Talk:List of Dog with a Blog episodes

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: Episode coverage This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force. Disney Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Should we split the content into Dog with a Blog (season 1), & (season 2),. CHall2002 (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: We don't normally consider splits to season articles until well info the third season. No need for this now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The episode was produced in two segments using two production slots 315 and 316 but those segments were combined and a single episode was created. Amazon and iTunes are selling the episode as a 47 minute episode and it aired as a single episode. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason for those spacings. Nothing is less visible or noticeable than before. Many episodes lists don't have these spacings, and the editors have zero problems. Why is this an issue at all? I see no logic whatsoever in the argument that it makes it difficult for people to read and edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.141.8.2 (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, removing the spacing achieves nothing. Maintenance is indeed easier with the spacing. It's always easier to maintain code that's formatted consistently. At least that's been my experience over the last 41 years. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite examples of articles with the spacing taken out. In any case, just because other articles may be like that doesn't mean this one needs to be. And not everyone sees text the same way, particularly if that text is all together in one big clump. Spacing (or lack of it) does affect readability. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also be aware of

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because it's like that in articles B, C, and D doesn't mean they take precedence over article A. In fact, articles B, C, and D could very well all be wrong and it's article A that's correct. Amaury (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Another issue, related the changes in formatting that degrade source maintainability is that I check articles for changes to evaluate whether or not I agree with any substantive changes in content and to look for vandalism. It is extremely difficult to do so when those changes can be hidden in a wall of minor formatting changes. Unless formatting changes result in a marked improvement of source readability and maintainability it is disruptive. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is so nightmarish about the lack of all of those pointless spacings. Other episodes lists don't have them and they have zero editing problems, so I completely don't get it.130.204.81.214 (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether on not you get it, persistently removing the spacing despite obvious opposition by multiple editors is unnaceptable. It is

WP:LAME as well so please, just do not remove the spacing again. In the event you continue you are likely to be blocked or see the page protected. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

See discussion at Talk:Dog with a Blog#Proof series over about this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous editors inserting the number of season 3 episodes, as well as putting September 25 as the date of the final episode, and some without a source (or removing the Beth Littleford Twitter reference that's in the hidden comment). I have just made my third revert of the article within the last 24 hours, short of

WP:3RR violation (and not sure of whether the exemptions clearly apply in this case), so this could be perceived as an edit warring problem for any of us removing the unsourced/improperly sourced material. Not sure what to do here. Even the thought of semi-protecting the article seems premature. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Leave poorly referenced info in article, restore the commented out note, tag with {{

WP:3RRNO doesn't apply to cases which are not obvious vandalism - all edits are good faith by people who just generally ignore hidden notes and won't discuss stuff. Annoying, but not blatant vandalism. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]