Talk:Start It Up (Shake It Up)

name confusion and primary usage or not

There is messed up page history and Talk pages here, i think because of cut-and-paste moves to insert a new article about a TV episode, where an article about a song had existed. The moves were not done properly because the page history of the TV episode article shows all the previous article development. I think a Requested Move should have been done, rather than any move being initiated, because common sense tells me that a single TV episode, no matter how widely watched, does not instantly become primary usage for a common phrase like "Start it up". And quick Google searching shows that the song seems to get more usage in current American google perspective.

The TV episode article is nominated at DYK, but I think the article name and page history needs to be fixed before a DYK could be accepted. Can the TV episode info be moved to "Start It Up (television episode)" or some other more precise name? Please don't just move this article until an administrator can fix up the page history situation. --Doncram (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Start It Up → Start It Up (television episode)
Amended: Start It Up → Start It Up (Shake It Up) — Request administrative help to fix improperly moved article and restore edit history to older article about a song. New article about a television episode should be put at "Start It Up (television episode)" or other unambiguous name, as it appears not to meet wp:PRIMARYUSAGE for the term. Song article could be restored at "Start It Up" (as it is possibly wp:PRIMARYUSAGE, note Google search seems to support that) or moved to a "Start It Up (song)". The TV episode one is nominated for DYK but this needs to be cleaned up first. --Doncram (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I will support a move of the TV episode to Start It Up (Shake It Up) (TV articles usually if first articlespace is taken, then the name of series is used), but I believe Start It Up (song) should be kept there because it is not the only use for Start It Up. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 19:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay that much is great, that would resolve the name for the article now under DYK.

About the song one, i think that could be addressed in a separate, properly formed Requested Move about it alone. I don't know if you can get this Requested Move to close somehow, in time for your DYK. --Doncram (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if it were, wouldn't this be 5x expansion? Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not about this Requested Move.

Hey, i'm going to assert there is consensus here for the move to Start It Up (Shake It Up) and for restoration of the song article at Start It Up, and for edit histories to be fixed. Candyo32, please allow this to be closed that way, partly so that your own DYK can be considered in time. Usually contested requested moves aren't considered for closing for 7 days to allow for comments. If this is uncontested it could just be closed. If u feel strongly about the song not deserving primaryusage, please plan to open a properly formed requested move about it, later, following instructions at wp:RM. But there is consensus on move of the TV episode and no one could possibly oppose having the edit histories fixed. --Doncram (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's good. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 02:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: To the administrator, please ignore or also now revert SarekOfVulcan's hatnote disambiguation. SarekOfVulcan's statement here that he doesn't disagree with the requested move fix, just that he's adding the to-be-unneeded hatnote disambiguation anyhow (readded after i explained and removed it, i don't understand why, it is just minor complication requiring it to be considered some now, and then removed). Whatever. There is no one disagreeing with the Requested Move fix. --Doncram (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

RMs usually are open for at least a week; the article should have a hatnote during that time. Powers ^T 15:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Start It Up (Shake It Up)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What's immediately noticeable is that reference number nine does not include a title or publication, but just a link back to another article. This is a major source of the article.

The credits of the episode. Candyo32 00:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, try and include more information such as the retrieval date and a url or other source, have a look at Wikipedia:Cite#Examples.--Ktlynch (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no URL, its the credits of the actual episode, and I have correctly used the cite episode template. See ref 3 in this GA. The only way to credit is the source, which is the actual episode, the directors, writers, episode number and season. I've added the date, though. Candyo32 14:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for my delay in finishing this review, I've been very busy off-line. Reading through the article I do not feel that it meets the GA critieria. While it is well formatted, and someone has clearly lovingly worked over it, it feels puffed up at times and lacks real world context. Here are some of the issues in more detail:

Problems of expression

Some parts I don't really understand: "a female buddy-show with a dance concept, " what's a "female buddy show"? If this is a known trope in TV it might be useful to link to something. I should think that that is the "concept" rather than dance. "To have a dance concept" sounds ridiculous.

"they're dime" tut, tut!

"As they arrive at school, their friend Deuce (Adam Irigoyen) is introduced, offering them bootleg Lady Gaga concert tickets. " Introduced by whom? Why not just say "At school, Deuce, a friend, offers them bootleg tickets to a Lady Gaga concert"

"the original description was described " there's a little redundancy here, and that whole sentence needs re-working too.

The article is strewn with these sorts of typos and errors of style, it could do with a thorough copy-edit and rewrite. There is far too much use of the present participle.

Sources

One of the reasons for the article's thinness and reliance on in-universe material is a the paucity of sources on the subject. Most of the article is based on a watching of the programme itself, including the overly-long plot summary, the inappropriate reproduction of the credits and their recycling in prose in the production section. Reference 1 is a very minor preview of the programme, and 11 is not even about the show. Reference 2 reproduces the press release verbatim, hardly a third party source. Ref 8 is written by infants...

Specific sections

Overall I think the synopsis is far too long, at least 100 words could be cut. The episode is quite short and not exactly complicated.

The "episode production" sub-section is entirely based on the credits, in effect it reproduces these as prose. I'm not sure this is very useful, nor is it a good way to write an encyclopedia article.

Reception, viewing figures are useful to have and often missing from film and TV articles, but there needs to be more. Is there no critical opinion at all? This was a pilot episode so it would be really interesting to see how it was received and the process the studio went through when deciding to commission a whole series.

I don't think the whole list credits should be reproduced. This is the sort of thing better linked too, incidentally does the programme not have an official website?

The picture of Lady Gaga is of poor quality and of only tangential interest to the subject, I think it should be removed. The other image is, I believe, fair use, but it needs a proper justification and more information filled out.

Overall, I think this article needs a lot of work, and some of the material is pure filler to stretch it out a bit. I think it would be better merged into a list of episodes for the programme. It's definitely not of a good standard, though I know there's been some dedicated work, so I'll put it on hold for a while so some more research can be done.

• Withdrawing nomination Candyo32 20:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've fleshed out some of the problems in detail, but as with Meatball It Up, I feel that this would be best merged into a season list for the moment. That way readers can access the main story-arcs and viewer-ship information more easily. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move to "Shake It Up (pilot episode)"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Start It Up (Shake It Up) per WP:NCTV. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Start It Up → Shake It Up (pilot episode) – This article was located at Start It Up (episode) until it was very rapidly moved on a technical request (without enough time for contesting it as controversial). A very confusing series of events, and regrettably not well documented. Reasoning to support the proposed move:

• The name of the pilot for Shake It Up (TV series) is indeed "Start It Up", but this fact is so obscure that it is not even noted in that article (as I write).
• An alternative like Start It Up (pilot) would misleadingly suggest a pilot for a series called "Start It Up".
• The title "Start It Up" is most unlikely to be recognisable to many readers as associated with a TV series, let alone a pilot episode for a series with a different (and confusable) name.
• Start It Up (song) had 5321 pageviews in the last 90 days.
• The present article had just 419 + 2793 under the name Start It Up (Shake It Up) = 3212 pageviews in the last 90 days.
• Therefore, if any topic is to be seen as "primary" for the title "Start It Up", it is likely to be that song and not this obscure pilot episode.
• In the end, however, it is unhelpful artificially to promote some topic as primary, in this case. The most helpful arrangement for all readers (disadvantaging no one) seems to be as proposed here, with various redirects including Start It Up (episode), Shake It Up (pilot), and some others.

I hope all that is right. Let's document actions better in future! Amend the above details as necessary, please.

Noetica^Tea? 06:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Support—Now this one on the WP:RM list I just couldn't resist visiting. As a reader, I'd be profoundly irritated by this title. Tony (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I support disambiguating the article and turning Start It Up into a dab page, as it's clear there is no primary topic. However, the article should be titled Start It Up (Shake It Up) per WP:NC-TV. Jenks24 (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Move to Start It Up (Shake It Up) per Jenks24. As pointed out above, this is not the primary topic for the term and so disambiguation in some form is necessary. I think Start It Up (Shake It Up episode) would be clearest, but apparently the guideline considers this overly specific. In any case a disambiguation page should be created at Start It Up. Jafeluv (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support a move but it should go to Start It Up (episode) as was the original title. We don't need to tell a story in the title, Start It Up (Shake It Up episode) is excessive and Start It Up (Shake It Up) by itself is still a mystery to people who search for "start it up. A disambig page should be created at Start It Up. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ratings

So in the text it says that it was the 2nd biggest series premiere ever on Disney Channel, but it was the biggest not the 2nd... Hannah Montana premiered to 5.4 million viewers and Shake It Up premiered to 6.2 million viewers... Fansdisney (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)