Talk:Dog with a Blog

Cast Photo

Can someone put on a cast photo the group photo has now been realesed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.49.194 (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Reception

Whenever a section is added that refers to ratings or the number of people that watched a show, it must be included with a link to a verifiable source. I saw the tweet from G Hannelius where she declared the amount of viewers that watched the show, but that is not verifiable reference. Most Wikipedia TV show entries use TV by the numbers or other reputable site which aggregates the Nielsen numbers for use by the general public. If the editor that added that (or any editor) can't find a reference to that number that is not from twitter, then it will have to be taken down. Thank you. Josborne2382 (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Disney press release I added to support the number should probably be replaced with something that can't be considered self-serving. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Kuma" in the infobox

As per the instructions for {{Infobox television}}, the starring field should include "the show's star or stars" with cast "listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show". "Kuma" does not appear in the credits, so should not be in the infobox. He is included in the cast section because MOS:TV#Cast information says "when organizing the cast section, please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time" and he is credited in press releases as being in a starring role.[1] -- AussieLegend (✉) 01:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

He is in the end credits so is not one of the starring actors who are listed in the opening credits. He is listed along with the animal trainers in the end credits. Doesn't belong in the infobox but does have a credit. The fact sheet lists Kuma/Mick as starring but that is not reflected in the actual show credits as of yet. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I must admit that I didn't bother checking the end credits, and haven't seen the second episode. I was assuming good faith when I made this edit. Silly me. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Kuma is still in the end credits only as of episode 6. I have only checked episode 1 and 6 so can't confirm any other ones. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Mick is in the end credits of episode 5. I checked and confirmed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts but I have to ask, do we really care who plays him? He's a dog and sometimes an animatronic puppet. He's not in the opening credits so is it really necessary to list his name? --AussieLegend (✉) 06:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I personally think the dog is effectively just a puppet, but as you noted above, he is mentioned in a reference as starring cast by the producers of the show. I am basically going by the guidance you gave originally and I am trying to keep things referenced and accurate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I realise that and you're doing a good job at keeping things accurate, but it seems unnecessary work for you. If you don't mind doing it I don't have a problem but I think we could probably just stick with Kuma/Mick per the source and not worry about which episodes are Mick and which are Kuma. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it will be necessary to continue keeping track of episodes, at least I wasn't planning to do that. An episode credit with each dog actor is sufficient to show both have an actual show credit and not just a mention in a press release. Enough to remove "credited" and "uncredited" from the description was my sole intent here and to do that I had to verify that there actually was a credit in some episode for each. The only reason I didn't put in Kuma/Mick originally was because of WP:SLASH. I didn't think that was correct unless it was in a direct quote. The references I put in are probably unnecessary and could be removed, but since I had the info for a proper cite it was trivial to add them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Kuma references

The following are not reliable sources:

Nellie Andreeva (April 13, 2012). "Disney Channel's Dog With a Blog family comedy picked up". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved April 13, 2012.

referenced info is in anonymous comments section attached to an otherwise reliable source. The comments are not part of the source article and don't inherit any reliability from it.

Danger Guerrero (october 16, 2012). "Dog With a Blog'-gate: Day Two: Inside Information About Kuma's Firing". Uproxx.com. Retrieved october 16, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)</ref>

Is republishing info from an unknown source and is explicitely not vouching for its accuracy and has stated he was too lazy to do any fact checking about this. Put out as a general interest rumor and tagged as such.

"Kuma fired from 'Dog With a Blog'". IMDB. November 9, 2012. Retrieved November 9, 2012.

IMDB is edited by anonymous people. See WP:IMDB and WP:RS/IMDB for more on why IMDB can't be used as a reference.

These sources are not usable in Wikipedia. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC) and Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

List new Episodes

For Dog With a Blog, I have recieved word that there are new episodes up to about 17. Source:http://dogwithablog.wikia.com99.241.104.114 (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Anonymous

Wikias are not reliable sources so can't be used as references. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Citation for Pasadena, California?

Why is there a citation tag on the statement that the show takes place in Pasadena, California? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Is mentioned on the episode 3 (Dog With a Hog). --Mega-buses (discusión / Talk) 02:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Page moves

In recent months there have been a few moves of this page to Dog with a Blog, supposedly in accordance with the MOS. However, despite assertions these moves are not uncontroversial, there are concerns over the correct capitalisation of the title, and future move proposals really need to be discussed as there are arguments for and against such moves. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how moving "With" to "with" would be controversial. In similar titles such as "Boy with a Basket of Fruit", "The Man with the Golden Gun" and "Girl with a Pearl Earring" the word "with" is not the first or last word, and thus should not be capitalized. Only prepositions with five or more letters are usually capitalized in these kind of titles. Widr (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Paintings that have existed for hundreds of years and 40-year-old movies are not reported by reliable sources every week using a consistent spelling and capitalisation as this TV series is reported. WP:COMMONNAME says we should use "commonly recognizable names" and capitalisation is part of that. It's why the television series remains at The Big Bang Theory despite much discussion arguing that the title should redirect to Big Bang. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the aforementioned grammar rule of prepositions. As far as I can see, most Wikipedia articles are adhering to this rule. It shouldn't really matter how Disney or newspapers choose to spell the title as it can hardly be considered a trademark à la "iTunes" where an exception would be justified. And if we talk about consistency, then the title should either be "Dog With A Blog" or "Dog with a Blog". Widr (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

News sources that report on the show use all the variations. It is not obvious that any of the capitalization variations are the WP:COMMONNAME. Even the official name has capitalization variations depending on which Disney site uses the name. I think most people familiar with normal English grammar rules expect the "with" to be lower case and wiki MOS expects that as well per MOS:CAPS#Composition_titles. The only exception to the four character preposition ("with" is a preposition) rule is compound prepositions. I used to think "With a" is a compound preposition and thus supported the current title. After some research into basic grammar, I no longer believe it is. Based on all this I would support the article move. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

In the move logs [2] I see the page has been moved 3 times by 3 different editors to "Dog with a Blog" and moved back [3] by one. The editor actions in the move log should be noted as part of any concensus about this issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Disney stylises the title on-screen with all lower case, as we discussed on your talk page.[4] As you pointed out, the press releases all use "Dog With a Blog" so we have some consistency there that editors will follow. As for the page moves, you originally moved the article to its current location,[5] which is the reason I reverted the first move, which wasn't even proposed properly.[6] Page moves are no different to making edits or adding PROD notices (as just two examples). Once they've been reverted they can't be treated as uncontroversial. This is one reason PROD notices can't be restored once they've been removed. After the first reversion, we need to request a move and discuss it per WP:RM, so the subsequent moves should never have been requested as uncontroversial. The latest one was flawed as it moved only this article, leaving the episode list and this article with different capitalisations. If we're going to move BOTH articles, we need to cross the "t"s and dot the "i"s properly. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The move to "Dog With A Blog" was the one I undid. I did support the original current title then. I now think I was wrong about the correct title for the article. Does this discussion meet the requirements of a controversial move per WP:RM or should we do the formal process at WP:RM/CM for a multi-page move? You added this section on the talk page and I considered changing to a move request but didn't want to change something I didn't do. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)