Talk:The Secret Saturdays

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

Secret Sneak Peek?[edit]

I was just wondering: Should I add a mention of the sneak peeks of the show that are to be shown on September 1st? Also, should I add a mention about Cartoon Network's viral marketing campaign for the show?--UBracter (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mention it in the lead that there will be a preview airing, nothing too long and maybe a month if you can find one. As for the viral marketing campaign, if you can get secondary sourcing then expand it as it is fairly unique for Cartoon Network to do viral marketing. treelo radda 16:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was able to write a paragraph in the 'History' section abbout the campaign. Is that good enough?--UBracter (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what you got, you might need a few more sources to back up some of it but from what I've gotten from it, it's very good and even explains a image I didn't even know was linked to the show. Nice job. treelo radda 17:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

I recently interviewed Jay Stephens, and was wondering if I could use that as a reference in the History section on how the show got picked up by Cartoon Network. Can I? --UBracter (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may not, as per Wikipedia:Reliable Sources self-references are not allowed, but someone else may.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like they mentioned, can't use yourself as a reference. Personally I wouldn't allow it even if someone else put it in per WP:V, a lot of your blog runs on opinion and you're not exactly an expert within this field. Maybe given something from Jay Stephens himself on his blog about it could be allowed in but you couldn't be the one to put it in. treelo radda 14:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I can't use it, even though the information came directly from Jay Stephens? Okay... --UBracter (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be a smartass, how do we know you spoke to him? Can we verify that you did? Even if we do, you won't be the one to put it in being your blog it's posted on. treelo radda 16:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True. Sorry about that. --UBracter (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[1]. There's your proof. Happy now? --UBracter (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That'll do but again you can't add it. Someone else can and I'll do it if you tell me where it could go. Also, "happy now?"? Grow up. treelo radda 18:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
History, the second paragraph, after the first sentence. --UBracter (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Right, done a basic ref link, might clean it up a bit later. Yknow, your attitude (besides one point where you actually acknowledged you were wrong) is totally unnecessary, yeah your link cannot be linked by you but I don't care how proud you are of your interview, fact is you cannot add it so acting like someone who cannot take that is not exactly the best reaction you could make, it's even bordering on those crazy ass fools who violate WP:OWN each they claim an article as theirs and I don't think that's how you are. Not out to crush your success which in itself is awesome, just them's the rules. treelo radda 18:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry about that. I'll try to behave better next time. Sorry for all the trouble. --UBracter (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

link[edit]

The link to cryptozoologists leads to cryptozoology, not cryptozoologists. Abce2 (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Abce2[reply]

Because that's the page it redirects to.--UBracter (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New episodes picked up[edit]

Where should I put information of new episodes of the series being picked up by Cartoon Network? The channel just picked up 10 more episodes. --UBracter (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Porchlight Entertainment[edit]

This show is a with Porchlight Entertainment. It's not produced by Cartoon Network Studios like most the other shows are. If it was produced by Cartoon Network Studios wouldn't it have the Cartoon Network Studios logo, which is specifically designed for each cartoon they produce? Cartoon Network, not Cartoon Network Studios, theres a difference by the way, distributed this show. So why is in "Cartoon Network Studios Originals" when it should be in a different category like "Cartoon Network Distributions"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamborghini man (talk • contribs) 02:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It for all Cartoon Network Original Series, not just the in-house series. --UBracter (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Hi Hi Puffy Ami Yumi and Out of Jimmy's Head are Cartoon Network Original Series and are co-produced with Renegade Animation. And those two shows are placed in the Co-Productions section. So why isn't The Secret Saturdays since this show is a Co-Production with Porchlight Entertainment, huh? And BTW the section that this show is currently in is specifically titled "Cartoon Network Studios Originals". This show wasn't produced by Cartoon Network Studios. It was produced by Porchlight Entertainment. So it should be in the "Cartoon Network Co-Production" section. This is what I'm trying to point out but nobody seems to understand. Lamborghini man 03:04, 9 March 2009 .
People understand, just that here isn't the right venue still to discuss this and you've beaten it to death once already without yourself understanding that isn't how we do it and why exactly we won't do it even though you were told why. Basically the message remains the same, suggestion noted but no. treelo radda 03:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just posted a new suggestion in the Cartoon Network wiki project. I think you may be interested. Lamborghini man 03:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey Grey as an ally?[edit]

Now that we know that Abbey is Van Rook's new apprentice, shouldn't she be listed under the enemies section in the characters list? I don't know if she is really an ally with the Saturday family anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.180.11 (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Kur[edit]

Alright guys, seriously. Kur is not the behemoth cryptid that was in the recent season 2 finale, it's Zakary P. Saturday. Let's just change the behemoth cryptid's title in his description to " Giant Monster that was frozen in ice in Antartica and has a bunch of tentacle mouths". Also, I think we should now change Zak's title to "Kur" since we now know that he is da real deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.61.65 (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cryptids[edit]

I think it would be necessary to make a list of cryptids section for the secret saturdays page. I think it would make figuring out which cryptids were in the episodes a lot easier if it had its own section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.63.141 (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, putting wiki-links in the episode list (which has already been done) would suffice. There are Wikipedia articles for most of the cryptids. Also, a list for cryptids that appear in this show would fail to meet WP:NOTABILITY because less than half of these cryptids have a featured role and only Fiskerton, Komodo, and Zon (and Kur, if you're counting Zak) appear enough times and are developed enough to merit their own sections (which is already done in the character list). By the way, next time, please sign your comments. You can do so by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Thank you.--Twilight Helryx 16:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final Episode[edit]

The episode that aired on January 30th was the final episode, wasn't it? It seems implied that it is the last episode, but some people keep reverting edits showing that the series ended. Is there a source somewhere showing whether or not there will be more episodes so we can stop an edit war? Host Dunkelheit (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are editing to reflect the fact that the show hasn't been officially cancelled, regardless of what its future prospects are. Mr. Stephens has told us that no new episodes have been ordered, however.
-Grand Commander13 (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, at this point I'm fairly comfortable asking that, until we get word of a renewal, that the original air date be left at lasting until January 30, 2010 rather than "present".

-Grand Commander13 (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no it will stay to present it will be used until official confirmation then we will decide the rest also wits for confirmation take many months

I suppose March 2014 you'd still like the entry to say its original run lasted until "Present" if Cartoon Network gives no word? And please do remember to sign your entry next time.
-Grand Commander13 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't mean that if it is unannoounced or confirmed dead in 2011 we would do that oh and by 2014 we would already know if there was no movement in that year i would know

Well considering matters I don't think three months is any less reasonable than twelve. I believe it's quite long enough, considering how Mr. Stephens said as of the airing of the season finale that no new episodes had been ordered and it therefore would be at least a year until the show aired again. I would almost think such a situation would warrant two "original airing" entries but I don't know how that is handled officially.
At any rate I find it silly for the show to be listed as still airing in the Present when we have no word that the show will continue and it will take a year if the show were renewed for new episodes to air. As constant reversion of constructive edits is frowned upon, I'd appreciate it if you'd let the January 30, 2010 original airing end stand while we waited for official word.
-Grand Commander13 (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I let the issue lie on the side of Present after talking to AussieLegend, but he and Anma here are now both saying that if we have a reliable source that no new episodes were ordered that it is correct to put the end date as January 30, 2010. I am putting this in with the proper citation, and I don't want to see an edit war over this.

-Grand Commander13 (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Bros. Television[edit]

This show is not produced by any division of Warner Bros. Television which is why I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.89.75 (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Secret Saturdays. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Secret_Saturdays&oldid=1210691190"