![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from K.C. Undercover was split to List of K.C. Undercover episodes on February 11, 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:K.C. Undercover. |
It has recently come to my attention (see here), that the writing credits for episodes of the first season are not be accurately and truthfully portrayed. If an episode has Teleplay and Story writers (two very different parts of the episode that require separation attribution), those distinctions need to be properly made, which can be done with the {{ StoryTeleplay}} template. I hope any regular editors of this article/watchers of this series can take the time to fix this error, else I will remove the writing credits per WP:CHALLENGE. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Teleplay and story may be two different things, but the people that partake in them are still writers. As such, there is nothing inaccurate or untruthful if we just list the persons in the Written by column without those labels on such episodes. And as Nyu states, it condenses things and makes them more organized. It looked ugly before, and yes, aesthetic pleasantness is just as important. Amaury ( talk) 20:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:TVCAST is an invalid reason in this edit as that wasn't an episode count, just listing characters' absences, and I'm not too happy that the user in question just removed it without discussion. That's not how Wikipedia works. A discussion must first be started and a WP:CONSENSUS must be reached before any action can be applied. As for the other reasons, might as well not list guest stars or writers or directors or production codes or viewership ratings if we're going to be using the trivial argument. What do people need to know those for, anyway? Amaury ( talk) 00:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
If an actor misses an episode due to a real world occurrence, such as an injury that prevents them from appearing, this info can be noted in the character's description or "Production" section with a reliable source.Any other listings of absences is just WP:TRIVIA. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 03:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
"Such records would also have to be cited to actual episodes so that people can verify it for themselves."
They are cited to the actual episodes; absences are listed after the plot summary of each episode. And you can definitely not call this excessive, as it's only a few lines before each season table. No episode counts might imply this but it would be better to take it to
WT:TV or an RFC or whatever and clarify it, because it's used in a lot of articles. There's no point in singling out this one, as it was said earlier.
nyuszika7h (
talk)
19:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
has been well-established for years now on episode lists" does not mean it is correct. You have been refuted by four editors stating that this materials inclusion is correct. The reason this articles has been "targeted" (which it wasn't) was due to Nyuszika7H creating a new template and notifying the TV project about its use. I wanted to see where they used the template, and it was this article, and it immediately threw up a red flag in my eyes, that the writing credits were not formatted as they should be (see the discussion above this). And then, I saw the trivial absentee material that is not supported by WP:TVCAST, and went on removing that, and was met by reversion, because users want to keep incorrect material on the article because it has been like it for years on Wikipedia, even though it goes against discussed guidelines for the project. Additionally, nothing needs to be discussed if it is in an attempt to conform to the guidelines set forth by the various MOS across Wikipedia. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 02:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, let me step back. Is this a show where the characters always appear in the opening credits but then within the episode the character is not present at all? That could be summarized in the broadcast section under the unusual circumstances in prose and cited to the particular episode like "Season 1 of K.C. Undercover starred (6 actors names). However, there are episodes where the actor does not appear at all despite being consistently listed in the opening credits. X was absent for 3 episodes (footnote to citation for 3 cite episodes), Y was absent for 4 episodes (footnote to citation to 4 cite episodes). Z was absent for episode whatever due to filming on a different project. (footnote to 1 cite episode)" This would now bring context to why absences are important to this particular show, as with guest host counts on SNL or Academy Awards. Without the context, it sticks out like cruft like "this is the second time the couple kissed." This also gets the absence off the episode list so as to not draw attention to it and focus can be kept on the notable guest stars. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC) updated 17:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
In retrospect, it was pointless to post this to WT:TV as the people who care would have seen it anyway, this way it just led to this debate. Though I guess it would have happened sooner or later anyway.
You can keep insisting but that won't change the facts – the MOS does not explicitly prohibit listing absences. As it has been said before, it is different from an episode count because it can be cited to individual episodes and therefore not prone to being out of date or inaccurate which is what that was trying to prevent. There are pretty much always editors who verify if it's correct. Why not prohibit listing guest stars too because editors often add them incorrectly, e.g. not using exact credited names or including co-stars?
And the sentence about "notable" absences does not say we can't do this either. You can't call it excessive, it's not like we have 50 main cast members with many of them regularly missing episodes. We can go either way on the interpretation, so this discussion will just keep going around in circles unless we take it to an RfC or something. nyuszika7h ( talk) 18:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Just noting that the episode is listed on Amazon and iTunes as a 44 minute single episode. Supported by Futon Critic. I didn't see the airing but assume what was broadcast matches what is being sold as is normally the case. Disney Press site disagrees but they generally announce plans, and don't generally update with what actually happened. Same issue with Zap2it. Futon Critic may be a better reference for the columns as they seem to update when reality overrides plans. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 16:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Just noting that the IP's edit was incorrect anyway, as the originally two-parter we list as one episode per having one set of credits is distinct from "Do You Want to Know a Secret?". nyuszika7h ( talk) 14:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
We already knew the correct name of the character anyway, but now we have confirmation from Disney Channel Press that the episode title was intended to include the periods. nyuszika7h ( talk) 22:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The confirmation for this episode is here (video is only available in the US), but we don't have a scheduled air date or even confirmation that it will be the next episode after "Sup, Dawg?" yet, so it's probably too early to list in the table. nyuszika7h ( talk) 09:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
When this source from Zap2it was added to indicate the episode "Family Feud" is the season 2 finale, it clearly showed the word "finale" before it aired, but now it doesn't. Disney Channel's promo for the episode mentions it to be the season finale, and outside of a properly archived version of that Zap2it source (which shows that "finale" indicator), that may be all we can go on from what has been provided. Need to be definitive on what the season finale is to finalize the episode count for season 2, or otherwise wait for season 3 to start, as we've been seeing numerous edits like this one. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 10:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
So, we're missing a production code here: 220. Neither The Futon Critic nor Disney ABC Press list it, though IPs kept adding it to the Tightrope of Doom episode, but we kept reverting it because it wasn't supported. However, now that season two has ended, I'm wondering if it would be logical to change Tightrope of Doom's production code from 219 to 219–220 simply based on logic, pretty much like what I did with Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn's Dawn Moves Out (104) and Girl Meets World's Girl Meets Fish (121) and Girl Meets Goodbye (320)? The only other theory I have is that one episode was held over for K.C. Undercover's third season, such as was the case with Liv and Maddie's Grandma-a-Rooney (218) airing during the third season and also kind of like SPARF-a-Rooney (303) airing during the second season. (All these links are direct episode number links.) However, I don't know how likely that is here. (Inviting the usual squad: Geraldo Perez, IJBall, MPFitz1968, and Nyuszika7H.) Amaury ( talk | contribs) 04:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
It is suggested that a WP:SPLIT to season articles be done.
The entry at Zap2it, with the episode title "K.C. Undercover: The Final Chapter", doesn't indicate this to be the series finale, at least right now. So it is insufficient to use to back the episode's scheduled air date of February 2, 2018 as the date of the "Last aired" episode of season 3 or the series. Plus, "Last aired" in the series overview hasn't always meant the season finale date ... Bunk'd immediately comes to mind here if we're talking about Disney Channel in particular. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 17:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Amaury ( talk | contribs) 17:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Tbbttbbt ( talk) 17:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I've also posted about this here, so there's more discussion about this... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 14:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from K.C. Undercover was split to List of K.C. Undercover episodes on February 11, 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:K.C. Undercover. |
It has recently come to my attention (see here), that the writing credits for episodes of the first season are not be accurately and truthfully portrayed. If an episode has Teleplay and Story writers (two very different parts of the episode that require separation attribution), those distinctions need to be properly made, which can be done with the {{ StoryTeleplay}} template. I hope any regular editors of this article/watchers of this series can take the time to fix this error, else I will remove the writing credits per WP:CHALLENGE. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Teleplay and story may be two different things, but the people that partake in them are still writers. As such, there is nothing inaccurate or untruthful if we just list the persons in the Written by column without those labels on such episodes. And as Nyu states, it condenses things and makes them more organized. It looked ugly before, and yes, aesthetic pleasantness is just as important. Amaury ( talk) 20:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:TVCAST is an invalid reason in this edit as that wasn't an episode count, just listing characters' absences, and I'm not too happy that the user in question just removed it without discussion. That's not how Wikipedia works. A discussion must first be started and a WP:CONSENSUS must be reached before any action can be applied. As for the other reasons, might as well not list guest stars or writers or directors or production codes or viewership ratings if we're going to be using the trivial argument. What do people need to know those for, anyway? Amaury ( talk) 00:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
If an actor misses an episode due to a real world occurrence, such as an injury that prevents them from appearing, this info can be noted in the character's description or "Production" section with a reliable source.Any other listings of absences is just WP:TRIVIA. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 03:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
"Such records would also have to be cited to actual episodes so that people can verify it for themselves."
They are cited to the actual episodes; absences are listed after the plot summary of each episode. And you can definitely not call this excessive, as it's only a few lines before each season table. No episode counts might imply this but it would be better to take it to
WT:TV or an RFC or whatever and clarify it, because it's used in a lot of articles. There's no point in singling out this one, as it was said earlier.
nyuszika7h (
talk)
19:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
has been well-established for years now on episode lists" does not mean it is correct. You have been refuted by four editors stating that this materials inclusion is correct. The reason this articles has been "targeted" (which it wasn't) was due to Nyuszika7H creating a new template and notifying the TV project about its use. I wanted to see where they used the template, and it was this article, and it immediately threw up a red flag in my eyes, that the writing credits were not formatted as they should be (see the discussion above this). And then, I saw the trivial absentee material that is not supported by WP:TVCAST, and went on removing that, and was met by reversion, because users want to keep incorrect material on the article because it has been like it for years on Wikipedia, even though it goes against discussed guidelines for the project. Additionally, nothing needs to be discussed if it is in an attempt to conform to the guidelines set forth by the various MOS across Wikipedia. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 02:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, let me step back. Is this a show where the characters always appear in the opening credits but then within the episode the character is not present at all? That could be summarized in the broadcast section under the unusual circumstances in prose and cited to the particular episode like "Season 1 of K.C. Undercover starred (6 actors names). However, there are episodes where the actor does not appear at all despite being consistently listed in the opening credits. X was absent for 3 episodes (footnote to citation for 3 cite episodes), Y was absent for 4 episodes (footnote to citation to 4 cite episodes). Z was absent for episode whatever due to filming on a different project. (footnote to 1 cite episode)" This would now bring context to why absences are important to this particular show, as with guest host counts on SNL or Academy Awards. Without the context, it sticks out like cruft like "this is the second time the couple kissed." This also gets the absence off the episode list so as to not draw attention to it and focus can be kept on the notable guest stars. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC) updated 17:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
In retrospect, it was pointless to post this to WT:TV as the people who care would have seen it anyway, this way it just led to this debate. Though I guess it would have happened sooner or later anyway.
You can keep insisting but that won't change the facts – the MOS does not explicitly prohibit listing absences. As it has been said before, it is different from an episode count because it can be cited to individual episodes and therefore not prone to being out of date or inaccurate which is what that was trying to prevent. There are pretty much always editors who verify if it's correct. Why not prohibit listing guest stars too because editors often add them incorrectly, e.g. not using exact credited names or including co-stars?
And the sentence about "notable" absences does not say we can't do this either. You can't call it excessive, it's not like we have 50 main cast members with many of them regularly missing episodes. We can go either way on the interpretation, so this discussion will just keep going around in circles unless we take it to an RfC or something. nyuszika7h ( talk) 18:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Just noting that the episode is listed on Amazon and iTunes as a 44 minute single episode. Supported by Futon Critic. I didn't see the airing but assume what was broadcast matches what is being sold as is normally the case. Disney Press site disagrees but they generally announce plans, and don't generally update with what actually happened. Same issue with Zap2it. Futon Critic may be a better reference for the columns as they seem to update when reality overrides plans. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 16:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Just noting that the IP's edit was incorrect anyway, as the originally two-parter we list as one episode per having one set of credits is distinct from "Do You Want to Know a Secret?". nyuszika7h ( talk) 14:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
We already knew the correct name of the character anyway, but now we have confirmation from Disney Channel Press that the episode title was intended to include the periods. nyuszika7h ( talk) 22:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The confirmation for this episode is here (video is only available in the US), but we don't have a scheduled air date or even confirmation that it will be the next episode after "Sup, Dawg?" yet, so it's probably too early to list in the table. nyuszika7h ( talk) 09:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
When this source from Zap2it was added to indicate the episode "Family Feud" is the season 2 finale, it clearly showed the word "finale" before it aired, but now it doesn't. Disney Channel's promo for the episode mentions it to be the season finale, and outside of a properly archived version of that Zap2it source (which shows that "finale" indicator), that may be all we can go on from what has been provided. Need to be definitive on what the season finale is to finalize the episode count for season 2, or otherwise wait for season 3 to start, as we've been seeing numerous edits like this one. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 10:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
So, we're missing a production code here: 220. Neither The Futon Critic nor Disney ABC Press list it, though IPs kept adding it to the Tightrope of Doom episode, but we kept reverting it because it wasn't supported. However, now that season two has ended, I'm wondering if it would be logical to change Tightrope of Doom's production code from 219 to 219–220 simply based on logic, pretty much like what I did with Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn's Dawn Moves Out (104) and Girl Meets World's Girl Meets Fish (121) and Girl Meets Goodbye (320)? The only other theory I have is that one episode was held over for K.C. Undercover's third season, such as was the case with Liv and Maddie's Grandma-a-Rooney (218) airing during the third season and also kind of like SPARF-a-Rooney (303) airing during the second season. (All these links are direct episode number links.) However, I don't know how likely that is here. (Inviting the usual squad: Geraldo Perez, IJBall, MPFitz1968, and Nyuszika7H.) Amaury ( talk | contribs) 04:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
It is suggested that a WP:SPLIT to season articles be done.
The entry at Zap2it, with the episode title "K.C. Undercover: The Final Chapter", doesn't indicate this to be the series finale, at least right now. So it is insufficient to use to back the episode's scheduled air date of February 2, 2018 as the date of the "Last aired" episode of season 3 or the series. Plus, "Last aired" in the series overview hasn't always meant the season finale date ... Bunk'd immediately comes to mind here if we're talking about Disney Channel in particular. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 17:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Amaury ( talk | contribs) 17:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Tbbttbbt ( talk) 17:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I've also posted about this here, so there's more discussion about this... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 14:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)