Talk:List of Hannah Montana episodes/Archive 1

src: www.billboard.com

Video Talk:List of Hannah Montana episodes/Archive 1

DVD

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

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

Plase!

Maps Talk:List of Hannah Montana episodes/Archive 1

"and Oliver acts like shakeshepre."

Surely "and Oliver acts like shakespeare."?

DA!

src: www.pinecity.k12.mn.us

Atrocious

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

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

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

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

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

src: www.billboard.com

Fraud Myspace Accounts

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

src: static1.squarespace.com

Table

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll

Tally: (2/0/0)

Both table and sections

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

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

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

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

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

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

No table

Table

Support for Table

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

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

Brandonrc 23:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

src: thesource.com

Future episodes

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

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

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

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

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

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

src: www.billboard.com

Further explanation

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

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

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

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

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

src: i0.wp.com

Remaining synopses

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

• Money for Nothing, Guilt for Free

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

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

• The Idol Side of Me

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

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

• Debt It Be

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

The title refers to The Beatles song Let It Be.

• Bad Moose Rising

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

• Smells Like Teen Sellout

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

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

• Schooly Bully

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

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

• My Boyfriend's Jackson

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

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

• Torn Between Two Hannahs

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

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

src: www.latimes.com

Images

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

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

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

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

src: rage.com.my

Episode

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

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

src: i.pinimg.com

YouTube

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

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

src: journal.alabamachanin.com

People Who Use People

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

Placement of "Money For Nothing, Guilt for Free"

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

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

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

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

United Kingdom Airdates

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

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

Season 2 titles

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

Upcoming episode features Brooke Shields

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

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

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

Season Two - First Five

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

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

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

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

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

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

You Are SO WRONG!

Image Field Removed

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

New Jesse McCartney Episode

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

Editor's concern

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

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

Season Finale Deletion

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

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

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

Me and Mr. Jonas

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

Achy Jakey Heart

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

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

Notability review

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

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

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

US airdate or Original Airdate

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

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

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

What happened to the Episode pages?

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

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

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

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

Restoring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More vandalism

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

2nd episode article review

Information Lost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notable Guests

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

Sleepwalk this way

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

Everybody Was Best-Friend Fighting

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

Song Sung Bad

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

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

STOP DOING THIS!

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

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

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

Reminder

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

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

Lack of consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree. Tertiary sources can be used as reliable sources for content as long as they are judged good enough reliable sources for the purpose. Also WP:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. We are not talking about content here anyway, just notability. My judgment is that the tertiary sources IMDb and TV.com are not good enough for content but they are good enough to establish notability. The fact that they are user edited is relevant to the content only. In my judgment, therefore, notability HAS been established. --Preceding unsigned comment added by NrDg (talk o 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 o 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 o contribs) 07:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

production code 123

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

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

Guest Starring List

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

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

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

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

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

No Sugar, Sugar

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

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

Songs

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

Source of the article : Wikipedia