Talk:Big City Greens/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rename to Big City Greens

Can someone please rename this article to Big City Greens?--2601:2C0:C280:E460:6C24:25BE:5E39:CEE4 (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Disney Channel "debut"

Big City Greens "debuting" on Disney Channel does not mean that this is to be a "Disney Channel" show – it may be getting a "special preview" on the Disney Channel, but will still be a "Disney XD" show. None of the sourcing provided verifies that it will be a "Disney Channel" show now. Additionally, the Tweet used as a source is from an unverified Twitter account, and cannot be used as a source for any of this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

May also need to see how many episodes end up airing on Disney Channel if it's not only the first episode. Mech-X4, for example, was a complicated case, with the first five episodes airing on Disney Channel. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. But this issue here is that no source has been provided to clarify what's going on here. All we've got is two sources (one of which is an unverified Tweet that can't be used) that say the show will "debut" on the Disney Channel. Nothing says it is now a "Disney Channel show", or has switched from a "Disney XD show" to a "Disney Channel show". In fact, until clearer sourcing can be provided, I wouldn't even support adding the "Disney Channel debut" thing to the article right now... --IJBall (contribs • talk)

Still, regardless if you think that the series is not a "Disney Channel Show" just because you think that the two (verified) sources that I added to show proof on what they already confirmed by the creator, is from the source on Twitter, you can say that you wouldn’t believe if the series is not DC original if the decision is coming from the company as well as the series creator itself, but that doesn’t mean that we have to agree from what you’re saying since that’s considered as negligible. NeoplanDan (Talk) NeoplanDan (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No. One "source" is an unverified Twitter account that can't be used – period – aside from being WP:SELFPUBLISH, it's WP:NOTRS if it's an unverified account. (Further, it's not from Disney directly, and may not be usable on that basis.) The other source – this – is ambiguous: the focus of the article is the animator, not the show, and all it says is "This summer, a new audience will be introduced to their mad genius when their show Big City Green debuts on the Disney Channel." (emphasis mine) What does that mean?! Does that mean the "series debut" is on the Disney Channel, but the show itself will be on Disney XD?! The answer is: We don't know from this. (Amaury's points above are salient: Disney has "debuted" shows on Disney Channel before, before moving them permanently to Disney XD.) Bottom line: None of this is definitive, and in the absence of a clearer sourcing, WP:CRYSTALBALL suggests (strongly) that we leave things as they are until we get something clearer. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

And this is tthe reason why no one can’t tell you anything considering that us users are trying to update the page that includes adding the rightful source that has already confirmed about the changes of the show, whether you think that link to the series co-creator’s Twitter Account is unverifiable because you think is, otherwise others would think the page hasn’t been updated on what channel it would air plus it’s easy for you to look at the source that I tried giving to the page to where it the original source comes from, plus your understanding on what you think the source that comes from another website of such page is poorly justified, all I got to say is, continue using this WP [] this and that, because all it is nothing but a lame excuse that you’re creating over and over and for being all too finicky and nitpicking on what verifiable or not, its just starting to get nerve-racking and annoying to nearly everyone including me, that edits the page. User:NeoplanDan NeoplanDan (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a "fan site" – it's an encyclopedia. You are free to report any unverified rumor you want at the wikia. We don't do that here – we demand verifiability: WP:Verifiability, not truth. If you can't get behind that, Wikipedia is not for you. (P.S. I will note that even that Tweet only says the series will "debut" on Disney Channel – nothing anyone has provided so far has verified that the show is going to be a full-on "Dinsey Channel series" rather than a Disney XD one...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I did not say anything about this being a so-called "Fan site" and I know it’s a encyclopedia, and also you apparently just come out of nowhere and assume that we think it’s a fan site despite that none of us said it at all. NeoplanDan (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

FTR, I agree with Amaury's latest edit here – until we are sure what is happening, we probably shouldn't even report a "network"... (And, also FTR, I still suspect this will ultimately be a "Disney XD" show, just one that "debuts"/premieres on Disney Channel first...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

For the last time, just because you and other user, who so-called agreed that this show is going to permanently stay on DC and you classify it as a DXD show, doesn’t mean that you have any knowledge on what the company would do with the show, if it means placing on a network that once was had a gender neutral and family friendly title, along with others that are moving away from their original home channel, and yet you’re still considering this as DXD show if it never had any chance of airing there, now that part, doesn’t make any sense at all, now you can that I’m wrong, but I know what I see and when I hear it. NeoplanDan (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

We finally have a WP:RS: this makes it pretty clear that it will be a Disney Channel show for the foreseeable future – I have updated the article accordingly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Remy and Gloria?

Can somebody report how many segments Remy (Zeno Robinson) and Gloria (Anna Akana) have appeared in so far? I think both might now qualify as "recurring" characters, but I'd like to know how many separate segments they've appeared in first... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Unlike Nickelodeon, Disney Channel always airs episodes' segments together. There are no segment credits, just episodes. Remy has appeared in seven episodes and Gloria has appeared in five episodes, enough to both be considered recurring. I'll add them with my current edit. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Cast "absences"

This topic is already controversial enough, and while I think there is sometimes legitimate reasons for including this kind of info, I do think the use of 'cast absences' has been generally overused at some articles, and more importantly is completely irrelevant for an animated television series. Thus, I am about to revert this edit. Just posting to the Talk page in case this comes up again, or in case others want to discuss the issue further. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

"Cricketsitter"/"Backflip Bill"

Neither Doctor nor Juan Pablo appear in this episode, and further disruptive editing in that regard will be reverted on the spot. Here are screenshots of the credits for the episode: Doctor and Juan Pablo appear nowhere.

• Screenshot 1
• Screenshot 2

Unless my eyes are bad, I don't see either of those anywhere. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Creators

The creators are very clearly displayed as "The Houghton Brothers" at the end of the opening sequence; as such, that's how we list them in the lead and in the infobox. If needed, that can be expanded upon in the Production section, but otherwise it should be kept simple. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:TVCAST's "names as per credits" doesn't just apply to cast – it applies to crew too. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The best way to present information

Sometimes, the best way isn't the most obvious way. In this case, before my last edit, the information presented made the episodes table look unnecessarily "fat." Live-action comedies never have this issue as they just have simple writers and simple directors to list. Sometimes, the writers are more specific and there are story people and teleplay people, but that's still not a problem. Animation is more complicated, however, because not only do we have more "categories"—for example, storyboard—but we also have more people involved within those. For example, a single segment on an episode of this series had four writers! That virtually never happens with live-action television series. As such, the best way to present crew information here is in the infobox, which has parameters for various crew duties, as it causes no alteration of the infobox size whatsoever. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Big City Greens logo .png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Separating episode entries

For many modern shows where there's two segments in a half hour, they're given separate sections in the episode list with the pairs having the same number but with a and b tacked on at the end. For instance, the Star Vs The Forces of Evil episode list does this. When I tried editing the article a while back I had my edit reverted because "Doesn't match column source listings", but as far as I know the column source (Futon Critic) formats Big City Greens and shows like Star vs identically, yet no one has a problem with the way the Star vs episode list lists their episodes. Besides, separating out episode entries allows for us to list who wrote/directed each episode without it getting too cluttered. Zemblant (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That contradicts how they aired and also how they are listed on The Futon Critic and Zap2it. The crew from each episode is listed in the infobox, which keeps the table nice and clean. Amaury 16:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

But I feel we should be consistent with other shows, and like I mentioned: Futon Critic/Zap2it list Star vs episodes the same way, yet no one feels that they way the Star vs episode list lists episodes "contradicts how they aired".Zemblant (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:OSE – plenty of stuff is actually done wrong at other articles. But there's no reason to spread incorrect practices to the articles where things are actually done correctly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Distributor

Can someone please stop deleting the distribution part? Im trying to show the distributor of the show Joey Donnie06 (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Then provide a reference. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

As discussed multiple times elsewhere, the network itself is always a distributor, so it doesn't need to be listed. Also, that field is only for DVD releases. Amaury • 21:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually distributor can/should also cover back-end (i.e. rerun) syndication, but again – only if it's different from the original network/production companies. But that doesn't even apply in this case, as Big City Greens has never aired anywhere except on a Disney TV network. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent manual reverts

A couple of recent changes were manually reverted due to no explanation being provided. Please see WP:FIES and always provide edit summaries, especially when making major edits. Had edit summaries been used, this would have been caught earlier.

• Restoration of the directors into the episode table. They were removed for a reason, which was to save room in the episode table. The writers left in the episode table are already making the table "ugly" enough as it is by making the rows unnecessarily tall.
• Storyboard personnel were deemed not appropriate here and never included.

Any major changes like this should almost always be discussed on the talk page. And, again, use edit summaries. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Removing the directors and writers was itself a major change that should have been discussed before being done. As far as I can tell, including them is standard for these types of articles and they should never have been removed in the first place. Alphius (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Rewriting plot

I think that the plot should be rewritten to focus on the entire Green family instead of just Cricket. Thoughts? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

RFC about writers in the infobox

The following discussion 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.

---

Should this be an exemption to the rule to not list more than 5 writers in the infobox? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Absolutely no reason to break the infobox rules for this page. Making the infobox so long makes mobile navigation messy and it does not help improve the page in any substantial way. The rule exists for a reason and there's absolutely no reason for this to be considered an exemption to it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strongest support You seem to be under the impression that those are legally binding rules that have zero flexibility and must absolutely be followed to the letter. They're not. They're the same as guidelines and there's always room for flexibility there. Time to get off your high horse. Regardless, you are required to follow proper procedures which you failed to do and instead chose to edit war because of your "I am right" mentality, something you have a history of. You should have been here discussing the first time you were reverted, and now you went running for an RFC because you weren't getting your way. Amaury • 16:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• So not discussing it was wrong, but starting an RFC to get the most people discussing possible was also wrong? You didn't even give a single reason for including it, just attacked me. Whether I was right or wrong in how I edited is completely irrelevant here. Feel free to report me to the admins if you have a problem with that. However, it's completely off topic here. The rules state to include writers only if there are five or less. Yes, there are exceptions to the rules, but there's need to be a valid reason to why this is an exemption, which you haven't even attempted to provide. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Invalid RfC and speedy close – rather than be constructive and go to the already ongoing discussion at Talk:List of Big City Greens episodes which would actually solve this issue once and for all, JDDJS would rather play games and be nonconstructive. So let's close this, discuss and get a consensus to move (just) the writers and directors to the episodes table, so that we can then remove them from the infobox. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I support this. Amaury • 16:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• That is completely false. Nobody has contributed to that discussion in over two months, so it is not ongoing. It also should have no bearing with what happens on the infobox of this page. My problem is listing more writers in the infobox then in the rules, which makes the page messy and hard to navigate on mobile. I don't care if they're listed on the episode article or in the body of this article. But it's against the rules to list them in the infobox for good reason. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• So stop causing drama, and SOLVE THE PROBLEM. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• THE PROBLEM is the writers in the infobox. That's all I care about here. I tried to solve it by removing them, but you didn't like that and told me to discuss it. So I started this discussion here, and yet you're still not happy. You're being impossible to work with. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why you even care. It doesn't seem evident that you even watch this series. And you should have been here discussing the issue the first time you were reverted, not act like a baby and edit war. Just because you start a discussion doesn't mean people are going to agree with you. If you were hoping everyone would agree with you, you might want to rethink things. My problem is listing more writers in the infobox then in the rules, which makes the page messy and hard to navigate on mobile. I don't care if they're listed on the episode article or in the body of this article. But it's against the rules to list them in the infobox for good reason. They are not rules just because you say so, they are guidelines, a best practices view that will always have exceptions. Amaury • 22:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

One, I do watch the show. Two, you don't need to watch shows to edit their articles. Do we need to follow the guidelines all of the time? Of course not. However, there actually has to be a reason go against them, and you haven't even attempted to provide one. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Firstly, an RfC about the infobox in this article should be held here, not at another article. I agree that the list in the infobox should be limited. If there are too many writers, and there are, then do as is done in the vast majority of articles and list them in the episode tables. Hiding part of the list, as is done here, is inappropriate and falls foul of MOS:SCROLL which says "Scrolling lists, and collapsible templates that toggle text display between hide and show, can interfere with readers' ability to access our content", "Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading." and "If information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all." I'd also support removing the lists of "Story by" and directors. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

That's ignoring that it's an intertwined problem – we can remove the writers and directors from the infobox, if we can get an agreement to add (just) the writers and the directors to the episodes tables. So you can't just look at one part of the issue – you have to look at both, together: we need to solve both at the same time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not an intertwined problem though. The problem here is just listing them in the infobox. Nothing else is relevant to this specific discussion. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Says you. But, again, you've consistently shown that you're not interested in being constructive. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm the one who actually started the RFC, so how am I not being constructive? And again, if you have a problem with my editing conduct, bring it up to ANI. But here is not the place to discuss it. This is for talking about the article in question not me. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

That's ignoring that it's an intertwined problem - It seems more like creation of a silly problem where none should exist. We have special fields in {{episode list}} for writers and directors so why not use them as we do for most TV programs? It's not as if there's not room for them. They should never have been removed from the episode tables. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

We have special fields in {{episode list}} for writers and directors so why not use them as we do for most TV programs? Although we aren't obligated to use them just because they exist. Amaury • 22:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: The issue at the animation articles is that then people insist upon adding "Storyboarded by" to the episodes tables as well, and then they become overstuffed. If we can get a consensus/agreement to just add writers and directors (and not storyboarders) for this series, the issue will be resolved. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: That's all irrelevant here though. This discussion is about including them in the infobox on this article and nothing else. Whether or not they're included on the episode list does not affect that. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The issues are related. So it's not irrelevant just because you say so. We either list them in the infobox or in the episode tables. Or we don't list them at all. I'd be fine with that last one, as we don't have to use the fields just because they're there. Nothing says we must list directors, etc.Amaury • 22:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

They're not related because you say so. As I said multiple times, my only concern is that they don't belong in the infobox in the article on this page. I don't care if they're listed on the episode article or nowhere at all. The scope of this RFC is just to determine what happens in the infobox, which has not been discussed anywhere else before. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

If we can get a consensus/agreement to just add writers and directors (and not storyboarders) for this series, the issue will be resolved. That's really a discussion for the LoE page and has nothing to do with this article. I'd be happy to support not adding "Storyboarded by" there, but it's a different discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd probably support that too, but it has nothing to do with this discussion. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

[sigh...] As I've said, the issues are fully related. But if you're all willing to ignore this, I give up. Most of the animation articles are edited for crap anyway, so there's probably no reason this should be any different. I'm out. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: Repeating yourself doesn't make it true. You have yet to make an actual argument for why they're connected. For the most part, Wikipedia articles tend to be pretty independent of each other. There's simply no reason for whether or not they're included in the episode article to have any impact on whether they're included here. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: IJBall has made it clear that they're not participating in this discussion anymore because we don't feel that what happens on the episode list affects this. It seems Amaury is also done with the discussion [1] because he is upset his personal attacks were removed. While I definitely cannot change it myself because I've reverted too many times, I think that you can close this RFC early and remove them because now it's technically unanimous among participants in this discussion to remove them. Though if you rather just wait a week for it to close that's fine too. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

An uninvolved party here. Just thought it's worth pointing out that AussieLegend (I'd be happy to support not adding "Storyboarded by" there), JDDJS (Yeah, I'd probably support that too) and Amuary (I support this) support IJBall's proposal of If we can get a consensus/agreement to just add writers and directors (and not storyboarders) for this series, the issue will be resolved. If there is consensus to do that there, then what issue is still left here or there? Seems you all are in agreement. --Gonnym (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

{{re|Gonnym]] I should have clarified that I was mainly supporting what IJBall was saying about this being an invalid RFC. I didn't really focus on the rest. Amaury • 18:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually ping Gonnym now. Amaury • 18:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gonnym: To clairfy, I would support including the writers and directors but not the storyboard writers on the episode article, but I feel that such a discussion should happen on that articles talk page. I don't feel what's listed on the episode article talk page should have affect what we list in this article's infobox. In general, articles tend to be pretty independent from each other. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – the expanding collapsible content is, already, a serious accessability violation. Besides from what, what useful information does this provide? That Carson Montgomery has written for the series? What episode did she write? If I go to List of Big City Greens episodes, why is it not there? How do I know which one? When the show reaches seven seasons and 120 episodes, do we keep adding writers? Actually, it doesn't matter; this is not MOS:TV standard. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I fail to see any persuasive reason to make this an exception here. The infobox is just a short summary, and we shouldn't be stuffing it full of surplus names that can just be mentioned in the appropriate section of the article. Funtoedit1212 (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose List should be collapsible if there are more than 5 writers but having more than 5 names at once would be too much. desmay (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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.