Talk:Girl Meets World/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Logo

Please fix this article. It has the familiar BMW logo in its infobox. Please remove it unless you can upload a GMW logo to replace it. Georgia guy (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh - you seem to be confused. "This article" is a redirect. The logo you are seeing is in the Boy Meets World article, and rightly so. Elizium23 (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Girl Meets World Pilot Picture

This is a picture from the Pilot episode of Girl Meets World. It would be pleasant to see the photo posted next to the "development" section.

Source: http://www.parade.com/22928/viannguyen/girl-meets-world-10-more-90s-tv-shows-that-need-spinoffs/

Image: http://www.parade.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/girl-meets-world1.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.21.63 (talk • contribs) 03:10, August 2, 2013‎ (UTC)

While this is a nice image, it is also a production photo and therefore copyrighted and non-free. — Wyliepedia 20:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

One single low-resolution image illustrating all the main characters for the purpose of demonstrating the appearance of the characters as portrayed on the series (but not for the appearance of the cast members outside their character portrayal) of the series could be justified as fair-use for the characters section. The photos above don't show all the main characters so need something better. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Image: http://cdnvideo.dolimg.com/cdn_assets/e151a2afec63fddaae42ef990ea67b6cdcdb52c3.jpg

Source: http://disneychannel.disney.com/girl-meets-world/characters

DarkProdigy (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I added an image, someone needs to identify the characters in the image description. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Identification complete. DarkProdigy (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2014

Girl Meets Maya's Mom (4.1 - http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/08/18/friday-cable-ratings-megalodon-new-evidence-wins-night-wwe-smackdown-girl-meets-worldhow-to-build-a-better-boy-more/294043/) 50.96.73.164 (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Farkle (Corey Fogelmanis) Upgraded

Can someone update that Corey Fogelmanis has been upgraded to a full fledge regular cast member starting with the episode airing tonight and onward?

Here is the source: http://tvline.com/2014/09/19/girl-meets-world-rider-strong-directing-photos/

It says it toward the bottom. Quote: "(Side note: Farkle’s portrayer, Corey Fogelmanis, is now a full-fledged series regular.)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.217.79.38 (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Does he show up in the opening credits? Does he get credited as "Starring" in the end credits? He is already shown as part of the main cast photo and featured on the show's web page. How he is credited in the show itself is generally what we go by for what is in the article. TVline.com is not the official word, the show itself is. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Cory isn't one of a regular cast.He doesn't get credited during opening credits.ChamithN (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Episode where change in status is purported to occur hasn't aired yet. Wait and see what happens. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Only change I saw was his name appearing after the program resumes from the opening credits, identified as "also starring", so near the beginning of the episode vs. at the very end. Still, his name is not in the opening credits, which run while the theme music is playing. At this point, I would keep him as recurring. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

That is a major change in credit, he has been upgraded to starring cast they just haven't updated the opening credits for him. Recurring characters get listed as guest starring in the end credits which was how he was credited previously. He belongs in the infobox now as part of the starring list and should be moved from recurring to main in the article. This conforms to how he is treated on the official site, the official cast in character photo used in the article and now how he is currently credited in the show. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

To add, see also http://www.disneychannelmedianet.com/web/showpage/showpage.aspx?program_id=3158326&type=factsheet which is Disney's version of the principal cast. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I just took a look at the back-to-back episodes "Girl Meets Maya's Mother" (#7) and "Girl Meets Smackle" (#8). In the former, Fogelmanis is still listed at the end, and is credited "Guest star Corey Fogelmanis as Farkle"; the "Smackle" episode is where the change takes place, where the credit is right after the opening credits and theme music, which reads "Also starring Corey Fogelmanis". So, I'll update episode 8 to reflect this, but it does bring up another question about whether to show Farkle's full name or not in the Cast and characters section, as it no longer says "as Farkle" in the credit. IMO, leaving it Farkle at that point in the article, as opposed to adding his last name Minkus, adds some mystique despite what we know already, but what do you all think? MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for verifying this info, I was going on what you previously said when I initially made the changes in the article. http://www.disneychannelmedianet.com/web/showpage/showpage.aspx?program_id=3158326&type=factsheet says "Corey Fogelmanis as Farkle", that is his official credit and that is what should go in the article as his official credited name. Also when his name did appear in the end credits it was as "Farkle" only. His last name is in-universe trivia – at this level article we should reflect an out-of-universe perspective on the show and use the real-world official credited names of the characters. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: - In the episode "Girl Meets Maya's Mother" it is stated "Stuart Minkus (who turns out to be Farkle's father)". Is that the basis of Farkle's last name? An implication based on his fathers name? Or was it explicitly stated somewhere? The current description of Farkle says he is Stuart Minkus' son and leaves the implication of his last name to the reader - which, in my opinion, is the proper and correct way to handle this. Sometimes, for various and sundry reasons, a person does not share the same last name as his father. May take mother's name if parents not married. Adopted father's name if remarried. Can't know for sure unless clearly stated. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Now that I read your comment, Geraldo, and going back to that episode, I do recall Lucas, after finding out about Stuart Minkus being Farkle's dad, asking Farkle, "So your name is Farkle Minkus?", to which Farkle replied, "Don't wear it out," then Lucas further replied something like "I don't think you could." From that exchange, it is not clearly stated about his last name, despite Lucas referring to him as Farkle Minkus again in one of the next two episodes which have already aired (I forget which). Still, good idea to keep last name omitted, as it isn't 100% clear, and since the official credit doesn't show it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

In the episode "Girl Meets Crazy Hat" (#10), it once again lists Fogelmanis in the closing credits as a guest star, and I've edited that episode's guest star list accordingly. I'm thinking the episode was produced before "Girl Meets Smackle". MPFitz1968 (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Grammatical error needing fixed

Pretty much says that Corey "became" the father of one of his children, when it should say he "is the father and became her teacher." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.90.119 (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Problem corrected, as part of the revision to the paragraph it was in. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Filming date of the pilot

In the article it states that the filming of the pilot began on March 20,2013(and concluded on March 22, 2013).Yet there is no sources to verify this.Yes,I saw {{citation needed}} tag but still the accuracy of filming dates/airing dates are vital.I already did a web search looking for references but couldn't find any trustworthy sources.Could anyone else do a search for reference please?--Chamith (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Tag was added in June, 3 months is more than sufficient for source to be found and added. Info doesn't need to stay in article after being tagged this long. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

So far I couldn't find any verifiable source on the web (I tried before too) and like you said 3 month is enough for source to be added.I think it's time to remove those info--Chamith (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Info could have been added by someone with inside knowledge. Info is plausible so doesn't need to be removed if he citation needed tag stays attached, it also doesn't need to stay but removing it would require that paragraph to be reworked a bit. Editorial choice. I'd support either decision. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Placing list of episodes in its own article?

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 consensus to split season 1 episodes to a list of episodes article. Appears to be agreement to split when season 2 episodes start to appear

---

I don't know if it is time for this yet, but as the number of episodes grows, and now that the show has been renewed for a second season, it might become appropriate later. I will still mention here as a suggestion, plus I will point out that most of the active Disney Channel shows do have the list separate (I Didn't Do It is the only other sitcom I see that doesn't, as yet).

Aside from the few episodes right now, another issue possibly complicating things is there being a table with a running average of the number of viewers in the Reception section, and whether that table should be part of a "List of ... episodes" article. Anyway, what do you all think?

MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It's too early to split yet, with only 7 episodes listed and, while it has been renewed, that's no guarantee that season 2 will eventuate. I'd recommend waiting until season 2 episodes are scheduled. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Not now,There is only 7 episodes aired yet.And episodes are barely described.ChamithN (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

CNBFries I say we should've splited the articles at 5 episodes. I tried but Wikipedia deleted for Disruptive Editing.
Gia_Sesshoumaru I think that it should be split up. If it gets picked up for a second season, the original article will become too long. I think it should split. The show is definitely going to be picked up for numerous seasons as it has the potential to be the longest running Disney show ever. Get it done now rather than later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.107.129.36 (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:WHENSPLIT articles/sections should be split if a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article.As you can see episodes section in this article doesn't not meet this criteria.We should at least wait until season 1 ends.--Chamith (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Shan't we close this discussion? Majority disagrees with split request. And it's also creating an unnecessary template on the article body,--Chamith (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Jumping in here as a new editor on this article. I'd say since the consensus seems to be wait until season 1 is over, close the discussion for now, then come back to it then. Luthien22 (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2014 (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.

Is this really necessary?

User Kevin1tamimi added "Every episode starts with "Girl Meets..." to the episode section. Even though it is true I think mentioning that isn't necessary. Readers can easily notice that every episode starts with "Girl Meets...". It isn't really encyclopedic material.--Chamith (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Harmless fluff but not necessary. Could be removed as original research, a conclusion made by editor based on existing titles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I do remember removing something similar a while back [1]. It's really trivial, and there's no guarantee that the episode title "pattern", as I call it, will hold for the entire series. A number of TV shows have their episode titles in a pattern (Austin & Ally, Shake It Up, Liv & Maddie, Sam & Cat, iCarly, Unfabulous, and Friends quickly come to my mind, whether I figured it out myself or someone pointed it out here on Wikipedia), but these patterns should be left to the reader to figure out and not spelled out in a Wikipedia article about the TV show. (And I will not divulge the patterns of the shows I mentioned, in the same spirit of my position on this matter.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Distributor?

An IP user added Buena Vista Distribution Company and Disney–ABC Domestic Television (probably because of this category) as the distributors of the show. I reverted it because at first I wasn't aware that Buena Vista Distribution Company was Disney. So I restored the edit hoping that the IP user might be right. But I still get the feeling that something is wrong? Is Buena Vista Distribution Company really distributing the show, as far as I know Disney is distributing the show, so it's the same thing, right?--Chamith (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

IMDb says "Disney Channel" as the distributor and they usually get company credits correct. Unless there is some other source of info that conflicts with that (credits in the show itself is the best one), I say stick with Disney Channel. Disney has lots of subsidiary companies, they are not interchangeable. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

IP added same info to about 50 articles almost like a bot editor. Doubt he has any real info and is just making assumptions based on how he thinks Disney does stuff. A top level division of Disney is not the one that gets distribution credit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

So your final suggestion is that we should revert his edits?--Chamith (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that there is nothing more to do. You've done it. Nice job--Chamith (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This IP from Turkey pops up periodically and makes a rash of this type of edit. Suspicious of having inside knowledge based on IP location. Could be a VPN masking real location but doubt it. Dubious none the less - I do some spot checking looking for info added that I can prove is wrong if challenged before I do any reverts. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Listing absent cast members at beginning of season's episode list

I noticed this pair of edits by User:23.27.249.141 adding in a list of absent cast members before the episode list, which was later reverted by ChamithN, with the reason being "Not really necessary.Absent actors are mentioned under the specific episode summary ." While it is true that the absent are listed under each individual episode, I tend to like it summed up at the beginning. And I found at least three other TV shows' episode lists (the ones I looked at: Liv and Maddie, Jessie, and Victorious) which employ this method. I have decided to let ChamithN's revert stand, so this can be discussed first, but as I said, I like the absent summary at the start, as added by the IP user. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Yeah I think I have to agree with the fact that it might be easier for readers if the absent are listed at the beginning. And if you reverted my edit please do remember to add white-spaces between episode numbers. It should be like this "(1x09), (1x12), (1x13)"--Chamith (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly how important is it to a casual reader who's absent from an episode? If they're not already familiar with GMW, not very. I think the current set up is completely fine. Luthien22 (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Didn't catch your comment, Luthien22. Had made the change back just before you posted your comment, but for the time being, it's a good idea to keep the latest edit, until others have commented about this. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think just a count of episodes missing without detailing which ones is OK for the article. The listing of which episodes they were not should not be in the summary as main cast missing should be part of the episode summary. I agree this is not important to a casual reader but that is not the only audience for this article. The info is fairly common in list of episodes articles. I don't have strong feeling about this but I think leaving in a summary of main cast count of episodes missing is harmless and potentially informative for some set of interested readers. Only thing that should not be in the summary is a statement that xxxx cast member was in all episodes as that is the presumption based on what a main cast member means. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: can you find any articles that do what you're suggesting? Just curious to see how they implement it. Luthien22 (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Example at List of Victorious episodes, List of Kickin' It episodes and List of Jessie episodes although I don't like the episodes listed in the summary, minor issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Makes sense to me now, though I'm still not a fan (I feel like it's a little awkward). Clearly consensus is against me and it's not worth fighting over, so I guess I'm okay with it. Luthien22 (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't understand the value of listing characters who are absent from the series here or anywhere else, unless there is a noteworthy reason like a pregnancy, broken leg, contract dispute, etc. Why is this important to our general understanding of the series to know that a story line happened to not include Character X? I've raised this opinion before at WikiProject Television here and it seemed the general attitude was that the content was unnecessary. To me, it seems rather crufty. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat for consistency. If guest stars are listed when in an episode then main starring cast, normally presumed present, should be listed when not in episode. The intent is to know who is the principal cast for a given episode. If a count is being kept of episodes missed by main cast members the listing in the episodes is a check for that count. An alternative for listing guest cast is to put in parentheses next to character when mentioned in the summary and not list separately. If done that way missing (or unused) main cast is indicated by their character not being mentioned in the summary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Corey Fogelmanis credit and role on show

I just verified with my copy of episode 1 that the end credits say "Guest Star" "COREY FOGELMANIS as Farkle" and he is not in the opening credits as starring cast. However http://disneychannel.disney.com/girl-meets-world/characters and the image that I uploaded from that location to use to illustrate the appearance of the characters in the article treat him as part of the principal cast. It is obvious to me that he is in effect part of the starring cast even if he doesn't get the official credit in the show itself. Chalk that up to Disney wanting to keep the opening credits to six people and the inability of Fogelmanis' agent to negotiate for a better credit.

Our options are: list him as starring using the official site as justification overriding the way he is credited and don't bother listing him as "Guest star" in episodes he is in; reflect what the credits say, list him as recurring and list in each episode as a guest star; or create a special heading in the article for just him and explain why in the article why he is special. Looking for ideas here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to raise this at WT:TV as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Although he is listed as "Also Starring" in episodes 8 & 9, he is not listed under that title for ANY OTHER EPISODES. However, he is a main character according to the official websites, so he can be listed as "Starring," but on episodes 8 & 9, it needs to say also starring Corey Fogelmanis, otherwise the reader will be confused as to why his name is not there, yet he is clearly present for the episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kido1234567890 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, Fogelmanis so far is "also starring" in episodes 8, 9, 12 and 13 (Smackle, 1961, the Forgotten, and Flaws). And regarding when main characters are not in an episode, it will (and should) be listed in the summary as their being absent, as is the case with two episodes that Lucas (Peyton Meyer) doesn't appear. The guest starring bit, in my opinion, is the confusing part, but that is how Fogelmanis was credited initially before his upgrade officially in the episodes—plus with this upgrade showing him as guest star in later episodes is even more confusing (though episodes are not aired in the same order they are produced)—and we list his guest star (recurring) credit where appropriate; to add him when he is "also starring" (already in the main cast) is redundant. Might as well add every main cast member to every episode summary under that logic. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that it seems somewhat random whether or not he is guest starring or also starring in a given episode it seems useful to indicate what his role is for that episode. It would be different if there were a clean change in status, but there isn't here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Reporting the show's air time on Disney Channel

I noticed in the Ratings section that the air time was changed from 8:30pm ET to 8:00 on Fridays. I reverted it back to 8:30 to match what is said in the lead; eight of the first 10 episodes have aired at that time, in fact (the other two were later in the evening, after the first airings of the DCOMs Zapped and How To Build a Better Boy — verified all that with the sources used to back the ratings of each episode). The Halloween episode, "Girl Meets World of Terror", which aired on October 2, a Thursday, is the only exception to its overall airing on Fridays. But since that episode, Disney Channel has tended toward putting the show on at 8:00 Friday evenings, swapping it with Dog with a Blog.

Having said all that, I'm debating whether we should be reporting the show's air time on Disney Channel at all. I'm okay with keeping the fact it airs on Fridays, until Disney Channel decides it wants to put it on another night, but because of the air time change, I'm thinking it's misleading to the readers, if not unnecessary. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess I just don't see the value of listing its normal air time and day of week. First air date of each episode in the episode list should be sufficient for people looking back at the article a few years in the future. Little details like slot times are of somewhat current interest but won't have long-term significance which is the focus we should be writing article with. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that we should keep the time slot for now. The majority of episodes aired at that time. If the episodes continue airing at random times (and nights), then I support removing it; rather than listing every single time it airs. Dcbanners (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Should be noted..

It should be noted that Eric will be featured in the second season, specifically "Girls Meets Mr. Squirrels", here's the source for the claim and here's a tweet by Will Friedle confirming it as well.. and that Mr. Feeny will be featured in 2 episodes in 2015. Also, that Rider Strong will also be in attendance for the episode with Mr. Feeny, making his (Strong's) reprisal in the second season, and not the first. Here's another source 2601:C:780:234:B5E9:F3E0:1328:6A95 (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2014

I have seen something on this page that appears to be false JosephT. (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed that "Girl meets Home for the holidays" has the number of viewers and says that the episode got 2.49 million viewers. I have cited a source that claims that the episode got 3.16 million viewers. Here is my source http://tremi73.wix.com/friday-top-ratings-1 JosephT. (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

As explained here on what looks to be your logged out IP, a web page that you created cannot be used as a reliable source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Ratings average

The current section with calculated average conflicts with WP:TVOVERVIEW particularly the part were the average itself should be sourced to make verification easier and detect data corruption. I disagree that this is original research as stated in the guideline as this does fall under routine calculations which is an exception to OR and the input data used to calculate a simple average is well-referenced. The strongest argument about not keeping that section is maintenance and updating long-term. We have already seen instances of people not knowing how to calculate a simple average and corrupting the info. I'd like to argue for an ignore all rules exception to the guideline for now to keep the section at least until upkeep becomes unwieldy. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

However, we don't know if the raw data was used or the rounded data. The series no longer has a regular timeslot. Dcbanners (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Raw data was used as indicated in the hidden notes and raw data is being maintained in the episode entries as comments there as well. Even if the episode changes time-slots the info for first airing viewers is, so far, accurate and sourced. Corruption of data can be detected in the raw data and the calculated average simple to recompute from what is already recorded in the article. We have a couple of editors who are numerate that are maintaining the info for now. I'd suggest leaving things as they are until upkeep of this info becomes unreliable - editors stop maintaining it or too many innumerate editors (they can't round properly either) consistently corrupt the info and it doesn't get fixed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not part of the episode list overview as WP:TVOVERVIEW is describing so it doesn't strictly apply here. However the reasoning in that guideline does and that part is applicable Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed that user Dcbanners removed content from other pages that conflicts with WP:TVOVERVIEW. Even though you are trying to improve those articles I don't recommend removing content without discussing the matter on the talk page. Instead of removing content, try to improve those sections to meet WP:TVOVERVIEW standards. It's not absolutely necessary to remove content that contradicts with WP:TVOVERVIEW. Guidelines are created to guide editors, they are not policies.--Chamith (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

They are guidelines but do reflect strong consensus of editors over multiple articles and generally reflect common practice. They are addendum's to the manual of style and should be followed by default for consistency across similar articles unless there is good reason that can be articulated for why they shouldn't. Basically why I started this discussion here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

From m:Help:Calculation and using {{#expr:((5.162+3.232+2.636+3.275+2.787+2.423+4.082+2.379+2.466+2.500+2.229+2.613+2.107)/13)round1}} results in 2.9 for average in first 13 episodes. Numbers were from well-referenced info in episode viewing info. Use Wiki functions for calculation to reduce chance of error. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That works. We need to monitor this article more closely to prevent sneaky numerical vandalism. Dcbanners (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

An edit by Wikipedical is indicating that the ratings table (which shows the average ratings for the season) is unnecessary. I need some input as to whether this table is against Wikipedia policy. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I am unaware of any policy that says we can't have the table. Seems to be an editorial choice for each article whether or not to have one. Concensus so far in this article is to have the table. Removal should be discussed before it is done. Person wishing to remove the table should make an argument for removal other than variations of "I don't like it". Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. My argument was not "I don't like it." It seems redundant to me to have both a series overview table with ratings/rank information and have the same information presented in another ratings table. It seems preferable to present the information once. But since at the moment, there should not be a series overview table here per WP:TVOVERVIEW (a second season hasn't been produced yet), the ratings table is okay. Nonetheless, a source for the ratings average is certainly preferable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There is an implied source for the ratings average, the individual episode ratings are well referenced and the average itself is a routine calculation carried out using wikipedia calculation functions. An additional reference is thus not required for the average itself. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I know that and am not against having the ratings average. I just don't think the tablular formatting is necessary- there are so many "TBA" spaces that it is there to look nice rather than present information. And again, once there is a "Series overview" table, I think the ratings average can be presented there rather than a redundant ratings table. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Observation about how ratings (viewership) is being reported here

I noticed how the episodes' ratings are being reported with two digits to the right of the decimal point (that's a precision of hundredths of millions, or tens of thousands, of viewers). Why? I've done some glancing at other episode lists for Disney Channel and Nickelodeon programs, which show the ratings with just one digit to the right. While I don't think the precision is completely universal (e.g., the ratings for ABC's show The Middle are being shown with two digits to the right), and I don't know of any guideline about how the ratings numbers should be reported, I think going to two digits to the right here is unnecessary. What do you all think? MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the source material is 3 digits – to me that would be excessive. 1 or 2 doesn't matter to me for how it is reported in the article as long as the rounding is done properly. A lot of editors don't really know how to round numbers properly, unfortunately, but in my observation tend to round a 3 digit source to 2 digits more accurately than to 1 digit. In my opinion this is just one of those editorial choices each article makes and as long is the article stays internally consistent, shouldn't matter. The calculated average in the ratings table should be calculated using the source info, though, then rounded back to the the number of digits reported in the list of episodes table as this would make the average slightly more accurate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Just saw this edit, switching the numbers from two decimal places to one, which I reverted. While I said in my above comment that one decimal place is commonplace in many TV show episode lists, I still am going by your suggestion, Geraldo. But it sounds like we need consensus on this, or we will keep seeing flip-flopping of the way they're shown. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother reverting changes like this that are basically style changes, not substantive content changes unless people start to edit war this. I don't think most editors care and a consensus may just evolve over time somewhat organically. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, there seems to be an edit war concerning User: 67.85.98.34, who keeps insisting on making the precision one digit to the right, only to see it reverted back to two digits. This user has done this at least four times, as of the time I'm making this comment, and I do acknowledge that there is no explanation for the changes. I've stayed on the sideline regarding this issue, but I think this needs to be resolved now! As I recall, the reporting was stable for nearly two months, with only one-digit precision, that held from this edit on August 4 to this one on October 1. I still stand by my going with one digit, as this precedent is established in multiple TV show episode lists, but this back-and-forth is starting to make me dizzy. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

We better re-request for page protection if this IP user keeps edit warring,Or else he should be reported to admins for unnecessary edit warring.That won't be effective though.Most people have dynamic IPs these days,So their IPs keep changing frequently. --Chamith (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It is annoying that people change stuff without explaining why they make their changes but I did check the rounding and it is accurate which is all that really matters for this type of info. I would really like to see the raw info added as a comment after the calculated info so others can check that it was done correctly. 1 or 2 is fine as long as the article stays stable with one picked. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Have added an instruction in the episodes section to keep it to one-digit precision, as that held for nearly two months, before the October 1 change. Will go ahead and fetch the raw data from the sources and insert them as hidden notes. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Dcbanners has opened a related discussion about precision of the ratings numbers here (and across other TV show episode articles which round to tenths in the audience numbers) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Rounding audience numbers. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Have gone ahead and adjusted precision of ratings numbers to two decimal places, per discussion in the WT:TV section shown above. Since the sources cited here for the ratings go to three decimal places, and a lot of TV show episode lists supposedly employ this much precision (in light of the sources being even more precise), I've gone ahead with the suggestion by Dcbanners. I am keeping the raw data shown in the hidden notes, however, as this data (directly from the cited references) is also being used for the calculation of the average later in the article. Without this raw data shown near the citations, someone could interpret the individual ratings numbers shown inside the average calculation as original research. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that the viewership on this page should be changed from 2 digits to the right of the decimal point to 1 digit to the right of the decimal point. To me, it looks more visually appealing JosephT. (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe the consensus here and at WikiProject Television is for 2 digits. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This has been of issue for a long time, especially in this article. I remember it starting with two digits to the right for how it was reported when the series began, then it went to one digit where it stayed for quite a while. One digit seems to be how the ratings for many Disney and Nickelodeon shows are reported, even if the cited references went with much further precision (for the sources used in this article, it goes to the thousandths place—three digits to the right). It was brought to my attention recently, by Dcbanners, that a majority of television programs' episode lists, away from those two networks, use a precision of two digits to the right. There should be consistency across the entire Wikiproject for television, though if sources lack the precision that the ones used to obtain the ratings here have, the number need to be less precise (fewer digits to the right of the decimal point). That said, I'd rather leave the precision as it is.

Another point of concern: if we were to change this back to one digit precision, someone will make a fuss by making it two digits again (and that happened back in October for a while, until I stepped in—see my comments earlier in this section). Since no guideline exists in MOS:TV regarding how precise the numbers need to be, which is also limited by what sources we use, it will come down to consensus. Hard to achieve when there's back-and-forth editing of the precision, but again, my stand is staying with the current two-digit precision based on the sources being used and a desire to achieve consistency across the many articles under the Wikiproject. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, technically per MOS:LARGENUM if the "uncertainty information" (aka for the layperson like myself the "margin of error") isn't available, we don't need all those digits of accuracy. The margin of error isn't clear with Nielsen ratings, so my instinct is that we only use tenths values. I brought this point up at WT:TV, but didn't get much support, even though I cited an earlier discussion at MOS:FILM or Template:Infobox film. (I can't recall). I don't have an ego about this, so I'm happy to adjust, though I will point out that the consensus for box office gross results tend to favor the tenths precision, e.g. "The film grossed $3.2 million internationally" as opposed to "The film grossed $3.23 million internationally." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The presumption is that margin of error is reflected in the precision given with the last digit of precision being close but not exact. The uncertainty of information is contained in the last digit reported. This is of course a strong rule for science and math measurements and calculations. Perhaps other fields of endeavor are not as strict with following that rule but absent some source that refutes that presumption of doing things correctly we should just report what is given to us and not second guess the sources. On the other hand, for our purposes, we don't need more precision than what is necessary for our needs, to give useful comparative info to our readers. That is an editorial choice. x.xx or x.x doesn't matter much as long as the article stays stable with one or the other. We have oscillated enough on this issue. Lets just stick with what we have now, it isn't really that critical and constantly flipping between the two choices is not productive. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

If the articles show two digits, then leave it the way it is. Same with those showing one digit. If we change them, then users will revert because "they like it better" and that leads to unnecessary edit warring. Dcbanners (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Another reason to just "leave it the way it is" is that all the changes need to be verified. When precision is reduced each change must be checked for the inevitable rounding errors. Even people who know how to do it properly can and do make mistakes. Also to round properly you need to go the the ultimate source for the raw info, sometimes rounding from 3 to 2 to 1 gives a different answer than rounding directly from 3 to 1 (2.145 -> 2.15 -> 2.2 instead of the correct 2.1 for example). Adding precision also must be verified against the source as now new information, the added precision, is being added. This is a lot of work to verify the correctness of a change that doesn't really need to be made in the first place. And yes, I do try to check both cases and grow weary of doing so.

I did the calculations in my example above using {{#expr:2.145round2}} {{#expr:2.145round2round1}} {{#expr:2.145round1}}. It would really make things easier if we reported viewing numbers as the source states them then use wiki to do the rounding, then changes in rounding would be trivial and correct. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Another reason to leave it the way it is, is that the most recent requester of change, is a sockpuppet of a disruptive user. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that one digit to the right is better because it is easier to round than 2 or 3 digits. Plus, it's simpler to read. JosephTremitiedi (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Boldface removed in episode summaries

This edit made by Wikipedical has removed the boldface markup from headings such as "Guest stars" and "Absent", with the guideline WP:BOLDFACE cited. While I have not disagreed with this type of edit in the past (Wikipedical removed boldface from these episode summary headings in this article on at least two other occasions), and since this guideline discourages use of boldface in the way it is being used in the article, arguing for the emphasis markup (I'm using the "emphasis" template shown in the guideline) rather than boldface to emphasize text, I would argue the removed markup as being a matter of style, and should be restored (and probably will end up being so by other editors later). Given how pervasive the boldface markup is in other episode list articles—I could name other Disney Channel shows but that would only be scratching the surface—is leading to my reasoning. However, the WP:BOLDFACE guideline is there for a reason, and it seems as if few editors are enforcing it (Wikipedical being one of those few). Anyway, what are your opinions on the use (or not) of the boldface markup?

I will note that there were some parts in that edit where I think the boldface clearly needed to be removed, specifically in the "Girl Meets World of Terror" episode, where it showed "Story #1", "Story #2", etc. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Support I think there is nothing wrong with using boldface for readers convenience. In some cases boldface is helpful to distinguish important terms. I don't think anyone would get upset if we ignore BOLDFACE rule.--Chamith (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I agree but the MOS argues against it so there is no firm basis to use bold when it is removed with those guidelines stated. Personally I just ignore it unless it is overused in an obnoxious manner. I don't think a WP:IAR exception can really be justified in this case as it really isn't strictly necessary for reader understanding. I think the MOS is going against common usage (MOS should be more descriptive then prescriptive IMO), but this is not the place to argue that issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per the style guideline that I've cited, which exists due to a larger consensus than the Girl Meets World talk page. Other pages' not enforcing the style guideline is not a valid reason to not enforce a style guideline. I have removed boldface to emphasize guest stars on other pages too when I have noticed it. I don't think the word "Guest star" needs emphasizing specifically (has any reason been given?), and it opens the door to using bold for any random thing. Training the eye away from other possibly more important information because of boldface does not serve the encyclopedia project. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is there are far too many episode list article pages, or TV show pages if the episode list can't stand alone by itself yet, which would need to be corrected for the proper emphasis (if it's even necessary) of such items as "guest stars", "notes", "songs featured", etc. I, too, am opposed to having boldface distract from the episode summaries themselves in any of these articles, especially if there is too much bold (List of Victorious episodes is surely a case in point—update as of 05:47, 13 January 2015‎, that article has now been cleaned of the boldface). I feel there are not enough editors who are aware of WP:BOLDFACE, or even care to follow it. The new editors are even more unaware of the guidelines, and will think boldface is OK for these things, when it isn't. My position is to leave this kind of markup the way it is, unless it's overwhelming (as Geraldo indicated), but my addressing this problem is giving me a new lease to reconsider, and I might take on removing boldface from a number of these problem pages, though whether to apply the proper emphasis (the em template mentioned in the guideline, or equivalent HTML notation) is another issue altogether. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a reasonable response and is the right attitude to have. What I'd say is the only way for new editors to follow guidelines is for them to know about them. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

/* Season Finale /*

I find in Internet and say that the president of the programming of Disney Channel say: We are going to premiere the episode 19 and 20 in February and episode 21 in March, and a fan uploaded a picture in Twitter and say this are the dates for the last 3-episodes of GMW February 20,2015: "Girl Meets Fish" February 27,2015: "Girl Meets Farkle's Chocie" March 6,2015: "Girl Meets First Date"

ANd Season 2 premieres the last friday of may of this year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.51.64.70 (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Got sources, @170.51.64.70:? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Guest stars in episode listing — removing those with insignificant roles

As I look at the listing of guest stars throughout the episodes, there are a number of them where I'm asking, "who?" and also "how does the character they portray impact the episode?". Like for "Girl Meets Boy", who is Myzell (portrayed by Taylor Hollomon, whose notability as an actor is itself not enough to have an article listed in Wikipedia), and what significance is his/her role in that episode? Other examples where the same question can be asked: Sari Arambulo as Sarah, from "Girl Meets Father"; Mekai Curtis as Shumpert and Nathaniel James Potvin as Academic Top Half, from "Girl Meets Popular"; and Reagan Pasternak as Judy, from "Girl Meets Farkle's Choice" (although Pasternak has a Wikipedia article, that in itself does not qualify her role in that episode as notable). I even question Sarah Carpenter (Sabrina's sister) as being listed, given how little dialogue she has in any of the episodes she is in; the only one that stands out is in "Girl Meets Maya's Mother" when she criticizes Maya's mother's "acting", and brings up that her father is a director. I still doubt that serves as a defining point in that episode which merits her inclusion in the guest star listing. So, per WP:TVCAST (though an extrapolation of that policy), I have removed these names and others, who I question based on their significance in the episodes.

Despite this removal, I will respect their being listed in the end credits. For the TV show itself, all actors must be listed in the credits as there could be legal implications involved if they aren't, but just because they are listed does not mean all of them are notable in the episode. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I've generally considered/assumed any cast member with the credit "Special guest star" or "Guest star" as being important enough to be listed in the credits portion of the episode summary. "Co-star" credit is minor, basically an extra that speaks. Also if a character is not named with a real proper name (say as cheerleader #2) it is a pretty good hint it's a minor role. I fear that making judgments beyond that is a bit of original research and editor opinion of importance and would prefer some hard-line distinctions to avoid that. Also I think that sometimes actors listed as co-star get added to the summary as guest stars when they shouldn't by people who don't see the difference in credit level and think every non-regular actor is a "Guest star" – those should definitely be removed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Girl Meets Season 2

Hello! I was wondering if we can we go ahead and add an "episodes" page since we have titles for the first 11 or so episodes (thanks to the writers on their twitter page) and the first 5 airdates that were confirmed today? Sources are below btw!

I don't know how to add an episodes page so I'm asking someone to go ahead and do it and I can add additional information. Thanks! :)

Source: http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/girl-meets-world-season-2-premiere-date-may-1201468554/ Source: http://tvline.com/2015/04/08/girl-meets-world-season-2-premiere-date/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijoshiexo (talk • contribs) 20:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

We can't use the writer's twitter page as a reference as they do not set the broadcast schedule and even episode titles might change. Wait for reliable sources such as program guides, Variety and tvline which only give date and name of the first season 2 episode and planned airdates, but not names, for some of the future ones. Given that we at least have the name and airdate of the first season 2 episode it is reasonable to do a split as that is normal when there is more than one season to have a list of episodes article. Might be worthwhile to update this article first with the added info and overview table then split after that is done. Be sure to follow process at WP:SPLIT#How to properly split an article and also requirements at WP:CWW for legal required attributions if a split is done. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for responding! But there's one thing, I'm so confused on how to do this whole split thing hahaha! Can you or someone please help me? Ijoshiexo (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The first step is to modify this article adding a season overview table and the season 2 table with the first entry filled in with the name and date of the first episode. See WP:TVOVERVIEW. Then the split basically moves the entire episode list to List of Girl Meets World episodes. Before the info can be moved the current list of epsodes article needs to be unprotected. See WP:UNPROTECT. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that you should wait until may, yet a month. But that information added recently has many shortcomings, since when will premiere episodes every day? Some of the references lead to the same place, I think that you better wait until Disney say it on television.--Philip J Fry Talk 15:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is a good idea to wait particularly with the bit of confusion about the 200 series episode (207) that might be a part of season 1, a special between seasons episode, or the real start of season 2. Generally we go with what the network says is the season premiere episode and that may be a while. We should resolve how this is going to be presented before considering doing the split. No hurry but the article is pretty close to splitable as it is now. It is strange that the first 200 series episode is the 7th in the second production order. Normally a planned season start begins with a planned 201 episode to keep any narrative arcs straight. 207 may be a planned stand-alone where it doesn't matter. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I say split since we have season 2 airdates. — Confession0791 ^talk 06:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware, someone has already spun off the episodes list at List of Girl Meets World Episodes, and a 'move' discussion to move this article to List of Girl Meets World episodes is already underway at Talk:List of Girl Meets World Episodes. So any long-time editors who have any particular thoughts on this should probably make their voices heard over there... --IJBall (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Credit cast

According to the opening theme of the second season, Corey Fogelmanis is accredited before Daniel Fischel. Then why not be can be placed so?. It is no longer co-star.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Cast is listed in order of appearance in the credits. Pilot episode opening credits followed by cast as added to the main credits. See attribute description at template:Infobox television. "Cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show." Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)