Talk:List of Hannah Montana episodes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

DVD

Can we get a page for the new DVD, since we have one for the soundtrack and video game??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeachGal (talk • contribs) 03:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC).

Unless it has super-duper extra features, I would advise against it. Also, sign your name with 4 tildes (~~~~), and put new talk page sections at the bottom. bibliomaniac15 03:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Plase!

"and Oliver acts like shakeshepre."

Surely "and Oliver acts like shakespeare."?

DA!

Atrocious

Why are all of the Hannah Montana articles HORRIBLE! Bibliomaniac15 03:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably because they're written by the target audience of the show. Shall I add a clean-up notice?

This episode (People who uses people) needs serious editing and revising. I can't follow the plotline

I don't like the show and its deadpan children's humor, but it does look like a good show for its target audience. All of the Hannah Montana articles are poorly written, heavily vandalized, and need copyediting. Arual 16:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Who took off all the screenshots???????!!!!!!! Jordan_pruitt22 9:17, 6 May 2007

Fraud Myspace Accounts

Resently, users have been adding links to Myspace for the actor's on this show. Miley Cyrus, Mitchel Musso, & Emily Osment have all stated that they do --71.30.74.167 19:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC) == not == have Myspace accounts. The people who have those accounts are frauds.

Table

Do not delete the table! It helps keep t orderly. If you feel obligated to make an edit on the table, please press the "Show Preview" button before you save, or request the change on the talk page. bibliomaniac15 20:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the sections are much better, like List of Full House episodes. And, when you added the table, you also cut off the major summaries too. I have reverted back to the old version, as it has much better quality and it seems as though you just copied the table from the main article. GeorgeMoney (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a new table. Please discuss here before reverting. - Peregrinefisher 01:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of making this an edit war, but I'd say the table has superior formatting. If you want detailed summaries, you can add them into the table. Besides, the list of Full House episodes aren't consistent, one section has quotes while another has only summaries. It would be better to be brief, consistent, and neat than be detailed, long, and inconsistent. bibliomaniac15 21:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia is not a Democracy, I suggest that we take a vote. bibliomaniac15 21:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's vote, but also give some kind of discussion or rationale along with it not just "support ~~~~". Votes like that won't be counted as it is not helping. GeorgeMoney (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Tally: (2/0/0)

Both table and sections

1. Here are my reasons for no table: 1) while it might look neater, these pages are usually edited by anon-editors who don't know wiki-formatting yet, so they actually mess up the table, which makes it look uglier. 2) The summaries are good and long, but if we have a table, it will be hard to put long things in the table and maintain it at high quality because there will be table mark-up everywhere. With sections you can just edit a certain section and see the nice clean paragraph. 3) the only reason we have the table is to put extra info mainly pictures. Most of these pictures are copyvios and wil be deleted soon, rendering the table very messy. 4) It will be much harder to add different seasons and episodes because if you insert one in the middle you will have to change everything else which will be hard and the table code is inconsistent with itself. GeorgeMoney (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

   1)The table has been in place 5 days and looks fine and this page gets vandalized a lot.

   2)The table links to the summaries, are you aware of this? They can be edited seperately.

   3)The images are used under Fair Use. They are not copy vios. Read about it at Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists.

   4)This is the recommended way to naturally grow a list of episodes page as recommended in the guidline at Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Television_episodes#Creating_articles_on_television_episodes. The table follows the Template:Episode list. - Peregrinefisher 03:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, I would agree with keeping the table and more detailed summaries. What I understood was you wanted to get rid of the sections and replace it with the table. If we keep both that would be great, so I've made a new vote section. GeorgeMoney (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote for both the table and the detailed summaries. Sometimes people like to have a long explainations of the episode and the detailed sumarries will keep them from trying to put it in the table. Also, others would rather not have the whole episode spoiled, so the table is the best for them.--SoapTalker 05:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Support for Table

I agree that we should keep the current(10/17/2006) table.

• This table makes it simple to get an overview on each episode.
• The table can be kept orderly, it may take a bit more work to clean up user mistakes every once in a while, but that is not very difficult.
• If users would like a simple list of the episodes they can always go to the Episode Category page. We can add a blatant link to this on the episode list page if it becomes too much of a problem.
• I will agree that a list can keep the page much cleaner looking, but the table makes the page much more uniform and organized.
• I have not seen this page as a list, I started looking after the table was created, but since I have been here it seems to have remained in tact.

Brandonrc 23:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Future episodes

Why do we have summaries for episodes that haven't aired yet? Some of them are really complete and sound true. - Peregrinefisher 23:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Usually, DC gives a small summary before each airing. bibliomaniac15 23:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not know where we want to get the information for upcoming episodes. I noticed one on the official Disney site and added that. After that I noticed that about 8 more episodes were listed in the WIKI the same day. If I remember correctly there was a list of upcoming episodes that had been removed. Just thought that I would bring this up and see what everyone thought. Brandonrc 05:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There are many rumored upcoming episodes which are on IMDb and TV.com with unverified sources. No episodes should be added to the article which have not been verified. Shannernanner 12:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to be sure that I understand, and to re-iterate the fact for everyone. IDMB is not a source where verified episodes are found. Although they may be right, they are not considered to be our reference. Bibliomaniac15 referred to DC, I am assuming that is referring to Disney Channel and that we will only keep episodes that appear on Disney Channel Official Listings, is that correct?
Brandonrc 23:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

IMDb is not verifiable concerning future episodes of Hannah Montana, no. Yes, the user was referring to Disney Channel, and their listings are and should be the primary reference for the episode list. It is possible that an outside reference would also have verifiable information, but it should only be used if truly verifiable and cited carefully. Shannernanner 23:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Further explanation

I created the new table in an attempt to clean it up and clean up the list of episodes. I am creating pages for the existing episodes as I go, and then deleting the extended synopsis on this page for that episode. I used the information on listed on The Disney Channel official site to confirm upcoming episodes for the table; any other information I left in the synopsis area, as I don't know where it came from, other than imdb.com or tv.com, as that isn't necessarily reliable. If you have references for those episode titles or synopses, I have no problem with them being in the table. I just would rather not have the entire table reverted unless you have a good reason, as I think it was an upward change, so please make any edits to the new table if possible. Thanks. :-) -Shannernanner 04:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you removing the writer and director? Yes, I used imdb.com and tv.com as a reference for the upcoming episodes, and that's why they're listed in the external links section. I can put little numbers on them if you want, along with a references section. - Peregrinefisher 04:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If those two sites are the only sources for the information, it should probably be removed--anyone can add episodes, and though it is moderated, lots of misinformation still gets through. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. As for the writer and director, as I said on my talk page, those aren't standard columns for episode lists, and since I'm making pages for the individual episodes, it seemed logical to me that they could be removed. -Shannernanner 04:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that color green your using in the table is the best color. Maybe something from here? - Peregrinefisher 07:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I matched all the colors to colors on the DVD cover on the main page, just to be thematic. Is it the shade you object to or the color altogether? -Shannernanner 10:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Remaining synopses

I created individual episode pages for all the aired episodes and the upcoming episodes which are listed on the Disney Channel official site, except the last one (Good Golly, Miss Dolly)--all the available information is on the wikitable; the remaining episode titles and synopses I moved here. If anyone can provide reliable sources for any or all of them, please do:

• Money for Nothing, Guilt for Free

Miley, Lilly, Amber, and Ashley's teacher sends them off to raise money for a local fundraising campaign. Miley and Lilly want to win really badly so that they can win the prize and brag about it in front of Amber and Ashley. Jackson thinks that he is better than his dad at Ping Pong. Cooper tells him that his dad is letting him win so he gives Jackson lessons.

The title refers to Dire Straits' song Money for Nothing, which includes the line "You get your money for nothing and your chicks for free".

• The Idol Side of Me

Amber and Ashley pass out a "cool" list. Oliver makes it in the top hundred, but Miley and Lilly are last tied with Dandruff Danny. There's a contest for someone to be able to sing with Hannah Montana. Of course, Ashley tries out, but things get out of hand when Miley hears someone singing. It sounded really bad. Miley thinks it's Ashley. So Miley makes Ashley win the contest, but it turns out that the horrible singer was Amber, and Ashley is really an awesome singer. Ashley gets to sing with Hannah Montana. Miley and Lilly(as Hannah and Lola)plan to do this awful thing to her and embarrass her on live TV, but Ashley freaks out before she performs and spills her guts to Hannah. Miley as Hannah tells her to be nice and Ashley says she will. Ashley ends up being nice to Danny by putting him before Miley and Lilly.

The title may refer to any number of songs called The Other Side Of Me, including one sung by Hannah Montana.

• Debt It Be

Miley and Jackson get credit cards for emergencies only. Miley maxes out her card, but switches with Jackson's so it looks like he did it, and it works. Then Miley confesses and has to sell used Hannah Montana items in order to pay for it.

The title refers to The Beatles song Let It Be.

• Bad Moose Rising

The title refers to Creedence Clearwater Revival's song Bad Moon Rising.

• Smells Like Teen Sellout

Oliver, Miley, and Lilly are on a game show against Amber and Ashley. Jackson has money problems.

The title refers to Nirvana's song Smells Like Teen Spirit.

• Schooly Bully

This episode is about Miley Stewart getting in trouble with a girl called ,"The Cracker" this girl cracks everything on her body and is considered scary and unapproachable. She gives her a hair clip which secretly has a tracking device in it so Roxy can keep track of her.

The title refers to Sam the Sham & the Pharaohs' song Wooly Bully.

• My Boyfriend's Jackson

A photographer snaps a picture of Hannah and Jackson. And Jackson wants to pretend to be her boyfriend, for the "celebrity boyfriend" benefits.

The title refers to The Angels' song My Boyfriend's Back.

• Torn Between Two Hannahs

After Hannah co-stars in another Zombie High Episode, Jake falls for Hannah as well as Miley. He can't decide which girl to choose because he likes them both equally. Will movie star Jake Ryan go for pop star Hannah Montana or down-to-earth, school girl Miley. Will Miley tell Jake about her secrect identity?

The title refers to Mary MacGregor's song Torn Between Two Lovers.

Images

I don't feel comfortable uploading images myself so could somebody please upload and post this image for Good Golly, Miss Dolly? http://www.fansitefreaks.com/miley/gallery2/displayimage.php?album=46&pos=33 (Here's the site.) Mzperfection42 20:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. :-) -Shannernanner 05:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, please pick one of the images for You're So Vain, You Probably... from this link. http://www.fansitefreaks.com/miley/gallery2/thumbnails.php?album=125 Thanks. Mzperfection42 01:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. -Shannernanner 08:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Episode

On the Hannah Montana official TV listings site, it says that the next Hannah Montana episode to air after Good Golly, Miss Dolly, is going to be Torn Between Two Hannahs. It's airing on October 14. Could somebody add that to the table? Mzperfection42 20:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I added it, thanks for the update. -Shannernanner 05:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

YouTube

Would it be OK to include a link to YouTube on each episode's page (if applicable)? There are YT users who post full episodes. Pink moon 1287 21:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Those are illegal versions of copyrighted material, so we can't link to them. It might be good to mention that they can be found on YouTube on the main Hannah page, but without specific links. It also seems to be where summaries for unaired episodes are coming from, too. - Peregrinefisher 22:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

People Who Use People

TVGuide has a totally different synopsis for People Who Use People episode. Since Disney Channel hasn't posted the episode synopsis, I believe that we should use the synopsis they give because they are also very reliable. Could somebody please make that swap? Here's the link: http://tvguide.com/detail/tv-show.aspx?episodeid=6003178&tvobjectid=278865&more=ucepisodelist The synopsis is near the top of the page. Mzperfection42 02:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Placement of "Money For Nothing, Guilt for Free"

After watching the episode "Money For Nothing, Guilt for Free" I was trying to figure out where (chronologically) it fits in to the episode list. Jake Ryan does not appear in the episode which leads me to believe that it belongs before "New Kid in School." It could also be argued that it can be placed after Jake leaves for Romania (if/when he actually does). What I am getting at is that its current location fine (at the end of season 1) for now, but in the future it should be relocated. I immediately see three options for its placement:

• Leave it at the end of Season 1;
• Decide where it chronologically fits in to season 1 and move it; and
• Create a new "Season" section for miscellaneous episodes.

I like the idea of placing it in its to-be-decided chronological location. My second choice would be the separate section for miscellaneous episodes. Obviously there is no rush to decide this, but it is never too soon to see what people think about where it should end up. What are your thoughts?
Brandonrc 05:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless a verifiable citation can be found referencing its placement within the season, I think it should be left where it is, as the episodes are not in chronological order within the season, but episode order, and as this is unaired and therefore not assigned an episode number, but was released along with season one episodes, I think it belongs at the bottom. If a significant number of unaired episodes are released throughout the course of the series, perhaps then a separate table could be created for them. Shannernanner 06:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom Airdates

I am curious where the air dates for the United Kingdom are coming from. I visited the Disney Channel UK site and was not able to find much information about Hannah Montana. Is there any reference that can be made to this information? I would assume that if the episode had aired already in the UK that there would be more information available about them. As of this comment there are 6 episodes that have "aired" yet there is no information about them. I propose that the air dates be removed unless they can be verified. Any other thoughts?
Brandonrc 02:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe from people who live in the UK! Mouseinthehouse 14:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Season 2 titles

Where did all those season 2 titles come from? Very high risk of vandalism/overactive imagination about this kind of stuff. If there isn't a source, we need to remove them. Everyking 10:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming episode features Brooke Shields

On Access Hollywood, they did a segment with Brooke Shields. She will be guest starring on a new episode of Hannah Montana this summer. She'll cause havoc on Miley/Hannah and her dad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LAUGH90 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

First of all, Brooke Shields is a woman, not a man, and also she is going to play Miley's mother in a flashback, not cause havoc to them. Tsears

• That wasn't me that said she was a man. Someone ruined my words.72.94.46.100 02:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)LAUGH90

Season Two - First Five

All the episode descriptions from season two have been changed to "Summary Needed." I am curious why the summaries were removed? The source for the summaries, titles, and the episode screen shots is the same. If the summaries are deemed to be incorrect, should the current season two episode titles also be removed? I am wondering if there is any good reasoning they were removed, otherwise I would be more than happy to add them again.
Brandonrc 05:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's because they were copied from tv.com [1] If tv.com were a reliable source, we could summarize their summaries, but they aren't a reliable source, so we can't summarize or straight copy them. - Peregrine Fisher 06:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

They were also on 3 other miley cyrus fansites. Using them can land us in legal trouble since it violates copyright. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Good enough reasoning for me, Summary Needed is fine. Just to point a couple things out though/ask a question:

• TV.com did not have the descriptions of the episodes at the time they were originally posted (When I originally posted them, the episodes themselves were not even listed on TV.com until the day after)
• The Question: If the same description is on three fan sites, we (along with the sites) would be infringing on Disney's copyright, correct? The source I used stated they sourced them from Disney. I understood that as long as a source is cited that it is alright to display the information? I may be incorrect though.
  Thanks for your input.
  Brandonrc 05:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Using a summary that someone else wrote is considered copyright violation. Summarizing and episode in your own words is not. If they summary was originally from Disney, then it's violating their copyright. If a fansite wrote it and we used it, it would violate their copyright but not Disney's (unless they originally stole it from Disney) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You Are SO WRONG!

Image Field Removed

Please refer to Template_talk:Episode_list#Image_field_removed for discussion. I am merely a messenger. I will monitor the template and if the images are allowed again I will help add them back to this page.
Brandonrc 04:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

New Jesse McCartney Episode

Can anyone find a link to an online site that says that this new episode will be showing in the uk? Mouseinthehouse 08:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Editor's concern

On all the Hannah Montana episode pages, why is their a concern from an editor? All the episodes establish full notability, they have no false information, and they are written in encyclopedia form. Can someone explain this to me? --69.236.183.47 02:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The articles show no indication that the episode in question is independently notable, or even has enough real-world information to warrant it's own article. Episode articles need to be more than just plot summary and basic credits. It might help if you check out WP:EPISODE. -- Ned Scott 05:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Season Finale Deletion

The spoiler for the Hannah Montana season finale at the end of the page in the External links section should be removed. No one wants to know what happens and it ruins it for everybody who wants to watch it. Plus, it might not be true. 24.15.8.145 20:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Your right if it isn't true then it shouldn't be in there, but you should let other people make the decide whether or not they want to know what happens put it on there (if you can be sure it is true, and you don't have to do it but someone should). If someone wants to read it then they at least can. Or if you cant be sure put in a link.Smileyface 12 91

Which season finale? The first season, or second? If it's the first, then we shouldn't need this discussion... 68.210.143.110 14:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Me and Mr. Jonas

I don't get why my tag keeps on getting removed. It is not on Google at all except for Wikipedia and a few blogs asking if it was real. Currently, there is no proof of such an episode, so stop deleting my citation needed tag. --69.236.162.71 19:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Achy Jakey Heart

Someone has deleted Achy Jakey Heart Part 1, but I don't quite know how to put it right. Also, I think that Achy Jakey Heart (both eps) should be spelt ACHY (with no e) as that is how the song is spelt. Mouseinthehouse 09:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if that is how the episode title was spelled. (If they spelled it with an "e" in "achy", then that's how we should represent the article). WAVY 10 13:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability review

Following the review of notability according to WP:EPISODE, the individual episodes have been redirected to the 'list of episodes' page, as per decision reached here. The information is NOT lost, and can be retrieved from the edit history of each page, but please only recreate pages if you can establish their notability. See WP:TV-REVIEW. Gwinva 20:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that it was a bad thing but who put all the episodes back? I think that some of them need to be rewriten. Smileyface 12 91 ^_~

It was an unnoticed error as a result of this vandalism revert. I have removed the links, as they were circular. I  ^{(said) (did)} 09:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

US airdate or Original Airdate

The airdate for when you wish you were the star says 13 July as the original airdate. However, the original airdate should surely be the worldwide airdate. The episode is premiering on 7 July in the UK, as shown by this source here. I think that the airdate of 7 July should be down as it is the original airdate. If not, the title of the column should be US airdate to make it clear. Mouseinthehouse 16:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a parameter in the {{Episode list}} that allows for an alternate date (AltDate I think, see the talk page there). There could be two columns, one for US airdate and the other for UK airdate, but all of the dates would need to be filled in for both if that's added. Phydend 04:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea and I can find out the info soon. I can't do the table and so I will post the info here so that some one else can put it up. Is that ok? Mouseinthehouse 06:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the Episode pages?

Who deleted the pages for ALL of the episodes? Why did you do that? Special: Contributions/24.186.246.59 at 7:18 PM on July 4, 2007

They weren't deleted. They were redirected to this page because they failed to meet WP:EPISODE WP:NN and WP:V. They were tagged for notability with the now non-existant episode notability tag, and after fourteen days reviewed. The consensus was that they failed the three aforementioned guidelines, and they were redirected. An archive of the discussion can be found here. I  ^{(said) (did)} 23:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we keep the pages for the episode specials like Achy Jackey Heart? I don't think it's fair when they "redirect" the pages, I worked on those pages. Put them back up! Please?Special: Contributions/24.186.246.59 at 10:01 AM on July 5, 2007.

Edit: I put the [[ ]] links to see if the pages were still existing. Special: Contributions/24.186.246.59 at 10:04 AM on July 5, 2007.

Restoring

Because the process by which a decision was reached to redirect these articles was not credible and does not represent consensus, I propose that all of these articles be restored. If we wish to see what people's opinions are, this page is the place to get them, not a page that is only frequented by deletionists who are opposed to episode content in general. Everyking 07:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

But regardless of whether or not the process by which the decision was made is credible, they do not follow policy. Therefore, they really shouldn't be restored. Have you looked at the articles? No assertion of notability, and no reliable sources. Not following policy. I  ^{(said) (did)} 07:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only have I looked at the articles, for many of them I wrote most or all of the plot summaries, and there is something uniquely irritating about coming back later and seeing all that stuff is gone because of what's written in some deletionist codebook.

As a compromise proposal, I suggest recreating only one of the articles for the time being, perhaps starting with the pilot, or whichever episode people feel is most notable. Then an effort can be focused on that particular article to develop some form of the fetishized "real world context". Everyking 08:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly a "deletionist codebook", it would be several of Wikipedia's most important policies and guidelines. And that proposal would be fine. But more is needed than "fetishized real world context". You need to satsifry the afore mentioned guidelines and policies. If you wish, please unre-direct the pilot, and make it follow P&G. Granted, I don't have authority to say you can do that, but if you put an explination on the talk page, I doubt anyone would have a problem with it. I  ^{(said) (did)} 08:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I would not have a problem with re-reviewing all the articles. If this is what it takes to earn your trust, I'll set it up myself. -- Ned Scott 08:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

All right, but it should take place on this page. Everyking 08:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be up by tomorrow. Feel free to restore the links now, if you want. -- Ned Scott 08:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And just so we're perfectly transparent, who should be notified of the developments and pending review? I  ^{(said) (did)}

When I get home from work in a few hours I'll step though each article again (I had looked at them before, but it's hard to remember them after having looked at so many others since then) and notify the major contributors. The main show page should have a notice, and maybe even "related" shows, since many of these editors also edit them. I also hope to use this as an example those watching the MfD, to help calm some of the fears people have. -- Ned Scott 21:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I got home later than I thought I would, but I'm putting together the review now. -- Ned Scott 03:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

More vandalism

The vandals sure have been busy today. WAVY 10 20:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

2nd episode article review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following is an episode review discussion that is intended to evaluate articles for individual episodes. See WP:TV-REVIEW and WP:EPISODE for more info.

Per WP:EPISODE, not every episode of a TV show should likely have an individual article. This can be for many reasons, such as notability or sources, or even just what format fits best for that show.

The review process for episode articles is evolving. This set of episode articles has already been reviewed once on a separate page (see below). Due to some concerns about people not knowing about the review, as well as simply experimenting with reviewing the same set twice, we're opening a second discussion.

The following articles lack real world information, besides basic infobox stuff:

• Achy Jakey Heart, Part 1
• Achy Jakey Heart, Part 2
• Take This Job and Love It!
• Bad Moose Rising
• Debt It Be
• Good Golly, Miss Dolly
• Grandmas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Play Favorites
• I Can't Make You Love Hannah If You Don't
• It's My Party And I'll Lie If I Want To
• It's a Mannequin's World
• Lilly, Do You Want to Know a Secret?
• Mascot Love
• Miley Get Your Gum
• Money for Nothing, Guilt for Free
• More Than a Zombie to Me
• My Best Friend's Boyfriend
• My Boyfriend's Jackson & There's Gonna Be Trouble
• New Kid in School
• O Say Can You Remember The Words?
• Ooo, Ooo, Itchy Woman
• Oops! I Meddled Again
• People Who Use People
• Schooly Bully
• She's a Super Sneak
• Smells Like Teen Sellout
• The Idol Side of Me
• Torn Between Two Hannahs
• We Are Family: Now Get Me Some Water!
• When You Wish You Were The Star
• You Gotta Not Fight for Your Right to Party
• You're So Vain, You Probably Think This Zit Is About You

The following have Neilsan ratings:

• Cuffs Will Keep Us Together
• Get Down Study-udy-udy
• I Am Hannah, Hear Me Croak
• Me and Rico Down by the School Yard
• You Are So Sue-Able To Me

While the ratings is a start, as noted on the first review, one can easily place this same info in a list of episodes.

As with the first review, I still support redirecting all the articles to the list of episodes, and possibly expanding the episode table to include the TV ratings. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I just found that all of these episode articles were AfD'ed not too long ago, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly, Do You Want to Know a Secret?. The closing admin stated the consensus to be keep/merge, and recommended further discussion (which, I guess is what you can say we are doing now). Feel free to review the AfD comments as well. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Click "Show" to view the first review discussion →

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

CONSENSUS: REDIRECT ALL Gwinva 20:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Achy Jakey Heart, Part 1 - Edits and contributions have been made, but nothing to assert notability. Suggest leaving, but putting a description of what notability requires on the talk page, and giving another two week notice. After reviewing discussion, I agree that redirects are in order. Alcemáe T • C 00:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Achy Jakey Heart, Part 2 - Same as above. Alcemáe T • C 00:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Take This Job and Love It! - Same as above. Alcemáe T • C 00:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No way, if there's nothing to even assert notability then we're redirecting them. The articles had a note saying what was required for 2 weeks already. -- Ned Scott 00:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Going over them, I don't see anything that says it has potential to establish it if we give them more time. Nothing about ratings, awards, critical reception. They are just expanded plots. People are fighting over whether to merge them or not. If they are in a "List of" article, the fight for that is over, because being separate won't make a difference on that page. The same goes for the "Take This Job" episode. It says it's a crossover with another show, but it has no source. Even so, I think one could simply add a "*" next to the episode, and at the bottom say "* This episode was a crossover with ... <ref>".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The only one I think deserves an article at this point is Take This Job and Love it! because of it being a cross-over with Cory in the House, not as big a cross-over as That's So Suite Life of Hannah Montana, but still a cross-over none the less. I'll see if I can find anything to improve the article now. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

But you could provide a footnote that mentions the crossover (plus, is it a real cross over, or are some of the characters just being used...i.e. was it intended as a crossover for the two series?...that requires a citation).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the commercials for it advertised it as a cross-over episode, but I'm not positive. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

At the momment, Redirect all. We need something citable for the crossover. But again, other than that I don't see why a footnote could not be created to say that. Unless there is detailed analysis on the affects of the crossover for each show.

Episodes without real world information

Bad Moose Rising

Debt It Be

Good Golly, Miss Dolly

Grandmas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Play Favorites

I Can't Make You Love Hannah If You Don't

It's My Party And I'll Lie If I Want To

It's a Mannequin's World

Lilly, Do You Want to Know a Secret?

Mascot Love

Me and Mr. Jonas

Miley Get Your Gum

Money for Nothing, Guilt for Free

More Than a Zombie to Me

My Best Friend's Boyfriend

My Boyfriend's Jackson & There's Gonna Be Trouble

New Kid in School

O Say Can You Remember The Words?

Ooo, Ooo, Itchy Woman

Oops! I Meddled Again

People Who Use People

Schooly Bully

She's a Super Sneak

Smells Like Teen Sellout

The Idol Side of Me

Torn Between Two Hannahs

We Are Family: Now Get Me Some Water!

When You Wish You Were The Star

You Gotta Not Fight for Your Right to Party

You're So Vain, You Probably Think This Zit Is About You

• Redirect all - Went through them all. Nothing there but trivia sections and goof sections, both of which are unencyclopedic. The only I saw that made me think it could be worth to keep were a few episodes that had awards. When I checked the awards, they were from the Disney channel. I don't see anything relevant on the page, definitely nothing that establishes notability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Episodes with rating sources

Cuffs Will Keep Us Together- This, and the following three episodes have a source, a Neislan ratings source. This episode placed 15th...

Get Down Study-udy-udy 11th...

I Am Hannah, Hear Me Croak 7th...

Me and Rico Down by the School Yard 12th...

You Are So Sue-Able To Me and 5th highest rated cable shows of the week. Seems, with a bit of cleanup, notable enough to have an article; I'm trying to be very conservative.

Alcemáe T • C 04:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

At some point I added the Nielsen ratings for those episodes (and I think also Me and Rico Down by the School Yard, which was 12^th in the week) and I had tried to add it with a production section, but couldn't find anything about the production of the episodes or any real world information. Though these might be a start to showing some notability, I really don't think it's enough right now. Maybe there is more information somewhere, but I couldn't find it. Phydend 04:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect - The Nielsen ratings show some degree of effort in cleanup and I'd be willing to give them more time but if nobody is going to come forward and say "I think I can fix this" and even the person who added them them doesn't see a possibility then there's no reason to keep. If something new comes up they can always come back later right? Stardust8212 14:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly my thinking. They have some potential, but show nothing right now. There is a possibility if there is a DVD release of the series or something that someone writes later down the line, to give some production details and at that time the articles could easily be created again. With a redirect now, none of that information is lost and it still has the potential to be used if someone finds some notability with them. So if this is to become a "vote" (I think someone was bolding votes in the other review) I'd say Redirect All. Phydend 15:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. If you need help sprucing the "List of" page to incorporate this information in a nice manner, just ask, I'd be happy to help figure out a way to include the merge information in a way that doesn't simply list them on the page. It is good information, just doesn't (currently) appear to be enough for its own article. (I bolded someone else's "vote" to make it easier to find when we finally decided on the outcome).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with the sentiment to Redirect all. If I am rightly following the point made above, I am unconvinced that Nielsen ratings for a specific episode should be on its own grounds for meriting an individual article. Mention can be made in the article list, but it does not of-itself indicate notability unless the share is somehow extraordinary. Eusebeus 18:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• I definitely agree that the template should be deleted. Everything on these Hannah Montana episodes are correctly written, in encyclopedia format. Also, they are grammatically correct, no mis-spellings, no useless information. I don't understand what kind of notability should be established. I don't believe the template should have been put up in the first place. Who put it up?--69.236.177.249 18:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but one of the rules of reviewing is that you need to be registered. It sucks, but it helps us identify individual users, who could easily be using multiple IP addresses to stack opinions (or votes for that matter). But, to answer you...grammer doesn't make notability. There are guideline pages for notability. Please go to the main article of this page and click the links to some of the other television episode related pages, you should find your answers there. If, after you have read them, you still do not understand, we will try and explain it better for you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It shouldn't really matter much, since the process itself isn't a vote. He's welcome to leave his thoughts, but all users should know, using sockpuppets in a discussion will get you blocked from Wikipedia, and we do have ways of checking that. -- Ned Scott 21:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect all. The trivia and 'goof' sections should be removed anyway, as they are unsourced, unreferenced and indiscriminate. On most, that would leave only plot -they are too long, and without context they fail Fair Use, therefore warrant deletion under copyright rules. IE. there is nothing left to create an article. It's hard to see how these can be brought to meet notability. Any slavageable material could be merged to the list article (eg adding a 'reception' section for any TV ratings or awards, but only if referenced. Gwinva 13:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect all. No notability established, simply over-blown plot summaries. I agree with Gwinva, merge any useful info into "list of" page. Seraphim Whipp 14:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Just curious, is Disney really this secretive when it comes to reaction and production? As for reaction, since your major TV critics generally won't bother with a "silly preteen show", that would make finding information on the episode's reaction a bit difficult (but not necessarily impossible). WAVY 10 15:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not familiar with Disney TV show DVDs, but I know that episode commentary generally lends a good deal of "production" information. We cannot verify "reaction" based simply on a producer going "it was well received". We need to pinpoint reactions. I've found that it's usually only key episodes that find any form of TV critic commentary, because there are far too many shows on TV for them to follow all of them all of the time. They TV critic/scooper/whatever else you want to call him guy over at USA Today, Bianco (?), often tells his readers "I haven't been following it, been too busy with..." when he does Q&A sessions. I think a lot of times most don't catch up on a series till the DVDs come out, which then you get the "DVD season review".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I think Bianco is the guy's name. So you're saying we may need to wait for the DVD's (which only select episodes are being released) to find production info or are there any other places we could possibly search for reliable production facts? WAVY 10 15:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • For a show like this, I doubt you'll be able to find much (even with the DVDs). That is a reason that most episodes don't need articles. TTN 15:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm just saying that DVDs are usually good places to find information like that, though, it's not always the case. It depends on the network that produces them. If notability cannot be established now, then they should be redirected/merged with a larger article. There's no need to rush their existence in hopes that one day their notability will be established. Right now, most contain information not suitable, or just simply unsourced, for Wikipedia. It may be wise to start a, if one hasn't already been started, Wikia for that particular series. The idea behind a Wikia is that they usually contain all the more trivial, fannish information that isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. For instances, unless we know why Futurama chose to have all those cultural references, just the existence of them isn't that important, and better suited for a Wikia. As for Disney, I would think (and I could be wrong) that they would be more interested in entertaining the young audience then showing them how they made the show. I don't know how many 10 year olds that watch Hanna, who at the end say "man I wish I knew how they made that episode". It's unfortunate that they don't, but just probably not one of Disney's main concerns. I think their special features would consist of interactive games for the viewers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Just added some ratings info on the Achy Jakey Heart saga I found in (print version) today's USA Today. Not sure if it will help (trivia was removed as well). WAVY 10 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it, if the Achy Jakey heart episodes are kept, they need to be merged together. Just like The Suite Life Goes Hollywood. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me, that if the only thing to be found is a Nielsen rating, we could adapt the "List of" table to have a section for Neilsen ratings. I don't see a reason to keep any episode just because we know how many viewers there were. It's simplistic information that doesn't require critical commentary itself. It's as easy as "This is the rating." And it wouldn't be that hard to add another column on the List of tables.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Every TV show that airs has a Nielsen rating; unless the rating itself is somehow remarkable, it does not satisfy the out-of-universe information of the episode guideline. Eusebeus 10:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like changing the goal posts. I expected this to happen. When a review is added, I bet it won't be judged sufficient. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1 sentence that states "This episode had 4.12 million viewers" isn't enough to establish notability for an entire episode article. It doesn't justify the need to expand a plot, or use a non-free image (since plots are not "critical commentary that justify non-free images"). It's something that can easily be added to a LOE page, and the fact that this is just thought of now means that improved ideas are being created for the larger articles. Right now, the problem is people make these simplistic LOE articles so they can create the individual articles on episodes under the guise that the information couldn't possibly go on the LOE page. Devise a better format.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus Redirect and merge all to List of Hannah Montana episodes. I  ^{(said) (did)} 21:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Discussion

In the first place, I think everyone agrees that Hannah Montana is quite notable. My opinion is that plot summaries are a necessary element to covering the topic, and that the tiny summaries now on the episode list are not at all adequate for this purpose. I don't feel there is any way to cover the topic properly without having the individual articles. If the plot summaries on the list were expanded, I think there would be spoiler concerns; it's useful to have a very brief summary on the list, with a more comprehensive summary available on the episode articles, to serve people who are looking for different levels of detail. Furthermore, the page would eventually become too long, and there would be no reasonable opportunity to expand the content beyond plot as presented on the list.

Some people oppose having separate episode articles, but are in favor of having articles on the main topic, reasoning that articles should only exist if they present the right amount of internal context. My view is that having separate articles on smaller parts of the topic is simply an extension of the content in the main article and operates on summary style logic. I feel it is an error to focus rigidly on the context presented in individual articles when they clearly represent coherently organized sections of a broader whole. Ideally, episode articles would all be rich in background information in addition to plot, but it is also irrational, "all or nothing" thinking to say that the content should not exist at all (except in an extremely truncated form as part of a list) if that other detail is not present.

Hannah Montana is a notable show, which can be clearly demonstrated through sources, and its episodes are notable elements of the topic, with their plots being verifiable through the episodes themselves. The content on these episodes cannot rationally be expected to grow if their articles are not accessible to ordinary editors, and it is moreover a needless disservice to readers to not provide information that is clearly sought after, and which has already been written and could be presented to them at any time. Everyking 06:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, your point on spoiler warnings is moot, since they technically do not belong here, and therefore are not a concern. Secondly, the length is also not relevant, since the summaries on the list page should not be so long as to make it too long. There is supposed to be like some word or line limit per ten minutes of time, I don't remember specifically where. I'll try to find it. Following that would not make the article too long. No one is arguing about HM itself, we are arguing about the inherited notability that people seem to think applies here. This is no different from music; songs are not notable because the album is. That is the same here. And the argument for their removal is not how long, or "rich in background information", its notability, reliable sources and verifiability. And your last argument, that people want to know about it. Well, if we put everything in Wikipedia that people would want to know about, then why are there regulations on what is allowed and what is not? Everything is interesting to somebody. I  ^{(said) (did)} 06:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

1) I didn't say anything about spoiler warnings. I referred to the concept of spoiling plot details. 2) I proposing that the adequate amount of detail needed to explain the plot on a list would lead to an excessively long list. Only individual articles provide sufficient space. 3) I am not contesting that you think HM is notable; I am using the assumption that people agree on that as part of the argument that the topic deserves to be comprehensively covered, and that cannot be done without episode articles. 4) I covered notability and sources in my argument. 5) I did not say that. Everything that is verifiable and notable should go in WP. Everyking 06:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

1)Okay, spoilers still aren't a concern, as it was decided that this is an encyclopedia, and that spoilers exist, and should not be hidden. 2)Well, this says your wrong about that 3)See #2 4)Actually, I saw no mention of sources being present in your argument. 5)You didn't but you said it was a disservice to not put information on Wikipedia that was sought after. I  ^{(said) (did)} 06:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

1) You are free to disagree with me and argue that the concept of spoilers has no place. I think that indicates a lack of recognition of the fact that our articles are read by people, and people care about these things. Providing different levels of detail addresses this concern as well as giving people the approximate level of detail they want to read (as opposed to one size fits all). 2) It is, of course, relative to how much you think a reader ought to know. I favor giving them as much as we can, within general policy boundaries. 3) - 4) Read it again. 5) It was a buttressing argument, a moral appeal, that kind of thing. I worry about readers a lot, since providing information to them is the entire point of writing the encyclopedia. Everyking 06:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot summaries that are bigger than a few sentences for each episode, or are being used without a larger real-world context, are considered to be excessive. WP:NOT#PLOT. Learning more about what happens in the show does not actually tell us about the show itself. WP:WAF#Fair use goes on to explain how excessive plot can even be a copyright concern. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Pilot (House): that's an FA. Count the sentences. And of course learning more about what happens in the show tells us more about the show itself. Copyright is not a concern within the level of detail I am advocating. Everyking 06:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

1) I think we should have spoiler warnings, or be concerned by them, but the consensus was that we should not. As such, they are not a concern. 2)Well, policy boundaries, i.e WP:V and WP:RS says that you want to give them too much. 3) Again, that featured list of Avatar episodes says it can be done, and on a featured list quality level. 4)HM has sources, but the individual episodes do not. The sources aren't inherited. To the House argument, if you look, in the discussion on how long plots should be, it says that if it's only plot discussed, not other thing such as critical commentary and the like, its not allowed. See the behind the scenes and reception section? That validates the plot. I  ^{(said) (did)} 06:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think we've covered the points well enough. At heart, it's just an inclusionist-deletionist split. Let's leave it to see what others think. Everyking 07:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you say so. A side note- Just out of curiosity, I check the House Pilot talk page. There is a rather lengthy discussion on how to reduce the size of the plot. Thought that was interesting, to say the least. I  ^{(said) (did)} 07:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it validates it or not, but the fact that it at least has this real world information generally helps. It's also the pilot episode of House, and there's almost always something to be said about a pilot episode. Hanna Montana episodes don't seem to have any of this kind of information. Although, this does give me the idea about looking for info on the HM pilot. I'll see what I can find, and maybe there will be something to add to at least one of these episode articles. -- Ned Scott 07:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd support reinstating these articles. A merge would not be beneficial, and thus they should remain unmerged, pursuant to WP:SS. The episodes are clearly notable for being episodes of Hannah Montana. Everyking gibes a very good/strong argument to keep these articles. Matthew 07:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Being episodes of Hannah Montana doesn't make it notable. Being covered be reliable, independent sources does. I  ^{(said) (did)} 07:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion. Which I consider wrong. Matthew 07:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually it's not my opinion. Its those three important policies and guidelines. They say that Hannah Montanaindividual episodes of Hannah Montana lacks notability, and does not have reliable sources. Which cannot be argued. I  ^{(said) (did)} 08:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. If you think it lacks notability and has no reliable sources, just search Google News. Everyking 08:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I mistyped, I meant specific episodes. And just to be thorough, I did a Google News search for each episode, and only two had results, this one and this one So I guess one could argue that those two would have to be kept. I  ^{(said) (did)} 08:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Good news! The case for Good Golly, Miss Dolly looks particularly strong. Everyking 09:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This source gives us info on four episodes. It looks like there are other sources for these as well, based on the DVD that includes them. Everyking 09:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You would be correct. Those episodes, and the two I found sources for, can probably be kept. I  ^{(said) (did)} 09:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not read every one of these articles (Please, no!) but I looked at a bunch. As I view it they do fail to establish notability. The plot summaries are more ‘well’ developed — which to me is a good reason to trim them down; don't tell the whole thing.

Several points in the above discussion deserve comment. The concept of ‘inherited notability’ is one that needs to be dispensed with. In most cases a tv show itself will indeed be notable, but individual episodes will not be. There may be cases where an individual episode can be established as notable for any number of reasons, which is fine. This would involve reliable sources that are specific to the episode. The other point I'd like to comment on is the endless links to imdb.com and tv.com — the presence of these links is fine, but they do not amount to reliable sources; most of the ones I've looked at for specific episodes are lame in the extreme. --Jack Merridew 09:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• I am in complete agreement with Jack on this one. There is simply no assertion of any kind of out-of-universe notability in any of these "articles" as suggested in the episode guideline. Finding references (as noted above about Good Golly, Miss Dolly) does not alleviate the need to find out-of-universe context for establishing notability. They should all be Redirected to the episode list. Eusebeus 10:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What qualifies as out of universe context to you? We now have inclusion on a DVD for four of them. The DVD also includes behind-the-scenes stuff and commentary, according to the article I linked above. Everyking 10:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: Out of universe would be things like:

1. Non-trivial critical reaction from multiple independent published sources concerning themes or issues raised in the episode;
2. A demonstrably exceptional ratings pull within the context of the show's overall ratings profile;
3. A significant episode-specific award or awards;
4. A demonstrable cultural contribution that can be related specifically to the episode.

I have rewritten this Friends episode to demonstrate that kind of out-of-universe notability (won an episode-specific award, most watched episode of the series, produced a spin-off show) - probably any of those on their own would be grounds for arguing notability. Other clear examples: Trapped in the Closet (South Park), garnered significant media attention and was the subject of a debate about censorship, etc..., Deep Space Homer produced a culturally significant meme and has been the subject of external references, similarly Happy Days Episode 89 (Fonzie jumps the Shark! - no article) and Point of View (the M*A*S*H episode, no article) for its contribution to and role in television production techniques, etc..., etc.... In my reading of the Episode guideline, the mindless pablum of a DVD commentary track in no way qualifies as out-of-universe unless it can be demonstrably shown that the material itself has notability beyond the narrow confines of the show. I note that two of those episodes I cited do not yet have articles, while we nonetheless have all the highly unnotable articles above.... That simply confirms my view that this is fan-driven content (fine in-and-of-itself) that cares nothing for the guidelines and principles that have been established by consensus across the community (unacceptable). Eusebeus 14:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Eusebeus, your article is so brilliant that it doesn't cite a single source! (Which entails that it fails the guideline WP:EPISODE, apparently (as you say) that's unacceptable.) Matthew 19:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, I remember putting Neilsen rating information on both episodes of the Achy Jakey Heart saga. WAVY 10 14:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You need a source attached to them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source if anyone wants to add them to the pages (I'll do it when I get a chance if no one does). Right now the articles are actually wrong saying they had a Nielsen rating and actually reporting viewership, but this link gives both. I still don't think this makes them notable, however if there is a source saying it is a record for the channel (see Achy Jakey Heart, Part 2#Ratings) that may make a difference. Phydend 20:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the reference to both episodes. Phydend 03:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In the interim, over the next few days I intend to search online for more "real world sources" of info for this series. WAVY 10 16:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any kind of consensus developing here? Is there at least a general agreement that the episodes for which we have found sources should remain? Everyking 05:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that the only people who have commented are the people who were active in both sides of the debate, (with the possible exception of yourself) and no one else. So I really dont know. I  ^{(said) (did)} 05:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at Achy Jakey Heart, Part 2#Ratings and note that the source for the rating gives two values for the same show (the higher one is the one in the article) and while this source does say that the show was viewed by however many people, it does not serve to establish notability. If these are the only sources on offer, then these episode articles should be redirected. --Jack Merridew 12:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ratings can also be placed on the list page. -- Ned Scott 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like the same ol' discussion, but I think the pages should stay. Recent episodes are easy to add referenced info to, but people don't bother unless they're put on the chopping block. - Peregrine Fisher 19:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if they are, then why don't you demonstrate for us? I  ^{(said) (did)} 19:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And it's not like we can be online 24-7 digging up sources for these articles (or any other ones, for that matter). WAVY 10 19:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources are not the problem for me, notability is. What is it about these episodes that you can say specifically about one, that you can't say about several? Then if there is something to say, is it more than plot summary, is it real world, is it trivial or not? Then finally, is it enough information that requires it's own article. So far no one has been able to point out anything that passes all those questions. -- Ned Scott 06:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Notice to everybody interested: While we still have the episode pages available, we REALLY need to pare down the plot summaries. Almost all of the episodes have a "plot summary is too long" tag (possible copyright violation) so at least we can try to straighten that out. WAVY 10 17:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I trimmed down the Achy Jakey Heart, Part 1 and 2 plot summaries somewhat. WAVY 10 18:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You should focus on the summaries on List of Hannah Montana episodes as they are the ones that are not likely to be redirected. --Jack Merridew 07:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

motion to close, anyone?

Close how? The discussion above seems to me to be pretty evenly split, a classic example of "no consensus". I know that I'm coming in late, but I'd like to remind participants of something Jimbo said a long time ago. Some of you have seen me quote this before, but some of you probably haven't. It's from the earliest incarnation of Wikipedia:Importance:

"Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above? Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia? Why shouldn't each of the 100+ poker games I describe have its own page with rules, strategy, and opinions? Hard disks are cheap.

I agree with this one completely. --Jimbo Wales"

As Everyking notes above, this is essentially an inclusionist/deletionist debate. My own leanings are generally inclusionist, but I do accept the general principle that not every television episode necessarily deserves its own Wikipedia page. On the subject of Hannah Montana episodes, I am agnostic, since I know next to nothing about the series. (Unlike some editors, however, I wouldn't dare to suggest that my own ignorance is evidence that the series or its episodes are not notable.)

A question I would ask is whether a printed Hannah Montana episode guide exists. If it does, and includes more than cast lists and plot summaries for each episode, I would consider that evidence that Hannah Montana episodes have the potential to meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:N. If not, I would consider that evidence that most individual Hannah Montana episodes (with the exception of the ones noted above) do not have the potential to meet the requirements of WP:RS or WP:N. Would that be a reasonable conclusion to draw? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to see a real diff for that quote... and basically it has been addressed by WP:EPISODE.

As I see it, there has been no establishment of notability — something that this review was intended to nudge editors who believe the episodes to be notable to cite sources of.

I have no idea if an episode guide such as you postulate exists. I've seen no references added citing any such thing. If such a guide is extant it may well be some sort of official guide (since we're speculating here!) — and as such it would amount to a self-serving piece of show merchandising and would not constitute a third-party reliable source.

If the episodes are somehow viewed has having the potential to establish notability (w/RS), then the proper place for the current content of the episode articles is in their history just south of a redirect that should remain in place until someone actually does establish notability. --Jack Merridew 11:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought that "I" (that is, User:I, not me) established notability for at least two of the episodes with his Google News search. By the way, I wasn't putting the "episode guide" question out there as a roadblock to closure — it was a genuine question for people who know something about Hannah Montana. I've asked more about episode guides as a possible general criterion at Wikipedia talk:Television article review process, but I thought that this was where I'd find people who might know specifically whether a Hannah Montana episode guide exists. And I'd like to repeat that if it turns out that there is no such detailed episode guide (that is, one giving more than episode summaries and cast lists), I would maintain that was probably indicative that most Hannah Montana episodes aren't notable, and their pages should become redirects. However, that's just my opinion, and I don't really see a consensus either way in the discussion above. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I don't know if this diff from Meta is "real" enough for you, but it shows that the quote was being attributed to Jimbo as early as January 2002. At that time, the Wikipedia community was small enough that if the comment was misrepresented, Jimbo would have corrected it himself, yet as far as I can see he didn't. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There may be sources that could be cited to establish notability in the Google search results given above — I'm not sure just which results people have been looking at; the results are dynamic. I did just look at those two articles and they don't appear to have had any new sources added recently, so the onus is still on anyone who cares to edit those episode articles. re the Wales quote, I was hoping for a diff of an actual edit he made somewhere so I could see the context in which the statement was made. I note that in the oldid you gave he referred to "episode articles with links to reviews" [my italics] — which, if by 3rd party RSs, would establish notability for the episode. --Jack Merridew 08:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but I have not been able to find a printed episode guide. If there's nothing else to be said for this matter, we'll be adding a ratings column to the list of eps article, and redirecting once again. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As much as I want to keep them, let's just get some closure and sort the mess out later. WAVY 10 14:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start cleaning up the LOE table and redirecting; I'm not so sure we should include the ratings (the Episode list template doesn't seem to support this well). I'll skip that group for now... comments welcome. --Jack Merridew 09:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The LOE table will have to be reformatted to a version that will allow you to easily manipulate such things if you'd like to include the ratings in the LOE table.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just finished a first pass on redirecting things and have not gotten into changing the LOE table format. I'm not in favor of including the ratings... anyone? --Jack Merridew 14:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sleepwalk this Way
• I Want You to Want Me ... To Go to Florida
• Everybody Was Best-Friend Fighting

We have another issue; not all of the episodes were included in the discussion list and I've not done anything to those (or the block under Neilsan ratings). These are mostly at the end of the LOE and may have been created since the original list was generated or may have been redirected at that moment... I believe that they should be included in this review. --Jack Merridew 14:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Those look more like future (read: speculative) episodes. Not sure what to do with those. WAVY 10 15:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I redirected them, too; they had been redirected after the first review. FYI, the Fighting one had been messed with - I can't be sure it was vandalism because, well, I don't watch this stuff!> --Jack Merridew 09:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Additional columns can be added to the episode list template by using Aux1=, Aux2=, or Aux3=. -- Ned Scott 19:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw those and didn't really like the look; I wasn't expecting additional fields in the middle. I may take another stab at it. --Jack Merridew 09:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Information Lost

What got me thinking about the notability issue is the challenge being made to the Buffy episodes on similar grounds. That particular show is being held up as an example to emulate for series TV even to the point of featured article status. I wonder what the point is overall. We have articles on each of the characters. A TV series is notable solely because it is being broadcast. What is missing from an encyclopedic perspective is complete verifiable information about what is already passed the notability test, which the series has; the episodes add to that. We don't have in the summary the work product information of the people in the credits, the guest cast, the writer, director. We should have that. We don't need a Readers Digest version of the episode, a trivia section, or a goofs sections but we should have a place for important data from the primary source - the episode itself, about the people who created the show. --NrDg 20:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What is happening to other series is irrelevant. A TV series is not notable for being broadcast. It is notable if its been significantly covered by reliable sources independent of the subject. Virtually all television shows have been. The individual articles on episodes, however, often do not. As for information on the director and the like, I don't know why we need that, but I'm not an expert on what people want to know about television shows. At any rate, that information can be included in a LOE, see this featured list. i ^{(said) (did)} 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What got me thinking is not my attempt to justify anything, just go hmmm. I checked the Simpson's link and they added columns for writer and director. That is one of the main things I think we need. In the "don't argue this way" article you linked to one point made was "Often, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes, however - this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums." The point is I think more information should be related to the article. The means to do that might be sub-pages to ease formatting and navigation. These pages aren't articles in their own right and are really just a way of formatting the main article. --NrDg 21:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. They are articles in their own right. Why wouldn't they be? As for the comment on that page about "easing to formatting and navigation" I've never heard that before. I'd like to see where that applies.

The thing is that the vast majority of things that are appropriate for an episode article can and should be said on a LOE, because the episode itself is not notable. There are exceptions, such as the articles on that list I mentioned. i ^{(said) (did)} 21:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the article I was quoting was the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS#Notability_is_inherited debunker. I was just talking about a means to an end. I have no problems with putting things in the LOE page if we find a good way to do it. What I particularly want is the writer, director and guest starring cast. They all can be added to the table and/or episode summary section. Unfortunately the aux1 field is now taken so need another way. What I would like to do is put writer and director as aux1 and aux2 and put rating and guest cast in the summary. I am open to suggestions. --NrDg 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as a side note, othercrapexists is separate from the inherited section, they're two separate points. On topic, specifically related to HM episodes, in the first box on the page it says who it was written and directed by. As for the guest stars, that could just be another field. i ^{(said) (did)} 23:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've started adding Writer, Director and Guest stars to the season 1 table. Let me know if there are any objections before I do much more work on this. --NrDg 00:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking at where the LOE table has gone in the last day or so, and have a few suggestions. There should not be so many columns because it results in the columns being too narrow. If details such as writer and directer are included, they should be merged into the summary section. I added the viewers column because that is what was suggested, but feel that this, too, should be in the summary; and the 'code' column should just go away.

While people debate the value of all this useless information about a lame show, there are articles the need to be written. --Jack Merridew 10:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel regular data should be in columns, irregular and variable data in the summary. That is kind of the point of a table. I think the table as it stands now has sufficient column width for everything that is included and I'm fairly happy about how it turned out. Your other comment seems off topic. --NrDg 21:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have finished including what I felt was missing from the episodes and redirected all the episode pages to the anchor link for that episode in the table. My major content concerns have now been met so I am satisfied with what we have so far. --NrDg 21:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Notable Guests

I heard that Dolly Parton and Vicki Lawrence are guest starring in the same episode together here. Is there anywhere to put the info? Mouseinthehouse 17:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sleepwalk this way

Why is there not a page for this episode if all the pages have been restored? Mouseinthehouse 17:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Everybody Was Best-Friend Fighting

In the article it mentions that the name Everybody Was Best-Friend Fighting comes from the song Kung Fu Fighting twice. It says it in the first paragraph and again in the trivia section.Smileyface 12 91 22:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Song Sung Bad

The episodes on the separate page for I Want You to Want Me...To Go to Florida has Everybody Was Best-Friend Fighting as the next show, followed by Me and Mr. Jonas. Where did Song Sung Bad (the one with...for now, as an earlier version listed Lily as trying to start a singing career of her own...Lily being supposed to record something for her mom) come in (assuming this has even been confirmed)? WAVY 10 15:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked my DirecTV grid last night and managed to get to July 29th, and the next episode on the grid is Everybody was Best-Friend Fighting. I don't know where the Song Sung Bad info came from. WAVY 10 13:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

STOP DOING THIS!

who ever keeps on redirecting the episode articles to the list of episode page, STOP DOING THAT!!!! AND WHO EVER DID THIS, PUT THOSE PAGES BACK UP, NOOOOOOOOOOWW!!!!! 24.186.246.59 at 7:47 PM on July 24, 2007.

Sorry, the consensus is that the episode articles are not notable enough to have their own articles; see WP:EPISODE. Please do not recreated these articles or other episode articles that do not establish the notability of the episode; see also: WP:N and WP:V. --Jack Merridew 08:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is no consensus. We had a big debate about it above. I guess Jack forgot. Everyking 04:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

To all who keep trying to revive the episode links...PLEASE STOP IT! Consensus was to merge (I was one fighting to save a few of them), and unless enough information for it to pass WP:N, don't play "Lazarus" with these articles. WAVY 10 01:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We really need to edit the Hannah Montana episodes. We also need the screen shots.

Lack of consensus

It's clear from the above discussion that no consensus was reached, yet somebody redirected the articles anyway and even closed off the discussion, as if to say no further discussion shall be permitted. Who was responsible for that? I propose that all the articles be restored and that the discussion be reopened. In particular, discussion needs to continue regarding the episodes for which secondary sources were found, because I believe consensus can be reached (and may already exist) to keep those. Everyking 04:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the discussion ceased to be commented on. Maybe an admin can be called into to determine consensus, as has been suggested? i ^{(said) (did)} 04:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So, if people stop talking, then one side is free to just go ahead and impose its will? Everyking 04:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, but it was deemed that consensus had been established, and since no one came in and voiced an opinion, it was carried out. i ^{(said) (did)} 04:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I counted four people clearly favoring keep and four people clearly favoring redirect, with a few others not expressing a clear opinion. That's a split straight down the middle, the opposite of a consensus. However, note that if comments from non-established users are counted, there's easily a keep majority. How on earth can it be argued that consensus exists to redirect? Everyking 04:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, isn't vote counting the opposite of consensus? Sorry, couldn't resist. And I only counted three for keeping. Anyway. I thought that there was consensus, but again, we can ask an admin to determine, it's somewhat of their job. (ec reply- What does comments from "non-established users" mean? i ^{(said) (did)} 04:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not the opposite; it's a means of evaluating the presence or absence of consensus. You can't have a consensus when people are evenly split on an issue. It's inexplicable that a person would even suggest that. I want to hear the logic behind your thinking that people have reached a consensus even when they are evenly split. (And when, according to this logic, does a consensus not exist?) And yes, there are at least four keepers: me, Matthew, Peregrine Fisher, and WAVY 10. Everyking 05:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would be rare, but since numbers ≠ consensus, it could happen. Now, the person who normally determines this, an admin, could be useful. If you feel really strongly that there were valid arguments on both sides, but neither were decidedly superior, then you can reopen the discussion and restore the articles. i ^{(said) (did)} 05:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never been able to stand this "numbers don't matter; consensus is determined by admins reading tea leaves" line of argument. I think it is so patently obvious that consensus does not exist that it is downright silly to even argue about it. However, I won't be doing anything unilaterally here. Everyking 05:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, thats the way things currently work. I suppose the closing could be undone and a {{wider attention}} tag could be placed. i ^{(said) (did)} 05:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I should point out, this was not a discussion to see who wanted to keep the articles or not. This was a discussion to see if they were notable or not. No one was able to assert any reasonable level of notability. -- Ned Scott 05:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And I think a reasonable level of notability was asserted. I don't think you have any more of a consensus on that point; people who wanted to keep them also felt they were notable enough to have articles (which is, of course, why they voted keep). Everyking 06:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, since for something to be notable, it has to have independent sources cover it significantly, there was no notability in these articles. i ^{(said) (did)} 07:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You yourself found independent sources for some of the episodes. Everyking 08:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A few people said the pages should be redirected, a few said they shouldn't be redirected, a few references were added, and then the pages were redirected. It's the classic deletionist vs. inclusionist argument. Refs have no effect on the argument. We need some new rules. Something like, every time a reference is added, no redirecteing is allowed. - Peregrine Fisher 08:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe any references were added to any of the episode articles; a few vague Google searches were linked on this page and discussed a bit. --Jack Merridew 13:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a ref before the page was promptly redirected. Here's the diff. - Peregrine Fisher 18:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I missed that; I was working from the list Ned posted when I picked the episodes to add rating refs for. This could be added to the LOE for — I'll have to look more closely — one or both of the Achy episodes. --Jack Merridew 09:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There was more information from that ref on the episode page than there now is in the LOE. It seems like there's a movement to destroy information as long as it helps in destroying episode pages. - Peregrine Fisher 11:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There you go. --Jack Merridew 12:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What? It wasn't just Google searches. I specifically linked to this article. Everyking 19:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This rating source could be added to the LOE, too. Again, I don't see this as establishing notability; not "significant" coverage in "detail"; these amount to "trivial" coverage. If you disagree, resurrect the episode and make your case. --Jack Merridew 09:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC) (struck rating comment; I confused the two buddytv urls, this one gives no rating) --Jack Merridew 10:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.

update: I have added ratings w/refs to the Achy episodes in the LOE. --Jack Merridew 10:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're trying to move the goalposts. What's in that article does not look to me like trivial coverage by any reasonable standard. The episodes are given a paragraph each, explaining their plots; it's not as if they're just mentioned in passing. No original research is necessary to extract the content. Everyking 15:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

KEEP I came into this debate late and am new at editing so I tend to go with what others say. I brought up a concern about losing information that I think belong in a complete article about a TV series and was effectively overridden. So I compromised in a way I really didn't want to. I took the statement that this issue was closed as a given and did not feel comfortable enough with my gut reason to debate the issues against Wikipedia lawyers. Given that I was misled. I will state strongly that I want the article pages back. Add me to the list who want to keep them.

I think that notability must be based on the FACT that something is notable to a large interested group. We can't use original research in the articles but I see no reason not to use original research to establish notability. I don't care what Wiki policy says - these articles ARE notable in an absolute sense, even if some good secondary source has not blessed it. The fact that there is significant discussion on the web about them DOES establish that they are notable.

From an other perspective these articles are an organization method of presenting a complete article about something that is established as notable, an Emmy nominated TV Series. This is NOT inherited notability, multiple pages are needed to the cover the subject in the way that is needed. We shouldn't have to establish notability every time we chose to change organizational structure. --NrDg 13:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? "notability must be based on the FACT that something is notable to a large interested group" — How is that different from WP:ILIKEIT? --Jack Merridew 13:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It is different. I am not asserting that I want them to stay because "I Like It". The individual articles are covered by 3d level sources such as TV.com, IMDb and TV Guide. That makes them notable too. I disagree with needing secondary sources to bless the issue. Third level sources can also be used to show notability. --NrDg 13:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

tv.com and imdb.com are not reliable sources and TV Guide lists everything as do phonebooks. If those "sources" are allowed to establish notability then Wikipedia will have millions of articles on all the pap that's fit to broadcast. FYI, I didn't mean that you necessarily like it, but that they (who created and/or defend these articles) like it. --Jack Merridew 13:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree except for the fact that TV.com and IMDb aren't particularly reliable when it comes to notability. In addition, TV.com is user-edited (much like Wikipedia), so I definitely wouldn't use that site. WAVY 10 13:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Tertiary sources can be used as reliable sources for content as long as they are judged good enough reliable sources for the purpose. Also WP:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. We are not talking about content here anyway, just notability. My judgment is that the tertiary sources IMDb and TV.com are not good enough for content but they are good enough to establish notability. The fact that they are user edited is relevant to the content only. In my judgment, therefore, notability HAS been established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NrDg (talk • contribs) diff

Those sources are 'phonebooks' — I do not consider them sufficient to establish notability. --Jack Merridew 09:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

These sources are more than just phonebooks. The site owners have made some effort to select what to present and they also allow users to add to that. In my opinion that is sufficient to establish notability. It is still a judgement call that we will probably not be able to convince each other of - thus lack of concensus on this issue. The notability 'guidlines' say that significant mention in a non-trivial manner by secondary reliable sources creates a 'presumption' of notability, not proof. Therefore, conversely the lack creates a 'presumption' of non-notabilty, again not proof. These presumptions are both rebuttable if there is sufficient counter evidence. I consider that there has been sufficient evidence for notability. --NrDg 17:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

By 'phonebooks' I mean that they list everything — and if they've missed an episode of something, I'm sure they'll get to it. Since such sources are all-inclusive, the view that they can serve to establish notability will lead to a near-infinite number of "notable" episode articles. This extends beyond tv show episodes; there are (or soon will be) all-inclusive "sources" for all manner of things; does Wikipedia have articles for every baseball card ever printed — there must be a list of them out there somewhere to establish their "notability". How about articles on drain clearing products? Find a list and justify a thousand articles? The difference here is that tv shows are popular. In the cases of some of these kiddie shows, this is part of the problem; as I note you've seen, many editors who might reasonable be considered to be children edit the articles related to this show and they add endless trivia, original research and mild vandalism (and the pattern repeats elsewhere). I certainly have little interest in keeping an eye on the whole Hannah Montana cloud of articles for much longer. If episode articles are resurrected, they will surely live out their lives as messy little articles that few editors will want to clean up.

I would take an entirely different view of the notability of these episode articles if the Washington Post took note (or any reputable source) — But BuddyTV.com? They're about Hannah Montana Ring Tones. --Jack Merridew 09:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If it was, say, the Washington Post listing that info (fat chance), I'd agree 100% WAVY 10 18:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As Ned commented above, no one established any notability for the episode articles. The discussion had gone quiet after several comments were made to the effect that they would then be redirected. I redirected them and added the viewers column to the LOE as per others comments. Hey, they're all still there; this isn't about 'delete'. I will refrain from further edits on this score and see where this goes. They have not established their notability. --Jack Merridew 13:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought the discussion had gone quiet after equal numbers of people on both sides of the argument had said their pieces, and were unable to convince each other. That's pretty much the definition of "lack of consensus". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There's now 4 references for the two Achy Jakey Heart episodes, if we combine them into one page. Is that enough notability for their own article? It could be the exemplar page to show people how to make episode pages. - Peregrine Fisher 19:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm in favor. Everyking 06:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Me too — there's absolutely enough notability established for that story. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly it also shows that it is possible to get the information in the summary in an effective manner. What additional benefit would we have by creating an episode page with nothing more than the same information? If that is all we are doing, this is just a formatting choice of how to present the information. All the episodes have established notiblity by virtue of having things in secondary & tertiary references "noting" or writing about them. The problem is that we must USE primary (without evaluation) or secondary sources to add verifyable information to the articles. What really makes these episodes any different? --NrDg 16:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

NrDg makes a good point here; the LOE format can cover minor bits beyond plot summary (although I would be inclined to trim some of what has been added recently to the Achy summary — but will refrain). --Jack Merridew 10:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that Achy Jakey Heart has appeared. It will be interesting to see how this evolves. --Jack Merridew 15:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

HM has this werid system of coming out on DVD not by season, but by story arcs. When Achy Jakey comes out on DVD, it will be easy to make a "Reception" section with 5 to 10 references. - Peregrine Fisher 15:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not just HM. I think all of the current Disney Channel series release episodes in this manner. Hopefully, when these shows have ended their run, they will do the smart thing and come out with a "normal" DVD release. WAVY 10 16:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

a clever ploy to get folks to buy the same content twice. --Jack Merridew 16:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

production code 123

I just noticed that there are two episodes listed with production code '123' and not knowing where these numbers came from have no way of being sure how to fix this. --Jack Merridew 09:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I made all the production codes match the directory information at TV.COM. That source is used by in a lot of episode details by a number of shows and looks to be a reliable reference. Best is U.S. copyright Office but they seem to lag a lot. --NrDg 16:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Guest Starring List

I removed co-star credited actors from the guest star list. I created the guest star list from watching the episode credits and the actors listed are in the credited order. If someone wishes to create a co-star list, that is fine. I was planning on doing that too when I had time but if you do so please list them in credited order as the order is meaningfully. --NrDg 12:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that then. :-) ZSoraz 15:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought Daniel Samonas was a guest star on the episode, I Can't Make You Love Hannah If You Don't, since he's pretty much a big part of that episode starring as Josh. O_o ZSoraz 15:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I missed it. He is on the second page and is listed last in the guest star list. My bad. I'll add him back.--NrDg 15:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that we probably shouldn't list ALL the co-stars, probably just the ones that have named characters, not things like "Pizza Delivery Guy" unless they had a significant part. The co-star list can get quite long with really minor characters. --NrDg 17:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No Sugar, Sugar

This is just me but I'm not sure whether this is a real episode or not. It seems highly unlikely that they would have an episode based around terrorism. I may be wrong but this is my opinion. Race t 16:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful, but pretty sure that "plot" was vandalism. WAVY 10 18:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Songs

Does anyone know why some of the "Songs Featured:" won't appear? I could swear that I saw some in "edit this page" that didn't appear. ZSoraz 23:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2