Jump to content

Talk:Good Luck Charlie

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

Episode Title

[edit]

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)[reply]

The cast of Good Luck Charlie

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Duncan or Holliday?

[edit]

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So was this changed from Holliday to Duncan somewhere along the way, or are we the ones working with outdated info?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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


Infobox image

[edit]

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)[reply]

Movie? or Not

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Teddy & Charlie Duncan

[edit]

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)[reply]

Character article

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no concensus to split

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Agree: I agree on the making of the article because the article/page of Good Luck Charlie is too long and Season 3 is coming up and people might edit and write more about the characters and it will end up being too long and too big. So I agree on making an article about the characters of Good Luck Charlie. 125.237.123.182 (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this counts as concensus. I have contacted Aussie Legend to make sure he agrees and if so, I will make the split. Op47 (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only result you can get from the above is "No consensus to split at this time". I've provided a detailed rationale for not splitting, which Geraldo Perez has tentatively accepted, and made no further comment upon since. Neither Jose celada or the IP's votes include any reference to policy or guidelines that would justify a split. Their votes are based on article size. WP:SIZERULE recommends that consideration be given to splitting articles once an article reaches 50kB of readable prose. Using the definition of readable prose presented at Wikipedia:Article size#Measuring "readable prose" size, this article has 25.5kB of readable prose, which is well below WP:SIZERULE's upper limit of the "Length alone does not justify division" category. On pure votes we have a 50/50 split, but we don't count votes; consensus is determined by examination of the reasoning given by participants in a discussion and there is no reasoning above that justifies a split. Since the split tag was added in October, there has been no attempt to add the sourcing required to support a separate article. The eight references in the section only support names and initials, they do not establish notability. Any article created based on what is presently in the article would not survive AfD. I don't disagree that the cast section is too long, 50% of the article's prose is in the cast section, but that doesn't justify a split. What is needed is a severe pruning of the fancruft, trivia etc to acceptable levels that negate any need for a split. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then remove the tag. Op47 (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cast section

[edit]

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)[reply]

Split cast section

[edit]

I have set a template on the character section of Good Luck Charlie. I think that we should split the section onto List of Good Luck Charlie characters to keep space on the page. ~ RomeAntic14 01:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See #Character article on this page - concensus is no split. If you want to do a split - propose it and see if you can get concensus to do it this time. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is so confusing and this is really charging my nerves!! I wish you guys be more neat on these articles because this organization will fail with the lack of ability!!!!! I'm trying to make neater edits and you people just have the nerve to change something, so I really wish you leave my edits alone because they have good information and they are more neater!!!! ~ RomeAntic14 02:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the debate above you'll see that I agree with you in this case. Nobody owns articles and we try to work together. Sometimes we don't get what we think is right. When there is a disagreement, a discussion is indicated as was done above. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the one with the overly long character descriptions? Those are terrible. I changed them for a reason. Guess you didn't get the hint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.89.188.132 (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overly long character descriptions.

[edit]

I edited them maybe two weeks ago to make them not so long. There was more info than was needed.

I just thought I`d point out they were edited for a reason. Putting them up again makes you an idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.89.188.132 (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, aren't you sweet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodmorningramona (talk • contribs) 01:39, 4 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Darth

[edit]

I haven't seen the episode where Amy used this, but PJ's real name was very clearly established in season 2. "Darth" appears to be a nickname that has only been used in a single episode, so should it be in the character description? "Real" names of characters ("Charlotte" for example) are fine, as are nicknames that have been used extesively ("Teddy" and "Charlie") but single use nicknames really shouldn't be included. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did see the episode. It is shown over the end credits where, when Teddy asks what is Toby's middle name, Amy told her it was "Won Kenobe" and explaining that by saying Bob is a big movie fan. A few seconds later, when telling PJ to be quiet, she calls him PJ Darth Duncan. It all may be a joke but in the context of the new baby's name being Toby Won Kenobe Duncan, it is plausible that PJ's middle name is Darth as well. Show writers have not always been consistent when there is a joke to be had. Anyway that is what is in the episode - judgment call on how this should be in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the major sub-plot of "Can You Keep a Secret?" involving the name change from "Potty John" to "PP" (instead of "PJ"), and the fact that you can see "PP" clearly on the birth certificate (at 18:09 minutes), it's pretty safe to assume that "Darth" was just a joke on Amy's part. We can't discount all of what happened in "Can You Keep a Secret?" based on a few seconds in the latest episode. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or it is just normal retroactive continuity. This particular joke about names couldn't have happened unless the name chosen for the baby was Toby. I think we worry more about show consistency in this article than the show writers do. The writers likely changed their minds about his name in this ep and ignored (or forgot or didn't care about) what they wrote earlier. We really can't know, without making personal judgements, whether the joke was an in-show Amy joke or if she is being truthful and the joke is the writers running with the setup. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite possible that it was retroactive continuity but the fact remains, we had a large part of an episode dealing specifically with his name and a few seconds (was it even that long?) where "Darth" was used in another episode. Of course we are concerned about consistency, after all, this is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite. Rather than give the false impression that his name is actually Darth ("Can You Keep a Secret?" clearly established it was "Potty John" and is now "PP") we can mention that Amy called him "Darth" once, but we shouldn't include it where it is. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are of course concerned about consistency but we can't create it where it doesn't exist. In "Can You Keep a Secret?" we were left with his official name being "PP Duncan". Given the fact they were trying to correct it and failed in the attempt shown in that episode we are assuming they kept trying off screen to fix the error and eventually made the official record match what they stated they desired - but that was not shown. The main reason his name is listed as "PJ Duncan" is because that is his official credited name outside of anything revealed in the show. See [11]. I didn't get the sense that Amy was joking when I watched the segment, but that is just my personal interpretation. I believe that the writers retconned the name Darth as an additional middle name. I think we should, however, just list his name as "PJ Duncan" per official credits and move all name discussions to later in the paragraph without making any determinations as to whether or not any of this matters. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I think we should, however, just list his name as "PJ Duncan" per official credits and move all name discussions to later in the paragraph without making any determinations as to whether or not any of this matters." - I agree completely. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Darth" should be removed, because it was only a joke. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously. Hadger 05:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Duncan

[edit]

Shouldn't you guys add the new addition to the main cast of the show?! Toby Duncan is the new baby that arrived in "Special Delivery," so he should be counted as a new character in the main cast!! You guys should also add PJ Duncan's middle name "Darth," which was also mentioned in Special Delivery. 24.12.190.74 (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toby will be added as main cast when he's credited as main cast and "Darth" is already in the article, and being discussed in the thread immediately above this one. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw the episode he was credited as Jake Cicoa we should put him down as recurring as he will appear in the next 2 episodes and will mean he has appeared in 4 episodes. So the actor's name is Jake Cicoa the page is locked so I can't edit it but can somebody please put him down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.49.194 (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-watched the opening and closing credits of both "Special Delivery" and "Welcome Home" and didn't see any actor named "Jake Cicoa" or any actor at all with credited character name "Toby" or "Toby Duncan". Nothing past that has aired yet so needs a reliable source to support it. Toby does appear in the opening credits images but that is all. Looks like a generic baby prop for now and not an actor (probably multiple generic-looking babies are used). Since the character has appeared twice could go in the recurring character list without an actor named as the character is on the show and has recurred. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are now justified in adding the character "Toby Duncan" to the section "Main characters". This is a list of characters, not a cast list, so doesn't need a main cast credited actor - the section is not labeled "Main cast". In episode "Welcome Home" the opening credits were changed to show the whole family which now includes Amy holding Toby (1:33 to 1:42 in show). This was not quick passing clip, it showed the whole family with blue pacifiers in their mouths with the show title overlaid at the end of the main credit sequence. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree Toby should be added as Either Main or recurring if the show gets a fourth season (probably not) he will be a main and have an actual actor so we should put him down as either main or recurring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.49.194 (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As with anything else, status as a main cast member needs to verifiable so we need a source. Without one, an assumption that he's main cast just because he's in the opening credits constitutes WP:OR. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He is obviously not in the main cast as there is no credited actor—that is not the issue here. This is about a character in the show that is visibly there, has a name, is shown in the opening credit sequence and is interacted with by the other characters as part of the show plot of two episodes so far. The section in the article is a list of main characters, the actor name for each character is parenthetical to the character descriptions and the actor is in no other way expanded upon or even necessary in that section. There is a casting section in the article that discusses the actors in the show and that is where the info about the actors belongs. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a tad confused. You said "I think we are now justified in adding the character "Toby Duncan" to the section "Main characters"", and since main character = main cast, "He is obviously not in the main cast" is inconsistent with that. At the moment we don't know how he's going to be billed, or will appear, so about all that can be done is mention him in the recurring section once he has appeared in Baby's First Vacation, unless he's credited as main cast before then, in which case he can be added to the main cast section. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying main character = character significantly appears in opening credits. Main cast = actor is named in opening credits. This normally maps out to be the same thing. The character exists in the show and doesn't need a credited actor to be listed as a character in this article. With two appearance so far is at least a recurring character. I think appearance in changed opening credits is significant and justifies listing as a main character. Either way the character "Toby" should be in the character section of this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your definitions are not at all consistent with the way we determine "main" status, which is "main character = main cast". Mere appearance in opening credits doesn't signify main status. At the moment, Toby doesn't even have recurring status. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Character appeared in more than one episode so is at least recurring as of now. As an example of an uncredited main character not main cast see List of Victorious characters#Rex Powers. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two episodes is a repeat character, but not a recurring character. I don't watch Victorious but it is inconsistent with the way characters are listed. As an example, look at Woody Fink from The Suite Life on Deck. Although he appeared in most episodes, Woody Fink was never credited as a starring character and is listed as a recurring character. As I said, status as a main cast member or a main character must be verifiable and editors' opinions do not count as reliable sources. We rely on the series producers to determine status and by necessity, main character = main cast, because the series producers don't usually say "this cast member is a main cast member but not a main character". --AussieLegend (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Two episodes is a repeat character, but not a recurring character" is pretty much a distinction without a difference in meaning. Generally when a significant character has appeared multiple times it meets the threshold to be listed in articles as recurring and we don't need a source outside the episodes themselves to make that determination. The show story line and publicity for S3 starting with the Christmas episode leading up to the introduction to the character support the significance of "Toby" as a character—this is all verifiable. Likewise the producers have shown "Toby" to be a main character by explicitly changing to the opening credits to include the character there, there doesn't need to be sources beyond the primary source, the show itself, to justify inclusion of information in the article about the show that the show itself directly supports. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about we wait until next episode and if he appears as a credited actor webaddnhim to main cast but if he appears but does not have a actor we add him as reccuring without a actor so lets wait until next episode then we will work it out he probably will appear in the next episode since it is called Baby's first vacation. But how about we wait until next episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.49.194 (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ep aired July 15 shows Toby only in group picture in opening credits. No separate picture, no starring credit, no guest or co-star credit either. Not a part of the episode. Basically Toby is a prop and not a character at this point in time. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised they have not cast Toby yet he will be cast next season as online it has said he will be a todeler next season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.49.194 (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added an actor name for Toby on IMDb for the episode "Wentz's Weather Girls". I watched the credits for that episode and there is still no actor credited for this role in that episode. Anyone can add credits to IMDb and IMDb checking is cursory at best for credits for released projects as they pretty much assume good faith that the people adding the credit info have actually watched the credits. The ultimate source is still the episode itself. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

[edit]

Shouldn't we add about the name contest and Toby and about the 26 million votes that was a big important event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.49.194 (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Good Luck Charlie characters

[edit]

I think the the info about the characters needs to be move to another page, called "list of good luck charlie characters"; Good Luck Charlie is currently the longest-running series on Disney Channel, a show with less episodes, Shake it Up, has a characters page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.9.205 (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed previously at #Character article above. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2 Lesbian moms controversy.

[edit]

Hello, CrosswalkX . I personally support Disney's decision on including all types of families. However, in Wikipedia, we write in neutral tones and do not express any opinions. Furthermore, it is not your nor my decision to rate this PG as the MPAA is in control of that. ANYWHO, I disagree that you categorized Disney's move under "controversy". I also found it wrong how you described the two mothers as "lesbian mothers" instead of same-sex couple or lesbian couple. I will be removing this section from the Controversy section sometime later and into something less "bias". Besides, this is not inappropriate and is only human. If you do not like Disney's "lesbian moms", don't watch Good Luck Charlie and Disney Channel.

I hope you (possibly) understand, MonsieurNapoléon (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apologize for the miscommunication we had, I'm sorry I was rude and I contributed to Good Luck Charlie incorrectly, can you please forgive me and I promise to be a more respectful wikipedia user. I won't bother you anymore. CrosswalkX (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there a straight/normal couple in an episode? I think that should be mentioned as well. Where should it be placed? HaarFager (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Good Luck Charlie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Good Luck Charlie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Good Luck Charlie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

If the see also links for this section and use of the section {{see also}} template there is not an appropriate addition of links and use of the template, then what is? The entire purpose of the section {{see also}} template and see also links in a particular section are for links that are relevant to the specific section in question, not the article as a whole. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The see also section is for links relevant to the article. This is usually given a bit of leeway but in individual sections the articles linked to should be directly relevant to the section. None of the links that you added are directly relevant and add nothing to the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an overall article see also section, it's the section hatnote {{see also}} template. The links are meant to be relevant to the specific section in question, not the article as a whole. Those links are relevant to that specific section in question. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what I wrote again. I didn't say that the section was an overall article. I explained that "see also" links in sections are more restricted than those in the see also section, and did so since you linked to WP:See also, which is primarily about an article's "see also" section. As for your assertion that your links ate relevant to the section, I don't see it. How are they directly relevant? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The section is about the first gay couple on Disney Channel, while the links in the section hatnote {{see also}} template are about the first gay couples on Disney Junior (Doc McStuffins#Episode featuring an interracial gay couple) and Nickelodeon (Howard and Harold McBride), respectively, and the first gay main character on Disney Channel (Cyrus Goodman). --Justthefacts9 (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explain how those articles have anything to do directly with this one. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now, those articles are directly relevant to that specific section. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is looking too much like WP:COATRACK. This issue is of tangental importance to this article. A short discussion of how it matters to this TV series is appropriate. Linking to other articles may give more info, but that information is not related to this TV series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Coatrack applies to the text of an article, not links or hatnotes. Yes, those see also links are not related to this article overall, but they are directly relevant to that specific section, which is the entire reason for the section {{see also}} template and links contained therein. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those links are not related to that specific section at all. That section is about one episode of this series and the related reactions. No value to this article linking to other series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as previously stated: The section is about the first gay couple on Disney Channel, while the links in the section hatnote {{see also}} template are about the first gay couples on Disney Junior (Doc McStuffins#Episode featuring an interracial gay couple) and Nickelodeon (Howard and Harold McBride), respectively, and the first gay main character on Disney Channel (Cyrus Goodman). --Justthefacts9 (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All of which have nothing to do with Good Luck Charlie, the subject of the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. They have to do with that specific section, which is what the section hatnote {{see also}} template is for. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying that but neither of us can see how any of the links are directly relevant to this series. You have completely failed to demonstrate that. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have completely failed to comprehend what has been consistently made clear multiple times: the links are not meant to be relevant to this series, but rather to that specific section, which is the entire purpose of the section hatnote {{see also}} template. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my very first post here The see also section is for links relevant to the article. This is usually given a bit of leeway but in individual sections the articles linked to should be directly relevant to the section. These links are not directly relevant to the section. MOS:BTW says to ask yourself "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?" The answer is that if someone is specifically reading about Good Luck Charlie, it's highly unlikely that they would want to read articles on unrelated series when it gives no information on the series. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should I add a link to "I Love Lucy?" That show was about a straight couple and Amie and Bob are a straight couple, so that would be why it's relevant. At least that's why the rest of this discussion section tries to imply about the lesbian couples' relevency. We DO want to be uniform in what is done on Wikipedia, correct? HaarFager (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Bad Luck Charlie" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bad Luck Charlie. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Jasper Deng (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Good_Luck_Charlie&oldid=1207148961"