Talk:List of Cyberchase episodes

Untitled

Are there really two episodes called "All the Right Angles"? It appears twice in the list here - once in season two (205) and once in season three (305). I had a look at tv.com and it doesn't have All the Right Angles in season 3. http://www.tv.com/cyberchase/show/8747/episode_listings.html?season=3

My MythTV PVR recorded a mystery episode today called "The Creech Who Would Be Crowned". I searched around and it was episode 305, airdate May 7, 2004. It looks like this is the right title to replace the extra "All the Right Angles". I'll make the edit and see what happens...

Plots

If anybody can get season 6, that will be great. 70.107.129.94 12:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've checked http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/parentsteachers/show/episodes.html. You seem to be doing a great job, and I'm clueless as to where the unreleased 6th season can be found. However, I suggest removing links from episode titles as the episodes themselves may not be notable enough for their own articles. Wikipedia:Television episodes. --Squids'and'Chips 16:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's not worth bringing up, but almost all the episode summaries are copied directly from the offical website. 70.250.40.203 03:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am trying to complete or PBS KIDS episode guides. I need help. Can you help? Also PBS KIDS isn't looking good here. Help and write back finding more info about this. Thanks again. I'm leaving out one last thing: I'm trying to make some time undoing [[]] the episodes. 70.107.129.94 11:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I think it's too late now for the undoing. Check the page... 70.107.129.94 21:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Soon I will begin [[]] again for Season 6. Is it a good or bad idea. If any user adds an episode for its own page I would just copy of the main idea of the episodes and use it for the page instead. 70.107.129.94 23:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Monster boy may know some info because he knew Wicked was in 603. Sorry if i'm wrong. Ask. 70.107.125.12 (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Great news. Found more season 6. 70.107.125.12 (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey 70.107.xxxxxxx? What would be the chances of having you actually start a named Wikipedia account? You seem like a decent PBS Kids contributor, and it's hard to refer to somebody by a variable number! :) I'm willing to work on non-copied ep guides and character summaries for PBSK articles (I'm working on one for Dragon Tales). Gladys j cortez (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

COPYVIO

This entire article is a verbatim copy of the Cyberchase list of episodes at PBSKids.org. This is not permissible. Notice the little statement at the bottom of the edit window? "CONTENT THAT VIOLATES ANY COPYRIGHT WILL BE DELETED." Someone needs to indicate their willingness to rewrite this article, posthaste, so it is no longer in violation of PBS's copyright, or it will be nominated for deletion. And by "it will be nominated", I mean "I will nominate it." The PBS kids shows are an absolute hotbed of copyvio, and it's got to end. I'm already working on Curious George and Dragon Tales; I can't do it all. (signing my old post here; apparently three tildes does not equal four tildes, something I would have learned from watching Cyberchase--which I could, if people would lay off the copyvio long enough for me to watch some dang television.)Gladys J Cortez 00:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical Error

In the episode description for "Hugs & Witches" (Season 2 premiere) it states "This episode is significant for containing a mathematical error." What is this mathematical error? Mr. College (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The error is that when the kids are helping the troll creature make a heart shape from rocks they find the wrong number of rocks to use. Its wrong because they say that the average number of rocks is 6 wich is correct but some of the rock piles have 5. there fore all the piles must have had just 5 at some point and some rocks could have broken. Not a major error because its only wrong because of the example and hard to spot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.92.33 (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Umm,

I've noticed that on some of the episodes theres a * after the name of the episode. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearlfur (talk • contribs) 13:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding Information

Here is some things that should be looked into for adding:

• Cyberchase for real episdoes Title and Description
• Any guest stars
• Color Code each season (begun the process of doing so)

• Why was List of Cybersites Deleted?
• Should we do a list of Cyberchase Characters?

Add any suggestions below:

Update 11/29/2013------------

• I have brought back a list of Cyberchase characters to the main page and brought back an old page "List of Cyberchase Characters"
• I Finished color coding all the sections.
• Added a box for the seasons premieres and finales.
• Please put Season 9's notes at the bottom, they are too massive for the top.Ians18 (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Airing date for new Cyberchase episodes/Cyberchase movie

According to local listings, "The Cyberchase movie" episode will air as a one hour event on April 15, rather than in two parts on two separate dates. So this will be episodes 904/905. Accordingly, they should be combined on this table, but I'm not sure how to do that. I notice also that the dates for new episodes are highly speculative until they actually are on listings and can be verified. That's how I uncovered the real date for this one-hour episode. I would welcome feedback about either the episode airing dates or the movie episode. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 06:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Upon further examination of local listings, I discovered that "The Cyberchase Movie" will air as two separate episodes on the 21st and 22nd of April. I still feel the premiere date should be listed as the 15th, but would welcome input on this as well. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

They should all be included, but the non-premire dates should be noted (in parentheses). LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

So I know The Movie is supposed to be the 100th episode, but on this page we only have 99. What happened? Ians18 (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Either we are missing an episode, or some episodes got misplaced in the article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

How can we figure out what the missing episode is if we have no idea where to start? If the 100th episode is the Cyberchase movie, then we really do need to figure out what episode we're missing for the sake of the accuracy of this page. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

From what has recently been added to the article, it seems that The Cyberchase Movie is comprised of Episodes 98–100, which aired from Tuesday, April 15, to Wednesday, April 16, as a special. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how it aired in your neck of the woods, but in mine, the Cyberchase Movie only aired on Tuesday April 15 as an hour long special and then aired again the next week on Monday April 21 and Tuesday April 22 as a two part special, so I have no idea where you got the notion that it comprises three parts. I'd be more inclined to believe we're missing an episode in our listings somewhere. Now we just need to discover where the error is. It'll take some work and more than a little searching, but I'm sure we can find it. I don't believe for a minute that the movie comprises three episodes when it was only the length of two. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Now I'm really confused. Just spent several minutes pouring over IMDB's list of Cyberchase episodes to see how it compared to ours--it was perfectly identical. This means that the movie truly does comprise the 98th and 99th episodes of Cyberchase. I don't know why they had that "100 Greatest Cyberchase moments" feature if it was not truly the 100th episode. So there's something rotten in Denmark, if you know what I mean. How very odd! --Jgstokes (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

---

OK, I just went through the PBS Parents Cyberchase Episode Pages: http://www.pbs.org/parents/cyberchase/episodes/ and it is perfectly identical as well. (Except for season 9 as that has not been added) Then I went here: http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/videos/ for season 9 (listed under all, as there is no season 9 page) and we have all the episodes. The first part of the movie is uploaded but there is NO episode number! Originally they posted both part 1 and part 2 in two parts online, but they took of part 2. It also never had the top 100 moments, and had the credits at the end for both of them. On my On Demand it was all in one piece, which is why I didn't know where the first part ended and the second part started, until they posted it online. That one on my Cable Box is listed as The Cyberchase Movie and has Harry introducing it at the start and hosting the 100 countdown. There is no episode number on that, but there are for other episodes.

Here is my two cents: I think that it was for marketing purposes they did "Episode 100" and then reverted their decision and decided not to include it in Season 9, so it does not have a production code, maybe? Or maybe it does Production code 904-905 for the two parts and 906 for the Top 100. Then they just called it "The Cyberchase Movie" and "Episode 100" for marketing purposes.

When it aired in two parts, did it have the Countdown? If not then it only aired production codes 904 and 905 (Still called "The Cyberchase Movie" or "Episode 100")

Ians18 (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

See here too: http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/cyberchase/episodes/194566 It says 99 episodes. Ians18 (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

When it aired in two parts, neither part had a "Cyberchase for Real" or featured "100 Greatest Cyberchase moments." So I don't know what happened. Thanks for the additional research. While we're on the subject, users with only an IP address keep insisting that "The Cyberchase Movie" constituted the Season 9 Finale. I kept reverting these changes as they continuously remained unsourced. So we will have to find out if indeed that is the case and add that information to this page, with a source. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR by 216.86.82.43

216.86.82.43 keeps asserting that The Cyberchase movie marked the end of Season 9 of Cyberchase, but refuses to cite a source to prove it. I have posted a message to this user's talk page asking him/her to cite a source or leave the page alone. He/she is doing neither, but continues to revert my changes. He/she is thus in violation of the 3 revert rule and, in my opinion, should be blocked from further editing. But I'm not sure how to report this user's misconduct. I don't understand the instructions on the relevant report page. I will leave it to someone else with far more Wikipedia experience than mine to request a block on this user for his/her continually disruptive editing. I would also move that we take action to protect this page from edits by anonymous users (users with only an IP address) until they learn to only add material that can be verified with a source. Who's with me? --Jgstokes (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes s/he is VERY annoying, s/he also edits the main page. I appreciate the editing, but without citing a source is creating an issue. --Ians18 (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I see you reported this user. Thanks! I'm glad you knew how to do it, because I didn't. It seems that the page has been okay since our latest posted messages to this user's talk page, so my next question is: Do we still need to request protection for this page, or will it be all right now that this annoying IP seems to be leaving it alone? --Jgstokes (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It really depends on just how many IPs are vandalizing the page and how often it is occurring. If IPs vandalize this article at least every other day, and it isn't limited to a specific group of IPs, then a request for semi-protection would probably be best. However, if the vandalism is actually coming from a few specific IPs, then they should be blocked if they decide to continue. Best regards, LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Page protection

Should we request protection for this page again? Those pesky editors with only IP addresses keep asserting that Season 9 has just 5 episodes and ended on April 15, but refuse to cite sources for it. I have posted warnings on talk pages and requested blocks until I am blue in the face. I think it's time this page got permanent protection from editors with only an IP address who keep asserting unverifiable facts. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please do. And please ask the admin to set it for 3–6 months this time (since 1 month of semi-protection didn't work). If it takes too long, I can ask an admin to semi-protect the page. LightandDark2000 (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked over the instructions to request page protection, and, much as I hate to admit it, I'm confused! I don't understand quite how requesting page protection works, nor can I figure out which kind of protection we should request. Would you be able to handle it, LightandDark2000? You seem to have more knowledge about how it works than I do. Even if you don't, you might know of someone else who can make the request for us. I think that, given the current situation (repeat anonymous IP address changing the end date and asserting that season 9 has just 5 episodes) our best route would be to explain the repeat offenses to the admins and to go right to requesting semi-protection for this page. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Finally figured out how to make the request, and through a lot of trial and error, got the request posted to the appropriate place. Requested a 3-6 month semi-protection and I hope we get it. Will keep you posted. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you sooooo much! I was going to get to it, but I have a very big school load to deal with this year (Junior year). Unfortunately, I will be reduced to editing sporadically until Thanksgiving Break in November, but whenever I have the free time, I will always check back in to help out. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with your school work. You will be missed, but I know how that goes. Unfortunately, the admins only authorized the page protection for one month. I couldn't make a convincing enough case for a longer period of time. But hopefully that's enough for the anon. IPs to get the message. --Jgstokes (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What??? Only 1 month? I already got it protected for 1 month in either May or June... I guess we'll have to ramp it up a bit with the anons/novices. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the admin who authorized the protection said he/she didn't see enough reason to authorize the protection for a longer period of time, though I did request it for 3-6 months. We will have to be diligent and watch the anon. IPs for violations. Then maybe if they continue to violate, we can make a case for protection for a longer period of time. --Jgstokes (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 November 2014

First, Season 9 has no source that it has ended, the reason this article is protected is to make sure those who vandalized would not set the season's title to 2013-2014, rather have it 2013-present. Also, the box with series overview should say TBA on Season 9's number of episodes and the box titles should say season premier and season finale instead of first aired and last aired, because the episodes are still on reruns.

Ians18 (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Ians18 (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done There is no claim in the article that season 9 has ended and the section header date range does not imply that the series has ended, only that the series thus far has aired in 2013 and 2014. If episodes go into 2015, the header should be changed to 2013-2015. Note that there is no end date in the series overview or in the overview. We should only be using "present" in the main article's infobox under the |end_date= parameter. For background, please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 3#RFC: Years in season headings on list of episode pages Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The whole reason this article is protected is to prevent users from changing it to 2013-2014. That implies the Season has ended or will end in 2014. It's status is currently unknown, so "2013-Present" is a clear representation of its status. Titling the third column as "Last Aired" is incorrect, as I have previously stated that there are still reruns airing on PBS Kids. If the changes are not made, then the page protection becomes half pointless, it only protects the article blanking, but not the Season 9 "ending" issues. It also prevents trusted users like Jgstokes, me, and LightandDark2000 from editing.Ians18 (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I'm going to have to agree with Cb here, there is no reason to change the season's title. Not sure where you get your information, but those other two users you linked certainly can edit this page, once there is consensus to do so of course. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Ians18, the current article protection is in place because a disruptive IP user kept adding garbage to the article. As for your other points, they seem to be made from a lack of understanding about how TV articles are typically treated at Wikipedia. I've pointed you to a discussion about the section headers. I'm not sure from where you're getting the notion that a series should be listed as "present" if reruns are airing. Reruns have no bearing on whether a series is "present" or not. We don't indicate I Love Lucy as "present" and reruns of that show have been airing everywhere for almost 60 years. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, Please take a step back and read what you are typing, you say that I have a lack of understanding about how these articles are supposed to be treated, yet you yourself refer to, I Love Lucy which in fact has "season premiere" and "season finale" in the series overview box. What it does not have is what the Cyberchase article has, "First aired" and "last aired" please change these to "season premiere" and "season finale". I think you are misunderstanding what I want, and thinking that I am referring to the title of Season 9, but I am referring to the Series Overview box.

• The first thing I want changed is "First aired" and "Last aired" to "season premiere" and "season finale" (in the series overview box). Take a look at Fetch! with Ruff Ruffman episodes and I Love Lucy, they have the correct titles for the box
• Secondly, Season 9's title should be changed. The Season has not completed (unless you can find a source), this was decided by the non-IP editors before the lock was in place. You cannot compare this to I Love Lucy because Cyberchase hasnot stopped production nor has it stopped airing. Season 9 is still in production until further notice with a proper source.
• Third, for the number of episodes, Season 9 should be TBA not 5, why would it be 5 when the season has not been confirmed to have ended. Take a look at Mighty Med Episodes, see how the current Season, season 2, has TBA in the number of episodes?
• Please take this into consideration, rather than shrugging it off as a change you believe should not happen. I have now backed up my requests, there is no argument against that.

Ians18 (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Ians18 I can tell you haven't looked at the Manual of Style, because presumably you might have found WP:TVOVERVIEW, which was added to the MOS in September 2014. We don't need "Season premiere" and "Season finale" in the series overview box, as it doesn't mesh with the MOS. The fact that I Love Lucy or the other articles you've cited has an older format, is irrelevant. You were talking about reruns when I brought up I Love Lucy, not the series overview box. (And if you were talking about the series overview box, that is not clear from your comment.) I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Season 9's title should be changed" If you're talking about the subject header, no it should not, per the discussion I linked above, which it doesn't appear you've read. I don't know what else to tell you. You have an idea for how you want the article to look, but your notions aren't consistent with the general WikiProject Television community. Your point about changing the number of episodes in S9 from 5 to TBA is not unreasonable, but without a reliable source that clearly indicates the # of episodes in S9 that were picked up, it seems reasonable to me to increment the # of episodes in the series overview box the same way we increment the number in the infobox when new episodes air. The purpose of the series overview is to summarize existing content. Adding TBA doesn't tell us how many episodes there are in S9, where the value "5" tells us that so far there are five episodes in S9. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What you did not address is why the other articles are that way, and this one cannot be. Also "last aired" is an incorrect term, which is why the other articles are using "season finale" again, those dates are not the last timed the season aired. Ians18 (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Still no consensus here. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The other articles are that way likely because they haven't yet been updated to reflect the new MOS guidelines that were implemented in September 2014. Prior to September 2014, there were no guidelines for the use of series overviews. It was a free-for-all, so I don't know upon what you're basing your argument: "'last aired' is an incorrect term, which is why the other articles are using 'season finale' again". You are basically arguing "other stuff exists, so that stuff should exist in this article too." There were lengthy discussions about the use of the last_aired parameter in the infobox, which I won't go into since you haven't read any of the links provided thus far, and there was a similar discussion about the inclusion of "last aired" over "season finale" in the series overview, but again you'd have to read the entire discussion, when you haven't even demonstrated an intention to read the summaries of these discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Season 10

Per WP:BRD, it is @Ians18:'s duty to open this discussion, but I'm going to open it for him. With regard to these good faith edits of his [1][2] there are some structural problems that, although I amply explained in [3] this edit, Ians18 apparently didn't actually look at the MOS:TV guidelines being referenced.

So, to reiterate, there is already community consensus for the changes supported in my revision. Per WP:TVUPCOMING, "When a series is renewed for an additional season, a section is not to be added for that upcoming season until such time as an episode table can be created for the season. The information regarding the renewal of the series should be added to the article's lead...". That's exactly what I did. There is no grid, and it would be premature to create one as we have no episode content.

Per WP:TVOVERVIEW, "A new season should be added to the overview table only after an episode table has been created for that season." The trigger for creating or adding a new season to the series overview is the addition of a new section. Thus, if it's too early to add a section, it's too early to add to the overview.

Lastly is the content.

• This is a list of episodes, not the main Cyberchase article. Information about apps being released, a spin-off, and that nonsensical promotional stuff ("It will include a National outreach initiative and parent and educator resources.") simply has no business in this article, because it has nothing to do with episodes.
• We don't use seasons (Fall) as indicators of time. See WP:SEASON.
• In articles, prose is typically preferred over lists.
• This article has been crammed with far too much trivial detail, which might be why it's difficult to understand why I'm removing this content. The article needs to be massively trimmed.

You are welcome to argue for a local consensus, Ians18, but you don't yet have one, and community consensus doesn't see things your way. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Have we had other users vote? No. Just because it is your personal opinion about the edits does not mean you should revert. Wikipedia:Be_bold. Anyways this info is part of Season 10, every show is different, according to Cyberchase this is part of Season 10. The article is not too massive, massively trimmed to what end? You reverting my edit clearly violate the principle of BRD. The principle states only revert if and only if the edit is not an improvement. Just because you don't like it is not a good reason. This article does not need condensing, It is an encylopedia article, hard work by many editors and is not outdated. You do not have a majority consensus.Ians18 (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ians18: Consensus is not determined through voting, it's achieved through discussion. And though your edits are bold, boldness alone isn't what we're looking for. The content is not consistent with established guidelines, which have been discussed, and which are the consensus. So you must now present the compelling argument for inclusion. You have neither addressed any of the guideline issues, nor do I see you discussing the individual points raised. Why does TVOVERVIEW not apply here? Why does TVUPCOMING not apply here? Why are we discussing apps in a List of episodes--what does an app have to do with an episode list? Why are we discussing a live-action spin-off in a List of episodes? Why is this List of episodes article so unique that we should ignore the Manual of Style for Television? etc. etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is it that Cyberchase lists these items under Season 10? Because it is part of Season 10, that's why.List_of_The_Electric_Company_(2009_TV_series)_episodes#Novels is a great example of listing novels in a section. It is produced as part of the series. Season 9 was done this way and no admin had an issue, neither did any other user. Take a look at WP:SEASON again, you will see that it says using seasons are ambiguous. However this is the language Cyberchase used on their Twitter page if you want you can add "northern hemisphere" to clarify. You can reword the "nonsensical" stuff, but that is YOUR OPINION. There is nothing that says a goal of the new season is NONSENSICAL. You are very annoying to believe that these your decision to reverse editing is not based off some cloudy judgment of others and their editing skills.

As they are part of the episodes list, they should not be in the main article. Lists is preference and ease of reading. It will be expanded as more information comes in. You must defend your argument in such a way to show that any of this information is irrelevant to this episode list and if you have something better, put it there instead of removing Season 10 as a section. Should we ignore the fact that Season 10 exists? Should I listen to some Wikipedia user that comes to this article, barely knowing anything about the series and reverses and modifies useful edits that have been made by users who have been editing and reorganizing this page for longer? Are we really throwing out the rule-book here? No. We are not throwing out the Manual of Style for TV. I will reword the bullets to fit the exception to the forthcoming seasons rule. Ians18 (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Nobody's ignoring S10. The content was moved to the lead where it belongs, because it is premature to add a new section. Have you read WP:TVOVERVIEW or WP:TVUPCOMING? I really don't understand the rest of your argument, and none of it addresses the existing guidelines specifically. If you think that "national outreach initiative through parent and educator resources" actually has any meaning to a regular person reading the article, you are incorrect. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. You are indiscriminately adding the only content you have found about S10 to the article, and not doing a very good job of defending the inclusion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the content in the season 10 section but the edits by Ians18 violate MOS:TV. WP:TVUPCOMING and WP:TVOVERVIEW were the subject of significant discussion by many editors, so they do have a strong consensus and a limited local consensus, which does not even exist yet, cannot override a wider community consensus. This was borne out in a RfC that was closed specifically for this reasson. WP:TVUPCOMING says When a series is renewed for an additional season, a section is not to be added for that upcoming season until such time as an episode table can be created for the season. As there is no episode list for season 10, that section should not exist and information about the upcoming season should remain in the lead. WP:TVOVERVIEW says A new season should be added to the overview table only after an episode table has been created for that season. Therefore, there should be no row in the series overview table for season 10 until an episode table exists. As already pointed out by Cyphoidbomb, this is a list of episodes, and content about games, web series and a "national outreach initiative" does not belong here. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Two user ideas are hardly any consensus if any consensus at all. I have changed the format from a bulleted list to the conformity that is seen here on Wikpedia and a table is always possible, as we know there are going to be 5 episodes. If Cyberchase says that the new interactive media are not part of the seasons, prove it. Lastly, you are not willing to accept that some "Seasons" and "episodes", well the definitions could be changing. We live in a more connected will and to say that launching all this stuff at one time is not part of the Season 10 that it clearly says on the tweeted slide, is to be ignorant. Ians18 (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This not simply "Two user ideas". We've both commented with reference to the relevant parts of MOS:TV, which were the subject of much verifiable discussion and which have much wider consensus than just "Two user ideas". Whether or not a table is "possible", community consensus is that which has been quoted, When a series is renewed for an additional season, a section is not to be added for that upcoming season until such time as an episode table can be created for the season and a new season should be added to the overview table only after an episode table has been created for that season. If you have a problem with this, you can always ask for more opinion at MOS:TV and/or WT:TV. Note that this edit is bordering on being disruptive. We don't create tables for the sake of creating tables. We create tables only when there is content to add. Tables full of "TBA"s and "TBD"s serve no purpose. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Ians18, you haven't acknowledged the existence of WP:TVOVERVIEW and WP:TVOVERVIEW, let alone explained in any way why these guidelines do not apply to this article. That is pretty much the only way to adequately argue for the version of the article you want. It's also a little troubling that you think we have to get consensus. I've said from my first post on this topic above that consensus already exists in the form of these guidelines. Regarding "If Cyberchase says that the new interactive media are not part of the seasons, prove it." Nooooo, it's up to you to prove a positive, not for me to prove a negative. And let's shine a light on the gorilla in the room: The Twitter reference you found did not originate from Cyberchase. It is not an official statement from them, requires some level of interpretation, and probably does not qualify as WP:RS anyway. And since we don't know where the photo was taken, or what the context was, I wouldn't place too much stock in that photo or the applicability of all the content to this List of episodes. Some of that information, as previously stated, would be better suited for the main article, but you didn't like that suggestion either. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Production codes

I'm calling BS on the production codes in the article. What is the source for these? My suspicion is that these are fabricated. The US Copyright Office, for instance, doesn't include these three digit numbers. I think they should be cut. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Tag them with {{citation needed}} and if they aren't sourced within a reasonable time, remove them. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree Now both of you are spitting out BS. For two random users that by the way have had little editing experience with Cyberchase and probably don't even really know what Cyberchase is and haven't watched more than maybe 1 episode, you guys sure put up a fight. Well take a look at Cyberchase Website and Cyberchase Parent Site both of which use production codes. AussieLegend, the fact that you, as a pretty well developed editor, would blindly agree without source-checking, is quite astonishing; to me you have lost all credibility. Ians18 (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

While we may not have edited this article much, we have both had a lot of experience editing television articles and far more than that editing Wikipedia generally, so we do know what policies apply. For example, Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is one of Wikipedia's core policies says, any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. That is why I suggested adding {{citation needed}}. That alerts readers to the fact that the content has been. If it isn't sourced within a reasonable timeframe, any editor is free to remove the content. As for the links you provided (the second one doesn't work, by the way), are the numbers there actually production codes, or just episode numbers? --AussieLegend (✉) 07:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Ians18, Neither of the two links you've provided are working for me. One gives me a 503 error, the other a 404. Archives aren't helpful: [4][5]. And you are correct, I've never seen one episode of Cyberchase. That has no meaning or bearing here, because article formatting, and bringing articles up to bare minimum standards has nothing to do with episode content. Now if I were writing a plot summary, you might have a point. In many ways being ignorant of the series is a benefit—I won't be so bogged down in my adoration of the series to include speculative cruft like "The new love interest is a boy, Ollie, and he wears glasses; given that Inez wears glasses, she could be the love interest." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed links, you can just go to the Cyberchase website anyways. If you looked at the URL. Ians18 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Ordinals and Overly Detailed

How is February 10th in violation of WP:ORDINAL? It is not superscripted, has no Roman Numerals, and is not noted with a dot (.) Ians18 (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Let me add. How is it overly detailed? Give examples. Look at Fetch List of Episodes Ians18 (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Nobody said that February 10th in violation of WP:ORDINAL. The entire edit summary was c/e - general cleanup, date fixes, WP:ORDINAL, tag one ambiguous item, rmv inappropriate capitalisation, etc. WP:ORDINAL actually refers to "5", not "February 10th". The part of the edit summary that refers to that is "date fixes", which should be obvious given that "February 10th" is a date. As for what is overly detailed, I didn't add the tag, but most of the "topic" column falls in that category, as does a lot of the season introduction information. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Ians18, MOS:BADDATEFORMAT addresses ordinals in dates. We don't use July 2nd, the 11th of December, etc. We would write July 2, 11 December, etc. depending on context. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Reformatting and plan for upcoming changes

I've done a significant rejiggering of the episode sections.

• Notes sections – It didn't make any sense that we had these bullet-point notes hidden underneath the table where they serve no purpose. So in this edit, all notes that were original research (speculation, interpretation, etc.) were cut. I also cut redundant notes that were either already mentioned in the episode table or in the season-specific lead-in. (ex: if "First appearance of so-and-so" appeared in the table, then we don't need to mention that again.)

Still to do

• Season 9 – The season 9 note section is a mess and we're going to have to chop a bunch out of that. Most of the content sounds like it was added before anybody had seen an episode from this season, and fans were trying to predict the shape of the season. I think most of it could probably be cut, because we now have the episode summaries that should ostensibly tell us what's happening in the season. Alternatively, whatever content can be salvaged could conceivably be converted to prose, given that the prose adheres to normal encyclopedic standards, isn't crufty, is supported with references and adequate context, etc.
• Season leads – The season leads aren't quite written in proper encyclopedic tone. Statements like "The Cybersquad is at it again", and "A lot may be going on in Cyberspace, but the Cybersquad shall continue to stop Hacker" reads a little too much like press release copy. It's certainly reparable. It looks like there was some consideration for providing brief overviews of the series arcs, so that's helpful and can be improved.
• Tables - We need to establish a consistent episode table format. I think the format from seasons 2-7 makes the most sense given the amount of information we're trying to convey. Six columns with: Ep. #, Production Code, Title, Air date, Plot, Topic. Obviously if we decide to add writers/directors, we'll have to again convene.

Thoughts anyone? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That is a good plan, and it allows @cyphoidbomb some parts of the introductions like the part that states that season 5 is the last one to feature Len Carlson as the voice of Buzz due to his death, and Phill Williams takes over afterwords. We don't need things like "first appearence of wicked" in the table for let's say episod 108 happily ever after. 108 by the way means season 1 episode 8, 108, also done as 1x08 or s1ep8

Eric Ramus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.166.103 (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Facts section.

I have cut the Facts section in this edit. This section was presumably created prior to Season 9 airing as a means of predicting what was going to take place in the season. Since the season has been produced and has aired, there is no need to predict what was to happen. Any relevant content should have already been included in each episode summary or, in the case of any relevant production content, perhaps incorporated into the season intros. (For example, I moved the info about the animation house to the intro, because that is relevant.) An indiscriminate list, however, is not something Wikipedia gets behind. There were other issues too, including that most of the facts were improperly attributed quotations, but the greater point is that if we ever hope to get this article into any sort of decent shape, we have to get rid of the hasty listcruft. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree and Thanks! Ians18 (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

copyvio notice

Somebody has put acopyvio notice on this page, citing the entire article as violating copyright laws. I don't entirely see how the whole article violates copyright laws sinse the purpos is to list the episdoes and thesummaries provided.

I did my anual check on this page and foudn this on it. Any suggestions on why this is there? or is it simply a case of a person who dislikes cyberchase simply putting this on the page to attempt to have it removed.

Thanks

Eric Ramus

199.195.166.103 Did you look in the edit history? That would have answered your question. Portions of this article contain copyrighted content, i.e. episode summaries and other prose content copied from other sources. We are not allowed to copy or closely paraphrase episode descriptions or other prose without proper attribution, and we cannot base large portions of an article on quoted material. Unrelated to that, you should be aware that when you posted the above comment, you duplicated the entire talk page. Please be more careful in the future. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If you found specific examples, why didn't you edit them to fix them? Instead of adding this copyright junk onto the page? WikIan 04:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't have the time, chief. And keep in mind that I could just as easily give you grief for not having spotted the copyright violations after years of editing this article. The copyright "junk" was a necessary step to try to get other experienced editors involved. We do after all have editors who are interested specifically in suppressing copyright violations. Moving forward, I've cut the prose in the Topic sections as most of the samples I took resulted in copypasta from sites like this and this. I have not checked all the episode summaries, because again, I don't have the time right now. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, you certainly did well to flag the problems here, thank you! For another time, it's probably better not to remove the copyvio blanking but leave that to an admin or copyright clerk (which is what I am). Anyone who doesn't like it being there is of course always free to follow the instructions on the template and work on a rewrite. I've now removed the summaries as well, as these appeared to be without exception (all those I checked) copied from various parts of the pbs.kids-org website, such as this document. It seems that the first of these was added with this edit in 2007 (yep, eight years ago! – the problem was noticed and mentioned here on 15 October 2007). I should have reverted to the version preceding that, but that would have erased a lot of stuff, so I opted to remove the summaries instead.

Since I'm here: the suggestions made above for cleaning up this page are good. It should be a list of episodes, as clear and as succinct as possible, without bells or whistles. It doesn't need an extended introduction to each season (that stuff belongs in the main article), so I suggest removing those – they are also unsourced. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The purpos of the introductions to the season sections is to summarize trivia about the season, i.e. season 5 was the lsat one to feature voice actor Len Carlson who has voiced Buzz from season 1 up untill his death in 2006. I highly suggest that you watch the show to understand where some people are getting at with some parts of this article. again i said some parts, not all but having some knowledge of the show to understand context is a good idea. Every episode is available on youtube as of the date of this post.

Eric Ramus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.166.103 (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure upon what you're basing your assertion, but the purpose of a season introduction is absolutely not to summarize trivia. Trivia is not mentioned anywhere at the Manual of Style for Television except to say that we don't want it. Now a summary might be warranted for describing the arc of the season, if there is one, ex: "Though working at Acme in the first season was a pipe dream for Joe, in the second season he finally summons the courage to apply for work there, and after two deaths and a firing, he finds himself in the position of assistant manager in spite of constant denigration by his tyrannical boss." This made-up example tells you fairly clearly what's going on in the story without focusing on trivia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www-tc.pbskids.org/cyberchase/parentsteachers/lessons/pdf/teachers_guide_1st_edition.pdf and other PBS pages. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio blanking

My removal of infringing content (please see above) was reverted by Jgstokes. Rather than enter into an edit-war, I have again blanked the page and listed it at WP:CP for someone else to review and deal with (I won't be taking any further action here). Please note that the copyvio notice may be removed only by an admin, a copyright clerk, or an OTRS agent. The blanked content should not be edited until the matter is resolved. Anyone is free to work on a copyvio-free rewrite here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers I'm a little confused why Jgstokes didn't voice his objection here on the talk page. His explanation doesn't seem sound to me if the rationale for removing the content is to avoid copyright violations. I disagree with the unilateral removal of content currently in dispute. Please post on the talk page before attempting to revert my edit or redo the previous one. Thanks.[6] If the content is in violation of copyright it needs to be removed regardless of dispute. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I know for a fact that EVERYTHING in Season 9 is written by me and therefore not under copyright. I don't understand why you keep putting up these notices. If you continue to do so, I will have to bring this to admin review (other than Cyphoidbomb who doesn't appear to be the least bit helpful) and a possible block for vandalism. WikIan -(talk) 23:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be the least bit helpful? A nice, pissy, passive-aggressive note, but If I remember correctly, I spent considerable time paring down the copyright violations that somehow you missed. Do you have a more specific complaint that you'd like me to address? If so, let me know. If not, please save the pissiness. So far I've seen complaints from you, but little in the way of specific suggestions for improvement. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Your "solution" was to blank all the Topic summaries, what helpful editing... My edits, on the other hand, include actually writing Season 9 from scratch, creating the episode overview table, AND converting to the new table structure. WikIan -(talk) 04:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

More complaints without solutions. If you think I'm going to chase you around a tree for answers, you're mistaken. If the content is violating copyright, it should be removed. What would have been your preferred alternative? To closely paraphrase the copyrighted content? Closely paraphrasing copyrighted content is still a copyright violation. The second issue is whether the content belongs in the article at all, or if it's just more fancruft, which has already been problematic to manage. If the content is important, it probably should have been incorporated into the plot summaries in an intuitive way. For instance, if the main characters needed to use geometry to figure out the location of something on a map, that would not be hard to incorporate into a plot summary. "In order to escape from So-and-So, the team learns about bisecting angles using geometry, plots their escape route on a map, and digs a tunnel to freedom." This would be the intuitive way to add this information instead of inflating the episode list with a Topic column/row. But alas, it was apparently more attractive for lazy editors to plagiarize than it was to write from scratch. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

People, please don't argue over this, it isn't worth it. It'll be dealt with fairly soon, though not by me; unfortunately the copyright problems noticeboard is seriously backlogged. Just to be clear: there is definitely a copyright violation here; however, I may have been over-cautious in removing all the summaries (please see my comment here), so I'm going to wait for someone else to evaluate this. But meanwhile, there's really not much mileage in arguing about it, OK? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Fortunately for me, I didn't even read any of those source materials and therefore in no way could have copied or paraphrased that content in the slightest fashion. I had watched the episodes, which I'm sure you haven't, and then came here to write all about it. Thanks for your concern, however. WikIan -(talk) 05:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're going on about. Nobody's accused you of copying or paraphrasing the content. Please consider withdrawing from the discussion until you have constructive input to contribute. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you ever going to resolve this issue?WikIan -(talk) 06:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of Cyberchase episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131105042939/http://shop.pbskids.org/cyberchase-codename-icky-dvd.html to http://shop.pbskids.org/cyberchase-codename-icky-dvd.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131105042928/http://shop.pbskids.org/cyberchase-starlight-night-dvd.html to http://shop.pbskids.org/cyberchase-starlight-night-dvd.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131105041715/http://shop.pbskids.org/cyberchase-the-snelfu-snafu-dvd.html to http://shop.pbskids.org/cyberchase-the-snelfu-snafu-dvd.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131105041741/http://shop.pbskids.org/cyberchase-ecohaven-cse-dvd.html to http://shop.pbskids.org/cyberchase-ecohaven-cse-dvd.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Copying from Wikia

As of right now, many episode summaries have been copied from Cyberchase Wiki. That wiki licenses content according to the Creative Commons CC BY-SA license, which requires attribution. I've added a {{CC-notice}} template for basic attribution, but for legal reasons, individual pages from the Cyberchase Wiki might need to be linked so the contributors there get proper attribution. clpo13_(talk) 18:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Cybersites

In this edit I boldly removed the Cybersite content. The information is not presented in an encyclopedic way, and "Cybersites" have no meaning to anyone who isn't already familiar with the series, and there's no way to tell what significance they have in the series or why we should care that they went there. The appropriate way to include this information, assuming it's even noteworthy, is to include the detail in well-written plot summaries, ("The kids travel to Castleblanca where XYZ happens.") not cram it into a plot summary field without any context. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a trivia/fact scorecard for fans of the show. Wikia would be a better place for this sort of thing. Remember also that we're not trying to replace the experience of watching the series, we're trying to communicate general information to the widest audience possible. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Air dates may need some work

Hello, everyone! I wanted to start a dialogue today about some concerns I had about the listed air dates. I googled the episodes airing in 2010, and all of them apparently aired a week earlier than asserted here. That is verified by googling the other episodes. So that got me wondering: are any of the other air dates inaccurate as well? If they are, this page may need an overhaul. Just wanted to note that. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

With all of the vandalism coming from the IPs recently, its possible that a number of the air dates are off. However, I think that most of them are accurate, especially for the earliest seasons and the latest episodes. That being said, you might want to double-check. You could look in the revision history, before all of this mess began, to see what might have changed since then. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I would love to be able to do that myself, but I have a lot going on at the moment. I did observe the inaccuracies in the 2010 episode air dates. I might have time to do so later this week. In the meantime, if you or anyone else has the time to do so, I would welcome anyone's help on this issue. Thanks, and sorry for any inconvenience. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Page Protection?

I noticed that most, if not all of the recent IP edits within the past 2 months have either been vandalism, unconstructive, or unsourced changes. Does anyone else agree that a semi-protection may be needed to stop the disruptive editing? If this continues, I will head to an admin to request a semi-protection for a couple of months. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion thread. My suggestion would be that we make such a request immediately. The anonymous editors that have been changing these dates so much lately obviously aren't interested in explaining why they have done so, and they have constantly ignored invitations regular editors of this page have given to them to discuss this on the talk page. It's time we nip this in the bud. I will go ahead and make the request. There have been similar issues with other pages I've edited recently where the same kind of thing has gone on, so requesting page protection has become more common for me. I will get that done right now. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Just reporting back to note that I have made the request. And now we wait. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I actually know a couple of admins who would be willing to answer the request, presumably at a faster speed. If the current request goes unanswered for several days, then I will make a new one as I mentioned earlier. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I certainly will not be opposed to measures that will expedite the process of getting this page protected, but it has been my experience when submitting such requests on the Wikipedia page where others are listed does get a quick turnaround. When the reasoning of the request has been sound, the protection has come in a matter of hours. I will be keeping an eye out for whatever happens. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2017

74.51.209.226 (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Empty Request Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, just in case you're wondering (to the IP editor), this Semi-Page Protection will not be lifted. We've seen too many disruptive or unsourced edits on the article within the past few months. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2017

74.51.209.226 (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on List of Cyberchase episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/webisode_1/11.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/webisode_2/13.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/webisode_3/13.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/web_adventures.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/webisode_4/20.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/web_adventures.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/webisode_5/4.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/web_adventures.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/web_adventures.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/math-games/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thirteen.org/13pressroom/press-release/thirteens-emmy-award-winning-series-cyberchase-launches-season-11-halloween-themed-episode-october-23-pbs-kids/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105043029/http://shop.pbskids.org/cyberchase-totally-rad-dvd.html to http://shop.pbskids.org/cyberchase-totally-rad-dvd.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverted

Why did you reverse my edit? Popthemop27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popthemop27 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Airdates

Here's a source that you could view airdates from the 2000s to clear up the airdate problem. The link takes you to the current month's previous airdates, but you could view other months. I was too furious minutes ago, but I'm calming down. I hope this source helps.

https://www.kqed.org/tv/programs/archive/index.jsp?pgmid=10666 128.62.70.160 (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I found a more accurate source this time. Click the episode title and you'll see the original airdate below the recent five airdates.

https://www.ket.org/series/CYBR/all/128.62.71.246 (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)