Talk:List of Shake It Up episodes

Trivia

• I deleted all the notes and guest star information from the article for the second time. I am actually a big fan of the show, but all that trivia, although mostly true, is unencyclopedic and is better suitable for a website with rules not as strong, like TV.com. Anyone thinking of re-adding the info is suggested to read WP:TRIV. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 00:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I personally find excessive fancruft info tedious, but from what I've seen, it's pretty standard for Wikipedia "list of episodes" pages to list the guest-stars for each episode. I personally don't have a strong opinion on the subject other than if there is going to be a list of guest-stars then it should be complete, but the mere statement that this isn't TV.com doesn't really address the issue - using that logic then all "list of episodes" pages here could be deleted entirely. One other note - I would suggest using a more respectful tone when editing. Calling people "A-holes" or accusing any editors who disagree with you as being "sock puppets" is not constructive - especially keeping in mind that the median age of the average viewer of the show (and by inference the age of the average editor on this page) is 12 years old. I've just added this page to my watchlist, and if I see name-calling on this page again (and/or unfounded accusations), I'll be reporting it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I misread the post below - I now see you weren't the one who used the term "A-hole", but the sentiment still stands as a message to all editors. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I personally didn't feel using "A-holes" was as offensive, as me actually spelling it out. But I wanted to get my message across with the frustrations of IPs' adding random un-sourced episodes, like this was a public forum. I understand the young audience is on Wikipedia as well, sorry for my obscene profanity. Anyways.... On to the trivia topic, I see it as true technical fact(s). Its mainly "behind-the-scenes" facts, like who was absent, what songs were featured, or what ratio format it was aired in. There have been a few that have been added - that don't really go with the format the "episodes list" adopted. Like gossip/rumor(s), but we can just monitor and filter that out. djaa995 (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not as concerned with the profanity as much as watching the general tone we use when we disagree with editors. If we come across as rude or hostile then it leaves no room for editors (especially young ones) to appreciate our reasoning. I understand monitoring bio pages of young stars and pages about TV shows aimed at young audiences can get frustrating (I admit I lose patience dealing with young editors' repeated prank(ish) edits myself), but I've found it's best to try and explain nicely when reverting edits, and if the editing in question persists, starting a topic respectfully explaining our reasoning on the talk page. The main reason I brought it up was directed at Erpert since the general tone of his/her edits appear to be aggressive and condescending (although not "profanity") - Implying anyone who disagrees must not read the talk page, or must be a "sock puppet", etc. Just to be clear as far as the "guest-star" and "notes" sections for each episode - I wasn't saying that I agreed with the assertion that the information is "trivial" - I just meant that I understand when something you honestly believe is trivial is repeatedly added to a page, it can be frustrating. I don't have a strong opinion about it, but I actually don't personally believe the "guest-star" and "notes" that were on this page are what the "trivia" rules outlined in WP:TRIV are talking about (which is really about "trivia" sections in main article pages), and if it was up to me, I would leave the information on the page. I know there are other reliable editors watching this page, but I'm assuming they are like me and don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on the subject or else they would have spoken up by now (If I'm wrong, then please chime in with your opinions). I've been involved in my share of disagreements on Wikipedia, so I've simply gotten tired and I"m not inclined to get involved in disagreements unless it's something I feel strongly about, but if we're taking a vote (and others want to share their views), My vote would be to KEEP the "guest-star", "absent main stars" and "notes" sections. It's pretty much a standard format used on most "list of episode" Wikipedia pages for any show that gets a lot of traffic, and I personally find the information to be "notable" enough to include, but I've just started picking which things I'm going to "fight" over, so I'm not willing to take it on as an issue I'm willing to spend a lot of time debating. I'll leave it to other editors (if any) who care enough to make the case to keep it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I was asked by Crakkerjakk to give my two cents on this issue. I figured why not since I am one frequent editors of page. Anyway, when the absent, guest star notes starting being on used on Wikipedia episode articles, I'll admit I thought it was unnecessary. But I only find such things in episode articles for Disney Channel and Nickelodeon shows. I am not really against it now, considering I hardly ever have a hand in updating such things. But whoever bothers to add such things I don't really mind, it just frustrating to keep up with, especially for information on future episodes. The guest star names can easily be included in the episode summaries using parentheses, that however cannot be done with the absent notes, considering Erpert's stance on the issue. But like Crakkerjakk said, this page gets a lot of traffic and if visiting editors find the absent, guest star notes informative, I say let it stay. And to be honest, I'm not really a fan of this show anymore, I will continue to add new episode info to the page and remove copyright violations, but other than that, I'm not following the show on a regular basis anymore. QuasyBoy 07:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Love It Up CeCe begins dating a new guy named Drew, who ends up breaking her heart. Meanwhile Rocky and Ty go fishing with Gary Wilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaBasketball03 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Frustrations

I am getting annoyed by the same A-holes that keep adding episodes that (technically) don't exist, because there is no reference link. Sometimes I feel like the episodes section is treated like a sandbox. Thats why I think we should protect it. User:Djaa995 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look like there's enough vandalism going on to warrant protection. At any rate, if you want to request for an article's protection, go to WP:RPP. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

episode list

Somehow, the episode list was put under the "External Links" section. I tried to fix it, but I must not have done something right, because the page is still messed up. Could someone please take care of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.166.135 (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be such a problem anymore. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I said before, I didn't do it right or something; because even after I tried to fix it, it was still messed up. Thanks for fixing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.166.135 (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.8.125.75, 18 April 2011

99.8.125.75 (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)I will not harm anything

Thanks. — Bility (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Table leak

A wiki table is leaking! Pls help. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 15:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)NOw fixed by an ip edit. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 15:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Season 2 Episode List

any sources for the episodes? ElektrikBand 02:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, I've recently did something wrong to the Shake it up season 2 episode list and I apologise for all that. I was trying to fix a bug but that lead to something wrong and once again, I'm sorry :( - A Wikipedia viewer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.230.100 (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Halloween it up

Where does this series fit in? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6U8hUg_Gfg --2.125.148.142 (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That episode is actually called Beam It Up and it's going to air on October 9, 2011. Jaxsonista (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Episode 22

Well, I think there was a mistake today, the season premiere didn't go on. The second episode aired, because: 1. It was only 30 minutes long 2. Rocky mentions what happens in the previous episode. Should we edit the article or should we count it as a Disney Channel slip-up? WWEWizard (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Disney Channel has done this before with Hannah Montana. I think they might air the Up, Up, and Away episode next week. -Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.65.112 (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't a mistake - Disney did this on purpose. Disney always has the option to show episodes out of production order. They didn't want a 1 hour block so they showed the next 1/2 hour program. The article needs to be edited. The episode numbers are presentation order, the productions codes are production order. Episodes in the list should be in presentation order. Airing out of production order does result in some continuity problems - Disney doesn't seem to care. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Any speculation as to WHY the episode order was changed is original research. Any reason that is not editor speculation needs a reliable source preferably from someone official at Disney that actually does know why. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm from Ireland and we work with Disney Channel UK.Up Up and away aired 1st in season 2 for us.I think that should be put in the notes but then others from other countries (eg.Denmark France Germany etc) might want there airing date put in and then that would be unfair. Can someone help me here as I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and haven't made that many edits. Thank you so much BellaFan262 —Preceding undated comment added 18:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC).

New episode for Sept. 25

It's gonna be "Three's a Crowd It Up". http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=796045&id=213386545362105 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.134.80 (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to split article into separate season articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Concensus it to not split the article now. Reconsider when season 3 is well underway.

---

User 72.144.138.33 (talk · contribs) has proposed splitting the article into separate season articles namedShake It Up (season 1) and Shake It Up (season 2) by placing a {{split}} tag on the article page as suggested by WP:SPLIT.

• Oppose Article has too few episodes to consider a split now. This issue should be addressed when at least season 3 is well underway. Until then not needed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Not nearly enough episodes. Wait until around episode 75 or so. Probably around the end of season 3, as the above states. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Not enough episode yet once Season 2 is done you could split it maybe or about 50 episodes. Joe4.444 ( talk) 21:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose We're not even through Season 2. Season 3 hasn't even been announced yet. Perhaps once Season 3 is well underway and the page is getting a bit too long then we can split the article up into separate pages. - Alec2011 (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• I think you should y'all splited Sonny With a Chance, you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.195.81 (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment That was something that shouldn't have been done. There were only 47 episodes over two seasons. Kevinbrogers (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split It Up

The premiere of Split It Up can't be on 22nd of January, because I downloaded an iTunes rip of it on 29th of December. Peti817172M (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Article date is original air date (broadcast date) on Disney Channel. iTunes has their own schedule. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

So it is possible, that an episode appears on iTunes before airing on TV? Peti817172M (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Normally iTunes makes shows available after they broadcast. This episode was rescheduled as Disney showed a special in its place but iTunes put it up when they originally planned to. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Help edit "Bella Thorne & Zendaya's song "Watch Me".

Hey guys! I know how much you love this TV show so I am going to ask you a favor. Can you please help edit Bella Thorne & Zendaya's song, "Watch Me"? The article of the song is short and I need people to help me edit the article so that the article is long and expanded. If you are willing to help, here is the article: Watch Me (Bella Thorne & Zendaya). 125.237.123.182 (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Showfax

Showfax is not a reliable source. Don't add anything from it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_66#iCarly_episodes_on_show_fax Ratemonth (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Character Absences, Trivia, etc.

• Hello! This is a form letter. You may have noticed that I went through this article and probably deleted a bunch of trivia, information that didn't quite belong, along with some of your exhaustive notes on what kinds of animals appear on the show, or who was a stunt double, or which characters were absent from an episode. I didn't delete the information to make you angry or to devalue your hard work. I deleted the information because I don't believe it is notable (see WP:NOTABILITY), it probably didn't conform to the Wikipedia Manual of Style for Television (see WP:MOS:TV), and/or it contravenes WP:NOTEVERYTHING which, very broadly, explains that just because something is a fact, or that it can be verified, doesn't mean that it should be included in an encyclopedia article.

If you have any questions about my edits, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You made some improvements but went too far. See MOS:CAPS and MOS:FULLSTOP for example. Sentence case is used for headings. Sentence fragments don't end in a period. "Guest star" is correct, 'Guest Star" is not. A list of actors in the guest star list is a sentence fragment and does not end in a period. While some stuff removed was trivia, some was referenced real world info about the show. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Came here to say basically the same thing as Geraldo Perez. It should be "Guest star" not "Guest Star" and sentence fragments do not need periods. I'm all for removing trivia (especially unsourced) even when it is sourced so I'm cool with the rest of it (though I haven't looked at the content that was removed in detail so if there are specific examples that should be added back that's fine too). Also, this talk page is the place to talk about these edits, not your (Cyphoidbomb's) talk page. SQGibbon (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback and the edification from both of you. I'll have to go back through some of my other edits and fix stuff. Much obliged. The biggest irk was the inclusion of who is absent from an episode. I don't see the value in that, nor would I expect to find such information in an encyclopedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus for this article and for a lot of TV episode articles is to include that info. Basically if you are going to list additional cast (guest stars) it is appropriate when the a cast member who is expected to be in every episodes (the main cast) to be listed when they are not as that is just as notable. This is also real-world out-of-universe info about the show. I don't see it as trivial. Some of the other notes, such as the show being longer than normal, or is a special episode is also real-world info that belongs. SQGibbon mentioned the need for references – the reference for aired episodes content is the episode itself and no further reference is required if used without interpretation. Any interpretation of the info will, of course, require references. Presumption is that the aired episode is "published" and content is verifiable. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I went back and rolled back similar edits I made on other pages. I find it very odd and counter-intuitive to include things that didn't happen in episodes, which is what an "Absent" note does. Especially for shows with many regular or main characters. (How do you do that with The Simpsons?) Or when Wikipedia makes a point about being discriminating about the information it collects, and that it doesn't intend to be a TV guide or an IMDb. And while I've seen it included in a lot of pages, it was (wink wink) "Absent" in pages where you might expect people to be more manic about details, List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes, (or even in the more detailed ST:TOS episode pages,) for example. But, I'm not going to fight the system, and certainly there's no room for emotional edits. Thanks again for your help, and I apologize for creating more work! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There are only 6 or 7 (depending on season) principle cast members in this show as shown in the opening credit. The goal is to indicate for an episode which actors were in that episode. Main cast presumed but noted when not and guest cast as listed serve that goal. Also this is a kids show with lots of fan edits from interested young fans. I have personally found that it is better to keep a somewhat loose hand when removing content that the fans seem to want. Don't want it to go too far out of line but also don't want to be so strict that it discourages contribution. You did the right thing when you tried to improve the article and your note here explaining what you were doing was good to see. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'll try to loosen the grip.  :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Quick clarification, when I was talking about references I was referring to the trivia notes like a person being a vegetarian in real life, which might be true and might be in that person's article but doesn't belong here unless there's a source to tie it all together for us. Otherwise it's original research. Another example is the cheerleader outfits changing color. Yes you can observe this yourself if you watch the episode but it is trivia, i.e., mentioning it adds absolutely nothing to our understanding of the show or that episode, so it needs a source in order to indicate significance. SQGibbon (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

In that case, if no one objects, I'm going to go ahead and remove the most blatant examples of unsourced trivia. SQGibbon (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

How do y'all feel about stuff being added about Character A having a crush on Character B in a show's main page? Typically occurs in the character synopses. I see that a lot in these kids' shows and usually it really reeks of speculation, wishful thinking, or even just the exploration of romance in a single episode that bears no significance to the arc.

I also notice the inclusion of a lot of "facts" that also seem like one-off jokes and/or a deus ex machina that was never mentioned again. Fabricated example: Two characters are trapped in an alley about to be eaten by wolves, when wacky Character A realized that he had a time machine in his pocket all along. The characters are saved. What appears in the character synopses might be something like: "NOTE: Character A is a time-traveler." This kind of stuff confuses me.

Lastly, when I was going chop-nuts, I saw stuff like "Snack: Apples at Pablo's house" at List of The Backyardigans episodes and "Animals: Seeing-eye dog" at List of Mr. Young episodes. Does that stuff warrant inclusion? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

In-universe trivia such as that should be pruned. See article at WP:FANCRUFT for more info. Some show illustrated info about the characters does add to the character description – it is a judgement call when it goes too far. Out-of-universe, real-world info about the show should probably stay but should be verifiable. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As per above I removed most of the trivia (from the "Notes:" stuff). I left some of the "Notes" in as they didn't seem as trivial (but still need citations). SQGibbon (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Pruning looks good to me. Should tag stuff that needs references with {{citation needed}}. Basic info obtained from viewing an aired episode shouldn't need references. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to split article into separate season articles #2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No opposition to doing a split

---

It is proposed that the individual season information be split into articles titled Shake It Up (season 1), Shake It Up (season 2), and Shake It Up (season 3) leaving this article as a season summary article. A previous split discussion from 15 months ago ended with concensus not to split at that time. A further season is underway and it looks like time to revisit the issue. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think a split is necessary but won't oppose it as we are well into season 3. Consider that this will mean 4 articles to maintain instead of just one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support I think that this is a good idea so everything isn't clumped together in one artical and if there is a season 4 that would have to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.77.88 (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• No opinion The article size might become more manageable if we got rid of all the "so-and-so was absent from this episode" trivia. But that's my personal bias. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support If the article becomes to long, we won't have any other choice but to split them! There is another season coming soon and I think that it will be best to divide this page into four other articles! Look at all the other Disney shows: Sonny with a Chance only had two seasons and it was split into two other articles; this show might even surpass the number of episodes that Hannah Montana had! It would be best to split the page into four articles! ChicagoWiz 12:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment So what's the deal? I've already created the article for season one, but if the time isn't right, I'll just keep the information for a later time! ChicagoWiz 23:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:SPLIT & WP:CWW for info about how to provide the required attributions for material copied from one article to another. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Suport: I don't think think the page looks good now and I think it's should be as it was before. Liam0035 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Shake It Up episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130728072037/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/07/25/shake-it-up-canceled-by-disney-channel-after-3-seasons/194083/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/07/25/shake-it-up-canceled-by-disney-channel-after-3-seasons/194083/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)