Talk:Best Friends Whenever

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disney Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Comedy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Best Friends Whenever was copied or moved into List of Best Friends Whenever episodes with this edit on June 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 as long as the latter page exists.

The contents of the List of Best Friends Whenever episodes page were merged into Best Friends Whenever on March 21, 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

I'd like to change the table heading background color to a lighter purple as the reference links are hard to see. I did it without discussion on Max & Shred without incident a while ago, but I know it's generally frowned upon to just change the colors (unless there are exceptions for cases like this that I'm unaware of?) without prior discussion. Geraldo Perez, you have a lot expertise or background in this area from what I've seen. Would you agree with this? Does it just matter that the sources are there or does it also matter that we can see the links with ease? Amaury (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As long as color conform to MOS:COLOR and nobody else cares be WP:BOLD and do it. Light colors with black text such as what is in the infobox would probably be fine. I generally don't care about colors other than for text readability. That issue is covered at WP:COLOR and related articles. Also it is best if the cite link is visible. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pick light background colors and check with this. Generally shoot for a contrast ratio .7 or better for readability. Can have less contrast for big bold text but still better to get .7 or better. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Geraldo Perez: Thanks! Useful link, by the way! That should be good for this show. Ratio was 6.61. Amaury (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per instructions at template:infobox television "Cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show". The list in the article itself should reflect the order in the infobox. A tautology - credit order is the order listed in the credits of the show itself and not some other location that is not the show. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed in the opening credits in the show, and as you point out Geraldo from this edit summary, Landry Bender is listed above Lauren Taylor, but Bender's name is also listed to the right and she is positioned to the right of Taylor in that frame. So, from that observation, I can see confusion occurring, as we normally read (or scan) from left to right. In this edit, you also point out the Royer twins are listed simultaneously, with Benjamin first, but there is not the same confusion as with the girls, as the names are positioned with one directly above the other (no right or left shifting of the names). MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For reference to others who will potentially join in on this discussion, here's the opening sequence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qdqAXjm0MM Amaury (talk) 06:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion is deliberate as the two lead actresses have equal billing on this show and that is the classic way of showing this. See Sam & Cat and Shake It Up for similar with equal billed co-leads. Generally for sequential lists, such as the ones in this article, we put equal billed actors in alphabetical order which is the way this article reads as of my sig time stamp. Generally, a classic way of showing equal billing of a bunch a major actors in film, list in alphabetical order and explicitly note in the credits that is how listed. In this show the leads are in alphabetical order per normal English reading rules, lines read in order top to bottom, then for each sequential line encountered, text in that line read left to right. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To add, one of the issues of article stability is editors reordering the lists to put their favorites first. We need to lock this down to head that off. Also there is the confusion from IMDb who list actors based on some internal-to-imdb star power metric when they want to break a tie and editors who think IMDb is a reliable source of info about this issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked IMDB at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4507442/fullcredits (archived snapshot of page) and cast credit order there now matches what is in this article and the credit order displayed on the first episode. IMDb uses star-power ratings until they get better info and it looks like IMDb changed after the first ep aired. Of course IMDb is not stable either and anonymous editors can get things changed (but IMDB does do some validation) so always best to use the episode itself as the authoritative source for this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So Disney took down the page for episode 7, and their episode list doesn't include it at all now. And Zap2it has changed the title to "Shake Your Booty", which is what Disney called it. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we should update the Zap2it reference and remove the other one, but I'll wait for someone else to comment first. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyuszika7H: I've gone ahead and updated it. Amaury (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now DisABCPress shows "Shake Your Booty" again, nothing has changed for that one. But the air date for "The Butterscotch Effect" is listed as August 19. Zap2it still says August 16. What's going on? nyuszika7h (talk) 09:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized it's August 17, and I guess since the info about the episode was added to the article, it was aired. So DisABCPress is wrong. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's on iTunes and Amazon now for sale and they contractually can't sell it until it after it has first aired. iTunes and Amazon both say aired Aug 16, 2015. Looks like press site used for promotion of future events wasn't updated with changes in schedule and what really happened. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are minor characters noteworthy? As far as I know, like we don't list co-stars as guest stars, we also don't list minor characters, those that only appeared once or twice and are never mentioned again. Amaury (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, just background. Should stick with starring cast and actors that at least get a guest star or higher credit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the section. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But some other Disney shows like Best Friends Whenever have a section for the minor characters. I just thought we should have one for this show as well. Singsweet23 (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then those articles are also wrong and the minor characters sections need to be removed. What are the other articles of Disney Channel shows that list minor characters? Amaury (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I actually meant Disney shows, which would also include Disney XD. But now that I think about it, there really are no Disney CHANNEL shows that have a Minor characters section. Singsweet23 (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be like Liv and Maddie, where the main characters are credited as "Liv Rooney" and "Maddie Rooney", but their full names are "Olivia Rooney" and "Madison Rooney". nyuszika7h (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel Press site says "Actor and singer Ricky Garcia stars as Naldo". For a top level article such as this one we should be emphasizing an out-of-universe perspective on the show so should stick with what official credits say, not names as revealed by show dialog as that is usually trivial info. Definitely must not just presume without show content that a name is a nickname for something else. If judged by editors to be non-trivial for that character, appropriate for the level of description given this and other characters and a fuller name has been revealed in the show, it may be appropriate to mention the reveal, with a reference to when and how in an episode, later in the description. The actor–character intro wording, though, should stick with the official credits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Geraldo Perez: I just mentioned this as a matter of fact. I agree with you. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Reynaldo was a nickname given to Naldo by Barry, so Naldo could be short for something. In that case, Naldo is his real name, and so far, only Barry calls him Reynaldo. Singsweet23 (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As we're not entirely sure which one's a nickname—for me personally, they both sound like full first names—we shouldn't assume that one or the other is a nickname and just leave it at "Barry calls him Reynaldo" or some form of. Amaury (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Barry calls him Reynaldo" is best as it doesn't make a editor judgement, just states the facts. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a spelling FYI - in ep1 (from iTunes) at time stamp 3:52 subtitles say "It's not a chest hair machine, Renaldo." About the best I can find for something official for "Renaldo" spelling although subtitles are sometimes wrong. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the characters in Best Friends Whenever have last names. I think we should add them. Here are a few examples:
Cyd Ripley
Shelby Marcus
Barry Eisenberg
Naldo Montoya
Singsweet23 (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For this level of article we are trying to maintain an out-of-universe perspective on the show. Names revealed in passing in an episode are just trivia. Actors have official credits and all the actor as character names shown in the article should match what the credits say the names are. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But people may want to know. I believe you should put as much information on the Wikipedia as possible. Singsweet23 (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is still unimportant trivia, that is not how the character is commonly known, credited and referred to. If the character description gets expanded significantly beyond just a actor, character, short description then a mention of a fuller name might be appropriate if it is well referenced to the episode, time in episode and context of the reveal, but that must be weighted against what level of detail is in the character description. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But in case you haven't noticed, there are other Disney Channel shows that have the surnames in it. Two examples are Liv and Maddie and Shake It Up. Singsweet23 (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In those cases, they are credited as such. However, they're not in Best Friends Whenever. Amaury (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, for my own edification, can someone give an example (e.g. another article) where it would be OK to include a non-credited character surname? I'm inclined to agree somewhat with Singsweet23 that such information probably is of interest to readers (and thus might be good if included somewhere in this article), even if I agree that such information would be wholly inappropriate for inclusion in, say, the lede or the "official" cast list. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Austin & Ally Occasionally has non-credited name enhancements (middle and last names) that some editors believe are significant to understanding the character but then they get removed by others who consider that info trivial. Part of the problem with adding stuff not in the credits or official show documentation is the difficulty of verification as this area does seem to be a WP:SNEAKY target with bogus name enhancements. If the name enhancement is included it should be well-referenced to a specific episode and time stamp and it should be more than just a passing mention, it should be significant to the character in some way. The first mention of cast–character should match the credits and additional names mentioned later in the description more than trivial mention. Usually this is more appropriate in a list of characters article with the credited name being a section header and the fuller name part of the section intro description. See List of Victorious characters and Victorious for example. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what would define "trivial mention" in this context? Would, for example, mention of a surname (or a middle name) in multiple episodes, as opposed to just one episode, then make it "non trivial"? TIA... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial would be a passing mention in dialog that is not otherwise expanded upon or of something textual or graphic seen in passing also not expanded upon in the episode plot. If the name reveal is significant to the plot of an episode and reveals something important about the character and that characters role in the series, it could be considered as important information. If the fuller name is used a lot in-universe to refer to the character to the point of becoming an alternate common name it could be considered for inclusion in the article. A lot of this is a judgement call. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, we'll need a reliable source to change it, but Nyuszika7H reverted this a while ago, and now I know where the IP got it from. Disney Channel's advertising commercial has been calling it Jump to the Future Lab. It's kind of similar to how Zap2it had A Time to Boogie for the longest time before finally updating it to Shake Your Booty because that's what Disney Channel was advertising it as.

I'm sure our good ol' reliable sources will update soon since it premieres on Sunday. Amaury (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No updates, at least yet, from DisneyABCPress or Zap2it on the title. However, TV Guide shows it as "Jump to the Future Lab", as does the TV listing on my Xfinity cable. May be premature to make change to the article; want to make sure that the TV Guide link I provided is reliable. MPFitz1968 (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, best to wait for now and see. Our DirecTV listings say Back to the Future Lab. Amaury (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just double-checked WP:TVFAQ: TV Guide is okay. MPFitz1968 (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added as an alternate title. Amaury (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This description is way too long. The description

Cyd and Shelby discover that Janet Smythe is the one behind the future lab; with the help of Barry and Naldo, they also discover that on August 27, 1991, Janet was shocked by a lamp at her desk. Since then she vowed to turn everything into wireless technology. Cyd and Shelby jump back to the day, but activate a trap and jump back. They continue to activate traps and jump back each time, but start noticing that their power is glitching up. As the next time travel they have could be their last, which they need to go back home, they make their last attempt at breaking lamp count. They successfully break Janet's lamp, but severely mess up the future. Upon returning from their time travel jump, Cyd ends up in Peru with her parents and Shelby ends up in Alaska with her parents after her father, because GloboDigiDyne didn't exist, could not find a stable job in Portland. The girls make a plan to meet each other in Portland so they can time travel and make sure Shelby's dad gets a solid job in Portland. Shelby ends up going to her old house to wait for Cyd and discovers that Barry and Naldo hardly recognize her from when she used to live there. Things take a bad turn when it turns out that Janet is now living at Shelby's house; however, it appears as though she doesn't remember what happened back on August 27, 1991. Janet invites Shelby inside for cookies and Shelby texts Cyd that Janet isn't evil like she thought she was. However, when Shelby attempts to say thank you and leave and doesn't get a response, she decided to go up to her old room only to discover that Janet does indeed remember that girls. Janet then ties up Shelby and waits for Cyd to show up. When Shelby's phone beeps because Cyd sent her a text message, Janet grabs her phone and pretends to be Shelby, which Cyd falls for. When Cyd gets inside, she tells Janet she'd rather wait outside because that's where Shelby said they'd meet, but as Janet turns around to go back inside, Cyd receives a text from "Shelby", telling that there was a change of plans and to meet her inside. When Cyd gets upstairs, Janet ties her up as well. Shortly after, Barry, Naldo, and Marci come upstairs and discover what's going on and are then tied up themselves. Eventually, Janet tries to force Shelby into the molecular disrupter, but Cyd offers to go first because she can't watch that happen to her friend. Shelby manages to get free thanks to Diesel's spiky collar, but is too late to help Cyd, especially after repeatedly being hit by lasers. However, as Shelby begins losing hope, it turns out Cyd tricked Janet when she came out from behind the molecular disrupter and shocked Janet unconscious. Cyd and Shelby then jump back to August 27, 1991, again and make sure that the lamp shocks her. However, while they fix things, just like when they jumped back to the 1970s in Shake Your Booty, they leave particles behind, which Janet captures. While all this happens, Naldo is also helping Barry work up the courage to tell Marci he likes her. Eventually, they have a date, and despite working so hard to prove to Naldo that they don't like each other, Barry discovers he likes Marci and Marci likes him. Both of them then go in for a kiss, but as they're about to do it, the timeline resets from Cyd and Shelby breaking the lamp. Then in the timeline when GloboDigiDyne doesn't exist, Naldo is once again helping Barry work up the courage to tell Marci he likes her, and like before, it's discovered Marci likes Barry. However, also like before, when Cyd and Shelby go back to fix things after Cyd defeats Janet, the timeline resets, but before it does, Barry vows he won't forget that he likes Marci.

clocks out at 667 words. This is almost as long as a film plot. Can someone shorten this please? 100.12.206.17 (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged the episode's summary so others can see it needs to be shortened. I did have thought about whether this episode should have its own article, but I doubt it is notable enough for that. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MPFitz1968: I'm the one who wrote the summary. If it turns out to need to be shortened, feel more than free to do so yourself. I know you're good at this stuff from your summaries for Girl Meets World. :) Amaury (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gave it a shot: got it down from 667 words to 428, but still more than the recommended, even for a complex storyline (350 words vs. normal 100-200). I deemed the details of the episode to be such that I'm thinking the story is at least somewhat complex, so found myself retaining a decent part where Janet is seeking her revenge against the girls in the alternate timeline. I trimmed the date where they went back to just 1991; I don't think putting out the full date is necessary. The part about Barry liking Marci in the different timeline, where the girls later attempt to make that so in the original timeline, is a B-story and I've cut it from the summary. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MPFitz1968: Looks good. I just made a small correction: Cyd and Shelby didn't keep going back to the present when they ran into traps, they kept going back to when they first arrived in the 1991 lab. Amaury (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Cyd and Shelby tripped one trap at a time. Each time they sprung a trap, Janet caught them and they jumped back to avoid the trap, 100.12.206.17 (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded that part. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MPFitz1968: Actually, Barry got together with Marci in the original timeline, before the girls changed it twice. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a related, but different, topic concerning this episode, "Cyd and Shelby Strike Back", the column reference used to confirm air dates, Zap2it, shows the episode as S1E11 and S1E12. This edit had me checking that information, and based on how Zap2it shows things, this would appear to be a valid edit. However, the episode aired, and continues to air on Disney Channel, as a one-hour piece, not two separate parts. Disney ABC Press also shows it as one episode, with one production code. Thus, despite Zap2it, the edit is being reverted. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The viewing info reference for the episode also shows it occupying a 60 minute slot. Amazon shows it lasting 48 minutes. Zap2it planning info gets overridden by what actually happened. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're two episodes that are aired back-to-back. That they occupy one contiguous slot in a schedule guide doesn't mean anything; that is standard formatting within schedule guides for when two episodes are aired back-to-back.

Compare, for example, two other ABC-produced television series, Once Upon a Time and Revenge. At list of Once Upon a Time episodes, season 4 episodes 21 and 22 both shared the overall supertitle "Operation Mongoose" and were aired back-to-back and shown as occupying one contiguous slot on television schedule guides, but they were two episodes with two production codes and two actual titles: "Operation Mongoose, Part 1" and "Operation Mongoose, Part 2". At Revenge (season 2), season 2 episodes 21 and 22 both shared the overall supertitle "Truth" and were aired back-to-back and shown as occupying one contiguous slot on television schedule guides, but they were two episodes with two production codes and two actual titles: "Truth, Part 1" and "Truth, Part 2".

Contrary to the claim that "Disney ABC Press also shows it as one episode, with one production code", the press release [1] actually shows it as two episodes, with two production codes, 111 and 112. That's also why the titles are "Cyd and Shelby Strike Back, Part 1" and "Cyd and Shelby Strike Back, Part 2", not simply "Cyd and Shelby Strike Back". IMDB also lists it as two episodes [2]. The two episodes were aired back-to-back in their first airing, but there is no guarantee that they will be aired contiguously in further repeat airings, or in syndication.

—Lowellian (reply) 02:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.thefutoncritic.com/listings/20151027disney19/ said "Special One-Hour Event Premiere" - single episode. The fact that two production slots were used to create this single episode is interesting production info but does not inform on the final created product. These were not two episodes shown back-to-back but a single creations with one set of credits. Reflected on what was actually shown and what is currently being sold on Amazon and iTunes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Also see the episode listed on Amazon, where it's sold as a 48-minute episode, a clear indicative that it's one episode, regardless of whether it has one or two production codes. There are shows, yes, where two separate episodes are put together to form an hour long showing, such as the first two episodes of Digimon Tamers—Guilmon Comes Alive and Digimon, Digimon Everywhere—and the last two episodes of Digimon Tamers—Jeri Fights Back and Such Sweet Sorrow—but notice that they have duration lengths of 21, 20, 21, and 21 minutes. Amaury (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"One-hour event premiere" does not imply "single episode". It's two half-hour episodes that were aired back-to-back as a "one-hour event". Best Friends Whenever is normally a half-hour show. Compare [3] where Once Upon a Time (normally a full-hour show) episodes 21 and 22 are described as a "two-hour season finale" when aired back-to-back or [4] where Revenge (normally a full-hour show) episodes 21 and 22 are described as a "two-hour season finale event" when aired back-to-back.

Amazon and iTunes are third-party sellers who can, if they so desire, package multiple episodes together for sale; that does not stop them from being multiple episodes. Also note that the price being charged for the package is double the normal price of an episode, because it is two episodes, not one.

Third-party sellers do not have precedence over the original creator. The two episodes were produced and marked as two episodes by the production company and the original broadcaster.

—Lowellian (reply) 02:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this case this was not two separate episodes shown back-to-back but a single episode with one set of credits. We are trying to document what is actually broadcast, by the original creator, and sold in this article - other article may have different goals. Amazon and iTunes are resellers of what is provided to them by Disney, they do not have the freedom to repackage what is given to them to sell. See iTunes and Amazon shown as single creation. Higher price just reflect that it is a longer episode, but it is still one episode as produced, broadcast and sold. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "We are trying to document what is actually broadcast, by the original creator": Then by your own argument, it is two episodes. The original creator produced and broadcast two episodes, hence the two production codes. Just because the episodes were broadcast back-to-back does not make them one episode. Re: "other article may have different goals": it is absurd to argue that this article should ignore the standards and precedents set by other articles of the same type (lists of television episodes) in the same encyclopedia. —Lowellian (reply) 02:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is if that's how Disney tells them to sell it as Geraldo already stated. They can't just arbitrarily change an episode to be one episode or vice-versa. One set of credits equals one episode. Production codes really mean nothing and are just for internal purposes. Now, if there had been a "to be continued..." after 30 minutes followed by end credits and the opening sequence again for the next 30 minutes with another set of end credits at the end, then an argument could be made. However, that's not how it was distributed. Amaury (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party retailers have latitude in how they package things for sale. If a retailer were to sell four wheels as a package for a car, that doesn't magically make the four wheels a single wheel. The aforementioned back-to-back-aired episodes of Once Upon a Time and Revenge did not have "to be continued" followed by end credits between the two episodes either, and yet they were still treated as two episodes not only by their original producers but also in how Wikipedia has listed them. When television networks air multiple episodes back to back, it is standard practice to not air end credits between them, so as to not mislead viewers into thinking that no more episodes of the show will be aired. That does not change the fact that they remain multiple episodes. —Lowellian (reply) 03:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is wrong for other articles to consider single episodes as being two, sometimes three, when they obviously were not broadcast and sold that way, just because they were longer than normal and more production resources, reflected by the production codes, went in to making them. We shouldn't care what went in to the creation process, only the final finished product that resulted. Other article that care more about the process than the result are doing it wrong but that is an issue to be worked elsewhere. Amazon and iTunes do not have the choice of how to split or combine things, they sell what is provided to them and what they sell reflects the creative intent of the producers. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, they were broadcast as two episodes -- two episodes back-to-back. Putting two things side-by-side does not make them one thing. If a pet store were to put two puppies side-by-side and sell them together, at the same time, they would still be two puppies, not one. And if Amazon and iTunes really considered them to be one episode, then why are they selling them at double the price? Because they're not one episode; they're two episodes sold together as a package. —Lowellian (reply) 03:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to compare apples to oranges. Episodes that are an hour are more expensive because of the longer running time, not because they're two episodes. Amaury (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, they don't. Obviously, you misunderstood what I said. If there had been a "to be continued..." at the end of 30 minutes, then an argument could be made that it is two episodes. However, there wasn't and therefore it is one episode, regardless of whether it has one or two production codes. Again, one set of credits means one episode, regardless of whether that episode is 30 minutes or an hour. Amaury (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except, by your argument, those episodes of Once Upon a Time and Revenge weren't two episodes either, since they didn't have "to be continued" and end credits when they were aired back-to-back. But both the producers and Wikipedia regard them as two episodes, not one. —Lowellian (reply) 03:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not every case is the same. That was merely an example, and there are obviously different indicators, such as how they're sold on sites like Amazon and iTunes. If that's how those articles are doing it, then they're wrong. Amaury (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The producers intent is demonstrated on what they actually do (broadcast and sell), not on what they say. The production team generally thinks in terms of production slots, but the end product speaks for itself. How some articles on wiki choose to document television series is a choice and it is a mistake in my view to document other than the final finished product. Generally not worth the disruption (links to #epxx anchors for inbounds is a big one) to try to change numbering for established articles but that should set no precedent to do it wrong on newer series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not sure where to best indent...) The rule of thumb observed by most Wikiproject Television members is that if an episode is aired back-to-back, and there are no end/start credits at the halfway mark, the program is considered one episode. If there are end/start credits in the middle, they are considered two episodes. The production codes are not always material, as they are used for internal accounting and logistical purposes (Tracking labor, expenses, overtime, assets, setting up locations, etc.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have to be careful here – you say one set of credits means "one broadcast". But in the case of the Once Upon a Time and Revenge examples given above, I'm nearly certain that "one set of credits" had a "[writer] (Part 1)" and a "[writer] (Part 2)", and a "[director] (Part 1)" and a "[director] (Part 2)" listed. I think that makes a pretty good argument for counting them as two separate episodes. Now, in the case of the 30-minute shows like BFW getting expanded to one hour, I suspect they still have one set of writers and one director, which makes a pretty strong case for counting it as a single one-hour "special" episode rather than two. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the case with everything, though. For example, some episodes of Lab Rats/Lab Rats: Bionic Island and K.C. Undercover have part one and two credits, but are indeed one episode. Amaury (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) One other point: you also have to see how they're aired in (rerun) syndication. Again, in the Once Upon a Time and Revenge examples, I'd be willing to bet that when the examples above are aired in strip syndication, these kinds of episodes get split into two. OTOH, I've noticed in the case of the Disney (and NICK) one-hour "special" episodes, they never get split in reruns, and are always aired in a one-hour block. Again, in the case of things like Best Friends Whenever, this makes a pretty strong case for counting them as a single episode, not "two episodes". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The two halves of the episode were separately produced but then merged to create the finished product. Possible for differences in cast and crew for each half because of that. Usually there will be a single set of opening and ending credits that merge the cast and crew of each part that went into the finished episode and the crew that differs for each part will be reflected in the credits and labelled where they contributed. Still one episode even if it has two directors and multiple writers. What gets aired in syndication might differ a lot of ways from what is aired in the first run including actual content to shorten the episode to permit more commercials and split long episodes into two for syndication scheduling slots. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm... uncomfortable with the idea that the "premiere" airing is the only thing that counts when determining this. For the one-hour drama series, there really is a substantive difference between two production episodes that in their "premiere" airing were aired as "two-hour special" (e.g. usually season premieres and season finales), and something that is actually produced to be a two-hour "TV movie" (e.g. say, Homicide: The Movie). I really do think how these things are aired in reruns is important supporting evidence as to what's really intended in cases like these, especially if separate episode credits are included in the reairings. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: It is reasonable to look at reruns during the same season to see what they do with long specials. If they get re run split that is a strong argument for them to be documented that way. Syndication is different and I don't think what happens there needs to be considered. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @IJBall: I definitely agree there. This was the case when the third season of Digimon—Digimon Tamers—premiered and ended as I mentioned above. Guilmon Comes Alive (#1) and Digimon, Digimon Everywhere (#2) aired together as an hour special and Jeri Fights Back (#50) and Such Sweet Sorrow (#51) aired together as an hour special when they first premiered, but succeeding reruns had them air as separate episodes. That's another way to tell when something is two separate episodes—the titles as well as having Part 1, Part 2, etc. in the title, though the latter's never fully accurate as there are sometimes episodes like The Vanishing from Lab Rats\Lab Rats: Bionic Island, its finale, that are supposed to be an hour special, but end up airing as two or more separate episodes. Amaury (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I've seen those one-hour Lab Rats episodes on Disney XD, it's always aired as a single one-hour episode – I don't think I've ever seen them split. But this has prompted me to notice that there's a mistake on this at List of Victorious episodes ("Tori Goes Platinum" always airs as a one-hour episode, and is never split, so it should be one entry at the list episode)... Anyway, with the Disney and NICK ones, I really feel like the evidence is virtually iron-clad that they're single one-hour long "special" episodes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: Definitely. Vice-versa, there are even times, though not always, when two separate episodes air as an hour special as reruns. One example that comes to mind is Henry Danger's Henry and the Bad Girl, which has two parts. Amaury (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional info to add to this discussion – the U.S. Copyright Office has 2 separate entries for Revenge's "Truth": [5] [6]; and Once Upon a Times's "Operation Mongoose": [7] [8], but just one entry for things like "When Tori Goes Platinum" [9]. FWIW... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The US copyright entry for "When Tori Goes Platinum" [10] reads, exact quote:

"Application Title: Victorious - Eps. 315/316 - Tori Goes Platinum - Part 1 & Part 2."

That is "Eps." with a plural "-s", as in two episodes, not one.

—Lowellian (reply) 01:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're referring to the production codes, not the actual episodes. Tori Goes Platinum is sold as a 46-minute episode on Amazon; therefore, it is one episode. Amaury (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that "they're referring to the production codes, not the actual episodes" is absurd considering that copyright entry literally says plural episodes. So, no, it's not just referring to production codes; the evidence is there, spelled right out in front of you. Wikipedia policy is that we write what is sourced and verifiable, and that right there is it. —Lowellian (reply) 04:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) And everything is according to policy. The fact that you can't accept that isn't my fault. Amaury (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, while "Truth" (Parts 1 & 2) and ""Operation Mongoose" (Parts 1 & 2) are both sold as separate one-hour episodes on iTunes, so that's more supporting evidence for treating them as separate episodes... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That iTunes argument has already been made above. Since you're just repeating the argument, I'll repeat again why it has no merit. Third-party retailers have latitude in how they package things for sale. If a retailer were to sell four wheels in one box as a single package for a car, that doesn't make the four wheels a single wheel. The original creator has precedence, and the original creators produced the two episodes as two episodes. —Lowellian (reply) 04:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, they do not have latitude. How many times do we have to say this before it sticks? You're also repeating the same arguments, except yours are wrong. Amazon, iTunes, and other vendors sell stuff how networks tell them to. They have no choice how to sell stuff, and if they did sell something how they weren't told to by the networks, there would be legal issues. Get off your high horse and accept that you can't always be right. Amaury (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That the networks and the retailers have contracts with each other do not change the fundamental nature of the underlying product. If a tire manufacturer and a tire retailer agree that the tire retailer will sell four tires as a package for cars, the four tires don't become one tire. —Lowellian (reply) 13:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are once again trying to compare apples to oranges. Come back when you actually have an argument. Right now your arguments are a bunch of empty talk. You're in the minority here as you're the only one who can't or refuses to understand it. Amaury (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I find that an uncompelling argument – there's a reason it's one entry in the database and not two separate ones like all the other 30-minute Victorious episodes. But the bottom line is, again, "Tori Goes Platinum" never airs as (or is sold as) anything but a one-hour episode with one set of credits. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Disney's one-hour specials are almost always split into two episodes for syndication, at least in Hungary and Czech Republic, and on Netflix; even episodes like K.C. Undercover's "Double Crossed Part 1" get split, making it four parts. But I don't think syndication matters here. Netflix has the one-hour special combined episode "Lab Rats vs. Mighty Med" as a separate half-hour episode for each show, and the actors from the other show are credited as "Special guest star", OTOH in the original airing and what's sold on Amazon/iTunes, all of them get a "Starring" credit at the beginning, and it has one set of credits. I agree that one set of credits generally means one episode, I'd say even for episodes with separate Part 1/Part 2 director and writer credits at the beginning. If we had to split those, we'd end up with "Double Crossed Part 1 (Part 1)", "Double Crossed Part 1 (Part 2)", "Double Crossed Part 2", and "Double Crossed Part 3" for K.C. Undercover.

For Once Upon a Time, it's a bit complicated because the show's creators are referring to a particular episode as the 100th episode and some editors have the desire to make it actually show up as the 100th episode. It might be best to leave that one alone, but it shouldn't set a precedent to do it wrong on other show articles. – nyuszika7h (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Once Upon a Time article did it right, and this article should follow its example. The right way to count episodes is however the creators themselves count the episodes, per Wikipedia:Verifiability ("Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors."). OUAT's creators count the episodes in question as two episodes, so they are two episodes. Best Friends Whenever's creators count the episodes in question as two episodes, so they are two episodes. —Lowellian (reply) 13:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're resorting to ridiculous arguments. It's not original research, as it's supported by retailers such as Amazon and iTunes, and as you have been told multiple times, they do not get to choose to repackage the episodes. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyuszika7H: Agreed. As Geraldo mentioned when we had this discussion on Talk:List of Zoey 101 episodes, unless there is strong commitment to also fix inbound links in the main and list of characters articles, like I did with Liv and Maddie, it's generally best to leave things alone even when they're wrong.

In any case, even with those shows it's not that complicated, either, if you think about it. Some networks' shows' standard running times are 60 minutes with commercials, though most networks' shows' standard running times are 30 minutes, such as those by Nickelodeon and Disney. So when an episode is put together as a single 60-minute episode on Disney, there can also be single 90-minute or 120-minute episodes on networks whose shows' standard running times are 60 minutes.

There are also cases where series premieres are advertised as movies and air as such, which is the case with Henry Danger and 100 Things to Do Before High School, for example. What, are we going to start saying those are two episodes put together? This user who started the discussion either can't or refuses to understand it. Amaury (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, on that point you're totally right – something like iParty With Victorious is clearly meant to me a single 90-minute "TV movie", and splitting something like that into 3 separate list entries just based on prod. codes would be patently absurd. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Once Upon a Time's (and Revenge's) list is doing it right, and I've provided supporting evidence for that. But that doesn't mean that what is being done with the Disney and NICK one-hour episodes isn't also correct. Your continuing to ignore the massive broadcast and streaming evidence in support of leaving these listed as single one-hour episodes isn't helping anything. More to the point, like it or not, you don't have the consensus in your favor (it's at least four editors to one on this question), and with plenty of verification to support how it's being done here now, you don't have an basis for overturning it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source being cited by the IP is an official Disney press release, not a blog. See Talk:K.C. Undercover#Last names for more info. – nyuszika7h (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized why Amaury thought it's a blog. It does say "Blog" at the top, but it's still pretty clear to me that it's an official press release. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Fight the Future Part 3" really the "season finale"? I know that's what Zap2It is indicating, but that's only episode #19 (by prod. codes). Can anyone produce a source showing that only 19 episodes were ordered or filmed? It would be very unusual for this show to have done 19 episodes rather than 20 – while odd-number orders like that are more usual over at NICK, they seem much less common at Disney. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange, because the press release only says "Episode Premiere" instead of "Season Finale" too, but similar things happen (like the Lab Rats finale not being indicated as such), so until we know more I think it's fine to call it the season finale per Zap2it. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really that strange. Austin & Ally's first season and I Didn't Do It's second season both had 19 episodes. Nicky, Ricky, Dicky, and Dawn's upcoming third season, as of now, will have 14 episodes. Amaury (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed at TV Guide, they have labeled the episodes for the week of July 25 thru 29 as episodes 19 to 23 in season one [11]. As Zap2it, Futon Critic, and Disney ABC Press all identify the episodes as the first five in season two, I will leave things as is in the article. I just found it weird that TV Guide has it the way they do. (Their numbering also shows up in the TV listings for my cable provider, Comcast.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, these episodes are definitely part of season two. There was even a commercial yesterday on Disney Channel talking about the second season premiere of the show for this week's week of premieres. I know for a while before the premiere of the second season for Kirby Buckets (October 7, 2015) and Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything (July 18, 2016), the season two episodes were showing under season one on Zap2it, but that eventually got fixed. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How we're going to count "Revenge of the Past" is problematic. While it aired as a 1-hour finale on Dec. 11, I believe "Part 1" aired by itself on Dec. 4. Anyone have any ideas on how we want to handle this?... Based on the Dec. 4 airing, I'm thinking we should count it as two separate episodes... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh... maybe my DVR guide got that wrong... I'll have to check my DVR when I get home tonight... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: Yeah, I'm guessing there's a mistake on whatever your satellite provider uses for their scheduling guide. December 4's episode was the Christmas episode: The Christmas Curse. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my DVR definitely lists it as "Revenge of the Past (Part 1)". But I haven't watched that recording yet, so I'm not sure if it really is that, or the Christmas episode listed under the wrong title... Like I said, I'll check that soon. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear whether Disney Channel has officially cancelled the show, though recent edits being backed by unreliable sources or what actors have said suggest it has, such as [12][13][14][15]. First, an actor does not speak on behalf of the show or Disney Channel regarding decisions about cancellations or renewals. And second, please read the guideline regarding reliable sources carefully about what may support any statement made about the show in the article.

As this article is currently 30/500 protected until mid-April, relatively few will edit the article, but those who are, particularly regarding this show's future (or lack of one): the above is a reminder of your responsibility when you add such info. Thanks. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Kamp's unverified twitter can't even be used for info about the actor, let along statements about the show. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Futon Critic, whom I usually consider the "gold standard" about info like this, has nothing. Now, all that said, I find it very plausible that the show is indeed done – everything from the shortened second season, to its current status of infrequent latenight reruns, all point in that direction. But, without a WP:RS to back it up, we're stuck. I think I am going to put the "end date" parameter "on a clock" now, though, just to be safe... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: Does a short season by itself necessarily mean cancellation, and why do you think a short season means cancellation? It could be by design for whatever reason. School of Rock, for example, with two short seasons will be coming back with a regularly-sized third season and potentially a fourth season depending on if things go well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BFW got a far smaller second season order than the other Disney Channel shows it's contemporaneous with (e.g. K.C. Undercover & Bunk'd; there seems to be no word on how many episodes Bizaardvark's and Stuck in the Middle's second seasons are for, but I'd willing to bet the latter got at least a 20-episode order...). That's generally a bad sign. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: Which is odd because its first season did so well with an average of 1.84 million, a little higher than Bunk'd and Stuck in the Middle's first seasons and 1.76 million and 1.60 million, respectively. I'm not sure on the 18–49, though, which I know they pay attention to more than the total viewers. I'll have to see what comes to when I get to Best Friends Whernever and Bunk'd in my sandbox. But in any case, why renew if they thought it was doing so bad? Although I will say with Disney Channel's sitcoms, they all get at least two seasons, and if the first reason does meh, then the second season is a second chance at getting good ratings. If things do improve, then they get a third season; if they don't, no third season. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was more than just a short season, they burned it off. The first 5 eps were aired daily one week then another 4 eps in another week about a month later, then the finale weekend. 2 overall weeks to air an entire season. Writing was on the wall.ColdHardDrewth (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I suppose Bunk'd and Stuck in the Middle were just being burned off? I suppose The Thundermans season two was just being burned off so they could cancel it? And yet, these series are still running. Having a week of premieres does not mean a series is over. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: We'll need to keep an eye at the BFW actor articles as well on this – somebody has already tried to put a "close date" on BFW at Landry Bender... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forever in Your Mind I'm already watching. The other two actors with articles have been added to my list. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This ([16]) probably doesn't count as a WP:RS either (I have no idea if Tumblr has "verified accounts"), but it seems to be getting closer to getting us a bona fide confirmation... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that tvseriesfinale.com site regarding WP:RS - TheTVGuy66, who made edits here about the series ending [17], made edits at List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel as well about it [18] - using that source in both cases. I partially reverted at the latter article [19]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the need for "legit" sources but it IS over. The dude who makes the show even replied to me personally on Twitter and said to look for his next project. Also this Just Jared article. Nevermind, apparently JustJaredJr dot come is a blacklisted site? Um. okay. ColdHardDrewth (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Until we have word from an official source or one year has passed since the series' last new episode and nothing has been announced, the series is still assumed to be running. So no, it's not over as you claim. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty obvious that the show is over, we just don't have and probably will never get, an official word from the network. However, a tweet from the verified account of the show runner (Jed Elinoff or Scott Thomas) who can speak for the production and are WP:SPS about the show should be sufficient as a reference. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, can any one produce a Twitter post from a verified account of either Jed Elinoff and Scott Thomas about cancellation?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the problem is, neither Twitter account for Jed Elinoff or Scott Thomas is verified – which is too bad, as there are a series of tweets that confirm both the season #2 finale date, and the show's apparent cancellation, at the Scott Thomas one. But if it's unverified, we can't use it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking we can use a primary source for information if some other reliable source connects the source to the proper person and that that person controls that primary source. Twitter verification is using twitter itself for that, but that is not the only way that would work. A verified twitter account of someone who both personally knows that person and follows that person's twitter feed would be sufficient to make the connection. A follow by the network itself would be best but a verified main actor account following the show runner should be sufficient. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Twitter guy, so that's all above my pay grade. I'll leave it to somebody else to figure out if we can use Scott Thomas' twitter or not... What I did get out of that, though, is that the show is definitely cancelled. We just need to find some kind of source that we can use to verify it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TWITTER actually covers this with "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" being the issue here. Verified by twitter is sufficient to meet that requirement and is an easy test, it is not the only way. People not prone to collect posers don't generally get verified. Show that a verified account of someone who would be expected to know Scott Thomas follows that twitter and we can use his twitter account for info he would be expected to know. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about this from M Magazine? (I'm thinking this and J-14 have the same publisher, from what I see there, but not sure if fully reliable.) Used by DJV11181988 in edits at this article, List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel and List of Disney Channel series to back the show's cancellation. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M-Magazine looks more like a gossip-type to me, so not reliable. Something from Variety or Deadline would be reliable. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If tvseriesfinale.com was using something reliable, rather than a Tumblr post, we could have used that. But since they are, we can't... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nyuszika7H added in the M Magazine source to back the cancellation. I won't touch the edit, though there's still dispute about the reliability of that source. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MPFitz1968: Sorry, I didn't see this discussion. I only heard the news yesterday on a Hungarian blog, and went looking for a source that would be acceptable here. It may not be the most reliable of sources, but it's certainly not like the Daily Mail, and it backs the claims with tweets from verified accounts of multiple cast members (although not the showrunner, which would be preferable). I think this secondary source which also cites tweets is good enough for now. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the tweets from Scott Thomas covering this though? I can't see anything obvious here except the "Whenever and forever" tweet retweeted from Landry Bender which doesn't imply anything on its own. There's nothing even on the (also unverified) BFW Writers' Room account about the cancellation. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this. The M Magazine article quotes from multiple verified accounts from BFW cast members (as well as some that are unverified) – this doesn't quite get us where we need to get to in terms of verifiability, but in the aggregate I think it merits not being removed. (That said, I am tempted to tag it with a {{better source needed}} tag...) To answer Nyuszika7H's question – I'm wondering if Scott Thomas deleted the tweet I saw earlier: I believe when I checked before, he retweeted Landry Bender's message or something, but I don't see it at his Twitter feed now. So he must have deleted it. I don't know if that means there is still some tiny hope for a season #3, or just that Thomas "got in trouble" for posting that tweet and subsequently deleted it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disney ABC Press no longer has the series on their site ... attempting to go there thru this link produces the infamous error 404. Making mention here as I don't know if this is suitable evidence to indicate the series is officially over. (I also made note that Girl Meets World is also no longer on the site, but Liv and Maddie still is, despite that series ending.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I don't think anyone seriously contests the proposition that the show is over. (Ditto Lab Rats: Elite Force.) But the issue is that we still have no "official" confirmation of this. The fact is, though, that Disney Channel and Nickelodeon pretty much never "officially cancel" their (not-"ended") TV shows (or, at least, never "officially announce" their cancellations). From Wikipedia's standpoint, as we are more of a "historical record" of events, I still think it is "no big deal" that we need to wait a year before updating these series with "end dates" – we should not be rushed by impatient IP editors on this, IMHO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latest source introduced in this edit by 76.168.225.228 [20], while reliable, doesn't directly address that Disney Channel officially cancelled the show. The IP asserts in the hidden comment they added Article states how the show was getting low ratings and uses past tense "didn't" instead of "don't" meaning that the show is over, and this is coming from the president of the network. The exact excerpt they are referring to in the source says: "On the Disney Channel, some new shows, such as 'I Didn't Do It' and 'Best Friends Whenever' didn't click with kids, which contributed to the ratings decline." The assertion that the past tense use in the sentence means that Disney Channel cancelled BFW is insufficient to make that connection - purely improper synthesis of the source, a form of original research. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I found this from June 30. Can that be used to justify adding the end date? Of course it will have to be sourced if yes, at least until a year passes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amaury: Sounds good to me, that's a pretty reliable source. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait until tomorrow just to see if anyone else has any feedback, and if there are no objections, I'll make the changes accordingly. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amaury: Looks good to me too. --Thnidu (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Best Friends Whenever episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=disney%20best%20friends%20whenever&Search_Code=TALL&PID=upMtFwDLazz8ECFRW3DmEUeMRbI&SEQ=20160319172808&CNT=25&HIST=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150529054103/http://www.disneyabcpress.com/disneychannel/shows/best-friends-whenever/episodes/ to http://www.disneyabcpress.com/disneychannel/shows/best-friends-whenever/episodes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The actor link is a redirect to a music group called Forever in Your Mind, which Garcia has been in since before his acting in Best Friends Whenever. I'm concerned that having the link in the article will cause confusion when clicked on. Readers expect an article about the actor, but instead they'd get a music group he's in, not related at all to his acting ... and per WP:EASTEREGG, this shouldn't be linked. Granted, the article about the group has some info about Garcia's acting (though it also has some acting projects from its other members), but readers would want more info about the actor, not his music group. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the discussion, but I inquired Geraldo Perez about this a long time ago, and he said he thought it was okay to include since Ricky Garcia is part of the band and the page has some info about him. It's not just a self-redirect back to the series article. (Although editors really need to communicate to get their edit reasoning across.) Amaury • 18:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have adjusted the redirect a little to point to the Television section of the Forever in Your Mind article. Might be a little better in connecting to what readers want, but as I said, it isn't a whole lot about Garcia. I did reread the section and it says the show's theme song is from the group, so there is some connection between the group and this show, but that's about all the connection. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is at least some info about him at the new redirect target so WP:EGG issues are covered. I generally don't like redirects to projects when there are multiple ones that just mentioned the person, but at least this one has some info about him beyond just a mention. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]