Talk:The Casagrandes

Fails to meet WP:TVSHOW

Reviewers should note that, as of 12 June 2019, the subject of this draft fails to meet the requirements of WP:TVSHOW which states, "in most cases, a television series is not eligible for an article until its scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network (for instance, it has been announced at a television network's upfront presentation as being scheduled and advanced to series)." Compliance with WP:TVSHOW should be confirmed before moving this draft to article space. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Move draft to The Casagrandes

This article is official now. Please move it. Thank you.Keylonrocks7356 (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Aumary

Aumqry may you stop adding Nickelodeon Productions as a production company for this show. It's a brand name not an actual studio. Ginika1555 (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Nickelodeon Productions

I recently reverted, Magitroopa's edit that stated Nickelodeon Productions' is the production company for the show, well Nickelodeon productions redirects to Nickelodeon on Sunset. I went to several Nickelodeon shows and several of them actually have that, but were not produced at Nickelodeon on Sunset. The only shows that were produced at that Studios are the shows that are listed. Nickelodeon on Sunset was since closed and live action shows that were recorded there moved to The Burbank Studios. The main issue is the redirect is false. I looked over the Nickelodeon Productions page and it was pretty much a page that listed show's that were live action shows. This isn't only a problem for this page, but several other pages across the board. I think we need to solve this and not getting into an edit war. Agentdoof (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem is the redirect. Nickelodeon Productions is a "production entity" (i.e. a company), not a "studio location". So it should either be a standalone article, or should redirect to a better target (perhaps to Nickelodeon, where it used to redirect to...). I'm going to ping @Geraldo Perez, Amaury, and Magitroopa:, for their opinions. But it's clear to me that that redirect should be retargeted to another location – likely ditto for Nickelodeon Studios. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I sent them messages, but thanks. It use to redirect to Nickelodeon [1]. Don't understand how it was more accurate as it makes no sense for Show's that don't have to do with Schneider's Bakery or Tollin/Robbins ProductionsAgentdoof (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Wherever the redirect points to there should be some information about Nickelodeon Productions there. Or the redirect turned into an article that meets WP:GNG. The article at Nickelodeon has one mention that a production entity exists but doesn't give any information about it. If there is not enough for an article at the current redirect location, then maybe there is enough to add to the Nickelodeon article as a section header to point the redirect to. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: Why does the Loud House use Nickelodeon Animation in it's section then. The spin off will still be produced by the same division, but I agree we can included Nickelodeon Productions, but something needs to be done with the redirect. Agentdoof (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It probably shouldn't be like that, but it's not really an article I've cleaned up, and it's edited by nothing but dumb fans. Amaury • 00:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Nick Animation is the division that makes the show as that is why it is included in many of the animated articles. The Logo for that company shows up during the end credits along with Nickelodeon Productions. As for Nickelodeon productions that is Nick's production as a whole including animation and live action shows. Most networks have several different production companies listed, so they all get a chunk of airing money. As for the redirect it would probably be best to have it direct to Nickelodeon instead of Nick on Sunset as that is a studio where shows are recorded.Agentdoof (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The redirect target needs to have something about the topic or it is pointless to send readers there. There is nothing currently at Nickelodeon that gives any information about Nickelodeon Productions. There is content about Nickelodeon Productions at the current redirect target which is why it points there now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Then it either needs to be a standalone article, or the bulk of the info should be moved to the Nickelodeon article, because it makes little sense to have into about the "company" at the article about the (physical) "studio" location IMO – the production company is more than just the former location of its studio. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea why Aumary is so persistent in placing Nickelodeon productions as the production company when Nickelodeon shows from somewhere in 2018 don't even show Nickelodeon Productions at the end anymore. It just says Nickelodeon. Nickelodeon Animation Studio is the production company. In 2016 the studio changed its name to Nickelodeon Studios as an entirety, though on many maps it is still listed as Nickelodeon Animation Studio, it is also referred to that by the Nickelodeons social media pages and it's employees. Besides by this logic, we should not only change all the Nickelodeon shows being pumped out recently, production companies to Nickelodeon Productions, but also remove Cartoon Network Studios as the production company for all of CN's shows, since it's just a unit of Cartoon Network as a whole. --Ginika1555 (contribs • talk) 13:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

No source states Nickelodeon Animation Studio. Keep being disruptive, and there will be consequences. Amaury • 16:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury:The animation studio isn't the issue, that can be fixed once the series airs and we see the credits in a couple weeks. The issue is the redirect for Nickelodeon Studios. I have not seen you comment about that once. You have changed the redirect, so I am asking why you did it, as @Geraldo Perez and IJBall:, has mentioned, we probably shouldn't use that redirect and then we can link it properly to the page. What was reason behind that?Agentdoof (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The current redirect is more appropriate than Nickelodeon, per Geraldo's suggestions a while ago and his comments above. Amaury • 16:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Aumary you seem so awkwardly entitled to this page. No Cartoon Networkarticle states that Cartoon Network Studios is working on the show. Nor does any Nickelodeon show before outright state that Nickelodeon Animation Studio is working on it. We know due to all the production images and the crew out right stating they are at Nickelodeon Animation Studio. Not Nickelodeon Productions. The channel doesn't even use the brand name post early 2018 or late 2017 at the end of their shows. Quit being such a nuisance and answer. Ginika1555 (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ginika1555:The production company can be fixed later. Nickelodeon productions is also used in the credits of many shows, like Henry Danger. The main issue is the link it directs to as Nickelodeon on Sunset really makes no sense to have Nickelodeon productions direct to The Burbank Studio as that is a studio not a production company. Nickelodeon would be best redirect, but very little information on that page. Agentdoof (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

When looking at the references, I saw nothing that mentioned "Nickelodeon Productions". The press release just stated "The Casagrandes is produced by Nickelodeon in Burbank, Calif." There is no mention of what subunit or brand of Nickelodeon is the actual production entity. As of now the press release is authoritative and will remain so until an episode airs and we see the actual credits. IMDb which generally gets company credits correct, lists "Nickelodeon Studios" as the production company. We can't use IMDb as a reference but it is a reasonably good sanity check. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Unlikely to be "Nickelodeon Studios", as that name hasn't been used in 15 years. Apparently, recent production cards have dropped the "Productions" part, so it may just be "Nickelodeon" producing now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to try and help solve this and give some more info on this... full episodes of shows are available to watch in the official Nick app on phones. Checking the credits of an episode of Ryan's Mystery Playdate ("Ryan's Chopping Playdate/Ryan's Skatin' Playdate"), the end of the credits says "Nickelodeon Productions". The first episode of The Casagrandes ("Going Overboard") is already viewable in the app, and the end of the credits says just "Nickelodeon". Checking a few more, SpongeBob says just "Nickelodeon" while Henry Danger and All That both say "Nickelodeon Productions". Magitroopa (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Implies that live-action and animated series get different production cards. Regardless, nothing supports using "Nickelodeon Animation Studios" right now, so it should not be that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

YouTube Preview

@Amaury: It is relevant and here’s why:

1. It’s the first release of content for the show. That’s important, no matter where it’s released on. It shouldn’t be counted as the official premiere, because it’s not, but should still be mentioned. 2. "Unsourced" It’s right there, in front of your eyes on YouTube. I’m not going to link to YouTube as the source, so I’m in the midst of finding one. As such, I will leave the article be for now. 3. Please be civil in your edits summaries, Jesus. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@HurricaneGeek2002: We don't go by youtube dates, we go by the actual broadcast date when it premieres on Nickelodeon. Agentdoof (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Which is what I meant by "isn’t the official premiere date", nor did I say it should be in the episode box. There just needs to be a mention of it in the article. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You can do it in prose (esp. in the 'Broadcast' or 'Release' section), if you can source it to a WP:RS (i.e. not the Youtube page itself), and/or you can do it as a 'note' in the episodes table (again, would need to be sourced). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Plot

What's the exact reasoning for needing to wait for a show to premiere, to add its plot section? Spoilers isn't a valid answer by the way, this isn't Fandom/Wikia. Some of these "rules" that's certain editors are applying seem unreasonable. Reverting unreliable sources, disruptive editing, and vandalism makes sense as some of you have been doing, but this there's this. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO. You cannot write a premise or plot section or an episode summary until an episode premieres. Amaury • 17:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You could source a 'Premise' summary to a WP:RS before a series premieres. But, yeah – you can't do it unsourced, and you definitely can't do a 'Plot' section before a show premieres... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

To expand a bit. You are supposed to write plot summaries using your own words based on what you saw watching the episode. Before an episode airs, it is unlikely any plot summary is based on what was actually seen by the person adding the summary and is likely a direct copy or close paraphrase of something written for episode guides, thus making it a WP:COPYVIO. It is very difficult to turn an official episode guide summary into something written in your own words without its being a close paraphrase so we discourage adding summaries before people have had a chance to actually view the episode and it is published (aired) and verifiable to others. Even then we still want viewer summaries, not stuff from other places. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Now it makes sense then. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Cast

Why isn't anyone allowed to add the other cast members in the article? They play big roles. (or will be when it comes out.) --75.99.18.219 (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

You can add any cast members you can find a reference for. Just note that IMDb is not a reliable source for this. You can't add names of people without a reference to back it up. When the show actually airs, we can use credits from the show itself as the show is a primary reliable source for information that is in the show including credit information. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Where do we source show credits? Image2012 (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Update: Here's the press release from Viacom listing the cast: https://www.viacom.com/press/nickelodeon-makes-room-for-the-casagrandes-beginning-monday-oct-14-at-130-p-m-et-pt Image2012 (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

So I found sources and used them to expand the cast list, but they are being reverted because "TFC doesn't consider them as the principal cast". The members of the Casagrande family are essential and integral to the series, excluding them would be detrimental to the article. We cannot necessarily rely on TFC alone, they've been mentioned in a number of sources and press releases. If Amaury does not recognize that, then we have a problem. Image2012 (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you put the production source with it's information under the production section @Image2012:? I'm just wondering. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you please clarify that question, @Rtkat3:? I don't quite understand. --Image2012 (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I am asking if you added the cast confirmation in the source to the production like how they confirmed the voice actors for Dr. Santiago and the Changs? If you do something like that in the production section, you might be able to re-add them with their associated source in the character section. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, these characters have appeared in The Loud House, and so I don't think it's really necessary since it's a spin-off. --Image2012 (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Magitroopa keeps reverting the cast, because of one little website (TFC), and also out of so-called "consistency" with secondary sources. --Maxbmogs (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Whatever you mean by that, you might need to find some major sources for that so that they would in the infobox. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Premiere date

Don’t add the premiere date to the infobox until the time when the first episode airs. This goes for the plot and other stuff too. I’ve checked the schedule, dosen’t premiere until 1:30 PM EST. If this is a time zone error from my end, let me know. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Be sure to wait until the episode is finished before adding the plot or synopsis BTW. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Lack of improvement

Just letting some users know, the whole plot thing made sense in the end, but now Amaury is acting as if he’s the webmaster of the page or something, and is reverting almost every perfectly fine edit that people are trying to make, with some "rules" that’s he’s just coming up with at this point. I’m not contacting him on his talk page, he stubbornly reverts all of my messages. So just warning people to just avoid this article unless you want to deal with this. I’m not getting into a edit war. If he wants to have it his way, fine, (Personal attack removed) HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@HurricaneGeek2002: What specific changes are you seeking to the article? – Without listing those, it's not possible to determine if the sought-after changes are improvements or not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

For example, the header should indeed be 'Characters' – then subheadings for 'Main' and 'Recurring' can be added later. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Or better yet, why not just "Restore" the character page to its glory. That way we can all see. 75.99.18.219 (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Because a List of characters page for a TV series that literally just premiered is utterly nonsensical – there shouldn't be one of those until probably about season #2. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Season 0

According to you, the first nine episodes of The Loud House Season 4, from "Friended! with the Casagrandes" to "Lucha Fever with the Casagrandes", can be all considered as the Season 0 of this spin-off? For me Yes. Luigi1090 (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Not appropriate – those are episodes of a different TV series. This can be mentioned in prose (if sourceable), but should not be in the episode table, for instance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: Look at the The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy. The first 48 segment (23 whole) episodes were aired as part of a different TV series, Grim & Evil. In the Wikipedia format, those episodes are "incorporated" listed in the Season 1 table, separated from the REAL Season 1 episodes with a specific format. Luigi1090 (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Amaury • 16:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The "Season 0" episodes can easily be accessed from the link to the Loud House page, so I don't see the need for it to be here. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

New Haunts and Croaked!

These two episodes are one in the same (episode 2, by airing order at least). Each episode is 22 minutes, and as they're both 11 minutes it doesn't make sense that they're separated on the page. According to this page they even have the same production code (which doesn't contradict the sources, I think you're reading it wrong). Just because they were aired on different days doesn't mean they count as completely separate episodes, I doubt when they made the 20-episode order they were accounting for these two to be separate episodes. But what helps prove my case is the credits which you can see here; if they weren't the same episode, why would they share a credit sequence together..? This just makes no sense. CrypticalFiery (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

This actually would contradict Futon Critic. Even if they are both "103", Futon lists them separately, one as "103A" and "103B". See the whole List of The Loud House episodes page, doing this throughout all four seasons. Magitroopa (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Then if you must, label it 2a and 2b like Futon Critic did. But they simply aren't separate episodes. CrypticalFiery (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Characters and casts

Here's the list of characters that has been reverted thrice. Is there anyway to open a discussion on this?

• Ronnie Anne Santiago (voiced by Izabella Alvarez) is an 11-year-old girl who is the primary focus of the show. Having moved with her family to Great Lakes City from Michigan, she explores her environment and meets with a variety of colorful characters, often with her new best friend, Sid. On some occasions she talks with her friend back in Michigan, Lincoln Loud, with whom she has a close but complicated relationship.
• Bobby Santiago (voiced by Carlos PenaVega) is Ronnie Anne's 17-year-old brother, who currently works in the Casagrande mercado. He is simple-minded and clumsy, but very kind and eager to make the most of life in Great Lakes City. Prior to moving, he took on numerous jobs, partly due to large businesses taking over smaller businesses, and partly to impress his girlfriend, Lincoln's older sister Lori. He and Lori are currently in a long-distance relationship pending her move to the city for college.
• Maria Casagrande-Santiago (voiced by Sumalee Montano) is Ronnie Anne and Bobby's mother, Carlos' sister, and Rosa and Hector's daughter. She works as a nurse at a local hospital.
• Rosa Casagrande (voiced by Sonia Manzano) is Ronnie Anne and Bobby's grandmother and Maria and Carlos' grandmother. She is the matriarch of the Casagrande clan and the building's superintendent. She is a skilled cook and uses a variety of home remedies to heal people and ward off spirits.
• Hector Casagrande (voiced by Ruben Garifias) is Ronnie Anne and Bobby's grandfather and Maria and Carlos' grandfather. He is the patriarch of the Casagrande clan and the proprietor of the mercado on the ground floor of building. He tends to gossip, and knows how to play the guitar.
• Carlos Casagrande (voiced by Carlos Alazraqui) is Ronnie Anne and Bobby's uncle, Maria's brother, and Rosa and Hector's son. He is a father of four and works as a professor at a local university. He reads lots of books and can dispense rather inane trivia. In "Going Overboard", it was revealed that he was a popular skater in college, but had to stop after marrying his wife Frida.
• Frida Puga-Casagrande (voiced by Roxana Ortega) is Ronnie Anne and Bobby's aunt and Carlos' wife. She is an avid painter and photographer, and gets emotional over a variety of mundane moments. Her maiden name is named after staff member Miguel Puga.
• Carlota Casagrande (voiced by Alexa PenaVega) is the eldest (and only daughter) of Carlos and Frida's children. She is an admirer of vintage fashion and has a following on social media.
• Carlos "CJ" Casagrande Jr. (voiced by Jared Kozak) is the second eldest and the eldest male of Carlos and Frida's children. He was born with Down syndrome, and possesses a very bright disposition. He loves to play pretend games, and likes pirates.
• Carlino "Carl" Casagrande (voiced by Alex Cazares) is the second youngest of Carlos and Frida's children. He has a macho personality and hatches a variety of schemes, but is ultimately very childish. He likes to play with toys, especially trains.
• Carlitos Casagrande (voiced by Roxana Ortega) is the youngest of Carlos and Frida's children. He has noticeably orange hair and a propensity to mimic those around him. He is just beginning to learn how to talk.
• Sergio (voiced by Carlos Alazraqui) is the family parrot. He has a sassy personality and acts like an alarm clock. He is named after cartoonist Sergio Aragonés, famous for his work in Mad Magazine.
• Lalo is the family's English Mastiff. Despite his large size, he tends to get scared easily. He is named after cartoonist Lalo Alcaraz, famous for his strip La Cucaracha and his editorial cartoons, and who also works on the show as creative consultant and writer.
• Dr. Arturo Santiago (voiced by Eugenio Derbez) is Bobby and Ronnie Anne's father who works as a doctor at Physicians with Missions, where he is currently operating in Peru. He is separated from Maria, however he gets along well with the family.
• Sid Chang (voiced by Leah Mei Gold) is a 12-year-old girl who is Ronnie Anne's new best friend, whose family lives in the apartment above hers. She has a quirky and energetic personality, and she tends to do things without thinking. In "The Two of Clubs", she is shown to have an interest in robotics.
• Stanley Chang (voiced by Ken Jeong) is Sid's father, a friendly subway conductor for GLART, the city's public transportation system. If he gets upset during his job, he stops the train mid-travel to "walk it off".
• Becca Chang (voiced by Melissa Joan Hart) is Sid's mother and a zoologist. She performs an alligator wrestling show at the city zoo.
• Adelaide Chang (voiced by Lexi Sexton) is Stanley and Becca's 6-year-old daughter and Sid's younger sister. Sid considers her "a professional sass-bucket". Like CJ, she likes to play pretend games with her and her pet iguana Meatball. In "Croaked", she is also revealed to have had an attachment to her frog Froggy, and became distraught when he died.

--Image2012 (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It's been explained on multiple occasions – currently only those that are listed at The Futon Critic source are listed as "main" cast – IOW, this is consistent with secondary sourcing. I agree with this – there is simply no way that you can have a dozen and a half "main" cast members, even in an animated series. My recommendation is to put everyone from the current listing – Ronnie Anne Santiago to Adelaide Chang – under a 'Main' subsection, and then put everyone else in the list above in a 'Supporting' cast subsection. I think that is an acceptable outcome. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't believe that the rest of the Casagrandes are not the main characters. The basic premise of The Loud House is that it is about a boy and his eleven sisters. All of them, plus Clyde McBride, are considered main characters by Nickelodeon. This show operates on a similar premise. --Image2012 (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall and Image2012: Relax, I've expanded List of The Loud House and The Casagrandes characters's scope to include the show a la List of Friends and Joey characters and List of The Big Bang Theory and Young Sheldon characters. That should settle this dispute once and for all. ミラP 02:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, now can someone italicize the titles there? --Image2012 (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Image2012: Done. ミラP 17:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, @Amaury: reverted it again. Someone please try to enlighten me as to why? --Image2012 (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Because the page should never have been moved. These are two separate and different series, and the sooner you understand how Wikipedia works, the better. And if you can't or refuse to, maybe you shouldn't be here. Amaury • 16:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: But one show is a spin-off of the other, and I've already listed precedent five comments up. ミラP 17:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. They are still different series. Amaury • 18:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it is not irrelevant. Those two are closely linked. It's like Black-ish with its spin-off Grown-ish, or (in more Nick-specific examples) Rugrats with All Grown Up and Dora the Explorer with Go, Diego, Go!. And how dare you say that? --Image2012 (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Because even if what was done "sticks", you do not just remove the 'Characters' section from here. It could maybe be shorted to a simple list. But the section should not be removed entirely – the 'Characters' section should be left, with a link to the separate LoC article, along with a simple list of the main characters/cast. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is. What's next, "List of The Loud House and The Casagrandes characters"? It doesn't matter if a series is a spinoff or not, it is still a different series. The Loud House and The Casagrandes. Black-ish and Grown-ish. Rugrats and All Grown Up. Dora the Explorer and Go, Diego, Go! They are all different series, and in the case of Black-ish and Grown-ish, they air on two different networks. Amaury • 20:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to get into a fight. Is there any way to resolve any of this? --Image2012 (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, is there any update as to what to do? I mean, since there's now a separate page for the characters, I think it would be prudent to mention the rest of the Casagrande family, since they are an integral portion of the show. Image2012 (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Nothing has changed. And there shouldn't even be a separate page for the characters, anyway, as there's hardly enough information for one. This and The Loud House are two separate series, in any case, so the page is wrong. Amaury • 07:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, frankly, my problem is that the show has the Casagrandes family as an integral part of the show. Leaving out the others will create an incomplete and inaccurate picture of the series, in my opinion. Image2012 (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with this user on that? --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Podcast

It seems clear to me that the existence of podcast episodes connected with the show is relevant to the content of the article and should be included. Even if that fact hasn't been discussed in secondary sources, any individual fact in an article doesn't need to meet notability guidelines on its own and I don't see any reason not to include verifiable non-trivial info that people viewing the article would surely want to know. The primary sources provided clearly showed that the podcast exists, and if necessary I would even be okay with cutting the info down to a single sentence just saying something like, "On December 22, 2019, Nickelodeon began releasing a companion podcast to the show titled 'The Casagrandes Familia Sounds'", period, if you really want to limit it to nothing but mentioning its existence without any further info. Unless anyone can explain why relevant, verifiable, non-trivial info should be excluded, I'll plan on restoring it again in a few days. Alphius (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources do not demonstrate notability – they only verify that something exists. Unless strong secondary source coverage of this can be found, the podcast is not notable, and should not be included at the article. Incidentally, this is exactly how "Mack Chat" was handled at Andy Mack – there was no coverage of it, so it was not included in the article. Examples like Talking Dead are frankly rare. So, no – it has been challenged, and unless strong secondary sourcing can be found, the podcast should not be included. WP:NOTFANSITE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability, which explicitly states that notability guidelines don't apply to content within an article. Appealing to notability alone isn't enough of an argument in this case. As you've said, the primary source verifies that it exists, and I see no reason not to at least mention its existence if nothing else - it's not like I'm asking for it to get its own article or something. And I don't know the whole story behind the Mack Chat thing, but it seems worth noting that that's a meta thing featuring people talking about the show, while this podcast is a narrative thing featuring characters from the show. It's not a recap or behind the scenes thing - like I said in one of my edit summaries, even if it's not included on formal episode lists, it essentially is a series of audio-only episodes of the show. Neither Mack Chat nor Talking Dead is truly comparable. Alphius (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to include information about the podcast as it is unipmortant, this article is about the TV show. Feenyfan2019 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't need to go into detail about it, but the general fact that the TV show has a companion podcast is relevant info when going over information about the TV show, and the article fails to provide a complete picture without it. I don't have a specific citation right now, but I'd be willing to bet that it would be abnormal not to mention related media, at least insofar as that media is also narrative material and not random behind-the-scenes or DVD extra-type stuff. Random example: The article for Welcome to Night Vale is predominantly about the podcast, but also includes info about books that are a companion to the podcast. It doesn't go into detail about them, but their existence is absolutely relevant information for providing a complete picture of the podcast. (And as in this example, it uses only primary sources to note most of the books' existence.) The same goes here, with the podcast being a companion to the show. Alphius (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Another example is Supernatural, which has an entire "Other media" section. In this case, the podcast is the only "other media," so it doesn't need a whole section, but the podcast not literally being the TV show itself definitely isn't grounds not to mention it when it is directly related to and based on the TV show. And again, I'm saying that just adding "On December 22, 2019, Nickelodeon began releasing a companion podcast to the show titled 'The Casagrandes Familia Sounds'" somewhere (with a citation to the podcast itself) would be enough if no one else thinks any additional info about it should be given. Alphius (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll refrain from putting info about the podcast back myself for now, but I still think the article fails to provide a complete picture without mentioning it, and I still don't think there have been any convincing arguments presented as to why it shouldn't be included. I hope at least a small reference will get added at some point in the future. Alphius (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Looking at it, I do think it should be included on the basis of consistency. After all, The Loud House has a companion podcast as well. Why not here? Image2012 (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Without secondary coverage, including it at The Loud House is absolutely WP:UNDUE as well, esp. in as much detail as it's covered there – that whole section should be cut, based on what's there right now (i.e. no sources at all!). But this is also a WP:OSE arguement – plenty of stuff is done wrong at other Wikipedia articles, and that's hardly an argument for spreading the practice... Incidentally, this is actually done right at Supernatural (American TV series) – notice how that article's 'Other media' section is liberally sourced with secondary sources. And Welcome to Night Vale? – Again, plenty of secondary sources (exception: the 'Night Vale Presents' section is pretty poor – that one needs much more/better sourcing, and likely trimming as well). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Like with Mack Chat, they're basically just aftershows. Yes, Mack Chat discusses more serious matters because of the nature of Andi Mack, but even then, the Mack Chat only happened after an episode premiere and discussed what happened in that episode. If the same episode had a rerun later, the Mack Chat segment would not be there. In other words, the Mack Chat segments, despite talking about what happened in each episode, were not attached to the episodes themselves. For one, the Mack Chat segments came after the credits and were their own "program." If you take a look at a lot of the ratings, Andi Mack ran 25 minutes instead of 30, because the other 5 minutes were for Mack Chat, though they weren't listed on the charts. It's basically the same thing here, just less serious. Amaury • 07:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Both of you are stating things that are factually and provably incorrect to support your arguments. For Welcome to Night Vale, I'm talking specifically about the section about the books, which has nothing but primary sources for all but the first book. And I don't know how many times I have to say that the Casagrandes podcast is not an aftershow. It's getting ridiculous. I do agree that the "Podcast" section on the article for The Loud House is too detailed, though. Even just a mention of its existence would be fine, but a bit more just to give some indication of what it is would be preferable. Alphius (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Just because you don't like it doesn't make them "factually and provably incorrect." Amaury • 17:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Exact quote from IJBall: "And Welcome to Night Vale? – Again, plenty of secondary sources". The section of the Welcome to Night Vale article that I referred to has only primary sources. Exact quote from you: "Like with Mack Chat, they're basically just aftershows." The podcast isn't an aftershow in any sense of the word. You're both basing your arguments almost completely on stuff that's either completely irrelevant or just flat-out wrong. Alphius (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep telling yourself that. Amaury • 18:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to point out the secondary sources in the Night Vale article for any books other than the first one or explain how this podcast is an aftershow. As it stands, it kind of seems like you're willing to just make stuff up if you don't have actual facts to support the conclusion you want to reach. (Note that the issue with the "plenty of secondary sources" thing wasn't exactly the statement itself in an absolute sense, but rather the context it was being said in - it completely ignored the actual section I was pointing out in order to pretend the comparison I was making didn't exist. Whether the article as a whole had "plenty of secondary sources" or not was irrelevant when the section I was pointing out and comparing had only primary sources.) I hope you don't take this as a personal attack itself, because it's not intended as one, but after that last comment, I'm getting close to feeling like I should report you for this. Especially after seeing that you referred to people as "idiots" on your talk page and you've apparently been warned for personal attacks in the past. Alphius (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

You want to report me for disagreeing with you? Go right ahead. I'm not the only editor who's told you that there's no secondary coverage of this. You refusing to accept that is not our problem. Amaury • 20:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the secondary coverage issue, I never claimed otherwise. All I said was that some of the facts that were being presented as additional support were either untrue or irrelevant to what I said. The issue was that you doubled down on suggesting that they were true or relevant to what I said when they weren't, and then said "Keep telling yourself that" rather than continuing the discussion more civilly. It's behavior like that, plus seeing that you've engaged in other questionable conduct before, which made me finally feel that outside input was necessary - hence the RFC. I think a primary source alone is enough for just a small statement in this particular case, and that's all I've been trying to say all along. Maybe other people will agree or maybe not, but since the RFC is its own section now, I probably won't comment in this section again. Alphius (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Numbering

So... should we update the no. of episodes listed in the infobox to the same format as It's Pony and The Loud House? Mainly asking this after Amaury's recent edit removing the 'episode #' from the hidden ratings notes. This is a cartoon like those two examples, and mostly has the "A"/"B" segment format to it, with some exceptions (like "Operation Dad"). With some episode segments airing on different days from each other and the way cartoons are formatted compared to shows like Henry Danger with just one episode within the timeslot, should the infobox numbering be updated to include no. of episodes aired and segments aired?

So for example, as of right now, it would be listed as "9 (16 segments)", updating to "10 (18 segments)" after this weekend's episodes air.

Mainly asking because I don't want the same issue that occurred over on It's Pony to be a problem here either... a user and an IP were mad that the infobox listed it as 8 episodes having aired, even though only 4 episodes aired because of the "A"/"B" format. I know the no. of episodes listed in the infobox should match the same number that is listed in the ratings section, but maybe for cartoons like this, it is fine to list it as episode/segment for the infobox. Magitroopa (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of keeping "segments" and "episodes" distinct. But, beyond that, I don't have anything to add... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I think if we could find some way to add a separate segments parameter, then I would be on-board with this, but doing "1 episode (2 segments)" just looks clunky to me. Amaury • 18:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I know you reverted that edit of mine recently, but I'm all for whatever. I have no clue what could be the proper or most accurate solution to this, but there should definitely be some sort of distinction as to what is listed as an episode. With how cartoons usually have an A/B format in 30 minutes in comparison to regular 30 minute shows, it would be great to indicate an accurate number of episodes, as opposed to just counting every single entry, whether as "A"/"B", "A", or "B" as an entire episode, when A + B usually constitutes as a 'whole' episode.

Then maybe some changes could be made to the ratings section and somehow maybe combine separate-airing A/B episodes as one and average their ratings or something... but I'm personally not a fan of having both formattings present, even if some episodes were aired as a whole together and others have their A/B aired separately. Magitroopa (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall and Magitroopa: For what it's worth, I started this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Template:Infobox television – Add a "num_segments" parameter. Amaury • 18:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

RFC about the "Casagrandes Familia Sounds" podcast

Should the fact that the show has a companion podcast be mentioned in the article? See above for previous discussion. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 00:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC). Alphius (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support. It seems like a strongly relevant piece of information for providing a complete picture of the show, and while it doesn't have much coverage in secondary sources, individual pieces of information within an article don't have to meet notability guidelines. All that would need to be said at minimum is that it exists, and a primary source link to the podcast itself could be provided for that fact. I don't think that simply mentioning that it exists without much further detail would give the primary source undue weight given the fact that the article would fail to provide a complete picture without it. Alphius (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:UNDUE – as I said above, no secondary coverage means that it's not a notable part of the show. IOW, it's not "strongly relevant" from an encyclopedic standpoint. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Relevance. Relevance and notability aren't the same thing, and a statement that the show has a companion podcast would definitely be relevant. Also see WP:NNC, which states that notability guidelines don't apply to content within an article. As stated at WP:PRIMARYCARE, "primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." A statement that the podcast exists would certainly be supported by a link to the podcast itself. (Alternatively, there is something like this: https://wareham.wickedlocal.com/news/20200120/podcasts-to-listen-to-casagrandes-familia-sounds-and-best-kids-podcasts-to-listen-to , though that isn't a particularly major secondary source.) And most of the undue weight guidelines regard presenting particular viewpoints. I don't think merely mentioning that the podcast exists gives any viewpoint undue weight. Alphius (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:RELEVANCE is neither a guideline nor a policy, is it an essay. It is at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to how to do things. Amaury • 20:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll give you that, but it still doesn't change any of the actual argument. Alphius (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Except that it does, because here you are using an essay to attempt to support your argument, when what you're referencing isn't a policy page or even a guideline page. You need to find something in a policy or guideline page that at least appears to support your argument; then maybe we can get somewhere. However, the fact that there is no coverage of the podcast from secondary sources means that the podcasts aren't that important in the grand scheme of things. Amaury • 20:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

A simple statement like that should be relatively easy to source with a secondary source. If it's not, then, no – the podcast is not relevant enough to mention here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how would you feel about sourcing it with the "Wicked Local" article I linked above? It is technically a secondary source, though not that great of one. (It does basically just say it exists and not much else.) I just realized that the link as posted was broken, so I changed it back to being a URL rather than a formatted link. Alphius (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks to run afoul of WP:SELFPUBLISH – it's hard to tell as I couldn't find an "About" page, but it looks like they solicit users to submit content, so... SELFPUBLISH. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per IJBall. Although this seems like an invalid RFC to begin with. Amaury • 20:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I don't see any harm with a simple mention of its existence. AnimeCargirl (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

*External link. I propose omitting the podcasts from the body and linking to them as an external link. The podcasts should be of use to those who want to delve deeper into this topic.--KasiaNL (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC) (banned sock puppet - [2])-GizzyCatBella🍁 20:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• External link Agree with KasiaNL. Instead of possibly giving the podcast WP:UNDUE weight by mentioning it in the article, but also instead of omitting any mention of it entirely, the External links would be the best place for it to go. Some1 (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Season 2

It looks like season 2 is starting before season 1 completes in production order. (119 and 120 have not aired yet, and season 2 is premiering before these air) In this case, any season 1 episodes that have not aired yet will be in season 2 in airing order? Because I seen it also done with Blue's Clues & You! too (season 2 started before season 1 in production order completed) Colgatepony234 (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

it is highly that we should put the season one episodes that premiered 'AFTER' Season two premiered, 120 and 119. ChannelSpider (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

So, what should be done? Do we base them on airing dates or production numbers? Image2012 (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Put everything in original broadcast order as is normally done for TV series episode lists. A season is network defined, starts and ends when the network says it starts and ends, and the network can choose which episodes to put in whatever season they want. They are not tied to the production runs. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Season issues

The episodes What's Love Gato Do with it,Dial M for Mustard,and Cursed are season 1 episodes. Nick just decided to air them during season 2's run for some reason. Can someone fix this? Spongemoore (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Fine as is, see the previous discussion above. Same sort of scenario is already at Henry Danger (end of season 4/beginning of season 5) and Blue's Clues & You! (end of season 1/beginning of season 2). It is not 'wrong'. As Geraldo Perez previously said (above), "Put everything in original broadcast order as is normally done for TV series episode lists." Magitroopa (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC on characters for The Casagrandes

Should we include the members of the Casagrande family in the list of characters? Image2012 (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we should definitely include them. --Maxbmogs (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes they should be included in the list of characters as it would be consistent with secondary sourcing. Idealigic (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, they are important in the character cast.--Droid I am (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It's been up long enough. I guess that's that. Image2012 (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

"Lalo Land"

Let's actually discuss this rather than continuously edit warring over this...

So I know the basic situation- we have this episode that mistakenly/accidentally aired on the Nicktoons channel overnight. I did not watch it myself, but we have users saying they were watching and it did indeed premiere, including this tweet showing the titlecard. While it can't be used as a source, this confirms it did air & shows the credits (storyboard, director, writer, etc.), seemingly the actually airing on this on TV is verifiable. I'm not sure why users are continuing to remove the airdate/credits, or even adding a production code at all (this is the source for production codes, and the episode is currently not listed on there...), but it definitely did air on TV and at this point should be listed (maybe have a hidden note regarding it premiering on Nicktoons first after it premieres on the main channel?). Also worth noting that the title/episode is supported/listed on Zap2it. Magitroopa (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You can infer the production code based on the credits: apparently it was supposed to be paired with "Maybe-Sitter". Image2012 (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The production codes come from the source being used. We are not going to 'assume' what the production code is- that is absolutely WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Magitroopa (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

And.... now the Nicktoons airing is on The Futon Critic. Seems like we're good (at least for now). Magitroopa (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Years for networks in infobox

Don't really think we need to include the years that new episodes aired on the specific networks, as the episode tables currently show when new episodes have aired, also noting the one time a new episode aired on the Nicktoons network. This seems to be leading to more edit warring than anything, but either way, putting '2019-2021' for Nickelodeon is simply original research, as there is nothing saying that the show has concluded airing new episodes. Thoughts?...

• Not gonna lie, that one episode that premiered on Nicktoons first was likely a mistake. Thus, I'm gonna to make some editions to the article since that episode aired on the network first by accident. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Lalo Land on Nickelodeon

The Futon Critic just listed Lalo Land's Nickelodeon premiere on December 10. Should we move it to season 3 or keep it in season 2 with the Nicktoons airdate? Colgatepony234 (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I say list them both. Image2012 (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Episode List Split

The series is already at three seasons, and considering that were at 51 episodes right now, I think the episode list should now have its own article. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Someone had started a draft for it and there is a redirect of it to the main page. If someone plans to start an episode page, they will have to find something to do about the draft like a history merge or something. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess it can have its article. I could make it happen. Cwater1 (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

That draft is now deleted as I just found out about it through it's deletion log. If you think now is the time, go right ahead. Rtkat3 (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Got it in a separate article now. Cwater1 (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations on creating that episode page for this show. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Cwater1 (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Rtkat3 (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)