Talk:Sam & Cat

Series premiere in January?

It says "The series will premiere on Nickelodeon in the United States sometime in January 2013" in the article. However, the source indicates that production will start in January ("with production set to begin in January in Los Angeles for a 2013 premiere"). Can someone fix this? Thanks. -98.116.110.176 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Astros4477 (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry! I meant to just say 2013. Thanks for pointing it out :) --DylanGLC2011 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Examiner.com as a reference

Examiner.com is in the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist, reason for addition is at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2009#Examiner.com, basically it is not a reliable source and should not ever be used as a reference. Being on the spam blacklist means that adding a citation using a url to this site will not be permitted and the edit attempting to do that rejected. I originally put it in the article using an archived link to the reference but circumventing the black list this way is not a proper use of the archiving tool. See also discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 38#Request to reopen discussion on examiner.com for more background. I removed the cite and info it supported because examiner.com has been determined to not be a reliable source. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The citation I removed was 'Baltes, Alan (January 22, 2013). "Nickelodeon auditions for iCarly and Victorious spinoff series ". Examiner.com. {{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)' in case someone wants to find a reliable source replacement. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about hat I thoht it was a reliable source. It seemed to be okay. WP Editor 2012 (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Show logo

I removed the logo image as I could not find any Nickelodeon official site that hosted it, and I did a fairly extensive search for it. Lots on net but none are hosted by a Nick site. Mostly on blogs and wikias and fan pages. Might have originated from Nick or it might be fan-art. Source of image should originate from a reliable source, preferably Nickelodeon, before declared "official". Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The logo is on Dan's Twitter Page. If you go and look in the background on the left side you will see it. To see the logo fully scroll down a bit. If you view his pictures from his twitter, you will see the pic on the actors title cards from a couple weeks ago. The pic was taken Jan 31.Don't realy know though if it will work. Also on a side note, Can I use that Pi as a refference for that actor. His twitter is not confimred yet. But he is a main actor on the show. Or Can I use a tweeet from Jenntte(think itas hers) Saying it what fun it is working with him. With the linked twitter.WP Editor 2012 (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I put the logo back using https://twitter.com/DanWarp as the source of the image. The image is part of the background on Dan Schneider's verified twitter page so is about as official as we can get so far until Nickelodeon hosts something or get a screencap from an aired episode.

I think the image you mentioned is at https://twitter.com/DanWarp/status/297023692490297344. The third person is not identified (obviously not @DanWarp as shown on ID card in front of him) so this picture does not identify him as an actor on the show. Twitter accounts should be verified to be used as a reference, a tweet by https://twitter.com/DanWarp, https://twitter.com/ArianaGrande, or https://twitter.com/jennettemccurdy would be best. There may be tweets somewhere in one of those three that gives other actor's names. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the only link that might work https://twitter.com/ArianaGrande/status/300158148528988160. I have followed him for the past few weeks. He is in a few picks for sam and cat. Also has beentweeting about the show. I have looked at his facebook and everything Matches up. He even tweets about the next episode https://twitter.com/CameronOcasio/statuses/300842738335748096. He was been in picks for episode 102 and 103. As well mentions episode 104. I did message him on facebook to see if he would be willing to confirm his account, but has not been on since wednesday. On his facebook he mentions his role on sam and cat as well. Jennette and Ariana do follow him. Dan at this time does not. His facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cameron-Ocasio/540862889265457?sk=infoWP Editor 2012 (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Good enough in my opinion to add to cast list using Grande tweet. I'm a bit wary of using any of his tweets as information as, even though he is followed by a verified account, his account is not yet verified. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed the logo again as it was replaced from a fan-made version, not the official one that was there. If we are going to have a logo it needs to come from an official source, not a fan-site. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That Logo that user is putting up is an old one confrimed by Dan about 4 months ago. He had it in the backgound of his twitter and then stwiched to the curreent one. The fan sites have not taken the new one yet. Also It is pretty Much the same, Just without the blue background.WP Editor 2012 (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Dan seems to want the background as part of the design or he wouldn't have added it - the picture of the cast ID cards confirms that. We should go with what Dan is now showing. It is probably a work in progress and may change yet again before the show is actually aired or more official marketing material is produced. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Verified twitter as a source

Some material, referenced by the twitter messages from the verified twitter accounts of some show principals, was removed solely because the info was from a twitter account. The accounts used were verified twitter accounts so there is no doubt that the twitter accounts belong to the the individuals named in the account. We have other reliable sources in the article that show these people are insiders of the show. They are providing information "written by people who are directly involved" and "offering an insider's view". Per policy at WP:PRIMARY these are primary reliable sources and can be used for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" which is how the sources are being used in this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Tweets where the principal states "Filming starts tomorrow", "And that's a wrap! What an incredible experience, I can't wait for you guys to see it " and "Great day filming with @cameronocasio & @jennettemccurdy!" are purely factual and in no way can be reasonably considers "self-promotional". They are not saying "hey I have an acting job" as that fact is already established by reliable secondary sources in this article. They are giving purely insider factual information about the production of the show which is reasonable to have in this type of article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

they are not "purely factual". they are crap primary sources used to attempt to establish some type of notability for this project.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you have against this show or article but you need to stop. Swearing will lead no where and it is "purely factual." Stop edit warring and take your opinions to this talk page if you must. Otherwise, stop edit warring.- Astros4477 (Talk) 22:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Notability has already been established by two reliable secondary sources giving significant coverage. The tweets are giving purely factual insider information and have nothing to do with establishing notability. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Are the use of twitter feeds from the people involved in the production appropriate use of primary sources for this article [1]?

• no - primary sources particularly the promotional and ephemeral twits from people so closely involved in the production should not be used in this manner in an attempt to bolster the apparent notability and coverage of the project. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• yes - the primary sources are being used appropriately per WP:PRIMARY to provide uninterpreted factual information about the production of this show. They are not being used for any other purpose. The are not promoting the show, they are just describing what is happening based on their involvement in the shows production. One twitter message does provide factual information that supports that filming has commenced. This is purely factual info that that person would know and the veracity and identity of the person leaving the message is not in doubt. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Your position requires us to presume that the twits are coming from sources who have absolutely no reason for self promotion. As celebretaunts whose livelyhood is dependent upon fame and notice of the public, such a presumption is absurd. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the contents of the actual messages involved are not promotional in nature, just giving out insider info, it is reasonable to presume that they are not engaging in self-promotion in this specific case. Their general desire to promote themselves does not mean that everything they do is related to that. This is an article about a TV series, not the two principal actors, not the show runner. Info is solely related to information they would know based on their involvement in the TV series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

i have some land in florida for sale. really i do. just hand over some money and its yours.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Having responded to the report on the 3RR noticeboard (and protected the article), I feel obliged to become engaged in the discussion. I have no prior knowledge of the subject matter, so I should qualify as a neutral observer.

I note that WP:TWITTER provides Wikipedia policy on the use of Twitter as a source. It lists five conditions -- and one pre-condition -- that must be met for Twitter to be acceptable. This discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard is also relevant. I see that this article also cites YouTube, which carries similar issues. IMO, the article meets the threshold criterion that it is not based primarily on these sources (because refs 1 and 6 cite reliable sources independent of the subject' Billboard also could be cited). Let's do a point-by-point evaluation of the other criteria to consider in evaluating these sources:

• The first question to ask about these sources (IMO) is about the pre-condition: whether the content obtained from these sources is information about the feed owners themselves (which may be acceptable). A few statements are sourced to the actresses' Twitter feeds and the official website of the produce (Dan Schneider); I think these would be acceptable if the information is about these people are topics within their direct control.
• The next key concern for both Twitter and YouTube as sources is the question of whether there is any reasonable doubt as to their authenticity (item 4 at WP:TWITTER). I gather from the discussion on this page that the actresses' Twitter feeds are deemed to be authentic, and I think we can consider Dan Schneider's official website to be authentic. Is there any dispute about the authenticity of the YouTube video source? I do have concern about citing http://ask.fm/arianagrandefromfriday2nextfriday/answer/23777185208 -- we can't verify that this tweet really came from Ariana, so we can't use it.
• Now, let's consider the first three items at WP:TWITTER, which relate to the content: Is the material neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim? Does it involve claims about third parties? Does it involve claims about events not directly related to the source? I contend that all of these Twitter feeds exist for a self-serving purpose, but that doesn't mean that every tweet is self-serving information. I don't see any of the article content that is sourced to a Twitter feed as self-serving. I do see a claim about a third party in using an actress' tweet to indicate that Cameron Ocasio is in the show (ref 7). I don't think we can use that information. As for whether the events are directly related to the sources, I think that all of the information sourced to tweets by the actresses and Schneider is OK.

On that basis, I judge the tweets by McCurdy and Grande to be potentially acceptable (refs 2 and 3), and I think that Dan Schneider's website is potentially acceptable (ref 5). I reject reference 4, however, as unauthenticated.

It's also important to look at the sources and see if they support the article content. I'm afraid I can't accept the cryptic statements in the two actresses blogs (refs 2 and 3) as adequate basis for stating that the pilot was filmed in September. That's probably true, but it looks like it takes a bit of original research to reach that conclusion. The reference to Dan Schneider's tweet (which should, BTW, point to http://www.danwarp.blogspot.com/2012/11/sam-cat-is-go.html ) is OK.

Bottom line: Refs 2, 3, 4, and 7 -- and the content that is sourced to them -- are not acceptable. Ref 5 looks OK (also refs 1 an 6). I've not thoroughly evaluated the YouTube video (ref 8). --Orlady (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opion some of the tweets are fine to use. The tweet on Grande's twitter about Cameron, I was doubtful at first. By seeing that the show is now filing its fourth episode the tweet is becoming reality that he is a main cast member.as far as http://ask.fm/arianagrandefromfriday2nextfriday/answer/23777185208, I have never heard Grande mention it, but again I don't really foloow her like some fans. I have seen the site mentioned, but not seeing that it is her. Instead I would use one of Dan's tweets for the start of fiming date. Also Nick is going to be having the annal event(forget what it is called) in a couple of weeks. or next week. I think we should just leave it until we get more press releases from Nick. Otherwise there is no point in having this article if were taking out the tweets. WP Editor 2012 (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on information published by reliable sources. It isn't a fan site. It doesn't exist for publication of gossip. --Orlady (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the impartial evaluation of the sources. I would disagree a bit about a twitter message identifying a co-worker, even if it does mention a third party, except that there is an image posted by the show runner where this actor's name sign is blanked out so this may be something that an actress on the show is not authorized to reveal. The actress's other twitters seem to me pretty obviously supportive of the info added to the article, but if others' disagree I can accept that judgment. Overall, good job on researching and evaluating this issue and I have no problems accepting your conclusions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll go edit the article to remove the items I found to be unsupported, and I'll unprotect the article.

Regarding the tweet about Cameron, the entire tweet is "Great day filming with @cameronocasio & @jennettemccurdy!" It doesn't state that they were filming this show -- perhaps they were filming a commercial or a YouTube video, for example. It requires some original synthesis to conclude that Cameron is going to be on this show. Furthermore, even if we accept that they were filming this show, one tweet hardly demonstrates that he's a "main character" -- or even a regular -- on the series. Wikipedia needs to wait for a published statement about his role in the show. --Orlady (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree it is not sufficient in of itself to support what was added. It, at most, supported that the twitter account mentioned was valid and possibly info in that account could potentially be used. However that is not important to this article and it would be better so see something more direct from the production team or the network identifying actors. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is fine if it is in compliant with WP:PRIMARY. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 February 2013

want to add logo of show at this link:http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121213073610/icarly/images/3/37/Sam_%26_Cat_logo.jpg

24.6.47.32 (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The image must first be uploaded. See Help:Introduction to uploading images for more information. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Temporary protection of this article

My apologies for not posting earlier to explain why this article is currently protected. I protected it because edit warring was occurring on the article. A user had posted at the 3RR noticeboard to report another user for edit warring. I decided that the best (that is, least destructive) way to stop the edit warring was to protect the article for a few days while discussion occurred on this page. This is the discussion labeled "Verified twitter as a source". --Orlady (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Page protection currently expires 22:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC). If users want to make edits before then, please post your requests on this page; an administrator will look at the request. Whether the page is protected or not, everyone should remember that fan sites and social media aren't generally considered reliable sources for an encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but what about official sources that use social media? In any case, the categories Category:2013 American television series debuts and Category:2010s Nickelodeon shows should be added once the protection expires. -------User:DanTD (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"official" sources are primary sources that are close to the subject of the article. they can be used in a limited number of circumstances for non controversial, non promotional content about themselves. since this is a show that has not yet aired will depend upon an audience to attract commercial support, nearly anything that comes from them needs to be held to the utmost standards for being non-promotional as their profits depend upon the audience to support the commercials. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't find that guidance about "official" sources. Is there a link so I can evaluate it in context? Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That WP:TWITTER link describes Wikipedia policy regarding all self-published sources (not just Twitter), including "official" sources. If you search for "official sources" at WP:RSN, you probably will find a number of discussions that add clarity regarding that policy. --Orlady (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I looked there and in the RSN archives before I posted. I couldn't find anything direct and I am trying to better understand the issues. I was looking for the WP article, essay, guideline or policy where the phrase "for non controversial, non promotional content about themselves" was stated. Mainly because that would imply info from press releases could never be used as supporting references and I don't think this is true. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that press releases can be acceptable as sources, but we need to use judgement in how they are used. The words used in the relevant subsection of WP:V are "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". --Orlady (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we cite this site as a source

I wanted to start putting some information on this Wikipedia page and I found this new Sam and Cat web site. It is called Sam and Cat Online, and I was wondering if we could use it as a source. It is supposed to be a news site and I think it would be a great source for future edits of ours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slash1478 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors." WP:Verifiability states: "Self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources."

The website http://samandcatonline.tk/ identifies itself as an "Unofficial fansite". It's a wordpress blog with exactly two blog posts, dated 12 March and 13 March. The site has no indication of who owns or maintains it. There is no way that this qualifies as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Additionally, the content that you have added to the article doesn't say much of anything. It is just gossipy hype intended to excite the young audience for this upcoming TV show. I am removing your addition, once again.

If you don't trust me and want another opinion on that website, try posting on the reliable sources noticeboard. --Orlady (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

PS - I just posted a Welcome message on your talk page. You may not be familiar with the various policies and guidelines that get tossed around here; the welcome message contains some helpful links for you. --Orlady (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

GloZell - Any Actual Sources?

Although I love GloZell, does anyone have an actual source to use? A youtube video posted on April Fool's Day is far from a reliable source. And every other source linked simply copies what she says in the video. 99.162.156.148 (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Any reference dated April Fools' Day is extremely dubious just because of the date. Particularly when there is nothing else supporting it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as it being an april fools prank who knows, But there have been pics of her being on set. However, she shouldn't be listed in the main character section. If she is on she is only on once as far as I can tell.WP Editor 2012 (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If in one episode, belongs as a mention in the episode summary of that episode. If in multiple episodes, should be added as a recurring character to this article as well. If shows up named in the opening credits, then should be added to the starring list and main cast list. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

iParty With Victorious

In iParty With Victorious, Sam and Cat met each other, and even both sang with each other, and by the start of Sam & Cat, Sam is a big celebrity, but when she runs into Cat, they dont know each other in person. Now on Cats behalf, how would she forget meeting a big celebrity, and on Sams behalf, she usually doesn't forget people. Does that mean that iParty is no longer canon? Should we put that on the page? --72.209.53.244 (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No. It probably means you're taking things too seriously. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We report what reliable sources have to say about a subject, not what the Secret Masters Of Fandom decide about the speculative meaning of possible continuity errors in TV shows. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The basic premise of this show is that they haven't met before. Episode one would have been significantly different if they had. I am certain that Dan Schneider didn't forget "iParty" so it is just not a part of canon for S&C. I think we can ignore everything on the previous shows unless re-introduced on this show. As for this article mentioning that, I think it should go in only if some reliable source talks about it, otherwise I recommend we just ignore it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) iParty with Victorious is either non-canon or there exist reasons why they don't know each other (e. g. Cat hasn't watched iCarly yet). As long as we don't have any source about it, we shouldn't include it in the article. --Morten Haan (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In Dan's funfacts he stated that True, both characters appeared in iParty... but they never really interacted. So, to me, this is their first real meeting http://danwarp.blogspot.com/2013/06/sam-cat-tomorrow-night.htmlWP Editor 2012 (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, now that I think about it, they didn't really interact in iParty, and SummerPhD I know its an encyclopedia, I never said it wasn't. It was more just a general question, that no, I'm not taking too seriously. So don't go calling me names (especially stupid ones like "Secret Masters of Fandom"). --72.209.53.244 (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't take this all too seriously since Dan Schneider is horrible with continuity. Unless it's addressed in the canon of this show, it shouldn't be addressed in this article. — Confession0791 ^talk 02:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright PhD it was simple question and you dont need to be so rude about it. --TotalDramaFan1 (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, 72.209.53.244/TDF1. I did not mean to upset you, I'm simply trying to keep the project on task. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Sam & Cat characters?

There already exists a list of iCarly characters and a list of Victorious characters.

As Sam and Cat progresses, the list of characters, including minor characters, will invariably grow, and a separate article will have to be created in order to contain them.  But, as I see it, there are two ways of going about this.

1. We could create a list of Sam & Cat characters article
2. We could create a characters in the iCarly/Victorious/Sam & Cat universe article and redirect the old lists to this new one

There are benefits and drawbacks to both of these options.  The primary benefits of the first list would be that it would be easy to create, and that it would contain information about the characters relevant to this particular show and, thus, the stage at which these characters are in life.  The drawback, however, is that there will be obvious overlap with both of the other lists (iCarly, Victorious) that already exist.

The benefit of the second option is that we would limit overlapping information.  Instead of having two robust, overlapping bios of Sam Puckett here and here, there would just be one robust bio of Puckett here.  One drawback, however, is that this option would require a great deal of work in transferring and integrating information from the already-extant lists.  A second, and perhaps more important, drawback is that it might make things confusing for readers, who might have difficulty figuring out which shows which characters have appeared in or been referenced in.

One potential solution to the second drawback to the second option is to create a chart, e.g.:

Name	Appeared in x episodes of iCarly	Appeared in x episodes of Victorious	Appeared in x episodes of Sam & Cat	Referenced in x episodes of iCarly	Referenced in x episodes of Victorious	Referenced in x episodes of Sam & Cat	First appeared in
Freddie Benson	96	0	0	96	0	1	iCarly (S1E1, 8 September 2007)
Etc.

Such a list could be placed at the bottom of the list article.

allixpeeke (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2014

In the Recurring Cast section please fix the mis-spelled name Gommer to the correct Goomer. Thanks! 99.227.22.71 (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done —Morten Haan (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

A special hour-long episode counts as a single episode

It appears there has been a small edit-war between Katydidit and Geraldo Perez concerning the number of episodes that have appeared thus far.

Katydidit maintains that twenty-four episodes have aired on the grounds that “#TheKillerTunaJump: #Freddie #Jade #Robbie” was an hour long—the length of two usual episodes.  To quote Katydidit, “1-hr special = 2 episodes.”

Geraldo Perez correctly maintains that twenty-three episodes have aired on the grounds that “#TheKillerTunaJump: #Freddie #Jade #Robbie” is a single episode.  To quote Geraldo Perez, “A single episode of any type IS one episode. One doesn't count twice.”

Geraldo Perez is correct that only twenty-three episodes have aired.  A special hour-long episode counts as a single episode.  (It would only count as two separate episodes if there were a “to be continued…” at the end of one and a “previously on” at the beginning of the next, which is not the case with “#TheKillerTunaJump: #Freddie #Jade #Robbie.”)  It was objectively a single episode.

Cheers,
allixpeeke (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Also note that Dan Schneider at [2] refers to the episode as "the new Sam & Cat one-hour special event" and production code reference at Futon Critic [3] shows a special production code of 999 for this episode. A two part episode would be two episodes as each part is a separable episode. This episode was not broadcast in two parts, it had only one set of credits, it was just longer than normal. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this. It's intuitive to me that a double-long episode that airs in one shot, should be considered a single episode. I would even go further to say that even if the studio used two production codes for each half-hour, (as they do with some animated series,) that is an internal choice that doesn't have any meaning to us. If the studio decided to make a 90 minute TV movie, and used three production codes for their budgeting and planning, we wouldn't consider that three episodes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to make a minor disagreement with Cyphoidbomb, using the three-episode Imaginationland story arc from season eleven of South Park as my primary example.  Because the three episodes have three separate titles and three separate production codes, I would have to say that they are three separate episodes, even if it had been the case that all three had aired on the same night, and even despite the fact that the three episodes were later released as a movie of sorts (and despite the fact that South Park is an animated series).  Now, one might say that the point is moot considering that they originally aired on three separate dates, but then I could point to The Office, which often showed two episodes in a single night, such as the final two episodes of the series, which count as two separate episodes despite the fact that they ran back to back.  I do believe that the most compelling evidence we have in the Sam & Cat case is, as Geraldo Perez notes above, Dan Schneider’s testimony and the single production code.  While the first half of The Office’s “Finale” could be aired in two separate half-hour parts (because of the way in which the episodes were written), “#TheKillerTunaJump: #Freddie #Jade #Robbie” was not written in a way conducive to airing it in two separate parts.  One could surmise that, in syndication, “#TheKillerTunaJump: #Freddie #Jade #Robbie” will never be split up while the two halves of “Finale” would.  Best regards, allixpeeke (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there any community consensus precedent on this? I was re-thinking my statement above and it occurred to me that, no, back-to-back, isn't necessarily the qualifier--if one half of the show concludes with a theme and closing credits, and then begins again, that seems like it would be two episodes. I'd be interested in knowing what the community has already decided about such matters. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Outdated information

There is a lot of outdated information on this article, especially in the section discussing production and release. Anyone want to take care of this? Mackatackastewart (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding a "second season renewal"

I do hate to start a conversation on the talk page, but this is kind of a challenging slab of information. Earlier, I reverted an edit on the Sam & Cat page regarding information of a season renewal. I reverted this edit on the count that there are no other sources confirming this. Now as I trust Geraldo Perez's revert to my revert, I do think we should wait on posting this 'slab of information' still until other sources decide to confirm this. Because I've looked everywhere, and so far, "Adweek.com" is the only source that confirms this. But as "Adweek.com" is usually reliable anyways, I'll just leave this to anyone else to decide. I did happen to find a blogpost from "NickALive" that mentioned that 'Nickelodeon re-confirmed their Sam & Cat renewal' but blogs from "blogspot.com" usually aren't that reliable. So I suppose have a greater look yourselves.

At this point, maybe you should keep the bit of information on Sam & Cat being renewed. However, I do think you should add more citations as more sources decide to confirm that Sam & Cat had been renewed. -- »»»DavidTwo2012«««  10:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't originally add the info, it was added by @Kido1234567890:, I just edited it to more accurately match what was in the source. That is why the info is stated the way it is as it is not an official announcement it is just a statement by the person who makes the decision and has inside knowledge. Based on that renewal is pretty solid, but not "official".

I am surprised other sources have not picked this up. Adweek as a reliable source can be trusted to have identified the person correctly and passed on what he said accurately. It is effectively a primary source as Adweek did not research or validate any further and his statement has not been backed up by any other secondary sources as is desired for primary information to be included in wiki. It is an editorial decision whether or not this belongs in the article at this point. I suggest we wait a few weeks and if no other reliable secondary sources report it by then, remove this info from the article then. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I tagged the cite as requiring a secondary source. Tagged info can be evaluated for removal after a month or so. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.deadline.com/2014/03/future-of-nickelodeon-series-sam-cat-in-limbo-amidst-behind-the-scenes-drama/ - That kind of "hints" at the fact that the series wasn't renewed -yet-, but I think it hints that it 'could' be renewed; "I hear there is a Season 2 production start date penciled in for later this year, but a renewal decision still appears to be a toss-up." -- »»»DavidTwo2012«««  11:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I added the above info to the article showing what both sources stated and making no conclusions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Since they had renewed for another season, I'm pretty sure that they will start another season of Sama nd Cat, and about Maree Cheatham they could put her in season 2 credits (Jus Sayin). Christopher100006 (talk) 9:07 7 May 2014

Why Maree Cheatham belongs in infobox starring list

In the first episode that aired Maree Cheatham got a "Starring" listing in the end credits, not Guest star, Special guest star, co-star or any other type of credit - just "Starring". Normally starring cast are shown in the opening credits but that was not done for Maree Cheatham for this show. She also does not appear in every episode so is recurring as well as is shown in the article itself. How actors are credited is up to the producers of a show, the networks and how good the actor's agent is in negotiating. What goes in the infobox is anybody who ever got a starring credit in order of appearance. We don't second guess the production and network on how they consider cast importance, we go with what they determine. Also, to support how important this actor is, her character is listed as one of the four highlighted at http://www.nick.com/shows/sam-and-cat/characters/nona.html at Nick.com. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, because of http://www.nick.com/shows/sam-and-cat/characters/nona.html at Nick.com, it is pretty obvious that Nickelodeon considers Nona a main character as Nona is one of the only four characters listed in the characters description for the show. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Cancellation

A number of sites and journalists have reported that the show has been cancelled. Can we get more information on this and possibly add it to the article? The brief acknowledgement in the introduction that "a renewal decision has yet to be made" is much too vague. All signs point to a cancellation. AbsoluteMack (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Find one of those "number of sites and journalists" who meet the standards of a reliable source such as being a major news organization, trade publication or a press release from Nickelodeon and add the info derived from that reference to the article using that source as a reference. Absent any reliable information, rumors and speculation don't belong in any wikipedia article. The brief acknowledgment in the intro is all we have now that is well referenced and accurately reflects what the attached source states. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2014

== Ending ==

According to nick videos with the WeStealARockStar promo viewable here http://thefutoncritic.com/showatch/sam-and-cat/listings/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkxKC1nbUA4 it says there are only two more episodes of Sam & Cat. 108.234.108.77 (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"series finale", "series will end", etc.

Please discuss the issue at Talk:List of Sam & Cat episodes. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2014

Edit the June 8,2013-present to june 8,2013-july 17,2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.70.186 (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done As the hidden note states "stays as present until after final ep has actually aired". Note - the final episode has not aired. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Jonathanjoseph81 and Synthesis

Writing to clarify my reversion of content submitted by Jonathanjoseph81, "Sam & Cat was one of Nick's most popular shows, and had very high ratings its entire run." [4][5][ [6]. 1) the source provided ("DESCRIPTION: (from Nickelodeon's press release, July 2013)") is just reguritating a Nickelodeon press release, which makes it insufficient as a reference for this content. A primary source can't be used to reliably support controversial content about itself. 2) Jonathanjoseph81 writes, "Sam & Cat was one of Nick's most popular shows". "Popular" is subjective, which is one reason why we don't accept primary sources, or the regurgitation of primary sources as sources. 3) The press release was written July 2013, or one year ago. Whatever claims it attempts to make may no longer be applicable, assuming that they ever were. But it doesn't matter, since FutonCritic just reprinted a press release, which would be insufficient as a source. 4) The claim "[Sam & Cat] had very high ratings its entire run" is never stated in the source--it's not even implied. The closest thing to this claim is that they predicted the future in July 2013 when they said, "and all episodes since consistently rank among the top episodes on iTunes." To draw a conclusion not expressly stated in the sources is synthesis. 5) Jonathanjoseph81's edit summary in their third submission of this content states "the article states'Sam & Cat is currently the network's number-one live-action series'which proves it is one of nick's most popular shows..." No it does not. The source "proves" that Nickelodeon said in July 2013 that the series at that time was a "top-rated" series, that it was "the biggest live-action debut in three years", that its premiere episode reached #1 on iTunes (in some category). Too many holes here. User Jonathanjoseph81 may wind up being correct about the facts, I don't presume to know, but the facts as presented with this source are not properly supported. For these reasons, I am again cutting the content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Does this count as a recent reference for Sam & Cat being one of the network's most successful shows? - http://www.deadline.com/2014/07/sam-cat-wont-cancelled-nickelodeon/ - As for me stating that Sam & Cat had high ratings, I am talking about each episodes' individual viewer count, whereas other Nickelodeon shows' were not that high. --Jonathanjoseph81 (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a good reference. Should be in reception section and overall summary of what is in reception section should go in article lede. After series is done its run, I expect the lede will need to be modified some more to treat the series as a completed whole. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

A decent reference, yes! With regard to this statement, "I am talking about each episodes' individual viewer count, whereas other Nickelodeon shows' were not that high." I believe what you are describing would comprise original research, since you individually are comparing the ratings instead of letting a reliable secondary source make that determination. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Not Cancelled! Just going on a long Hiatus!

It's been confirmed that Sam & Cat is NOT CANCELLED! It's just going on a long hiatus!