Talk:Austin & Ally

Not picked up by Disney Channel?

According to a Disney Channel upfront press release released today for the next year. Austin and Ally was not named as an upcoming show. My guess the series was dropped. Here's a source from NickandMore.com [1] taken from DisneyChannelMediaNet [2] QuasyBoy 22:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Picked up by Disney Channel

This show was officially picked up by Disney Channel. It was confirmed by Raini Rodriguez. The show didn't have enough plans or information to be annouced at the upfront so that's why they didn't release it. It was still in the writing stages. Disney didn't want to fully release it yet because they didn't have enough information for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farmward821 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide a source please? I Googled "Disney Channel picks up Austin and Ally" and nothing came up. QuasyBoy 15:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Dont get confused guys

Disney did pick up the series and the next time you google disney channel pick up austin and ally will come up some websites talking about it and also on youtube, the preview for the series is also there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephany1234 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

File:AustinandAllyCast.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:AustinandAllyCast.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ross Lynch and Family

Under the character Austin, as always, it mention his actor. But it then goes to say he performs with his siblings and where they are in the media industry. It doesn't matter to his character. So why is it here? If this is going to be said, shouldn't it be said on Ross's own page(or one on his siblings Riker and Rydel?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.72.135 (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

See notice at the top of this page. Also the section is about the cast and each subsection is labeled with a cast member's name. Lynch's musical history is definitely relevant to his role on the show. If anything the other cast members should be fleshed out with more details, but this is less necessary as they do have their own wiki pages that describe them, unlike Ross Lynch whose page went through an AfD with a merge and redirect concensus. Disney at medianet, describes the cast and characters in a similar manner, with lots of details about the cast member in the character section. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

IMDb linking

I didn't find your citation of the Talk:Kickin' It#Inline external links to IMDB actor article discussion persuasive, since it was you and Crakkerjak agreeing with each other, and SummerPhD appearing, frankly, unconvinced. I agree with SummerPhD's point, that the links are not necessary, and that they also have the potential to lead to bad information. A fan-edited site like IMDb could well have bad information on the people whose links I removed. Just because someone on Wikipedia created that back door, it doesn't mean that it should be used, especially not in the body of an article. Otherwise, why have a specific guideline like WP:RS/IMDB forbidding it in the first place.

In short, there is no consensus on this issue, and I think the use of IMDb in a direct link in the body of the article gives it an imprimatur in neither deserves nor should have. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree there is no general wiki consensus one way or the other. I also agree that just because wikimedia software provides a function doesn't mean we have to use it. The links listed at m:interwiki map were put in by considered choice, though, so the fact they exist does add weight to using them as intended. This is not a backdoor - it is there to be used when appropriate. I, of course, believe the use here, is appropriate.

There is no policy reason that requires removing the interwiki links so it remains an article content choice. As I said in the edit summary, WP:RS/IMDB is irrelevant to this issue as the links are NOT being used as references to support added info so WP:RS/IMDB does not forbid this usage. WP:IMDB is more on point here. The fact that an actor is in a show is supported by other sources that meet WP:RS requirements, that is not the purpose of the interwiki link as used here.

IMDb is being treated like a wiki, which functionally it is, and the interwiki link serves the same purpose as wikilinks to an actor article of various level of quality. Wiki itself cannot be used as a reference either and wiki links to other articles are not considered references, much as interwiki links to IMDb is not considered a reference. IMDb does meet the requirements as a WP:EL per WP:IMDB, unlike fan sources, so is a valid link to have in an article, generally in the external links section, but not necessarily so. The fact that IMDb actor links are considered valid WP:EL means they are generally accepted as adding useful info to article that can't be included otherwise. Formatted as an interwiki link provides useful valid additional info in the proper context. Leaving them in adds value to the article, mainly by pointing interested readers to some information about a non-notable-by-wiki-standards actor including generally useful and reliable data about released project credits and photo images. Removing them does not improve the article. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that you feel IMDb links add value, but I think one leg of your argument is quite shaky: "IMDb does meet the requirements as a WP:EL per WP:IMDB". WP:IMDB, unfortuately, is not Wikipedia policy. It is, as the warning atop the article says, a "proposed Wikipedia policy" and not something you can point to as the way Wikipedia does things or as confirmation of an official position. A second warning on that page reads, "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia:External links & Wikipedia:Reliable Sources guidelines. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies." To my mind, this knocks out the "per WP:IMDB" part of your argument. Looking at WP:EL (an actual Wikipedia policy) without that caveat, the view appears quite different: under the "What can normally be linked" header, number 3, starts "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material". WP:RS/IMDB (another policy) states clearly that "The IMDb should be regarded as a questionable source", and why. I don't see how "neutral and accurate material" can possibly square with either "questionable source" or "content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor". How can you be sure that every IMDb actor page you link to has "generally useful and reliable data about released project credits"? Wikipedia is flat-out saying that there is evidence such pages often do not. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS/IMDB is in Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources so it can also be argued that it does not provide specific guidance to television series articles but I have no arguments with applying it generally - I don't think it applies here as we are not talking references and that is the point of that link. Absent policy, most WP writings are various levels of guidance, some with more support than others. The WP:IMDB essay does accurately summarize a lot of what I have read in a lot of other discussions about use of IMDb so I find it valuable as a summary. (for fun sometimes dig into the archives at WP:RSN).

WP:IMDB does have one quote, even as an essay, that I think is pretty well accepted "Note that the standards for Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Reliable sources are different, so that a web page might be acceptable for as an external link, but not as a reliable source, or vice versa." The key point in WP:RS/IMDB is "The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged". I strongly agree with that. But again we are not discussing references. The issue is the WP:EL content guideline (it is not policy).

So far, based on general observation of most film, TV and actor articles, WP:EL and all its caveats have been interpreted per pretty strong general consensus as allowing IMDb as an external link. This is what is reflected in WP:IMDB. It is well understood what is reliable and not in IMDb and IMDB does "contain neutral and accurate material", sufficient to be allowed as an external link. I gave the two examples of released project credits and actor images (also WGA provided credits). Of course bio and unreleased project info is always considered dubious, but there generally is good info there as well. Also people following a link to IMDb know where they are, IMDb has a generally good reputation already so any implied imprimatur from wiki linking doesn't add much.

To address observed consensus so far for this article, there are other editors than me adding these interwiki links to IMDb for non-notable actors and they have been allowed to remain so far. I am not persuaded that removing them would improve the article.

(as an aside - appreciate your following WP:BRD). --Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll confess I really don't like the interwiki linking in the body of the article, especially when as a reader I'm expecting to be taken to another Wikipedia page and end up somewhere like IMDb, with dubious information. I'm fine with such links on the bottom in a clearly labeled external links section, after the article's over: I can go exploring if I want. Let's take Ross Lynch, since he's the main one to be concerned about. His IMDb mini-bio contains one clear error and one important omission, the resume page has IMDb disclaimers, and the mini-bio and resume have points of disagreement. I think a direct, undifferentiated link is far from ideal. Incidentally, I should point out that the link you have for Ross in the infobox shouldn't be used, since it's a redirect back to the article itself. I'm not about to use an IMDb link there myself, since I'd rather have no link at all. (As for WP:BRD, I don't think I've ever seen that particular page before. I actually didn't think what I was doing was Bold. If what I've done in terms of editing becomes an issue, though, I generally take it to the Talk page.) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD is a good way to resolve conflicts among experienced editors. Your edit patterns implied to me that you were familiar with the process.

The since deleted Ross Lynch article (see top of this page for history and reason for the wikilink in the infobox) had the external link to IMDb as do most actor articles. Yes the bio info in IMDb is crap but the credits for his past and current work is accurate. The infobox link should probably be changed to [[#Ross Lynch|Ross Lynch]] to get to the internal anchor and bypass the redirect. I'd have no issues with doing that as it does lead to some wiki reliable sourced info that was merged from his redirected article along with the at issue IMDb interwiki link that serves the same purpose the external link did in the deleted actor article.

The interwiki links in the body of the article seem to be the issue. I think it is important to in some way to lead a reader to more info than is contained in wikipedia for actors without articles. A reader could do a google search but this often leads to the wrong IMDb page for same named actors. At least when we link to IMDb we link to the correct actor article. This mechanism is the best I have found so far even though it is not ideal.

The ideal solution would be to write an actual wiki article but articles about actors with one significant role and no reliable third party sources get slammed with WP:AFD pretty quickly and either deleted or merged and redirected to the major role. That is what happened to the Ross Lynch article. If wiki were a bit more tolerant of stub articles, I'd just do stubs with the basic info but stubs still need to meet WP:ENT and WP:GNG so these actors don't get stubs. The other method I tried is a WP:SOFTREDIRECT to the IMDb page which would actually do what we both want, no direct link surprise to IMDb and access to more info with the proper warnings that you are leaving wiki to get there. When I tried that, I immediately got a speedy delete for creating a too short article by new article patroller and a quick draw admin both of whom did not understand soft redirects. Also I think soft redirects used this way have even less support than direct interwiki linking and I really don't want to fight that battle. Putting the IMDb links to actors in the External links section of this article might work but I expect them to be removed as, while they give good in-context info about the actor, they won't add a lot of value to the primary purpose of the a TV series article itself.

So basically the interwiki links are the best of a bunch of poor choices. I am seeing them being used in other articles so I think this usage is building a following. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

My editing experience has involved BRD-like situations without anyone formally referring to the process. Guess I've absorbed more than I thought in my ten months here.

I would hope that after a full season as the lead of a Disney show, if not a bit sooner, Ross can have his own page. I looked at the history when I first came here—visually, the Austin & Ally page looks quite unbalanced simply because his three co-stars have more than enough credits to support their own pages, while he has very little—and the show had just started airing at the point where Ross's article was posted and then merged. With the sixth episode airing tonight, and the final live taping in the can for season one, the case for him not being notable enough for his own page gets weaker over time. Still, there isn't a lot out there in terms of articles about him, or show reviews, and only a few video interviews. A well-sourced page would be its own argument that he is sufficiently notable.

If the usage of IMDb interwiki links is spreading, I expect there will be a formal shakeout at some point when they arrive on pages in a project where the task force feels that they are inappropriate, and BRD is unable to settle the issue one way or the other. Such disagreements are how policy gets clarified. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism on 23 April 2012

Ok, that was interesting. It looks like that original vandal duplicated the content multiple times. The vandalism got reverted, but users mistook the reversion for vandalism, including myself. I've reverted the page to the way I think it was before the vandalism. -Well-rested^Talk 07:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... It seems that this article has been getting a lot of attention from vandals lately. I'm putting it on my watchlist, and hopefully I don't mistake reversion of duplications of content as vandalism again - that was a good learning experience. Well-rested^Talk 07:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to create character 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.

Consensus is to not split

---

User:Auslly has created List of Austin & Ally characters which I have redirected back to this article's character section. I would like to see if there is a concensus to split out the character section and replace it here with a short summary.

Oppose: I do not think a split is necessary for this short of an article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: Too early and too short for it to be an article. 203.97.167.3 (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: I agree sorry. It's WAY too short to be an article. Streamerlovesmusic (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: I agree as well. It's not necessary; besides, there's not much to tell. The show just started. BrBrLeJa (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: Too early, This show does not have a lot of minor characters. They seemed to use the same ones over and over. I would wait until the shows has about 20 or more characters and in the mid or third season.WP Editor 2012 (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: Article does not require splitting per WP:SPLIT. Given the opposition above, I have removed the split tag. Op47 (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2012 (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.

Proposal to create character article #2

@Shane Cyrus: has created List of Austin & Ally characters which I have redirected back to this article's character section. I would like to see if there is a concensus to split out the character section and replace it here with a short summary.

Oppose: I think the consensus from the previous discussion is still valid. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't oppose this anymore. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Support: The series is now notable and many characters have been discovered. I think it deserves an article. Shane Cyrus (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - There's a distinct lack of sources in the content that result in the article that was created not establishing notability. Notability is not inherited. Articles need to stand on their own. If taken to AfD, the result would be "Merge back to Austin & Ally." --AussieLegend (✉) 13:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources can be found if you don't redirect it again and again. It can even be kept for expansion. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If sources can be found then find them now and expand the existing section to demonstrate that the content can be expanded. The article you created consisted of content that was a duplicate of this article and content that you had moved there from this article without any real attempt to expand. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Support: I believe that the series has been going long enough to create a new page just for the character's descriptions to expand. It can evolve on its own. --WannabeMrs.NiallJamesHoran (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

If the article is created without sources it wouldn't survive AfD so it would be a pointless exercise creating the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Support Many character are being created as the series grow. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that, 2 months after I pointed out the necessity for sources, no more have been added. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Previous consensus seems to still apply. There isn't really anything more needed for encyclopedic coverage than what's already there; and whether it's encyclopedic or not, there don't seem to be enough good sources yet. Luthien22 (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Support: As a show starts getting into third or fourth seasons, the list of recurring characters, not to mention the referenced data on the main cast starts to become too large to read. Pages for shows should contain a short synopsis of the show and other short yet relevant information. An example of this kind of situation would be that of a fellow Disney show, Phineas and Ferb, which is also active.

Honestly for the sake of neatness, and from the standpoint of a Wikipedia reviewer, Any show with three or more seasons and at least 15 Special Guests or Recurring Characters should have that list split into another article and this list is definitely too long not to be split. Rhatsa26X (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Support: I have a lot of knowledge about the characters and can help. I even have a lot of information about the secondary characters. It should be split. [[User:Edibrock|Edibrock}} (talk) 7:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: I don't think it's needed. The show's almost over, so there aren't likely going to be any more characters. Compared to other articles that have been split, this isn't that long and a separate article isn't really needed. Additionally, the "any show with two or more seasons" argument really only applies to episodes, not characters, from what I've seen. Amaury (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Song section

In the song section I believe that they should only list the first episode only because they shouldn't list many, many episodes because some songs have cameos like Double Take in Crybabies & Cologne. Break Down the Walls in Successes & Setbacks. A Billion Hits in Club Owners & Quinceañeras. Living in the Moment instrumental in Road Trips & Reunions. I Got That Rock and Roll (Ally Version) in Tracks & Troubles. I believe that if they are listed in the credits of the episodes they are official. But misspelled names should not be used like I Got That Rock and/N' Roll and Austin & Ally/Ally's Glee Club Mash Up, Face 2/To Face should be credited as they are in Turn It Up and Play It Loud. Christopher10006 (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Trish

I believe that we should put Trish De la Rosa on her page because everything lists her as Trish De la Rosa except Wikipedia IMDB, Austin & Ally WIki, disneychannel.Disney.com, etc. so shouldn't she be listed as Trish De la Rosa PS:Dez' last name will be revealed in Season 4 so should we list his last name. When its confirmedChristopher10006 (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Christopher10006 (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2014

What sources are there for Trish De la Rosa? --AussieLegend (✉) 21:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The authoritative reference for her credited name of "Trish" is a Disney site here. Revealed names mentioned in an episode are in-universe plot trivia and won't reflect the official character credit for the actress, which should be what is in this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Teen Icon Awards

I recently added the referenced information on Austin & Ally's award nominations in the J-14 Teen Icon Awards, but they were taken down for being not notable. However, the J-14 magazine Teen Icon Awards are officially published and are not a simple web voting pole online. I believe they are worth noting as the J-14 magazine is an official magazine with its own Wikipedia page and the Teen Icon Awards are published in it. Also, the Girl Meets World page also has recently listed the referenced nominations in the Teen Icon Awards and still remains along with the Teen Icon Award 2012 nomination for Ross Lynch on the Austin & Ally page. Please can the Teen Icon Award Nominations remain on the Austin & Ally and Girl Meets World page, since it is the official and annual J-14 magazine Teen Icon Awards, not an unofficial web voting poll online and the 2012 nomination for Ross Lynch has been left untouched since 2012 with no problem.

The addition also corrupted the article format. These awards are just a teen celebrity magazine's reader popularity poll and do not reflect in any way the accomplishments of this show. Shouldn't be in any article as these awards are meaningless. If the award itself had a real Wikipedia article (J-14 Teen Icon Awards is currently just a redirect to the magazine with no mention of the award in the magazine article) that showed some notability for the awards themselves, I would not have this opinion. Only J-14 and its readers care about this award, it has no independent notability and coverage in other outlets. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Since these type of awards aren't allowed then, I suggest every other TV show page's awards should not list them, since Jessie's page also lists it's Popstar Magazine Awards nomination. Although, I wouldn't say the awards are meaningless as that has a strong connotation, the awards reflect the overall popularity of the TV shows, actors and actresses.

Meaningless is a bit strong but these types of awards are mostly for publicity beneficial to the magazine itself and have far less meaning to the recipient than would one of the major awards. A rough test is the lack of a Wikipedia article about the award itself. If an article about the award could be written (even if it hasn't yet) that met general notability guidelines, mainly meaning that other media significantly covers the award and not just the magazine itself, there would be a stronger case for inclusion. I have been removing this particular award from some show pages. It should probably be completely removed from all pages but I generally only work on pages I watch. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Season Four

With Disney Channel's Jessie heading into its fourth and final season, is it possible the same fate will happen to Austin & Ally? Most Disney Channel shows have only gone as far as four seasons since That's So Raven and have there been sources that confirmed Austin & Ally's Season Four is its last? Marino13 (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

We'll presume it is continuing until a reliable source says it isn't (or 1 year passes without any official word one way or the other). Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it should be split up.

It should because the character section takes up much of a page. And I would like to create it.

Wanting

People may want to read a separate page.

Search Box

In Wikipedia's search engine, it says List of Austin and Ally characters in the search box while searching for the page. It doesn't make sense if it takes them to the Austin and Ally page. User:Helooo201

Table cast

I do not understand why in Girl Meets World was allowed to use a table with colors, also in Shake it Up. But other items such as Austin & Ally, Jessie, Liv and Maddie, I Didn't Do It and Wizards of Waverly Place, can not be used. I wish someone would give me an explanation, at least to understand why they can not use this type of tables.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Broadcasts Section

I just did a clean-up, and while I realize references are pretty much required in the Broadcasts section, I removed them because both the YouTube videos are now private, the What's On? is a TV schedule that reflects the current day, and pretty much the same thing for Corus Entertainment. So I'm not quite sure how best to handle it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Broadcast

@Amaury:. You need to stop providing inaccurate edit summaries for reverting. In this edit I reduced the amount of "it"'s. You then reverted the edit and said "nothing was fixed", then you reverted it again and left a warning on my talk page, and then you said its disruptive editing. Provide edit summaries for your reason for reverting. Failure to do so is considered disruptive because you aren't communicating. I can't assume what your reason for reverting is without your comment.

Funny, coming from the person who literally just provided "fixing" as a summary, when you didn't actually fix anything by definition of the word. My edit summaries were far more explanatory in contrast to yours. Don't accuse others of being unclear, especially when they weren't, when you yourself were completely ambiguous. Therefore, the warning was appropriate. There is nothing wrong with the current wording, in any case. Amaury • 21:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you're still unclear. You're occupied with "fixed". So what you want people to do is provide a correct definition that reflects what their edit was. So if I said "re-worded", you can finally comprehend edits? So it's not open to more than one interpretation per your claim that it's "ambiguous." That's technically what you just said in a couple of sentences. Fixed encompasses many things. "Fixed" doesn't only mean to "fix" broken things. Think broader. DE is also ambiguous. If you can't address the issue here, and nitpick on these types of things, I'm going to revert the edit back. Either address the issue properly or don't lead editors to open discussions in which a person can't do it themselves. I'm not interested in explaining the choice of words in edit summaries, talk about the content. You also can't accuse others of disruptive editing. Unclear why you said it's disruptive when nothing is disruptive at all. Obsession with giving inaccurate warnings isn't going to strengthen your position here. Thus, your warning was inaccurate. Your, Don't accuse others of being unclear, especially when they weren't. It was unclear. If you knew what "clear" means by definition, and if you stand by "not giving ambiguous edit summaries", you would've explained your reason for removal insightfully. "Nothing was fixed", I don't see any clarity, just like how you didn't understand what I meant by "fixed". For example, why the other version was better. Simply saying "nothing was fixed", doesn't really address anything. Fizconiz (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)