Talk:List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Season 1 and 2

Season 1 it seams odd that there would only be 15 episodes ( The Suite life of Zach and Cody had 26 episodes) It also seams odd that there would only be 15 when the known Production numbers go to 20 why would this show have 15 almost 10 fewer then other shows? Though it is logical that season 2 production info is coming out if filming is going to start in a month.

Season 1 starts about 21 or more episode and not 15, i know it really odd. But it another problem for person is doing that. Can you type 19 episode is called " Mosebystruck" and edit this please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gesoyrn (talk • contribs) 22:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Episode Confirmation

Unofficial Episode Confirmation for TSLOD.

101. 1. The Suite Life Sets Sail (9-26-08)

TheMinigolfMaster111 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale

Why is Ashley Tisdale listed as a guest star for the first episode? I know for a fact that she is not in it.

Poweranimals (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Article issues

Where does anything in this article come from, since the episodes have not aired yet? Gimmetrow 04:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Can people please wait until the episodes air, so there is some way to verify the content? WP shouldn't be the the first publisher of this info. Gimmetrow 03:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Anwser: I think it's because they air in some countries before others, since i know that in Canada, for example, the "Boo you" episode hasn't aired yet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.231.164 (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Vivid Imaginations

Wow. A couple of these are sort of correct, but most are made up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.49.8 (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

swimming image

The image is not proof the London is being taught to swim. Lance already taught her. The official website is proof that the image she isn't going to be taught to swim. It says on the right side of the seven seas high website "After school chill out at the hot tub" and it has the image of the hot tub they are using in the image. STOP IT! Also, you guys have no source. --DCFan101 (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is them during a fire drill. The were in a rush and thought they were in the ocean.--Jay M. Baxter-Payne (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalized

The article seems to be vandalized too much. What I would like to do is to protect the article by locking it to unregistered users. Anyone who agrees with me? --DCFan101 (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it true

Some one keeps changing the episodes will some one please put the right episodes on there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.78.70 (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It has been Confirmed

The suite life set sails is the 1st episode —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.78.70 (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Showgirls" or "Show & Tell"?

Here's the dilemma: On the MSN TV site, it calls this episode "Showgirls," but if one were to watch it online on http://disney.go.com/videos/#/videos/tvshows/ , the title is "Show and Tell." Which one should we trust? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianoajd (talk • contribs) 15:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Several other guides that I checked also have this listed as Showgirls. For some reason, at the link you provided I can see The Suite Life of Zack and Cody but not The Suite Life on Deck so I can't check what it says there. As you should be aware, anything in the article needs to be verifiable, something a lot of editors seem to ignore, so we have to stick with what is verifiable unless you can provide a citation from Disney. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked too. If you watch the episode at disneychannel.com it says Show and Tell. But if you look at the tv schedule on the Disney Channel's website (you can go back to program aired in the last two days) it says Showgirls. Should we add Show and Tell as an alternate title.--Jay M. Baxter-Payne (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's also known as Show & Tell in the iTunes store. I'm guessing that isn't really reliable. Also, for some reason, "The Suite Life on Deck" episode section has dissapeared, so I guess that's a source lost.Pianoajd (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

May 2009

It is listed on DirecTv's guide as "Show & Tell" for all future showings. Evidence seems to indicate that the title has been changed, but you know how it works here on Wikipedia. You have to have a letter from Buddha and notarized by Allah to get anything changed.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You're under the misapprehension that there has been a recent change to this episode's title. There hasn't. The episode has been listed on DirecTV and iTunes as Show and Tell since before the episode aired last October. As far as I could determine when this discussion started seven months ago, it was originally to be called Show & Tell, back when the episode was filmed in early 2007, but was changed to Showgirls before it aired. Some guides picked up the new name but others stuck with the old. As you can see by reading the comments above, even Disney doesn't make it clear as to what the official name is because it uses both. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. DirecTv originally had it listed as "Showgirls" and only recently (within the last month) changed it to "Show & Tell." I have the series recorded on my DVR. The original airing is listed as "Showgirls" and when they changed the name recently, my DVR recorded the episode again under "Show & Tell" because it thought it was a new episode. All future showings are now listed as "Show & Tell."Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

When this discussion was started I did quite a bit of research trying to figure out what the actual name of the episode was, because there was some confusion (for example) and DirecTV was one of the sources I checked. It most definitely listed "Show & Tell". That it has also listed it as "Showgirls" is just further proof of the confusion surrounding the name of this episode. I suspect that this episode may have two names because of different markets in the same way that many TV series and movies have. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a fair compromise on this issue would be to change the name on the episode list to show both titles with a note explaining why. At least until there is a definitive answer found. Although I still think this was meant to be a name change (due mostly to what a "showgirl" is and the movie of the same name), you seem to have found equal evidence to support that it just simply has two different names for some reason. I think in this case, both titles should be equal on the episode list.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look back through the edit history you'll see that there was a long period where the name of the article kept getting swapped between the two titles. All sorts of compromises were tried until finally we settled on the compromise that we have now, "Showgirls" as the title with a note saying "Note: This episode is listed on iTunes and other media sources as "Show & Tell."" Based on the previous history of this article, if we change the title to reflect both names we're just going to re-create the confusion that previously existed. FYI, such confusion has resulted in this page being protected twice now, the first time for a week and the next time for 3 months. We really don't want to have to return to those days. You need to look at the big picture. The page is relatively stable now, despite the fact that NrDg and I, along with a few other editors, have to do a lot of reversions and cleaning up,[1] and it would be nice for it to stay that way. Of the most commonly used episode references (TVGuide, msn, TV.com and imdb) only msn has the episode listed as "Show & Tell". The common name seems to be Showgirls so that's what we should use. Application of common sense shows that we should be following Wikipedia naming conventions here. Because the common name is "Showgirls", if we were to create an episode article it would be called Showgirls so that's the name we should be using in the episode list. The current compromise has worked well for over six months now. I see no reason to change it. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Of the links provided, the tv.com link says that Show & Tell is an alternate title. MSN has the episode's title as Show & Tell. IMDB has the main title as Showgirls, but the US TV Listings on that same page says Show & Tell. Add in iTunes and DirecTv listings and you've got more sources stating Show & Tell than Showgirls. Application of common sense shows that the name was originally going to be Showgirls, someone probably complained about or noticed the implications of that name, and the name was changed to Show & Tell. Some of the sources just haven't been updated to match the change and are going on older information. It's nearly impossible to get things changed on IMDB and even when you do, it can take months for it to show up. I don't know about the others. Bottom line is, I think it should be obvious that the name has been changed. If that change can't be reflected on the episode list, then it should, at the very least, show both titles as equals. I wasn't trying to start a revert war. Maybe I shouldn't have just went and changed it, but to be fair, you didn't give it time to see how other people would react. Everyone may have liked the compromise. The only two people who seem to be showing any interest in this are you and me and we are on opposite sides. If you can find one, I'd love to hear a third opinion on this.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

My uninvolved opinion. What is on iTunes is the official name of the episode. This is the episode that is actually being sold and is listed there how Disney wants it to be listed. Six months ago this was a current issue. I don't think there will be as much contention now. I suggest going with what iTunes calls it and listing in a note the other name. --NrDg 05:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Anyone else want to weigh in? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

While Bigger digger is gathering his or her thoughts I'll just slip in here and continue the originalsecond discussion...... It's a pretty big call saying that there are more sources stating the episode name is Show and Tell because it's listed as an alternate. "Alternate" generally means an alternate to the more common or main name. My point was that most of the main references that we use list Showgirls as the primary name, which seems to be the case. As for "Application of common sense shows that the name was originally going to be Showgirls", ummm, No. As I stated earlier, the name was originally going to be Show and Tell. It was then changed to Showgirls. Last year I was able to find a few references to Show and Tell dating back to around when the episode was filmed but the Showgirls references didn't appear until later. I'll be blowed if I can find them now. I didn't think I'd need to do it all again. Unfortunately the publicity photos don't help.[2] You can see from that page that the image was created in May 2007, a full 17 months before the episode aired, but the wording of the caption implies that it was released a lot closer to the episode air date. Unfortunately the only date on the page is "20070509" and we can't assume that the caption is from some other date because that would be WP:OR. I don't think the fact that it's listed on iTunes as Show and Tell gives that name any more credibility as the proper name. It's been listed as Show and Tell from the beginning, ie when we had this discussion the last time. That said, I think we could probably use the disneychannelmedianet.com image titles to support usinmg Show and Tell as the main name but it is a primary source and the reference would need to be left in the article. Currently, references are being removed after each episode airs. And I still think we're going to get people changing the name back to Showgirls. One of the problems this article has is that no matter what the references say and no matter what hidden comments may say, people just put what they think is the case. That's why the page was protected. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

<--Third Opinion. A WP:Third opinion was requested and I am here to respond. I would note I have no previous editing history on this list or the article and have not had any previous interactions with the editors involved, so can claim to be neutral. I have taken the liberty of reformatting the conversation to make the break in time clearer, and for ease of reading. If anyone has issue with that please revert my previous edit, but I don't see any possible problem. I'll marshall my thoughts and then provide an opinion for you. Bigger digger (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

First, a few points. Wweh1, you nearly got full marks from me for applying WP:BRD, if you make an edit and it is reverted it is time to discuss on the talk page, not just apply your change again. Congratulations on realising that the second time. AL, you seem to be incredibly busy, along with NrDg, in looking after this page and keeping it encyclopedic, so well done. I guess you're trying to keep this page stable, but sometimes consensus can change and I think this could be a relevant shift.

I picked this WP:3O as it seemed I could do it in my lunchbreak, but nothing is as simple as it seems! Firstly, I looked at WP:COMMONNAME and the sentence that jumped out at me was: what word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine? So, we need to consider what that word (or phrase) is. You have both rightly pointed out that the media is undecided, so they're not much help. Comparing the two with Google suggests "Showgirls" is much more popular than "Show & Tell"]. However, as a work of fiction I would be inclined to put an emphasis on what the author has chosen to call it. The Disney Channel listings call it "Show & Tell" and it's also revealing that the Disney Society chose "Show & Tell" as well. If the main methods of distribution (iTunes, Disney TV, etc) are describing the episode as "Show & Tell" then I believe that carries a great deal of weight, it would influence what the average user would search for. On the other hand, the fact that a lot of the listings still use "Showgirls" means that needs to be included too.

All the above leads me to think that Wweh1's suggestion is the most appropriate for the page at the moment: "I think a fair compromise on this issue would be to change the name on the episode list to show both titles with a note explaining why." It would be confusing to a user expecting to see "Show & Tell" to only see "Showgirls" when scanning the column of episode names, and vice versa. I think that suitably reflects the split and serves the users in the best possible way. What do you think? Let's agree something and then insert it.

As an aside, AL, a lot of the "vandalism" seems to come from IP editors, have you recently requested getting the page locked for editing by registered users only? Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

We must have been editing at the same time because when I hit save, there was your post, which wasn't there when I started. Yes, I have requested the page be protected, twice, and it was semi-protected both times, first for a week and then for three months. It helped.

Given what the Disney listings say, I'm now more inclined to use Show & Tell, subject to the concerns expressed at the end of my last post.[3] We really need to keep this url handy. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Then again, who owns zip2it.com and why is it any more credible than TV Guide? --AussieLegend (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I got to it through the Disney Channel page - http://tv.disney.go.com/disneychannel/suitelifeondeck/ The flash that loads has a Watch link on the right hand side which takes you to the Disney-bannered zap2it site which I take as an endorsement of its contents. However, it doesn't matter if it's more or less credible than TV Guide, the main point of my argument is that it's clear there is no "right" answer. Therefore the best solution for anyone trying to use the page as a resource is to list both titles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigger digger (talk • contribs) 14:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Grrrrrrrrrrr... I had a nice long response typed up but when I hit "Save page" the site returned an error and ate my reponse. Oh well.....

If it's linked from the Disney page, then that's good enough for me. I was just a little concerned when I looked up zip2it.com and found that, despite all the Disney stuff on the page, it was owned, not by Disney, but by a company that had decided it was necessary to explain why it had filed for bankruptcy in its FAQ. As a business owner myself, with several years experience in million dollar project management, and some forays into billion dollar projects, that set alarm bells ringing. That aside, I agree that we should list both titles, at least in theory. Unfortunately I've found that history usually repeats itself, so I'm a little pessimistic about the results. Still, I don't see why we can't try doing so (again). --AussieLegend (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

So... what now? I'm afraid to change anything. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have reached consensus so feel free to change away. With the page now protected,[4] I don't think there will be any problems with reversions until at least August. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for your input, hopefully you both think this improves the article. I'll take the page off my watchlist but if you need anything else I'm only a talk page away... Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!

I was trying to remove the episode "My Vacation," since the source listed did not confirm it existed. Due to my inexperience, I accidentally deleted the citation to MSN TV. Can someone fix this? Again, I apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianoajd (talk • contribs) 00:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind! I undid my mistake!Pianoajd (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Last minute 'Greek to Me' change

They've taken the premiere of "It's Greek to Me" off the Oct. 31 schedule (probably because the majority of the viewers will be out Trick-or-Treating) and moved it one week later to Nov. 7. Burg44 (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get this info? On the Disney Channel site, the schedule still says that it is on at 8:00 on the 31st.Pianoajd (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And now it says it's airing on the 7th. Again, where did you get that info? Pianoajd (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The date change is supported by the sitations used in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's All Greek to Me

There have been a ridiculous number of changes to the air date for "It's All Greek to Me" in the past week.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] The date of 7 November is supported by citations. The originallly proposed air date of 31 October is not. I have reverted the last edit and added citations for the episode's air date, as well as a hidden comment which notes the requirement to provides citations in support of any changes.[15] --AussieLegend (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC

Can someone move "It's All Greek to Me" to the "aired" section? It has already aired.Pianoajd (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Crossover(Wizards on Deck with Hannah Montana)

As per "It's All Greek to Me", Crossover has undergone a number of changes from various editors without anyone even attempting to provide a citation from a reliable source, as is required by Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Also as per "It's All Greek to Me", I've deleted the episode summary and left a hidden comment for editors. In short, if you can't include a citation from a reliable source, don't add a summary. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

People Magazine released an issue dedicated entirely to the Sprouse brothers and the Suite Life. On page 33 it has pictures from the Crossover episode that show the characters from the other shows on the Suite Life on Deck set and states in the captions that the other characters will be on board the ship.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In the first crossover episode from Wizards on Deck with Hannah Montana, “Cast-Away (To Another Show),” Justin (David Henrie) is excited to meet London Tipton (Brenda Song) when he wins the essay contest prize, a cruise on the SS Tipton.

Alex (Selena Gomez) and Max (Austin) get to go aboard too, where Alex bonds with new BFF Bailey (Debby Ryan) but soon gets in hot water when she uses magic to bring Harper (Jennifer Stone) aboard. Meanwhile, Max and Zack ( Dylan Sprouse) compete in a series of outrageous challenges.

In the second crossover episode from Wizards on Deck with Hannah Montana, “Double-Crossed,” Hannah Montana (Miley Cyrus) boards the SS Tipton on her way to a concert performance in Honolulu. To impress Bailey (Debby Ryan), Cody (Cole Sprouse) enlists Woody (Matthew Timmons) to help him get tickets.

Meanwhile, the Russos use a little magic to spice up their vacation - Alex (Selena Gomez) pulls a prank on Justin (David Henrie) for which Mr. Moseby (Phill Lewis) blames Zack (Dylan Sprouse), while Max (Austin) introduces London (Song) to a magical suitcase.

And In the third and final crossover episode from Wizards on Deck with Hannah Montana, “Super(stitious) Girl,” While on the ship deck, Miley loses the charm ankle bracelet that her mother gave her and when things start to go wrong, she is sure it’s because she lost her lucky charm. Meanwhile, Cody (Cole Sprouse) tells Bailey (Debby Ryan) that he has a close friendship with Hannah and promises great seats to her concert.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephNash (talk • contribs) 16:10 11 June 2009

Untitled

The Jonas Brothers are going to guest star on The Suite Life on Deck in the episode "Crossover" alongside Miley Cyrus (as Hannah Montana), Mitchel Musso, Emily Osment and other regulars in the cast. Heres the description of the episode. (Not sure of air date. Sorry!)

Maddie Fitzpatrick comes to visit the S.S. Tipton, but the Jonas Brothers arrive and Maddie developes a crush on Joe which makes Zack jealous. In the meantime Hannah, Mike and Lola spend some time on the ship so they can bound before Hannah's concert but when Lola starts crushing on Zack and ditches Mike and Hannah they become angry with her and hang out with Cody and Bailey instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipperlvr (talk • contribs) 23:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That episode summary was in the article, and was changed several times (see above), but was was previously deleted several times because without a citation from a reliable source it's not appropriate to include it in the article. See Wikipedia's verifiability policy for more information. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the episode title is 'Wizards of Hannah Montana On Deck'. I have found quite a few sites which cited that. Can someone help me change it on the episode list? I'm not a registered user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorandom97 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You are a registered user. Only registered users have usernames. However, the article, which you've previously edited[16], is semi-protected so new editors can't edit it either. That has been changed since you edited it because a lot of uncited information was being added. Somebody else will need to change the article for you, but you'll need to provide a citation from a reliable source supporting the episode name. Provide an appropriate link here and we'll see what we can do. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. It's not clear what change you are requesting, Aayu203 (talk). The discussion below above appears to have stopped at the "please provide a reference" stage. If you are requesting the change that Sorandom97 (talk) was suggesting, could you help them by finding a reference? If it is some other change, could you include the text of the change? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Youtube

YouTube videos are not considered to be a reliable source. so don't post them as links

Although not considered to be reliable sources, Youtube videos can still be used provided they have a citation from a reliable source to support them. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

seaHarmony

Can someone add "...based on her dating test results" at the end of the description? This is what it says in the commercial. I understand that may not be very reliable...70.232.165.202 (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ignore the above comment. Turns out I wasn't signed in!Pianoajd (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Shipnotized

I just saw on TV.com that there'll be a new ep called shipnotized, but i cant add it. Will smeone add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BB209 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Since it is supported by two reliable sources it has been added. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The Swami and the Mommy

Put in that Bailey doesnt appear in this ep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BB209 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The citation for this episode says that she does appear. Until such time as there is some proof that she doesn't, I'm afraid your request can't be accommodated. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

She probably appears in the citation as she is main cast and gets credit for basically appearing in the opening credits. An editor who sees the episode - a primary source of information - and states that she did not appear in the episode can use the episode itself as the verifiable reference. As to whether or not to trust that editor's veracity - see WP:AGF. But realistically, established editors with no history of dubious edits who state they have actually seen the episode should, in my opinion, be trusted to accurately report what they saw. --NrDg 04:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with the spirit of what you said but it does seem to fly in the face of WP:V, specifically the first paragraph: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." As it stands, it doesn't seem possible to check the claim because, according to citations and the article itself, the episode has not aired yet. That some viewers may claim to have seen it doesn't make it verifiable since the majority of viewers clearly haven't and the episode isn't available to check. Regarding editor's veracity, in this case one editor has only 3 edits to his name while the other has 11, which really isn't in the realm of an established editor so I'm comfortable challenging the claim. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Your call. I will note, however, that the section of TV.com being used as a reference is in a user editable section so I don't trust that source either. Main cast are presumed to always appear and the rebuttal to that presumption is what requires the reference. Episode non-appearance of main cast is, in my opinion, to trivial to worry about too much and can easily wait 4 days for a more easily verified reference. The "able to check that material" does not mean it has to be easy, just possible. Web links are nice but not necessary. We do a lot of trusting when someone uses an obscure book for a reference for example. --NrDg 15:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I do have my own concerns about tv.com but there are different levels of edit access and it takes a while to get high enough to be able to make substantial changes, unlike here. I've been a member since February 2007 and I'm still at level 2, which means I have only limited edit access. It seems to be the best of a bad bunch, which is why I think waiting until the episode has aired is best. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have verified that the video of the full episode is posted on an official Disney site. I started watching it to confirm it is there but did not watch the whole episode. This is equivalent to a broadcast. Any information derived from that video is easily verifiable now and the video itself is a primary reliable source and can be used as such. Unfortunately the way Disney does videos does not lead to easy web links. http://disney.go.com/videos/#/videos/tvshows/ gets close though. --NrDg 03:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, before this episode aired wikipedia gave a different discription about this episode.it said that a swami predicts bailey s future and one of london's step mother comes on board but the episod is totally different.why is that! if it was not the episode how could anyone put it there?Potteroks (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, it happens all the time. It's probably the result of discussions on fan sites or somebody reading something and putting their own spin on it. It was a real problem for quite some time. See comments above about "It's All Greek To Me" and "Crossroads". --AussieLegend (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the information that gets seeded on fansites and such comes from casting sites like showfax that has planning information that does not always result in what the final episode looks like. On some shows the writers are changing things even as the episode is being taped - actors complain about this all the time as their lines can change after they think they have learned the script. Sometimes info is from people watching in the live audience. They are not supposed to reveal what they saw and they are not all accurate reporters of what they did see. All in all it generally best wait for a broadcast of the episode before trusting any detailed description of the plot. --NrDg 16:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How did this lose all the episode summaries?

[17] Gimmetrow 22:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Mom

Ok why is it the kids, mother and father all have the same last name? the mom and dad got divorced so the kids should have there dads last name and carey (mom) should be useing her maiden name --80.233.129.210 (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not a universal rule. Sometimes women retain their married name after a divorce. We go with what is shown in the episodes and don't presume. --NrDg 14:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Martin is their father's last name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.110.138 (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Credit Error ("Mom and Dad on Deck")

May not be too interesting but..Robert Torti was credited as Rick Martin but announced in the show as Kurt Martin, his original character name. -- グリフオーザー (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not too interesting right now but your edit to the article and raising it here may prove valuable in the future. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Zack & Maddie Kiss

I feel that the description of this scene in the episode "Maddie On Deck" is too misleading and parents might worry about the content of this show. Maybe the article can mention that the kiss is a short one and not a "long awaited" one. And that a body double was used, it is obvious from the camera angle and editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.125.12.38 (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what "long-awaited" means. It means he was waiting for a kiss from Maddie for a long time, which is true, not that it was a long kiss. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Videeo

On the Disney site, both M&D On Deck, The Wrong Stuff, & Splash n Trash were on the site before TV, should this be noted 24.56.20.41 (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed Episodes

• Family Thais (209) http://actinginfo.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-02-23T03%3A28%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.53.12 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The source is for casting info. Episode info is tentative to assist in casting parts. Script details and even episode names are not set at that time and can change before broadcast. In other words this site is not a usable reference for episode information. --NrDg 03:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Mulch Ado About Nothing

This episode is not as TV.com said, is diference, Bailey has homesick and Cody will be do the "Kettlecorn Mulch Festival" in the S.S. Tipton; but when London invited Moose (Bailey's old boyfriend), he want to return Kettlecorn with Bailey. So Cody and Moose enter in a Wrestling Match for Bailey. I saw the images, and with the plot, but because I didn't have good references, Wikipedia will erase it...

I can't put the URL, because Wikipedia didn't let me, but if anybody searchs "The Suite Life on Deck" in justjaredjr.com, it will be first the images of Mulch Ado About Nothing... --CaRaNt11 (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Cruisin' For a Bruisin'

Someone listed this as an episode to air in Germany. I followed the reference link and this is not a new episode. The description indicates that this is The Mommy and the Swami under a different name (similar to Show and Tell/Showgirls). Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwehurricane1 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't scrolled down to and read the episode summary at the link but having now done so I have to agree. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

But it's true, they don't excogitate episodes. You can altough searche after that title. Use Google to search for ""Cruisin' For a Bruisin'" "Suite Life"". There are links to IMDB, MovieAB and more...

p.s.: I added the episode. --Shego123 (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops

I was trying to bring the unaired episode to the aired episode list but unfortunately my computer shut down as the page was saving reulting in both lists dissapearing. can somebody fix this. i apologise for the mistake. Tca achintya (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Crossover Episodes

"Double-Crossed" and "Wizards on Deck with Hannah Montana" should not be listed as the same episode. They are individual episodes which are part of a 3-part crossover with the third episode being a Hannah Montana episode called "Super(stitious) Girl." This information can be verified by scrolling to the episodes on DirecTv's guide. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Suite Life on Deck New Episode “In the Line of Duty”

In the upcoming episode of The Suite Life on Deck “In The Line of Duty,” as punishment for setting off a stink cloud, Zack (Dylan Sprouse) is made hall monitor, a role which he takes way too seriously. After sending half of the school to detention, Zack experiences the repercussions of upsetting all of his friends.

Meanwhile, Bailey (Ryan) gets a job at London’s (Song) boutique, an extension of London’s personal closet.

“In The Line of Duty” premieres Friday, August 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephNash (talk • contribs) 17:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Prod. Code

I'm opening a discussion on the prod. codes. For one, Extremeguy what's so unrealistic about it? Two, why would I put false info down, I'm one of the loyal editors on Wikipedia, ask Aussie and NrDg. Three, I do get my prod. from a reliable source, but I can't post the refernce because of the 6-week rule sent out by Disney. I can post the info, just not the source (against Disney's policy). Extremeguy, you have done nothing to help except revert. - Alec2011 (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

i know the episode title is real just not the production code. the title is from this source http://thedisneyweb.blogspot.com/2009/07/willow-smith-guest-stars-on-true.html. it just does not sound realistic to go from 205 to 216. on the source it says season priemer so it could be 201. i was going to re add the production code after the episode airs from itunes to see what the production code is. can you post the reliable source on my talk page than once i see it i will deleate it right away or just the episode infor with it saying it is from disney. or you can just give me the site and i will find it. Extremeguy (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC) thankswhat's the 6 week rule any way.

I can't give out the current schedule, it's part of Disney's 6-week rule. I can show you an old one of what the info look slike but not the current one. Doens't it seem wierd for Disney to air 304 of Hannah Montana after 15 episodes? Doesn't is seem wierd for Disney to air 104 then 112 for Sonny? It's Disney they air things out of order know matter how far apart they are away. Disney can air an episode a week after filming. The 6-week rule is that for the month that the episode information is sent out, it can't be released until those 6-weeks are over (Aug. 1-Aug 31) after that the information can be released. - Alec2011 (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability, a core policy of Wikipedia, is quite clear on this:

“ Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. ”

As the material has been challenged you are now required to provide a citation from a reliable source. If you can't, the material should be removed. That similar information exists in another article isn't a reasonable argument for its continued inclusion here, it's probably a good reason to delete the material from the other article. What you certainly do not want to do is continue adding the information after having been warned about edit warring.[18][19] That's edit warring. It goes against our BOLD, revert, discuss policy, and is likely to get you blocked. You now need to reach consensus before re-adding the disputed material. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I did some research, and since I can't use my previous source, I used the same source as the other one TV.com. I've added the source and the info is all there. - Alec2011 (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I just checked and only the first episode has a production code listed at TV.com. It's therefore not an appropriate source for the claim. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look on the page, it gives all the airing prod. codes on that page though. - Alec2011 (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, because it's a forum post and forum posts are not considered to be reliable sources. TV.com is not really a reliable source for such information anyway because anyone can edit there. I have an account there and I could make the codes 666 and 777 if I wanted. I've seen this happen before. Information was added to an article here and removed because it was uncited. Shortly afterwards the same information, spelling errors included, was added to tv.com. The Wikipedia article was then edited, using tv.com as a source. All of this happened over a very short period of time so it was obvious what had happened. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can PROMISE you that I did not edit that at TV.com, don't call me a DUCK or something like that, I'm tired of people being so inconsiderate to other people. I looked that up and just found it, my bad if I posted an unreliable source. It looks official, why would someone make up names, plus the info was from showfax anyway (I know it can change but i shows the prod. status of the show). I know what I know, and I get info from Disney, even if it posted on a forum (different from TV.com) and I know for a FACT that it's official as i have proof. If you want to proof of the info I get from the forum (once again different from tv.com) I can show you an old one from November 2008, if not, please don't call me names or pin this on me. - Alec2011 (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't get so defensive. Nobody called you names. Most people don't deliberately make up information, they just often resort to assumptions, which is OK on forums but unacceptable here. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, however the forum I'm getting the information from doesn't make up assumptions, it's get's it's info straight from the Disney Scheduleing Agency. I have a copy of the old one from November 2008, however the current Aug 2009 one can't be released until Sept. 2009. - Alec2011 (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Then that's when the production codes can be added. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I can't be sure I can get the schedule from the holder though. - Alec2011 (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Kitchen Casanova!

I went to the taping of this episode! Debby Ryan posted a youtube video called Grrrrrrreat (7 r's) on the day of the taping. Check it out! 75.19.40.188 (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Summary of Episode 1 of Season 2

I don't know, what the guy that wrote this summary was thinking about, but it's just talking about the relationship of cody and bailey (think I spellt it wrong (spell too^^). But it's also important to write about the mainstory with the spies and the recipe. Hope you fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.246.223.240 (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalized

The article seems to be vandalized too much. What I would like to do is to protect the article by locking it to unregistered users. Anyone who agrees with me? --DCFan101 (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's locked and I can't do anything to help, can someone please add this info to episode Roomies: Background music in Zack's new Bachelor pad is the water remix of Jordan's 'One Step at A Time'. This isn't availble (sp?) 'til Crossing Jordan. Rewword if you want. 86.15.1.90 (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

UPDATES guys thanks for all the info by the way wheres it from if its a secret just try to post often if you can write were its from at the end of rock the kabash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.122.198 (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wizards on Deck with Hannah Montana

Part 1: "Cast-Away (To Another Show)"

Part 1 - Episode 25 of Wizards of Waverly Place.

Justin is excited to meet London Tipton when he wins an essay contest prize: a cruise on the SS Tipton. Theresa and Jerry say that Alex can't go because of her 14 missed assignments. Alex, (who sneaks away, but is caught) agrees to take classes on board, and Max join Justin on board, where Alex bonds with Bailey, but soon gets in hot water when she uses magic to bring Harper aboard. Meanwhile, Max and Zack compete in a series of outrageous challenges. Alex says that she is Ashley Olsen so she won't get caught skipping classes.

Part 2: "Double-Crossed"

Part 2 - Episode 21 of The Suite Life On Deck.

Hannah Montana boards the SS Tipton on her way to a concert performance in Honolulu. Since Bailey loves Hannah Montana, Cody attempts to get tickets because he knows Hannah. However, Hannah doesn't remember Cody, So he enlists Woody to help him get tickets. Alex pulls a prank on Justin, for which Mr. Moseby blames Zack, while Max introduces London to a magical suitcase. Cody admits to Bailey that Hannah didn't recognize him. When Cody gets hit by cake, Hannah sees him wearing the shirt she remembers Cody. Hannah thinks that he kept the shirt from That's So Suite Life of Hannah Montana. Hannah gives Cody and Bailey tickets and backstage passes to her show. Bailey then exclaims that it would be the best date ever. She then kisses Cody and he reacts by running out of the room and shouting " Yes! My six-month plan worked!" Thus the relationship of Bailey and Cody begins. Also Justin, Zack and Mr. Moseby bust Alex for the prank.

Part 3: "Super(stitious) Girl"

Part 3 - 19 of Hannah Montana.

While in her room, Hannah loses the anklet her mother gave her. Lola helps her to try and find it, but with no luck. Finally, a maid shows the anklet to Mr. Moseby, but London snatches it, seeing it as valuable. Hannah and Lola notice that London has it, but saying that the anklet has fake diamonds, London throws it overboard. Hannah is depressed and wonders if anything else could happen. A storm blows her wig away, her hair dye attempt went wrong (her hair turned green), a rat appeared on her head, and a mirror broke. Hannah's rehearsal went poorly, as well. Hannah tells Cody and Bailey that the concert is canceled. Miley believes the anklet is the only thing that will help her, but her father tells her that the spirit of her mother is in her heart, too. Robby gives Miley another wig and Hannah tells Cody and Bailey to come on and that they are invited to the after party. Hannah has the Hawaii concert, and all is well. Meanwhile, back in California, Jackson, Oliver and Rico open a package that belongs to Robby, and it turns out to be a bounce house, that inflates itself, getting the boys stuck to the window. Rico eventually deflates it with his fingernail. Divod (talk) 06:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Suite Life on Deck New Episode “In the Line of Duty”

In the upcoming episode of The Suite Life on Deck “In The Line of Duty,” as punishment for setting off a stink cloud, Zack (Dylan Sprouse) is made hall monitor, a role which he takes way too seriously. After sending half of the school to detention, Zack experiences the repercussions of upsetting all of his friends.

Meanwhile, Bailey (Ryan) gets a job at London’s (Song) boutique, an extension of London’s personal closet.

“In The Line of Duty” premieres Friday, August 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephNash (talk • contribs) 17:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Lost At Sea In WIDESCREEEEEEEEEEEEN?!?

I've repeatedly have been watching Disney Channel and have noticed Lost At Sea is in Widescreen on both SD and HD channels, however, online, on Disney Channel Video, it is shown in Full Screen. Should this be noted here? 68.109.162.199 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC).

125th Episode

"Rollin' with the Holmsies" is the 125th episode of the Suite Life series. March 18 will be the 5th anniversary of the series combined (hotel & cruise ship). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.172.232.7 (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Episode 39 Can You Dig It?

Who plays these episode? -- Coral Bay (talk) 23:13, 17. Feb. 2010 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 22:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC).

Season 3

According to http://ericdeanseaton.com/credits/ the seventh episode of the third season is called “Japandemonium!”.MJF2000 (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2010‎ (UTC)

London's Mothers

"Note: London states that her father married eight times, but in "Ala-ka-scram!" she says that Karina, the magician's assistant, is her fourteenth mother, and in the last episode of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, she says her father has had twelve weddings."

I think it's probably because London can't really count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.120.2.13 (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's because he keeps getting married over, and over again. Like when she said 8 times, he was on his eighth marrage, then he got married again after that 3 MORE times. He just gets married a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KennaBeth717 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Or it could just be a lack of continuity. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

DO NOT USE MSN.TV for a reference

It is NOT a good source, especially when it comes to airdates. Seven Seas News airs MAY 7TH, not MAY 8th. Another reason I know its not a good source is because its list of Sonny with a Chance episode is very messed up. I trust Disney sources like the actual Disney channel schedule. Except for when that one episode with the british girls as models aired on a Saturday, SLOD always airs on Fridays. JediLiz 03:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC) JediLiz

Disagreed. What? MSN TV have made some small mistakes but it's an awesome source for titles. ♫♪Adyniz♪♫ 03:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources such as MSN base their listings on information provided by the various channels and networks. Sometimes airdates and even episode names change, resulting in the need to change listings. Sometimes they're a bit slow to do that but, regardless, they're still reliable sources and that's why we use them. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Season 2 Finale

On disney channel I saw an advertisement saying that the season finale is "Break up In Paris" June 18th. I added that to the season finale —Preceding unsigned comment added by KennaBeth717 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the promo online, so I agree that it says it's a season finale and that the date is June 18. The promo was on YouTube, and it appeared to be an unedited screen dump from Disney Channel. —C.Fred (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The first time I just added it and then said it was on youtube. but it keeps gettting reverted. it is on the main suite life page as well.Checker Fred (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't find it on the Disney Channel site; the only promo they have up is for this Friday's episode. —C.Fred (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We have policies to follow, just saying I've seen the promo is original research, linking to a YouTube video which is a copyright violation breaches WP:LINKVIO. Using the video without linking to it still fails WP:RS and WP:V. Bidgee (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, original research would be implying that, because it's a one-hour special, it's the season finale. However, "season finale" is in big letters on the screen mid-promotion. And if an aircheck is not reliable, what's our source for the information about Season 1? —C.Fred (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't fail WP:OR, but it fails verifiability. Printed sources, recordings of broadcasts available in archives, all kinds of things can be cited, but "I saw it on TV" isn't a verifiable source. There's no rush here: there will be something verifiable soon, and there's no reason to add it before then.—Kww(talk) 17:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Yes, some sources don't have to be online (Newspaper or a book for an example) but the YouTube video or seeing a promo on TV can not be considered as a source, not even as a reliable or verifiable source.

@ Kww, well saying "I seen it on TV" can be considered as WP:OR. Bidgee (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Recordings of broadcasts available in archives..." Does that include just the episode proper, or does that include the commercials, promotional spots, and interstitials that are also broadcast with the episode? —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

it was been used on other pages before. iCarly has used it as well on some episodes. when iBelvie in Bigfoot was being shot dan put a video up and the writter anounced the title and the source was youtube dan put up. Promos and commercials have been used and the did say it aired on tv. for iSaved your life the reference was on tv the night of iQuite iCarly. 9Something like that. not sure on the wording Checker Fred (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Interstitials and promos are fine. If you can find a licensed archive of a Disney broadcast that included this promo, that could be used as a source.—Kww(talk) 18:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(indent reset) Suite Life is airing on Disney Channel as I type this, and they did air a promo for the next SLOD—for the June 11 episode, not the June 18 episode in question. If the promo is not yet in general circulation, then the question becomes where the YouTube people got the promo. I'll agree that an apparently leaked promo is of questionable reliability, and based on that, waiting for something more verifiable (or at least with better provenance) is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

They could have gotten off itunes or something. Also it does not have to air everyday. it could only air at specfic times.Checker Fred (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the source it's a one-hour special: http://affiliate.zap2it.com/tv/the-suite-life-on-deck-breakup-in-paris/EP010802400052 - Alec2011 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You can use Youtube videos as a reference if the Youtube video is posted on the Disney Channel Official Youtube. I do agree if Disney Channel is located on the Promo somewhere, it's Officially from Disney. - Alec2011 (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't read what I said nor the policies I've posted, Yes you can use YouTube but only if it is from the official copyright owner/holder(WP:YOUTUBE), the video promo Checker Fred posted not once but 5 times was a copyright violation. Bidgee (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that WP:YOUTUBE addresses what may be linked in the External links section of the article (WP:EL) and not the reliability of sources (WP:RS). In practice, of course, one shouldn't put an infringing link anywhere in the article, even inside ref tags. —C.Fred (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(Just to make my point clear) Well the reliability of the video is questionable but WP:YOUTUBE also applies to linking to any videos (If in doubt over the copyright of the video, don't use it.), whether it is in a cited reference or external links. Bidgee (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the proof from TV.com, how can I add this since the episode page is protected? - Alec2011 (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The information from TV.com is not proof. TV.com is a user submitted site and is not a reliable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Now I am thing this is not right. Someone is going to have to check the production codes out on itunes for the episodes that have allready aired. it does not look right. So maybe protecting this longer intill everything is corrected.Checker Fred (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay I checked the production codes and they are correct. Here's the thing thoug it goes up to 232 but they skip 207 to 208. So it does make sense that it could be the last episode.Checker Fred (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It makes since because Lost at Sea and Break Up in Paris are both 1-hour episodes, so that's 2 prod. codes each which is a total of 30 episodes by prod. codes. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Where did you check the production codes? --AussieLegend (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I searched gooled and found some links. iTunes did not seem to be working or they got rid of the part I need. Well the reference we have for the episodes for season 2 episodes. says we have seen 138 episodes of suite life. 87 episodes of regular and with suite life goes hollywood. season 1 has 21 episodes of the show so far. season 2 has 30 episodes. From this site http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/2246447/?show_files=1&page=1&ref=1274066059 it says * = May be split into two episodes in the future as is typical of specials. Now the next two episodes have not been updated yet. I looked and found some other episodes that are going to start in july on msn and they look like season 3 episodes. So I am thinking they are cound as two if the next episode after the one tonight is an hour long it should equal to 30 episodes if it is an hr. The only episodes were missing of production codes is 208 and 207. so it might be that forgot about those and just went to 232 instead.Checker Fred (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a lot of confidence there. Demonoid is a torrent site and not RS. In fact I know a lot of the pack information for torrents is sourced from here. You don't actually say where you got the links other than this and you need to. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

with more previews on youtube I decied to go to disneychannel and it is up there the same promo and it said season finally.Checker Fred (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That's all well and good but it's not a citation. You still haven't said where you got the new production codes from. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Uncited/OR changes today

A number of editors, primarily IPs, have made a number of uncited, OR additions over the past few hours.[20] The page is now semi-protected again as a result, but I'm unable to repair the errors with breaching 3RR further. I've tagged some of the incorrect changes, but essentially the article needs to be reverted to this version before further changes can be made. This edit also needs to be reverted unless the editor concerned can provide a citation from a reliable source showing that the previous production codes were actually wrong. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Now I know what you mean on the production codes. Somewhere they got switched in other edits awhile back. I just put them back in place. The series premire is The Suite Life Sets Sail and Parrot Island is another part. The production codes would air and go in the order of shooting. So mainly the episodes are 101 and 102. At the end of the first episode it said to be continued. I went back to a very early edit to augest 14 2008 and found they put 102. I am still looking into this. a ip or new user swtiched the production codes and someone never changed it back to the correct one.Checker Fred (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The change to episode 2's production code was made here, with the edit summary "corrected production # for Parrot Island - it's 107 (as per Disney's media listings". While there's no citation, Disney seems a credible source. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Season 2 end/Season 3 commencement date

home.disney.go.com/tv is not an appropriate reference. While some video may appear at some time for some people, it's unverifiable for the 6 billion people who don't live in the United States because Disney redirects the url to the Disney site for individual countries. For example, Australians get to see home.disney.com.au. There's simply no way for people outside the US to verify the claim. We can edit war over this for the next few days if you want to be blocked, but the best option at this time is to leave the article as it was until such time as the epsiode has aired so we can all verify it. The article doesn't need to be fixed today! --AussieLegend (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It is verifiable by any of over 200 million people, however! Sources do not need to be verified by everybody to be reliable; pay sites (NY Times, Wall Street Journal, scholarly journals) have not been disallowed because they sit behind a paywall.

That said, Disney has made the situation very ambiguous in the promo clip by saying that the finale will extend across two nights. All things considered, it's probably easier just to leave it TBA until Saturday, rather than guess at whether the extended version on Saturday is the second part of the episode or just additional features beyond the episode. —C.Fred (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:SOURCEACCESS to expand on that point: "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." Accordingly, the geographic limitations of disney.go.com do not make it an unverifiable or unreliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Disney site presents a problem that isn't addressed by WP:SOURCEACCESS. Because of the way that Disney manages its site, no amount of paying or library access is going to get over 6 billion people access to "the first video that pops up",[21] making it unverifiable to most of the world's population. The first sentence of WP:SOURCEACCESS says, "Verifiability, in this context, means that anyone should be able to check the sources" but anyone outside the US who tries will find that the citation fails verification because, without relising it, they'll actually be checking a different source. It comes down to the simple fact that anyone can't check the source. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay I found what I was looking for. itunes has a function (don't know if it works) looks like you have to be logged in.

• First, put suite life on deck in the search engine
• Next, pick the season you would want to find the production code for
• Pick the episode you want
• Right click on the episode

go get info

• Click on video at the top, when a little screan pops up
• Finnally, you should see episode id.

Hope this helps for all of the production codes. Checker Fred (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Season 3 (Silent Treatment)

This is the synopsis for season 3 episode 1, wikipedia wouldn't let me edit the List of The Suite Life on Deck Episodes:

The day after Cody and Bailey break up, Cody leaves the ship to join an elite club in hopes of healing his wounds. Meanwhile on the ship, London takes Bailey to Miss Tutweiller, who teaches her all of the activities and rituals that she uses to move on from break ups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.237.28 (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Season 3 (Rat Tale)

Sypnosis for Season 3 episode 2:

In this episode, Cody and Bailey argue over who should keep Buck, the pet rat they used for their science project, so Kirby steps in to investigate who would be the better guardian. When Buck bites Woody, Zack sarcastically tells him that he is developing the characteristics of a rat, leading Woody to create a superhero alter ego - Ratman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.237.28 (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rheaiyer (talk • contribs)

Woody's Siblings

In the episode where bailey gets homesick Woody says that his and his litlle sister's mail get mixed up But in another episode he says " i was The YOUNGEST of nine." 96.27.4.48 (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh My Maya

The next episode, Oh My Maya, will air on the 23rd of July, and here is a summary: Zack falls for a girl on the boat and looks to Cody for advice on how to land the girl of his dream. Meanwhile, Cody is unable to get Bailey off his mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.102.119 (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Kettelkorn

In this episode Bailey and Cody get back together but Bailey leaves the S.S. Tipton for Kettlekorn. For a while in the show she is replaced with Maya Zack's love intrest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.88.54 (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Woody Fink and Emma Tutweiller

Why are Matthew Timmons and Erin Cardillo noted as guest stars? They are regularly on the show. Can anyone give me an answer? User:Tech12 11/19/09

While they regularly appear, they are not part of the main cast that's credited at the beginning of each episode. Instead, they are credited as guest stars at the end so they are also credited as guest stars here. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you that really helped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech12 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

But the guy who plays Marcus wasnt an originally part of the main cast and he isnt known as a guest star... so can you explain that to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.192.195 (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

He's credited in a starring role. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Summaries

So i have seen that many summaries have been deleted in the new episodes, likewise Breakup in Paris in was shorten... i know that it will be deleted if it had no source but one time there was a source in an episode but got deleted immediately!!! Is this possible? i think someone is trying to vandalize some hardwork of others and putting false stuff sometimes!!! Junglefury18 (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Summaries of New and Upcoming Episodes

I was wondering if I could have permission to do the summaries for the new upcoming episodes. I have Verizon Fios, so I see the episodes all up to a week in advance. So, could I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graceannhill (talk • contribs) 14:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No, because such summaries could not be verified.—Kww(talk) 15:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kww. (I don't even think it warrants inclusion that Fios is releasing the episodes early, unless it gets coverage in the mainstream media.) —C.Fred (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's okay. I was just wondering. What about after it airs? Would that be okay? Graceannhill (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Production codes

After recent events and several discussions it appears that most, and more likely all, of the production codes in the article are sourced from unreliable sources. It's most definitely the case that none are cited. For these reasons, and because the productions codes serve no real purpose, I'm proposing that they be removed entirely unless somebody can come up with a good reason as to why they should remain. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Purpose is when each episode was produced. The prod. codes were taken from the Disney Channel schedule of premires. - Alec2011 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The production codes tell you in which order they were produced, not when. Of course, they're still all uncited, which is a big problem. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, thats what I meant to say. Honestly, how many other List of episode pages have referenced production codes? - Alec2011 (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

They all should. If they don't they can be removed. "Other stuff exists" is never a good argument. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that I know that has accurate production codes is when you buy the episodes off iTunes. That is just my suggestion.--Weatherandmp5 (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Suite Life On Deck-Season 3 is the final season?

Alright so I know I can't link this due to copyright, but there is a video on YouTube that says goodbye to Suite LIfe On Deck because the Dylan and Cole are heading off to college in New York. The person who posted the video knows the twins very well and was at the taping of what looks to be the final episode. Some of the pictures show cast members crying and on the "Sky Deck" set, a banner that says "Seven Seas High Graduation." If you have any comments please let me know. --Weatherandmp5 (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

New Episodes

MSN.TV accounts two more episdes: Party On! will air on September 10 and Love and War will air on September 24, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serienfan2010 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Season 3

Kettlecorn and Woody's Sister —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.82.97 (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Suite life on deck - Bon Voyage

So I'm just going to inform everyone in the talk page but I'm not prompting anyone to post this because it has no source. I found the summary by a video with a promo and small parts of the episodes... Summary: The ships Underwater Lounge sunk after the window cracks. Mr. Moseby is furious by this and suspects the crew : Cody, Zack, London, Bailey, Marcus and Woody. He plans to expel one of the crew and get him/her kicked out of the ship.

Comments: Maybe each crew will do everything to prove him/her is innocent and maybe Marcus becomes too suspicious and everyone detects him as the responsible. Getting expelled and kicked out, Zack, Cody, Bailey, Woody and London plans to make a small farewell party to him. Marcus plans to continue his retainer baby album... I dunno i have a guess maybe.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junglefury18 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that is true. Numerous websites have already listed that Marcus is going to restart his music career. They don't say anything about suspicions of cracked windows.

--Weatherandmp5 (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have seen the recent Bon Voyage Ads on Disney, there is a cracked wall that breaks and floods mr.moseby's underwater lounge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.4.249 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it and there IS a crack and someone IS going to be kicked off, but Mr. Moesby did it by accident and London takes the blame and her allowance is lowered. She isn't kicked off. But Marcus leaves anyway, to make a musical off the song "retainer baby". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.227.18 (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Japandemonium!, Love and War, ETC.

I think the episode list should be like this: 1. Love and War 2. Japandemonium! 3. Prom Night 4. GraduationJunglefury18 (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding info about unaired episode

Can I add summary and guest stars for episode "Love and War" even thought it doesn't air until next week, but it's up on YouTube? Superjay2001 (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Superjay2001

No, a citation from a reliable source is needed and, as the YouTube video is a linkvio it can't be used. I've removed the link from your post for that very reason. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Trouble in Tokyo Summary

Can someone please put in the summary for Trouble in Tokyo because the episode has aired. You can find the summary on Youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.254.246 (talk) 08:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Weasels on Deck

The I'm in the Band Episode Page had been updated with this. Not Only that but Disney XD alreary begun to air promos with info on the episode airing on 10-11-10 97.118.253.108 (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Bubbabuns99, 10 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Will you let me edit the ghost and Mr Martin because the description was all wrong, the ghost captains name was not Jesse Belle it was Intaneille the ships name and the love of his life was Jesse Belle. The source was The Suite Life on Deck the actual episode Bubbabuns99 (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)thats it

Not done: Make the edit when you are autoconfirmed, as your request is not very clear. Ronk01 talk 01:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.230.183.97, 10 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In the episode the Ghost and Mr. Martin can you please change the captain's name is Jesse Belle to like Antonile or something or just delete it all together because Jesse Belle is the captain's girlfriend.

99.230.183.97 (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done:Please Clarify. Ronk01 talk 01:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Series Finale

The show ended production in September, with the last episode being "Graduation". It is sad to see the show go but there is a reason. The shows cancellation is because of twins Dylan and Cole ( A.K.A Cody and Zach) are going to college. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.172.27 (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Split

Would it make sense to split this page into seperate pages for each season. i don't want to go ahead and do it untill we have decided. so what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdaly93 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There isn't enough content to justify a split at this time. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Senior Ditch Day

Can someone please put up the summary for Senior Ditch Day in Season 3. You can find it on tv.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.254.246 (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Episodes: Prom Night-Production Code 321-Directed by Eric Dean Seaton
Graduation-Production Code 322-Directed by Eric Dean Seaton
Source: http://ericdeanseaton.com/credits/
--Weatherandmp5 (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The Cast Graduate From High School and Go there Seprate Ways —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.231.223 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Lost at Sea

I believe that "Lost at Sea" should have its own article page, similar to what the episodes "The Suite Life Goes Hollywood" and "The Suite Life Sets Sail" have. I think that the episode has enough information and nobility to justify a new article. Jedi94 (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Suite Life Goes Hollywood is of borderline notability and "The Suite Life Sets Sail" is only notable as the first episode of the series. I'm not sure why "Lost at Sea" would be any less non-notable than any other episode but if it meets the general notability guidelines there may be a case for creation of an article. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response! Jedi94 (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Article protection

The article is now protected again due to persistent addition of unsourced information and vandalism, primarily by IP editors. A review of the protection log shows that it has now been protected for 15 of the last 20 months. When the current protection expires in November 2010, after 18 months protection out of 25, if further disruption occurs, I think it's worth pursuing permanent semi-protection. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Error in producing of 'Senior Ditch Day'

94.195.227.18 (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC) In senior ditch day Cody says he has a perfect attendance record, but in 'The Suite Life of Zack and Cody' episode 'What they Hey', Cody ditches with Zack to go to the Mall. You can't prove anything for Bailey.

Can you edit the page to include that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.227.18 (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's really a rather trivial point and not notable enough to include in a summary of the episode. It's even a bit too fancrufty to include in the character article. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Twister Part 1

It is mentioned that Dwight Howard is Mr. Moseby's brother. However, in Suite Life of Zack and Cody, Mr. Moseby's brother is not Dwight but instead a little man. Can someone mention that? Or is this another brother of his? 108.14.246.244 (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It's very probable that he has more than one brother. Jedi94 (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Although that is original research. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Plays the thing edits

In the play's the thing can you make the following changes (but still keep whats already written):

That everyone was writing plays for drama class That Mr. Moesby tries to get Miss Tutweiler to go out with him again, That at the end Cody tries to get back together with Bailey and fails, That Cody made Bailey look bad in the play and only stayed because she would fail otherwise.

94.195.227.18 (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Split Articles

Should this article be split up into different season articles? The other popular Disney shows have them and this show, along with it's original, has been the longest running show on Disney Channel. --DisneyFriends (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Size alone doesn't justify a split. Without additional content (production information, casting etc) there's nothing to be gained from splitting one article into four. In fact, it makes it harder for readers. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)