Talk:Dog with a Blog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Dog With a Blog)
Jump to: navigation, search

Cast Photo[edit]

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


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

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

"Kuma" in the infobox[edit]

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

He is in the end credits so is not one of the starring actors who are listed in the opening credits. He is listed along with the animal trainers in the end credits. Doesn't belong in the infobox but does have a credit. The fact sheet lists Kuma/Mick as starring but that is not reflected in the actual show credits as of yet. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I must admit that I didn't bother checking the end credits, and haven't seen the second episode. I was assuming good faith when I made this edit. Silly me. --AussieLegend () 09:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Kuma is still in the end credits only as of episode 6. I have only checked episode 1 and 6 so can't confirm any other ones. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Mick is in the end credits of episode 5. I checked and confirmed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts but I have to ask, do we really care who plays him? He's a dog and sometimes an animatronic puppet. He's not in the opening credits so is it really necessary to list his name? --AussieLegend () 06:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I personally think the dog is effectively just a puppet, but as you noted above, he is mentioned in a reference as starring cast by the producers of the show. I am basically going by the guidance you gave originally and I am trying to keep things referenced and accurate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I realise that and you're doing a good job at keeping things accurate, but it seems unnecessary work for you. If you don't mind doing it I don't have a problem but I think we could probably just stick with Kuma/Mick per the source and not worry about which episodes are Mick and which are Kuma. --AussieLegend () 10:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it will be necessary to continue keeping track of episodes, at least I wasn't planning to do that. An episode credit with each dog actor is sufficient to show both have an actual show credit and not just a mention in a press release. Enough to remove "credited" and "uncredited" from the description was my sole intent here and to do that I had to verify that there actually was a credit in some episode for each. The only reason I didn't put in Kuma/Mick originally was because of WP:SLASH. I didn't think that was correct unless it was in a direct quote. The references I put in are probably unnecessary and could be removed, but since I had the info for a proper cite it was trivial to add them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Kuma references[edit]

The following are not reliable sources:

Nellie Andreeva (April 13, 2012). "Disney Channel's Dog With a Blog family comedy picked up". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved April 13, 2012. 
referenced info is in anonymous comments section attached to an otherwise reliable source. The comments are not part of the source article and don't inherit any reliability from it.
Danger Guerrero (october 16, 2012). "Dog With a Blog’-gate: Day Two: Inside Information About Kuma’s Firing". Retrieved october 16, 2012.  Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)</ref>
Is republishing info from an unknown source and is explicitely not vouching for its accuracy and has stated he was too lazy to do any fact checking about this. Put out as a general interest rumor and tagged as such.
"Kuma fired from 'Dog With a Blog'". IMDB. November 9, 2012. Retrieved November 9, 2012. 
IMDB is edited by anonymous people. See WP:IMDB and WP:RS/IMDB for more on why IMDB can't be used as a reference.

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

List new Episodes[edit]

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

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

Citation for Pasadena, California?[edit]

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

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

Page moves[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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

I fail to see how moving "With" to "with" would be controversial. In similar titles such as "Boy with a Basket of Fruit", "The Man with the Golden Gun" and "Girl with a Pearl Earring" the word "with" is not the first or last word, and thus should not be capitalized. Only prepositions with five or more letters are usually capitalized in these kind of titles. Widr (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Paintings that have existed for hundreds of years and 40-year-old movies are not reported by reliable sources every week using a consistent spelling and capitalisation as this TV series is reported. WP:COMMONNAME says we should use "commonly recognizable names" and capitalisation is part of that. It's why the television series remains at The Big Bang Theory despite much discussion arguing that the title should redirect to Big Bang. --AussieLegend () 09:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the aforementioned grammar rule of prepositions. As far as I can see, most Wikipedia articles are adhering to this rule. It shouldn't really matter how Disney or newspapers choose to spell the title as it can hardly be considered a trademark à la "iTunes" where an exception would be justified. And if we talk about consistency, then the title should either be "Dog With A Blog" or "Dog with a Blog". Widr (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
News sources that report on the show use all the variations. It is not obvious that any of the capitalization variations are the WP:COMMONNAME. Even the official name has capitalization variations depending on which Disney site uses the name. I think most people familiar with normal English grammar rules expect the "with" to be lower case and wiki MOS expects that as well per MOS:CAPS#Composition_titles. The only exception to the four character preposition ("with" is a preposition) rule is compound prepositions. I used to think "With a" is a compound preposition and thus supported the current title. After some research into basic grammar, I no longer believe it is. Based on all this I would support the article move. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
In the move logs [2] I see the page has been moved 3 times by 3 different editors to "Dog with a Blog" and moved back [3] by one. The editor actions in the move log should be noted as part of any concensus about this issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Disney stylises the title on-screen with all lower case, as we discussed on your talk page.[4] As you pointed out, the press releases all use "Dog With a Blog" so we have some consistency there that editors will follow. As for the page moves, you originally moved the article to its current location,[5] which is the reason I reverted the first move, which wasn't even proposed properly.[6] Page moves are no different to making edits or adding PROD notices (as just two examples). Once they've been reverted they can't be treated as uncontroversial. This is one reason PROD notices can't be restored once they've been removed. After the first reversion, we need to request a move and discuss it per WP:RM, so the subsequent moves should never have been requested as uncontroversial. The latest one was flawed as it moved only this article, leaving the episode list and this article with different capitalisations. If we're going to move BOTH articles, we need to cross the "t"s and dot the "i"s properly. --AussieLegend () 16:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The move to "Dog With A Blog" was the one I undid. I did support the original current title then. I now think I was wrong about the correct title for the article. Does this discussion meet the requirements of a controversial move per WP:RM or should we do the formal process at WP:RM/CM for a multi-page move? You added this section on the talk page and I considered changing to a move request but didn't want to change something I didn't do. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not straight-forward at all. WP:CAPS is just a disambiguation page and if we followed what is at the two pages linked from the page we'd have to rename every episode list article to be inconsistent with the series article, which just shouldn't happen. --AussieLegend () 08:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "with" and "a" are clearly words of lower importance than "dog" and "blog". Normal title stylisation is to capialize the important words. The primary source has the important words in larger font. It fits "Dog with a Blog" perfectly. No reputable independent sources to justify otherwise. WP:CAPS (both of them) work here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
In the context of the series title, "With" actually is important. We should be able to eliminate unimportant words and still be able to understand the title. "Dog with a blog" works but take out "with" and you're left with "Dog blog", which loses meaning. Is it a blog about a dog? No, it's about a "Dog With a Blog". (The dog has his own blog). "With" is just as important as "dog" and "blog". --AussieLegend () 14:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
As for "No reputable independent sources to justify otherwise", the fixes that had to be made after an editor did bulk search and replace without checking the actual sources clearly demonstrates that is not true at all.[7][8] --AussieLegend () 16:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe. I'll have to come back later. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Grumble. The proposal statement really aught to contain more. More evidence of usage with a "With". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
You'll have to complain to the admin who turned a discussion into a formal move proposal by confusingly adding the template in front of my initial post without explaining anything.[9] While we were trying to figure out what to do, Koavf decided to move this article without bothering to move the episode list or fix links as explained below. I requested that it be moved back to eliminate the errors prior to turning the thread into a formal move proposal as suggested by Geraldo Perez, but the admin action screwed that up. --AussieLegend () 11:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. I am not convinced. The product itself is all lowercase. Independent sources reporting use a mixture. The audio on video have a pause after the "dog", corresponding to a comma, and the "with" is not emphasized. The title could be "A Dog, which Blogs". I don't think it is a very special use of "with". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
You're correct that the title could have been "A Dog, which Blogs", but that still requires a qualifier before "blog". Both "which" and "with" are important words. "A Dog Blogs" (sans which) would be as confusing as "Dog Blog". Did you find any RS that use "Dog with a Blog"? --AussieLegend () 11:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Critical response[edit]

This section should be removed unless it can be populated with critical commentary published in reliable sources. Popularity poll results derived from and IMDB should not be in article. See WP:TVRECEPTION. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Season Four[edit]

Because today is February 4, 2015, has there been a news source saying there will be a Season Four of Dog with a Blog, or that it will be ending its run? Marino13 (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Proof series over[edit]

Actors can only speak for themselves and we can use actor's verified twitter for information about the actor. See WP:TWITTER. Beth Littleford can talk about herself and we can use what she says about herself in an article about her but she has not been shown to be an official spokesperson for this show that she works on as an actor. If she had executive producer credit, maybe. But she doesn't. We need something official like an episode summary published in a reliable source that state the episode is the series finale. Summary published so far leaves things open for more. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sweet Tribute: Blake Michael Says An Emotional Goodbye to 'Dog with a Blog' Ahead of the Series Finale is just a teen gossip magazine repeating what they read on an actor's social media site. Twist mag is generally not a reliable source but the instagram message is a reliable source that supports what Blake Michael said. Still not official and Blake Michael does not speak for show. Fairly certain that the episode was the end of season 3. Without a network announcement still can't say for certain there won't be a season 4 even if that looks unlikely now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Precisely. I don't have any personal experience from shows I watch or have watched, but it's certainly very possible for Dog with a Blog to have a fourth season or even just another episode or two (or more) in the third season despite all signs pointing to the third season being the last season and Stan's Secret Is Out, specifically, being the last episode. Perhaps Stan's Secret Is Out (if it is the last episode) drew in so many ratings that Disney will change its mind and do one more season with stories of what's going on now that Stan's secret is out—ha, word play. Amaury (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I watched the episode in question, "Stan's Secret Is Out," and the entire Jennings-James family, including Stan, Princess (who is sitting on the floor next to the desk), and the puppies, is standing around Stan as he sits at the computer writing what seems to be his final blog entry, and they say goodbye. I don't know, seems kind of end of the run to me. The night before the episode aired, the Disney Channel aired a few episodes back to back, with the cast talking during the breaks about what their favorite episodes were, what was the favorite things they got to do on the show, etc. - reminiscing exactly like the cast did the final week of Good Luck, Charlie. Taking that into consideration, and then that Stan's secret gets out to the entire world, they had to battle two government agencies AND Ian's researchers, and they took the narration into the next year to show that Stan got to star in a movie and was up for an award with no opposition since there are no other naturally talking dogs (other than his puppies), it looks like, unless they do a movie, they have tied up all the loose ends. Kelelain (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible they left a possibility of another season? Looks unlikely. Still would be nice to see something explicit from the network that says it's finished. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I just removed the date from the infobox - should stay saying "present" until we have a reliable source or a year has gone by with no announcement but it is plausible that final ep has aired even if we don't have a reliable source that confirms that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Disney Channel has expressly stated that this is the series finale in both social media and on-the-air commercials, at least in Canada (where the finale aired on the same day as it did in the USA). See [10]. I think we can safely say the series is over. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That is a verified Facebook account so is an official outlet for Disney Channel Canada. Not owned by Disney but licensed to broadcast Disney Channel content and their programing info is as reliable as any other reliable source program guide. I think this is good enough along with everything else we have to document in the article that the first run is finished. I updated the lead and the infobox. Social media sites postings by actors no longer needed as inferior references. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

About the show[edit]

So what happens next? Will Dog with a Blog come back for another season or will it be a spinoff for another show?--Funnycoolman (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Move the main role to the top of "Characters" list[edit]

I was just reading the page, was interested in reading more on "Stan" (the Dog) but after find that it isnt at top. Kind of weird, i was expecting it at top of the "Characters" list. I haven't watched the show myself though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuldeepdhaka (talkcontribs) 19:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It's ordered per official credit order. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
A voice actor and a trained dog don't get the same negotiated credit position that the humans get. The "with" credit for the last two humans is a special credit that generally ranks below the lead credit in prestige and pay. Still we order credits in order presented. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)