Talk:ICarly (2021 TV series)

The article needs to be restored

The article looks way different than it did before. It just looks messy now. Can someone please fix.Anthony hello123 (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Update; it has been restored!Anthony hello123 (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Notable guest stars

What makes a guest star notable to be included in the list? Having an article means the person is notable per Wikipedia standards, but most guest stars will have articles and maybe some notable guest stars won't. Having a reliable independent secondary sources mention the guest star and role in the episode would be more appropriate. Personal opinion of editors about notability is original research and is not a valid criteria. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

AwesomenessTV vs Awesomeness

Reading the article at Awesomeness it looks like AwesomenessTV is a current trade name and available for use as the company desires after the company changed its official name to just Awesomeness. The reference we have that shows involvement in this series, "The Futon Critic", lists "Nickelodeon Studios" and "AwesomenessTV" as production studios. End credits of the series itself, as attested by those viewing them, are that "Nickelodeon Productions" is listed, and since the actual credits are authoritative that overrides what Futon Critic says. Still AwesomenessTV isn't in the credits so all we have is the Futon Critic reference, and as a valid trade name is reasonable for the company to use to label its involvement if they so desire. Absent some other more reliable source, we should stick with what we have sourced. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I am quite sure that "AwesomenessTV" popped up in the credits for NICK's recent Drama Club series. But I don't know about this incarnation of iCarly, as I don't have Paramount+. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

"Awesomeness, LLC" is the legal name for AwesomenessTV, owned through "AwesomenessTV Holdings, LLC" (ref). That said, they are not credited in the series. And if there's a discrepancy between secondary sources and credits, then the actual credits take priority. That's partly because secondary sources sometimes get information from industry sources who may not always have all the facts.... and also because productions can undergo changes before the show is released. For example, they had to part ways with one of the showrunners. Maybe he was the one working through Awesomeness TV. Also, of note: they're using "Museum Visit" in the showrunner end card (where they would put "Schneider's Bakery" in the OG series); but I don't know the actual company name. So, let's leave it out for now and stick to just Nickelodeon Productions. — Starforce¹³ 20:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we should stick exactly to what the credits state for everything in the infobox. If it is not in the credits, it shouldn't be in the infobox either. Added information, not in the credits, should be covered in the article where appropriate if sourced and notable. This is contentious, so need consensus. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, the infobox content should stick to credits. If there's need to mention the production companies in the Production section then there are more reliable sources than FTC that say Nickelodeon Studios and Awesomeness (eg Variety, ET Online, The Wrap). I'm guessing this was part of the original ViacomCBS release (since they have the tendency to make press errors even about their own content/companies considering Nickelodeon Studios shut down 16 years ago). But I don't think the companies are worth mentioning in the Production section in this case.— Starforce¹³ 21:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The Futon Critic

Is not a reliable source for production codes because most of the codes come from network press releases which use network codes, not the codes the producing studio uses. In the case of iCarly they are differently not the production codes. Xeditboy (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

See my reply at User talk:Magitroopa#The Futon Critic. TL;DR- yes, it is reliable. There is no need to remove them. Magitroopa (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The only case that would supplant what is in The Futon Critic is if the episode end credits gave the production codes, the case for a lot of TV series. If we had that we would use that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

...and with that in mind, I decided to quickly check the end credits of an episode (specifically checked "iHate Carly")- no production code of any kind listed anywhere in the credits. So in that case, the production codes listed on TFC is what is being used. Magitroopa (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The only US studios that put them in the credits are Warners and FOX. The 104 is the provider's numbering used in the their press releases, not the studio's production code. Take a look at the CBS provided show All Rise on futon which was produced by Warners which use a T13.22xxx production code but futon lists the CBS version of the code. Also the codes are not needed any way as they all seem to be released in production order.' Xeditboy (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It is true that The Futon Critic themselves doesn't label them as production codes - they are under the episode title column. We are making an assumption that they are production codes as they appear unique and in production order. We have found in the past the info in the copyright office database of the shows when registered generally give those codes too so that supports the conclusion that they generally are production codes. Is there any indication of some other internal production coding system that we have access to that would give production sequence? I remember that there tends to be a short form for internal use during series production and a larger overall code that includes the series identity along with the sequence. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

As stated Futon generally use the same codes that the provider of the press releases use, not the studio production ones. There is the odd time that futon source the actual production code after the episode airs. As for short form codes that was true of when Paramount TV shows were in production. But get back to the real point the production code field is only really needed when episodes are released out of order, which isn't the case here making the use of them in the article redundant and this whole discussion mute. Xeditboy (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

There is literally nothing stopping Paramount+ from airing the episodes out of order in the future. Unless you can see into the future, which you can't. The first season and first half of the second season of Henry Danger all aired in production code order until it started in a random order. Amaury • 07:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Paramount+ is a streaming service, not a linear channel and have always released all their shows in production order. Xeditboy (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't mean anything. Again, you can't see into the future. Amaury • 14:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The production codes given to the revival have the same format as the ones from the original show, so I don't think how would these codes be misleading -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 15:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Production codes are never guaranteed to be in order because, even without network airing episodes out of order, sometimes filming and production is done out of order to accommodate scheduling conflicts. Stuck in the Middle did something like that with season 3 finale. So, it's not the network that aired the episodes out of order but rather the production was done out of order - and that can happen to streaming series too. Holiday episodes can be released out of order too to align with the holiday - even on streaming services. — Starforce¹³ 15:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Just chiming in here, I am unsure how to format this so sorry in advance, but the whole futoncritic production codes thing doesn't apply to any animated series nick does because genuine production material (which contain actual production codes) gives a completely different order than the numbers on futoncritic, and the numbers on futoncritic are the episode numbers/ordering that the executive producers choose to package them in, instead of going by production or airing order. For example, "Lockdown for Love", a season 13 episode of SpongeBob, using the code of "268" on Futoncritic, but that's the episode number as production material reveals a code of "325-1302", the episode number, or futoncritic number, is the packaged number ordered by the showrunners, and the correct ordering of the episode as they appear on home video/DVD sets. - OL.Wise.Editor (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. I linked this discussion to the user above in regards to edit warring over the ordering of an episode list on The Patrick Star Show. I mainly meant to link this in regards for better explanations as to why Futon Critic is used as a source for Nickelodeon shows' production codes when there are no production codes listed in the end credits, not for how cartoons are packaged as A/B segments vs. stand-alone episodes. Magitroopa (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

New cast members' last names

Is Harper's last name "Raines" (I accidentally reverted the edit that added her last name)? Is Millicent's last name "Mitchell"? Prcc27 (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

Opening this thread to address comments made between @BaldiBasicsFan: and @CreecregofLife:, please keep it civil and move this discussion about the episode table here rather than on edit summary comments -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 13:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t even know what to say when their removal rationale doesn’t even make sense. The concerns aren’t being addressed. Their edit summaries contradict their action. It is 17 hours until the episodes are revealed and it still hasn’t been explained why the skeleton that I didn’t even put can’t remain CreecregofLife (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Why do you keep on hiding the episode table when the information is already there? Wondering about your behavior again. Are you threatening me back because I already threatened you before? I seriously don't know why you are not improving a bit. We already got the issue covered for 2022 in animation, and then you just continued conflicts around me and other users. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

1. I’m not threatening you
2. I’m not hiding the episode table, you remove it entirely
3. Im not continuing any conflicts. Just because you started a conflict doesn’t mean my behavior hasn’t improved.

I honestly don’t know how I can discuss this with anyone who frames the discussion this way. CreecregofLife (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

In re "I'm not hiding the episode table": Yes, you did hide the series overview table. —C.Fred (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It was clearly already hidden before I touched it. I was only ever restoring what Baldi repeatedly removed. CreecregofLife (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha. Be aware of "collateral damage" in edits when you revert. —C.Fred (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Getting to the crux of the matter: there are framework episode entries for the next half-dozen or so episodes, projecting from an airdate of 15 April. They're commented out, so they aren't visible in the article. Which is more beneficial to the article: (1) Having them in and commented out, so they can be grabbed readily as needed, or (2) not having them in at all, and they can be added wholesale when the episode airs? —C.Fred (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  I honestly like the hidden skeleton, waiting in storage to be fleshed out. Now, obviously I’m not endorsing usage for every show, but when a season the size of iCarly has a set, closed rollout akin to fellow Paramount+ Star Trek shows (sans Prodigy whose return is more vague) it doesn’t hurt CreecregofLife (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Is the skeleton even necessary even if it is a streaming exclusive? I don't think so if we already got episode titles. Sure you can use a hidden skeleton if you want to have episodes with no titles confirmed yet, but I prefer the episodes that have titles to be unhidden. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'm partial to keeping the skeleton, I don't see benefit in removing the format for upcoming episodes when the production code and possible release dates are clear enough, episode titles and summaries can be added more easily later -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 15:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

"ICarly (upcoming TV series)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ICarly (upcoming TV series) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#ICarly (upcoming TV series) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Split list of episodes into a separate article

I think the list of episodes for the revival series into its own article.Cwater1 (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)