Jump to content

Talk:List of Hannah Montana episodes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bert-Healy (talk | contribs) at 20:54, 3 October 2007 (→‎No Sugar, Sugar: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1: Page created to July 2007

2nd episode article review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following is an episode review discussion that is intended to evaluate articles for individual episodes. See WP:TV-REVIEW and WP:EPISODE for more info.

Per WP:EPISODE, not every episode of a TV show should likely have an individual article. This can be for many reasons, such as notability or sources, or even just what format fits best for that show.

The review process for episode articles is evolving. This set of episode articles has already been reviewed once on a separate page (see below). Due to some concerns about people not knowing about the review, as well as simply experimenting with reviewing the same set twice, we're opening a second discussion.

The following articles lack real world information, besides basic infobox stuff:

The following have Neilsan ratings:

While the ratings is a start, as noted on the first review, one can easily place this same info in a list of episodes.

As with the first review, I still support redirecting all the articles to the list of episodes, and possibly expanding the episode table to include the TV ratings. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just found that all of these episode articles were AfD'ed not too long ago, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly, Do You Want to Know a Secret?. The closing admin stated the consensus to be keep/merge, and recommended further discussion (which, I guess is what you can say we are doing now). Feel free to review the AfD comments as well. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Click "Show" to view the first review discussion →
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Discussion

In the first place, I think everyone agrees that Hannah Montana is quite notable. My opinion is that plot summaries are a necessary element to covering the topic, and that the tiny summaries now on the episode list are not at all adequate for this purpose. I don't feel there is any way to cover the topic properly without having the individual articles. If the plot summaries on the list were expanded, I think there would be spoiler concerns; it's useful to have a very brief summary on the list, with a more comprehensive summary available on the episode articles, to serve people who are looking for different levels of detail. Furthermore, the page would eventually become too long, and there would be no reasonable opportunity to expand the content beyond plot as presented on the list.

Some people oppose having separate episode articles, but are in favor of having articles on the main topic, reasoning that articles should only exist if they present the right amount of internal context. My view is that having separate articles on smaller parts of the topic is simply an extension of the content in the main article and operates on summary style logic. I feel it is an error to focus rigidly on the context presented in individual articles when they clearly represent coherently organized sections of a broader whole. Ideally, episode articles would all be rich in background information in addition to plot, but it is also irrational, "all or nothing" thinking to say that the content should not exist at all (except in an extremely truncated form as part of a list) if that other detail is not present.

Hannah Montana is a notable show, which can be clearly demonstrated through sources, and its episodes are notable elements of the topic, with their plots being verifiable through the episodes themselves. The content on these episodes cannot rationally be expected to grow if their articles are not accessible to ordinary editors, and it is moreover a needless disservice to readers to not provide information that is clearly sought after, and which has already been written and could be presented to them at any time. Everyking 06:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your point on spoiler warnings is moot, since they technically do not belong here, and therefore are not a concern. Secondly, the length is also not relevant, since the summaries on the list page should not be so long as to make it too long. There is supposed to be like some word or line limit per ten minutes of time, I don't remember specifically where. I'll try to find it. Following that would not make the article too long. No one is arguing about HM itself, we are arguing about the inherited notability that people seem to think applies here. This is no different from music; songs are not notable because the album is. That is the same here. And the argument for their removal is not how long, or "rich in background information", its notability, reliable sources and verifiability. And your last argument, that people want to know about it. Well, if we put everything in Wikipedia that people would want to know about, then why are there regulations on what is allowed and what is not? Everything is interesting to somebody. I  (said) (did) 06:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) I didn't say anything about spoiler warnings. I referred to the concept of spoiling plot details. 2) I proposing that the adequate amount of detail needed to explain the plot on a list would lead to an excessively long list. Only individual articles provide sufficient space. 3) I am not contesting that you think HM is notable; I am using the assumption that people agree on that as part of the argument that the topic deserves to be comprehensively covered, and that cannot be done without episode articles. 4) I covered notability and sources in my argument. 5) I did not say that. Everything that is verifiable and notable should go in WP. Everyking 06:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1)Okay, spoilers still aren't a concern, as it was decided that this is an encyclopedia, and that spoilers exist, and should not be hidden. 2)Well, this says your wrong about that 3)See #2 4)Actually, I saw no mention of sources being present in your argument. 5)You didn't but you said it was a disservice to not put information on Wikipedia that was sought after. I  (said) (did) 06:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) You are free to disagree with me and argue that the concept of spoilers has no place. I think that indicates a lack of recognition of the fact that our articles are read by people, and people care about these things. Providing different levels of detail addresses this concern as well as giving people the approximate level of detail they want to read (as opposed to one size fits all). 2) It is, of course, relative to how much you think a reader ought to know. I favor giving them as much as we can, within general policy boundaries. 3) - 4) Read it again. 5) It was a buttressing argument, a moral appeal, that kind of thing. I worry about readers a lot, since providing information to them is the entire point of writing the encyclopedia. Everyking 06:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plot summaries that are bigger than a few sentences for each episode, or are being used without a larger real-world context, are considered to be excessive. WP:NOT#PLOT. Learning more about what happens in the show does not actually tell us about the show itself. WP:WAF#Fair use goes on to explain how excessive plot can even be a copyright concern. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pilot (House): that's an FA. Count the sentences. And of course learning more about what happens in the show tells us more about the show itself. Copyright is not a concern within the level of detail I am advocating. Everyking 06:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) I think we should have spoiler warnings, or be concerned by them, but the consensus was that we should not. As such, they are not a concern. 2)Well, policy boundaries, i.e WP:V and WP:RS says that you want to give them too much. 3) Again, that featured list of Avatar episodes says it can be done, and on a featured list quality level. 4)HM has sources, but the individual episodes do not. The sources aren't inherited. To the House argument, if you look, in the discussion on how long plots should be, it says that if it's only plot discussed, not other thing such as critical commentary and the like, its not allowed. See the behind the scenes and reception section? That validates the plot. I  (said) (did) 06:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think we've covered the points well enough. At heart, it's just an inclusionist-deletionist split. Let's leave it to see what others think. Everyking 07:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so. A side note- Just out of curiosity, I check the House Pilot talk page. There is a rather lengthy discussion on how to reduce the size of the plot. Thought that was interesting, to say the least. I  (said) (did) 07:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it validates it or not, but the fact that it at least has this real world information generally helps. It's also the pilot episode of House, and there's almost always something to be said about a pilot episode. Hanna Montana episodes don't seem to have any of this kind of information. Although, this does give me the idea about looking for info on the HM pilot. I'll see what I can find, and maybe there will be something to add to at least one of these episode articles. -- Ned Scott 07:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support reinstating these articles. A merge would not be beneficial, and thus they should remain unmerged, pursuant to WP:SS. The episodes are clearly notable for being episodes of Hannah Montana. Everyking gibes a very good/strong argument to keep these articles. Matthew 07:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being episodes of Hannah Montana doesn't make it notable. Being covered be reliable, independent sources does. I  (said) (did) 07:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion. Which I consider wrong. Matthew 07:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually it's not my opinion. Its those three important policies and guidelines. They say that Hannah Montanaindividual episodes of Hannah Montana lacks notability, and does not have reliable sources. Which cannot be argued. I  (said) (did) 08:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous. If you think it lacks notability and has no reliable sources, just search Google News. Everyking 08:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I mistyped, I meant specific episodes. And just to be thorough, I did a Google News search for each episode, and only two had results, this one and this one So I guess one could argue that those two would have to be kept. I  (said) (did) 08:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good news! The case for Good Golly, Miss Dolly looks particularly strong. Everyking 09:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This source gives us info on four episodes. It looks like there are other sources for these as well, based on the DVD that includes them. Everyking 09:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You would be correct. Those episodes, and the two I found sources for, can probably be kept. I  (said) (did) 09:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read every one of these articles (Please, no!) but I looked at a bunch. As I view it they do fail to establish notability. The plot summaries are more ‘well’ developed — which to me is a good reason to trim them down; don't tell the whole thing.

Several points in the above discussion deserve comment. The concept of ‘inherited notability’ is one that needs to be dispensed with. In most cases a tv show itself will indeed be notable, but individual episodes will not be. There may be cases where an individual episode can be established as notable for any number of reasons, which is fine. This would involve reliable sources that are specific to the episode. The other point I'd like to comment on is the endless links to imdb.com and tv.com — the presence of these links is fine, but they do not amount to reliable sources; most of the ones I've looked at for specific episodes are lame in the extreme. --Jack Merridew 09:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am in complete agreement with Jack on this one. There is simply no assertion of any kind of out-of-universe notability in any of these "articles" as suggested in the episode guideline. Finding references (as noted above about Good Golly, Miss Dolly) does not alleviate the need to find out-of-universe context for establishing notability. They should all be Redirected to the episode list. Eusebeus 10:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What qualifies as out of universe context to you? We now have inclusion on a DVD for four of them. The DVD also includes behind-the-scenes stuff and commentary, according to the article I linked above. Everyking 10:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Out of universe would be things like:
  1. Non-trivial critical reaction from multiple independent published sources concerning themes or issues raised in the episode;
  2. A demonstrably exceptional ratings pull within the context of the show's overall ratings profile;
  3. A significant episode-specific award or awards;
  4. A demonstrable cultural contribution that can be related specifically to the episode.

I have rewritten this Friends episode to demonstrate that kind of out-of-universe notability (won an episode-specific award, most watched episode of the series, produced a spin-off show) - probably any of those on their own would be grounds for arguing notability. Other clear examples: Trapped in the Closet (South Park), garnered significant media attention and was the subject of a debate about censorship, etc..., Deep Space Homer produced a culturally significant meme and has been the subject of external references, similarly Happy Days Episode 89 (Fonzie jumps the Shark! - no article) and Point of View (the M*A*S*H episode, no article) for its contribution to and role in television production techniques, etc..., etc.... In my reading of the Episode guideline, the mindless pablum of a DVD commentary track in no way qualifies as out-of-universe unless it can be demonstrably shown that the material itself has notability beyond the narrow confines of the show. I note that two of those episodes I cited do not yet have articles, while we nonetheless have all the highly unnotable articles above.... That simply confirms my view that this is fan-driven content (fine in-and-of-itself) that cares nothing for the guidelines and principles that have been established by consensus across the community (unacceptable). Eusebeus 14:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebeus, your article is so brilliant that it doesn't cite a single source! (Which entails that it fails the guideline WP:EPISODE, apparently (as you say) that's unacceptable.) Matthew 19:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, I remember putting Neilsen rating information on both episodes of the Achy Jakey Heart saga. WAVY 10 14:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need a source attached to them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a source if anyone wants to add them to the pages (I'll do it when I get a chance if no one does). Right now the articles are actually wrong saying they had a Nielsen rating and actually reporting viewership, but this link gives both. I still don't think this makes them notable, however if there is a source saying it is a record for the channel (see Achy Jakey Heart, Part 2#Ratings) that may make a difference. Phydend 20:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added the reference to both episodes. Phydend 03:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the interim, over the next few days I intend to search online for more "real world sources" of info for this series. WAVY 10 16:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any kind of consensus developing here? Is there at least a general agreement that the episodes for which we have found sources should remain? Everyking 05:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is that the only people who have commented are the people who were active in both sides of the debate, (with the possible exception of yourself) and no one else. So I really dont know. I  (said) (did) 05:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at Achy Jakey Heart, Part 2#Ratings and note that the source for the rating gives two values for the same show (the higher one is the one in the article) and while this source does say that the show was viewed by however many people, it does not serve to establish notability. If these are the only sources on offer, then these episode articles should be redirected. --Jack Merridew 12:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings can also be placed on the list page. -- Ned Scott 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the same ol' discussion, but I think the pages should stay. Recent episodes are easy to add referenced info to, but people don't bother unless they're put on the chopping block. - Peregrine Fisher 19:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they are, then why don't you demonstrate for us? I  (said) (did) 19:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not like we can be online 24-7 digging up sources for these articles (or any other ones, for that matter). WAVY 10 19:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are not the problem for me, notability is. What is it about these episodes that you can say specifically about one, that you can't say about several? Then if there is something to say, is it more than plot summary, is it real world, is it trivial or not? Then finally, is it enough information that requires it's own article. So far no one has been able to point out anything that passes all those questions. -- Ned Scott 06:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notice to everybody interested: While we still have the episode pages available, we REALLY need to pare down the plot summaries. Almost all of the episodes have a "plot summary is too long" tag (possible copyright violation) so at least we can try to straighten that out. WAVY 10 17:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed down the Achy Jakey Heart, Part 1 and 2 plot summaries somewhat. WAVY 10 18:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should focus on the summaries on List of Hannah Montana episodes as they are the ones that are not likely to be redirected. --Jack Merridew 07:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

motion to close, anyone?

Close how? The discussion above seems to me to be pretty evenly split, a classic example of "no consensus". I know that I'm coming in late, but I'd like to remind participants of something Jimbo said a long time ago. Some of you have seen me quote this before, but some of you probably haven't. It's from the earliest incarnation of Wikipedia:Importance:

"Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above? Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia? Why shouldn't each of the 100+ poker games I describe have its own page with rules, strategy, and opinions? Hard disks are cheap.
I agree with this one completely. --Jimbo Wales"

As Everyking notes above, this is essentially an inclusionist/deletionist debate. My own leanings are generally inclusionist, but I do accept the general principle that not every television episode necessarily deserves its own Wikipedia page. On the subject of Hannah Montana episodes, I am agnostic, since I know next to nothing about the series. (Unlike some editors, however, I wouldn't dare to suggest that my own ignorance is evidence that the series or its episodes are not notable.)

A question I would ask is whether a printed Hannah Montana episode guide exists. If it does, and includes more than cast lists and plot summaries for each episode, I would consider that evidence that Hannah Montana episodes have the potential to meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:N. If not, I would consider that evidence that most individual Hannah Montana episodes (with the exception of the ones noted above) do not have the potential to meet the requirements of WP:RS or WP:N. Would that be a reasonable conclusion to draw? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to see a real diff for that quote... and basically it has been addressed by WP:EPISODE.
As I see it, there has been no establishment of notability — something that this review was intended to nudge editors who believe the episodes to be notable to cite sources of.
I have no idea if an episode guide such as you postulate exists. I've seen no references added citing any such thing. If such a guide is extant it may well be some sort of official guide (since we're speculating here!) — and as such it would amount to a self-serving piece of show merchandising and would not constitute a third-party reliable source.
If the episodes are somehow viewed has having the potential to establish notability (w/RS), then the proper place for the current content of the episode articles is in their history just south of a redirect that should remain in place until someone actually does establish notability. --Jack Merridew 11:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought that "I" (that is, User:I, not me) established notability for at least two of the episodes with his Google News search. By the way, I wasn't putting the "episode guide" question out there as a roadblock to closure — it was a genuine question for people who know something about Hannah Montana. I've asked more about episode guides as a possible general criterion at Wikipedia talk:Television article review process, but I thought that this was where I'd find people who might know specifically whether a Hannah Montana episode guide exists. And I'd like to repeat that if it turns out that there is no such detailed episode guide (that is, one giving more than episode summaries and cast lists), I would maintain that was probably indicative that most Hannah Montana episodes aren't notable, and their pages should become redirects. However, that's just my opinion, and I don't really see a consensus either way in the discussion above. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: I don't know if this diff from Meta is "real" enough for you, but it shows that the quote was being attributed to Jimbo as early as January 2002. At that time, the Wikipedia community was small enough that if the comment was misrepresented, Jimbo would have corrected it himself, yet as far as I can see he didn't. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There may be sources that could be cited to establish notability in the Google search results given above — I'm not sure just which results people have been looking at; the results are dynamic. I did just look at those two articles and they don't appear to have had any new sources added recently, so the onus is still on anyone who cares to edit those episode articles. re the Wales quote, I was hoping for a diff of an actual edit he made somewhere so I could see the context in which the statement was made. I note that in the oldid you gave he referred to "episode articles with links to reviews" [my italics] — which, if by 3rd party RSs, would establish notability for the episode. --Jack Merridew 08:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about anyone else, but I have not been able to find a printed episode guide. If there's nothing else to be said for this matter, we'll be adding a ratings column to the list of eps article, and redirecting once again. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I want to keep them, let's just get some closure and sort the mess out later. WAVY 10 14:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start cleaning up the LOE table and redirecting; I'm not so sure we should include the ratings (the Episode list template doesn't seem to support this well). I'll skip that group for now... comments welcome. --Jack Merridew 09:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The LOE table will have to be reformatted to a version that will allow you to easily manipulate such things if you'd like to include the ratings in the LOE table.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just finished a first pass on redirecting things and have not gotten into changing the LOE table format. I'm not in favor of including the ratings... anyone? --Jack Merridew 14:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have another issue; not all of the episodes were included in the discussion list and I've not done anything to those (or the block under Neilsan ratings). These are mostly at the end of the LOE and may have been created since the original list was generated or may have been redirected at that moment... I believe that they should be included in this review. --Jack Merridew 14:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those look more like future (read: speculative) episodes. Not sure what to do with those. WAVY 10 15:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I redirected them, too; they had been redirected after the first review. FYI, the Fighting one had been messed with - I can't be sure it was vandalism because, well, I don't watch this stuff!> --Jack Merridew 09:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional columns can be added to the episode list template by using Aux1=, Aux2=, or Aux3=. -- Ned Scott 19:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those and didn't really like the look; I wasn't expecting additional fields in the middle. I may take another stab at it. --Jack Merridew 09:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Information Lost

What got me thinking about the notability issue is the challenge being made to the Buffy episodes on similar grounds. That particular show is being held up as an example to emulate for series TV even to the point of featured article status. I wonder what the point is overall. We have articles on each of the characters. A TV series is notable solely because it is being broadcast. What is missing from an encyclopedic perspective is complete verifiable information about what is already passed the notability test, which the series has; the episodes add to that. We don't have in the summary the work product information of the people in the credits, the guest cast, the writer, director. We should have that. We don't need a Readers Digest version of the episode, a trivia section, or a goofs sections but we should have a place for important data from the primary source - the episode itself, about the people who created the show. --NrDg 20:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is happening to other series is irrelevant. A TV series is not notable for being broadcast. It is notable if its been significantly covered by reliable sources independent of the subject. Virtually all television shows have been. The individual articles on episodes, however, often do not. As for information on the director and the like, I don't know why we need that, but I'm not an expert on what people want to know about television shows. At any rate, that information can be included in a LOE, see this featured list. i (said) (did) 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What got me thinking is not my attempt to justify anything, just go hmmm. I checked the Simpson's link and they added columns for writer and director. That is one of the main things I think we need. In the "don't argue this way" article you linked to one point made was "Often, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes, however - this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums." The point is I think more information should be related to the article. The means to do that might be sub-pages to ease formatting and navigation. These pages aren't articles in their own right and are really just a way of formatting the main article. --NrDg 21:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. They are articles in their own right. Why wouldn't they be? As for the comment on that page about "easing to formatting and navigation" I've never heard that before. I'd like to see where that applies.
The thing is that the vast majority of things that are appropriate for an episode article can and should be said on a LOE, because the episode itself is not notable. There are exceptions, such as the articles on that list I mentioned. i (said) (did) 21:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the article I was quoting was the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS#Notability_is_inherited debunker. I was just talking about a means to an end. I have no problems with putting things in the LOE page if we find a good way to do it. What I particularly want is the writer, director and guest starring cast. They all can be added to the table and/or episode summary section. Unfortunately the aux1 field is now taken so need another way. What I would like to do is put writer and director as aux1 and aux2 and put rating and guest cast in the summary. I am open to suggestions. --NrDg 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a side note, othercrapexists is separate from the inherited section, they're two separate points. On topic, specifically related to HM episodes, in the first box on the page it says who it was written and directed by. As for the guest stars, that could just be another field. i (said) (did) 23:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started adding Writer, Director and Guest stars to the season 1 table. Let me know if there are any objections before I do much more work on this. --NrDg 00:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at where the LOE table has gone in the last day or so, and have a few suggestions. There should not be so many columns because it results in the columns being too narrow. If details such as writer and directer are included, they should be merged into the summary section. I added the viewers column because that is what was suggested, but feel that this, too, should be in the summary; and the 'code' column should just go away.
While people debate the value of all this useless information about a lame show, there are articles the need to be written. --Jack Merridew 10:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel regular data should be in columns, irregular and variable data in the summary. That is kind of the point of a table. I think the table as it stands now has sufficient column width for everything that is included and I'm fairly happy about how it turned out. Your other comment seems off topic. --NrDg 21:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished including what I felt was missing from the episodes and redirected all the episode pages to the anchor link for that episode in the table. My major content concerns have now been met so I am satisfied with what we have so far. --NrDg 21:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Guests

I heard that Dolly Parton and Vicki Lawrence are guest starring in the same episode together here. Is there anywhere to put the info? Mouseinthehouse 17:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepwalk This Way

Why is there not a page for this episode if all the pages have been restored? Mouseinthehouse 17:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Was Best-Friend Fighting

In the article it mentions that the name Everybody Was Best-Friend Fighting comes from the song Kung Fu Fighting twice. It says it in the first paragraph and again in the trivia section.Smileyface 12 91 22:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Song Sung Bad

The episodes on the separate page for I Want You to Want Me...To Go to Florida has Everybody Was Best-Friend Fighting as the next show, followed by Me and Mr. Jonas. Where did Song Sung Bad (the one with...for now, as an earlier version listed Lily as trying to start a singing career of her own...Lily being supposed to record something for her mom) come in (assuming this has even been confirmed)? WAVY 10 15:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked my DirecTV grid last night and managed to get to July 29th, and the next episode on the grid is Everybody was Best-Friend Fighting. I don't know where the Song Sung Bad info came from. WAVY 10 13:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STOP DOING THIS!

who ever keeps on redirecting the episode articles to the list of episode page, STOP DOING THAT!!!! AND WHO EVER DID THIS, PUT THOSE PAGES BACK UP, NOOOOOOOOOOWW!!!!! 24.186.246.59 at 7:47 PM on July 24, 2007.

Sorry, the consensus is that the episode articles are not notable enough to have their own articles; see WP:EPISODE. Please do not recreated these articles or other episode articles that do not establish the notability of the episode; see also: WP:N and WP:V. --Jack Merridew 08:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is no consensus. We had a big debate about it above. I guess Jack forgot. Everyking 04:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

To all who keep trying to revive the episode links...PLEASE STOP IT! Consensus was to merge (I was one fighting to save a few of them), and unless enough information for it to pass WP:N, don't play "Lazarus" with these articles. WAVY 10 01:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to edit the Hannah Montana episodes. We also need the screen shots.

Lack of consensus

It's clear from the above discussion that no consensus was reached, yet somebody redirected the articles anyway and even closed off the discussion, as if to say no further discussion shall be permitted. Who was responsible for that? I propose that all the articles be restored and that the discussion be reopened. In particular, discussion needs to continue regarding the episodes for which secondary sources were found, because I believe consensus can be reached (and may already exist) to keep those. Everyking 04:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the discussion ceased to be commented on. Maybe an admin can be called into to determine consensus, as has been suggested? i (said) (did) 04:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, if people stop talking, then one side is free to just go ahead and impose its will? Everyking 04:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it was deemed that consensus had been established, and since no one came in and voiced an opinion, it was carried out. i (said) (did) 04:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I counted four people clearly favoring keep and four people clearly favoring redirect, with a few others not expressing a clear opinion. That's a split straight down the middle, the opposite of a consensus. However, note that if comments from non-established users are counted, there's easily a keep majority. How on earth can it be argued that consensus exists to redirect? Everyking 04:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, isn't vote counting the opposite of consensus? Sorry, couldn't resist. And I only counted three for keeping. Anyway. I thought that there was consensus, but again, we can ask an admin to determine, it's somewhat of their job. (ec reply- What does comments from "non-established users" mean? i (said) (did) 04:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the opposite; it's a means of evaluating the presence or absence of consensus. You can't have a consensus when people are evenly split on an issue. It's inexplicable that a person would even suggest that. I want to hear the logic behind your thinking that people have reached a consensus even when they are evenly split. (And when, according to this logic, does a consensus not exist?) And yes, there are at least four keepers: me, Matthew, Peregrine Fisher, and WAVY 10. Everyking 05:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would be rare, but since numbers ≠ consensus, it could happen. Now, the person who normally determines this, an admin, could be useful. If you feel really strongly that there were valid arguments on both sides, but neither were decidedly superior, then you can reopen the discussion and restore the articles. i (said) (did) 05:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never been able to stand this "numbers don't matter; consensus is determined by admins reading tea leaves" line of argument. I think it is so patently obvious that consensus does not exist that it is downright silly to even argue about it. However, I won't be doing anything unilaterally here. Everyking 05:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Well, thats the way things currently work. I suppose the closing could be undone and a {{wider attention}} tag could be placed. i (said) (did) 05:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out, this was not a discussion to see who wanted to keep the articles or not. This was a discussion to see if they were notable or not. No one was able to assert any reasonable level of notability. -- Ned Scott 05:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I think a reasonable level of notability was asserted. I don't think you have any more of a consensus on that point; people who wanted to keep them also felt they were notable enough to have articles (which is, of course, why they voted keep). Everyking 06:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since for something to be notable, it has to have independent sources cover it significantly, there was no notability in these articles. i (said) (did) 07:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself found independent sources for some of the episodes. Everyking 08:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few people said the pages should be redirected, a few said they shouldn't be redirected, a few references were added, and then the pages were redirected. It's the classic deletionist vs. inclusionist argument. Refs have no effect on the argument. We need some new rules. Something like, every time a reference is added, no redirecteing is allowed. - Peregrine Fisher 08:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe any references were added to any of the episode articles; a few vague Google searches were linked on this page and discussed a bit. --Jack Merridew 13:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a ref before the page was promptly redirected. Here's the diff. - Peregrine Fisher 18:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that; I was working from the list Ned posted when I picked the episodes to add rating refs for. This could be added to the LOE for — I'll have to look more closely — one or both of the Achy episodes. --Jack Merridew 09:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was more information from that ref on the episode page than there now is in the LOE. It seems like there's a movement to destroy information as long as it helps in destroying episode pages. - Peregrine Fisher 11:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There you go. --Jack Merridew 12:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? It wasn't just Google searches. I specifically linked to this article. Everyking 19:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This rating source could be added to the LOE, too. Again, I don't see this as establishing notability; not "significant" coverage in "detail"; these amount to "trivial" coverage. If you disagree, resurrect the episode and make your case. --Jack Merridew 09:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC) (struck rating comment; I confused the two buddytv urls, this one gives no rating) --Jack Merridew 10:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.
update: I have added ratings w/refs to the Achy episodes in the LOE. --Jack Merridew 10:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're trying to move the goalposts. What's in that article does not look to me like trivial coverage by any reasonable standard. The episodes are given a paragraph each, explaining their plots; it's not as if they're just mentioned in passing. No original research is necessary to extract the content. Everyking 15:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I came into this debate late and am new at editing so I tend to go with what others say. I brought up a concern about losing information that I think belong in a complete article about a TV series and was effectively overridden. So I compromised in a way I really didn't want to. I took the statement that this issue was closed as a given and did not feel comfortable enough with my gut reason to debate the issues against Wikipedia lawyers. Given that I was misled. I will state strongly that I want the article pages back. Add me to the list who want to keep them.

I think that notability must be based on the FACT that something is notable to a large interested group. We can't use original research in the articles but I see no reason not to use original research to establish notability. I don't care what Wiki policy says - these articles ARE notable in an absolute sense, even if some good secondary source has not blessed it. The fact that there is significant discussion on the web about them DOES establish that they are notable.

From an other perspective these articles are an organization method of presenting a complete article about something that is established as notable, an Emmy nominated TV Series. This is NOT inherited notability, multiple pages are needed to the cover the subject in the way that is needed. We shouldn't have to establish notability every time we chose to change organizational structure. --NrDg 13:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? "notability must be based on the FACT that something is notable to a large interested group" — How is that different from WP:ILIKEIT? --Jack Merridew 13:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is different. I am not asserting that I want them to stay because "I Like It". The individual articles are covered by 3d level sources such as TV.com, IMDb and TV Guide. That makes them notable too. I disagree with needing secondary sources to bless the issue. Third level sources can also be used to show notability. --NrDg 13:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
tv.com and imdb.com are not reliable sources and TV Guide lists everything as do phonebooks. If those "sources" are allowed to establish notability then Wikipedia will have millions of articles on all the pap that's fit to broadcast. FYI, I didn't mean that you necessarily like it, but that they (who created and/or defend these articles) like it. --Jack Merridew 13:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree except for the fact that TV.com and IMDb aren't particularly reliable when it comes to notability. In addition, TV.com is user-edited (much like Wikipedia), so I definitely wouldn't use that site. WAVY 10 13:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Tertiary sources can be used as reliable sources for content as long as they are judged good enough reliable sources for the purpose. Also WP:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. We are not talking about content here anyway, just notability. My judgment is that the tertiary sources IMDb and TV.com are not good enough for content but they are good enough to establish notability. The fact that they are user edited is relevant to the content only. In my judgment, therefore, notability HAS been established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NrDg (talk • contribs) diff
Those sources are 'phonebooks' — I do not consider them sufficient to establish notability. --Jack Merridew 09:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are more than just phonebooks. The site owners have made some effort to select what to present and they also allow users to add to that. In my opinion that is sufficient to establish notability. It is still a judgement call that we will probably not be able to convince each other of - thus lack of concensus on this issue. The notability 'guidlines' say that significant mention in a non-trivial manner by secondary reliable sources creates a 'presumption' of notability, not proof. Therefore, conversely the lack creates a 'presumption' of non-notabilty, again not proof. These presumptions are both rebuttable if there is sufficient counter evidence. I consider that there has been sufficient evidence for notability. --NrDg 17:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By 'phonebooks' I mean that they list everything — and if they've missed an episode of something, I'm sure they'll get to it. Since such sources are all-inclusive, the view that they can serve to establish notability will lead to a near-infinite number of "notable" episode articles. This extends beyond tv show episodes; there are (or soon will be) all-inclusive "sources" for all manner of things; does Wikipedia have articles for every baseball card ever printed — there must be a list of them out there somewhere to establish their "notability". How about articles on drain clearing products? Find a list and justify a thousand articles? The difference here is that tv shows are popular. In the cases of some of these kiddie shows, this is part of the problem; as I note you've seen, many editors who might reasonable be considered to be children edit the articles related to this show and they add endless trivia, original research and mild vandalism (and the pattern repeats elsewhere). I certainly have little interest in keeping an eye on the whole Hannah Montana cloud of articles for much longer. If episode articles are resurrected, they will surely live out their lives as messy little articles that few editors will want to clean up.
I would take an entirely different view of the notability of these episode articles if the Washington Post took note (or any reputable source) — But BuddyTV.com? They're about Hannah Montana Ring Tones. --Jack Merridew 09:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was, say, the Washington Post listing that info (fat chance), I'd agree 100% WAVY 10 18:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Ned commented above, no one established any notability for the episode articles. The discussion had gone quiet after several comments were made to the effect that they would then be redirected. I redirected them and added the viewers column to the LOE as per others comments. Hey, they're all still there; this isn't about 'delete'. I will refrain from further edits on this score and see where this goes. They have not established their notability. --Jack Merridew 13:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the discussion had gone quiet after equal numbers of people on both sides of the argument had said their pieces, and were unable to convince each other. That's pretty much the definition of "lack of consensus". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's now 4 references for the two Achy Jakey Heart episodes, if we combine them into one page. Is that enough notability for their own article? It could be the exemplar page to show people how to make episode pages. - Peregrine Fisher 19:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm in favor. Everyking 06:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me too — there's absolutely enough notability established for that story. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunatly it also shows that it is possible to get the information in the summary in an effective manner. What additional benefit would we have by creating an episode page with nothing more than the same information? If that is all we are doing, this is just a formatting choice of how to present the information. All the episodes have established notiblity by virtue of having things in secondary & tertiary references "noting" or writing about them. The problem is that we must USE primary (without evaluation) or secondary sources to add verifyable information to the articles. What really makes these episodes any different? --NrDg 16:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NrDg makes a good point here; the LOE format can cover minor bits beyond plot summary (although I would be inclined to trim some of what has been added recently to the Achy summary — but will refrain). --Jack Merridew 10:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Achy Jakey Heart has appeared. It will be interesting to see how this evolves. --Jack Merridew 15:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HM has this werid system of coming out on DVD not by season, but by story arcs. When Achy Jakey comes out on DVD, it will be easy to make a "Reception" section with 5 to 10 references. - Peregrine Fisher 15:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just HM. I think all of the current Disney Channel series release episodes in this manner. Hopefully, when these shows have ended their run, they will do the smart thing and come out with a "normal" DVD release. WAVY 10 16:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a clever ploy to get folks to buy the same content twice. --Jack Merridew 16:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

production code 123

I just noticed that there are two episodes listed with production code '123' and not knowing where these numbers came from have no way of being sure how to fix this. --Jack Merridew 09:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made all the production codes match the directory information at TV.COM. That source is used by in a lot of episode details by a number of shows and looks to be a reliable reference. Best is U.S. copyright Office but they seem to lag a lot. --NrDg 16:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guest Starring List

I removed co-star credited actors from the guest star list. I created the guest star list from watching the episode credits and the actors listed are in the credited order. If someone wishes to create a co-star list, that is fine. I was planning on doing that too when I had time but if you do so please list them in credited order as the order is meaningfully. --NrDg 12:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that then. :-) ZSoraz 15:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Daniel Samonas was a guest star on the episode, I Can't Make You Love Hannah If You Don't, since he's pretty much a big part of that episode starring as Josh. O_o ZSoraz 15:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I missed it. He is on the second page and is listed last in the guest star list. My bad. I'll add him back.--NrDg 15:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that we probably shouldn't list ALL the co-stars, probably just the ones that have named characters, not things like "Pizza Delivery Guy" unless they had a significant part. The co-star list can get quite long with really minor characters. --NrDg 17:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Sugar, Sugar

This is just me but I'm not sure whether this is a real episode or not. It seems highly unlikely that they would have an episode based around terrorism. I may be wrong but this is my opinion. Race t 16:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful, but pretty sure that "plot" was vandalism. WAVY 10 18:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Songs

Does anyone know why some of the "Songs Featured:" won't appear? I could swear that I saw some in "edit this page" that didn't appear. ZSoraz 23:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 1

I just archived the oldest part of the talk page (prior to 2nd episode review). WAVY 10 18:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Brothers episode

The Jonas Brothers episode needs an independent article. It is referred toin this article as "basic cable's most watched series episode ever" with 10.7 million viewers. Everyking 06:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me and Mr. Jonas and Mr. Jonas and Mr. Jonas

This episode is currently #1 on the iTunes "Top TV Episodes" List —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.226.188.254 (talk) 22:27, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's line up some sources for this one (since it set a record for basic cable series telecasts...even though it had HSM2 for a lead-in WAVY 10 17:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Episodes

i just found out that 2 new episodes of Hannah Montana are called i don't have to tell everyone and bionic boy!!!Hailee69 02:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the next 8 episodes are called. Unfortunately the source is not usable on Wikipedia so can't add the information. Suggest waiting until they show up on TV Guide or a directory of similar reliability.--NrDg 02:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the same subject, just with the announced episodes, should we now delete the TV Guide paragraph since we already have put the episodes on the table? ZSoraz 08:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the episode information obtained from TVRage, we can't use that as a source and it conflicts with the data in TV.com which we can use. I previously tried adding TVRage info to the table with cites to TVRage and Wikipedia has blacklisted using that site as a source. --NrDg 12:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet More Vandalism

Some IP is changing the titles of different episodes. Reverted twice by me already. WAVY 10 22:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert it and give the IP a vandalism warning on their talk page. They get 4 warnings and they could get banned if they are blatant. If this continues over the next few days I'll try to get the page protected again. Admins won't protect unless the vandalism is fairly heavy. Page has been protected 3 times before, protection just came off. --NrDg 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't want to risk a three-revert-violation. That's the ONLY reason I mentioned it here. WAVY 10 22:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flag it as vandalism when you revert it and you won't trigger the WP:3RR rule. Assuming it is blatant vandalism and not a content dispute. Be explicit on why you reverted in the edit summary. At least state "rvv". --NrDg 23:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just liked to say something...

Not saying there have been any recent additions of this information on this page, but about the 8 episodes said to become aired from TV Rage, you have to think if a summary where Lilly's Mom falls in love with Robby, when she is already married (i.e. Lilly's mentioned Dad in such episodes recently aired episodes like Achy Jakey Heart), wouldn't seem practical for a Disney show. This is just to alert people who did think that kind of episode would happen (I thought it would once, til I remembered the Dad, lol). --ZSoraz 23:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smells Like Teen Sellout

What happened to this episode? They haven't showed it in forever, and even on the Disney Channel website where it lists the schedule, it also keeps a list of the episodes, and it's not on the list. Did they stop showing the episode because it didn't have enough viewers? Why don't they show it anymore? -- 24.186.246.59 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.246.59 (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Sugar, Sugar

Is this gonna be a real episode I don't think there will be an episode with diebates. ~Bert-Healy

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Hannah_Montana_episodes&oldid=162095164"