Talk:Jessie (2011 TV series)

Article rename

I think we should rename this article to JESSIE because that's the way it is on the official Disney Channel website. Jaxsonista (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the logo is in all capital letters, but it's Wikipedia's policy to ignore stylized logos. The sources Wikipedia takes it cues from are sources like the Disney Channel Medianet site, and/or websites, newspapers and/or magazines distributing press-releases from Disney such as TVGuide.com, etc, which all report the series as simply "Jessie". --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Due to frequent vandalistic alterations that have been made to the plot, character descriptions, cast, etc. on this page, I have temporarily semi-protected the page, meaning that IP users and very new editors will not be able to edit it temporarily. If you are a legitimate IP user or new editor and want to make valid edits to this page, you can suggest them here for someone else to make, or wait until the semi-protection expires. Thanks for your cooperation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. But may I suggest you please consider leaving the lock on for at least a month. From previous experience watching articles for other new Disney Channel shows when they first premiere, I believe a month would be a good time-frame to let the "new show" frenzy die down and will free-up the time of the editors monitoring this page to pursue more productive endeavors, rather than spending our time reverting this page. As most of us know - 99% of productive/useful edits on new Disney Channel articles come from verified users, so I doubt we'll be missing out on a lot of new pertinent/relevant info if the page is locked for a more extended period of time. That's just my two cents. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not a decision that I personally would want to take -- which is not to say that it might not be warranted. (I don't usually get involved in page protection issues.) If you think a longer semi-protection period is needed, please feel free to request that at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I thought I'd mention it, since you'd already protected it, but I know one editor with protect privileges that is usually helpful (and quick) about locking down pages that attract a lot of young editors, so I can contact him if the edits continue. School starts up again today, so we can wait and see if the endless edits may subside, but from experience I've found that 99% of even the most well-meaning edits during the first few months of a new Disney/Nickelodeon show are fancruft(ish) "character description" edits that read something like - "She also wears pink. She also likes cupcakes. She also wears her hair in pigtails. She also has 6 teddy bears on her shelf, etc, etc, etc..." I don't like being the bad guy, but honestly, in the cases of these types of endless edits, I'm a firm believer in "less is more". --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm convinced that some more semi-protection is needed although I'm not going to impose continuous semi-protection for as long as a month. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

We're on the same page. In fact, I'd contacted another editor about it today, but you beat him to it. My guess is another 3 days will expire just in time for the next episode to air and a new batch of young editors to descend on the page this weekend, but I'll leave it up to you. I can always contact him again if the problems persist. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Left aligned image in Main characters section

I moved a right aligned image to the left of the Main characters section after the section header. Normally right aligned images are used but left aligned images are indicated when they will be impacted by a close by right image (or template) and therefore misplaced away from the section they are illustrating. This was the case here as the right image ended up after the infobox template and was not adjacent to the section it illustrated making it difficult to use as a visual reference.

(I added the image map as well as it does not impact the visual appearance of the article and is useful for identification of the characters using cursor hover. In other articles clicking on the map is a wikilink to more info about what was clicked on but this is not needed here. Clicking on any person in the image just links to the section header.)

Purplewowies (talk · contribs) edited the section to put a paragraph in front of the image with the summary "Left-aligned images directly after headers can cause problems with screen readers and break the flow of text...". I have been looking into this and, so far, found nothing that confirms this. The screen reader that wiki recommends as a wp:screen reader is JAWS and there is no reported problems, that I have found, with this reader. WP:ACCESSIBILITY#Images gives a lot of guidance on stuff we should do but does not mention any problem with left aligned images after headers and if there was a widely known issue I would expect guidance here. I also checked a bunch of WP:featured articles and found lots with left aligned images after headers so I don't think this is a problem widely known. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this until just now. I originally put the image on the right (to avoid crowding the section), but I thought the image worked OK on the left when you moved it, so I didn't have any problems with that. My main reason for suggesting we discuss moving it back to the right was when Purplewowies moved it to inside the character section (which made the format look really messy and hard to read). My thinking was if that was the option then I would rather just put the image back on the right. Anyway, I've just expanded the page and bumped the image back to the right (now that the character section has room to breathe), so this shouldn't be a problem anymore, but if, for some reason, the issue resurfaces, I'm pretty sure I have a relatively simple fix for putting the image back on the left while avoiding the "header" issue if the need arises.

Thanks for your work on the image map by the way - I never saw that before, but it works great. I usually would have listed all the characters in the imagebox, but the section was so cramped I just didn't want to make the imagebox any bigger than it needed to be. The image is back on the right now, but I still like the image map better than a long list of characters in the imagebox. :P --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources

I've removed the Disnology and DCFans reflinks - I'm not questioning that the info on those sites may be true (in fact, I'm sure it probably is), but, from what I've seen, those are "fan" sites/blogs and not what Wikipedia considers "reliable sources" (which is the same as no sources), so I've replaced those reflinks with new ones. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

List-defined references

I moved all the reference details out of the text area to the references section for reasons described in List-defined references. Basically this makes the text easier to read when editing as the cite templates are not inline any more and the references easier to maintain as they all show up as a list in the references section. I also identified and removed a bunch of duplicates in the process of organizing the references section list. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 23 October 2011

Add a "W" after Bertram in the main characters section. The others have last names, and BW was on Bertram's housecoat in Used Karma.

66.222.142.221 (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest not making that change. The credited name is Bertram and no reliable source lists him as anything other than Bertram. The initial "W" is trivia and might be appropriate in a more complete description of the character, but not in a character summary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

✗ Not done Provide a reliable source please. mabdul 22:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with not making the change but as to sources, the "BW" on the housecoat is primary reliable sourced from the named episode itself. Contents of aired episodes are verifiable by viewing the episode itself. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Bertram

Bertram's last name is Winkle according to the most recent episode. --74.89.229.160 (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What was the episode name or airdate. Also please describe how the name "Winkle" was revealed in the episode. The last name is not how credited so doesn't really belong in a character one line summary section. If a character article is written in the future it could be added to the character description there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see his last name mentioned in the last episode, but I've noticed that some Disney shows sometimes air several days earlier in some European countries (this would happen with Shake It Up when that show was new). I'm not advocating for adding the info or not - I'm just mentioning that some viewers in Europe or the UK might be seeing the newest episodes before the episodes air in the USA. If/when that is the case, most American editors will want to wait until the episode airs in the United States (or else a verified/well-known editor can confirm the info) before we add it to the page. It's nothing personal, it's just that, without a link to a reliable source, we have no way of confirming this type of information until the episode airs here, so brand new info is likely to be removed by American editors. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that 74.89.229.160 in the initial comment is located at Norwalk, Connecticut. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol.. No, I didn't even notice that. I just meant (in general) some shows might air on different days/times in other countries, so any readers in the UK could understand why there might be a lag regarding updating info, but I'm not advocating about this post in particular. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

In One Day Wonders, which aired in Canada on November 11, Bertram Winkle is on his profile. 66.222.142.221 (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer that the names listed in the character list be the formally credited names as given by Disney at [1] in the Bios cast list. Enhancements to the credited names belongs in a "List of characters" article, not in one or two line summary description. I would, for the same reason, prefer to see "Jessie O'Keefe" just listed as "Jessie" as that is the official credit. Only one WP:RS gives a last name. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does the other characters have last names and Bertram still doesnt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.142.221 (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Bertram is a butler, and butlers are often identified by only one name (either first or last, but not both). The last name of Niles on The Nanny, for example, was never revealed. 108.246.205.134 (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

announced on norwegian disney channel

please add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source (news release, website, video of ad)? - Purplewowies (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC) i am watching it there at the moment.

Edit request on 13 May 2012

I would like to edit that fact that the series takes place on the Upper West Side not the Upper East Side. 173.63.104.219 (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Done I have made the requested edit. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Mrs. vs Ms.

"Ms. Kipling" is what is being used in the article per a reference from Futon Critic. However, six minutes into the episode itself, Ravi says "Mrs. Kipling." And then, it's used for the rest of the episode. Which should be used? - Purplewowies (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Show Mrs. and use a <ref>{{cite episode}}</ ref> reference to support what you just stated (make sure to include the time stamp of first use) and include the above text as part of the reference to support the names. Also reference and mention that Ms. was used in the press release episode description. I kept putting back Ms. as that is what the only reference I saw stated. The TV episode is in itself a reference and it is superior and supersedes any press release as the press release is not part of the show. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

UK Ratings section

The section appears to be incomplete, giving ratings for only the first 3 episodes, and only the first 2 named. It needs to either be updated or deleted. It looks rather silly and pointless as it is. 108.246.205.134 (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Popstar Awards

Can the Popstar Awards nomination please be removed as the issue with magazine award nominations has been discussed on the Austin & Ally Talk Page under "Teen Icon Awards".

Just another teen celebrity magazine popularity contest, not notable. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Jessie (TV series)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Jessie (TV series)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "premiere":

• From List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel: The Disney Channel Magazine, April/May 1983 (Premiere Issue), pp. 7, 14.
• From K.C. Undercover: Bibel, Sara (December 11, 2014). "New Series 'K.C. Undercover' Starring Zendaya to Premiere Sunday, January 18 on Disney Channel". TV by the Numbers. Retrieved December 12, 2014.
• From Girl Meets World: Kondolojy, Amanda (June 30, 2014). "Friday Cable Ratings: 'Girl Meets World' Tops Night + 'Zapped', 'Friday Night SmackDown', 'Jessie' & More". TV by the Numbers. Retrieved July 1, 2014.
• From Star vs. the Forces of Evil: Schneider, Michael (December 10, 2014). "First Look: Disney Sets Preview of Animated Comedy Adventure Star vs. The Forces of Evil". TV Guide. Retrieved December 12, 2014.
• From Bridgit Mendler: Ashley Kline (October 24, 2011). ""Good Luck Charlie, It's Christmas!," A Disney Channel Original Movie Premieres Friday, December 2" (DOC). The Walt Disney Company. Retrieved October 25, 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Guest Stars: Michelle Obama

Wouldn't it worth noting that First Lady Michelle Obama makes an appearance in one of the episodes (S3-13 / Ep. 65)? Arctara (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

See List of Jessie episodes#ep65, discussed and show credit noted. You could also add that info to the guest stars section of this article as that seems appropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. :) Arctara (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Reporting the show's being on Disney XD — can this actually be sourced?

At the end of the Release section, there is a sentence about it airing on Disney XD in 2013. Then I came across two edits just now adding to that [2] [3]. I am aware how shows can cross over into other channels belonging to the same broadcaster (Jessie being on Disney Channel and Disney XD; iCarly being on Nickelodeon and Teen Nick), but when it is airing on another channel not originally broadcasting the material, isn't that like the show running in syndication? And there are many TV shows that are in syndication which run on various local outlets across the United States, though tracking down exactly what show is airing on what channel is not allowed to be detailed here, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY or WP:IINFO. So I'm wondering if Jessie running, or having run, on Disney XD should even be mentioned. I also checked List of programs broadcast by Disney XD page, which shows it under former programming. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

To me, it sounds like typical re-run content, which I personally do not find to be noteworthy. But, this sort of thing does often find its way into article Broadcast sections. My specific problem with the edit submitted, was the the contributor made a statement about when the series stopped airing on XD, which seems virtually impossible to conform to WP:V. You could look at a TV guide the day before and find that it aired that date, but then wouldn't you have to check every TV guide from that date to present to validate the statement? Seems ridiculous, especially for something that isn't really noteworthy to begin with—reruns. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Character Split

I think the characters section is large enough now to be split. If nobody objects, I will do it within the next few days. Amaury (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary for this article to split out the characters section. It is not too long related to the rest of the article. The series is ending soon so I don't expect to see much if any expansion beyond what is already here now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Looking at it again, it doesn't look that long. I'll redact it, then, within the next few days if there are no other comments that support it. Amaury (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I think, in this particular article, that some pruning of content to tighten up the descriptions and removing minor details would be of most benefit. Should wait until series finished first run and fan intensity declines to tighten up the whole article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Episode count

The article currently says that Jessie would be ending with 101 episodes. However, as recently as October 9, 2015, Jessie announced its series finale, which would end the series with only 98 episodes. WikiSpector (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an example of why we have reverted many editors who decided to calculate the number of episodes for season 4, thinking the 101 episode count identified in sources was going to be the final count. I think I may have agreed with the calculated count once, but I remember AussieLegend warning about how these projected counts often end up not being the exact count. We often don't know how the sources come up with their tallies, though some users have recently concluded three episodes of Jessie that either used multiple production codes or were one hour should be counted as more than one episode. As has been pointed out countless times, if it airs as a single broadcast with one set of credits, regardless of duration, it is one episode.

I'm thinking once the finale has aired next week, we may be cleaning up the articles (here and the episode list) of this overestimated count, or putting it in perspective. MPFitz1968 (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Those references were from February and April 2015 and stated plans. We now have much more recent information about what will really happen and will have a certain count once the final episode has aired. Once the series is finished we should rewrite the lead paragraph. A lot of the info about season starts and stops is not long-term important for the lead and just need basic series start and stop dates. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

What constitutes a "crossover"?

I've seen a few editors in recent weeks add in the episode "The Ghostess with the Mostest" in the Crossovers section (subsection of Episodes section) of the article, and we are reverting these edits because there are only a couple of cast members from another Disney show (in this case from I Didn't Do It) guest starring and not anything else which would qualify it as a crossover. If this episode were a crossover, we could end up seeing other articles for the Disney shows that were part of this year's "Monstober Spooktacular" set (Austin & Ally, Best Friends Whenever, Girl Meets World, I Didn't Do It, K.C. Undercover and Liv and Maddie) updated with whatever episodes featured guest stars from each other's shows.

Looking at that Crossovers section, I am questioning all but the first two on the list; the first two, "Austin & Jessie & Ally All Star New Year" and "Good Luck Jessie: NYC Christmas", are true crossovers as the storylines for both intertwine with each of the shows involved. Those two episodes are also counted toward each show. The rest in the list involve only one or two characters from another show who just happen to wind up in the story without some connection to the show those characters are normally in. I've glanced at the Wikipedia article for Fictional crossover, which to me doesn't clarify what is and is not a crossover. Not sure whether to bring this up as a RfC at WT:TV or even the Fictional crossover article; may need to check the archive at WT:TV regarding this matter. But as I pointed out in my comment, and the way I'm seeing it, the first two episodes in the Crossovers list are crossovers, the rest (plus "The Ghostess with the Mostest") are not. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"Austin & Jessie & Ally All Star New Year" and "Good Luck Jessie: NYC Christmas" are combined episodes not crossovers as the stories intertwine and they are sold and delivered as single episodes of both shows involved. Even the opening and closing credits got merged and all the main characters of both shows get starring credit for the combined episode. A normal crossover generally has a character or two showing up in character on another show and the actor generally gets a special guest star credit. If the actor just shows up playing someone else, it is not a crossover. The crossover basically is that the character from one show crossed over to the other show. The crossover episode is an episode of only the one series, not both. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 15 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. There is strong consensus that this is in the best interest of readers. There may be a need to tweak the naming policy to conform to this decision. Andrewa (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Jessie (TV series) → Jessie (2011 TV series) – Necessary disambiguation from Jessie (1984 TV series), as per WP:NCTV. In other words, currently there is no allowance in WP:AT for "primary subtopics", so this article must be moved (as per NCTV). I'm doing this as an "official" RM request, because there are presumably a lot of links to Jessie (TV series), and it will likely require someone with AWB access to fix those links after the required RM is carried out. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Support: This seems reasonable. No arguments from me. Will invite Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, and Nyuszika7H to get some more feedback. (Hope you don't mind.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Support No objection. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Support Per nom. Interesting I had no recollection of that 1984 series, which aired during the early part of my junior year in high school according to the TV schedule for ABC back then. It was on pretty late on a school night, though it did air the same night as Three's a Crowd - the Three's Company spinoff that lasted only one year - which I did watch. MPFitz1968 (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Support Seems fine to me. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Support – two different TV series. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:80C2:210F:17F1:8DAE (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I'm conflicted. I want to support but I find the nomination flawed:

Necessary disambiguation from Jessie (1984 TV series), as per WP:NCTV - Nothing is absolutely necessary and although I agree with it, NCTV is just a convention; it doesn't have to be followed.

currently there is no allowance in WP:AT for "primary subtopics" - WP:PRIMARYTOPIC covers this. We don't throw it out just because we're looking at already disambiguated pages. Based on pageviews alone, this article is clearly the primary topic for "Jessie (TV series)". In fact, it's really the primary topic compared to any of the "Jessie" articles. For the past few months it has been seeing around 1,600 pageviews per month, although that has climbed to around 1,800 for the past two months, while the 1984 series has been typically less than 25 pageviews but has climbed to just under 40 for this month. That's so substantial a difference that we have to look at what's best for our readers. Do we disambig just because a convention says to, or do we think of our readers and let them have quicker access to the article they are looking for?

so this article must be moved (as per NCTV) - No it mustn't. Again, NCTV is a convention only. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says "If no primary topic exists, then the term should be the title of a disambiguation page" but clearly, we have a primary topic. If we didn't then this would be a disambig page and we'd link to both articles or back to Jessie, but the convention for a clear primary with only one other similarly named article is to use hatnotes, and that is already done.

At this point, I just can't support when I look at the big picture. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I said there are "no primary subtopics" under WP:AT. That statement is correct – if this article was the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it would be at Jessie. But it can't be at Jessie (TV series) (which is what I mean by a "primary subtopic") as long as Jessie (1984 TV series) exists – the consistent practice at WP:RM, as well as what is basically said at WP:AT about this, is that you can't leave this one at Jessie (TV series): it either needs to be at Jessie or at something like Jessie (2011 TV series)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I said there are "no primary subtopics" under WP:AT - As I said WP:PRIMARYTOPIC covers this. These aren't sub-topics, they are separately disambiguated pages, neither of which is a sub-topic of Jessie. As I said, we don't throw out WP:PRIMARYTOPIC just because we're looking at disambiguated pages.

if this article was the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it would be at Jessie - Again, page views would indicate that it is the primary topic. For the record, Jessie gets less than 65 page views per month and has been averaging only around 40-45 this year. Readers are obviously searching for this article and not going through the disambig page.

it either needs to be at Jessie or at something like Jessie (2011 TV series) - Why? Disambiguation identifies it as a TV series, as opposed to a name, film or song although, since it's obviously the primary topic, we really don't need to disambiguate at all so maybe it should be at Jessie. Of course, that would open a whole new can of worms. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Common practice at WP:RM. But, yeah – this whole "primary subtopic" thing comes up repeatedly in these discussions... Imagine if, instead, what we had in this situation was one article at Jessie (film) and the other article at Jessie (1984 film) – in this case, would you consider "Jessie (film)" to be an unambiguous article title? According to WP:NCFILM, the latter would basically not be "unambiguous" (i.e. which "film" is it?!), so it would either need to be the "primary topic" at the base title Jessie, or it would need to be moved to Jessie (2011 film). Basically, the same argument applies to Jessie (TV series) (which TV series is it?) – standard practice in WP:RM discussions is that Jessie (TV series) is sufficiently ambiguous (regardless of page view stats) that it requires a move to a less ambiguous title... Believe me, this annoys a number of editors to the point where every so often one threatens to start an WP:RfC about whether "primary subtopics" should be allowed – I myself have ambiguous(heh) feelings about the idea. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I would have no objections to moving Jessie (TV series) → Jessie (i.e. at the base title), though I would be surprised if that is ultimately the outcome of this WP:RM, as it would also require moving Jessie → Jessie (disambiguation)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Jessie (1984 film) doesn't exist and Jessie (film) gets only about 40 page views per month, so discussing this hypothetical serves no purpose. Again I ask, what is best for our readers? Do we leave the article where they are obviously looking for it, or do we make it harder for them to find? I'd say WP:READERS is spot on: "The majority of [Wikipedia] visitors are readers so it is important that pages and articles are optimised for this readership." This would include providing easy to find page titles. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Theme song title

If we're going to include the theme song title, then it needs to be sourced, because it is not in the credits, only who performs it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

When this was first included years ago I questioned it myself but it was on the Disney site, easily accessible, so I saw no need to question it further. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Any chance we can dig up that source now? Having a source like that would solve the problem of the theme song's title not being in the credits – simply mention the theme song stuff in the Production section, and source it to the (old) Disney site... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem with Disney is that a lot of information gets dumped when a series ends. It's not even at archive.org so finding citations that were easy to get at one time is virtually impossible now. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, Shazam (soon to be Apple!) does have the title as "Hey Jessie": [4]. So that might be good enough. I was hoping I could find an independent press article that would confirm the theme song title, but unfortunately I couldn't find one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I would never have looked there (mainly because I still haven't worked out what Shazam is - apparently it's nothing to do with Captain Marvel). I think the source is sufficient though. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Shazam is an independent source so I guess it is as good as any source. Cexycy (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Mr Kipling's name in cast picture

In the cast photo towards the top of the article is a photo of the main characters with their names underneath. Mr Kipling appears in the photo but does not have his name listed. I feel it should be because he appears in the programme and is therefore part of it, albeit in small roles. What do others think? Cexycy (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The point of that picture is to show the main cast – it's included in the 'Main' cast section for that reason. Kipling isn't main cast, and so isn't germane to why that picture is being used, and shouldn't be listed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

[This edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessie_(2011_TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=823748441] has the caption as "Main characters of Jessie L-R: Bertram, Zuri, Luke, Jessie, Emma, Ravi and Mr. Kipling". This is incorrect. She is not a main character. She's not even a character, "...a person in a novel, play, or movie."[5] - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Mr Kipling is still in the picture, that's my point. It should be stated for completeness. This character DOES make a few appearances as well so I think he is a character anyway. Cexycy (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I think Mr Kipling should be identified in the caption as he is in the image. He is not a main character, more of a prop. Maybe state Ravi (with his pet Mr Kipling) to make things clear. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, let's try that! Thanks! Cexycy (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Are we using "Mr. Kipling" over "Mrs. (Ms.) Kipling" for any specific reason? Just wondering. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM?... In the beginning of the series it was "Mr." – only later did they figure out it was "Mrs."... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I just wasn't sure whether there was a better rationale for one or the other, so I wasn't sure if anyone had picked "Mr." over "Mrs." for any particular reason. She was "Mr." in the image but has been "Mrs." for longer in-series. *shrug* - Purplewowies (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It was also the name used at the time of the image in 2011 so is correct for what is depicted. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Crossovers section, and other article cleanup issues

Is this section notable? Ignoring network promotion, what exactly constitutes a crossover? Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

There's actually lots of "cleanup" issues here...

The crossovers are probably notable – those are sourced (and I suspect that could be sourced even more, with press releases from Disney...). But they do make the 'Episodes' section "largish" – larger than I like to put below 'Plot' and above 'Characters'... Issue #1 with this is – do the "crossovers" belong under 'Episodes', or under 'Production'? I'd argue they should be moved and put under 'Production'... With one caveat: the Ultimate Spider-Man: Web-Warriors one is not a "crossover" in the strictest sense: I'd argue that should be moved to the end of the article, and put under 'In other media'. 'Soundtrack' definitely belongs under either 'In other media' or 'Merchandise' (which are basically the same thing in terms of MOS:TV...).

Also, the 'Controversy' section should also probably be folded under 'Production', though I'd suggest taking a closer look at MOS:TV to see if it makes any mention of stuff like this (e.g. is 'Controversy' akin to 'Themes' under MOS:TV?!...).

The other big issue is that the 'Spinoff' section (re: Bunk'd) and the 'Indian adaptation' section also need to be move towards the bottom of the article. I'll need to check MOS:TV if those should go above, go below, or be included under 'In other media'...

Finally, 'Ratings' and 'Awards and nominations' should be folded under 'Reception' and a 'Critical [reception]' section should be added. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Characters/Cast

The organization of the characters/cast information looks questionable. As I look at other live-action Disney Channel series, which use the "actor as character" format, I'm wondering why this article is using the "character (actor)" format. Also, is there a need for the guest stars section? If we were to keep that, we should switch to the "actor as character" format, or something similar to highlight the actor, not the character (the character is not the "guest star"). MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently "wrong" with a 'Characters' section over a 'Cast and characters' section – they are both covered under MOS:TVCAST. Now, I will admit that I generally prefer a 'Cast and characters' format for live-action TV series – IMO, a 'Characters' section works better with, 1) animated series, and 2) those rare cases where the 'Characters' are independently-notable themselves before the TV show ever premiered (e.g. "superhero shows") – i.e. for those shows where the 'Characters' are likely "more famous" than the actors who play them. But nothing prevents the use of 'Characters' sections, and it shouldn't be changed to a 'Cast and characters' section unless a clear consensus is demonstrated here to change the format... As for the 'Guest' section, I don't think they are inherently objectionable (if done "right", and they often aren't), though I agree with Amaury that the section should be called 'Notable guest stars' and should be restricted to those who have their own Wikipedia articles and/or are credited as "Special guest stars" (though sometimes the latter can be its own subsection...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

In short, the emphasis is on the actors—they're going to be more well known than the characters—for live-action and on characters for animation. I used to have "Character" sections for everything on parent articles until IJBall convinced me otherwise and I've changed things during my cleanups. In regard to who's notable and whatnot, there are some special exceptions. Even if they don't get a special guest star credit and just a normal guest star credit, I consider, for example, main cast members from another series on the same network to be notable, and you agree here, if I recall. Lizzy Greene on Knight Squad, for example, since she is—or was?—a main cast member on NRDD. She happens to have an article, but even if she didn't, still notable. If she had just been a guest star on NRDD, then I wouldn't consider that notable in itself. Amaury • 17:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

When we're talking about the series, the characters are important. Viewers may not know the actors, but they'll certainly know the characters. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Change from a 'Characters'-format section to a 'Cast and characters'-format section

I'm guessing there's actually support for this part, so let's make it a formal proposal to gauge consensus on the question:

Are you in favor of changing this article's current 'Characters'-format section to a 'Cast and characters'-format section?

Please indicate support or oppose below if you favor or oppose this proposal. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support – there's no question in this case that the actors are better known that the characters they play, so a 'Cast and characters'-format section makes more sense at this article. This will also put it into harmony with most other Disney Channel (live-action) TV series articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Should this proposal fail to gain consensus, at the very least, either remove the notable guest stars section or trim it considerably. And if the section is going to be titled notable guest stars, it is best to shift the focus to the actors, as they are the ones being credited as guest stars, not the characters; another alternative is renaming the section notable appearances or something similar. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support: I have no strong preference for either format detailed under the TV MOS, but the rationales described here make sense for this show, to me. That's a weak as all get-out !vote, but a !vote all the same. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)