Talk:Sonic Boom (TV series)/Archive 1

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://blogs.sega.com/2013/10/02/sonic-boom-working-title-a-new-animated-series-coming-fall-2014/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MER-C 12:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Franchise

The new Sega blog post frequently refers to Sonic Boom as a brand new franchise independent from the standard Sonic the Hedgehog series. The franchise will include video games, toys, and a TV show. Perhaps, as more information becomes known, this article should be moved to Sonic Boom (franchise) and the article rewritten to describe it as such? Mz7 (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If the franchise happens, honestly. Remember, Sonic Heroes and Shadow the Hedgehog were going to be full sub-series. Tezero (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Continuity or Not?

It was previously stated that the video game would act as a prequel to the series. However, it was later stated that the series would be completely episodic, with each episode being "stand-alone", implying that there wouldn't be any continuity. Is there any way that this can be incorporated into the article? Brittany Ka (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A reliable source for this would be nice. Antoshi ☏ ★ 14:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

TV networks

As of September 16, 2014, Sega has only confirmed that this TV show will air on Cartoon Network in the United States, and Gulli and Canal J in France. See this Facebook post from that day, one of the comment replies from the official Sonic the Hedgehog page (maintained by Sega) specifically says, "We have only announced the TV series for Cartoon Network in the US, and Gulli and Canal J in France." When adding information about new television networks, please cite your sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for unverifiable speculation. We must only report information that is verifiable. Claiming that this show will air on networks such as Nickelodeon Arabia (which appears to actually be defunct) without any support is misleading to our readers and not acceptable. Thank you. Mz7 (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Cartoon Network v. The Futon Critic

This is what I'd like to call weird. Cartoon Network is saying that the next 2 episodes would be Translate This / Buster ([1] Click on November 15th and you'll know what I'm talking about), while The Futon Critic is saying that the next 2 episodes would be My Fair Sticksy / Circus of Plunder ([2]). I'm not saying that The Futon Critic isn't a reliable source, but who'd be right here? TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, after watching this morning's new eipsode, it appears Cartoon Network was indeed the victor. Note to everyone editing this article: Never trust The Futon Critic! TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I switched the episode reference to Zap2it. The Futon Critic is wrong, but it generally is a reliable source. Episodes five, six, and seven were also different. Dcbanners (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

the Twinkle

Hey guys, I'm sorry for the way i'd did, but lets just make this completely clear for all of you to understand, I didn't vandalized anything to the article, just reverting back to the previous update, because from what I'd saw on the previous section, it said that we can't trust sites that give the wrong release date for each episodes, and from yesterday, it didn't released the right episodes, and besides, I was only trying to help with this article, so please don't get the RS Noticeboard involve with this because I can assure you that it won't happen again, OK! :) Norozco1 (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll be bold and revert to your revision. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, your truly helpful with others, and i appreciate it, i guess this is your way of accepting my apology, so now that this is out of the way, lets continue of what we do best, improving this article, ok! :-) Norozco1 (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Definitely! TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Right! :-) Norozco1 (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

And I'm just going by what was submitted by the production staff of Cartoon Network to IMDb. So which source is correct? By the way, IMDb is one of the few trusted sources for writing credits, and by virtue of sheer volume (80,000+ references and mentions on WP and counting) its the default source for cast and crew credits. YouTube is subject to WP:linkrot assuming the broadcast version was posted and its not a copyright violation for what you are citing as a source. Just curious, anyone else here a current or former employee of Cartoon Network? --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, IMDb is not considered a reliable source, as it, like Wikipedia, TV.com, Wikia, TVTropes, is user-contributed. Credits are typically added by users, not by the production companies. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, that is factually incorrect, the primary IMDb database is not user-contributed like Wikipedia, not "anyone can edit" it and have changes go live immediately. Edits to its main database of tv shows and movies are checked by paid staff and majority of the new production information is provided by the production companies. Please do not fall victim to the groupthink on this site. There are areas of IMDb that go unchecked like the forums, but this does not invalidate the main database. Amazon, the owner of IMDb, does not want to get sued for promoting false information any more than any other for profit company. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you're only half right. While IMDB does have a fact-checking team, it relies on users to submit the changes; it does not get them directly from the production companies. And quite frankly, their fact-checking is spotty at best, hence why we have cases like 50 Cent being credited as voicing a (non-talking) horse in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, multiple fake character entries appearing on the Super Smash Bros. for Wii U page, or in the most relevant example, an entry on the Sonic Boom page that was up for MONTHS before release for a cast member who doesn't appear in the show playing a character who doesn't appear in the show. I can show you multiple instances of actors who claim that IMDB got their facts wrong. Heck, even Wikipedia itself says using it as a citation is up for dispute. Regardless, the fact stands that you're repeatedly reverting accurate information by citing an inaccurate source despite the protests and attempted revisions by multiple users, in clear violation of WP:3RR. I suggest you give it a rest, lest someone accuse you of editing in bad faith. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing unsourced content is NEVER a violation of WP:3RR, verifiability trumps accuracy every time, regardless of your viewpoint of IMDb or the fact that a database as massive as it has errors. That's true of any database. Furthermore, I accepted the use the TVDB.com source, so its the writing credit changes that you are disputing now which WP does accept as a credible source. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Correction: Wikipedia accepts writing credits supplied directly by the WGA (and marked as such), which the page lacks, evidently because no users have bothered to submit it to them. And if it were as simple as just citing the episodes themselves (which we pointed out multiple times have the writers listed VERY clearly, with video evidence to prove it), why didn't you do that from the start? We could have had this resolved a day ago instead of you engaging in an edit war with the rest of the editors. A little more discussion and a little less wanton revision would be much appreciated going forward. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I'll own up to being ignorant about the Cite Episode template, which does seem to fix most of the issue, but now Dcbanners keeps trying to remove them. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Scalhotrod, I would love to see references that support what you're saying, as it contradicts the bulk of the discussions on the subject. Regardless, community consensus, or "groupthink" as you seem to call it, does not consider IMDb to be a reliable source. Please see WP:USERG, WP:RS/IMDB, WP:TVFAQ. I believe that studios can submit content via IMDb Pro, but that doesn't mean the entirety of the source, IMDB, is reliable. Also, the fact that edits don't go live immediately doesn't mean that all content is vetted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey Cyphoidbomb, its starts with the site itself. In the FAQ it states "While we actively gather information from and verify items with studios and filmmakers, the bulk of our information is submitted by people in the industry and visitors like you." [3](my added emphasis) This page goes on to acknowledge that the site is not perfect, but they make the effort to insure that its as accurate as they can make it. They also provide a statistics page for the site [4] that explains that there are over 3 million titles, nearly 2 million of which are tv episodes with entries for over 6 million people listed. Much of the confusion about IMDb is based on speculation and rumor, hence the groupthink comment. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Your constant revision certainly isn't helping anything, Scalhotrod. Unfortunately, Zap2it doesn't seem to be a suitable source either since it lists Circus of Plunder as airing with Translate This and Buster, which we all know now is inaccurate. Man, why can't any one source keep anything straight? -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that is that production schedules differ from airing schedules. When I worked at Hanna Barbera and Warner Bros. Animation, things like retakes or script changes were always causing changes to the series. As long as there is a creative process involved, things will never go as planned on the production side. Plus, given that this is CGI based, Post Production issues can cause all kinds of disruption. And if we are just talking about the air schedule for the series, it can change from market to market, meaning what is aired on a station on the East Coast may not be the same episode that is aired on the West Coast in the same order on the same day. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@136.181.195.25 You finally got it right, its just needs a little format tweaking. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The Edit War is OVER

Folks, 136.181.195.25, Dcbanners, Cyphoidbomb, Norozco1, TheMeaningOfBlah, Tezero, H8149, et. al. We finally git it right. Admittedly, I was unaware of the Template:Cite episode template. Everybody should be happy now, we can cite the Title cards/frames, but we still need a source for the original air dates. What about the Cartoon Network site? [5] --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that shouldn't be difficult. I bet at least one gaming website has released an article about the show's initial airing. Regarding episode citing, yes, that's perfectly fine; I used episode credits in the Sonic X article (an FA) to cite a few facts about the personnel and music. Tezero (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If an episode has aired, you don't need references for Director, Writer, etc. as the primary source can be used to determine this information, just like you can use the primary source to derive a plot summary. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If it involves people, then emphatically YES, it needs a source. Your claim that once its aired means you have carte blanche to post whatever is ludicrous and in violation of policy that applies to living people. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It's comparable to a plot summary. Maybe Wikipedia policy should be to require citations for everything in a plot summary, but that's not the case, because this information is easy to verify. Of course, this is only true for objective, uncontestable facts about a plot; non-obvious ideas would count as WP:OR if uncited. Whether a person's name is listed in the credits isn't exactly contestable if you've watched them. Tezero (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

But the second that someone asks for a source, its "contested". The episode cite solves this quite nicely. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. Again, there's nothing wrong with including it, just like there's nothing wrong with plot summary citations, but they aren't needed by default. Tezero (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Episodes that have aired do not need sources, they are only there before they air to follow WP:CRYSTAL (which says that future events MUST be sourced). Dcbanners (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Then what possesses you to REMOVE sources after the episode has aired? Please provide a policy that supports this. If you can't, I'm ready to have this situation evaluated at the appropriate Noticeboard. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Anime series connection

Hey, do you guys know how could this series is a previous follow-up to the anime series, Sonic X, because we really need to know that kind of information, right? :-/ Norozco1 (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm indifferent on the inclusion of that. Sonic X was the most recent Sonic show before this, but they don't share a chronology. I don't think there's any widely accepted standard on Wikipedia on whether to include media from the same franchise that aren't canonically related in a "previous"/"next" format like this. Tezero (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If that's true, then what what's the difference between the 2 series, because if we found out that japan has confirmed that they'll be releasing the Tv series in Japan, only it'll be under the name of Sonic Toon, then that would be a completely surprising shocker for everyone, ya know. :-) Norozco1 (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh... there are lots of differences. Sonic X is hand-drawn, has a continuing story, has humans besides Eggman, is significantly more serious, was produced in Japan, is tied to the main canon of the games instead of a sub-series canon, has alien species (e.g. Seedrians, Marmolians), etc. What'd you have in mind? Tezero (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, i was just thinking that we should try to be more detailed about the differences between the 2 series and try adding that detail into the article, just so that nobody gets confused that it's a continuation of Sonic X, that's all i'm sayin, ya know. :-) Norozco1 (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No Sonic TV series has ever been a direct continuation of another series. Furthermore, the only Sonic TV show articles to reference the differences between itself and another series are SatAM and AoStH since they aired at the same time. Why would this one need to be the exception? -- 69.136.149.237 (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, all of the Wikipedia articles for Sonic TV shows except Sonic X have the chronology in the infobox, and with that one, it just wasn't there when I started working on it around February and I never thought to add it. Tezero (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Still, it isn't exactly accurate to list X as "preceding" Boom; that actually DOES give the incorrect impression that it's a direct follow-up. It'd be more appropriate to list it under "related" shows, if at all. -- 69.136.149.237 (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, but what kind of "related" shows did you have in mind anyway? :/ Norozco1 (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying Sonic Boom was not "Preceded by" Sonic X since there's no connection between the two, so it would be more accurate to either list it under the "Related Shows" field in the Chronology box or not list it at all. -- 69.136.149.237 (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, when you put it that way, then it does sound like it's a good idea, but how will we make this work exactly? :-/ Norozco1 (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It's actually incredibly simple. Just replace the existing infobox with the following: -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sonic Boom
Genre	Comedy, action, adventure, fantasy
Created by	Sonic Team
Developed by	Evan Baily Donna Friedman Mier Sandrine Nguyen
Voices of	Roger Craig Smith Colleen Villard Cindy Robinson Travis Willingham Nika Futterman Mike Pollock Kirk Thornton Wally Wingert
Country of origin	United States France
Original language	English
Production
Executive producers	Jane McGregor Boris Hertzog Evan Baily Donna Friedman Mier Sandrine Nguyen
Running time	11 minutes
Production companies	OuiDo! Productions Sega of America
Original release
Network	Cartoon Network (United States) Canal J & Gulli (France)
Release	November 8, 2014 (2014-11-08) – present
Related
Sonic X

hey, your right! it is quite simple, so simple that it just might work for this article, ya know. :-) Norozco1 (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I hate to bring up a problem with a well-received solution, but what's so special about Sonic X here? If the only criterion is being "related", why not the previous animated shows? Tezero (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and just what kind of animated shows are you referring to exactly? :-/ Norozco1 (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The previous Sonic shows. Why is Sonic X any more related to Boom than, for example, Underground is? Tezero (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Like I said before, I really don't think X needs to be mentioned at all, nor any of the other shows. They have no ties to this show other than being cartoons about Sonic, so why would we need to even mention them on this page? -- 69.136.149.237 (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Because, we don't want anyone to get confuse about this article, do you guys seriously want in your conscious that we're giving our people that view this article the wrong idea? :-( Norozco1 (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't, which is why I'd rather not include Sonic X alone (i.e. not the other Sonic shows) if the only way to do it is in a "related shows" category. I think that would be giving readers the wrong idea, because it would be implying that Sonic X is more closely related to this than the other shows are. Tezero (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

And again, I'm in favor of not listing any shows at all. Listing it as being "preceded by" Sonic X will only create more confusion, and listing just X and not any others again gives the wrong impression that it's closely tied to Boom. No continuity box, no problem. -- 69.136.149.237 (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

But that would only make them start to suspect, so we have to put something in the box that ties in to the sonic series, because i'm starting to get the feeling that the Sonic Boom Tv series is actually a Spin-off then a continuation, ya know. :-/ Norozco1 (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment. What exactly are you concerned that readers will "suspect", Norozco? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I have no idea what's being argued at this point. All I know is that Sonic Boom is not a continuation or spin-off of Sonic X, and the two have nothing to do with each other aside from both being Sonic shows, so I find it highly unnecessary to include either one in the other's infobox. -- 69.136.149.237 (talk)

Well... that's true. Sonic Boom is a spinoff from the main canon. Even Sonic X, which was by far the closest of any of the Sonic TV series to the games, has substantial differences (e.g. the Thorndykes, Tanaka, Ella, Chris' friends, the concept of a separate human world, the entire third season). Boom was even marketed as a spin-off canon. I see what you're saying about making sure readers know it's Sonic, but I don't think there's any real risk of that, especially with the navbox at the bottom. Tezero (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, what do you think we should do then, because at this point, we're completely out of ideas of what to do about the situation that we're in, but if you have any ideas that just might help us, then please be our guest to enlighten us a bit. :/ Norozco1 (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't do anything. We just get rid of Sonic X from the continuity box because the two shows have nothing to do with each other. No one's going to think that this show has anything to do with Sonic X if Sonic X isn't mentioned in the first place. -- 69.136.149.237 (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Even so, i still think that somethings not right about this, i mean, get rid of the Sonic X from the Continuity box is just too easy to do, so i suggest that we need to do something a little basic, and an idea that's good enough for people to understand, and not get confused with, ya know. :-) Norozco1 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent page protection

Because of some conflicting personalities, the article was recently issued a full protection. As an experienced WikiProject Television editor who witnessed the events that led to the protection, I know this: We don't typically cite the specific episode when adding non-controversial content about an episode that has aired, such as director names, writer names, noteworthy cast, and things like that. We typically expect primary sources to be sufficient for these facts.

Air dates should be sourced, because they are not something you can glean simply by watching the episode. When users remove air date sources after an episode airs, that irritates me, because we need those sources to ensure the airdates aren't fudged by users who commit subtle vandalism. Straight plot synopses needn't be sourced because the primary source can be used for this content, although interpretive content should absolutely be sourced. When editors claim that the character Skeeter from the animated series Doug is supposed to be "black", that is an interpretive claim that needs to be backed by reliable sources as the character is depicted as having blue skin. If we say (made-up example) "Charlie is an avid motorcyclist", we should cite the episodes where this would have been revealed, provided it isn't trivial. I digress, but my main point is that the primary source can be used for basic, noncontroversial facts. Interpretive content should be provided by reliable secondary sources.

What I would probably ask the involved users to agree to for this article, is: 1) We don't need sources for non-controversial information that can be gleaned by watching the episode. 2) Please don't remove sources without dropping a note on the talk page first to gauge response. 3) Everybody gets a fresh start and we work constructively and politely as if it never happened.. If both users agree to these notions, I'll ask that the page protection be removed, because I think you were both working to improve the article in your own ways, but got caught up in emotions. Fair? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb, thank you for your comments and I can appreciate your points, but my comments and actions stem from 2 sources of activity and experience here on Wikipedia. First, anything to do with living people involves and invokes WP:BLP policy. The most stringently adhered to, discussed, and debated policy on the site. Having someone remove a citation that supports a link to any living person, notable on Wikipedia or not, not only irritates me, but is going to get them called on it. I can forgive and forget actions in this circumstance because Dcbanners is still what I consider a WP:NEWBIE, but I've been bashed on far too many times by other Editors demanding the same thing to say that references are not needed or unimportant when it comes to living people. Second, I routinely patrol the Special:PendingChanges page and know all too well about subtle vandalism. I see it almost daily and having sources attributed even for "non-controversial content about an episode that has aired" makes it easier on Editors who may or may not be less familiar with any given article (or group of articles) to review the edit appropriately. If something can be sourced and cited, then why not? It just makes the project that much better. Obviously the TV episode Citation template exists for a reason. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind, the BLP policies are in place to dissuade against slander. I don't think voicing a character in, or otherwise working on, a CGI series on Cartoon Network is something likely to be seen as scandalous. If the person's inclusion becomes controversial, then sure, citations are necessary, but until then, I think they mainly serve to obscure the style and imply that everything else needs citations as well, regardless of whether it has been or reasonably could be contested. Tezero (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I get your points, Scalhotrod, however, whether we apply a proper {{cite episode}} template or not, the primary source is still being used to arrive at this information. Including a cite episode template doesn't make verification of the content any easier or more intuitive than just assuming the primary source is the source of the content. When a vandal comes by to fudge the value, we would still have to access the primary source to verify the change. I don't see how BLP factors in here, since the content would still be verifiable by the primary source whether we added a citation or not. Further, the information we are adding is not controversial; there are no privacy issues, no gossip issues, as as far as I know, no libel issues, and even if there were, the use of a citation template isn't a get-out-of-court-free card. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

With regard to BLP policy, I get that and see that you understand it as well, but its unfortunately evolved into a means to widespread deletion all across WP. ANI and the Noticeboards are fulls of debates and screaming matches over it. If the TV show articles haven't had their run ins with this, then its beginning to start. Sourcing on a great many things has been "fast and loose" for quite a while and it shouldn't be ignored. If the fix is as simple as the episode cite, then get used to it because the challenges will happen. This discussion is just one example.

What it comes down to is that without proper citations, even those as simple as the Episode Cite template, other Editors like me, Newbies, or just those that are not as familiar with the norms of these articles will always have carte blanche to delete whatever unsourced content they want. And challenging Editors who want to include the citations isn't going to help the situation. If the Title cards for an episode are going to used as a source, then every single article should damn well have the source listed whether its the Episode Cite template or something else. WP:Primary sources especially need to be sourced because of their limited applications. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The cite episode template is redundant because it doesn't make verification easier. I just merged all the sources into one. I put a source to TVDB in the "Original air date" column. It contains the episodes and the air dates. Dcbanners (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Redundant how? Its a citation for a primary source. TVDB.com is not a reliable source, please do not use it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dcbanners: TheTVDB.com advertises itself as "an open database that can be modified by anybody". Thus, it fails Wikipedia's guideline on identifying reliable sources since it is user-generated content. Mz7 (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mz7: I changed the source to Zap2it. Dcbanners (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dcbanners: Thanks. Mz7 (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I am still keeping the sources, just condensing all of them into one general reference at the top of the air date column. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/FAQ#Verifiability for more information. Dcbanners (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The Zap2it source is perfect for providing a central third-party location to verify the original air dates, but what Scalhotrod wishes to cite by using the episode itself is personnel (i.e. the writers and directors). The Zap2it source currently does not include that information. Mz7 (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That could work. We can move the sources to the "Directed by" and "Written by" column. Similar to Zap2it being in the "Original air date" column. Dcbanners (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

But unlike the original air dates, we don't have a single source like Zap2it which aggregates the directors and writers for each episode. We are instead left to reference each episode individually. If we move all of those citations to the top of the column, it produces clutter and restricts readability. Like this.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} We could try using WP:CITEBUNDLE if it is truly bothersome, but personally, I don't have an issue with the current setup if it is decided that those sources are necessary. Mz7 (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 November 2014

Set the broadcast of Sonic Boom in France to past text. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheMeaningOfBlah: 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. and don't forget to provide reliable sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Episode list

Here's a question: should we really be keeping the full episode list on the main page? The show's going to be running for quite a while, and the episode lists of every other Sonic series are on their own separate pages. Tezero (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i think we really should be keeping the Full episode list on the main page, because its important and has lots of details for the article, ya know! :-) Norozco1 (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It does, but before long it'll be making the article gigantic, being hard to load (for users with lower bandwidth) and hard to navigate (for users without gigantic screens) as a result. I think it'd be better if we could simply give a basic summary of the characters and setting - like, the reader has no idea that the five main characters are living in a house together in a tropical area, and we have "Young Gogoba" in the cast list when the reader has no idea what a Gogoba is. Tezero (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, i totally agree with you, because there are a lot of details that we just really don't know about the 5 main characters, and the new character that you've mentioned earlier, so without those details that aren't added to the article, the users will soon realize that somethings missing in the article, ya know! :-) Norozco1 (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Split episode list into a new article

Now that we have information regarding the characters and whatnot, I think we should start separating the episode list from the main page before it gets too gigantic. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well said dude! :-) Norozco1 (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What about we split it when the first half of the season (after 26th episode) is finished. Dcbanners (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, we can work work with this, we'll spilt it when the half of the season is finished, ok! :-) Norozco1 (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support split at 26th episode per Dcbanners. The current size of the Episodes table is not so completely unwieldy that it impedes readability; however, by the 26th episode, it will likely become so. Mz7 (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, the foregoing proposal to split the episodes section appears to have been completed by TheTMOBGaming2 (talk · contribs). The split section can now be found at List of Sonic Boom episodes. Mz7 (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Great, glad to hear it dude! :-) Norozco1 (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)