Talk:List of K.C. Undercover episodes

Writing credits

It has recently come to my attention (see here), that the writing credits for episodes of the first season are not be accurately and truthfully portrayed. If an episode has Teleplay and Story writers (two very different parts of the episode that require separation attribution), those distinctions need to be properly made, which can be done with the {{StoryTeleplay}} template. I hope any regular editors of this article/watchers of this series can take the time to fix this error, else I will remove the writing credits per WP:CHALLENGE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93:, I noticed the disputed section tag in the article, and I was thinking the link in that template would bring interested editors here, but it doesn't. The documentation for the tag indicates that part of it is broken, and apparently broken for a few years when I followed further links about the problem. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: As far as I know, a plain "written by" refers to the screenwriters, and that's what we're listing right now, so I wouldn't call it incorrect, but I can re-add the story writer. (For reference, the credits say: "Teleplay by: Rob Lotterstein and Corinne Marshall", "Story by: Corinne Marshall".) nyuszika7h (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: you've seem to solved my disputed info, all expect for episode 10. What does having Conn on a line break below mean? I'm going to guess it means the credits were "Cat Davis & Eddie Quintana and Eileen Conn" but I should be guessing this info because I can't determine what the styling is telling me. This info should be clear to readers, and as I've stated, it currently isn't (at least for this episode). Having the cell be "Cat Davis & Eddie Quintana and Eileen Conn" fits fine with the other sizing adjustments you've done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: "Double Crossed Part 1" is two productions merged into an episode with one set of credits. Those are "Part 1 written by" and "Part 2 written by" credits, same for the directors. I can add "(Part 1)" and "(Part 2)", though adding that to the directors column as well will need further sizing adjustments. Maybe adding a footnote would be the best to avoid any confusion. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest not adding "Part 1" and "Part 2", just the writer and directors. Not really a 2 part episode as they did merge it for presentation. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Teleplay and story may be two different things, but the people that partake in them are still writers. As such, there is nothing inaccurate or untruthful if we just list the persons in the Written by column without those labels on such episodes. And as Nyu states, it condenses things and makes them more organized. It looked ugly before, and yes, aesthetic pleasantness is just as important. Amaury (talk) 20:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Related discussion at WT:WikiProject Television#Replacing br-separated director and writer lists. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Absences

WP:TVCAST is an invalid reason in this edit as that wasn't an episode count, just listing characters' absences, and I'm not too happy that the user in question just removed it without discussion. That's not how Wikipedia works. A discussion must first be started and a WP:CONSENSUS must be reached before any action can be applied. As for the other reasons, might as well not list guest stars or writers or directors or production codes or viewership ratings if we're going to be using the trivial argument. What do people need to know those for, anyway? Amaury (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:TVCAST is for cast sections where they try to keep count of appearances and that is hard to verify so is discouraged. A count of absences in an episode list article where the absence is noted in the episode summary seems much less problematic to me as that is a simple count of the existing info in the table. The underlying issue is the accuracy of the absence info in the episode summaries. That is generally added by people watching the episode who are basically saying they didn't see one of the main cast. Verification requires watching the whole episode and is not generally referenced in any secondary reliable source. From the perspective of the show itself no main cast is ever absent in an episode as they do appear in the opening credits at the very least. And they get paid as well for that appearance as that is one of the benefits of being in the starring cast. As for this article I think we should keep the absence list until and if there evolves a consensus to remove it. I have no problem keeping it in the article if we keep the absence info in the ep summaries and I don't think TVCAST applies here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

My $0.02 is something like this shouldn't be removed unless there is consensus at either WP:TV or MOS:TV to deprecate listing episode absences (which are a separate issue than listing episode appearances). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: that's very much how Wikipedia works (WP:BRD). Second, WP:TVCAST does prohibit mentioning cast absences (yes this is more for cast listings, but the same principle applies here). From that section: If an actor misses an episode due to a real world occurrence, such as an injury that prevents them from appearing, this info can be noted in the character's description or "Production" section with a reliable source. Any other listings of absences is just WP:TRIVIA. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

As stated above, WP:TVCAST does not apply here, so unless a WP:CONSENSUS can be reached to remove it, the list stays. Repeating the same argument is silly. Amaury (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: You did not follow BRD, as you made the change again after being reverted. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It very much applies because it deals with cast notes, which is covered by that section. I've quoted the direct line from it that applies! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I have notified the TV project regarding this discussion, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue here is that WP:TVCAST actually applies to 'Cast' section (generally of TV series articles themselves, though 'Cast' lists also crop up in by-season articles for TV series). What's going on here isn't actually a 'Cast' list per se – it's more like an "absences summary" of what's indicated in the episode table directly below. In any case, I agree with the general idea that the earlier MOS:TV decision doesn't actually apply to cast absences listed on TV episode lists articles like this (where they are relatively widely used). If people want those deprecated, the place to propose that is either MOS:TV or WP:TV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"Absent" episodes is trivial. First, it provides no context for the reason. Many cast members, even series regulars, have episode count limits. It keeps costs down. Exception usually go to the number 1 or 2 star of the show. Other series regulars will frequently have less episodes in a season. The fact that someone missed an episode has no real weight when it comes to information for the reader. Now, if you were to say that an actor missed 5 episodes because say they were pregnant, that would be worth noting. TVCAST applies to all cast information. Do not get lost in the location of the information and assume that if it's outside of that section it doesn't count. That argument would imply that if I put "trivia" into other sections of an article, and kept it out of a "Trivia" section that somehow it is ok. Does MOSTV actually have to spell out "no absences either"? The average editor should understand that if it says "no episode counts" that includes "counts of absences".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an attendance record. There is no value in tallying how many episodes a character is absent, and extended absences and circumstances such as the real world events or contract negotiations would be explained in the production section for that season. Such records would also have to be cited to actual episodes so that people can verify it for themselves. So if some starring character is gone for 6 episodes, you need to cite the 6 episodes credits or a book that publishes the number of absences for that season. Also under WP:NOTDIR #7: "Simple listings without context information." and WP:NOTDIARY " Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person." WP:INDISCRIMINATE #3: "Excessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Now go propose this change at MOS:TV or WP:TV where it belongs, as it will affect a lot of TV-related articles. (FTR, I'm neutral on whether they should be included or not. It's just that hashing this out at a single TV article is nearly pointless – if people really think these are so objectionable, they need to write it in to the guidelines after a wider discussion of participants...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This is already in the guidelines though, as Favre quoted above ("If an actor misses an episode due to a real world occurrence, such as an injury that prevents them from appearing, this info can be noted in the character's description or "Production" section with a reliable source"). The issue is the editors here not following the MOS. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. That same argument has been used multiple times, and it's false. Amaury (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It IS in the MOS. Under "Cast and character information" (notice how it doesn't restrict it to any specific section), it explicitely states that, "If an actor misses an episode due to a real world occurrence, such as an injury that prevents them from appearing, this info can be noted in the character's description or "Production" section with a reliable source." If you're not sure, you can hit "CTRL+F" and it will bring up a search bar and you can type in "If an actor misses", and it will bring you right to the section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

"Such records would also have to be cited to actual episodes so that people can verify it for themselves." They are cited to the actual episodes; absences are listed after the plot summary of each episode. And you can definitely not call this excessive, as it's only a few lines before each season table. No episode counts might imply this but it would be better to take it to WT:TV or an RFC or whatever and clarify it, because it's used in a lot of articles. There's no point in singling out this one, as it was said earlier. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Given that the MOS already addresses it (see above comment), an RfC would be about challenging the MOS, NOT about having the MOS say something it already says. So, as a result the page (and any others) would need to reflect the MOS until such change actually occurred at the MOS to make it say otherwise.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is Absent: actor (role) even posted in the summary? That's the attendance record again. How is that notable for the show? Is it important that the actors participate in every episode and they mark this in the show itself? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

As has been stated multiple times, indicating who's absent has been well-established for years now on episode lists, and believe it or not, many people find it useful. By that standard, why don't we only include the episode title and air date? Why the hell do we need to know everything else, right? If it had been an issue, there would have been large-scale changes way back then. Why people are getting all up in arms over it now and targeting this article specifically, trying to force their way as Fave did twice—once with the written by credits and once with the absences list—without attempting to discuss the issue, at least the second one, is beyond me. It's unnecessary and unneeded. Amaury (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: Please see WP:OSE. You're the only one who has stated that multiple times, and just because something "has been well-established for years now on episode lists" does not mean it is correct. You have been refuted by four editors stating that this materials inclusion is correct. The reason this articles has been "targeted" (which it wasn't) was due to Nyuszika7H creating a new template and notifying the TV project about its use. I wanted to see where they used the template, and it was this article, and it immediately threw up a red flag in my eyes, that the writing credits were not formatted as they should be (see the discussion above this). And then, I saw the trivial absentee material that is not supported by WP:TVCAST, and went on removing that, and was met by reversion, because users want to keep incorrect material on the article because it has been like it for years on Wikipedia, even though it goes against discussed guidelines for the project. Additionally, nothing needs to be discussed if it is in an attempt to conform to the guidelines set forth by the various MOS across Wikipedia. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware of OSE, and my statement wasn't an OSE statement, it was a fact—there's a difference. Second, I'm not the only editor who's said that; I'm not even the initial editor who made the comment, so don't make up statements like that. And yes, if something has been established for quite a number of years, it does mean it's correct or, at the very least, not totally incorrect; otherwise, as I said, it would have been challenged long ago. As for the writing credits, that was also explained to you several times, and you responded by threatening to remove them altogether. "Story by" and "Teleplay by" are covered sufficiently by just "Written by." It even says here "Written by" can be used for both. As for the absences list, for the last time, WP:TVCAST does not apply to that, and multiple editors have pointed that out to you. It is also not incorrect, and because there's nothing going against guidelines, it does need to be discussed. However, I digress. It's pointless arguing with you since all you care about is your opinion and the opinion of others who are on your side without caring about those who are on the opposite end of the spectrum. So I'm done for now, at least in regard to replying to you specifically—anything further will be ignored. You're not worth my time when I could be putting that time toward something more productive than sitting here and going around in pointless circles. Amaury (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured we'd end up here. FTR, while I don't care and am neutral about the summary lists of absences before the episodes lists table, I do care about whether such info is listed in the episode summaries or not, and would strongly oppose their blanket removals from the episode descriptions themselves. Such info is verifiable – from the episode itself. And it is clear there is a reader interest in such information. I honestly don't care what some "editors" have declared to be "trivia", nor am I interested in reflexively following "guidelines" when they don't serve the readership. It amazes me how many editors are slavishly devoted to (in some case outdated, etc.) guidelines, while giving not a thought to WP:Readers first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

To Amaury, the WGA doesn't dictate our pages. To IJBall, essays (like the "Readers first") do not supersede guidelines. Just because someone might want to read something doesn't mean that we should be including it. People have wanted to see film ratings on pages since the dawn of Wikipedia, and even had them at one point. But they aren't allowed and just because someone might want it doesn't mean that it should be there. That's why we have a policy (which definitely cannot be superseded by a guideline or an essay) called WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There's also this thing called WP:UNDUE, where you place and unnatural amount of emphasis on something small, making it appear that it is important. Actor absences from episodes are not important at all. As I've stated before, series regulars are never guaranteed to be in every single episode. It's a cost cutting measure. In other words, why pay series regular Y another 300K for an episode where they had approximately 5 minutes of screen time. Especially if said information can be delivered by a guest star for a fraction oft he cost? The fact that this is standard practice makes the absence irrelevant. If it wasn't standard practice...then you'd have an argument for inclusion (somewhere...but not the plot summary).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that guidelines are somehow ultimately "binding". They're not. See WP:BURO. The fact is, guidelines are supposed to represent widespread editor practices, not be some arbitrary "top-down rule" that editors are required to follow. Let me put it this way – go ahead and try and remove the "absences" info from some TV show episode lists, and see how it goes: not only will you be reverted by a sea of IP accounts, you'll also be reverted by accounting-holding editors (incl. several here). The bottom line is you don't have consensus to remove that info, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't going to change anybody's mind on it. You think that info is trivial; most others don't. Readers want that info. And it's supported by WP:V. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes there is consensus, as has been spelled out for you and the others here several times, with WP:TVCAST. Just because you fail to understand that that applies here too (which remember, is a list of episodes article) doesn't mean it need to keep appearing across the project. It seems more that the opposition "doesn't like it" or want to accept the proper change as has been already discussed. Additionally, we are not a fan wikia or the like. This info serves no encyclopedic value whatsoever, except in the part of TVCAST that allows absence mentions when there is a real world connection to it (ie an actor's pregnancy or injury). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? – The "list of absences" at the start of the by-season episode lists, or the in-summary inclusion of "absences"? In neither case, has "consensus" for their removal been demonstrated, despite you claiming otherwise. Now, you might be able to generate consensus for removing the former if you'd stop futzing around here declaring "I am RIGHT!!1!" and actually hold the RfC for it, like I suggested in the beginning. I can tell you there is no consensus for removing the latter, and if you try expect to be reverted early and often. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, let me step back. Is this a show where the characters always appear in the opening credits but then within the episode the character is not present at all? That could be summarized in the broadcast section under the unusual circumstances in prose and cited to the particular episode like "Season 1 of K.C. Undercover starred (6 actors names). However, there are episodes where the actor does not appear at all despite being consistently listed in the opening credits. X was absent for 3 episodes (footnote to citation for 3 cite episodes), Y was absent for 4 episodes (footnote to citation to 4 cite episodes). Z was absent for episode whatever due to filming on a different project. (footnote to 1 cite episode)" This would now bring context to why absences are important to this particular show, as with guest host counts on SNL or Academy Awards. Without the context, it sticks out like cruft like "this is the second time the couple kissed." This also gets the absence off the episode list so as to not draw attention to it and focus can be kept on the notable guest stars. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC) updated 17:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

But again, this is a list of episodes page, and that information is best suited on the main article for this (or any) TV series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it could be in the casting or production, as with when a recurring character becomes a main mid-season. And it could pool information about contract issues (e.g. X negotiated to appear in only 6 episodes this season, and did not appear in episode 7 (news article about 6 appearances + cite episode 7)). But for LoE this could be appropriate to put here because LoE is treated as a season article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The intent of listing absences of main cast in the ep summaries is the same as for listing guest stars and they are linked. We want to know who the major actors were in that particular episode. If a main cast member was not in that episode, they were not a major actor in that episode as would otherwise be assumed due to being main cast. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

+1. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

+1, exactly. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

In retrospect, it was pointless to post this to WT:TV as the people who care would have seen it anyway, this way it just led to this debate. Though I guess it would have happened sooner or later anyway.

You can keep insisting but that won't change the facts – the MOS does not explicitly prohibit listing absences. As it has been said before, it is different from an episode count because it can be cited to individual episodes and therefore not prone to being out of date or inaccurate which is what that was trying to prevent. There are pretty much always editors who verify if it's correct. Why not prohibit listing guest stars too because editors often add them incorrectly, e.g. not using exact credited names or including co-stars?

And the sentence about "notable" absences does not say we can't do this either. You can't call it excessive, it's not like we have 50 main cast members with many of them regularly missing episodes. We can go either way on the interpretation, so this discussion will just keep going around in circles unless we take it to an RfC or something. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

What it basically boils down to is this – you can quote "guidelines" and "policies" until you're blue if the face, but if you don't have consensus for the changes you want to make, you'll keep getting reverted even if you think you're "right" and even if you think "policies & guidelines" are in your favor. (I should know, it's happened to me once or twice too!) In the case of main cast absences, I can pretty much guarantee that any attempt to totally remove them from "List of [TV series] episodes" won't "stick", because the readership wants them there. Discussing this here will almost certainly fail the change that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I still recommend putting in the paragraph of prose up front instead of the list as it then provides that context that casual readers and editors would then infer that such random absences are unusual for the sitcom format. I agree that shows with huge ensemble casts where certain groups do not appear at all at times, it doesn't make sense to do such counts. The list format as is sticks out like trivia cruft like number of times a person wears a certain shirt or says his/her catchphrase and would likely be flagged as such. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I can take or leave (I am somewhat sympathetic to the "listcruft" argument...) the "absences" lists (and, if "leave", I don't think prose is even necessary to replace the lists). I just don't think the "absence" info should be cut from the episode summaries... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

For "Absent: " I would put a footnote on the first occurrence: (efn|Absent indicates that a main character is listed in the opening credits but does not appear in the episode itself.). Still pondering how to deal with the counts though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Coopers Reactivated

Just noting that the episode is listed on Amazon and iTunes as a 44 minute single episode. Supported by Futon Critic. I didn't see the airing but assume what was broadcast matches what is being sold as is normally the case. Disney Press site disagrees but they generally announce plans, and don't generally update with what actually happened. Same issue with Zap2it. Futon Critic may be a better reference for the columns as they seem to update when reality overrides plans. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I can confirm it was an hour airing (with commercials). Zap2it is like that with anything that's an hour airing for some reason. It lists them twice rather than once. Amaury (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Just noting that the IP's edit was incorrect anyway, as the originally two-parter we list as one episode per having one set of credits is distinct from "Do You Want to Know a Secret?". nyuszika7h (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

K.C. Levels Up

We already knew the correct name of the character anyway, but now we have confirmation from Disney Channel Press that the episode title was intended to include the periods. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Since I've liked watching TV with closed captioning since forever, I've also noticed that the closed captioning dropped the periods in the second season. No idea why. However, per the show's official name, periods should be used. :) Amaury (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: Yeah, they do that sometimes. I haven't noticed a transition point there, but I've seen them doing that a lot lately. I always need subtitles unless I'm watching with a Hungarian dub (and I prefer watching at least English shows in original language nowadays), so I notice mistakes often. They also get the theme song lyrics wrong 99% of the time – per the official lyric video released by Disney Channel UK, the correct lyrics are "ain't nobody keep their head so cool" and "living my life on red alert", but most of the time the captions say "ain't nobody keep things hustle cool" and "living my life, no way to learn". I could understand the second, but the first is nonsense. A recent episode got the lyrics right (except it said "heads" instead of "head"), but the next episode immediately reverted back to the wrong lrics. I'm surprised that they aren't given the official lyrics, though apart from songs, captions are usually accurate. It's not just K.C. Undercover or Disney either, a lot of shows get lyrics (especially for the theme song) wrong. For example in season 4 of Wolfblood, the initial few episodes didn't caption the theme song at all, and then when they started doing that, at first they got it right but later they misspelled it in a different way in every episode – instead of "the hunter's moon is shining" there were things like "the harvest/hardest moon is shining" (and also errors in other verses). But this is getting a little bit off-topic now. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Tightrope of Doom

The confirmation for this episode is here (video is only available in the US), but we don't have a scheduled air date or even confirmation that it will be the next episode after "Sup, Dawg?" yet, so it's probably too early to list in the table. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Another source needed for season 2 finale?

When this source from Zap2it was added to indicate the episode "Family Feud" is the season 2 finale, it clearly showed the word "finale" before it aired, but now it doesn't. Disney Channel's promo for the episode mentions it to be the season finale, and outside of a properly archived version of that Zap2it source (which shows that "finale" indicator), that may be all we can go on from what has been provided. Need to be definitive on what the season finale is to finalize the episode count for season 2, or otherwise wait for season 3 to start, as we've been seeing numerous edits like this one. MPFitz1968 (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, now that it has aired, we could probably put in the number of episodes. I was only holding back before myself because things could have changed, such as "Collision Course" and "Family Feud" being made an hour showing and being renamed accordingly, making it 23 episodes. However, that didn't happen. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection for the article, and an admin agreed, locking it for one week. Will temporarily keep the IPs/newly registered users from persistently changing the series overview info, though I don't know if this season finale sourcing will be resolved before then. Worst case, as I said, is we wait till season 3 episodes are announced/aired. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added in the number of episodes for season two with a valid edit summary, which the IP editors failed to provide, as Zap2it did indicate "Family Feud" was the season two finale. They always remove that label for any season or series finale shortly before the episode in question airs for whatever reasons, however. A promo commercial from Disney Channel is also a perfectly reliable source, and a promo commercial is actually what I used when I added this episode entry on October 2, 2016. It was for an episode with an unknown title—at that time—that would be airing on November 6, 2016. However, if there are still disagreements, please continue the discussion here to bring to my attention by all means. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Production code 220

So, we're missing a production code here: 220. Neither The Futon Critic nor Disney ABC Press list it, though IPs kept adding it to the Tightrope of Doom episode, but we kept reverting it because it wasn't supported. However, now that season two has ended, I'm wondering if it would be logical to change Tightrope of Doom's production code from 219 to 219–220 simply based on logic, pretty much like what I did with Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn's Dawn Moves Out (104) and Girl Meets World's Girl Meets Fish (121) and Girl Meets Goodbye (320)? The only other theory I have is that one episode was held over for K.C. Undercover's third season, such as was the case with Liv and Maddie's Grandma-a-Rooney (218) airing during the third season and also kind of like SPARF-a-Rooney (303) airing during the second season. (All these links are direct episode number links.) However, I don't know how likely that is here. (Inviting the usual squad: Geraldo Perez, IJBall, MPFitz1968, and Nyuszika7H.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice to complete the table with the whole array of production codes, and based on how many episodes came out during a season, one would assume to fill in the last code if all the others have been accounted for. But the danger is, without any official source confirming it, this could be seen as original research. As for why The Futon Critic and Disney ABC Press don't report numbers for some of these episodes (certainly had me perplexed regarding the "Girl Meets Goodbye" one) is a mystery. I think I read somewhere in the TV project about possibly getting rid of the production codes column in the table, but I don't know what discussion specifically. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Split to season articles

It is suggested that a WP:SPLIT to season articles be done.

• Oppose: Season articles need to meet WP:GNG as a normal article and include well-referenced material related to the season. It needs more than a repeat of the main article with an episode list attached. Not needed for this show. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Much too early. Additionally, while nothing official has been announced, it's been hinted that season three will be the last season, making the split moot. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – There's not nearly enough material to justify separate per "season" articles for this show. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

K.C. Undercover: The Final Chapter - episode title sounds like it will be the series finale, but...

The entry at Zap2it, with the episode title "K.C. Undercover: The Final Chapter", doesn't indicate this to be the series finale, at least right now. So it is insufficient to use to back the episode's scheduled air date of February 2, 2018 as the date of the "Last aired" episode of season 3 or the series. Plus, "Last aired" in the series overview hasn't always meant the season finale date ... Bunk'd immediately comes to mind here if we're talking about Disney Channel in particular. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

And season finale, just for extra clarity. The end of season three, whichever episode it is, will be both a season and series finale. Anyway, I like that Bunk'd example, where people assumed "We Didn't Start the Fire" was the season finale, but it wasn't. "The Great Escape" was, even though it didn't make a lot sense with the production codes being 221 and 213, respectively, which made it look like things went back in time, airing order-wise. I still don't understand why they didn't have "The Great Escape" on April 28, or at least on some date before "We Didn't Start the Fire," and then have "We Didn't Start the Fire" on May 5 alongside Andi Mack. Instead they had it on some random day. But I don't want to go on and on about this here.

Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it's pretty obvious that it's going to be the last episode (since it is literally called "The Final Chapter") and if the purity of that fact isn't enough for someone, they can take a look at season 1 - the last episode was also called ("K.C. and Brett:" & then) "The Final Chapter" (where it was split into two parts) and last but not least: it then has 24 episodes which is a extremly common number of episodes for a tv season (especially among sit-coms), season 2 also had that number of episodes. So I think those 3 symbols are expressing very strongly "Episode 24 will be the last of the season and the series."

Tbbttbbt (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. Titles alone don't indicate whether something is a season finale or not. Saying such is WP:OR. There have been plenty of cases where a title sounded like a season or series finale, but the season or series still had more episodes/seasons. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I've also posted about this here, so there's more discussion about this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Amaury here, since Zendaya's tweet about the series wrapping up won't be enough to say the Final Chapter episode as the series finale. CriticismEdits (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)