen the episode "One in a Minyan" yet.)

Perhaps once Bex and Celia as well as, most importantly, Jonah find out would it be defining. Let's revisit this. As mentioned above, both Buffy and Andi already knew; now, Cyrus has now come out to Jonah as well as of Friday's episode, and this was with the episode's promo hinting at it being Jonah, TJ, or both that it he would come out to. Of course Andi Mack has already made history with that; what made even more history is that he told Jonah "I'm gay," as seen here. With another barrier being broken, as that's not anything Disney Channel would have done years ago, does that category now belong in this article or still not yet? Amaury ( talk | contribs) 17:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Based on the extensive news coverage of this particular aspect of the series, which is possibly what this series is most known for in the news, as well as the several awards that the series has won or been nominated for this particular aspect of the series, the category does merit inclusion in the article, especially now. -- Justthefacts9 ( talk) 13:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)