Jump to content

Talk:List of Hannah Montana episodes/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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 that 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)
It's about Oliver having diabetes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.108.99 (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please fix the "controversy" statement? The controversy lies in the fact that you cannot get type 1 diabetes from eating sugar. The parents at Children with Diabetes were simply trying to point that fact out. We didn't really want to see the script but we would have liked it if Disney had gotten their facts straight. We'd like the main article to reference appropriate Type 1 Diabetes information. --Frizzyr (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

New DVD

On ultimatedisney.com, there is a new DVD to be released entitled "Hannah Montana: One in a Million" due out in January. Little is known about it yet, except for that it will feature the Jonas Brothers episode, music videos, and a top 10 countdown of Disney Channel Character Feuds. Sounds Great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstarbud (talk • contribs) 17:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, you guys put that a Jonas Brother music video will be included, when there is no proof on ultimatedisney that states this, they only say there will be music videos. Plus the episode "Me and Mr. Jonas and Mr. Jonas and Mr. Jonas" will be featured on the DVD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstarbud (talk • contribs) 21:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The DVD and episodes/bonus features have been confirmed on disneydvd.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstarbud (talk • contribs) 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

DisneyDVD.com has added another bonus feature to the DVD, an episode of That's So Raven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstarbud (talk • contribs) 16:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly did you see that. Give an exact URL. I looked on the site and found nothing of the sort. --NrDg 16:48, 21 November 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

I just archived the oldest part of the talk page (prior to 2nd episode review). WAVY 10 18:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Jonas Brothers episode

The Jonas Brothers episode needs an independent article. It is referred toin this article as "basic cable's most watched series episode ever" with 10.7 million viewers. Everyking 06:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Me and Mr. Jonas and Mr. Jonas and Mr. Jonas

This episode is currently #1 on the iTunes "Top TV Episodes" List —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.226.188.254 (talk) 22:27, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's line up some sources for this one (since it set a record for basic cable series telecasts...even though it had HSM2 for a lead-in WAVY 10 17:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

New Episodes

i just found out that 2 new episodes of Hannah Montana are called i don't have to tell everyone and bionic boy!!!Hailee69 02:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I know what the next 8 episodes are called. Unfortunately the source is not usable on Wikipedia so can't add the information. Suggest waiting until they show up on TV Guide or a directory of similar reliability.--NrDg 02:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

On the same subject, just with the announced episodes, should we now delete the TV Guide paragraph since we already have put the episodes on the table? ZSoraz 08:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the episode information obtained from TVRage, we can't use that as a source and it conflicts with the data in TV.com which we can use. I previously tried adding TVRage info to the table with cites to TVRage and Wikipedia has blacklisted using that site as a source. --NrDg 12:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet More Vandalism

Some IP is changing the titles of different episodes. Reverted twice by me already. WAVY 10 22:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert it and give the IP a vandalism warning on their talk page. They get 4 warnings and they could get banned if they are blatant. If this continues over the next few days I'll try to get the page protected again. Admins won't protect unless the vandalism is fairly heavy. Page has been protected 3 times before, protection just came off. --NrDg 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Didn't want to risk a three-revert-violation. That's the ONLY reason I mentioned it here. WAVY 10 22:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Flag it as vandalism when you revert it and you won't trigger the WP:3RR rule. Assuming it is blatant vandalism and not a content dispute. Be explicit on why you reverted in the edit summary. At least state "rvv". --NrDg 23:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Just liked to say something...

Not saying there have been any recent additions of this information on this page, but about the 8 episodes said to become aired from TV Rage, you have to think if a summary where Lilly's Mom falls in love with Robby, when she is already married (i.e. Lilly's mentioned Dad in such episodes recently aired episodes like Achy Jakey Heart), wouldn't seem practical for a Disney show. This is just to alert people who did think that kind of episode would happen (I thought it would once, til I remembered the Dad, lol). --ZSoraz 23:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Smells Like Teen Sellout

What happened to this episode? They haven't showed it in forever, and even on the Disney Channel website where it lists the schedule, it also keeps a list of the episodes, and it's not on the list. Did they stop showing the episode because it didn't have enough viewers? Why don't they show it anymore? --

It's still on. I saw it twice this week.Dshibshm (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


24.186.246.59 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.246.59 (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No Sugar, Sugar

Is this gonna be a real episode I don't think there will be an episode with diebates. ~Bert-Healy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert-Healy (talk • contribs) 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the page image, but not on a source we can use. Doubt it's fake. I put it back as it does have a valid reference. --NrDg 21:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There is gonna be an episode called no sugar,surgar its season 2 epidose #23 reference tvrage.com-by rodolfo 20:08 6 november,2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.167.193 (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we know. TVrage is prohibited by Wikipedia as a reference we can use though, and if it is not listed in TV Guide or equivalent, we need a good reliable source we can reference before adding it. --NrDg 02:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Tjis is wierd.

They were planning on it but it got scrapped. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.63.36 (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Errors and missing info in episode summaries

The title of episode 18, "People Who Use People," is a play on Barbra Streisand's "People Who Need People," not Kinky Friedman's "People Who Read People Magazine." And it's not the fourth episode featured on the "Hannah Montana: Pop Star Profile" DVD; episode 19 is. The title of episode 39, "I Want You to Want Me...To Go To Florida" plays off the title of "I Want You To Want Me" by Cheap Trick. All references to the origin of the title of episode 40, "Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting" by Carl Douglas, have disappeared. The title of episode 42, "Me and Mr. Jonas and Mr. Jonas and Mr. Jonas" references "Me and Mrs. Jones" by Billy Paul. The title of episode 44, "That's What Friends Are For?" is a play on "That's What Friends Are For" by Dionne Warwick, Gladys Knight, Elton John and Stevie Wonder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.195.70 (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Did the title based on songs as suggested. --NrDg 20:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Skeptical

At the bottom of the page, it says there's an episode where Miley almost gets struck by lightning and sees her mother. Is this true? It seems a bit far-fetched. 76.27.108.99 03:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Disney does have a tendency to get a little wacky at times with some episodes (you could argue the whole premise of this show could be considered far-fetched), so I think that could be possible unless we find word stating otherwise. WAVY 10 Fan 15:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It is true, it aired in the UK in November, although it was a bit more like a dream sequence than an actual thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouseinthehouse (talk • contribs) 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

new episode

The season 2 finale of Hannah Montana will star Corbin Bleu as Johnny (he was first seen in "Lilly,Do You Want To Know A Secret?". It will be called "We're all on this date Together" (We're all in this together". Johnny will see Hannah Montana and one of the sets is a Japanese restuarant. In another scene, Lilly and Oliver are cold from the winter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.174.227 (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Guest starring

Morgan York guest starrs on Lilly's mom has got it going on, the latest new episode, but only one guest star is shown just thought everyone should know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.230.93 (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I or someone else will update all the episode credits after the US broadcast. --NrDg 19:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


         You are wrong! "Meghan York" is Sarah, but Lilly's mom   
         was played by Heather Locklear.Dshibshm (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Errors in recaps for episodes 18 and 19

Episode 18 does not appear on the "Pop Star Profile" DVD, but episode 19 does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.195.70 (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Episode information!

On this site http://www.tvrage[Dot]com/Hannah_Montana/episode_list/all it's currently showing the episodes, if the episodes name are valid is not known 100% and a valid source can't do it either but if this site is correct in 2 - 3 more episodes, maybe we should use this source?

The Link has been so called "Blacklisted" because of some "Spam" Not sure of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanonkas (talk • contribs) 17:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it THAT important?

If the last few episodes say "U.K. premiered this on (Date)", then why not put it for all? What makes them so special? I say we should remove that in the case that nobody really cares about when it aired because many of us don't live in the U.K. --AOL Alex (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It is important until it airs in the US and we have a US Airdate to put in the US Airdate column. Its only purpose right now is to show that the episode has actually aired someplace and that the information in the show's entry is based on something other than unsupported speculation or unreliable leaks from fan sites and enough people have actually SEEN the episode to correct mistakes. I would prefer the Airdate column to reflect the first general broadcast viewing worldwide, not just the US Airdate, but we would need reliable sources of guide data from the other countries to make this info verifiable. As of now we can refer to TV Guide and other reliable guide directories for US information. What do we have for other countries that is as reliable and verifiable? --NrDg 17:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Smells Like Teen Sellout

I watch Hannah Montana a lot, but the episode 'Smells Like Teen Sellout' I do not remember. Many sites have it listed as an episode, so I don't know if it should be deleted from the page or not. Was it an episode for a foreign country? Abluescarab (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.tvguide.com/detail/tv-show.aspx?tvobjectid=278865&more=ucepisodelist&episodeid=6188131 in TV Guide as being first broadcast in the US 3/2/2007. It does not seem to be on the rerun schedule for some reason. --NrDg 15:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

More Un-aired Episodes

There are more unaired episodes of Hannah Montana that should be posted here and can be found on Miley, Emily, and Mitchel fan sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.60.232 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fansites do not meet the wikipedia requirement as WP:RS reliable sources as they can be edited by anybody and are not fact checked for accuracy. --NrDg 01:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over episode article

User:TTN is repeatedly redirecting the article on the episode Me and Mr. Jonas and Mr. Jonas and Mr. Jonas, which is the highest-rated episode in cable TV history, despite the presence of non-plot based information and references in the article. I ask that some other people please weigh in on the issue so we can reach a consensus on what to do with the article. Everyking (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is clear and sufficient evidence for notability. I don't see how the page could be redirected. - PeaceNT (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The only information in the article that is notable is the ratings information. There are no critical reviews or other 3d party analysis of the episode. The ratings information has been attached to the episodes info in the list of episodes article. The conclusion of it being the highest rated can be added with references to the episode entry as well. We really don't NEED an article about this episode as sufficient information about the episode is in the list of episodes article already. If you pare the article down to the essentials, we get what is in the table in the list article. I think the episode article is therefore redundant and we lose nothing by redirecting. --NrDg 20:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Also see related discussions at #Lack of consensus. --NrDg 20:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
As an added thought. This discussion might be moot soon as the episode has been released on DVD and may garner significant critical evaluation and reviews. An article on the DVD itself is therefore possible and a pointer to that DVD can be include in the table entry and the episode article redirected there as well. --NrDg 20:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Moderately notable? Sure ... the cable record at least hints at it. Notable enough for it's own article? Probably not. Right now, the information you have from a reliable third-party source consists of This episode debuted alongside High School Musical 2 and a sneak peek of the new Disney Channel show Phineas and Ferb.[1] The episode broke basic cable records with a record 10.7 million viewers and became basic cable's most watched series telecast ever.. Since an article must be primarily based on third-party sources, that means (using the most liberal interpretation of primarily possible), that the material provided by non-independent sources can't exceed that in size. That gives you a plot summary along the lines of Miley gets jealous of the time her dad starts spending songwriting with the "JoBros", as he calls them (which she also refers to as a 'Jo-Bromance'), than the time with her, so she tries to act guyish in hopes that Robby will spend more time with her instead of them. So, there's your entire article:
  • Miley gets jealous of the time her dad starts spending songwriting with the "JoBros", as he calls them (which she also refers to as a 'Jo-Bromance'), than the time with her, so she tries to act guyish in hopes that Robby will spend more time with her instead of them. This episode debuted alongside High School Musical 2 and a sneak peek of the new Disney Channel show Phineas and Ferb.[1] The episode broke basic cable records with a record 10.7 million viewers and became basic cable's most watched series telecast ever.
That doesn't look like an article to me ... it looks like a list entry. If and when there are a number of independent, third-party sources that discuss this particular episode directly and in detail, providing information that does not consist of a plot summary, go for it. Until then, it goes in the list. A note about the ratings is justified.Kww (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this argument nothing more than: "this is the information I feel is most important—you don't need to know the rest"? Of course, the goalposts are always moved; if critical reviews could be found, the deletionists would say we need more of them, and if we found a bunch, then they would say that critical reviews alone aren't enough in any number, and so on. The Mr. Jonas article satisfies the requirement of having non-plot based information and references, which is supposed to be the deletionist standard for having articles; furthermore, it has the exceptional distinction of being the highest rated cable episode ever. I am not naive enough to sit here and have an argument about some brand new requirements. Everyking (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No, this argument is "There are guidelines and policies on Wikipedia. We follow them. Following them means that this article can't be supported." No one is making up new requirements ... if you read WP:V and WP:N, you will see that I have represented them faithfully and accurately.Kww (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on this project for four years. You've been here for one. Please don't presume to tell me I don't know basic policies. Everyking (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It's quite obvious that you don't. Please tell me how you could possibly think that this article relies on third-party sources, and, if not, why you think that it is exempt from needing to.Kww (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The general topic has a lot of passion on both sides. The issue is in the grey issue of the definition of "significant" which is a judgment call on each individual subject area and how each person defines it. There is some line between none and overwhelming. Significant does not necessarily have to mean a lot of different places. It can also mean one place with more than a directory level mention to some people. Doesn't mean they are wrong, just that they have a different threshold. The notability guidelines are guidelines, not strict policy. In my judgment this article meets the base notability requirement in that some set of rational editors have judged it as having sufficient coverage. There is disagreement - I hope a decision can be made on other factors than just notability as this is effectively a semantics argument of which definitions of words are the correct ones. --NrDg 18:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I wish it could, but it is a policy argument. "Significant" is defined as being a "direct and detailed examination" in WP:N.
One source listed contains this text:Airing after HSM2, a 15-minute preview of the upcoming animated series Phineas & Ferb (10.8 million) and an all-new Hannah Montana (10.7 million) likewise scored big. In fact, per the Disney Channel, Friday's Hannah Montana now ranks as basic cable's most watched series episode ever. Doesn't even provide the title of the episode, much less the name of a star, ... hardly a detailed reference. On top of that, it doesn't credit an impartial source like Nielsen for the record claim .. it credits the broadcaster itself.
The other source contains After that, it's a brand new episode of Hannah Montana featuring the Jonas Brothers, who are currently on tour with Miley Cyrus. On the episode, Miley's dad (Billy Ray Cyrus) starts writing songs for The Jonas Brothers. This, of course, prompts Miley to become jealous and upset. By the end of the episode, Miley and The Jonas Brother make peace and even sing a duet together. A bit more detail, but it's all plot summary, probably quoted verbatim from MickeyNews. So, at best, one third-party source, and it's suspect.Kww (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I recognize there is a major conflict on all the TV show episode articles based on some editors strict reading of the guidelines vs show enthusiast desire to have in depth consistent coverage. This show and article has become just another battleground between the two opposing sides and I fear the goal is becoming more to prove a point than do what is right for this particular show. I accept the fact that the Mr. Jonas article satisfies the base requirement to be an article. Given that, MUST it be an article. That is an editorial choice and I don't see that as moving the goalposts. We went through this a bunch of months ago and somewhat agreed to a compromise to add the essential information to the list of episodes entries and have episode articles when notability beyond ratings info published. There are very few episode articles left now for THIS show. I personally don't like that imbalance. In the instant case the only thing in the article that is not in the list entry is a fuller plot description. Is that sufficient reason to have a full article? Even if by guidelines we could, should we? --NrDg 05:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we should always strive for comprehensive coverage of notable subjects. Everyking (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, NrDg, my goal is to apply the policies we have to the articles we have. To me, this case isn't much different than my efforts against the constant creation of Upcoming Second Album without a Title or Release Date. The article cannot be written to meet policies and guidelines with the sources available, and thus needs to become a redirect.Kww (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Hannah, again? We've been through this. Yes, I see that this is an episode subsequent to the review at the top of this page. Could we have an article on this? Yes. Should we? No. Have most of the arguments been around the block before? Yes. And, No, I'm not going to go through them all over again for this. Popularity != Notability. Be sure the rating stat is mentioned in the LOE and redirect this puppy. --Jack Merridew 12:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, we've been through it. Are you pretending it was resolved? As usual, deletionists just did what they wanted regardless of any objections, getting their way through force. However, this particular discussion is much more limited than the past discussion; we are now dealing with one key episode that happens to be the highest rated in cable TV history. I recall in the past discussion deletionists assured us that if we had non-plot based information and references, we could keep the articles. But the goalposts got moved again. Everyking (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Why is this being discussed again? Everyking stop wikilawyering. Your claims and actions here are wantonly struthioniformic given Wikipedia policies at WP:NOT and you should know better. Bicker if you will, but you cannot change consensus by getting in a snit on this talk page. Go to WP:NOT and change our current injunctions. Then this can be restored from a redirect. Alternatively, junk the plot and trivia crap - they should be reduced to ca. 50 words - and let's get some proper sourcing and context for the ratings achievement and then, at least, a marginal case could be made for retention. Eusebeus (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • OK, let's start small. You want "proper sourcing"—that implies you feel the current sourcing (for the ratings) is inadequate. What sort of source would be adequate—you don't feel E! News is a proper source? Or is it a matter of the number of sources? Everyking (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Funny, I just checked today and the pilot is still around. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
          • A source for the ratings that isn't attributed to the producer of the show would be acceptable. Your source today only says that Disney claims that it is the highest rated show, not that it has been verified by an independent organization. After you fix that, you will have to either reduce the rest of the article to less than that solitary sourced statement, or increase the number of sourced statements to outweigh the plot summary and such. Remember, you cannot base an article primarily on self-published material.Kww (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
            • I said we're starting small; if we talk about the big picture we'll have a pointless clash of philosophies. Eusebeus said it needed "proper sourcing", but you are saying that the only problem is that the info comes from Disney (through a third-party source), in which case the sourcing is proper, it just may need to be amended with a note that it is a claim from Disney and not definite fact. Based on his wording, I'm assuming Eusebeus has some problem with the sources themselves. Everyking (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
              • The sources do not give the article independent notability. The one relevant part about the ratings has at least two other target articles that it can be placed within. That cannot hold an article. TTN (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
                • If I understand your position correctly, you want to see a source that primarily discusses this episode? So, for example, the E! News article would justify having an independent article on HSM2, but not on this episode? Everyking (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • We need multiple sources that discuss how the episode was created, why it received such high ratings, how it was received in general, and anything else like that. TTN (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • Let's say, hypothetically, that we had a lot of great sources that covered all of those things except how it was created. Because we had so much content, all of which was clearly notable and well-sourced, it couldn't be fit into a list without sacrificing most of the content. What course would you recommend? Everyking (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
                    • If the reception section is fully developed (a few good paragraphs), I imagine that it could probably stand. If we only get three sentences, probably not. TTN (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
                      • So an article's existence doesn't necessarily depend on having content on all these aspects; two out of three could suffice (probably—there is presumably some other factor at work). Let's say there's only good content on one out of three, but we have five paragraphs of great content on that one aspect. Obviously we can't merge all that, but everyone agrees the information is good and belongs in the encyclopedia. Should we exclude that content? In other words, is reducing the number of pages more important, or is preserving good content more important? Everyking (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
                        • Notability is defined by real world coverage. If we can show that this episode is truly special through reliable sources, it can stay. The balance of information is what we need to figure out right now. TTN (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
                          • I thought that was a pretty good, straight question, and you didn't give me a straight answer. If notability is established, and the quantity of notable content exceeds what can be placed in a list, should this "balance" of different types of information still be required for there to be an article? Everyking (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've never edited this article before, but I've been bold and redirected it. The rating is covered in the LOE and by any reasonable measure notability has not been established. --Jack Merridew 13:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    So you felt it would be better to "be bold" than to participate in the discussion and reach consensus? Everyking (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    You have had a week, and haven't corrected the problems. You've haven't made any case for why this article should be exempted from the requirements laid down in WP:N. The article is available in the history of the redirect. Why don't you spend some time fixing it, and then bring it back?Kww (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    I have been trying to get you guys to clearly articulate what you think is required for this to have an article. Without that, it would be crazy for me to invest my time in something that is likely to be redirected again. Everyking (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    I've been extremely clear. Here we go again. Find reliable sources for your factual claims, not sources that trace back to the producer. Then, find enough reliable, third-party sources with enough information so that there is more of that information than there is plot summary and cast list. It probably isn't possible, but I don't see what is unclear about it.Kww (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    What you're saying makes no sense: the source used doesn't become unreliable or inaccurate just because it attributes its information to Disney. It's ludicrous to suggest we shouldn't use a source because the source qualifies itself by attributing the information to another source. Everyking (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    Not ludicrous at all. The best you can do with your current source is a statement like "Disney states that this is the highest rated basic cable show of all time." With Nielsen as a source, you can actually say "This is the highest rated basic cable show of all time." That's the minor point ... the real problem is how to get enough material to build an article with. You need much more sourced material than that one line.Kww (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    That the line may need to be qualified does not in any way invalidate the source. Sources do not become unreliable and inaccurate because they say "according to..." Everyking (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    OK, there's the fix for one line. What are you going to do to find enough third-party information to outweigh the plot summary, so that the article is primarily constructed from information derived from third-party sources?Kww (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The issues have been well-aired [pun intended]. See the comments other than yours [Everyking] above, and read them. The rating is mentioned in the LOE and that is plenty. You can not support an article on a rating; the goalpost is set a lot higher than that. Popularity != Notability. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Injunction

FYI. See [2].

For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.

Catchpole (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

  • After the episode "We're All On This Date Together" there will be one last episode called "Joannie B. Goode" where Miley and Hannah keep seeing a girl named Joannie B. Goode everywhere. Then they start Season 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.246.210 (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source?SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

New Episode Released, reliable sources: 0

The episode is called, We Are So Sorry Uncle Earl and I've watched it and it has been aired on tv in australia I belive, I can't see any verifiable sources for now but when it is, please take it into the article --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is in an Australian web guide, we can use that as a source. It is well known that this is the next episode to air in the US on March 21, but it is not in any US published guide and all other sources are generally unreliable so we can't add it right now. --NrDg 15:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I changed my mind on this as I have seen the episode and it HAS aired in Australia. We added some UK only episodes previously so we have done this before. I added the episode to the article with credits derived from viewing the article. Broadcast date still needs a citation. --NrDg 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
http://tv.msn.com/tv/episode/hannah-montana/(we're-so-sorry)-uncle-earl Is this a reliable source? It's not a Australian web guide. --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for putting msn guide up too, but you could have said at least a thank you? All I wanted to hear. --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It is always appreciated when people find good references and help improve articles. --NrDg 01:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It is a real episode (check YouTube). However, the spelling of the title varies. - Yours truly, S (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Ships Featured"??

What does this mean? All that listed is stuff like 'Jiley', 'Moliver', and such forth. I don't see where people came up with this, and if it's true, please tell me why this is some-what important to this article. Abcw12 (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is meaningless nonsense and has been removed. Fan invented names are not a creation of the show writers so don't belong. --NrDg 03:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to split article into separate season articles

This article is getting too long and a bit unwieldy to maintain. It is proposed to split the article into separate season articles as is done on other shows. Please comment.

i see no disagreements, so we should start the split!- Yours truly, [ S ] υ ρ є r ı o r reply! 18:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

New Episode

There is a new episode showing in the Uk on Disney Channel on Friday at 5.30. Source: http://www.sky.com/portal/site/skycom/tvguide/tvlistings I don't know how to do a table but there is the information.

Title: You Didn't Say It's Your Birthday Miley and Jackson forget about Robbie's 40th Birthday and throw him a surprise party to try and cover it up.

If someone could do the table that would be great. Mouseinthehouse (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's true. And there's a new episode, the episode aired in Brazil. I don't know its real name, but the episode is in the portuguese page (Português) of List of Hannah Montana episodes. In the episode, Miley likes a guy, son of a billionary man. When they have a date, the guy's family is very snobbish and ends up with everything. Meanwhile Robby and Jackson try to organize Jackson's room. (If there's something wrong with my English, I'm sorry, I'm from Brazil). Yuri Dutra (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unscheduled Episodes

Someone had put dates in the unscheduled episodes and I deleted them, because they had no reliable resources and no resources anyway of where they the info, so I changed them. - Alec2011 (talk) 3:43 PM, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WHOLE PAGE

Well, someone changed the whole page to just Episode names and summaries, I changed it all back. - Alec2011 (talk) 2:59 PM, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

NO! Don't change it back to like that because its in a separate article that way its more organized. See List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 1), List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 2) and List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 3). --Gary0203 (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)+
Sorry, I didn't know you wanted it like that. Maybe we should make the MORE DETAILED seasons stand out more. - Alec2011 (talk) 2:59 PM, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to have just episode number and episode name

Can we just have the episode number and name, the page is still to long? Even with Season 3, it will still be too long. We also now have Separate season pages, so, it's possible to do this. - Alec2011 (talk) 10:30 PM, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. But, I think we should at least wait til Season 3 airs in the US. Then, we can do that. --Gary0203 (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

July 6th episode

Hi! Since I am not a registered user of wikipedia, i cannot do this, so can someone who is do it? The July 6th episode of Hannah Montana in the US will be: Hannah in the Street with Diamonds, not You Didn't Say it Was Your Birthday. Commercials have been airing for the past three days showing scenes from this episode. Can someone plz change this? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.80.133 (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've been seeing the "You Didn't Say It Was Your Birthday" episode commercial on Disney Channel. So, we'll just have to find out on Sunday July 6, 2008. Thanks. - Alec2011 (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet Another Side of Me

When Rico handed Jackson his raise, what happened to it? As far as I could see, Jackson put the ice on top of it and just left it there. Thanks, --24.136.255.89 (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Season 3 Episodes

Hi,

What's up with the Season 3 episodes page? It appears to be vandalized.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.255.89 (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


There is no page anymore but there is a section. Could somebody please cite some references because some of these types of stories seem quite unlikely to become part of the series--Tiah12345 (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Season 1 episodes

Can someone please stop changing and fix the writer to the episodes. --DCFan101 (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Edited whole article!

I changed the list of episodes because its so boring to look at. --DCFan101 (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's suppose to be that way, we have a WHOLE Season page for the different Seasons for more info, I'm changing it back - Alec2011 (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The page is smaller that way and it's not that detailed like the other one.--DCFan101 (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
SO, The page is two bright and it's way to wide, change it back to the other way, it was more professioanl and easier to edit. - Alec2011 (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's just wait til' more people see this. --DCFan101 (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm taking the Season 3 Episodes off, because those are episodes, but not official, and we don't know what episodes will air first, all we know is the Production order not the official order. - Alec2011 (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
OK. But I'll hide the table just in case.--DCFan101 (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
OK I'll have it ssaved too, also don't post the episdoe air dates after August 3, because they are unknown. - Alec2011 (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure!:D --DCFan101 (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you mind if I pick some "not so bright" colors? I have some really good ones in mind... - Alec2011 (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead. If you don't know how to do it just give me the colors.--DCFan101 (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of the new colors? - Alec2011 (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely better and a little darker than my colors. :D --DCFan101 (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Once we get more Season 3 information, we can start the Season 3 Chart. Also, I actually like the page better than before, thanks for changing it :D. - Alec2011 (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

New Episode on August 31, 2008

PLEASE STOP DELETING THE AIRDATE! PLEASE WATCH DISNEY CHANNEL SO YOU KNOW THAT THE TEST OF MY LOVE PREMIERES ON AUGUST 31, 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --72.234.211.105 (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'LL STOP CHANGING IT. I FINALLY SAW THE COMMERCIAL, SO I ADDED IT BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks, :D - Alec2011 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Hannah Montana Logo.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Change of article name

I propose that this article be changed to Hannah Montana (episode list), and similar articles similarly changed, on the grounds that no real encyclopedia has articles with those kinds of names. OneWeirdDude (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Season 3

I've added season 3 news from an official Disney Channel source. Thanks :D. - Alec2011 (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Protect

We need to protect this page from people, because people are using vandialism to announce airdates that aren't true, and without an OFFICIAL source. Thanks, :D. - Alec2011 (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I vote registered users only protection. dr.scholl201 (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Me too, plus we need to protect the Hannah Montana talk page, the Miley Cyrus article, and Miley Cyrus's talk page. Elbutler (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Screwed up page

someone screwed up the page. now the link for season 3 goes to season 2 and it's all out of order. Also, it looks like someone was experimenting with crap text at the bottom. dr.scholl201 (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject

I am proposing a WikiProject for any article pertaining to the actress, singer and songwriter Miley Cyrus, as well as for the franchise, Hannah Montana. A majority of these articles (ex: "Who Said", Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus and Miles to Go) are lacking sources, images, description and more. They can and should be expanded. I am proposing this WikiProject so that any collaborators may work on the articles pertaining to the singer/franchise, the goal being to bring them up to a FA and GA status on Wikipedia. To sign up, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Miley Cyrus & Hannah Montana --Ipodnano05 (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How did Miley Become Hannah

miley became hannah at the age of 12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.161.248 (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(Taylor Momsen)

Taylor Momsen of Gossip Girl also came close to getting the part of Hannah Montana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.98.185 (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hannah Montana tribute distro

I propose to add a little link to: http://hannahmontana.sourceforge.net/Site/Home.html After all, not many ppl have a special linux distribution ;-) Jospoortvliet (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What does it have to do with an encyclopedic article describing the HM franchise, or the singer/actress, and how does it comply with the External Links guidelines? --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 15:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit?

Why can't we edit the season pages on the list of HM episodes page, because there's things wrong in it....? - Alec2011 (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You have to edit it though the articles. thats what the names and writers come from.--Jay M. Baxter-Payne (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean? - Alec2011 (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive

the page was getting to long so it has been archived. you can look at them at the above link. --gdaly7 (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference list

One reference is duplicated in the reference list. Hallpriest9 (Talk) 22:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Why are there no discriptions?

None of the episodes have desriptions? Please add them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schank1234 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If you talking about on the List of Episodes Page, then you have to go into each seasons page to see the episode descriptions. - Alec2011 (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh Thanks. I really appricate it :D
Schank1234 (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the template used in the episode articles

Recently I noticed a number of errors and inconsistencies in the Hanna Montana episode lists so I decided to start fixing them. As List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 1) seemed to be the worst, I started with that, fixing a number of things.[3] One thing that I noticed, that is not immediately obvious if you don't look at the this article, is that the episode template used results in the episodes being displayed in this article in table format without any episode summaries. Review of a number of episode list articles revealed that most seem to include episode summaries, which seems natural. After all, people generally look for primary episode information, ie episode number, title, airdate and summary, not secondary information such as writers, directors and production codes. (The last could actually be classified as tertiary information, it's not included at all in some lists) Forcing primary information to be only in the individual season articles forces the readers to the individual articles making the main list pretty much useless. To provide better presentation of the information in this article, I switch back to the standard episode template, which causes the episodes to be listed as they in each of the episode articles, including edit summaries for each one. It should be noted that, prior to November 11, 2008, this is how the episodes were presented in the article. On that day, one editor took it upon himself to decide, without any discussion, that edit summaries should not be included.[4][5][6] There was some immediate opposition[7][8] and there is later evidence of people asking for the summaries to be returned.[9] For these reasons, switch back to the standard template seemed the natural thing to do, as nothing is really gained by using the non-standard template.

Note: I have just corrected the error described below so the following text is now redundant. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There's also an issue with the non-standard template, in that that causes it to transpose the "WrittenBy" and "DirectedBy" fields so that they display out of order, as in the following example:

Series # Season # Original title Directed by Written by Original airdate Prod. code
11x01"title"[1]DirectorWriterJanuary 1, 1980101
This episode uses {{Episode list}}

{{Episode list/Hannah Montana 

|EpisodeNumber  = 1
|EpisodeNumber2 = 1x01
|Title          = title
|RTitle         = [2]
|DirectedBy     = Director
|WrittenBy      = Writer
|OriginalAirDate= January 1, 1980
|ProdCode       = 101
|ShortSummary   = This episode uses {{Episode list/Hannah Montana}}
|LineColor      = ffd43f

}} The second episode uses {{Episode list/Hannah Montana}}

I noticed it once before but didn't realise the significance at the time because somebody had worked around the fault, rather than fixing the fault itself. It only became obvious recently, when somebody else noticed it and worked around it.[10][11] While the fault can be worked around, it shouldn't. The template should work exactly as the instructions say. It doesn't and this is another reason why it shouldn't be used in lieu of the standard template.

After I made the changes there was no opposition and 50 edits were made to the pages, mostly further improving the article. Then, the editor who created the non-standard template decided to revert everyone's changes,[12][13][14] and now insists that I should discuss my changes, so I thought I'd throw it open to discussion here. Should we use the non-standard, flawed template and not display episode summaries in this article, forcing people to have to go to the individual season articles, or should we use the standard template which includes episode summaries, like most episode articles do?

I should point out that I have fixed the articles so that they presently show the writers and directors in the correct columns and display episode summaries in the main article until such time as the template creator can fix the template. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion we should always use standard templates as the purpose IS standardization across articles to make the encyclopedia look like a consistent whole. It also means fewer mistakes in using the templates as the standard ones are well known and extensive use tends to get most errors in the template fixed quickly.
The issue here, and why I didn't object when this was done, having an overall list of episodes and three season episodes lists that show the exact same information because of exact transclusion does not make sense - it is just pure redundancy. The new template made it possible for the main list of episodes list to be a pure summary of just the main episode info and left it to the season lists to give the additional details. The new template made it possible to maintain the season lists and the tranclusion into the main list extracted only the key info.
Reverting the template means we lose the summarization feature. If we decide we don't want that feature we might as well merge back the separate season lists into one main list. Or alternatively just create soft redirects (and only soft redirects) to the separate season lists in the main episode list. Point the main article to the separate season lists as well.
My personal preference in all this is to use the standard template as maintenance of the current situation is becoming unwieldy and prone to mistakes. Also keep the separate season lists but truncate the main list to only soft redirects to the season lists with nothing else of value in that article. Modify the main article to point to the season lists instead of the main episode list. The main episode list thus becomes deprecated. What I don't want to see is exact transclusion of the separate season lists into an overall episode list. The split occurred because that article was getting excessively long - we should just accept that there was a split and move on. --NrDg 16:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with NrDg, it was split for a reason, because people wanted the page to not be so long. I changed it back, and I will keep an eye on it. There's not reason to put them all back on the same Lis of episodes page, and havethem be the same for the that and the season's pages as well. - Alec2011 (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
NrDg has indicated that the main page should be soft redirects but the changes that you've just made to this article[15] added extra tables to the page, duplicating a lot of what is in the season articles. The point of transcluding the episode lists was to avoid unnecessary duplication of information. All season specific information should be at the season articles, not here, and certainly not both here and at the season articles. Your changes are going to make it very easy to arrive at a situation where the information here and at the season articles contradicts each other. It makes absolutely no sense to do that because it means that you need to maintain two pages for each season instead of just one. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and per be bold did what I suggested. Please discuss further here if change is objectionable. --NrDg 23:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems that the three of us are in different corners of a triangle. To be brutally honest, I don't like the idea of making this article into what is effectively a disambiguation page, and it seems others disagree too,[16] although, from his episode summary, he disagrees with me as well. I feel that going to the extreme of removing all content other than soft redirects removes an element of functionality, in that it makes searching for specific data more complicated, which is one of the reasons I started cleaning up the articles. With only links to articles, if somebody is looking for a specific episode they'd have to look through multiple articles. For example, the average person turns on the TV and sees "The Way We Almost Weren't". How do they find out what season it was in? Most likely, they'll look at the main article(1), find the link to the list of episodes and click it, taking them to this article(2). They'll first click on season 1(3), not find it, and then click on the season 2 link(4). If the information is in this article, they only have to look at two articles. for this and many other reasons, my preference for this article is as it was here.
It's taken a while to reply here because I've been doing a bit of research. I had a look at about 110 different TV programs of differing genres to see how the various "List of foo episode" articles are managed. Quite a few of the programs didn't have episode articles but I eventually came up with a list of 66 that do. Of these, one (List of Roommates episodes) is a hard redirect back to the main article, made because the series was cancelled after nine episodes had aired. Only thirteen episodes were eventually aired and the episode list was merged back into the main episode article. Another article, List of Law & Order episodes is a hard redirect to List of Law & Order seasons. List of The Simpsons episodes doesn't contain episode summaries. With 21 seasons under its belt the list of episodes page is 74KB without plot summaries. It would be far too large with plot summaries included. Another nine programs, all with a lot fewer seasons than Law & Order or The Simpsons show no plot summaries. However, the remaining 55 programs (83.3%) all include plot summary information on their episode list articles.
Episode lists with plot summaries
Episode lists without plot summaries
+ - This is an atypical example. Because of the longevity of the series, the episode list redirects to List of Law & Order seasons. The individual season articles do not show episode summaries.
++ - This is an atypical example. The episode list covers 21 seasons and, even without episode summaries is 74kB long.
* - Episodes of this program don't really have plots to summarise.
For the sake of standardisation, and for reasons I've already stated elsewhere I feel that transcluding the episode lists as we were doing, with plot summaries included, is what we should be doing here, especially as most articles include the plot summaries, except those with really good reasons not to. We don't wnat to make separate tables on this page for the reasons that I explained here. We need to resolve this soon because the articles are a mess and getting worse because of people who choose to revert blindly without bothering to discuss and without making consistent changes across all affected articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you AussieLegend. We are all different editors and we all have different prefrences. I also agree with that this is going nowhere because some people agree with one and some agree with something totally different. I have seom ideas that we could use but here's what I think (please don't use this against me as I'm trying to help out).
Let's say someone just saw the episode Hannah in the Streets with Diamonds, and they wanted to see what season or when it premiered (as if they missed it or something). They really have two options, go the the FUll season episodes page with a lot more info on the episode, or if they just want to see what season it is in or the number, they can simply go the the List of Episodes page and get just the general episode ifo without all of the other info included (Summary Characters and music, etc.). if people want to change the List of Episode pages back to the original way (like Wizards or something) then we really shouldn't have each season in it's own page. The proposal was made because the artilce was getting too long and you had to scroll down a lot to see the episodes. We did move the seasons into each pages with lots more info in them. Now the List of Episodes pages (if we keep the seasons separate) should have just an overview of what the seasons are and what episode name, number, date, and prod. code. Referring back to the Law & Order List of Episode page. I like how it ahs just the name, dfate, and number, that is basically what we really need to do it on this page. If people agree, I can do the work and create this, as I can do it in a snap. - Alec2011 (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
My attempt at WP:BOLD was slapped down with no discussion WP:BRD which was somewhat discouraging. I would have appreciated a comment at this discussion as to the reasons. My current thinking is to emulate List of The Simpsons episodes as it is a featured episode list which means it has been judged as a standard to strive toward for other episode lists. In general emulating a featured article is strongly desired as the goal is to eventually turn any article into a featured article and the best way to get to that is to see what has worked in the past. We should be looking at only the featured episode lists as guidance. The Simpsons is atypical because of the number of seasons but I don't think that means it can't be an exemplar.
I strongly don't want to see transclusion of each of the separate season lists. That is just a backdoor way of merging the separate seasons back into a single list and turns the season lists into maintenance articles. The overall list should be minimal as exemplified by the Simpsons list and other features episode lists. Maintenance of that list is minor as key info is trivially manually copied from the season list. If a summary is included it is kept to one sentence, no more. The modified template that led to this discussion was an attempt to automate that summarization but I can't see how that can work and keep this list to feature list standards.
As to the issue of searching for an episode by name, I have created redirects for each episode that points to the appropriate list entry in the season lists. The title entry in the main season list can be wikilinked to the fuller info in the season lists.
The season list as it is now is, in my opinion, what we want. A short 1 sentence summary could be added, but no more. --NrDg 17:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, we should keep it how it is now, no more changes. This is a way to have just episode names and no summaries. I feel this can work, if we all leave it alone and don't add false info with a GOOD source added. We need an overivew of the seasons and have the seasons separate pages to have more info. So, do we all agree? - Alec2011 (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I would consider this edit by Haha169 (talk · contribs) as supporting keeping it as it is now. As to references, we shouldn't need any for the table contents as anything there should be well supported in the season list. I would be amenable to keeping this list to only aired episodes where references are not generally required. --NrDg 17:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The Simpsons is organised somewhat differently to this series. Each episode of the Simpsons has its own rather lengthy article, each of which is linked to from the episode list page. There's simply no need to include plot summaries because the summary information is directly available from the individual episode entry. It's effectively doing what transclusion does, just in a slightly different way because each episode has its own article. We could emulate the Simpsons article by including links to each episode entry in the respective season articles. In fact, I've just done that for season 1, as a demonstration. Now we don't need to transclude. That said, we still have the issue that I raised previously, that of now having two articles to maintain for each episode, this one and the individual season article whereas, with transclusion, only the season article needs to be maintained. Transclusion, if done correctly, isn't simply a backdoor way of merging the separate seasons back into one article, not that there is anything really wrong with that anyway. Anything can be excluded from the transclusion. As of this edit only a portion of each season article was being transcluded into the main article. I've just modified the season articles so that only the actual episode information is transclude and there's certainly information in each episode that can probably be presented in a better way. I'd have to play with the template to see what can be achieved. The "Title Reference" information can be deleted completely. It's all uncited and seems to be speculative. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Clearly the problem of you doing http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hannah_Montana_episodes&oldid=294462473 this edit] this is that your putting the info of the seasons back onto one page and therefore defeating the purpose of having each season into different pages.... - Alec2011 (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't defeat the purpose at all. The purpose of splitting the articles was to make maintenance easier. Maintaining 3 smaller pages is a lot easier than maintaining one big page. Some editors complained about scrolling difficulties but that really is silly. When the split was being discussed the page wasn't very long at all. There are much, much, much longer pages on Wikipedia. Including extra tables in this article increases maintenance because it increases complexity. That does defeat the purpose of splitting the article because now you have to maintain two pages for each series, the season article and this one. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

<--- Template:Episode list/Stargate used in List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, which is also a featured list, seems to allow for parameters LongSummary and ShortSummary with the ShortSummary used in the summary episode list and the long summary available for use in the main season article. My main issue with transclusion is the excessive length of the summary which is totally inappropriate in the overall episode list. Some discipline, sorely lacking with the current set of editors to these articles, and extremely difficult to impose, to keep the summary to 4 to 6 lines, would go a long way to improving the lists. There are some other items in the summary section that current consensus thinks important, such as guest cast and other bolded miscellany, those are definitely inappropriate for the overall episode list. They were included in the season list episode entries as part of a compromise to get rid of individual episode articles by including key info in the episode list. --NrDg 18:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the summary information is somewhat excessive. As I indicated, there are other ways of presenting some of it as there are several unused general purpose fields in the template. Asan example, I've just modified List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 1) to display "Hannah song(s) featured" in one of the unused fields. That's not to say we couldn't use another template with the ShortSummary option. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I like that Idea, but if there's an episode with a lot of songs, it stretches out the height of the table. Can't we just leave it how it is in the description? just make the descriptions smaller? - Alec2011 (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I haven't checked the other seasons but in season 1 there's only one episde where that happens, so it's not a real problem. Remember, this is a series that will run to four, maybe five seassons at most so it's not going to be a long article anyway. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi. I'm going to add a few comments that may help in formatting the page. I've had this page watchlisted for about a year as I do enjoy watching the show, and I had planned to work on it to get it promoted to WP:Featured list status; however, that was at the time when a lot of pre-teen Disney fans were here and I couldn't be bothered dealing with that. I've also got a fair bit of experience with the FL process: I've got 20 FLs under my belt, 11 of which are TV/episode related. I'm also the FL director, so I've also seen a number of other episode lists be promoted and know what is and isn't expected.

The project has many episode lists (and season pages) at WP:FL, but only two are mentioned, List of The Simpsons episodes and List of Desperate Housewives episodes. The episode lists at FLC have been identified by the community as the best that Wikipedia can offer. I don't understand why comparisons would be made to other lists that do not meet that standard. Some of the episode lists given above are well below par, and should not be being used as benchmarks for this page.

I could go on, but generally, many of the "summaries" do not summarise the episodes, they tease the reader into thinking "what happened next?" Many of them do not utilise {{episode list}}, which is something we shouls be looking for to acheive a standard look across the encylcopedia, and a lot are unreferenced. I'll list the Featured episode lists (not anime), from the most recently promoted going backward, and discuss them where necessary

So yeah, there is a fair bit of differences, but in general, where there are no season pages, the LoE will contain summaries. If there are season pages, the main LoE does not. Only two series have season pages and LoEs with summaries, and they are two of the earliest promoted FLs. Obviously the most recently promoted episodes are those that are currently the most accepted format, both at FL, and the Television WikiProject. There are a few other things to keep in mind that have come forward as FL and WP:TV work together, even if FL isn't the end goal (although there is no reason why is shouldn't be):

  • Information should not be repeated on two pages. A LoE for series with season pages does not need episode summaries because the LoE is summarising the information found in the season pages.
  • Except for occurrences where using {{episode list}} cannot be used, it should be used to achieve a uniform look across all Wikipedia's episode lists
  • In recent WP:Featured list candidates for episode lists, there has been a move away from transclusion as this can have a few knock-on effects:
  1. Do IP editors (the majority of Wikipedia's readers) know how to edit if they see an error?
  2. If the season page contains an error, that error is repeated on a second page.
  3. If a vandal removes or adds just a single character to the transclusion code, it messes up an entire table rather than just one word.
  • Additionally, the inclusion of production codes has also been questioned as necessary. If episodes are aired outside the production order, then it may be of encyclopedic interest to include them, but if they are aired in the same order, "Season #" and "Series #" columns are all that is necessary.
  • If a series has only 3 seasons, WP:TV suggests that individual season pages are unnecessary, as the information that would normally be included in those pages can be included at the main TV series article and the LoE page. If a series hits 4 seasons, it is worthwhile creating season pages so the LoE and main series articles doen't get too large with information. For series that don't even last a full season, the episode list should be included in the main TV series page.

Hope some of this info helps the editors of this page . Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I see what everyone is saying. I guess we should ait if we add anything, but this is getting way out of hand, we can't agree on anything, once one person ads something, another one doesn't like it. These tables are so confusing. I'm going to test out a few new tables and come up with a way that makes everything organized, summarized, and all around totally different. It' like we might as well re-do, reorganize, and completely re-do all of the pages, as it's way to complicated now that everyone is making up stuff and vandalizing the pages. - Alec2011 (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Just replying to a few points by Matthewedwards:
  • "I don't understand why comparisons would be made to other lists that do not meet that standard. Some of the episode lists given above are well below par, and should not be being used as benchmarks for this page." - Episode lists were essentially chosen at random. (the vast majority are series I have on my server or DVDs, while a handful are series that I've recently edited) They are used only to demonstrate that episode summaries are commonly used on most (that I checked) LoE pages and for no other reasons than that.
  • "Do IP editors (the majority of Wikipedia's readers) know how to edit if they see an error?" - This is a question that can be asked of every article, not just those that are transcluded.
  • "If the season page contains an error, that error is repeated on a second page." - On the other hand, if transclusion is not used then when somebody makes a mistake on one page with the episode title, we have contradictory information on two related pages. My point is that different, but similar, errors will occur with either method. It's just plain common sense to know that maintaining two pages is more difficult than maintaining one.
  • "If a vandal removes or adds just a single character to the transclusion code, it messes up an entire table rather than just one word" - This can happen with any table.
  • "Additionally, the inclusion of production codes has also been questioned as necessary." - I've questioned that myself. I don't think we need production codes here.
  • "If a series has only 3 seasons, WP:TV suggests that individual season pages are unnecessary" - Looking into why this article was split, at first I was surprised to see a proposal to split this article when there were only two seasons but at that point the article was over 58KB and getting rather unwieldy to maintain so there certainly seem to be cases where an early split is justified.
  • "Hope some of this info helps the editors of this page" - Hopefully it will. I certainly found it illuminating. Thanks for taking the time to post it all. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
If this helps, I've amde a couple of options for the List of Episodes page that will work and keep it minimal. I've done four options. You any of you like any of these options: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Alec2011/(Test_Page) - Alec2011 (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Using custom tables is not a good idea because they're too complex for most users. List of Numb3rs episodes, a featured list, uses {{Episode list}} to achieve the same result and I think that's a much better idea, although I still prefer transclusion. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't that make since though, if it's complicated, then they might not mess with it. Also, I really like the first one on that page or the third one. Do you like any of them? - Alec2011 (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I agree, custom tables should be avoided as much as possible and I think List of Numb3rs episodes is a good exemplar for what we should do. Using the same episode list template in both the overall summary and in the season summaries will reduce errors in manually copying data - what gets copied is to the same named parameter. If the tables are set up with the same column headers we could just copy and paste a table entry from the season list to the corresponding location in the overall list and just delete the short summary section. Easy to do and very little chance of error. We could also use transclusion if noinclude, include tags surround the summary, but I think this would be more error prone than just manual copy. Might give that a try anyway to see how it works. I think the alternating colors that people want are just decoration and don't add to ease of interpretation of the tables, which is the primary goal. Alternating colors are good for wide ledger type tables were you can lose track of what line you are on but I don't see that as a problem in these tables. --NrDg 00:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I created a version of this article using {{Episode list}} at /test. Basically I just copied the season tables to replace the transclusions of an old version of this article and deleted the shortsummary. I tried doing noinclude /noincludes inside the template but that doesn't seem to work. --NrDg 01:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
NRDG, didn't we have that before, but then Someone changed it? I like that it's easier to edit. I added the colors (every other episode) wasn't for decoration, but to help people find out which episode is which (so they don't go through the wrong column of rows). We should try it. - Alec2011 (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
If we get back to that point we will do it with the strong consensus of a number of involved editors, which is what we are working to get to now and didn't have then. I don't think the table lines are long enough for alternating colors to make much difference. This is a minor point though. --NrDg 01:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Not really. It isn't hard to read across a line across six column in a table without getting lost. If there is, we, and many other publications need to address our tables. I expect to see this at Disney.com or a Hannah Montana fanpage, not a professional encyclopedia. See WP:COLOR and WP:ACCESS for why it's not a minor point. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
(after 2×EC)(reply to AussieLegend) an unregistered, new-to-the-site editor will almost definitely have a better understanding of editing something like
{{Episode list
 |EpisodeNumber=1
 |EpisodeNumber2=1
 |Title=[[Lilly, Do You Want to Know a Secret?]]
 |DirectedBy=Lee Shallat Chemel
 |WrittenBy=Michael Poryes, Rich Correll, Barry O'Brien
 |OriginalAirDate=March 24, 2006
 |ProdCode=101
}}
than if he came across {{:Hannah Montana (season 1)}}. I don't think they would understand that "Hannah Montana (season 1)" refers to Hannah Montana (season 1), they almost certainly won't be aware of transcluding, and it may turn them away from not only editing this page, but any of our pages. Yes, even removing or adding a single character can mess up a table, but if someone messes up the transcluded page, it will appear here and whoever has this page watchlisted will not know it is messed up. At least if they mess up a table that is actually here, someone will see it. I think your contradictory argument is weak. How is it better to have two wrong pages than just one? Are the "101", "102", "103" figures that are being presented as production codes actual codes or do they hust represent "Episode 1 of season 1" etc? If so, they're probably not real production codes. Usually they can be found on the very last frame of the closing titles along with the copyright notice and the "the names of characters in this programme are fictional and do not represent any real person living or dead". It appears as though some episodes were aired in a different order than they were produced so it may be necessary to include the numbers.
(after 2×EC)(reply to NrDg). Again, WP:WikiProject Television is trying to do away with transclusion and strongly suggests avoiding it. Yes, some of the FLs still do it; but they are from a time when it was more accepted, and some that used to do not any more. Alec2001, applause to you for making some mockup tables to try to deal with this page, but the aim of the Project and the Episode coverage taskforce is to acheive and maintain some sort of stability and consistency over all episodes. True, a lot don't, but that is because this is a volunteer service that has no deadline to finish. WRT "if it's complicated, people might not edit it" (paraphrased) that goes completely against Wikipedia's and the Foundation's mission statements and founding issues.
Looking at your possible alternatives, here are a few problems I think you might have to overcome in implementing them.
  1. This numbered or chronological example is more like what one would expect of an embedded list, and is at the very opposite end of the spectrum of MOS:TV. There are other WP:MOS issues, such as using italics for episode titles
  2. This option is somewhere close to what WP:TV expects, except for the fake episode links (those that do not have articles shouldn't be linked because there should be a link to the season page before the table). The use of Colour is innappropriate, though, as it should only be used to identify something specific, and in line with WP:ACCESS, rather than being used to make the page pretty or Disney-fied. Font size should be 100%. Not all readers have 20/20 vision.
  3. This option could work, but what's the reason for sacrificing important information such as writers and directors? I could understand if the space was being used for something else, but it's just unsightly whitespace
  4. This option looks a lot like episode lists from the 2005-2006 era of Wikipedia. Not particularly bad, but why go back 4 years?
Here's my suggestion, which is close to Episode list manual of style, part of the TV-MOS that was the subject of a number of proposals and Requests for Comments over a long period of time from a number of editors:
Episode # Season # Title Directed by Written by Original airdate Prod
code
11"Lilly, Do You Want to Know a Secret?"Lee Shallat ChemelMichael Poryes, Rich Correll, Barry O'BrienMarch 24, 2006101
22"Miley Get Your Gum"David KendallMichael PoryesMarch 24, 2006103
33"She's A Super Sneak"David KendallKim FrieseApril 7, 2006105
44"I Can't Make You Love Hannah if You Don't"Roger S. ChristansenKim FrieseApril 14, 2006108
This version does away with the hover-over hidden links at "Ep.#" and "Ser.#". I'd never seen this before so I asked at WT:ACCESS about the {{explain}} template -- it doesn't work for users reading Wikipedia with screenreaders such as JAWS, or for those accessing a printed version. Footnotes should be used instead, or the full words as I did. The wikilinks to non-existant articles have been removed; as I said above, there should be a link to List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 1) at the beginning of the section. I've made use of {{episode list}} There's simply no reason for not using it. It has all the fields we could need, and it is the simplest way for new editors to add information. Font is full size and the colours have been reduced to the table header, which also helps with ACCESS issues.
Again the MOS:TV page is very helpful so if anyone hasn't read it, it may be of assistance in helping with this discussion. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed this is pretty much the same as NrDg's /test page. I think that's the right direction to be heading in, and see no reason why it shouldn't be moved into mainspace. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

"an unregistered, new-to-the-site editor will almost definitely have a better understanding of editing something like <example> than if he came across {{:Hannah Montana (season 1)}}." - The simple fix to that is to add a hidden instruction: 

== Season 1: 2006-2007 ==
{{Main|List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 1)}}
{{:List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 1)}}
<!-- To edit the episodes in this section, you need to edit the article listed above. -->

Arguing that an unregistered, new editor won't understand something is really a non-issue. Unregistered, new editors really don't understand much at all. Often even the simple stuff eludes them. You really need to take into account that transclusion is used all the time. Look at the bottom of each article and you're bound to see a transcluded template or several. Should we turn away from those too?

"I think your contradictory argument is weak. How is it better to have two wrong pages than just one?" - The issues are the added maintenance required and the likelihood of contradictory information in related articles. Having to update two articles with almost the same information is more difficult than just having to update one. There's always the chance, especially with unregistered, new-to-the-site editors, that only one article will be updated, and that's no better than having the same error in two articles. In any case, there's always the distinct possibility that the same information could be wrong in both articles even if you don't transclude. That happens all the time. And of course, related to this is a statement that you previously made, "Information should not be repeated on two pages." The simple fact is, you can't get around this, no matter which method you use. Only NrDg's effort[17] completely got around that and it was rejected without discussion.[18] The test page that he has since created, which approaches what the FLs do, still duplicates a large amount of what is in the individual season pages. If we want to do this properly then {{Episode list}} really needs to do what {{Episode list/Hannah Montana}} does, ie selectively transcludes information, as in this example, where the season articles contain episode summaries but this article doesn't, and it's all done through the magic of transclusion. I originally changed from using {{Episode list/Hannah Montana}} because I wanted to see episode summaries in this article and because the template had an error. We've now decided not to include summaries and I've fixed the error so the template now provides exactly what we need. There's no need to copy and paste information to this article because what we seem to want to see is directly transcluded.

"if someone messes up the transcluded page, it will appear here and whoever has this page watchlisted will not know it is messed up." - Since the primary source of episode information is the season articles, whoever has this page watchlisted should also have the season articles watchlisted. If they don't, then they won't know if somebody updates the season articles and doesn't update this list, which itself is introducing an error here. Whichever way you go, it's the same problem. However, using {{Episode list/Hannah Montana}} eliminates the need to update this article at all, except for when the lead needs changing. All episode information is updated at the individual season articles. There's a single possible point of failure, not two points, which is always desirable. The only non-desirable issue here is that it requires using a non-standard template. The ideal situation would be to have the functionality added to {{Episode list}}.

"Are the "101", "102", "103" figures that are being presented as production codes actual codes or do they hust represent "Episode 1 of season 1" etc?" - I honestly don't know. I'm not sure where they came from.

"This version does away with the hover-over hidden links at "Ep.#" and "Ser.#". I'd never seen this before " - I hadn't seen it either but somebody didn't like the full words, which I agree is preferable to the hover links. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We appear to have reached consensus on the appearance and contents of this page. The only issue is the means to that end.
The number of featured lists that just copy the info to the summary page is evidence that this is not a significantly error prone process probably because as the page is featured it is heavily watched and errors corrected quickly. Also the redundancy is an loose error check - if the pages don't match something is broken. On the other hand transclusion does not seem to preclude a page reaching featured list status - that is currently discouraged but I don't see it as being disqualifying. If it is disqualifying then we can't do it - we all do want this page to become a featured list. I am impressed with the elegance of the intelligent transclusion though - I just don't like the complexity of {{Episode list/Hannah Montana}}. It is a modified copy of {{Episode list}} and will, over time, diverge from any modifications made to the source template. I worry about maintenance and we have already seen this as an issue. I would prefer a version that looked more like {{Episode list/Stargate}} that called on {{Episode list}} instead of recreating it. See also Template:Episode list#Show-specific hacks and other sub-pages for examples of how some other shows have done this.
As for the issue of informing editors to edit the season page, along with the hidden text instructions we can also use an edit notice to inform editors of what is expected. --NrDg 05:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I've had a look at the various templates and I think I've "fixed" {{Episode list/Hannah Montana}} so that it operates by calling on {{Episode list}} as {{Episode list/Stargate}} and others do. The only disadvantage with this is that you are then left with only the fields that are listed in {{Episode list/Hannah Montana}} and all of the fields listed are mandatory. They don't need data, but the actual field must be present. This isn't really a problem as the only field that is used other than the normal fields that we use is "RTitle" and that's easy to add.[19] --AussieLegend (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Another alternative that looks like it might get to where we want and does use standard templates is described at Template:Episode list#Sublists. Instead of using {{Episode list/Hannah Montana}} we could use {{Episode list/sublist|List of Hannah Montana episodes}} to achieve exactly the same thing without having to create a custom template. Assuming it works as needed, of course. --NrDg 15:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I like what we have now. Thanks for all the help, and now we can all be happy :D. AussieLegend, I see your having trouble figureing out what the "Prod. Codes" are ("Are the "101", "102", "103" figures that are being presented as production codes actual codes or do they hust represent "Episode 1 of season 1" etc?" - I honestly don't know. I'm not sure where they came from.) The prod. Codes are what number the episodes are filmed in. For example 301 means that the episode is season 1 episode 1 filmed. 320 is Season 3 episode 20 filmed. Disney aires their shows out of order so the prod. codes need to be in the tables so we can tell which episodes they are (so they don't thank they're aired in order) :D. - Alec2011 (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I added the ability to sort the table on production code if you want to see the episodes in production order. Click the little sideways hourglass symbol in the header to sort on that column. Production codes originally come from casting call info and TV.com is trusted to have them right. --NrDg 17:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I know, I was just explaing it to Aussie Legend (it seemed like she didn't know what they were). Also the source I get them from (the one you know), they are accurate too, that's where I get them from. - Alec2011 (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Alec, I do know what production codes are. I was saying I don't know where the codes came from and whether or not they are legitimate production codes or something somebody just made up since they're uncited. I'd also suggest you check User:AussieLegend/Userboxes. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
AussieLegend, I see what your saying. From what I found, the Prod. Codes are correct. I'll keep checking though, but they seem correct to me :D. - Alec2011 (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed Episodes

Can't Get Home To You Girl (324) http://actinginfo.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-02-23T03%3A28%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.53.12 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The source is for casting info. Episode info is tentative to assist in casting parts. Script details and even episode names are not set at that time and can change before broadcast. In other words this site is not a usable reference for episode information. --NrDg 03:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wheel on my Bed (Keeps on Turnin') is an episode. When I added it in, it got deleted. The episode can be found on youtube. That's the only prove I have. Check youtube. Just doing fans of HM a favour here, really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deerocks (talk • contribs) 04:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source so it can't be used as a reference. Citations from reliable sources are required for all future episodes. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

New HM 2-Part Episode

I added the info for the new HM 2-Part episode. NrDg said that I could add the info and I've told him the correct info to put. It's relaible and it SHOULDN'T BE DELETED!!!! - Alec2011 (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

References?

Do we really need all of the episode names Referenced? We already know they aired so we really know just the latest ones that haven't aired.... - Alec2011 (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If we have the TV Guide episode list as a general reference we don't really need a title reference for broadcast episodes. Does no harm to have them but it does make the references section a bit large in the summary article. I would have no problem with the title references removed and suggest we do that. List of Stargate SG-1 episodes - a featured list doesn't have title references. --NrDg 21:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree, we should just have the HM episodes page for TV Guide at the bottom and take all the references that have aired off. The references do make the section a bit large. I'll go ahead and take the ones we don't need off. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I also agree. Yes, I know it's a bit late, as the references have already been removed, but three people agreeing is better consensus than two. Who knows When we may have to refer back to this discussion. ;) --AussieLegend (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Transclusion

The result of an earlier discussion was that episode summaries shouldn't be shown in this article. Unfortunately, transclusion from the individual season pages resulted in episode summaries being included unless a Hannah Montana specific template that stripped the episode summaries was used. A desire to use only standard templates was expressed so transclusion was abandoned. Unfortunately, this meant that edits in the season articles also had to be included here manually, resulting in extra work for editors, and as I had suggested, several occasions when the season and main list articles contained different information. Following the instructions at Template:Episode list/doc#Sublists I've now been able to transclude the season articles using the standard template. After reworking this and the season articles slightly the displayed result is exactly the same as before transclusion,[20] but it's now only necessary to make changes to the individual season articles. Changes made to the articles are duplicated here, in the format we agreed upon, without a need to edit the season lists in this article, which is obviously a reduction in the effort required to maintain the lists. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Season 4 total episodes

I've just reverted this edit because it consists of original research. The citation provided does not state the number of episodes aired, it only states a total of 101 episodes. I'm not sure how the figure of 15 episodes was determined, but if the number of episodes ins seasons 1, 2 & 3 (26, 29 & 30 respectively) are subtracted from 101 you get 16 episodes,not 15. Regardless, it's still OR. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I did it by doing seasons 1, 2 & 3 (26, 30 & 30 respectively) subtracting that to get 15. I kept No Sugar, Sugar because it was produced for Season 2 and aired Internationally. Regardless, this post was OR (I'm sorry about that), now I'm just dicussing it. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Season four

Thought Everyone Should Know, Season Four Is Not Previewing right, To Who Ever Edited It, Maybe You Should Fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.38.45 (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"No Sugar, Sugar" and "Uptight (Oliver's Alright)"

These two episodes are one and the same. 95.180.11.40 (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No they aren't, as has been discussed previously and is explained in the season 2 article. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
This episode should be posted as "No Sugar, Sugar (re-wrote and renamed and premiered in season 3 of Hannah Montana as Uptight (Oliver's Alright))" because the episodes are the same, it was rewritten and changed and ended up premiered in Season 3 because of it. Mitchel Musso confirmed it.
The name of the episode is "No Sugar, Sugar", not "No Sugar, Sugar (re-wrote and renamed and premiered in season 3 of Hannah Montana as Uptight (Oliver's Alright))". "Uptight (Oliver's Alright)" is based on "No Sugar, Sugar" but it is not the same episode. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
"No Sugar, Sugar" will never air because of it being used in season 3 as "Uptight (Oliver's Alright)" the episode had scenes rewritten but revolved around the same plot of Oliver having diabetes just the things that got the episode pulled out of the run were removed so it could eventually air, there are several known facts that they are indeed the same episode, "Uptight (Oliver's Alright)" has the second season opening (as would have "No Sugar, Sugar" if it had aired), the episode revolves around Oliver having diabetes (as would have "No Sugar, Sugar" if it had aired), Mitchel Musso confirmed that the episode had scenes rewritten and scenes were reshot for the episode but some scenes were not meaning that scenes from "No Sugar, Sugar" are in the epiosode. All references on the pages confirm this and prove that the episodes are indeed the same and that it did eventually air just under a different name due to the changes that scenes that were reshot for the episode to remove the content that got it pulled in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.198.136 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Although a significant amount of "Uptight (Oliver's Alright)" is from "No Sugar, Sugar", they are not the "same" because there are differences between the two. If they are different, they can not be the same. Different and same are antonyms.--AussieLegend (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

edit request

Would like to add summaries for the episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberttaal (talk • contribs) 02:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There are already episode summaries in the articles for each season. Including them here would make this article too long. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
In fact they are specifically excluded from this article as part of the process used to transclude the contents of the season articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ www.tv.com
  2. ^ www.tv.com
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Hannah_Montana_episodes/Archive_2&oldid=1224931154"