Talk:Knight Squad
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Knight Squad was copied or moved into List of Knight Squad episodes with this edit on January 19, 2019. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The contents of the List of Knight Squad episodes page were merged into Knight Squad on April 1, 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Sneak Peek?...
editIs this another show that's getting a "sneak peek"?... Because, in an article from just 3 days ago, Seventeen magazine is reporting that the premiere date is February 24 (Saturday), but Zapt2It is saying it's February 19 (Monday). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- This one thankfully isn't really complicated at all as there are two different episodes, whereas with series like I Am Frankie and The Adventures of Kid Danger, there weren't. I consider how Knight Squad is premiering equivalent to how Austin & Ally, Liv and Maddie, Henry Danger, and 100 Things to Do Before High School premiered with the labeling used for the first and second episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Am I missing something?! I just checked Nick's Monday evening schedule, and I'm not seeing "Knight Squad". Also, ads on Nick are clearly advertising the premiere on Saturday... Add: Interesting – Zap2It is now showing Tuesday, Feb. 20 as the first showing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- On another note, I think
Knight Squad is an upcoming American comedy television series created by Sean Cunningham and Marc Dworkin[1] that will premiere on Nickelodeon on February 19, 2018. The series will star Owen Joyner, Daniella Perkins, Amarr M. Wooten, Lexi DiBenedetto, Lilimar, and Kelly Perine.
is sufficient. I don't know if we really have to go into all that detail about an "advanced showing," etc. The date of the first episode is the premiere date, regardless of how a network chooses to label something. Like with the Austin & Ally case, it's mostly for marketing purposes. Austin & Ally premiered as the lead-out to Good Luck Charlie, It's Christmas! to draw in viewers on December 2, 2011. On December 4, 2011, it took up its regular Sunday slot. This series will take its regular slot beginning February 24, but the actual premiere is tomorrow or Tuesday—however it works out. That's why they're calling it the official premiere, because Saturday is its regular slot. Hunter Street and I Am Frankie did the same thing, though with I Am Frankie, it's actually fine to go into into a little more detail in the lead since the sneak peek was only the first half of the first episode rather than the whole episode like in other cases.
- On another note, I think
- Of course that doesn't mean that the sneak peek and official premiere stuff can't be mentioned at all. The "Production" section would be perfect to mention this stuff in. However, for the lead, keeping it simple like in my paragraph above is probably best. This would also apply to other series where we've had similar situations, such as Lip Sync Battle Shorties, The Adventures of Kid Danger, and so on.
- Of course, as always, this is only my opinion. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- The Feb. 24 airing is the one that is consistently mentioned as the "premiere" (and is sourceable), so at a minimum that's the one that should get mentioned in the lede. The whole problem with the "advanced showing" probably also needs to be mentioned as well, so I think the only solution is to mention both. Something like this has been done in the ledes for both Falling Water (TV series) and The Bold Type, for example, so I think some form of the current version of the lede will be necessary (though the order can be reversed, like at The Bold Type...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Of course, as always, this is only my opinion. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Episode summaries
editMoved from: User talk:IJBall#Knight Squad episode summaries.
Starforce13 made a WP:BOLD edit that added episode summaries ranging from 179 to 217 words to all aired episodes thus far, which IJBall quickly reverted with the following edit summary: These seem on the long side for a show like this - summaries of about 100 words would be preferable.
However, per WP:TVPLOT: For main series articles, plot summaries of no more than 200 words per episode should ideally be presented in a table using {{Episode table}} and {{Episode list}} (such as State of Affairs).
With regard to: Yes, I'm saying for a show like this they were too long. "200 words" is a maximum – shows like this do not need 200-word episode summaries.
And: ...200-word summaries are more justifiable for a 60-minute drama series episodes. 30-minute sitcoms probably only merit about 100-word episode summaries (esp. a "kids" show like this one).
There's nothing in WP:TVPLOT stating that only 100~ words should be used for the traditional 30-minute series and 200~ words are only good for the 60-minute series. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you again, @Amaury:. While keeping them about 100 words like @IJBall: wants would be nice, it would be great if we don't revert other people's edits based on our preferences and not Wikipedia policy violations. Writing good plot summaries is not easy. It takes time and effort and lots of rewrites. So, it's a bummer when they get reverted right away because of a personal preference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starforce13 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I reverted because I thought the summaries were excessive and over-written, and I was hoping that you could come up with some shorter ones. And, as both Amaury and I like to say, guidelines are just that – "guidelines", or suggestions, and they cannot possibly account for every situation or variation, which is where consensus and common-sense come into play. But, as I said on my Talk page, briefer episode summaries are appropriate for a show like this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- If the summary is a sentence or two they are likely copied from programming guides and are likely WP:COPYVIO. If too long becomes a copyvio as well as it tells the complete story in too much detail, basically restating everything, as opposed to summarizing. If the summary is good faith from someone watching the episode then it is discouraging to have it reverted. The original info is still in the edit history though. I think 100 words or so for a 30 minute episode is reasonable. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) To be fair, in my opinion, while guidelines aren't top-down rules—we both agree there—I think you can only apply "common sense" with some guidelines. With others, there are generally only limited ways they can be followed. In the case of episode summaries, I agree with Starforce that it can be challenging to write an episode summary and get all the important bits in when you know there is a limit. Out of the nine summaries that they wrote, two went a little over 200 words, two were right at 200 words, and the remaining five were relatively close to 200 words, the lowest only being 179. While I also agree that summaries could be shortened, Starforce was likely already writing as little as possible to stay within or around the limit.
- Well, I reverted because I thought the summaries were excessive and over-written, and I was hoping that you could come up with some shorter ones. And, as both Amaury and I like to say, guidelines are just that – "guidelines", or suggestions, and they cannot possibly account for every situation or variation, which is where consensus and common-sense come into play. But, as I said on my Talk page, briefer episode summaries are appropriate for a show like this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Also, if we're going to say that 30-minute episodes only deserve 100~ words for their episode summaries, then shouldn't we be consistent? Using a recent example, my episode summary for School of Rock's "A Matter of Trust" clocks in at 536 words, but that was left alone. Similarly, the episode summary I wrote for Game Shakers' "Shark Explosion" clocks in at 420 words and the original episode summary I wrote for Game Shakers' "Game Shippers" clocks in at 356 words. After MPFitz1968 did some copy-editing, the episode summary for "Game Shippers" now sits at 278 words. Earlier examples include 100 Things to Do Before High School, where I started writing episode summaries with "Make a New Friend Thing!" which gradually got longer as I went on as can be seen. Only "Leave Your Mark Thing!" has so far been shortened by someone else.
- I'll say it now that I have a bad habit of going on and on and am by no means encouraging other editors to go excessive like I have. Sometimes the bulb in my head just clicks on and my train of thought gets going as I'm watching an episode, and I take advantage of it and write an episode summary after the episode is over. While some of my episode summaries have indeed been within a reasonable range, a lot of them have been excessively over 200 words. Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn during late season two and a lot of season three is another example similar to 100 Things to Do Before High School, and Starforce was nice enough to shorten those. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Virtually every episode of this show is the same: "
'A' plot: Arc lies/schemes and get Ciara/Phoenix Squad in a jam. 'B' plot: Prudence and Warwick have a wacky adventure."
Some episodes, there might be: "'C' plot: Sage says something snarky; Buttercup giggles."
That's pretty much it. This show is not complicated. Episode summaries should appropriately match the level of "story detail" required. I dunno what they're doing at other articles – I'm just watching this one. But MOS:TV saying "100–200 words" isn't an invitation to write 200-word episode summaries for every scripted TV show under the sun. In fact, "100 words" is in there because some shows will only require ~100-word episodes summaries. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)- I don't think the 200 words maximum is necessarily an invitation to go crazy, more that whichever editors were involved in the consensus of adding that likely understood the difficulties of writing episode summaries and put 100–200 words in place so editors who wrote episode summaries and went over wouldn't have to worry about being reverted, generally speaking. Also, it probably could have been explained earlier that episode summaries generally should match the level of a series' story detail, and there probably would have been less confusion. However, in my opinion, it probably could have been brought up on the talk page without reversion to see how the episode summaries could be shortened. This article was in "desperate need" of episode summaries, and Starforce was kind enough to write them. Admittedly, as Geraldo points out above, their episode summaries are still in the history, and they can just and copy and paste them and then make changes accordingly to shorten them, I just don't think it merited being reverted without at least some sort of followup here with elaboration. Again, though, this is just my opinion, and it isn't meant to be criticism. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- It was a judgement call – if given the choice between no episode summaries, and over-written episode summaries, I'd rather have no summaries in the short term. Leaving them would mean that it would likely fall to us to improve/fix them, and I generally feel that whoever does a "bold" edit like that needs to the one who's responsible for "fixing" them if they're flawed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Look, I can write shorter episode summaries, if those are the rules. These are shows I care about and I want the best quality on their articles. I would have appreciated if IJBall mentioned it first before reverting. Or even flagged them with the "plot too long" tag. I would have shortened them. It's just the nice thing to do since I wasn't violating any rules. The summary placeholders should probably be changed to say the summary should be about 100 words, if that's the new consensus, so that future editors don't go through the same. Starforce13 (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- There aren't "rules" like that. There's just "consensus" about what's best for the articles.... Doing what you suggested wouldn't have been what's best for the article – the truth of the matter is, article tags like {{Long plot}} actually don't work 90% of the time or more. (My secret is that a good percentage of time when I'm tagging articles, I'm tagging them as reminders to myself rather than as a message to other editors...) Doing that would have just left a mess for others to clean up. This way, I'm being upfront with what the issues are... But look at those summaries below: Some of them are three paragraphs long. That's just way too much for a show like this. Again, one paragraph of roughly 100 words is a good benchmark to shoot for, for a show like this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- If this was based on a consensus that can be used to revert other people's contribution, I'm guessing there would be some discussion somewhere with other editors like the way we're discussing here. IJBall, can you provide us a link to that consensus? (And again, I'm not complaining about having to make the plots 100 words. I watch the shows keenly and I can write a plot of any length. My only problem is the way it was handled.)Starforce13 (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- There aren't "rules" like that. There's just "consensus" about what's best for the articles.... Doing what you suggested wouldn't have been what's best for the article – the truth of the matter is, article tags like {{Long plot}} actually don't work 90% of the time or more. (My secret is that a good percentage of time when I'm tagging articles, I'm tagging them as reminders to myself rather than as a message to other editors...) Doing that would have just left a mess for others to clean up. This way, I'm being upfront with what the issues are... But look at those summaries below: Some of them are three paragraphs long. That's just way too much for a show like this. Again, one paragraph of roughly 100 words is a good benchmark to shoot for, for a show like this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Look, I can write shorter episode summaries, if those are the rules. These are shows I care about and I want the best quality on their articles. I would have appreciated if IJBall mentioned it first before reverting. Or even flagged them with the "plot too long" tag. I would have shortened them. It's just the nice thing to do since I wasn't violating any rules. The summary placeholders should probably be changed to say the summary should be about 100 words, if that's the new consensus, so that future editors don't go through the same. Starforce13 (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- It was a judgement call – if given the choice between no episode summaries, and over-written episode summaries, I'd rather have no summaries in the short term. Leaving them would mean that it would likely fall to us to improve/fix them, and I generally feel that whoever does a "bold" edit like that needs to the one who's responsible for "fixing" them if they're flawed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think the 200 words maximum is necessarily an invitation to go crazy, more that whichever editors were involved in the consensus of adding that likely understood the difficulties of writing episode summaries and put 100–200 words in place so editors who wrote episode summaries and went over wouldn't have to worry about being reverted, generally speaking. Also, it probably could have been explained earlier that episode summaries generally should match the level of a series' story detail, and there probably would have been less confusion. However, in my opinion, it probably could have been brought up on the talk page without reversion to see how the episode summaries could be shortened. This article was in "desperate need" of episode summaries, and Starforce was kind enough to write them. Admittedly, as Geraldo points out above, their episode summaries are still in the history, and they can just and copy and paste them and then make changes accordingly to shorten them, I just don't think it merited being reverted without at least some sort of followup here with elaboration. Again, though, this is just my opinion, and it isn't meant to be criticism. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Virtually every episode of this show is the same: "
Copy of episode summaries
| ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
As a courtesy to Starforce, here are their episode summaries. We can also use this sub-section to discuss ways on shortening them to at least all be below 150 words. That could be a compromise.
|
Dates for Unscheduled Episodes
editNickelodeon pulled Wish I May, Wish I Knight from airing on May 5. But zap2it hasn't updated their website yet. I know we usually follow zap2it (and thefutoncritic) for dates. But sometimes, zap2it is usually wrong or doesn't update things immediately (or has typos like "The Thundreth" instead of "The Thundredth.") I've observed that whenever zap2it posts Nickelodeon dates early, they're almost always wrong and usually on weekdays. What's the policy on that? Should we keep the wrong dates simply because they're on zap2it or should we leave them as TBA until there's a credible date? Pinging Amaury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starforce13 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Zap2it is basically useful for future stuff but they don't seem to care about keeping a record of what actually happens, just what was planned. Futon seems to try to be an accurate record of what really happened but they are not as forward looking as Zap2it for future stuff. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) With regard to typos, we shouldn't be preserving obvious typos, even if they're that way in primary (on-screen credits) or secondary (websites) sources. For example, there was an episode of Liv and Maddie that had Jessica Marie Garcia credited as Jessica Maria Garcia. I eventually changed to an E at the end of the middle name because it was an obvious typo. In the case of the The Thundermans, since it's obvious reference to hundredth, but with a T at the beginning, that sounds like another case of it being an obvious typo. See User talk:Amaury/2017#Typos in credits for a related discussion that took place on my talk page last year. When it comes to actor names, it can sometimes be problematic because credits can get a lot scrutiny by the production teams and actors.
- As for listing the dates for episodes of TV series, as long as they're being reported by reliable secondary sources (The Futon Critic, Zap2it, Disney ABC Press), we're covered by WP:VERIFY. If they're wrong or a scheduling change happens—like on Friday when there were supposed to new episodes of The Loud House and SpongeBob—we usually just wait for those dates to pass. If they pass and there were no new episodes, we can remove the date. Once the sources update, we can add in the new dates. If The Futon Critic updates with Nickelodeon's May schedule, but Zap2it still shows one thing, we can go by The Futon Critic since that's the one more up-to-date.
- PS: I watch this page, so I wouldn't have missed it, but just a tip: Remember to always sign your messages here. Ping alerts won't go through unless the message is signed. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Geraldo Perez: From my experiences, Zap2it will usually update with scheduling changes if it's before the original air date they report. For other things, they won't. For example Austin & Ally's "Bad Seeds & Bad Dates" is still incorrectly listed as airing on September 4, 2015, when it actually aired on September 20, 2015. And that's not even because of a scheduling change, but rather that it aired in, I think, the UK first. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, I forgot to sign that. And yes, I agree with the idea of keeping the date until it passes or until thefutoncritic posts a different date, which is likely to be the correct one. I don't know if we should fix "The Thundredth" or leave it that way until another reference comes out. Starforce13 (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Starforce13: I've changed it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, I forgot to sign that. And yes, I agree with the idea of keeping the date until it passes or until thefutoncritic posts a different date, which is likely to be the correct one. I don't know if we should fix "The Thundredth" or leave it that way until another reference comes out. Starforce13 (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you @Amaury:. Starforce13 (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
"Little Knight Lies" and "End of the Knight"
editThese two episodes were originally scheduled for November 3 and November 10; however, they were pulled last-minute for unknown reasons. Word was they were supposed to air in December, but now it's not until 2019. In any case, there is zero reason to remove them, as they are still supported by our sources, and continued removals will continue to be reverted and vandalism warnings will be issued. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Slobwick
editWe should include Slobwick among the recurring characters. Forgetting about "Has been credited in this way" or "In the credits figure in such a way". He is a character that appears continuously in the episodes since his debut, I think that is enough to consider him a Recurring character. --BrookTheHumming (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Is he a major character? No. Does he get credited as a significant guest star? No. Is he even "technically recurring" yet? AFAICT, no. Unless and until any of that changes, he does not belong here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Also, the character literally has no lines. All it does is basically "baby noises." A no-line character is not notable, regardless of appearance count. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- "Recurring" means that he appears often. Slobwick does it. There are animation series with secondary characters that do not speak, but are included in characters' lists: the Mime of "Animaniacs"; Santa's Little Helper of "The Simpsons"... With Slobwick I do not see the difference. He is one more character. It's information about the series. --84.78.248.145 (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Can not we forget how people appear in the credits, and focus on how a character appears in a story in the viewer's point of view? He appears continuously since his debut, and stands out among the other characters being the only "animal". Even his image appears in the opening sequence. As mentioned here, mentioning Slobwick among the characters is to give more information about the series. But if you do not agree to include him in "Recurring Characters" (although I still think it would be more appropriate), and if we include Slobwick in a section titled "Others"? --BrookTheHumming (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Can not we forget how people appear in the credits
No, because this is how Wikipedia works. Slobwick is not notable and is just like any other pet you see on other TV series, only slightly difference being that it is magical, but that does not determine or establish notability. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)- Agreed – needs to be credited as a full "guest star", and needs to be actually "recurring", before I'd consider it notable enough to include. "Running gags" often don't merit inclusion here, as per WP:TRIVIA – that's what Wikias are for. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- We do have the information on who voiced Slobwick and who performed him. The credits listed Slobwick as "Voice of Slobwick: Todd Tucker." Tucker was also credited as his puppeteer alongside Mike Scanlan. It would be like how they credited Dr. Colosso's rabbit form in The Thundermans with Dana Snyder also portraying his human form. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed – needs to be credited as a full "guest star", and needs to be actually "recurring", before I'd consider it notable enough to include. "Running gags" often don't merit inclusion here, as per WP:TRIVIA – that's what Wikias are for. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Can not we forget how people appear in the credits, and focus on how a character appears in a story in the viewer's point of view? He appears continuously since his debut, and stands out among the other characters being the only "animal". Even his image appears in the opening sequence. As mentioned here, mentioning Slobwick among the characters is to give more information about the series. But if you do not agree to include him in "Recurring Characters" (although I still think it would be more appropriate), and if we include Slobwick in a section titled "Others"? --BrookTheHumming (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- "Recurring" means that he appears often. Slobwick does it. There are animation series with secondary characters that do not speak, but are included in characters' lists: the Mime of "Animaniacs"; Santa's Little Helper of "The Simpsons"... With Slobwick I do not see the difference. He is one more character. It's information about the series. --84.78.248.145 (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Also, the character literally has no lines. All it does is basically "baby noises." A no-line character is not notable, regardless of appearance count. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Consensus on this has not changed. Slobwick is not notable, and continued efforts to try to include them and ignore that consensus is not for adding them will result in warnings and later reports. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Alleged cancellation
editThere is a tweet by Sean W. Cunningham that says that the final shooting of the series was yesterday; however, we cannot use that because 1) he doesn't outright say canceled and 2) it is an unverified Twitter. While I know it's him and have no doubts, policy is policy. And ultimately, that is controlled by Nickelodeon. We could get a nice surprise with a third season or a 10-episode extension to the second season. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
We've now had confirmation that April 20 is the season finale of the second season; however, unlike with Bizaardvark, we don't have something like The Futon Critic saying "the series' current season will be its last" under "Additional Notes." As such, even once April 20 passes, the infobox stays as present and no end date should be mentioned anywhere until the usual: an official announcement or a year passes without new episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Amaury: is right. Like the miniseries Fast Layne, we should wait until we have official confirmation from Nickelodeon or someone on the show that the series has stopped production. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
It ended: [1] and [2], note its from the creator and it says "SERIES" finale, not season finale. At this point there's more proof the show is over rather than still in production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.11.91 (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Neither of those is verified, and series' fates are controlled by networks, not the producers. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- While a showrunner's social media would generally be good enough for this, as Amaury says unverified social media accounts cannot be used. So, for the purposes of Wikipedia, the show's ending still remains unverified. And that will remain to be the case until a bona fide WP:RS reporting the show's ending is produced (or until a year after the last original episode aired). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- We can't use unverified social media but verification needn't be just the official one. A reliable source with a reputation for fact checking can also be used as verification of the owner of a social media account. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)