Talk:The Thundermans/Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2014

Kira Kosarin has an article, and The Thunderman's page should now link to hers: Kira Kosarin. Please add a hyperlink to her page, or enable editing access however so. BirthOfJesus (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 21:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Faulty Link

On The Thundermans page, not the episode page itself, the link to Season 1 goes to Sonny with a Chance, and the Season 2 link goes to Sonny with a Chance too, somehow. If someone could fix this, that would be great. Thanks. --WannabeMrs.NiallJamesHoran (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Do the ages of the main characters need to be stated?

This edit has brought this to my attention. As the series is now in its third season, it is quite expected that the ages of these characters will change from what they were in the first season, but is it really necessary? Ages are also in-universe, and may or may not increase at the same rate as out-of-universe years do. And if the ages are stated, there should be some meaningful context for it, like perhaps for Girl Meets World#Riley_Matthews. In that example, incidentally, only that character's age is presented (of those in the main cast), as she is the lead character in that show and the daughter of two lead characters in the show's predecessor Boy Meets World, plus it puts into perspective how things evolved from BMW, so it does have some meaningful context. What I'm getting at is, even if you were to put "at the start of the series..." in front of every character's age to identify how old they are when the series began, unless there is some meaningful context to work with, stating the ages of these characters boils down to just trivia. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think age of younger characters is fairly important to establish context. There is an expectation that people act and are reacted to based on how old they are. I don't think this is trivial. Of course all this should be referenced and usually will be as it is somewhat important to the flavor of the show and what the show is about. Absolute exact age is less important to know, generally bands of child, pre-teen, early, mid, late teen, young adult should be sufficient for context and as fictional characters may not age a year per season as is normally presumed by people who insist on updating ages every season. We should state in the article what is known and referenced. The start-of-the-show premise ages should be stated if referenced or approximated if not. Updates to ages should definitely be referenced, but are of lesser importance and must not override the initial info as the article is about the whole series, not just the last episode. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Still having problems with the one disruptive editor, Laska1234, who keeps incrementing the ages of the main characters in their descriptions [1]: I reverted and issued level 3 warning for the user. You mentioned, Geraldo, that "[a]bsolute exact age is less important to know", but I'm not sure how/whether I'd change the descriptions to make this less of a target for users who are just focusing on the here and now with the show. MPFitz1968 (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

At this point I'd just request a page protection. Amaury (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest tacking on "at the beginning of the series" after any ages that were referenced in the premise or early episodes and giving a range such as "12 to 13 over the course of the series" for ages that change and where the info is referenced. An age mentioned in an episode counts but that episode should be cited as a reference. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Made fixes [2]. I'm thinking this is satisfactory, but let me know if more needs to be done. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Why isn't a Nickelodeon statement published in a J-14 article reliable?

Someone edited the page to note that Season 4's the last season, sourcing from J-14. However, the edit was reverted as it's not considered reliable. Why isn't it reliable since the article specifically cited a statement from Nickelodeon and is not written based on the editor's opinion. ~ Appleseed w (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

J-14 has a general reputation as a teen gossip magazine with dubious fact checking and reporting of soft information. For a direct quote from the network the real issue is if that is the actual quote. I'd trust they didn't misreport it, though. If it is a network statement it should have shown up in other sources, strange it didn't. Also the network stated in the quote: ""After four amazing seasons and 103 episodes, Nickelodeon's landmark series, The Thundermans, has wrapped production" and "Premieres will continue to air throughout 2018", so what we can take from that is they wrapped production but still have a bunch of episodes in the can to still show. The network might package the 2018 episodes as a season 5 but that is unlikely. If any info is in this article using that source we should stick strictly to what is in the contents of the network quote and tag the source {{better source}}. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! I've edited the page to include information from Nickelodeon's statement and tagged the source with the {{better source}} tag, as per your suggestion. ~ Appleseed w (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

This article, which is from Deadline, a definitely reliable source, seems to further (indirectly) confirm that this series is ending after four seasons. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Deadline one's not enough – it doesn't actually confirm that The Thundermans is ending... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

"Premise" to "Plot"

I'm not sure about the rationale for reversion here: "Plot is standard formatting for scripted series; unexplained paragraphing."

"Plot" doesn't seem to be standard at all:

• Modern Family - "Premise"
• Friends - "Premise"
• Victorious - "Plot"
• Brooklyn Nine-Nine - "Synopsis"
• Hannah Montana - "Storylines"
• Saved by the Bell - no section
• Saved by the Bell: The College Years - "Premise"
• Saved by the Bell: The New Class - no section

So there doesn't seem to be any accepted standard. My reason for being against "Plot" is that my understanding of a "plot" is the individual storylines within a series, not the entire series itself. Although I admit that this isn't supported (but not disputed either) in the Plot article.

"Unexplained paragraphing" seems strange as well - ok, I didn't explain, but section expansion seems so obvious that I really didn't expect to be challenged on it.

I've reinserted the section expansion as the show is not just two teenagers bickering, but I've left in "Plot" as while I'm not convinced that it's correct - I accept that it may not be incorrect.

Discussion? Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Plot section: In addition to "Plot", other appropriate headings for this section may be "Premise", "Synopsis", or "Overview". If something has already been established for a while, then there generally needs to be an extremely good reason to change it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Either header is fine and last edit didn't change the header, just the text of the section. In my opinion I think the original text is better as it is more succint and the changes added info that I think is unnecessary. Still it was a good attempt at improving the section and when I first saw it couldn't think of any reason to revert, but I could be improved a bit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Thanks for pointing that out. It seems I was a bit fast that time. Yes, things can always be improved, but for as short as it is, as you said, it seems fine as one paragraph and should be left as such when improvements are made, unless those improvements significantly increase the size of the plot. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The point is here though that the current "plot" only mentions two characters within the show. The increase and section expansion was only due to the introduction of the rest of the family (and Dr Colosso). Whilst I agree about avoiding plot bloat - and fight against it constantly myself in other articles - when you consider that the show title is "The Thundermans", it rather makes sense for the "plot" section to introduce and explain what and who "The Thundermans" actually are, rather than just the twins.

Can I ask why people are against the description and characterisation of the rest of the family in the Plot section?

@Amaury:, it seems that you're just against the fact that I used multiple paragraphs, rather than keeping it as a single chunk. So would you have any objections to the inclusions of the rest of the family if the section were kept as a single paragraph.

I'll just mention two other things as well, that go against the current section (and if I'm being WP:POINTY at least one shows the reverting editors in a poor light - sorry) the current section contains the text "But in the end, they realize that they must be there for each other" - this is saccharine commentary and moralising. While not proscribed, I'm not a fan, and it's debatable whether it happens in every single episode - which would be required for inclusion in this section.

Secondly, the section also contains the text "the next big super villain] and wants" with a spurious "]" that was introduced in this edit here. Seeing as nobody has so far spotted (or corrected) it apart from me, it really makes me wonder how much attention you guys are actually paying to the existing text given the current discussion surrounding it? Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

After checking Chaheel's original edit, aside from using "Premise" over "Plot", I have no problem with the change. I'm thinking mention should be made of the other family members per WP:DUE, since there's plenty of focus on them, too, not just the twins. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I was a bit fast the second time, so I'll apologize there. But yes, if we're going to split it up into paragraphs, then each paragraph should have a few sentences, and those sentences should also probably be fairly large so the paragraph is at least two or three lines, not just little short sentences. (Otherwise, it looks clunky, where it would look better to have everything together.) A paragraph is about three to five sentences. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

So you have no objection to the content, only the formatting? Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it does seem a bit much to split the short text up so much, but other than that the new text is mostly fine, except add back "the" before "town of Hiddenville", and personally I'd keep it "the fictional town of Hiddenville". nyuszika7h (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

So this is the text with the above suggestions, and into a single paragraph.

The series revolves around the Thundermans, a family with superpowers who try to live normal lives in the fictional town of Hiddenville. Twin Phoebe dreams of being a superhero and using her powers for good, while her brother Max wants to be the next big super villain and to use his powers for evil. Parents Hank and Barb attempt to live normal lives and not use their superpowers - albeit not very successfully - while Nora and Billy enjoy using theirs whenever possible. A former supervillian named Dr Colosso has been transmogrified into a rabbit, and lives in the basement offering advice to Max.

Is it worth adding a sentence for Chloe, as she was only introduced for the final season? If so, I suggest adding the following, which also covers Max's change of heart in "Secret Revealed":

For the last season Max has a change of heart and decides to also become a superhero, while Chloe - the newest addition to the family - is introduced as the baby sister.

Not entirely happy with the last addition, but it can be worked on. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's been four days with no dissenting opinion, and as the above discussion indicated that the issue was with the formatting, not the content I've added the content as proposed within a single paragraph. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Series end date

I suggest we stop removing the series "end date" from the 'series overview' table. Nickelodeon is presently running promotions that do declare the "last 4 episodes" of The Thundermans will air on May 25, 2018. While it's unfortunate that Nickelodeon hasn't put that promo up at its official YouTube channel, that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that they are airing these promos. Worst-case scenario: source to the promo from YouTube (other users have uploaded it...), and tag it with a {{better source needed}} tag. But we should allow the "May 25" date now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Works for me. Keep present in infobox until that final episode has actually finished airing though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be a version of the promo from YouTube that is from an "official" Nick source: [3]. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Certainly a whole bunch of edits in the last few hours putting the final date in the article when the last episodes have not aired yet. The TV schedule at Zap2it shows the last episode will finish airing at 8:30pm US Eastern time, on the US east feed of Nickelodeon I'm assuming (or 00:30 UTC, May 26). The west feed might need to be taken into consideration, too, in which case the last episode will finish there at 03:30 UTC. So safe to say either the 00:30 or the 03:30 UTC time would be the appropriate time to put the final date into the article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the final four episodes are 6:00-8:30 PM followed by Knight Squad. Therefore, the actual finale isn't until 7:30 PM. I recommend waiting until after the West Coast airing has finished as there is WP:NOHURRY like we did with K.C. Undercover. As IJBall has said in the past, we're more of a record. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Jed Spingarn

Why is there a page bout Dan Schneider but not Jed Spingarn? I want to know what else he created, produced etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:560:422E:C00:BC54:CA40:665C:AB62 (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

There isn’t much known about Jed Spingarn. So, the page might probably not have much content besides listing the projects he’s worked on. The most notable projects he’s done are Big Time Rush, The Thundermans and Jimmy Neutron Starforce¹³ 18:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

People must be able to pass at least WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC in order to be considered notable. Amaury • 19:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Superhero comedy

Should superhero comedy be described as the genre in the intro? 2600:100C:A218:92ED:49D3:6E66:A7A5:C7B3 (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)