Talk:Girl Meets World

Sequel vs. spinoff

It can be described as a "sequel" if multiple reliable independent sources used the word "sequel" in describing it. I know there is sourcing describing it as a "spinoff", so its status as a spinoff is verified. But the sourcing will have to be checked to see if anyone (again, it should probably be more than one "someones") described it as a "sequel" series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead wording

The wording of the lead needs to be discussed here. Editors who are bold and then reverted are expected to actually discuss the matter per WP:BRD rather than continue to be disruptive. Honestly, this article should be returned to the WP:STATUSQUO on December 24, 2017, while this is figured out. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The only thing I honestly agree with from Smurfmeister is in their edit summary here, regarding it being unnecessary to mention Disney Channel twice (unless the show had actually moved to another network, which would also need to be stated if that happened, it's implied that it stayed on the network it started on). But when you made this edit as a compromise, Amaury, while not perfect, it eliminated the double mention of the network and to me was satisfactory. When Smurfmeister decided to revert your edit, I think that's the point it has gone too far, especially with them not deciding to discuss the change on a talk page (not just an edit summary, which is insufficient per WP:BRD#Discuss). I was even tempted to revert Smurfmeister's revert, and may do so if they continue to make reverts on this trivial matter of wording. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

FTR, I think this wording is the most concise, though I would replace the word "until" with the word "to" – i.e. it should be something like "...aired from [date] to [date]." (no comma) rather than "...aired from [date] until [date]." You could also go with something like "...aired for three seasons from [date] to [date]." --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MPFitz1968: Yeah, definitely agree now that stating it twice is unnecessary after thinking it over earlier this month, which is why I've worded it the way I did and why I left that alone and didn't return it to the original wording from before January. When I mentioned ...it still adds clarity and is consistent. in edit summary, with the consistent part, I was referring to the Disney Channel portion. It's consistent that if we word it as such and state "...that premiered on Disney Channel on June 27, 2014," we also have "...and ended on Disney Channel on January 20, 2017." You can see what I'm referring to when I'm talking about consistency, compared to "...that premiered on Disney Channel on June 27, 2014, and ended on January 20, 2017." Ended where? As you said, it's implied, but it just added extra clarity. However, like I said, I definitely see the repetitiveness now, and it's why I went for the wording I did so we don't need that same consistency. It also allows for a proper comma addition without visual awkwardness since the year is considered separate. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Something like that would work, too, I suppose. Since the year is considered separate, I would still prefer to have it worded in a way that the comma can be used, but I would be fine with that if that's what the consensus comes to. The current wording of the lead over on Mighty Med, like I mentioned, is actually where I got the idea to word the lead like that here and elsewhere, though I was originally planning on having "...that aired on Disney Channel for three seasons, premiering on June 27, 2014, and ending on January 20, 2017" here as opposed to what I did. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: One complication I just thought of, though, is the use the word "to" in that form of wording. Both "to" and "until" mean "until, but not including," I'm pretty sure. So if we say "the series aired from June 27, 2014 to January 20, 2017," we're saying the series ended on January 19, 2017, essentially, which isn't correct. Unless Wikipedia has, like, its own definition of "to" that I'm unaware of. The only way to solve that would be to either have "...to January 21, 2017," but that probably wouldn't work, or "...through January 20, 2017," which might work, but I'm not sure if that's "acceptable," so to speak, wording for television series articles. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

A simple statement "It aired on Disney Channel from June 27, 2014, to January 20, 2017." is sufficient. I dislike the word "premiered" as that word has overloaded meanings that don't always match first aired and is a marketing term Disney uses sometimes for some airing other than the first. The comma after the first year is an iffy MOS thing right now and should not be needed for a date range as "June 27, 2014 – January 20, 2017" is correct as well and means exactly the same thing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: That's another fair point. In the case of "premieres," I can understand why you find them problematic because they'll often have what they call sneak peeks/previews. I think in cases like Austin & Ally, Disney Channel stating "preview" for December 2, 2011, and "premiere" for December 4, 2011, was just to attract viewers since it was airing after the Good Luck Charlie film and also not on its regular day. December 2, 2011, was essentially the premiere, it was just called a preview for marketing purposes, I think, per what someone said here. But I think the same could be said for any show, really, like I Am Frankie, Hunter Street, Make It Pop, etc. For example, Make It Pop's first episode was shown on March 26, 2015, and then reran on April 6, 2015, what Nickelodeon called the premiere, if I recall. Although I think even Nickelodeon had it labeled as a rerun since it didn't show up on Showbuzz Daily's ratings, and they only post the ratings for the original airings for cable shows, not reruns. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: "Premiered" also has connotation of a major event and is a bit of unnecessary WP:PUFFERY when simple wording is sufficient. When I see something "premiered" I expect red carpet, celebrities formally dressed, and a party afterwards, none of which I will be invited to. A bit pretentious otherwise. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I think "premiered" is fine as a word to use in the lede for any TV show that doesn't have an "end date" – e.g. the lede for Bizaardvark. But for any show that has a beginning and an end date, "...aired from [date] to [date]" is the better way to handle this in the lede. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury:, I think you're taking this rather too far. Your original wording didn't work - accept it. Even after I made a compromise edit, you still had to change it - then accused ME of being stubborn. As you're so fond of hiding behind policy, perhaps you should refresh your memory regarding taking ownership of articles. Smurfmeister (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you thought, what matters is how you responded. The very first time you were reverted, you should have been here discussing the matter like we are now per WP:BRD, not being stubborn and going back to your version. As I predicted, your line of thinking is that because you made a compromise edit it means that no other editor shall dare touch a single word of that edit because there's absolutely zero chance that more improvements can be made. (Hint: Improvements can always be made.) Sorry to break it to you, but that's not how it works. If anyone's showing ownership of articles, it's you. Your original intention was to simply remove repetition. Well, I hate to break it you again, but guess what? My edit did not reintroduce that repetition because after thinking it over, I agreed it was repetitive, it just changed the wording slightly. You need to accept that another editor here disagreed with you and move on with your life. And, actually, by technicality, two have disagreed with you now since this discussion was started. At least I'm willing to accept that what I prefer may not actually be and would be totally fine with what IJBall and Geraldo have mentioned if that's where WP:CONSENSUS goes, because they're actually discussing it instead of mindlessly reverting like you have been. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I think language like 'mindlessly reverting' says it all. You talk about accepting things and moving on, but seem unprepared to do so yourself. Smurfmeister (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

He is however correct that once reverted you needed to discuss the matter. You made the first change, and then were reverted, so as per WP:BRD, you needed to discuss at that point. If your proposed wording actually was an improvement, that would be shown in the subsequent discussion – you shouldn't just assume that it's "better" once reverted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• The lead was better prior to the recent edits. The current wording is too, well, wordy and I'd support "from [blank] to [blank]". Describing the show as simply a comedy is misleading and does not adequately summarize the article per guidelines. Additionally, regardless of any procedural violations by other editors, it seems clear to me from the edit history and commentary that Amaury is editing WP:OWNishly. James (^talk/_contribs) 21:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Genres can only come from sources. I'm assuming there must be some sourcing support for "coming of age" as it's in the lede. It might also be worth checking to see if the Disney P.R. ever used the word "family" (i.e. as is in something like "family comedy"), as they've used that term before IIRC. But I'm willing to bet there is no sourcing support for any other genre. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Four people here supported the change to "...aired on [Network] from [Date X] to [Date Y]": IJBall, Geraldo Perez, James Allison, and myself. That's sufficient consensus, and so the wording has been updated. If there are any other issues with wording, a sub-discussion of this discussion can be made. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sequel

@Amaury: All of The cast from Boy Meets World appear in Girl Meets Word, just not in every episode. SportsFan007 (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

What do reliable sources call it? Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Guest stars don't count. The only actors who were main cast on Boy Meets World who are main cast on Girl Meets World are Ben Savage and Danielle Fishel. Aside from them, the main cast is completely different. Like I said, a sequel would involve all of the same cast, by which I mean main cast. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: It seems the sourcing we have in the article refers to it as both, which makes it one of those cases where it's one or the other. Spinoff would the correct terminology per my reasons that it's not all the same main cast, setting, etc., unless I happen to be looking at it from a very simplistic view. I dunno. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury and SportsFan007: Comparing articles "sequel" and "spin-off" and noting the change in focus from Cory in the first series to Riley in the second, spinoff looks more appropriate to me as to how to describe the relationship between the two shows. Casting doesn't matter that much, it is more about story focus. If the story continued to focus on Cory, I'd say sequel but the focus has substantially changed. It is not a continuation of the original story, it is telling a different one with some elements from the first being used. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I recall looking into this before, and I was surprised at how few reliable secondary sources actually referred to GMW as a "sequel" – to my recollection, the vast majority referred to it as a "spinoff"... FTR, I really dislike these preceded_by vs. related_to infobox parameter issues – I'd be happy if they just eliminated preceded_by and followed_by as possibilities from the infobox, leaving just related_to. Because editor disagreements over which of these parameters to use keep coming up... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Geraldo Perez's comment. Even the stories that do focus on Cory and/or Topanga generally tend to revolve around Riley, or they're just very minor B-stories that take up little substance in the episode. Agree with the above comments that spin-off would be more appropriate and fitting than calling it a sequel. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 16:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Should "Template:Girl Meets World" be on episode and character lists?

Template {{Girl Meets World}} was recently removed from List of Girl Meets World characters and List of Girl Meets World episodes. I believe that it should be listed there, as it is a link in the navbox. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Pointless, they are linked from the infobox and character list in the main article and those articles link back to the main article in the intro. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. At least for as long as the navbox exists anyway. However, if it is deleted (which seems very likely), then {{Boy Meets World}} should be transcluded, as this includes a duplicate of the same links. --woodensuperman 14:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(Technically, both should be transcluded at this point, as they both contain the links. There is no valid reason not to transclude {{Boy Meets World}} at this stage. Once the TfD is concluded, I guess the situation will be resolved.) --woodensuperman 14:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Television shows set in New York City

I would like to add Category:Television shows set in New York City in the Categories section. 86.131.222.121 (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:NOTDEFINING. Amaury • 21:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)