Talk:Good Luck Charlie

Episode Title

I found this Episode Title on Eric Dean Seaton's (a director) personal website. I'm not sure if this counts as an "official" source, so I didn't post it on the main wikipedia page. Here's a link: http://ericdeanseaton.com/credits/.
Episode 1: Study Date
Episode 3: Take Mel Out to the Ball Game
Episode 4: Double Wammy
Episode 5: Up a Tree
Episode 6: Curious Case of Mr. Dabney
Episode 8: Dance Off
Episode 9: Boys Meet Girls
1989 Rosie (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The cast of Good Luck Charlie

Does the baby "Charlie" in this show even exist or is she a computer image? Who is the tiny actor that plays her? I've been looking all over. I'm Bridgit Mendler's sister and she won't even tell me who plays Charlie because she's away filming. Be sure to watch the show, though, my sister is the best actress in the world! In this teen sitcom the parents of four think that three children is for quitters , but after having their fourth baby Charlotte (nicknamed Charlie)their three other children, P.J., Gabe, and Teddy, become very familiar with changing baby diapers, feeding baby formulas to charlie, etc. I'm not allowed to tell what really happens says Bridgit, so bye. and don't worry, I'll be on the show soon enough! 66.30.66.125 (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny Bridgit doesn't have a sister only a little brother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.205.8 (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Mia Talerico is the actress who portrays Charlie and she's actually a baby —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSpector (talk • contribs) 23:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Duncan or Holliday?

Are we sure the family's name is Duncan? Only one Disney source says Duncan, as far as I can tell. Most of what I've seen around the Web (that's not copied from WP itself) says "Holliday". IMDb says "Holliday". The 1:30 ad viewable on YouTube shows the beginning of Gabe's last name as "Ho" on the refrigerator (when his name is being spelled in magnet letters). A well-informed sounding blog post from last July says "Holliday".

So was this changed from Holliday to Duncan somewhere along the way, or are we the ones working with outdated info? (I watched "Study Date" but couldn't pick out a family name. Anyone else?) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's Duncan; the tv show's official site confirms. If you click on any of the "characters" on the page I linked, the opening line says "Firstname Duncan" and goes on to describe him/her. liquidluck✽talk 03:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Now I can sleep at night. (But, golly, that's an awful Web site.) I guess the "Gabe Ho" on the refrigerator qualifies as a minor continuity goof. Apparently Disney started with "Holliday" back in July and changed it sometime since. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image

I boldly replaced the logo in the infobox with the series' title card, but I thought I'd start this discussion in case there are objections. Strangely, the title card doesn't contain the logo, but it does contain the cast members and show title. liquidluck✽talk 18:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Movie? or Not

When will the movie be airing What's the plot is there even a Good Luck Charlie movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSpector (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

there is going to be a movie based of the series Good Luck Charlie (Film) --Gerty (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Teddy & Charlie Duncan

This is a proposal to start a separate page for Teddy Duncan and Charlie Duncan. The show is going to go in it's second season and there has been a confirmed film. It seems that other popular Disney Channel series have had their own pages for characters. I am proposing this because the other series have had movies and have their own character pages. I propose Teddy and Charlie because they are the two main characters of the show. Thoughts? --DisneyFriends (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Character article

Some time ago, List of Good Luck Charlie characters was merged back into this article and it was then redirected to Good Luck Charlie#Characters.[1] The merge was valid, as the article was unreferenced and failed the requirements of WIkipedia:Notability. A persistent IP hopping editor periodically restores the article, although makes no attempt to link into it from anywhere else, leaving it as an orphan. I don't think the editor's intentions are constructive but I thought I'd raise the issue here and ask whether anyone has any interest in re-creating this article with appropriate referencing. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the merge back here was unnecessary and also did not follow the WP:MERGE protocol with notice, discussion and attributions. The List of Good Luck Charlie characters article as of February 10, 2011, the merge date, was substantially similar to most other Disney (and Nickelodeon for that matter) list of character articles in terms of notability - most other list of character articles just have primary sources with very little or no significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. The character section of THIS article is too detailed in my opinion and should be reduced to just one or two line summary descriptions of the characters with the major details in the list of character article. I propose reducing this article to include just short summary descriptions and re-creating the List of Good Luck Charlie characters article by merging the contents of the February 10, 2011 article and the existing Good Luck Charlie#Characters section. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Verifiability, unsourced content may be removed at any time. At the time the article was "merged", the article was completely unreferenced and therefore all of the content could have been removed by anyone. It was entirely appropriate to simply delete the content and redirect the article, without any attribution. In fact, that's what actually happened, no content was merged at all. The article was simply redirected and the link to it from this article was removed.[2] The reason for that is that all of the content in the article already existed in this article, there was no need to merge anything and so there was no attribution required. It was a merge in name only. That the content already existed here was noted in the edit summary.[3] It actually existed here in a much better form than in that article. Discussions are not needed for everything. When there is clear justification (an unreferenced article that substantially duplicates an existing article and which fails to establish notability of the subject) a bold redirect is entirely appropriate and that's what happened here. Regarding recreating the article, in the almost seven months since I started this discussion, nobody has attempted to recreate the article with any referencing and no attempt to demonstrate notability has been made. Wikipedia:Notability requires that subjects be notable in order for them to have an article. That other similar articles exist is not a justification for creation of the article. If anything, those articles should be deleted and many have not survived AfD. I tend to agree that the character section of this article is too detailed, but that is justification to prune the section of unnecessary fluff; it is not justification to create another article. What needs to be done before creation is considered is to provide references that establish the notability of the characters already listed. If notability can be established then there may be a case to create a character article, but notability needs to be established. Despite the length of the character section, this is not a lengthy article. WP:SIZERULE says that articles with less than 40KB of readable prose shouldn't be split and this article is less than 26KB, which is well below that point. The character section could actually be expanded somewhat. However, I wouldn't try expanding it by merging content from List of Good Luck Charlie characters. At the time that the article was redirected, it contained far less information than this article did.[4] Since then, this article has been expanded significantly,[5] making the difference even more significant.[6] There just isn't anything worth merging, which is why it wasn't merged then. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I defer to your knowledge of the history of this issue - I did only a cursory look at edit histories and saw a mention of a merge at [7] and presumed that is what happened. I also noted that you reverted to the redirect five times and added a hidden note referring to the note here so I expect that stopped people and that includes me, from attempting to recreate the article. I started the WP:SPLIT discussion to see if anyone else cared, if there is no other support for a split, or you still oppose after discussion, then I'll accept that as consensus to not do it.

I accept that the article does not need to be split per WP:SIZERULE. I do think the character section in this article is too much based on primary sources including in-show revealed details and should be substantially tightened up. A character article is the place for that sort of fan appreciated details. Your link to the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS includes the statement "Wikipedia has, unintentionally, set a precedent for inclusion or exclusion when notability is contested" and "When applied to creation of articles, this concept must demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia". That is what I am basing the creation of a character article on. I didn't look for the one article that didn't follow a guideline and attempt to justify a similar article, I noted that a precedent has been set for the creation of List of character articles even when normal notability is not met. Precedent leads readers to expect this type of article. Additionally List of characters articles serve as a useful outlet for avid watchers to contribute in ways that don't polute the main article. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The List of character articles are nominally lists and Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists required notability is "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". A secondary source evaluating the show and its characters should be sufficient to establish notability of this type of article. Example http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/31/entertainment/la-et-disney-comedy31-2009dec31. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I tink that yes could be split because the section is to large --Jose celada (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Cast section

The cast section of the article was recently tagged with {{original research-section}}.[8] While there was certainly some original research, most of what was in the cast section has been demonstrated in the various episodes. It does require sourcing, but lack of sources does not automatically mean that it's OR, and wholesale deletion of content (a massive 70%) only two days after it was tagged,[9] is not a productive or appropriate way to resolve the issue. Single line summaries of characters are not appropriate in this article, as there is no separate character article where characters are discussed, and since most of the deleted content is neither OR or personal opinion, I've restored most of it. I've copy-edited where necessary, but the section does require additional work and sources. Sources are essential before a separate character article can be created, so I've tagged the section accordingly.[10] I won't be back in two days to delete the content the section if it isn't sourced though, Wikipedia is a work in progress and we're not dealing with a deadline. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)