Jump to content

Talk:List of Dog with a Blog episodes

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

Split

[edit]

Should we split the content into Dog with a Blog (season 1), & (season 2),. CHall2002 (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Has Puppies is a single episode

[edit]

The episode was produced in two segments using two production slots 315 and 316 but those segments were combined and a single episode was created. Amazon and iTunes are selling the episode as a 47 minute episode and it aired as a single episode. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless spacing

[edit]

There's no reason for those spacings. Nothing is less visible or noticeable than before. Many episodes lists don't have these spacings, and the editors have zero problems. Why is this an issue at all? I see no logic whatsoever in the argument that it makes it difficult for people to read and edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.141.8.2 (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, removing the spacing achieves nothing. Maintenance is indeed easier with the spacing. It's always easier to maintain code that's formatted consistently. At least that's been my experience over the last 41 years. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite examples of articles with the spacing taken out. In any case, just because other articles may be like that doesn't mean this one needs to be. And not everyone sees text the same way, particularly if that text is all together in one big clump. Spacing (or lack of it) does affect readability. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also be aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because it's like that in articles B, C, and D doesn't mean they take precedence over article A. In fact, articles B, C, and D could very well all be wrong and it's article A that's correct. Amaury (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue, related the changes in formatting that degrade source maintainability is that I check articles for changes to evaluate whether or not I agree with any substantive changes in content and to look for vandalism. It is extremely difficult to do so when those changes can be hidden in a wall of minor formatting changes. Unless formatting changes result in a marked improvement of source readability and maintainability it is disruptive. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is so nightmarish about the lack of all of those pointless spacings. Other episodes lists don't have them and they have zero editing problems, so I completely don't get it.130.204.81.214 (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether on not you get it, persistently removing the spacing despite obvious opposition by multiple editors is unnaceptable. It is disruptive at best and most certainly edit-warring. Continually arguing over it is WP:LAME as well so please, just do not remove the spacing again. In the event you continue you are likely to be blocked or see the page protected. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need proof series over

[edit]

See discussion at Talk:Dog with a Blog#Proof series over about this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous editors inserting the number of season 3 episodes, as well as putting September 25 as the date of the final episode, and some without a source (or removing the Beth Littleford Twitter reference that's in the hidden comment). I have just made my third revert of the article within the last 24 hours, short of WP:3RR violation (and not sure of whether the exemptions clearly apply in this case), so this could be perceived as an edit warring problem for any of us removing the unsourced/improperly sourced material. Not sure what to do here. Even the thought of semi-protecting the article seems premature. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leave poorly referenced info in article, restore the commented out note, tag with {{dubious}} and point to this discussion. Hopefully something reliable will become available that we can use as a reference. And WP:3RRNO doesn't apply to cases which are not obvious vandalism - all edits are good faith by people who just generally ignore hidden notes and won't discuss stuff. Annoying, but not blatant vandalism. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Dog with a Blog episodes. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will note that the original link still works at this time. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Dog with a Blog episodes. 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) 18:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Dog with a Blog episodes. 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) 03:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production codes 208 and 210

[edit]

The US Copyright Office is listing two episodes with production code 208 - "Lost in Stanslation" and (at the very end of the listing, as linked by the column reference) "Who's Training Who?". There have been a few recent, reverted edits putting 210 for the latter episode, with the former already showing 208 in the article. Pretty odd to see two episodes with the same code at USCO, and this is no doubt gonna cause dispute, but as of right now, the code for "Who's Training Who?" should remain unlisted. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, they should both remain unlisted, as The Futon Critic is no help here either. In this case, even EpGuides (which can't be used as a "formal" source anyway), is also of no help. (Unfortunately, the U.S. Copyright Office is not without the occasional typo or omission, and in those cases when The Futon Critic can't be used as backup, we're generally stuck...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MPFitz1968: Does an archived page of Dog with a Blog's Disney ABC Press page have anything? Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Amaury: Was hard to find a page in the article's history which cited Disney ABC Press, but found one here. Unfortunately, checking archived version of the show's page there at archive.org [1] didn't yield anything helpful ... earliest archived version in June 2015 with only season 3 production codes shown. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Dog_with_a_Blog_episodes&oldid=1203639332"