Talk:List of The Thundermans episodes

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


Split discussion[edit]

I was just wondering if we should split this article into The Thundermans (season 1) and The Thundermans (season 2) does anyone else agree. CHall2002 (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon for a split - normally get to about 4 seasons of a TV series before this is considered. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redux 1[edit]

I think since the page is getting pretty long, we should reconsider splitting by season. I've been going through adding plots, which is increasing the article length considerably. As of this moment, only season 1 has episodes without plots. After that, I'm planning on rewriting all the plots flagged as needing improvement with plots close to 200 words. So, it will be too large. Starforce13 (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Season articles for shows are not exactly pure splits of the episode list, they are separate articles about the show focusing on the season, the episode list for that season being just a part of that, not the point of the article. A season article looks a bit like the main show article. I am not opposed to season articles, particularly if this series goes to five seasons, but they need a fair amount of effort to have value added that is more than just reducing the length of this article. They will still need to meet WP:GNG for articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily opposed to this, either. @Geraldo Perez: Would The Middle be a good example of this? Although I notice that for its season articles it's just the lead, a cast and characters section, which you mentioned above with A season article looks a bit like the main show article. and then the episode table. I'm a little confused by this, though: ...but they need a fair amount of effort to have value added that is more than just reducing the length of this article. Are you referring to season articles in general or those that have a lower current season count? Like, with The Middle, it looks like it was done only to reduce space—I don't know when the individual season articles were actually created—but that was accepted, I'm guessing likely because of the number of seasons? Whereas here with The Thundermans, there are currently only four seasons, so we would need more than just reducing space as a reason? Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The season articles for The Middle are on the light side for content and probably good examplars for the minimum of what would be needed if season articles were created for this series. I'd like to see some more info on what made the season different from the others, season arc info for example. Supernatural (season 1) is a better exemplar for what a good one looks like. Note the FA star. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Amaury:, @Geraldo Perez:, good points. Check out how they do it on big broadcast shows like The Goldbergs, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. which are also 4 seasons in. They usually have a simple episode list (without plot summaries); then independent season pages which include plot summaries. Both shows in my example have 4 seasons so far and less episodes than The Thundermans. I think the convention is usually to split the show during its 4th season. However, if splitting is going to create a lot of work with internal links, it may not be worthy the effort since the show is probably ending after season 4. Starforce13 (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Episode "A Hero is Born" is a single long episode[edit]

Episode 44, "A Hero is Born" is a single long episode, not a two part episode. It has one set of credits, not two and it has a special production code 998-60 and is listed and sold as such at Futon Critic and Amazon.com. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thundermans: Secret Revealed is a special[edit]

Nickelodeon is advertising this episode as a special—a standalone special—and that takes precedence over Zap2it, which says it's the season three finale. And I as mentioned to someone else on my talk page, there's always at least a break of a few months between season premieres and finales, so it wouldn't make sense for the season three finale to be on October 10 and then for the season four premiere to be on October 15. This situation is identical to the Girl Meets World dilemma that arose when Girl Meets Demolition aired, where Girl Meets Demolition was also advertised as a special, but many like to believe it's part of season one. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amaury: Hi, I do acknowledge that there's a break between seasons in most Nickelodeon shows. However, between Season 1 and Season 2 of Victorious, there's only a 1 week gap. The 2nd last episode of Season 1 aired on 5 March while the last episode of Season 1 aired on 26 March, Season 2 premiered on 9 April. So, it's not always the case.
Also, considering that Nickelodeon promoted this episode as a special (YouTube promo), "The Haunted Thundermans" would also be considered as a special? (see the promo @ 0:41)
Not all episodes that Nickelodeon promoted as specials are considered as specials, see the iCarly page, it states that "Nickelodeon promoted many episodes such as "iDo", "iHire an Idiot", "iPity the Nevel", "iDate Sam & Freddie", etc. as specials, despite their being regular episodes."
Thus, I do think that "Thundermans: Secret Revealed" be listed together with Season 3, but state that it's a special as a note (similar to "The Haunted Thundermans"). ~ Appleseed w (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The timing is weird. It could just as likely be, maybe more so, the start of season 4 based on the timing. Did Nick advertise or promote a season 4 start? Season classification seem to be somewhat fluid on Nick when marketing gets involved as seen on the other shows where this has become an issue. With the ambiguity I think keeping it as a special is reasonable for now until we get more definitive information. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Geraldo Perez: I haven't seen any promotions for season four (or "Happy Heroween")... yet. The only commercial I've seen is for "Thundermans: Secret Revealed" which, as mentioned, is being advertised as a special. So leaving it as a special for now is definitely a good plan. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add after looking over the edit history. What the cast and crew think they did with respect to production when they say it is the season 3 ending, and it very well might have been designed to be just that, can be easily overridden by network marketing. Basically why we can't depend on Twitter from people who don't make the decisions. They know no more than the rest of us. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Amaury and Geraldo Perez: Hi, I came across a post from Nickelodeon Australia's official Twitter account, https://twitter.com/Nickelodeon_AU/status/807079872623497217. It seems to advertise Secrets Revealed as Season 3 finale, instead of a special episode. So? ~ Appleseed w (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep note that that is from Australia and countries outside of the county of origin who have obtained the syndication rights may advertise the series differently. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Amaury: Oh, thanks! It just seems very weird that Secrets Revealed is a Special, while Banished is part of Season 4. Makes more sense either both are counted as specials or both are part of seasons. Anyway, I'll try to look out if there's a US source that states so. ~ Appleseed w (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you firsthand that "Thundermans: Secret Revealed" was advertised as a special here in the US. As for the other matter, have a look at the discussion below regarding the season four premiere. IJBall mentioned that the way Nickelodeon and Disney Channel, more so Nickelodeon, have been doing things lately with scheduling is a bit odd. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amaury: Yup, I did see the promo myself, which indeed states that it's a special. However, Nickelodeon advertises a lot of episodes as specials, even Banished -- Twitter and Facebook. ~ Appleseed w (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redux 2[edit]

Advertising an episode as a "special" doesn't mean that it isn't part of the season. All one-hour long episodes are advertised as specials. They're still part of their seasons. Just because it aired at the end of the season doesn't make a difference. Season 4 premiering close to season 3 finale is not an excuse for it to be a special. Happy Heroween aired early and out of order because of Halloween timing. There's no rule about number of weeks between finale and premiere. It is sold as season 3 finale on Hulu, Amazon, Google Play, iTunes. And Nickelodeon lists it as S3 E25 on episode Guides. Again, promoting it as a "special" and airing at the end of a season or timing doesn't mean it isn't part of a season. Secret Revealed and Thundermans Banished are also specials. You could also say it isn't part of season 4. Skyvoltz (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's no evidence provided to show that Thundermans: Secret Revealed is not part of season 3. Using the argument that it was promoted as a special isn't a valid excuse because it can be used to remove all other specials from being part of their seasons. The only evidence we do have is that Nickelodeon sales it as part of season 3 everywhere. If you can use how the episodes are sold as an excuse to group a double episode as one episode, then you should use the same to identify the correct seasons. Aviva Heckman (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aviva Heckman:, yes, even when Nick puts the episode on their website, nick.com, they usually list it as season 3. It's disappointing when the most vocal people on a Wikipedia article are not familiar with the content... and all they want is to increase their edits for whatever reason. So, they stick to one misleading version of the story and force it to anyone else. Wikipedia should have Admins where we can report people who abuse their power like this. Skyvoltz (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One: Assume good faith – your comment here borders on a Personal attack, and definitely assumes bad faith. Two, I don't have strong feelings on this particular issue, but it would nice to see some independent sourcing (i.e. something other than Nickelodeon, or streaming sites that get their marching order from Nickelodeon) confirming an episode as a part of a particular "season". Finally, it's is worth noting that Nickelodeon and Disney Channel barely even have "seasons" in the traditional sense – they don't have formal "season premieres" or "season finales" (certainly nothing that is "announced" or covered by independent media), and air episodes willy-nilly in what the rest of us might consider to be "seasons" (e.g. Game Shakers). Thus it's hardly surprising that it is unclear where certain episodes fall, and trying to assign episodes to a particular season is probably more of a "fan" exercise than anything "real" or "formally true". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, here is the promo. Despite the misleading title of the YouTube video, nowhere does the promo state anything about it being a season finale. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Geraldo Perez:, since this is a Nickelodeon show, shouldn't we trust what Nickelodeon puts on its website and gives its distributors more than some wikipedia users' interpretation of how it should be based on "Nickelodeon doesn't strictly follow season structures" excuse? The usual state is that an episode is part of the current season unless announced otherwise. So, if we say there's an exception, shouldn't we have a solid evidence to prove otherwise before rejecting Nickelodeon's version? Skyvoltz (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Nickelodeon site is numbering the episodes based on production codes, not airing order. For example, "Orange Is the New Max" aired as the eighth episode on February 18, but the Nickelodeon site is showing it as the eleventh episode since its production code is 411. And if you look at the main episode listings, you can see more of this by comparing those episode numbers to the ones here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
iTunes seems to prove my point about Nick TV shows not even having real "seasons" – instead, The Thundermans episodes are organized into "Volumes 1–7" on iTunes. FWIW, "Secrets Revealed" is the last episode in "Volume 6"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think in this case it may be reasonable to list it as part of season 3 as we're not talking about episodes airing out of order here. iTunes generally has volumes rather than seasons for pretty much every series, though how many episodes they package into a volume varies per country. Amazon generally tends to have proper seasons, with standalone pilot/special episodes listed as something like "Season 101". There were multiple random one-month gaps in season 3 so "Thundermans: Secret Revealed" could very well be part of season 3 despite that. It has a special production code, but then again, so does "Thundermans: Banished!". nyuszika7h (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyuszika7H: That's certainly a fair point. The only thing, though, is that with the other gaps, when the series resumed, a number of episodes aired weekly for a while. In this case, it was only one episode on October 10, 2016, and then we went into season four for only two episodes—and there was an almost month-long gap between those two episodes—before there was another short hiatus and episodes resumed on January 7 when the third season of Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn premiered, which makes it seem like January 7 would have also been the season four premiere for The Thundermans, but that's not how it worked. If we look at the previous season premieres and finales, there was a gap of about three months between the season one finale and season two premiere and between the season two finale and season three premiere—two months and 30 days, to be exact. Between "Back to School," what we're currently saying is the season three finale, and "Happy Heroween," the gap was about two months—two months and nine days, to be exact. There's always a gap of about two and three months between season finales and premieres. I have to get going, though. I'll go over this reply later and see if I missed anything. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyuszika7H and Amaury: The main issue is the timing and the fact the episode is not part of season 4 but is closer in time to the season 4 episodes than the season 3 episodes. The network playing marketing games with the promos is confusing the issue as the network is basically being coy about all this and even the network on its own digital distribution outlet is disavowing their marketing promos. From a verifiability point of view we seem to have more secondary sources sticking this loose episode to season 3. I think it best to go with the flow, and what we can verify easily, and put it as a season 3 episode. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Geraldo Perez: The other thing, like I mentioned to IJBall on his talk page, is that not only was it advertised as a special, it was also aired on a Monday, a day that's not usual for episode premieres with Nickelodeon and Disney Channel. Granted, it was a holiday, but still. Revenge @ Tech Fest from Game Shakers could have been another one listed as a standalone special given the gap between it and the previous episode, but it aired on a Saturday as usual, and there was also a standard gap between it and the season two premiere. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nickelodeon breaks seasons into volumes on some services like iTunes but each volume maintains content from the same season. Secret Revealed is always included with other season 3 episodes. There's nowhere does it get a standalone treatment. If you want to see how Nickelodeon treats standalones in addition to the season volumes, see how House of Anubis: Touchstone of Ra. Using sites that follow the full season structure, Hulu has the complete seasons and they're placed in the order in which they aired. And secret revealed is in S3. Just because Nickelodeon doesn't stick to season structure is not a valid reason by itself to decide that you can place the episodes in whichever way you want. If you're using the "special" promo to discredit it from being part of season 3, then we should do the same with "Haunted Thundermans", "A Hero Is Born" and "Thundermans: Banished!". They were promoted the same way as Secret Revealed and not part of any season. If we reclassify those as standalone specials, I will be ok with doing the same for Secret Revealed. Especially, Thundermans: Banished which was basically part 2 of Thundermans: Secret Revealed, and Nickelodeon even made them into a 2 hour special, called "Super Secret Saga." Skyvoltz (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've gone ahead and moved "Secrets Revealed" in with season #3. This situation isn't like the final Make It Pop special, which really was a "standalone special" (i.e. outside of a "season"), and it seems like there's enough evidence to include this 1-hour episode with the other season #3 episodes. I did add a 'note' about its "special" status, however... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, the U.S. Copyright Office was no help here – they only have season #1, and a few season #2 episodes, of The Thundermans in their public catalogue database. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Season 4 premiere[edit]

It's really confusing which episode is actually the season premiere. Kira Kosarin said "Thundermans Banished" is the season premiere, but Nickelodeon calls it a special. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no confusion. Kosarin is an employee of the production company who creates the show and basically only the show runner, which she is not, can speak officially for the production. We can pretty much ignore what she says particularly when in conflict with an official statement of the network who decides on how to market the episodes it buys. Of course saying something is a special does not preclude it also being the season premiere. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The way Nick and Disney tend to promote things is consistently vexing – they basically do not follow the standard "season" model (e.g. with season "premieres" and season "finales") that the broadcast and other cable TV networks do, esp. lately... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically, Thundermans: Banished was intended to be the season premiere and it is a continuation of Thundermans: Secret Revealed, and part of the 2 hour special event "Super Secret Saga." However, Nickelodeon had to air the episodes out of order because of Halloween timing. So, "Happy Heroween" became the official season premiere. Skyvoltz (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The Haunted Thundermans"[edit]

(Note, I haven't watched the actual episode yet, only checked the credits, as I'm catching up on The Thundermans first and then I'll watch this episode when I get there in The Haunted Hathaways – I haven't started watching that one yet. It didn't seem to cause a problem to skip it for now, anyway.)

The episode is distributed as a single double-length episode, but initially, starring cast and other credits for The Thundermans are listed, and in the second half, without any end credits in between, the starring cast and other credits for The Haunted Hathaways are listed. And then there's one set of end credits, with three sets of guest starring credits: Guest Cast "The Thundermans" with the main cast of The Haunted Hathaways, then Guest Cast "The Haunted Hathaways" with the main cast of The Thundermans, and then the "common" guest starring credits, which I added to the article. I'm wondering whether we should indicate that The Haunted Hathaways' cast got a guest starring credit in this part (the starring cast for this show probably don't need to be listed as we only document the credits of the The Thundermans part here), which is a bit weird as two episodes were combined into one and the main cast for each show got starring credits in the appropriate part, and then an indication that they are guest starring in the other part at the end.

Screenshots: https://imgur.com/a/fhqWJ – nyuszika7h (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyuszika7H: I can't remember, but is this an episode for both The Thundermans and The Haunted Hathaways or just The Thundermans? Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Amaury: It's an episode for both. nyuszika7h (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyuszika7H: Ah, okay. So hm. Despite the credits showing guest stars, I'm wondering if it would be better to do "also starring" like we did for Lab Rats and Mighty Med? Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Despite other cross overs like iParty with Victorious where that one goes directly to iCarly and not Victorious. This one was produced weirdly , each show takes a production code for each half hour and airs it as a hour episode. WP Editor 2012 (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are one-hour episodes counted as 1 or 2 episodes?[edit]

In some episode lists, one-hour episodes are listed with 2 episodes numbers. This occurs especially with older shows, for example Big Time Rush and iCarly. Other shows, such as Victorious, Bella and the Bulldogs, The Haunted Hathaways and this show list them as one episode. Shouldn't they all follow the same guidelines, if there is any? Also, this means that Wikipedia's episode count is incorrect and can't be used for comparison? ~ Appleseed w (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One set of credits means one episode. You can also see how they're sold on vendor sites like Amazon and iTunes to determine. Other articles doing it wrong don't set any sort of precedence; as a matter of fact, they should be fixed. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Amaury: Thanks, good indicator. Just curious, does production codes indicate anything other than that it's longer than a regular episode? ~ Appleseed w (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Production codes are interesting background information which are used to track labor and other things, as Cyphoidbomb mentioned when this came up here, but we only care about the final product. Sometimes one-hour episodes have one production code and sometimes they have two production codes. Generally speaking, when they have two production codes, it typically means they were originally meant to be parted, but they were merged for presentation, giving us our final product. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! ~ Appleseed w (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I said "internal". A show might have an internal production code that the public is never privy to. "TVC18612" or whatever. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redux 3[edit]

According to Nickelodeon's official press release, it states that the show will have 103 episodes in total ("with an additional six-episode pickup bringing the series’ total to 103"). As per the article's current count, the show will only have an estimated 98 episodes when it ends. So, shouldn't the episode count follow Nickelodeon's official press release? Thundermans (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What actually happens overrides what is planned. If they actually air 98 episodes, then that is what will show up in the episode list. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt response! The discrepancy lies in the fact that the episode listing counts 1h specials as 1 episode only, as opposed to them being 2 episodes. The press release is issued in May when 1h specials, such as Secret Revealed and Banished, have already aired and the count 103 includes the specials as 2 episodes. So, it's not a matter of how they are planned; they have already aired. It basically shows that Nickelodeon counts all 1h specials as 2 episodes, which will indeed make up the number, 103. While the Futon Critic counts 1h specials as 1 episode only, Zap2it in fact counts them as 2 episodes. Since the press release shows that Nickelodeon counts them as 2, the episode listing should count episodes, following Nickelodeon's counting method since press releases are official. Thundermans (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Basically what we have in the article is an ordered list of what actually happened with some forward looking info. Pretty much matches what iTunes and Amazon have and they are official outlets of the network too and don't multi-count long episodes. Network marketing to achieve some milestone is interesting but it is not reflected on what they ended up airing on the network and selling on the streaming outlets. Wikipedia tries to be an accurate record and what actually happened overrides what is planned. Marketing and programming guides generally don't get updated after the event occurs as they no longer really care any more. Futon Critic does try to reflect what happened much like Wikipedia does, so is a preferred reference for past stuff. Also copyright office but they lag a lot. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the show gets over 100 production episodes, that can certainly be mentioned in the 'Production' section at main The Thundermans article (provided that claim is sourced to a reliable secondary source). But the LoE page should reflect how episodes were actually broadcast, not how they were produced. (Outside of the Prod. Codes column in the episodes table, which is why we generally include the Prod. Codes in the LoE's tables...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree that the show getting 100 episodes can be mentioned in the production section, as already done currently. However, the article will contradict itself eventually since the production section states that the show will have "over 100 total episodes", while the no. of episodes in the infobox will state 98, which conflicts. Also, I don't get the inconsistency in Wikipedia's episode counts for different shows. As the user mentioned in the previous conversation, older shows like iCarly, Big Time Rush and Drake & Josh all counts and lists 1h specials as 2 episodes and 90 min specials as 3 episodes while shows such as this one list them as just 1 episode. This makes all the shows' episode count inaccurate and therefore cannot be used for comparison due to the discrepancy in the counting method between different shows. 1h specials should either all be counted as 1 episode for all shows as what is being done for this show, or all be counted as 2 episodes as what is being done for iCarly and the other shows mentioned above. Thundermans (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any apparent contradictions in the article will need to be explained but they are talking to different things. The other shows should be fixed but since the episode number is also an anchor for inbound links it is a lot of work to fix everything related correctly because of those inbound links particularly for long running shows. Also older show article don't get a lot of attention. There is also the possibility that episodes were actually separate and just aired back-to-back and not merged into one with a single set of credits so some care needs to be taken. It is easier when we have iTunes and Amazon showing us what is actually being sold. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply! For iCarly, iTunes shows that there's only 97 episodes in all and all specials are counted as 1 episode. So, is it possible for me to go ahead and fix and the episode list for the concerned shows or is any further consensus required? Thundermans (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No further consensus is required in that regard as changing those episodes to be counted as one episode is already going by consensus. The bigger "issue" here, as mentioned above, is that you'll also need to fix all inbound links, so if that's something you have time for, go for it! Inbound links are links that direct readers to a specific episode in the episode list from the parent article—for example, Liv and Maddie—and/or the character list article—for example, List of Liv and Maddie characters—if it exists. For example, using Liv and Maddie's character list, we have something like In "[[List of Liv and Maddie episodes#ep6|Skate-a-Rooney]]", it is referenced that in-between seasons of Sing It Loud!, Liv filmed a movie called The Skateboard Bandit. which produces In "Skate-a-Rooney", it is referenced that in-between seasons of Sing It Loud!, Liv filmed a movie called The Skateboard Bandit. By changing the numbers in the episode list, if the episode numbers that you changed are anchor links in the parent and/or character list articles or whatever other possible article, you'll also need to change those numbers. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Thundermans: I'd have no objection to fixing iCarly, I and others have expressed a desire to do this as well but have resisted because of the difficulty of doing it without breaking the related articles. IJBall renumbered Victorious but iCarly is more difficult. I suggest starting a discussion on the iCarly talk page stating you intend to renumber the episodes and wait a week or so for comments and support/opposition discussions to complete. Being WP:BOLD on this sort of thing is possible but in my opinion unwise, particularly with an editor with limited experience and history of article edits. New editors jumping in and making major changes set off a lot of red flags for article watchers. Best to get consensus support before starting a project like that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good suggestion. Changing the numbers accordingly would be going by consensus, but because of the complexity of iCarly, starting a talk page discussion first wouldn't hurt. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's better if we can get someone with WP:AWB access to help out with that if the consensus is to renumber the episodes properly at those other articles – that's a lot of needless "busy work", fixing all the incoming links, the kind of thing that seems perfect for someone with AWB-access to do instead... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@IJBall: Nyuszika7H has AWB access. So do I, but I'm still not entirely sure how it works. (I also haven't really had a need to use it once yet, but the bigger concern is how it works.) I'd rather have someone more experienced do it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amaury:, @Geraldo Perez:, @IJBall: Thanks! So, what's the best way forward for now? Is it recommended that I start a discussion on the iCarly talk page now or can I or someone go ahead and modify the page gradually? Personally, I would prefer to have a consensus before changing the links, etc. to avoid rollbacks. Thundermans (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, starting a talk page discussion on the iCarly talk page would be the best approach. Technically, the consensus is already there, but iCarly is complicated as mentioned. Seeing as Geraldo and IJBall both agree it should be fixed, I don't imagine there being any resistance to the change. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I expect some resistance, possibly major, thus the need for discussion to show local consensus. Articles are much more stable when major changes are discussed first and the discussion can be pointed to. There is a lot of discontent at project level consensus overriding local consensus because of the perceived limited number of editors that drive project consensus and the related manual of style. There is no hurry, the article has been stable for a while, we have time to set a firm foundation for change. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and watched iCarly and its episode list. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I have started a discussion on the iCarly talk page. Thundermans (talk) 06:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Instead of going back to mess with stable pages like iCarly, I suggest updating the new shows to follow that format. Technically, they're still 2 episodes and the show could still choose to air part 1 and part 2 separately. But they just place the episodes together for a cohesive story. For example, if you look at Henry Danger, some of the specials premiere as part 1 and part 2 on different days but all their reruns air as one-hour long episode. Thundermans just chooses to keep them together for a better story. Also, I think Thundermans usually has separate credits for part 1 and part 2 if they're written by different people, implying that they're essentially different episodes. Starforce13 (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of The Thundermans episodes. 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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) 18:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Failed. Bot seems to be semi-broken. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Section for Special Episodes[edit]

I think we need a way to denote special episodes especially since it's a large number now and it would be helpful for readers to quickly identify the specials especially the one-hour specials which usually have a big impact on the series in general. On iCarly and other shows, there used to be a table of special episodes on the main page, listing all the specials. They maybe trivial and obvious to us, but to other readers who are not very familiar with the show, either now or in the future, this would be very useful information. Thoughts? Aviva Heckman (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, special episodes of any series already have indicators that they're special episodes—the production codes, with codes such as 999 or 997. They actually do have normal production codes like 214 or whatever, but they are given special production codes, possibly to show that they are specials, but I'm not sure. In any case, those are indicators of special episodes. Also, even though they're special episodes, they still belong to a season, so having a separate section for specials, like we did previously when we thought "Thundermans: Secret Revealed" was a standalone special, would not be an entirely accurate representation of the series and how it has aired. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Amaury:, Yes, being a special doesn't mean it's a standalone. Almost all episodes are part of a season. I can't even remember any that wasn't part of a season. Maybe the Wizards Alex vs Alex special that aired after the show ended, or the Hannah Montana movie. I'm not asking for them to be removed from the season. I'm asking for a special way to highlight them. Even the ones for iCarly are listed in their seasons, but also given focus on the main show page. Production codes mean something to people like us. But most people looking up Thundermans specials are people who have no idea what production codes are. Most of them are kids under 13. If we gave the specials a special section, it would be very easy for anyone looking up the episodes to quickly figure out what the specials are. Like it's so easy with iCarly, BTR, Victorious etc. I don't see any harm in having a specials section. Aviva Heckman (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Girl Meets Demolition" is one example of a true standalone special, but that's really the only one I can think of. In any case, those special episodes are still just episodes in the end. Some episodes are just promoted as specials by the networks for marketing and other various reasons that nobody will ever really understand. It's confusing exactly what you're asking, though, because you mention that specials should have a section for themselves, but then you say that they don't need to be taken out of the seasons they're in. There seems to be a contradiction there. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that you're taking a "special" to mean the same thing as "standalone." Those two words mean totally different things. Girl Meets Demolition wasn't really a special. It was just an episode aired out of order like the last Bunkd episode that aired after the finale. It's not a special. The only thing special about Demolition is that it was part of Disney's "What the What Weekend" and had to wait to air with the rest of the other shows. Specials are episodes that are not only promoted as special but mark a big change to the series. Most Nick and Disney specials are often one-hour long and easy to identify. If you actually follow Thundermans closely, you wouldn't even have any doubts about which ones are specials, even without seeing how the network promoted them. For Thundermans, that would be A Hero Is Born, Haunted Thundermans, Thundermans: Secret Revealed, Thundermans: Banished and Thunder in Paradise. "Come What Mayhem" and "Max vs. Phoebe: The Sequel" are the debatable ones.
So, I'm saying we should keep the episodes listed as they are.. but on the main Thundermans page, create a section for a list or a table of all the specials. To see how that looks like, check out iCarly or BTR. They list the episodes in the seasons grid but also have a separate section for them. That's usually the standard for handling shows with specials. Aviva Heckman (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a separate table is necessary for non-standalone specials, but we could add notes at the end of the episode summaries like we used to in some places, such as "This is a double-length special episode" (or "one-hour special episode" which is how it's advertised, but that can be a bit misleading because it's actually only 45 minutes without commerials). nyuszika7h (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that – for these kinds of series, I think the one-hour episodes should always be 'noted' as such. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can we at least create a simple list like the one on Big Time Rush main page for one-hour specials? I was OK with having notes after the summary saying that they're specials. But then @Amaury: removed them saying they're "trivial" - yet the wiki page is supposed to be informative to help people who aren't that familiar with all the info they need. I'm open to suggestions as long as have a way of making it easy for people to tell the specials. Something besides the production code numbers. Aviva Heckman (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'd be fine with notes if that's where this heads, but I still don't personally see why it's so important to note which episodes were double-length as it's just trivial information to me. For the normally half-hour series (with commercials), whether 30 minutes or 60 minutes, they're still episodes. Notes about alternate endings and the like I see as useful, but notes just stating that an episode was longer than usual I see no importance in. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's have the notes. They're important because "special" isn't just about the length. They often have major events and turning points for the series. Even for shows that don't do anything special during the one-hour long episodes, the note would show they're one hour to highlight any exceptions that don't match the pre-stated average length on the infobox. Notes are supposed to highlight key things that are different from your usual episodes. So, being double-length and marked as special needs to be noted. So, let's add notes saying "this is a one hour special" for "A Hero is Born", "Thundermans: Secret Revealed", "Thundermans: Banished" and "Thunder in Paradise." I think "Haunted Thundermans" is already taken care of. Aviva Heckman (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MOS on year ranges, and this article[edit]

When the next episode of The Thundermans airs on January 6, 2018, the section heading for season 4 will go to "Season 4 (2016–18)", but I noticed this would violate the current version of the MOS:DATERANGE guideline, which allows the two-digit end year only when it's a two-consecutive-year range (and a couple of other cases which don't apply). It's not often that a season of a live-action series will span three or more calendar years, but this is one of those odd cases. Since the end year will need to be expanded to four digits per the DATERANGE guideline, this may require the other seasons' year ranges to be expanded likewise for consistency. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is only one season this will be happening to and since that is only a guideline and not a policy, we could probably make an exception here. Making a retroactive change to three seasons because of one season seems like overkill. Personally, I don't understand the guideline to begin with. I personally feel 2016–18 looks better. But regardless of whether it's 2016–18 or 2016–2018, they both mean 2016 through 2018, so I don't get it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere to Slide[edit]

Hello! The episode code "Nowhere to Slide" is wrong. The correct is 423. Thanks. Marcoasxd (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not wrong. That's what The Futon Critic is reporting. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it in The Thundermans Wikia and there is marking code 423. I don't know which is correct. Marcoasxd (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcoasxd: Wikias are not reliable sources (see WP:USERG). Content in the article should be according to what reliable sources, such as The Futon Critic, indicate. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MPFitz1968: Ok, I get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcoasxd (talk • contribs) (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If The Futon Critic is incorrect on this prod. code, it will get corrected eventually. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Dana Snyder's crediting[edit]

While watching "The Thunder Games", The Thundermans series finale, I noticed that while all other "guest cast" are just credited with the actors' names, for Dana Snyder the crediting was "Voice of Colosso[break]Dana Snyder". I'm wondering – is the crediting for Snyder like that in every episode?... If so, I'm thinking we should change the credit listing for Snyder at the article to something like, "Dana Snyder, as voice of Dr. Colosso".... Thoughts?

Pinging Amaury to this discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: The voice one, if I recall, is a featuring credit, IIRC. Anyway, in the episodes he's made a physical appearance in—"A Hero Is Born" (#218–219), "He Got Game Night" (#315), "Better Off Wed" (#407), and "The Thunder Games" (#412–413)—he is only credited as a guest star. Otherwise, yes, he's credited with a voice role in the episodes where he's only in his bunny form, which is pretty much every episode, except for those four aforementioned ones and one episode he didn't appear at all in. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then we need to work that in there somehow – Snyder's credit is then unique among all the others (as it actually mentions his character), so that needs to be reflected here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and to be clear, he is also credited "Voice of Colosso[break]Dana Snyder" in "The Thunder Games" as well... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I missed that. Then he was probably credited twice in those other episodes as well, likely for extra pay. Kind of similar to Alex Hook having an additional guest star credit for Eliza in the I Am Frankie season one finale. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm thinking is if Snyder's "voice" credit is always at the "featuring" level, then rather than listing him for every episode he gets the voice credit, that we mention both here, and at List of The Thundermans characters, in prose, what Snyder's (voice) crediting for Dr. Colosso is. IOW, at this article, I would be tempted to mention this in the lead, right after The series stars Kira Kosarin, Jack Griffo, Addison Riecke, Diego Velazquez, Chris Tallman, Rosa Blasi, and Maya Le Clark.... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a quick followup, since his credit is in the end credits, I think we should leave him out of the infobox. The voice of Stan in Dog with a Blog is included with the starring credits, so including it there is fine; however, that isn't the case here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, totally fine with that – he's not "main cast"... It's just worth noting that Snyder is the only person on the entire show whose credit includes his character. That's all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pineapples![edit]

In the season 3 episode, 'No Country for old mentors', there are multiple images of pineapples hidden throughout the episode. What does it mean? Anzio Langeveldt (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Written by" credit for the season 2 episode "It's Not What You Link"[edit]

There has been a dispute going on regarding this episode's writing credit, particularly the order of "story by" and "teleplay by" for this particular episode. User Jayden180 asserts in their edit summary about the "story by" being listed first in the credits ([1]). I assume good faith on their assertion, but I haven't confirmed this detail myself as I have no immediate access to the episode. (If someone else can confirm this order in the credits, it would be appreciated.) While I do assume good faith, the problem has been a back-and-forth between versions, which is edit-warring, and this problem needs to be resolved here. As this should be a straightforward viewing from the episode itself, the primary source, I don't think it needs to be too much of a problem otherwise. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the episode and can confirmed that "story by" is listed before "teleplay by". — YoungForever(talk) 04:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@YoungForever: Thanks, and I made (restored) the edit accordingly. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Jayden180 (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MPFitz1968: No problem, I just happened to be at home on my laptop and abled to access the episode immediately. The entire series is available to stream on Hulu. — YoungForever(talk) 21:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_The_Thundermans_episodes&oldid=1203696381"