Jump to content

Talk:Kickin' It

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

"crazy of discoveries"

[edit]

"Brooke Dillman as Joan, a security guard at the mall and crazy of discoveries such as the Pocket Ninja."

This is unclear. What does "crazy of discoveries" mean? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

No offense to editors of this article, but it needs serious cleanup. I've recently written a couple of the actors' bio pages and have come across some sources that could help improve this page, but fair warning - a lot of the "character" descriptions in this article are fancruft(ish) and are most likely the reason this page has been tagged. If/when I work on this page over the next week or two, I'm going to need to remove much of the monotonous "character" trivia on the page to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. To give editors an idea of what I mean, one of the Disney Channel articles I've rewritten recently is the Jessie article (as of October 24, 2011). Don't get me wrong, I don't have any delusions that the Jessie page is anything close to a featured article, but it's in the shape where a new Disney Channel article can reasonably expect to be (before a show has had time to accumulate wider media coverage). Again, no offense intended to previous editors, but trivial "character" descriptions do nothing to improve an article on Wikipedia's quality scale. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a cleanup with sources. I've moved some info that was in the "Lead" section down to the "Production" section, so it's still here, just reformatted. As I said I would, I've also removed much of the "character" descriptions/spoilers. I know it's fun for viewers to add every detail about the characters to the article, but it reads more like episode synopses and actually serves as the fastest way to get a page tagged for cleanup. After the show has been on for a full season, someone can start a separate character page and add all the character trivia there, but for now, the best place to add the type of info I've removed is the List of episodes page (although most of it really doesn't belong there either). I'm not trying to spoil everybody's fun, but I'm just trying to get this page on the right track to becoming a semi-decent Wikipedia article. I've also added a cast photo to the page. The arrangement of the characters in the image makes it pointless to try and name each character in the text of the file box, so I'm asking another editor to create an image map for the cast photo. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image map for cast

[edit]

I created an image map using the Image Map Editor at http://toolserver.org/~dapete/ImageMapEdit/ImageMapEdit.html. The ImageMap extension code is generated in the tool (edit this section to see it). The tool is fairly self explanatory. More info at WP:Picture_tutorial#Image_maps. Order is important when there is overlap - foreground characters should be first in map. The characters overlap to do much more than put a circle over each face. Also I don't know the names of the characters. The image map here just has wikilink placeholders for now. Use as you wish. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The map is presently screwed up for me. Was the image changed? - Purplewowies (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source image was size reduced and broke the mappings. I removed the image map here and in the character article because of this - I should have watched for the resizing, but I missed that it happened. I may redo the image map in the future if I have the time, but will leave it out for now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for a split to a list of characters article

[edit]

In a major cleanup of this article done by Crakkerjakk October 29, 2011 (see diff [1]) a significant amount of character detail was removed and replaced by a summary. This improves this article but the deleted detail should go to List of Kickin' It characters article. There is sufficient detail for a characters article. Most Disney shows have one so this is expected. It also provides an outlet for viewers for character details that will be inappropriately added to this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm always in favor of a separate character page for Disney and Nickelodeon shows (which seem to attract a lot of editors interested in updating the "character" synopses every time a new episode airs). I just wasn't sure if the show had been on long enough that some Wikipedia editors wouldn't complain that it's too soon to start one and just end up deleting it, but it won't bother me if you start one. Anything to keep it off of the main page. My only suggestion is to keep the short character descriptions that are here (I can easily make them even shorter), so readers can get a quick synopsis without having to go to another page with a lot of spoilers if they don't want to. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I considered just making the article as I expect minimal opposition but want to follow the WP:SPLIT protocol to let interested people aware and see if there is a reason to not do this that I am not aware of. I plan to give it a few days, then if there is no opposition, replace the redirect placeholder with an article. The short character descriptions belong in this article and a link added to the character article for the fuller descriptions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sounds like a good idea to me. If/when you start the new page, just let me know if you get anyone trying to nominate it for deletion and I'll lend my support for keeping it (for the reasons stated above). I personally find separate character pages a little much unless a show has been on for five or ten years, but I can't argue that there is an extraordinary interest in "character" bios when it comes to Disney and Nick shows, so I'd rather provide an outlet for it than have a constant ongoing battle about it on the main page. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I split the article as proposed above. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inline external links to IMDB actor article

[edit]

I am aware that WP:EL states "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article". Also WP:REDNOT states "Red links to personal names should be avoided". Editor SummerPhD removed the interwiki IMDB links and left redlinks - I reverted mostly due to WP:REDNOT but also because in the context of actors without a wiki article the IMDB actor external links are generally considered acceptable in actor articles but there is no actor article that contains that link. Since the wiki software permits IMDB links in the form of interwiki links m:Help:Interwiki linking and IMDbName is included in the list of interwiki links at m:Interwiki map, I consider it a valid and appropriate exception to the general rule for limited inline use since it adds value to the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I planned to post about this when the IMDb links were removed, but I was in the middle of helping someone with something, so I'm just getting here now. You've basically summed up my thinking. Wikipedia allows for a special blue-linking to IMDb (by basically allowing a short-hand template to link there), so I view it as an exception to the usual rule of external linking. As you said - half the cast of this show doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability yet, so backlinking to IMDb is useful. Yes, there are several places within the article where the actors' names are linked to IMDb, but I find it's easier to format that way so readers don't have to scroll back up to the top of an article to find the name. Linking from where they are within the article is easier and, more importantly, allows them to click back after viewing the IMDb page and pick up in the same spot where they left off. I agree, I usually hate external links dropped into the middle of an article, but these are IMDb links (not links to "questionable" or "mysterious" websites) and, as such, I believe them to be a reasonable exception to the usual rule, being that these are young actors whose resumes do not yet allow for them to have their own Wikipedia pages. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption seems to be that we must have redlinks or external links. Ignoring this false dichotomy, we have [[2]]: "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article.[1]" The link at the end explains " Exceptions are rare. They include use of templates like {{visualizer}}, which produces charts on the Toolserver, and {{external media}}, which is only used when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia." I see nothing to indicate that this is that rare exception. We have hundreds of thousands of articles on movies, TV shows and such with numerous non-notable cast members listed. I have looked at a few hundred, I'd imagine, and I've not seen us using inline links as we were using here. If you feel we should be doing this, it seems we are not. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. But I would bet that we'd have hundreds of thousands of articles that would be using this if people knew Wikipedia allowed for easy backlinking to IMDb. I personally never knew it until I began editing this page last week and saw the link codes here - and I've been editing here for over two years (writing, not just undoing other people's work or constantly nominating pages for deletion). Bottom line - At worst, the links to IMDb are completely harmless and, more than likely for most readers, extremely useful. If there was some huge problem with these types of backlinks to IMDb then I just assumed there wouldn't have been the creation of special short-hand codes to link there in the first place. Like I said, I usually hate external links in the middle of articles, but these IMDb codes have obviously been customized specifically to be used this exact way (appearing just as any other Wikipedia backlink, without arrow tags, etc) I just can't see any down side to using them whatsoever other than arbitrarily citing a rule that was obviously created to protect readers from being unwillingly linked to shady websites. I'd think it's pretty obvious that IMDb would be the one obvious exception. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Olivia Holt

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is to not merge

Olivia Holt is only notable due to her appearance on Kickin' It, and there is little encyclopedic information about her. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - As stated above she is notable due to her appearance on Kickin' It. There is sufficient encyclopedic information about her for a separate article. There is no way to merge that information into this article without seriously unbalancing this article with extraneous info about only one of the actors. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: The actress in question is clearly notable. She is worthy of having a page of her own. There are multiple sources that indicate she has notoriety. Tinton5 (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: Olivia is a rising starlet in Hollywood. She definitely deserves her own page. eat777 (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

it airs on disney channel in norway

[edit]

i am watching it as i write this. it was however aired without announcing that it would air so it certainly surprised me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cast season info in infobox

[edit]

Only the names of the starring cast belong in the infobox. Additional info about what season they were active is covered in the article proper and adding it to the infox just adds unnecessary clutter. Also this goes directly against the instructions for the template at Template:Infobox television/doc#Attributes Starring - "Years and/or seasons should not be included." Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Kickin' It. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kickin' It. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Premise

[edit]

The "wasabi code" is quite blatantly not a part of the premise and I do not see why Amaury is so adament that it remain a part of the premise. The premise is generally understood to be a brief description of the driving forces behind the plot, and the "wasabi code" self evidently does not meet that description. I also take issue with the way that Amaury seems to believe to WP:OWN this article and the scare tactics he seems to be using against me, no doubt influnced by the fact that I am editing from an IP. So please Amaury, explain how the "wasabi code" fits in to the article, and why that is something that is for you to decide. 104.177.94.141 (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through your contributions it seems that your entire purpose on this site now is protecting sitcoms from IP users. I do respect that work but that doesnt mean that you get to lump me in with them. 104.177.94.141 (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kickin%27_It&oldid=1206971533"