Talk:101 Dalmatian Street

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Launch dates[edit]

I have known about this series for quite a long time now. The series was just launched this past March, but only in the UK, and as of today, it is only airing in the UK and a few other select countries, but it is not airing in the US. As of today, I have still heard no word on when the series will launch in the US of if it's even coming to the US at all. It has been heavily rumored that it is coming to the US, but all I've been hearing are random assumptions from the fans, and at this point, I'm starting to have doubts that it will ever come to the US at all. Does anybody have any information regarding this so that I could set all these rumors to rest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3A40:D2C0:9C2D:24B2:112:6A39 (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overview[edit]

@BaldiBasicsFan I think we should sapprted the main series overview and the shorts overview similar to DuckTales (2017) and Gravity Falls are Fanoflionking 22:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About What is Going On[edit]

Guys, I am sorry about the edit war that happened recently. I was trying to put the overalls in the overviews in the shorts (most TV shows do use the overalls in overviews), but those people think that I was breaking a rule. Please forgive me because I am just a nice guy that got many warnings the past. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summaries[edit]

Why have half of them been removed? They've already premiered and we can verify them, so what's up with that? JDB555 (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you be removing content based on WP:SPOILER? —C.Fred (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And how does WP:TVPLOT justify removal? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is WP:COPYVIO that exists. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found one summary that you had removed and only the first few words were a copyvio. That was easily fixed. However, there are still two questions before you: Why would you remove content based on WP:SPOILER and how does WP:TVLOT justify removal of summaries? --AussieLegend (✉) 18:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every other cartoon has that format like Mega Man: Fully Charged. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OTHER. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 21:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You think I'm weird Grand Delusion? Well yes I am, and if so let’s just not have this talk anymore, I'm done with it! BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that you can't come up with good rationale for removing episode summaries on WP:SPOILER and WP:TVPLOT grounds. And no, I don't think you're weird. Per WP:OTHER, the rationale of "other stuff exists", which your rationale appears to be in line with, is valid in some cases but not in others. Sadly, this is not a case where "other stuff exists" is valid. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 09:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um, okay. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Disney+[edit]

What's the point of removing it? It's in the correct space and it's info that could potentially be useful. JDB555 (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, here is a question, how many episodes of 101DS have aired in Australia? The source needs to be more reliable if there is 101DS episodes that have yet to air in Australia. By the way, the streaming section will only count if the show is a exclusive to a streaming service, not something that is broadcasted on television. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, how does this relate to Disney+ in Australia? Just because some might not have aired in Australia, it doesn't mean that there needs to be a better source. Nothing is mentioned about the episode count at all. Second, is this a rule? I haven't seen this logic being applied to anywhere else, so I'm not sure where this came from. JDB555 (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, please read WP:RS. There needs to be a source of how many episodes of the first season that has aired in Australia. If there is episodes not aired in Australia past April 30, then those episodes will be considered Disney+ exclusives. Your not the one who has the most relatable sources, I want the page to be as relatable as possible, and your not the one that should take care of it. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is mentioned about Disney+ exclusives at all???? It was never discussed and you certainly never brought it up before. How does this even relate to it, anyway? Also I never claimed that I have the "most relatable sources". I was just asking why you removed it: no need to get personal. JDB555 (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I am a little too harsh, but even if the Australian Disney+ release is coming soon, we still need a relatable source of how many episodes of this show aired on Disney Junior Australia before the channel closes down to make room for the Australian version of Disney+. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring[edit]

@JDB555 and BaldiBasicsFan: Instead of edit-warring (and yes, it IS an edit-war!), you need to start discussing here. Your back and forth edits are not helping the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks to the admin for page protection, as there is no second season announced until an official WP:RS is available. The entirety of the first season has aired on Italian Disney Channel, and even episodes also aired on Rai Gulp.

Proof of the show on Rai Gulp: https://www.teleboy.ch/en/search?query=title:101%20Dalmatian%20Street

However, there needs to be a source for the second season if the Italian Disney+ release would count, or even the new episodes not airing on Rai Gulp. I was thinking that new episodes of the series might even air on Rai Gulp too. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When was there a rule that it had to be exclusive to Disney+? I've read through WP:RS and I found nothing on what you're claiming. And again, WP:OTHER exists, where we've had streaming services added to those that already finished their run on television. What is the difference there? Also, Rai Gulp may air the new episodes, but currently they're only up to episode 10, with no sign of going ahead at the moment. JDB555 (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well would Rai Gulp air the following episodes after that? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know yet. That's why I said they may; they could, but at the moment it seems uncertain. JDB555 (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're getting into arguments on this again, I'd like to point out that this still is not a Wikipedia rule. On other articles we have mentioned streaming dates when it's not exclusive to streaming; why are we doing it on this specific article? Just because it did so in the US and Canada it does not mean that is the standard for all countries. @BaldiBasicsFan: JDB555 (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK[edit]

So if you want the series release be about all of the dates on Disney+, please read WP:CRYSTAL, as it should only be about it as an exclusive to service, not on other dates that have it air on a television channel or releasing it on another streaming service. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, what does WP:CRYSTAL have to do with any of this??? "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" means nothing in regards to this situation. Second, again, WP:OTHER, we've done the same thing on other articles and this one should be no exception. Just because it already aired on TV it doesn't mean it can't be listed - that doesn't affect the streaming listing at all. JDB555 (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That WP:CRYSTAL thing is actually true that Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, Wikipedia is not everything, read WP:WWIN. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but WP:CRYSTAL doesn't relate to this situation. Nothing was mentioned about it having to happen, all I said was that we should include releases. If your argument is "It's happening in the future, so we can't add it yet", you did the same thing for all other countries that have been verified to add it. JDB555 (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WINARS doesn't have anything to do with this, either. If you think that the source is unreliable, then you should have brought that up in earlier discussion instead of just dropping from the talk page and removing it yourself. (The source, judging from past experiences, does not seem to be unreliable and untrustworthy.) Perhaps we should wait and see if they are going to add it, then continue the discussion or remove it accordingly. JDB555 (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mean to revive a dead horse, but you've stopped responding at all. At the very least, make a better attempt to communicate with me and express your issues with how I've been editing. JDB555 (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible notes[edit]

We should remove these for a variety of reasons.

1. The manual of style says there shouldn't be too many of these. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Invisible_comments "Avoid adding too many invisible comments because they can clutter the wiki source for other editors.".
2. as noted on other pages, it bloats the page a lot and makes loading it much less slower.
3. Ignoring the rules of Wikipedia is WP:DE, and we should be enforcing these rules properly. JDB555 (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Notes in Summaries[edit]

Usually, notes in the summaries keep away vandals from adding WP:COPYVIO, but someone is just making nonsense here.

I understand with PonyLife, since I added too many notes, but for this show, IT'S ONLY 21!

@JDB555 you could shorten the notes or you could even put a note on top of the tables about copyvios. Hell, why not make summaries in your OWN words to also remove them?!

I'm not even joking, those notes are meant to stop vandals from adding copyvio, but you think that only one note in the summaries is enough?! That is WP:WINAB.

Look, having notes in the summaries is COMPLETELY FINE. It doesn't mean you get any rewards, per WP:WIN. Notes are what help the page from vandalism, NOT when they are removed.

If you disagree, please be sure to show respect even if your angry about this, but if your disrespect or don't, I will give you warnings about WP:DE. Just fix the problem, don't remove everything as per WP:VANDAL.

BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per above, leaving them there literally goes against Wikipedia's manual of style, and the notes are still there so it's not like it's a free vandalism card.
21 is still a bunch compared to two. And once again, it adds a whole 12,000 bytes to the page! That bloats it and makes the page load very slowly.
If one were to put them at the top at the tables, then you'd still have to remove all of the others. That's not how it works. Also, I could, but 1. I don't have enough time on my hands, due to school and other things, and 2. by that logic, why don't you do it yourself?
Yes, I know they're there to stop COPYVIO. That's why I didn't remove them entirely - I still kept them in the templates. Removing all but two (one for each section) is what's shown in Wikipedia's manual of style, and as mentioned above, it's what's done on other pages, as well. Also, how exactly does it make Wikipedia a bureaucracy? Please elaborate.
Once again, I know they're there to stop vandals. That's why I didn't remove them all; I kept them to align with Wikipedia's stances, and I also removed some to (once again!) align with Wikipedia's stances.
Fixing the problem is removing all the unnecessary notes though? We do it on other pages, it aligns with Wikipedia's manual of style, and as shown above, the removal of them has even been contested on this very page! JDB555 (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that the notes appear in each episode is because as each episode airs, the note for that episode will be removed as a valid summary is added and it's very likely that the note won't be moved to the next episode. It's very common in TV episode lists to do this. I've had to completely recreate some lists because every episode summary was a copyvio. When the notes aren't there, copyvios are invariably added. It's better to have too many notes than 1 or none. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AussieLegend thanks for giving for me a point. JDB555 plenty of Nickelodeon cartoons use the notes and it's NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL! Removing notes will reduce the quality of the page, and even the summaries for The Owl House are too long, and it's still not a problem since they follow MOS:TVPLOT guidelines. So this means I'm not violating rules, and you are just doing WP:DE just because I put many notes on the episode list for My Little Pony: Pony Life. I LEARNED from that mistake. Ollie's Pack uses 20 WP:COPYVIO notes, while this page uses 21, and that is normal. What is not normal is 52 of them.
"It's very common in TV episode lists to do this." Other pages have also used the style of leaving a few notes for editors to read, and not having it on every summary. As I have mentioned before, look at the pages for Pony Life and Littlest Pet Shop: A World of Our Own.
"It's better to have too many notes than 1 or none." As I have mentioned above, the manual of style contradicts this, as it says to not have too many notes. Leaving all of those notes there would go against Wikipedia's rules and standards and would count as disruptive editing.
"Removing notes will reduce the quality of the page" Please expand on this point - I'm confused as to how it does. It can't be seen on the page, and in fact removing some (once again, not all, *some*) is, once again, a rule on Wikipedia. It isn't ruining anything.
"So this means I'm not violating rules" As mentioned above, leaving too many notes goes against Wikipedia's manual of style and counts as disruptive editing, therefore violating rules.
"while this page uses 21, and that is normal." Even if 21 isn't as many as 52, that's still an extra 12,000 bytes, and almost half of the aforementioned 52 notes. While I agree that just 1 or 2 is too little, perhaps we could come to a compromise - leave notes on a few more of the summaries, but not all of them so it doesn't bloat the page as much. JDB555 (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just shortened the notes so it wouldn't blot as much. So it's not even over 12,000 isn't? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And another thing, even if some shows don't use the notes as much (MLP: PL and LPS: AWOOO), it will still not change the quality of the page, thus WP:OTHER. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna agree with JDB555 on this. There is absolutely no reason to have that many notes on a single page. The quality of the page is irrelevant here; the issue is about accessibility, how easy it is for editors to navigate the page source to edit the page. Your comments so far reek of WP:IDHT. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 02:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other pages have also used the style of leaving a few notes for editors to read, and not having it on every summary. - That works for some programs but programs like this, aimed at a younger audience, invariably attract copyvios, which is why the notes generally get added to |EpisodeSummary=.
As I have mentioned above, the manual of style contradicts this - Actually, no it doesn't. The guideline doesn't say anything of the sort. It simply says "Avoid adding too many invisible comments because they can clutter the wiki source for other editors." In practical terms this means different notes spread throughout the article. Episode lists are unique in that we duplicate the same note in each summary for the reasons that I explained; i.e. when the note for a particular episode is replaced with a valid summary, the note is not usually moved to the next episode. This results in no note at all, which is usually problematic because then the copyvios start getting added and they can be undetected for years.
Please expand on this point - I'm confused as to how it does. - The addition of copyvios where there are no notes always reduces the quality of a page.
leaving too many notes goes against Wikipedia's manual of style and counts as disruptive editing, therefore violating rules. - The MOS is a guideline, not a bunch of rules. Even policies (which the MOS is not) are not hard and fast rules that have to be followed. We even have a policy called Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Ignoring the MOS is NOT disruptive editing.
that's still an extra 12,000 bytes - 12kB is nothing. The Wikpimedia software allows pages up to 2MB in size. Editors shouldn't be worried about the byte size of articles. The amount of readable prose is what guides us.
There is absolutely no reason to have that many notes on a single page. - Experience over many years has shown this to be untrue. Pages that include the copyvio warnings rarely have additional copyvios added after the warnings are added.
Admittedly, the note has expanded over time. Initially it said "BE SURE TO READ THE FOLLOWING: Future episode content requires a citation unless the episode summary is directly supported by the citation in the "RTitle" field. Uncited content will be reverted. Do not add episode summaries that you have copied from other websites or documents unless there is a clear statement on the website, or in the document that it is permissible to do so. Without such a statement, copying content is a breach of copyright and will be reverted. To avoid breaching copyright, content must be substantially different to content that you have obtained elsewhere; changing a few words is rarely "sufficiently" different." I normally customise that for episodes that have already aired but the notes are more of a help than a hindrance. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Network Tables[edit]

Please follow WP:CRYSTAL, MOS:TVINTL and pages of other international Disney shows. 101DS is a British-Canadian production, not American. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American airdates needed?[edit]

I noticed that the American airdates were added to the infobox, but I'm not sure why they're there. For one, in both of the cases listed, the show premiered in the United States before their home countries (Canada and the United Kingdom, respectfully). However, this isn't the case here, so I see no point in listing it. Second, the show does not originate in the United States besides a few characters being voiced in the United States, which does not mean that the show was produced in those country (in that case, shows such as It's Pony mentioned in the edit reason would be considered British-American). Third, even if we were to list the American airdates, why use the airdates on cable TV and not the release on Disney+? The Disney+ release happened a long while before the TV premiere, so it's clear that the intention was to release it on Disney+ exclusively first and then release it on television. I also fail to see how WP:WINARS applies to the situation here. JDB555 (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bare URL clean-up[edit]

I was cleaning up the bare URLs, as part of working through the backlog however I ran into an issue. Citations 37-43, as of this revision, are all weblinks to now dead JSON entries on regional Disney Channel stations from Netherlands, Italy, and Belgium. As JSON is machine readable only, I'm making this section to hopefully let someone more familiar with this article find a more appropriate source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:101_Dalmatian_Street&oldid=1195336021"