Talk:List of Stoked episodes

Canada

Why did canada wait idk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.197.161 (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Heartbreak Hotel

I'd say that's a reference to Elvis Presley's song of the same name but that's just me 70.249.218.43 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

STUPID

every time i try to add episode descriptions for episodes 29, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, and 52, those stupid Wikipedians have to remove them. Why do they keep on doing this?98.148.34.92 (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The episode summaries in question are originally from the ABC3 website, so they keep getting removed per WP:C. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@98.148.34.92: Please be mindful to keep a civil tone toward your fellow editors. You might disagree with their edits, but calling people names and throwing tantrums isn't going to win you any allies, particularly when the people you are angry with have consistently used good edit summaries to explain their decisions, so that you may benefit from the explanation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Trivia

I don't see how the addition of trivia in this edit enhances our understanding of the series. I also don't understand Dogmaticeclectic's resubmission of the trivia here or the corresponding edit summary, "consistency with the rest of the list". How is the addition of trivia consistent with the rest of the list? Why are we adding trivia at all, let alone including trivia twice in the same synopsis? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that music is mentioned in other episode summaries. The list should be as consistent as possible, after all. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@Dogmaticeclectic: There are only two songs mentioned in the episode list as near as I can tell, and those are being called "featured songs". The fact that another show's opening theme was playing on a television in a restaurant scene doesn't seem like the same thing as a featured song. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all of your concerns in my latest two edits to the article. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't think you have, as my main concern is that it appears to be trivia, which needn't exist in the article at all. That crumb of information neither enhances our understanding of the series, nor does it improve our understanding of the episode's plot, which is what a synopsis is supposed to do. Is the opening theme a plot point? A running gag? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've definitely addressed your point about "including trivia twice in the same synopsis", at least... in any case, I'm of the opinion that given that other songs are included in the list, it should be included as a song in its own right. You think it should be deleted altogether. Is the latest revision not an acceptable compromise?

Besides, it's at least slightly unusual for portions of other shows to appear so blatantly - there's a reason fictional crossovers, which are essentially extensions of this, get entire articles. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@Dogmaticeclectic: Hi, sorry for the delay, I wanted to distance myself from the discussion for a minute to be sure that I wasn't responding emotionally, then I got sidetracked with other interests. I still think the inclusion of this information is trivial, especially after watching the scene in question on YouTube (youtu.be/7gwAS9uv9r8?t=4m23s). But, in the interest of compromise, I don't object to your re-wording, though I would probably clarify the note to read something closer to: "A ten-second snippet of the introduction to the animated show [[Total Drama Action]] is shown during the restaurant scene." I'm not married to that specific language, but if we're going to mention it at all, we should probably mention that it's a brief snippet, and we should include context so that casual readers know that Total Drama Action is another animated series, etc. (Sorry for the incomplete link to YouTube, but Wikipedia wouldn't let me direct-link the the URL.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Listing of multiple nations' broadcast dates

If Stoked is a Canadian series, is there a specific reason why we are listing the US and Australian broadcast dates? That doesn't seem to mesh with MOS:TV. I'm of the opinion that the Australian and US dates should be deleted, particularly in consideration of the recent good faith edits from IP 50.12.114.28 here who added TeenNick airdates. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

We can't arbitrarily decide which air dates should be included and which shouldn't. If we include US and Oz dates, we have to include all air dates. For this reason we generally limit dates to when they first aired in the country of origin unless they aired before then in another country. A scan of the air dates in this article show there are a few dates where episodes aired in the US before Canada, but they're all unsourced so I don't believe inclusion is justified. Both US and Oz dates should be removed. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend, I plan to revert your mass removal for several reasons. First, as you yourself pointed out above, some of the alternate airdates (both American and Australian) are stated to be earlier and thus should unquestionably be included if correct, and sources for several of these are extremely easy to find. Second, I am not aware of any broad consensus for removing (later) airdates in other English-speaking countries, and User:Cyphoidbomb has not provided a specific citation from MOS:TV to this effect - indeed, if you take a look around, a significant percentage of similar episode lists has such airdates. If you feel that this should be changed, then you should attempt to obtain a broad consensus for this change at an appropriate general forum, not at the talk page of an episode list hardly watched by anyone; this is especially the case as this issue has been brought up before (you should definitely recall Talk:My Babysitter's a Vampire (TV series)/Archive 1#Disney info in article should be treated as all other foreign outlets). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

By all means, if episodes in other countries aired earlier this can be noted but for consistency we generally stick with the air date in the country of origin. As I pointed out, we can't arbitrarily decide which air dates should be included and which can't. If we're going to include Australian and US dates then we should include air dates in other countries too, which is just impractical. This is one of the reasons we stick with the country of origin. I did receive a thank you notification from Cyphoidbomb for the changes, so he should be given the opportunity to comment before any changes are made. In any case, removal of the dates was but one part of the fixes I made so any restoration of dates can't be a simple reversion, as that will reintroduce a number of errors and inconstencies that were repaired. There were quite a few issues that needed to be fixed. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend, your concern about including airdates in other countries seems merely academic to me. First of all, there aren't that many English-speaking countries anyways. Second, has anyone attempted to add airdates from such countries? As far as I can tell, the only attempt to add airdates was for a different channel in the US, and such should be and indeed was removed regardless of this discussion. I really don't think it's necessary to look for a problem where there doesn't seem to be one (and such a problem should in any case be discussed at an appropriate forum and not here, as I mentioned above). In any case, there are so many earlier airdates from both the US and Australia that removing any just serves to confuse the reader. Furthermore, and this is something I forgot to mention above, there are several episodes that apparently aired in a different order altogether in the US, and this is highly significant. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not academic. There were already have three different countries listed here. What's to stop others being added? Television series often air in different orders in different countries, that's not significant at all. Adding dates from foreign markets is what confuses the reader. It's more helpful to list the episodes as they aired in the country of origin. It's pretty much the standard. Have you looke at Category:FL-Class television articles? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend, you just linked to a category that is comprised almost exclusively of American shows, which for several obvious reasons cannot be compared to those from other countries. What's to stop others being added, you ask? Well, again, that hasn't happened so far as far as I can tell - but if someone wants to add airdates from an English-speaking country, why not let them be added? What is your actual argument here, anyways? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:MOSTV covers this through "Broadcast". We generally do not list other country air dates unless there is a specific reason to do so. If an episode airs early, it needs to be sourced, and a note should be placed below the episode table explaining that it aired early in a particular country(ies). If we get into the habit of listing other country airdates, we become a basic TV Guide and the list will become endless. Someone from the UK, or India, or some other English speaking country will go, "Hey, we aren't listed....we need to be". Then you have a page just listing air dates for a dozen countries.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I see WP:TVINTL does indeed cover this, but I think an exception should be made for this page and the US and Australian airdates (only) included because so many of them are earlier than the Canadian ones - it would be far more of a mess to have notes for about half the episodes. Does anyone have an argument against keeping the airdates in this specific instance? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Am I missing it somewhere? I went back in the history to where they all were listed and I only saw 3 times in season 1 when an episode was aired outside of Canada early (episodes 12, 13, and 15). In season 2, there was once (episodes 27). If I'm not mistaken, which it was kinda hard to look at them all side-by-side and not get a little blurry eyed. It looks more like an anomaly than anything. I don't see why a note cannot be made for 4 episodes out of 50 episodes. I mean, Smallville had 1 entire season air a day early in Canada. We didn't actually change the dates (because it threw off the other seasons), but left a note acknowledging it. That said, is there any reliable source found, as of yet, that shows that these aired on a certain day? Because it's so random, I bet there's a reason they aired early (or late).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

There are indeed 3 cases of earlier airdates in season 1 but 13 (!) in season 2 - please check the latter carefully. Furthermore, in season 1, there are 4 cases of episodes airing in a different order in Canada than in both the US and Australia (which have the exact same order, so it seems that it's the Canadian ordering that's unusual) and 4 cases of episodes not airing in the US at all. This means that the number of episodes requiring notes would be 24, which is nearly half the show (as I previously noted). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a version of the page that you're looking at? Where I've looked, I cannot find 13earlier dates in season 2 (because I cannot find a version that shows the US in season 2). Your overview table even indicates that it hasn't aired in the US yet, and the Aussie dates are not before the Canada dates. As for airing out of order, you don't need notes for that. That is why we have included production codes in the past, because that shows a reader that the episode was filmed earlier but aired later. Unless there is a specific reason to cite for the airing snafu, then you don't note it. Sometimes, people film things out of order because its easier. As for episodes not airing in another country, that doesn't belong in the episode table. That belongs in a separate area, whether that's below the table or what, detailing that in other countries not all the episodes have aired. You're also assume that I mean put "note" next to the episode. I'm not. You put an asterisk next to it, and in one area you write out the description of what happened. Hell, you don't even need the asterisk, because we shouldn't be detailing dates from other countries in the table itself. At the end of the day, all of this is moot until a reliable sources for all these dates can be found. Otherwise, I cannot say for sure that any of them aired earlier somewhere else.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You know what? I'm just going to go ahead and write up a properly-sourced version of this article (that also takes into account the other edits that were made in the meantime). Please don't revert right away - if you disagree with something, at least we'll have an actual version of the article to discuss. (By the way, what I meant regarding season 2 was the last half of the season - scroll down and compare those airdates.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, scratch that... you'll probably complain that these sources don't explicitly differentiate between American and Canadian airdates. Sigh. Here's one that I'm looking at specifically right now, and it seems to quite clearly back up the version of this page prior to the mass removal if you look at the airdates carefully, but without explicitly stating so: http://www.hulu.com/stoked Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to look for there. I don't have a subscription to Hulu to access anything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't need a subscription (or even to be in the US) to see this - just hover over the episodes to see their airdates. More specifically: the episode 1-22 airdates are exactly the same as the American ones formerly on this page; the season 2 airdates are exactly the same as the Canadian ones currently on this page; and the episode 23-26 ones are all January 1, 2010, which is obviously intended as a placeholder for non-existent American airdates. (Of course, this categorization is borderline WP:OR - but then so is every Canadian airdate on this page right now! In other words, either this is added or airdates are removed from this page entirely.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, it seems that the real issue is that there is practically no record of the Canadian airdates for those episodes that also aired in the US; given this, I'm actually extremely close to removing the Canadian airdates entirely. Here's the only source I can find at this time, but it doesn't list all of them and clearly has several mistakes: https://itunes.apple.com/ca/tv-season/stoked-vol.-1/id318348255 Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if these will help. I just quickly scanned them, and I don't know anything about CA websites to know what's a good reliable one. Yidio.com, ShareTV. This was a quick search, just trying to help.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the help! Unfortunately, the first of these clearly has the American airdates, and the second seems to fall under WP:USERGENERATED. Come to think of it, given that the Canadian airdates are clearly less reliable than the others, it is now even more important that the other ones be included - if any are at all. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

All but 10 Canadian airdates are now sourced; unfortunately, sources for the remaining ones are unlikely to ever be found. In any case, it's definitely time to restore the Australian airdates, since season 2 is now sourced and that's where the really significant date difference is. I'm still thinking about what to do with the unsourced and US ones. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I notice that today's edits have reintroduced a number of errors that were fixed in my recent edits. These include removal of "plainrowheaders", removal of linking that allows a transcluded copy to be used in the main series article, restoration of MOS:HASH non-compliance as well as some other issues. Could you please make appropriate repairs a priority. I really don't wish to have to go over this all again. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend, I have resolved the MOS:HASH issue. As for the others: "plainrowheaders" is explicitly optional per WP:DTT; transclusion preparation is a moot point given that you did not insert any transclusion tags; and "some other issues" isn't exactly specific enough for me to resolve them. If you provide more detailed reasoning for these, I can of course take another look at making appropriate changes. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@AussieLegend:, @Bignole:, @Dogmaticeclectic: Hey all, I'm obviously far behind in this discussion, sorry, but I figured I'd chime in since I am the provacateur who started this mess. My concerns and thoughts about the dates were multiple and I can sort of boil them down to: context, prominence, importance, and maintenance.

Context: This article was inexplicably tracking airdates in three different countries, which stood out as abnormal, as I couldn't think of another good-rated article set up this way. Without an explanation that the series aired first elsewhere, the reader is left to guess the purpose of the dates.

Prominence: Even in its current form it seems odd that Australian airdates are featured so prominently next to the Canadian dates, as though it were a Canadian/Australian joint venture. I think I'd rather see a prose note even if the prose note becomes repetitive. But of course I yield to the community.

Importance: Currently we believe that Australia aired a number of the episodes before Canada did. But did any other country air those eps before Australia did? And if we were to learn that, would that affect our need for the Australian dates? Further, (and tangentially), to whom is this data important? Dogmaticeclectic has said that the different ordering of episodes overseas is "highly significant", but is it? When series are released to DVD, they often list the original airdates, but it's usually in the country of origin and on the network of origin. Does it ever matter that an episode aired elsewhere first? If the show's owners don't care about this fact, who does? All trivia can be justified for inclusion by finding a big enough hypothetical group who "might" be interested in it. There are millions of girls who take great delight in knowing which of their favorite fictional characters have crushes on other characters, but we discourage that jive. I am willing to accept that I might be closed-minded and myopic on this point, but I frequently try to imagine the scenario where a frazzled Communications student in Latvia is cutting himself with razors because he can't figure out why the inscrutable Canadians forced Australian children to watch Stoked episode "Grom Fest" first. "Do Canadians hate Australians?" he might wonder. [slice, slice].

Maintenance: Date vandalism is rampant. I see that Dogmaticeclectic has done a lot to verify the dates. How can we secure that information as time goes on? Until Wikipedia allows for data tables to be marked as Confirmed and locked off from tampering, (that'll never happen), what I would propose for maintenance (and this is perhaps my only useful contribution to this discussion), is that once we get the data the way we like it, to include a hidden note along the lines of "All data finalized and confirmed by Dogmaticeclectic 20 Jan 2014 in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Stoked_episodes&oldid=591549018" to give us a leg-up on the vandals who will be here in T-minus 10...9...8... -- Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Cyphoidbomb, please take a look at my latest WP:BOLD edit at MOS:TV. I think it resolves pretty much all of the points you brought up - and in a generalized manner, so not just for this one page. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your bold edit. I am not passing judgment on the actual edit, but on the principle that it is inappropriate to change an MOS to suit an active debate. Changes to the MOS should generally be discussed, but even more so when a debate on one page affects multiple pages going forward.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's time to end the discussion here until such time as general guidelines for handling multiple airdates in episode listings are agreed upon. (Note that the maintenance issue is really a non-issue - that's what checking sources is for, after all.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Table caption

User:AussieLegend, the table is not the only content when transcluded, so the caption should be kept. Furthermore, there is no reason not to have it - you have merely asserted that table captions are not "required" in some cases. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The table is the only content that is transcluded. The {{main}} link in the series article doesn't count as content so there doesn't need to be a caption. Strictly speaking, there is no need for the captions in the individual season tables either. The only reason they are still there is the references that have been attached to them. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend, per discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Table captions, there is no consensus on this issue overall, so any removal of captions may not be justified in the first place. However, in this case that is a moot point since the link definitely counts as content in this sense per discussion there - including one of your own comments! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend, if you're not even going to bother to respond then I don't see any reason the caption shouldn't be restored. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't need a table caption. I'm not sure you need the table, if there are only 2 seasons. The show seems cancelled. If that is the case, it's not going to grow any further. The two seasons are not large enough to require an "overview" table that just duplicates what's exactly below it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Bignole, your comment seems irrelevant because, as far as I recall, that issue was already settled in general - and not in your favour. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Where did that take place? I don't recall any discussion on this matter from a general standpoint. If you're referring to the discussion at MOSTV, that was never settled, because it was never finished. Masem added the last word stating, "a table on the show's main page for a show lasting more than two seasons." With regarding to the LoE page, they believed that it should be used in cases of navigating between seasons, but there are only 2 seasons and they don't have individual articles. So, no, it wasn't settled "out of my favor". No one bothered to continue the discussion. As for the caption, why would you have a section that says "Season 1", on the Stoked page, and immediately below that say "Stoked season 1 episodes". Do you think readers are that dense that they don't know what they are reading where they are reading it? You have so much redundancy on this page it's amazing, from an overview of 2 seasons just above those seasons, to a caption of the table immediately sandwiched between those same identifiers. That's like having a picture of Hugh Jackman on his page, and simply captioning it "Hugh Jackman".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Bignole, while it wasn't officially closed, it was quite clear to me that your viewpoint was not shared by any of the other participants in that discussion. Having said that, since you've made a new post in it, let's see where it goes from here before deciding what to do with the table overall. As for the caption, I'm still waiting for that response from User:AussieLegend... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"As for the caption, I'm still waiting for that response from User:AussieLegend" - Please excuse me for being busy, it certainly was NOT a refusal to discuss.[1] If you were really waiting for me, a polite note on my talk page would have helped. Regarding the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Table captions, you've misunderstood it. You have clearly misunderstood my comments there. You might care to male note of Rexx's comment: "I've been advising editors not to use captions where they would duplicate a heading immediately above the table as the caption is rather redundant in those cases." His proposal was "refining MOS:DTT to allow no captions when they would merely duplicate a heading just before the table". That was supported by the following editor. My subsequent comments were in relation to situations similar to The Big Bang Theory season articles where, at that time, seasons 1-5 included text between the "Episodes" header and the table. In those cases a table caption was appropriate while in season 6 there was no text other than the "main" link so a table caption was not necessary. However, for consistency in the main episode list it was appropriate to include a header. This consistency is not required for the series overview table though, since it's a different section of the article and doesn't even have a "main" link betwween the table and section header. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend, here's my main point: "I don't really see any problem with including a table caption when there is any text between the heading and the table" is what you yourself previously wrote, but there is text in the section of the article into which this table is transcluded! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The only text is the {{main}} link which, on its own, isn't sufficient text to justify the caption. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend, your stance is once again inconsistent with what you have stated before: "The table caption is redundant at The Big Bang Theory (season 6)#Episodes, but use of the caption is consistent with the five other season articles, so even the use of {{main}} in that article seems "substantial enough" text to justify use of the caption." (In this case, it would of course be consistent with the episode list tables.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, you have clearly misunderstood what I wrote. As I explained only a short time ago, "in season 6 there was no text other than the "main" link so a table caption was not necessary. However, for consistency in the main episode list it was appropriate to include a header." As somebody else in the discussion said, how much text is "substantial" is a judgement call. In The Big Bang Theory case, no text, just a {{main}} link, can be considered substantial enough to justify inclusion of the caption for consistency. It's not the same issue here. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend, you haven't actually explained why it's "not the same issue here". Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes I have. I explained that it's not necessary here because it's not in the same section of the article. "Series overview" is its own section, while all of the episode lists appear in subsections of the "Episode list" section. I've alo explained that there's no need for the captions in the seasons either. They only remain because you've included references in the caption. If another place was found for the refs, all of the captions could be deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Having a section marked "Series overview", immediately followed by a caption that reads Stoked series overview, seems unnecessary to me. That is unless we added a third or fourth explanation of the data that is to come, at which point it would become comical, and I'd be back on board again. We could do that either with parentheticals or small text. (Or both!) Maybe something like:

Series overview / Stoked series overview / (Stoked is a television program and the subject of this article, now stay tuned for the series overview.) / Here is the overview, as promised:

People from all around the world would come by to look at that! But yeah, the caption seems unnecessary right now. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)