Talk:List of Raven's Home episodes

Aired episodes

I don't really see a point or find it necessary to have the whole "As of X, Y episodes of Z have aired..." I realize that template exists, but it doesn't mean it has to be used. Just looking at the episode table should tell you, etc. However, I'm more than willing to have a friendly discussion on the matter. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

FTR, I agree with you, and find that to be one of the most useless "features" on Wikipedia – it's completely unnecessary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's identified in the parent article's infobox about how many episodes have aired. Perhaps readers are too lazy to look down at the end of the episode listing or may get confused with additional (unaired) episodes listed - perhaps unsure what today's date is. It's a toss-up for me, as I've seen this bit before (like with Jessie when that was active), but I'd be okay in its being removed. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Harmless, I'd suggest leaving it in. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Just noting for the record that the same has now been done at Andi Mack/List of Andi Mack episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: If it's just been done, I think you can remove it on "bold edit" grounds. It's only if these have been in the article for a while that removing it may become problematic. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall:  Done. I'll also quote the additional statement I provided at Talk:List of Andi Mack episodes#Aired episodes template so it's on the record here as well. To expand on what I've already said there, this can be problematic. While the number of episodes updates automatically when the infobox on the parent article is updated, the as of date has to be updated manually, something that can be very easily missed and then become highly inaccurate as more episodes air. ... However, if it's going to be used, it should logically only be used once a series has been confirmed as either ended or canceled and all of its episodes have aired. Then there's no need to ever worry about the accurateness. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Somewhat related: Amaury, IJBall and Geraldo Perez, I see AlexTheWhovian is making reference to the {{Aired episodes}} template at WT:TV, regarding something he added to the template itself. Since the suitability of this template is being talked about here, might want to bring up your opinions about it over there and see if the TV project as a whole is okay with the template. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that issue in the green text, that can easily be updated entirely automatically now. It's BOLD when it hasn't existed here for a while. It's not BOLD when one considers the astounding numbers of reverts on this page... (Cheers for mentioning me. {{noping}}?) -- Alex^TW 06:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Should this article have been split?

Why has this article been prematurely split? -- Alex^TW 06:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

If there are no further comments, then the article should be merged back into the parent article. There is clear WP:CONSENSUS with WP:TV that this sort of split should not have occurred. -- Alex^TW 03:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

What's done is done – doing what you're suggesting now is pure WP:BURO thinking. The second season is currently airing (daily, IIRC), so that table will fill out soon. Just leave it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"What's done is done" is not the way Wikipedia works, we are here to constantly improve articles with ever-changing standards. You yourself posted at WT:TV#When should the list of episodes be split off into a separate article? stating the opposite of what you're saying here. To quote: I would suggest that flagrant examples of this get the {{Merge}} tag. -- Alex^TW 05:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

99% of the nonsense you spout isn't the way Wikipedia works; yet you do it, anyway. Go and worry about precious guidelines on an article of a series you actually watch and care about rather than trying to cause trouble here, too. And as usual, you go running to the project pages to try to force things to be your way. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no guideline or policy that states I can only edit articles for series that I watch. Content and format is not related the events of the series and knowing what happens within it. Nothing wrong with asking for further input. -- Alex^TW 05:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Funny coming from the guy who was perfectly fine with removing references from aired episodes. Alex, I think we all know why you go running to the projects, because you know things won't go your way. Or did you forget your comment at Talk:Descendants 2#Summer? Actually, I'll take this to WT:TV. We remember what happened at Tangled concerning tag-teaming and "winning" discussions. Combine that with your earlier WP:HOUNDING and WP:HARASSMENT of myself and IJBall, and it's obvious that your actions toward us are personal regardless of what you say. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Nope, it's because I prefer to get the view of a wide array of editors and gather community support for what is clearly a contentious topic, including many who I know won't agree with me, rather than pinging a few specific editors. You may think they're personal to you, but that's simply because you don't agree with me conforming to wider discussion, guidelines and policies. If you'd like to view them and me as such, I'm happy for you!

Anyways, we get off topic. Back to splitting. -- Alex^TW 06:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, hun. Whatever you say. Clearly you know everything and anyone who disagrees with you doesn't. For the record, if someone removed something you agreed with, you wouldn't bat an eye. It's only when something you don't agree with is removed that you make a fuss, particularly when it's myself or IJBall. Things only get off topic when you decide to randomly show up at articles we watch and try to cause trouble. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Who's causing trouble? Am I not allowed to edits articles that you edit? Is it because you were "first", so I can't? Sounds a lot like WP:OWN... No matter who edits what article, they must conform to the WP:CONSENSUS. For the record, I've raised multiple issues before for the Marvel series, and Doctor Who, articles which I follow religiously but still disagree with some content layouts. But as I said: If you'd like to view them and me as such, I'm happy for you! -- Alex^TW 06:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Nothing to do with WP:OWN or who edited first, but obvious deductions. Talk:Descendants 2#Reverts and Protection being an obvious example. Civilly letting people know my ass. Same with your bullshit farce of "I'm feeling nice today..." and similar sarcasm crap. It's up to an admin to decide whether something was violated or not, not you. There was absolutely no reason to create that section, except that you wanted to accuse us of violating things and make us clearly know you were doing such. There's a reason admin noticeboards exist; you could have just gone there. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Am I going to have to suggest an IBAN at ANI? We really should be working together, acting civilly toward each other and keeping the personal attacks right out of it. I agree that this article should not have been split out but it's done now and the second season is starting in hours so there doesn't seem much to be achieved by merging back into the main aticle. This is a problem we see every year. I only discovered recently that S.W.A.T. (2017 TV series) had been split to an LoE page while SEAL Team (TV series) was split both to both List of SEAL Team (TV series) episodes and SEAL Team (season 1). Both of these single season series splits seem far more inappropriate than this one. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to work on both of those articles as well as this one at the same time. -- Alex^TW 06:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Next one coming up. Then, back to this one? -- Alex^TW 06:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You'd think so, but no. When two editors edit a lot of television articles, then they're bound to bump into each other often. Am I stalking Adam? No, we just edit a lot of TV articles. So, I, and you, can edit whatever articles we wish. I'll remain civil here for you. Have you ever reverted an editor, or posted a user warning on their talk page? That's notifying someone of a violation. Everyone does it. You and I included. -- Alex^TW 06:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Bah. Yes it was likely premature but there was some season 2 info in the article before the split, just nothing had aired yet. Does it matter now, no. Undoing the split then resplitting it in a day when the strict letter of the guideline is met seems pointless now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Bah. That's the spirit. There wouldn't be resplitting, the WP:TV consensus is very against the deprecated two-season protocol now. -- Alex^TW 08:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, the "WP:TV CONSENSUS" is that it's better to follow WP:SIZESPLIT more closely, but I'm not sure that "definitive" – it's just a "best-practices" view. But as Aussie says, there are still editors who split when season #2 episode info become available, and while this one may have been premature, and while it's not what I would necessarily have done (whether a specific LoE split appropriate depends on show-specific details, such as episodes count and episode summary lengths), reversing it at this point serves no purpose. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• No, to just answer the opening question and ignore all the drama. There is never a need to split-by-season with a list this short. Doing so is a maintenance hassle (including for category maintainers and other people with no connection or interest in the topic itself); it's generally only people with an intense interest in the topic who want split such pages, because they think "the more articles my pet topic has the better it is being covered, the more pride of place it has in the Wikipedia scheme of things". This is fallacious reasoning. A topic is better covered and shines more brightly on Wikipedia when the content and sourcing are worked up to Featured level. The more you micro-split, the less likely that is to ever happen. It also introduces maintenance problems even for the topic-focused editors (more pages to patrol for vandalism and PoV, having to redundantly cite the same facts and sources across multiple pages, having to produce WP:SUMMARY material that would not be needed if the material weren't split in the first place, etc.). Most importantly, it's a hassle for readers, since it takes more searching and clicking around to find what you're looking for. So, no, reversing the split isn't pointless, because the article shouldn't be split by season 3, either, nor onward until it hits the SIZESPLIT range. Even then, it can be preferable to retain a long list rather than split (though this pertains more to glossaries and various other lists than to lists of episodes). And indication that reader needs are not on anyone's mind in this dispute is the lack of basic redirects to sections like Raven's Home (season 1) and Raven's Home (season 2).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Well said. As can be seen, there is no clear consensus, and this warrants further discussion. If required, I can easily file an RFC. -- Alex^TW 15:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I do agree the episode list was split early after reading about the discussion at WT:TV and being reminded about WP:SIZESPLIT. While we can't predict whether Raven's Home will get enough seasons to meet the SIZESPLIT criteria, re-merging the LoE content back into the parent article may not be a good idea, only to see it get split again at a later time. Now even if the series goes the distance on Disney Channel, which tends to limit their series to four seasons (and often, the limit is only three) because of increasing costs to keep their series going, the SIZESPLIT criteria, particularly where it talks about "readable prose", might never be met because episode summary sizes (because it's in a table) will NOT count. (Current readable prose at Raven's Home is around 3k of text, which would be the case whether or not the LoE tables are in there.) I did see a proposal/draft at User:Bignole/Episode page (my being guided there from the WT:TV discussion), which sounds reasonable as far as this technical limitation is concerned. Even with that taken into account, the prose size is still far below the SIZESPLIT criteria at this point, but as more episodes air and summaries are written, there's a chance there could be enough prose to qualify. The problem with that, though, which I've seen in a number of other TV episode lists, is that summaries are pretty short, often not reaching the 100-word minimum per WP:TVPLOT, and in plenty of cases with Disney and Nickelodeon shows, where I've been heavily focused, few episode summaries are there at all. COPYVIOs are also a problem when they are added in, particularly by IPs, since they think that copying from a source containing a description of the episode is ok, when it's not; those never meet the 100-word minimum either.

There's also been the issue about whether merging the LoE back to the parent article causes a balancing problem. I definitely remember that clearly with Sam & Cat, since an LoE was created even before that series started; it didn't last more than one season, but had 35 episodes. (I was the one who proposed merging the LoE back to its parent when I saw it had only one season.) The LoE there is more than twice the size - actual size, as reported in the article's edit history - of the parent article currently. The ratio with Raven's Home and its LoE is not quite the same, but both are also smaller in size than what's seen at Sam & Cat. In the last day or two, I noticed a WP:BOLD WP:MERGE from Wikipedical of the LoE for another series on my watchlist, Joan of Arcadia, merged back to its parent, a series that lasted two seasons and 45 episodes. Because of the WT:TV discussion, I decided not to touch that; the merge doubled the size of the parent article, rather than tripled (as would be the case for Sam & Cat and Raven's Home). The readable prose at JoA is around 6k, with other stuff other than the episode tables not counted (like the section indicating all the actors who played various incarnations of God), and the episode summaries themselves from the tables are pretty short, probably not even averaging to 100 words per episode.

Again, as far as re-merging the LoE of Raven's Home, probably good idea to leave it alone as it is, as all sorts of other maintenance things, including adjusting links, would be time-consuming, and more so if we find ourselves splitting the article again in the future. I won't go into how this affects all the other TV articles at Nickelodeon and Disney, at least, but we definitely need to be more mindful of that SIZESPLIT guideline and the other guidelines at MOSTV pertaining to splitting, not assuming we can go ahead and do it once it is known there is a season two (or three, or more), for all future decisions to split episode lists out of their articles. May need to check the other Disney and Nickelodeon articles/LoEs on a case-by-case, though even where there have been splits, re-merging should probably wait till these series are done and performed only if it's below guideline criteria at that point (also keeping in mind the "balancing" aspect I said earlier). MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Episode airdates

The airdates of the season 2 episodes don't seem to match the schedule. There is no new episode airing July 24, and "Head Over Wheels" is shown on the program guide as the only one airing July 27. "The Trouble With Levi" airs today, July 20. Robert (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Zap2it is reporting one episode for July 24, two episodes for July 27, and one episode for July 31. If these dates pass and one or more of those episodes don't air as indicated, then we remove the air dates. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Say what now? I never noticed any of that. 🤔 Dovecameron 24 (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Curtis and The Guntz

Of the episodes aired thus far, Curtis and The Guntz have appeared in five episodes each:

• The Trouble with Levi (co-stars)
• The Most Interesting Mom in the World (co-stars)
• Just Call Me Vic (co-stars)
• It's Your Party and I'll Spy If I Want To (guest stars)
• Winners and Losers (co-stars)

At five appearance, they would be considered recurring. However, the caveat here is that four of those appearances were as co-stars. According to a discussion with IJBall at User talk:IJBall/Archive 20#Co-stars, if a character has appeared, say, six times total, they are considered recurring (obviously), even if three of those appearances were as a co-star. (And I don't think it matters if they went back and forth, either, just that three of the appearances were guest stars. Timmy from Bunk'd is an example of this: co-starred for some episodes, guest starred in three episodes, but then in his appearance in the season three finale, he went back to co-star. See a discussion on that here: User talk:IJBall/Archive 6#A small favor to ask.) Here it seems to be a little tricky, as Curtis and The Guntz have only each appeared in one episode as guest stars, as seen above. But they were still labeled guest stars, nonetheless, so does that still apply and they should be listed? They are reportedly supposed to be appear in "Keepin It Real," so I guess we could also wait and see how they're credited there, if this isn't good enough. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

FTR, as I don't watch Raven's Home, I have no opinion on this question. I just feel that a consensus of editors at this article should be established before adding these two under 'Recurring' or not... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Ravens home

Where are the hidden notes. Tnays20 (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2019

Add Season 3 (Premiere date) (https://tvline.com/2019/05/10/ravens-home-season-3-premiere-date-bunkd-season-4-cast-changes/) and totaling up season 2 episode count and entering final date aired Smitty0711 (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done No known titles for season three, so a table is pointless right now. Amaury (talk | contribs) 12:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

"Mad About Yuletide" episode

According to the beginning credits of the episode, it was displayed "Mad About Yuletide Part One" written by Marcelo Chow & Brett Maier and followed by "Mad About Yuletide Part Two" written by Caitlin Davis. This means that not all of them wrote both parts, in fact two different writers wrote "Part One" and another different writer wrote "Part Two". Shouldn't we indicate who wrote which part somehow on the Episode table or at least include a note? "Marcelo Chow, Brett Maier & Caitlin Davis" imply that they all wrote both parts. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. It was two episodes merged into a single episode for presentation, and because the credits differed, they merged the credits from both halves. We don't need to note the "parting" labels. Amaury • 21:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Your edit doesn't make a difference though, meaning most Wikipedia readers will still assumed all of them wrote both parts. "&" and "and" are interchangeable though. They mean the same thing. Some TV series use "&" and some use "and", some even use both in an episode (that is according to credits). — YoungForever^(talk) 22:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, they're not interchangeable. An ampersand (&) means two or more people wrote an episode together, while "and" means two or more people each wrote an episode individually. Amaury • 23:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

For writing guild rules "&" means a formally acknowledged writing team who get credited as a team for everything they do, and "and" just means separate writers who collaborate for this one project but do not generally work together. Basically it matters and we should look to how the people are credited and do the same in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The episode itself displayed the writing credits separately though as I stated above. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree to disagree from how they are displayed on the credits the episode itself standpoint as they separated Part One and Part Two writing credits. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

From the perspective of MOS:& "retain an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun" – a writing team name is a proper noun. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

"Marcelo Chow & Brett Maier" is the name of a writing team, not separate writers. It is basically one entity, the team, being credited, not two separate individuals. The & is part of the team name. It does look confusing to see both "&" and "and" in the same list but it is correct. In actual credits they'd just list the team on one line and the individual writers on another line. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

But, the credits weren't explicitly displayed as "Marcelo Chow & Brett Maier and Caitlin Davis". — YoungForever^(talk) 01:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe replace the "and" with a "<br />" to put the other writer on a separate line. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be better to use the "<br />" as it would closely going by according to credits and indicate there are two sets of writing credits. The episode explicitly displayed "Mad About Yuletide Part One" written by Marcelo Chow & Brett Maier in one scene (gone few seconds later) and then "Mad About Yuletide Part Two" written by Caitlin Davis in the next scene which also indicate that there are two sets of writing credits. I have always go by according to credits, FYI. If the credits were displayed certain way, I would go by how they are displayed on the episode itself. The fact that Amaury's edit (Marcelo Chow & Brett Maier and Caitlin Davis) isn't even going by according to credits doesn't sit well with me because per MOS:TV we should always go by according to credits. — YoungForever^(talk) 03:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I got rid of the "and" as that was not in the credits and seemed the most contentious. I think the two lines with the writer team on one and the other writer on the other should work. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind the line break from Geraldo as a compromise, but MOS:TV is only a guideline, not an arbitrary top-down rule we must follow to the nth degree. "And" and line breaks are equivalent, and both are correct, soo the "and" wasn't incorrect. Amaury • 07:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree to disagree, "and" and line breaks are not the same thing. The "and" wasn't even part of the credits. They chose to display without using "and". As I stated above there were two sets of writing credits. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Season 4 ending, and "Mad About Yuletide"

@Amaury: Regarding this edit, please review the source added from ETOnline. My thinking is that it's a reliable source to back that season 4 has ended, but I might be missing something. As far as the other edits by Ijoshiexo, those are more disputable, as "Mad About Yuletide" is considered one episode; Amazon and iTunes have it as one (though I am questioning iTunes numbering of the episodes in season 4 following that episode [1]). MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be more speculation, as seen in the title, than anything else and links to an unverified Instagram. Amaury • 06:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Hello! In regard to the episode "Mad About Yuletide", I changed it due to it actually being 2 episodes but combined to make one. When in production, it was shot together (2 separate days) but written by 3 different writers (the first part written by Marcelo Chow and Brett Maier with the second part written by Caitlin Davis). The production code is actually 413-414 but the website sourced lists 2 episodes as 408 (Diff'rent Strikes is actually 408 as that is when it was produced with the former being produced later but airing before it for the holidays). As for the show ending, they are currently casting for season 5 which will feature new series regulars for a "revamp" of some sort but as with anything Disney, they'll take their time announcing that. So for the status of the show concluding, I agree with @Amaury: that it is all just speculation that the show is ending. --Joshie (New Horizons Await You) 00:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Season 5 end date

On June 21, 2022, Entertainment Tonight announced that Keymáh would reprise her role as Tanya Baxter in the season five finale. This marks her first time portraying the character since 2005 in her final appearance in the season 3 That's So Raven episode, "Food For Thought".

Would this work as the Season end date. Clearly the episode has already aired as this article is going by production code order. If not I have no idea what may work. Just trying to resolve this issue. I do agree the season is over, but can't find a source that states 25 episodes. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

References