Talk:List of Girl Meets World episodes

Protected edit request on 10 May 2014
We need to add episodes for the girl meets world Wikipedia because we know the episodes

98.221.13.23 (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please add them at Girl Meets World, not here. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 July 2014
Please add tag to article as eventual expansion of this redirect into an article is highly likely and the target is a section of another article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I also included protected -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it time?
,, , , , , , , , , ,

Dear editors: All of you participated in the decision to delete and redirect this title because it was too soon. The title was protected to prevent recreation. Now a new article has been created and is ready to be moved here. Is it time to unprotect the title and allow the list of episodes to be a separate article? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support removing page protection and creating a WP:SPINOUT/WP:SPINOFF article at this time. North America1000 02:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No objection.- MrX 02:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - article to be moved here is not an original article - it is an unattributed copy from portions of Girl Meets World. Anything moved here must have proper attributions per WP:CWW. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Details can be handled by Geraldo Perez, et al. But it's time to spinoff the episodes list. --IJBall (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - It seems that there is also a discussion about this at Talk:List of Girl Meets World Episodes. Sorry if I've contributed to a split discussion. If the article is moved to a final destination, I will be happy to do the attribution work.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be great, Anne, as it does seem like List of Girl Meets World Episodes did not follow proper WP:SPLIT procedures (I guess this wasn't caught at Articles for creation?...) --IJBall (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No objection from me. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No objection. Lugia2453 (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – I will also point out the unattributed version is not the current version of the episode list as shown in the parent article (edits have been made to the Episodes section of the article since the version that was copied to List of Girl Meets World Episodes, including by myself). So I'm hoping the properly attributed version will include edits made since. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Given that the article to moved here is not the current extract from the source a new article should be created here from the source content and from the draft with proper attributions given to both sources (assuming any original content is in the draft in the first place to give attribution to). At the same time the source article should have the content removed and the proper connecting links added to both articles. This should be done simultaneously so that things do not get more out of sync than they currently are. See WP:SPLIT. Creating the draft was a good idea but should have been linked to at the split discussion on the source page for evaluation before it was moved. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * COMMENT - I started this discussion to see if anyone objected to the creation of the episode list, and no one has. I suggest that, to avoid confusion, those wanting to comment on best method of accomplishing this join the ongoing discussion at Talk:List of Girl Meets World Episodes.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No objection. — Confession0791 talk 18:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 April 2015

 * 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: moved. IJBall (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

List of Girl Meets World Episodes → List of Girl Meets World episodes – I just approved this article from AfC. This is in accordance with the discussion on the Girl Meets World talk page. However, there's currently an administrator-protected redirect at List of Girl Meets World episodes to the main page. I'd like to move this page so as to fix the capitalization of the letter "e" in "Episodes". Thanks! wia (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is a discussion needed? Just moving it would be fine, I'd think. I just italicized a portion of the title, which should probably go with the new name as well. Randy Kryn 2:36 15 April, 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, normally a discussion wouldn't be necessary. Here, however, there's already an article at "List of Girl Meets World episodes" (it redirects to "Girl Meets World"). When I attempted to move it, the software wouldn't let me; it said I needed administrator approval. wia (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably easiest to contact an admin and ask for the move. I know there's a page to list uncontroversial moves, but I don't know its name. Should be an easy move once you catch the attention of an administrator (best way is to leave cookies and milk, which attracts a few, then they fight over the cookies and by the time that gets settled usually another admin, wandering by, will send them to neutral corners, pick up the pieces, and fix the page). Randy Kryn 23:28 15 April, 2015 (UTC)
 * So I should just flag down any administrator and they'll do the job? (I've been on Wikipedia for a while, but I've only recently started doing some of this behind-the-scenes stuff, so it's still a new world. I appreciate the help!) wia (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably. It is an obvious move. I'm pretty new to 'behind the scenes' as well. And you're very welcome. Randy Kryn 12:52 16 April, 2015 (UTC)


 * – Did you track down an Admin for this? The Admin I'd normally go to this about something like this looks to have stepped away from Wikipedia for a while now. However, I am going to drop a note at the Talk page of the Admin who fully-protected List of Girl Meets World episodes. And just so you know in the future, a move like this can generally be accomplished ("uncontroversially") using the db-move tag (though that wouldn't have worked in this case as the List of Girl Meets World episodes redirect page is fully protected)... --IJBall (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I did—I recently spoke with on her talk page and she gave me the same db-move advice, so I will definitely do that next time. She said she would consult the administrator who protected the redirect page. So I think someone should be on the case! wia (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy move – no discussion is necessary here as the current title violates WP:AT. The first Admin that sees this, just do it. --IJBall (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Randy Kryn, wia, IJBall, please be patient. You are right that the page has bad capitalization, but there are complications at the other end because there is a previous discussion resulting in a consensus that this list should not be a separate article from Girl Meets World.  Likely the decision is out of date and will be overturned, but proper procedure is to check with the admin who protected the page or, if he/she is not available, others involved in the consensus.  If the page is moved without consensus, it may just be deleted, which is what happened last time someone created it.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on this discussion, I am guessing the consensus against splitting off the episodes list either no longer exists, or won't exist come next month. --IJBall (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This article is not an original article - it is an unattributed copy of content from Girl Meets World. Discussion at Talk:Girl Meets World supports a split but it must have the required attributions as specified at WP:SPLIT and WP:CWW. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So what exactly needs to be done to make this a publishable article? — Confession0791 talk 07:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Parallel discussion taking place at – Talk:List of Girl Meets World episodes. To answer the question, basically this article did not follow WP:SPLIT procedures, and is simply a cut-and-paste job from the original Girl Meets World article, with no attribution to or acknowledgement of that. So, if/when this article is moved to List of Girl Meets World episodes, that will have to be rectified with at least a proper Edit summary this time (as well as likely adding tags acknowledging the same to both the Girl Meets World Talk page, and the List of Girl Meets World episodes Talk page). --IJBall (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I dropped the ball here. I accepted the draft at AfC but was unaware of the WP:SPLIT criteria. I'm sorry for the mixup and I'll be sure to take a close look at the SPLIT procedures. wia (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No one at the Talk:List of Girl Meets World episodes page has objected to the creation of the episode list, so it seems that this will happen. I have asked those wanting to comment on how it will be done to post on this page so that the discussion will all be in one place.


 * Here is my suggestion: Since the content of List of Girl Meets World Episodes was improperly copied in the first place, a brand new split be started, with proper attribution, at List of Girl Meets World episodes, using the contents of the current section of Girl Meets World (which has changed), and that content removed right away from that article so that no one will keep editing it. Once that's done, the material on this talk page can be moved to the other page, and the accepted draft List of Girl Meets World Episodes can be put up for deletion as a redundant content fork.  There are a few minor edits to that page, mostly by editors who've commented here, and they can always re-add them to the new page if they want. Comments? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. If someone with admin privs (Anne?) can do most of the actual work to make that happen (actually it is fairly easy and straightforward ) it can also all synchronize with the changes in page protection and deletion of the content fork. Regular editors on this topic can then resume maintaining both articles and make any necessary adjustments as needed from the split. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Anne, that sounds good to me – this article has not proceeded much beyond the draft, so I don't think anything will really be lost if a "proper" Split of the content from Girl Meets World is done, and then this article is nuked at the same time. --IJBall (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will take this on. I have done many content merges, but this will be my first split, so I would appreciate it, Geraldo Perez, if you will let me know if I mess anything up.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Info at WP:SPLIT is fairly complete. Basically all that is needed is to copy and paste the draft to this article and overwrite the tables with the latest content cut from the source article. PLUS the attributions on both articles. Anything missed is just cleanup and I will make sure it is done. What was supposed to happen originally was a request for unprotect using concensus for a split be done first then split out to here. The protect kind of complicated things. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2015 (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.

Dispute about August Maturo being in "Girl Meets Demolition"
Two editors claim that Auggie is absent in the episode,  when he, in fact, is in the episode. (Both edits have been reverted, one of them by me .) Auggie has only one line in the final scene; here's the last of the dialogue from the entire episode:


 * Cory: Auggie, do you think that look worked for me? (this referring to when Debby Ryan's character commented on him looking like Justin Timberlake, and then made him over to have his look)
 * Auggie: Yes, Mr. Timberlake!

I definitely recall Auggie's appearance at the end after watching the episode several times on Disney Channel. At least one clip which can verify this exists on YouTube, but Wikipedia policy prohibits my providing any link as the uploaders of the videos are not valid copyright holders. Which does bring up question about how to document the fact that he is in the episode, albeit with just one line at the end, when other editors are saying he's not. The only ones who can legitimately verify would need to be subscribed to Disney Channel to see the show, like me, through my cable service. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Amazon and Apple sell the episode for $1.99 for anyone who wishes to view a legal copy. Auggie is in the episode and that fact is easily verified by anyone who wishes to verify it. It is fairly common that a main cast member will have a line or two in an episode where he is not really featured. Not surprised some people missed that on viewing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * An aside - He is in every episode as he is in the main credits that appear with every episode. We are documenting in the article any lack of lines or appearance outside the main credits. He contractually gets paid for being in the episode either way which is one of the perks of being main cast. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2015
http://www.zap2it.com/tv/girl-meets-world/episodes/SH019172980000
 * }

Skylander Kid (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Viewership Section
I have found sources that show viewership data that differs from the data here. I would like to edit it in, but it is a major edit. What should I do?Catty319 (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember this coming up with another user, same issue. What are the sources? Are they more reliable than the very reliable ones we are using now. Notice that web pages created on sites where anyone can create a personal page will never be considered reliable. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The sources I used are listed below:
 * http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/disney-channel-ratings-top-rated-network-kids-summer-1201297747/
 * http://www.nickandmore.com/tag/girl-meets-world/
 * http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillbarr/2015/05/18/girl-meets-world/

I'm not sure if these sources can be considered reliable but I have heard that the source TV by the Numbers has delivered false info in the past so we should be careful with that. Catty319 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Nickandmore is not a reliable source. Variety and Forbes definitely are reliable sources and the info in them belongs in Girl Meets World as they talk about ratings in aggregate, not individual episode ratings which is what the TV by the Numbers references support and what this article requires. So none of those references are valid for this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * note that Catty319 just reverted again to restore the incorrect ratings figures with the poor sourcing, without discussing it further here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, IJBall. I have noticed over the past few months how the viewership data has been repeatedly altered (both here and when the episode list was part of the parent article), with reliable reference citations replaced with either unreliable ones or links to user-created pages. And not just by IP users, which has led to several periods of semi-protecting the articles. I don't know if this viewership data vandalism is going to be a long-term problem for this show, as I have not seen this specific kind of data falsification regarding other current TV shows, at least those on Disney Channel and Nickelodeon. I have not forgotten the Jt029350, JosephTremitiedi, Jatremitiedi, etc., group (at least suspected sockpuppets, if not confirmed), who all seemed to have a deep interest with Girl Meets World and being disruptive concerning the show's article(s). As for the recent IP users doing this, which were in the 107.188.*.* group of addresses (as shown in the history on and before May 31), I cannot say whether there is any connection. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jt029350, I added a new suspect. Pretty strong quacking. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Obviously deliberately disruptive now. Using references dated before episodes aired for episode viewing numbers. Nickandmore and other bogus sites. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Variety SEPTEMBER 4, 2014 used to support viewing numbers with this edit for:
 * Ep7 August 15, 2014
 * Ep8 September 12, 2014
 * Ep9 September 19, 2014
 * Ep10 September 26, 2014
 * Ep11 October 2, 2014

And that references only has aggregate viewing numbers to its publication date in it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Latest is using a sub-site hosted at http://www.wix.com which advertises: "Create Your Stunning Website. It's Free" as a reference. This is about as far from a reliable source as it is possible to get. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2015
I have found a reliable source that says that the viewership data in "Girl Meets the Secret of Life" is false. It says that the episode garnered 3.2 million viewers, not 2.6 million viewers. Here is the source:

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/06/02/disney-channel-sweeps-tvs-total-day-in-total-viewers-driven-by-multi-month-highs-for-hit-original-comedies-girl-meets-world-and-k-c-undercover/411587/

I would like the viewership info for this episode changed from 2.6 million viewers to 3.2 million viewers.

68.199.15.200 (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ The information from the Disney Press release that was reported on Zap2it is undoubtably accurate for what it reports. It is designed to make Disney look the best they can while telling the truth (see: spin) so reports total day numbers. This includes the original broadcast and all reruns that occurred during the day. The viewing numbers in the article table are for the original broadcast timeslot and do not include same day reruns. It would be inappropriate to replace this one episode's viewing numbers with total day numbers when all the other episodes in the table report only the initial airing numbers. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the article table carefully, it says that the ratings were sorted by live + same day viewing. For example:

http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-100-friday-cable-originals-network-update-6-19-2015.html

At the top of the chart, it says that the data is also sorted by live + same day. JOEY the ULTIMATE! (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That heading does not cover the column labeled "(000's) P2+" where we are getting the number for the article – it covers just the demographics ratings columns. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested yet again
It did not take me long after seeing more tinkering with the viewership numbers (and use of questionable/unreliable sources) from IP and newly registered user(s), 2 minutes after the expiration of the most recent semi-protection, to request protection again at WP:RPP (request here). MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Girl Meets Fish Confusion
So I'm slightly confused here. The production code is 219, and that's confirmed via the source. However, it looks like it was recorded during season one as it has the season one opening and the credits after the opening sequence show Farkle as a guest star. Not only that, but you can tell the actors, especially Corey, look younger. (and anyone else), the production code is clearly sourced, so I won't change anything, obviously, I'm just curious as to how this can be explained. Amaury (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It was originally sourced as 119 and obviously shot as part of the first production order but the Disney Press source used changed the number to 219. Disney Press labels these numbers as "Episode" not "production code" and generally they match, but still Disney changed it. A more authoritative source cocatalog.loc.gov doesn't list it yet but when it does we can go with that as being more reliable than a press release site. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the reference used in the article - http://www.disneyabcpress.com/disneychannel/shows/girl-meets-world/episodes/girl-meets-fish-2/

This episode is a Season 1 episode. There are some clips from the episode in the Season 1 Behind the scenes video so if it was a Season 2 episode it couldn't be in that video. The writers tweeted last year that the episode should have aired in Febuary but Disney Channel pushed it back to July to be part of Whodunnit weekend. And 119 is the only production code that is missing so it is obvious that it is Girl Meets Fish and there was a picture online about the writers production board and Girl Meets Fish was listed as 119. Channelboy (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As stated above it is obvious that this episode was shot as part of the first production order but the Disney reference that supported 119 in the article previously no longer does. The point is Disney changed it and are now calling it 219. What do we go with here and do we have a reliable source superior to the Disney Press site that says Disney still considers the episode 119 and the press site is mistaken. The only superior reference I know of is what is filed at the copyright office as I mentioned above and the episode is not listed there yet. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the discussion title,. That was just a typo on my part. Oops. Amaury (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * okay I know the twitter for the Gil Meets Writers in not confirmed, But 219 is acutely Girl Meets Sludge witch was recorded at the beginning of the month. I can confirm this by looking at the casting site when this was posted and it is correct. I believe the Disney press release made a mistake with this one when posting it. The episodes are recorded to the GMW wikia as they are announced by the writters and it matches up with production. But we can just leave it as is until Girl Meets Sludge officially airs and is put on the press release and see what happens. I know we don't have any other official sources, but they are usually pretty reliable when announcing episodes. WP Editor 2012 (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Reasonable to wait and see what Disney does especially if there is a potential conflict in the same source. Thing is Disney does sometimes change their episode identifiers, what we are calling production codes, so can't be sure this is deliberate or a mistake. It will eventually end up in the copyright office archive but that will take awhile. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright office says "Girl Meets Master Plan" is 119. Just another wrinkle in all this. Generally we take the Copyright office as a superior reference to pretty much everything as that is an official legal filing by Disney to the US Government. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just as a follow-up to this, EpGuides lists the prod. code as #119 for "Girl Meets Fish" (they have "Girl Meets Master Plan" as prod. code #121), which is almost certainly correct. Personally, I find listing it as 219 confusing, as it's clearly a season-one produced episode. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, we shouldn't list obviously incorrect information – even leaving it blank is better than that. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What is certainly (not almost) correct is what is filed with the copyright office. epguides is not a reliable source. How Disney chooses to label their stuff is not for us to second guess. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I disagree with that – how Disney chooses to label something on its website is not ironclad, in my book, by any stretch. What matters is when the episode was physically produced, and what its production code was at that time (i.e. what the code was at the time of actual production, not anything that happens later). EpGuides may be considered "unreliable", and technically they are according to "guidelines", but they are very often correct. (I'd personally like to know where EpGuides get their production codes from – I may even shoot 'em an E-mail and ask, if I get the chance...) As for the Copyright Office, I don't have an answer for that one, but I'll reserve judgement on that until they update to include season #2 episodes as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Casting call sites generally give a production code for an episode being cast and I think that is the original source for most of the ones listed on the net. Copyright office already lists 119 for another episode. Season 1 table should be updated with the copyright office as the prime source but they lag a lot so should wait until complete. The press release site loses interest in updating to keep accurate after an episode has aired, it seems. The reason this episode has a s2 code may be because it might have been reworked after it was originally shot. In general I don't see a lot of value in production codes that don't come from a credit screen in the episode itself as is done for most major network TV series. But I still think the copyright office is pretty authoritative lacking that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty much agreed. But it would be highly unusual for a production code to be changed. For example, Saved by the Bell aired episodes two seasons after they were produced(!), but the production codes on those episodes didn't change. I literally can't think of an example where a production code was changed simply because an episode was ultimately aired in a later season – I suspect that almost never happens... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sometimes when the network merges two productions into one aired special they create an identifying code for the merge as that is a distinct entity. I agree though that changing actual production codes for a distinct production should never happen. The question is, what is the original code as we do have conflicting info for that as well, the original shown-to-be dubious press site and the copyright office. We don't use casting call sites as references as info there is all forward looking planning info that sometimes does change when a show goes into production. I suggest, because of the confusion and until the Copyright office info is updated to include the season2 episodes, we just leave it blank with a hidden note that refers to this discussion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

,, just thought I'd mention that we have another bump in the road as Girl Meets Sludge is 219, and there are now two 219s. See: http://www.disneyabcpress.com/disneychannel/shows/girl-meets-world/episodes/ Amaury (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * More evidence that "Girl Meets Fish" should be 119... Hopefully we'll get this sorted out eventually. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's actually even more confusing because Copyright Office says Girl Meets Master Plan is 119, as Geraldo mentioned earlier. However, Disney ABC Press says 121, and it's what we're using. Sigh. What a mess. Amaury (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added the Copyright Office as a reference for season one episodes in the article (had difficulty getting it to consistently display the results before I saved my edit, and then winded up with a different URL there, which seems to display the results correctly and consistently). I've changed the production code for "Girl Meets Master Plan" from 121 to 119, but kept the 121 in a comment, as that's what Disney ABC Press reports. But as Geraldo indicated, Copyright Office trumps all other references on production codes. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Will need help with that Copyright Office site. It was displaying the results properly earlier, at the time of my post above, but after checking the reference I have in the article again, it's telling me session timed out. If someone knows how to get the results of the search to display consistently (I don't seem to have any problems when looking at the Copyright Office reference for List of Jessie episodes, and that's been around for a long time), please get it to work. Thanks. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Copyright office uses a session link for a lot of its stuff. In the cite you can either point to the main search page and give the required search string to use there or find a link on some other article that looks to be stable and modify the url to include the correct search info. I've always had problems with this too. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2015
I have found several sources that show the "Girl Meets Demolition" is part of season 1 and is the twenty-first episode. Here are the sources:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4276888/

http://putlocker.is/watch-girl-meets-world-tvshow-season-1-episode-21-online-free-putlocker.html

http://watch-series-tv.to/serie/girl_meets_world

Please change "Girl Meets Demolition" from a special to season 1 episode 21.

68.199.15.200 (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * None of those are reliable sources, especially IMDB. Amaury (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ per comment by Amaury. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2015
I would like "Girl Meets Demolition" to be changed from a special episode to being part of season 1. Here are some sources that show that the episode is actually season 1 episode 21, and not a special.

http://tvlistings.aol.com/listings/nj/lake-hiawatha/cablevision-of-morris-520750/NJ29435%7CX#evt-10171_2015-08-21_22X30

http://tvschedule.zap2it.com/tvlistings/ZCGrid.do?fromTimeInMillis=1440190800000&aid=tvschedule

107.188.17.148 (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While the latter is definitely a reliable source, even they're not always fully accurate.


 * The episode has a production code of 207, so it was filmed during the second season. If we were ever to move it, it'd be to season two. However, it's definitely a special. Amaury (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because it was filmed during season 2, that doesn't necessarily mean it is part of season 2. Look at "Girl Meets Fish". It was not filmed in the season it aired in. If you check the listings on an actual TV, it also says that "Girl Meets Demolition" is part of season 1.107.188.17.148 (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See: http://tvline.com/2015/04/08/girl-meets-world-season-2-premiere-date/ Amaury (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Using the current "Disney ABC Press" website that is linked to as the episode source (currently reference 2), I would say to leave it as it is. It is obvious from Disney's standpoint that "Girl Meets Demolition" was supposed to be in Season 2 but they moved it out of cycle as a special episode. Inomyabcs (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2015
The viewership for "Girl Meets Semi-Formal" is 2.20 million viewers, according to:

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/08/17/friday-cable-ratings-treasure-quest-bring-it-nfl-pre-season-football-girl-meets-world-edge-of-alaska-win-night-more/448727/

Please add this viewership data to the article.

107.188.3.4 (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

✅ MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Extensive change
I changed the color to 1d74a9 because that matches the logo of the show and was the original color of the article. I listed the production code sources on each episode so it wouldn't be unreadable in the color. As far as "Girl Meets Demolition" goes, I have listed SEVERAL reliable sources that say it's part of season 1 and not a special. Please stop reverting my edits.JoeTrem! (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the original color was not compliant with WP:COLOR. The color is still blue and matches the logo in that respect, it's just a bit lighter. As for Girl Meets Demolition, it's a special and not part of either season as mentioned by on your talk page. Also have a look at ' comment here. Amaury (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (Guess we were doing concurrent replies, Amaury.) Regarding the color, I would agree about the background matching a color in the logo, but here's the wrinkle:  the colors chosen need to be compliant with the WCAG 2.0 AAA level as spelled out under WP:COLOR regarding accessibility, especially for those who are color-blind.  1d74a9 with a white foreground fails this test (there are links to tools in WP:COLOR that will allow you to test color combinations).  On "Girl Meets Demolition", it has a 2xx production code, denoting a season 2 episode, but it was not advertised as the premiere for that season on Disney Channel (the start of season 2 was officially in May, while that episode was aired in April).  It is also not categorized under season 1 because of the production code, but also because "Girl Meets First Date" was advertised, at least from what I remember from TV Guide back in March, as the final episode of that season. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking thru the editing history, at the time "Girl Meets Demolition" originally aired (April 17), this article was the one used and delineated the end of season 1 and the start of season 2, with "Demolition" considered part of neither. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've re-added that reference and added another reference to support the air date. Amaury (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Concerning an edit which changed the viewership numbers for the June 19, 2015, episode "Girl Meets Hurricane"
This edit by user 71.162.232.47, which has been submitted at least twice now, uses a Zap2it reference to back it. However, the user likely did not read the reference carefully, and there is one error in the content of that reference. Where it says "Cable Ratings Friday, June 19, 2015 (all Live+Same Day ratings)", the date should most likely read "Friday, June 26, 2015". The article was written on June 29, and the top entry on the list is Teen Beach 2, which premiered on Disney Channel on June 26. Also, there was no new episode of Girl Meets World on that date, so the 2.62 they show there is for a repeat of an episode, though I don't know which one. Only viewership data for the first run of an episode is what is to go in the article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

"Girl Meets World of Terror 2" — the character of Dewey (a.k.a. Doy)
I have added a hidden explanatory note for the "Girl Meets World of Terror 2" episode concerning this character, portrayed by Cooper Friedman. I point out that he is credited as "Dewey" in "Girl Meets the New World", but as "Doy" in "Girl Meets World of Terror 2" (the character pronounces his name as that, as he says the "w" is silent, and he screams/cries if his name is said the normal way). Found the note to be necessary as various users may decide to change it to "Dewey", but I indicate that we must go with what the official end credits in the episode say, even if there was an oversight in the listing. I wonder if we'll need to clarify by showing both names in the guest star listing, such as "Cooper Friedman as Doy (Dewey)" or leave it as is. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Stick with what episode credits show for cast and character names. Hidden note is sufficient explanation for now. Any further visible text explanation should be footnoted if given at all. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"Girl Meets the Secret of Life" - viewership
I had added info stating that the viewership for this episode was actually 3.20 million viewers instead of 2.60 million viewers. My source:

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/06/02/disney-channel-sweeps-tvs-total-day-in-total-viewers-driven-by-multi-month-highs-for-hit-original-comedies-girl-meets-world-and-k-c-undercover/411587/

I am aware that this has come up before after searching the article's history, but the source also mentions K.C. Undercover, and that show's viewership is shown to be 3.0 million viewers, and according to the source on that page, that info is correct. I beleive that the info I added to this article is correct.68.199.15.230 (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The reference you are using gives total day viewers. The other references in this article are viewers for the first airing of the episode and don't add in the viewers for episode repeats during the same day. We should be consistent in what we report so that comparisons between episodes have some meaning. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Girl Meets Demolition ep21 season 1 or 2, or between season special
http://tvschedule.zap2it.com/tvlistings/ZCProgram.do?sId=EP01917298&t=Girl+Meets+World&method=getEpisodesForShow&epYear=1 says it is a season 1 episode (21). I forget the reason it was classed as an interseason special other than it having a 2xx production code and aired before season 2 started. Before making any changes to the article I'd like to see this discussed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * TV Guide for the season one episode "Girl Meets First Date" identifies it as the last episode in that season: Season 1 ends with Lucas asking Cory's permission to go on a date with Riley. ... The source shown in the "Girl Meets Demolition" episode notes (from TVLine) identifies that episode as a "sort-of leftover episode", then goes on to say that The show's first season officially concluded last month [March 2015] with Riley and Lucas' first official date, concurring with how TV Guide marked the "First Date" episode. The strange thing is that TV Guide identifies "Demolition" as the first episode in season 2, but the TVLine article indicates that season 2 was to begin the week of May 11 to 15, 2015, one month after "Demolition" aired.  Disney Channel advertised the "Demolition" episode as part of their "What the What Weekend" back in mid-April, separate from the season two premiere week nearly a month later. So how "Demolition" gets classified in season one, as Zap2it says, or classified in season two, as TV Guide says, baffles me.  It all comes down to how Disney Channel advertised the episodes, and it is not clear to us which season "Demolition" belongs to; production code suggests season two, while the opening credits sequence in the episode, not to mention a later date scheduled for the start of season two by Disney, suggests season one. Because of this confusion, putting it as a special seems to be the safe approach until other reliable sources can straighten this confusion out. (By the way, I cite TV Guide, because they supply the episode info for my cable provider, Comcast, so that's what I see when I look at the listings on my TV.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Girl Meets What the What/Demolition discussion, part 2
So after our discussion at Talk:List of The Thundermans episodes, I figured it'd be worth revisiting essentially the same situation here. Should "Girl Meets What the What/Demolition" be listed under season one, season two, or remain listed as a standalone special? See also scattered discussions on this talk page regarding or relating to this:
 * Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2015
 * Extensive change
 * Legacy
 * Girl Meets Fish

To quickly summarize, opening credits sequence suggests season one; however, the production code suggests season two.

I'm inviting everyone who participated in that discussion as well as the discussion above:, , , , ,. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No strong opinion either way. I wouldn't object to putting it under season 2, though. (Again, it's worth noting that the U.S. Copyright Office is also no help here...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer leaving it as it is but if it is moved end of season 1 seems more consistent with the verifiable sources we have. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in one of the discussions whose links are above, this TV Line article talks about "Girl Meets Demolition" as "a sort-of leftover episode" placing it in between seasons one and two, but not a part of either, stating "Girl Meets First Date" as the season 1 finale and "Girl Meets Gravity" as the start of season 2. The Futon Critic, thru press releases from Disney Channel, also identifies "First Date" as the season 1 finale and "Gravity" as the season 2 premiere . As far as how "Demolition" is placed, elsewhere, Screener has it at the end of the season 1 listings, Amazon has the same (actually at the end of "Season 102", which is the second half of season 1), but Netflix places it at the beginning of the season 2 set. As Amaury mentioned, "Demolition" has a production code suggesting season 2, though it has season 1 opening credits. This one is hard to categorize if we had to pick which season it belongs to, rather than leaving it under "Special", and I don't know which one to pick here. Putting it under season 1 may sound more logical as they stuck with that season's opening credits for the episode and had yet to reveal the season 2's opening credits sequence until "Gravity" when these originally aired. Aside from that, I don't know. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not abnormal for episodes from other seasons to air in other seasons as we've seen. Liv and Maddie's SPARF-a-Rooney (303) aired in season two as episode 23 while Grandma-a-Rooney (218) aired in season three as episode six. Game Shakers is another good example. There we didn't have conflicts, though. The problem here is that we have an episode with a season two production code, but a season one opening. There are only three possibilities that I can think of:
 * The production code is wrong. ❌ Not likely as all other production codes are taken.
 * They attached the wrong opening sequence to the episode. Likely.
 * They hadn't made the season two opening sequence yet and used season one's. Likely. However, that would mean Corey wasn't in the opening sequence yet as he wasn't added until the season two opening sequence. Was there an also starring credit for him? Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In "Demolition", Farkle (Corey Fogelmanis) wasn't in the episode at all, so no "also starring" credit. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think in this case it makes more sense to leave it as a special, especially with that TV Line article. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have any strong opinion with this one. It aired after the season finale and it wasn't the next season premiere. So, I don't mind either way. For Thundermans, it was clear that "Back to School" wasn't the season finale. So, that was a different case. Aviva Heckman (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

"Girl Meets Stem"?
Should this be "Girl Meets STEM" (short for "Science, Technology, Engineering & Math)? Does anyone object to changing it to "Girl Meets STEM"?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Reference gives title in all caps as is their practice. Proper spelling would be "STEM" as "Stem" makes no sense. Also where did the alternate title come from? Should be removed if no reference for it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I made the changes and commented out the alternative title as the reference for that was what was in the URL for the primary title. Likely they changed their minds about the title and didn't change the link. Page content is the reliable source for the info, urls are just navigation and are not for information. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Disney ABC Press says "Girl Meets Stem" (it's uppercased via CSS, but it's even easier to check the page title as it's not uppercased there, or copy-paste the text from the page), although I guess they intended "STEM". I thought of that, but I wasn't sure – reading it again and seeing "science experiment", it makes sense. As for Sludge, that's the title originally given by the writers, but sadly GMWWriters is not considered a reliable source as the account is not verified. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Girl Meets Sludge was on the Zap2it schedule and was scheduled to air on November 13, 2015, before Girl Meets Belief on November 20, 2015, but that was changed and Girl Meets Belief was pushed forward one week and instead aired on November 13, 2015. See this diff here. I'm almost positive Girl Meets STEM is the same episode, it just has a different title and was pushed back to January 8, 2016, for one reason or another. Amaury (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hover text also shows "Girl Meets Stem" but we should go with what is displayed reformatting all cap titles with our rules for composition titles. They could actually mean "Stem" as a joke but I doubt it based on the episode blurb. We'll have a better idea when it shows up in the scheduling guides. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if it shows up in TV schedule listings as "Girl Meets Stem" (which I think is probable, actually), a 'note' should be added that it's likely the title is meant to be "Girl Meets STEM", as "Girl Meets Stem" is a nonsensical title, in context. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Production code 226 appears on two different episodes
According to Disney ABC Press, both recently aired "Girl Meets Money" and future episode "Girl Meets the Bay Window" are being reported with a production code of 226. I'm not thinking two different episodes would have the same code, and we've had some conflicting codes before with the series, like 119 and 219. So it's a matter of posting both 226 episodes with that number in the production code column, or leaving both blank. Perhaps the copyright office could clear this up when the two episodes appear on their list later. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest leaving both blank with a hidden note explaining why and pointing to this discussion. Then wait for the copyright office to sort this out. I sure like it better when the production code is included in the episode credits as it is for most major network series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, have they gotten Girl Meets Fish sorted out yet? Amaury (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Still shows 219 at Disney ABC Press (the same code for "Girl Meets STEM"), and copyright office still does not have "Fish" episode on file. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why these production codes caused confusion. Ben Savage posted a picture of the Bay Window script that clearly shows that it was 228. Ainsworth anderson (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You will need to find a better link to that, as I don't see it anywhere following the link you provided. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I found it, which Ben Savage posted in September. However, the image is not clear enough to make out the code without any disputes. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Click on the image to get the full details - it says #228. Ben Savage was the director for that episode so could be considered to have personal knowledge and it is a verified twitter account. Don't really have any doubt that he took an unmodified picture of something he possessed and the cover page identifies it as the script for that episode. Would be better to have something else but I think it is good enough to use for this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Even looking very closely at the image, with the Magnifier utility in Windows, I have a hard time seeing that "8" in the episode # (looks blurry). I can definitely make out the 2s, even without Magnifier. I can't say that last digit is an 8, but it's less likely to be a 6 from what I was seeing. Hope I'm not missing something, was going strictly by what I saw from the image itself. But I don't doubt the authenticity of the image, and could use to cite the production code for the episode for now. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Might be a browser feature issue. I am using Safari on a Mac and when I click on the image when displaying the tweet I get a separate view with a large detailed image where all the text is very easily read and make out. Nothing fuzzy at all. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To add, I also checked with Opera on the Mac and Internet Explorer on a PC, both give a full view of the image when it is clicked. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I decided to save a copy of that image to disk, and then opened it up with SyncUp and also Paint, and zoomed in with both. Had no trouble seeing 228 that way. Definitely issues with how the browser (was using Firefox in Windows) allowed me to see the image. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Legacy
I have read a couple articles that say the season 2 finale airs February 19. That is the night Bay Window is scheduled, but we know Legacy comes after that. Does anyone know if Legacy was moved to a between season special like Demolition between seasons 1 and 2? 50.153.132.131 (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Special episode note on "Girl Meets Farkle"
I think the note is redundant since the plot summary already mentions Asperger syndrome and autism, but just noting that it seems to fit the definition in the Very special episode article. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The episode does tackle an important issue in our society and fits the "Very special episode" criteria, but the note simply isn't needed. A number of other episodes in the list can be classified as very special episodes: "Girl Meets Flaws", "Girl Meets Gravity", "Girl Meets Rileytown" to name a few. I also recall when Disney Channel promoted "Girl Meets the Bay Window", they mentioned that being a "special episode", "one you can't miss", or something to that effect. Regardless, we don't need a small note to indicate this, as it comes off as trivia in the end. These special episodes are important as they get parents to talk to their children about what's tackled in them, but the small notes come off like we're keeping score about various issues without noting how these issues affect us, or some other context to identify their importance. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Girl Meets Fish
You forgot Girl Meets Fish. #21 before the special, Girl Meets Demolition in season 2, episode 1. It's throwing off Aramis. -- violet nese  23:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's part of season two. Amaury (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Netflix added it to the end of the first season, but we go by the original broadcast order, and it was broadcast during season 2 by Disney, even though it was originally intended to be a season 1 episode. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Amazon is July 24, 2015. -- violet nese  18:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Season 3
Actually, the promo is not clear about whether it will air as a one-hour special or two separate episodes, "weekend premiere" could imply part 1 airing on Saturday and part 2 on Sunday, but it could also be different. So maybe it's too early to create the episode table. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's early but judgement call and info has a reliable source. We at least know the likely name of the first episode of season 3 and that it will likely start in June, no actual scheduled date, so far, just plans that could change. Using twitter, even verified, about something that is not directly about the person himself is generally somewhat marginal, but it is a judgement call, and there is no question that the photo of the script cover is true and accurate. Scripts are planning info at best and titles sometimes do change between shooting an ep and airing it. Likely crew is correct as listed on the title page photo. I'd feel better getting the info from the aired episode credits though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The other slightly concerning thing is no promo ads for the season premiere from Disney yet. However, Adventures in Babysitting does have a premiere date now, and I haven't seen any promos advertising that yet either. Disney Channel seems to wait until only a couple of weeks before something airs before advertising it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to followup on this, finally saw a promo for the new season, I think, yesterday, and the promo only said "June" 2016, it didn't say "June 3". So I'm still a little leary of attaching a "firm" date to the season #3 premiere yet. At the very least, I think we need to put a better source or additional citation needed tag on it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Disney Youtube channel we are using as the reference has a text comment by the uploader, presumed to be a Disney agent that stated "The moment they are waiting for is here...High School! Girl Meets World returns Friday, June 3 at 8:30P on Disney Channel." It is not part of the promo proper but it still looks to be an official word of Disney. I'll feel a lot better when that ep gets scheduled in one of the normal places. better source tag wouldn't be out of place here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Zap2it source for the two-part season premiere
At least three editors have placed the "Part 1" and "Part 2" in the "Girl Meets High School" episode title, which is not shown in the Zap2it references indicated in the article ( and ). We need to go by what is in the references, not infer what should be there (which is taken as WP:SYNTH or WP:OR), even if past multi-part episodes (of this or any other TV series) have been titled with the "Part 1", "Part 2", etc. When another reference states the episodes with the "part" extension, or should Zap2it update the episode titles with the same, we can append the episode titles accordingly with that reference cited. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on how Zap2it does things, I'm willing to bet this will be a single episode of double length. As soon as The Futon Critic updates, we can confirm that. Amaury (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Girl Meets Texas" did a multiparter over 3 days so wouldn't be surprised if "Girl Meets High School" does the same. Title references for "Girl Meets Texas" did have the " :Part n" shown as part of the title. So far "Girl Meets High School" doesn't but we know it is a two parter per references so putting the part info in the R(aw)Title attribute as a comment is appropriate so that it is not in the quoted portion of the entry displayed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Replaced old Disney ABC Press link used to verify production codes in season 2
As the current episodes page at Disney ABC Press has removed all the season 2 episodes, I went to fetch an archived version of the page  to use for the production code column reference in the season 2 table. The version is from January 15, 2016, well before that season's finale, but it apparently is the most recent version available. (Not sure why later versions of the page haven't been archived, and could be a concern in the future.) The Futon Critic reference in that column should suffice for the production codes of later episodes. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've found and added archived copies of the Disney ABC Press pages just in case, even though Futon also works for those. We can pre-emptively archive them at WebCite (which seems to be down right now), Internet Archive or even Archive.is now that it has been unblacklisted per the outcome of the latest RfC. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained Changes to Third Season Episode Air Dates
Twice I've had to revert IPs who changed the air dates of upcoming season three episodes: here and here. They clearly disagree with the column sources, so I'm not sure where the changes are coming from. If others could keep an eye on this as well, that would be appreciated. Thanks! Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:SNEAKY falsification of dates is a very common form of vandalism particularly when there is no edit summary or references. See WP:KIDSTVDATES for some discussion that may be about this particular problem. I see this a lot – it is annoying. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also geolocation of some of the IPs in this case look familiar to me for a lot of other dubious edits on other articles over some amount of time. No proof same person, just curious. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Girl Meets Texas
I realize that production codes are only for internal purposes and really mean nothing, especially since new episodes are almost always aired out of production order, but from what I understand, production codes are still the order of which the episodes were shot.

So we have Girl Meets Texas: Part 1 with production code 2-24, Girl Meets Texas: Part 2 with production code 2-25, but then we have Girl Meets Texas: Part 3 with production code 2-27. Logically, in a case like this, where you have the same episode spanning over two or more parts, the next production code would be 2-26. However, the episode with production code 2-26 is Girl Meets Money, so I wonder if that means that perhaps by production order, the group returned to school and then went back to Texas, but that wouldn't really make sense, especially considering Girl Meets Texas was a three-part special, basically. My other more likely theory is that I know they often shoot more than one episode at a time, so perhaps they started shooting Girl Meets Money before Girl Meets Texas: Part 3 for one reason or another, thereby making it come before Girl Meets Texas: Part 3, production-wise. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think what happened is that they named the episodes, or at least "Girl Meets Texas: Part 3", after production was wrapped. Because, when you watch them, "Girl Meets Texas: Part 3" actually has almost nothing to do with "Texas" (it takes place entirely in New York), and I can certainly believe that it wasn't filmed in a block with "Parts 1 & 2"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Derp. I had forgotten about that. That would make the first theory more likely, then, with the slight modification that they didn't go back to Texas and instead were perhaps just reminiscing after Girl Meets Money. It's been a while since I've seen the episode. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Two Episodes with Production Code 309
Similar to an earlier issue when there were, what appeared to be, two 226 production codes. I've hidden the production codes for now. Discuss. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 23:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe the previous issue was "Girl Meets Fish" having apparently the same prod. code as another season #1 episode. (And U.S. Copyright Office is still no help on this – I checked again the other day, and they still don't have "Girl Meets Fish" in their database...) As to this case, same idea applies – when there's a conflict/discrepancy with prod. codes, it's best to just leave them out... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's another example, yup, though I was actually referring to this. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 23:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm.So the only way we can add 309 back as the prod. code for Sassy Haltertop is if the season ends with no episode being named "Girl Meets the Other Side"? Ainsworth anderson (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Or once The Futon Critic updates. If there's no conflict on there, we can use that as that's also a column reference. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 23:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, where did you see production code 309 for Girl Meets the Other Side? I only see one 309 on the Disney ABC Press site, and that's for Girl Meets Sassy Haltertop. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 23:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure the only reference we have for other side is the script picture that Ben Savage had posted some months ago. Renames are a common thing which is part of why I am sure that is the case here.Ainsworth anderson (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, 309 is more than likely the correct production code for Girl Meets the Other Side based on the script photo. The production code of 309 that Disney ABC Press is reporting for Girl Meets Sassy Haltertop is consequently likely wrong. Ben's Twitter takes higher priority over Disney ABC Press, too, from what I know, but The Futon Critic or Copyright Office take higher priority over Ben's Twitter. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 23:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

We need more confirmation, but now Futon is also listing the episode as 309 too, the director and writer match, and from the episode summary "Other Side" might make sense if it refers to the other side in a debate. If it is indeed the same episode then this would be a rare case of an episode having three titles (happened with Austin & Ally too). nyuszika7h (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to have different thoughts, putting aside the episode summary for now. It seems it would make sense for production codes 308 and 309 to belong to Girl Meets Ski Lodge: Part 1 and Girl Meets Ski Lodge: Part 2 since they continue from where Girl Meets True Maya (307) leaves off, which is part of the overall large chain of episodes that go together, starting with Girl Meets Triangle (305) and ending with Girl Meets Ski Lodge: Part 2. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 19:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That part is a mystery. Neither Disney ABC Press nor The Futon Critic have disclosed the production codes for the Ski Lodge episodes; Disney ABC Press doesn't even have those episodes listed and usually they would list episodes ahead of their airing. Yes, it's logical to think the codes for those two are 308 and 309, but that makes things more of a mess with Sassy Haltertop/The Real World already listed as 309 at Disney ABC Press and being disputed because another possible future episode is being coded with that number. The unreliable Wikia has the Ski Lodge episodes as 312 and 313 (and I've seen some try to add those codes into the article), and why this has not been substantiated by a reliable outlet like Futon or Disney ABC Press baffles me. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay during The pre production Ski Lodge was going to be recorded after true Maya, but wasn't. It is actually production code 321/313. iDo is Production code 311. Now for the other side was then renamed Sassy Haltertop and then Just renamed Real World. I think this was done for casting issues. I do follow the production with this show as well as the tappings 308 is going to Be Girl Meets She doesn't Like me and 310 is Girl Meets the great Lady of New York witch airs next month.WP Editor 2012 (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Production code issue is still unresolved, since reliable secondary sources (Futon, Disney ABC Press, Zap2it) haven't made any connection between the two titles they use ("Sassy Haltertop", "The Real World") and the one shown in Ben Savage's Twitter of the cover page of the script ("The Other Side"). The way the episode plays out strongly suggests them being connected, as Cory is teaching his class about arguing both sides of a debate, leading to the assignment about debating the good and evil question. I took note of three quotes from Cory himself at the start of the episode, while teaching the class (he mentions "the other side" at least that many times): And as Nyuszika7H said, the episode has the same writer (Joshua Jacobs) and director (Savage) as indicated in that script cover page. Unfortunately, without a direct connection by a secondary source that ties all these episode titles together, we have been holding out on labeling the production code for this episode in the article as 309. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (At the 1:23 mark of episode) Cory: "How often do we get so lost in what we think that we refuse to listen to what the other side has to say?"
 * (2:43) Cory: "...as you continue to grow, you'll find the benefit to understanding the other side of an argument ... because if you know what you're up against, you'll be ready for it."
 * (2:56) Cory: "Are people naturally good or evil? ... All of you will argue good, only one of you will argue the other side. Ms. Matthews? ... You will make the case for evil."

Two dates for Girl Meets Hollyworld?
Although Zap2it and Disney ABC Press lists Girl Meets Hollyworld as airing on November 25, 2016, a recent promo Disney Channel as aired, which can be found here, states that it will air on November 18, 2016. According to, Disney Press, in addition to GM Hollyworld at 8:30p, there will be a Descendants Disney Parks Christmas special airing from 8-9p the same night, November 25. Obviously, the two would overlap. The only logical reason I can think of is there was an error with scheduling, causing the two to overlap, and so they moved up the episode to November 18. 24.35.162.197 (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Zap2it has now updated the date as 11/18. http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/girl-meets-world-girl-meets-hollyworld/EP019172980073?aid=zap2it 24.35.162.197 (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Change has been made in the article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Girl Meets Money writing credits displayed improperly?
In "Girl Meets Money", the writing credits read: Teleplay by: Jeff Menell / Story by: Aaron Jacobs & Jeff Menell. If I'm not mistaken, the general rule around here is to list credits as such when it is split into Teleplay and Story. However, on this page it simple reads "Aaron Jacobs & Jeff Menell." Would someone please explain to me the reasoning for listing it this way, as I feel it should really be listed with the specifics.24.35.162.197 (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no need for specifics. People who do teleplay and story are still writers, so having just "Written by X and Y" is not incorrect for those such episodes. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced reference
I noticed this at the end of the episode summary for "Girl Meets Gravity". It obviously doesn't belong there, but it's definitely a source which would back up when Disney Channel officially started season 2 of the series, so it might have some use. I'm reluctant to remove the reference outright, but it certainly should not be at the end of the "Gravity" summary. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Would seem to belong in the 'Production' section at Girl Meets World if it's not already there. I suggest it be removed from here, and moved over there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Moved the reference to the Production section (under Development) of the parent article, as an inline cite to the sentence that already existed stating the start date of season two. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Air date of World Meets Girl
I just noticed that World Meets Girl aired the last two episodes. I hadn't noticed before because I watched the last few episodes on Netflix, which uses the production order, so it was the last one there. I don't know why Disney decided to air that special earlier, that doesn't make much sense. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the reasoning either behind the special airing on January 6, before the airing of the two-part finale ("Sweet Sixteen" and "Goodbye"). Even more confusing is Netflix's sequencing of the episodes for season 3, as they're going by the production code order as opposed to the air date order; for the first two seasons, the order is based on the air dates, even with the production codes not in sequence for those ("Girl Meets Fish" is the only oddity as it's placed in season 1). The recent release of Liv and Maddie: Cali Style on Netflix also has it by air date order. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Girl Meets the Forgiveness Project - Matthew Nelson's Humanitas Award nomination
I had added the text:

"Matthew Nelson received a Humanitas Award nomination for the script." citing

This was reverted as repitious of information on the Girl Meets World page. I believe the text is also useful here: the Humanitas award is awarded for a specific person for a specific script, and I consider it adds something to someone looking up the episode on this page for information about that episode to know that the script for this episode was nominated for an award. This was not an award won by or for the show, but for the episode. This differs from, for example, an Emmy award for writing or acting, which is based on a single submitted episode, but is awarded for the show overall. Rather than edit war by reverting the reversion, I thought to discuss here. Any serious objection to my adding Nelson's Humanitas nomination? Quadparty (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If the episode had its own article there would be no question that that would be an important thing to have in that article. It seems out of place in an an episode summary, though, particularly when it is covered in the main article where it does get more prominence as it deserves. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Season split
To make everything neater maybe we could split the episode lists into separate articles, I have a draft for the first season, which is basically what the articles would look like. Draft:Girl Meets World (season 1) SecondLooneyaccount (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, especially the way the draft is written at the moment. The content of a season article should consist of more than just the episodes during each season and their summaries. MOS:TV outlines their needing to be real-world information relevant to that season, such as casting, production, reception, etc. Perhaps even notable real-world topics that were tackled in individual episodes and their impact with the audience. One example on how a season article article should look may be the recent split of season 3 of Cobra Kai into Cobra Kai (season 3). There are likely plenty of more examples. Also, I'm not sure that the length of the LoE justifies a split per WP:SPLIT guidelines on length. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Readable prose of article is 68,045 characters, 11,909 words, where an article "Probably should be divided" but scope of topic should be considered, per WP:SIZESPLIT. Looking at the proposed season article, though, there isn't anything there beyond what is in the main article plus the season episodes. Nothing specific to the season that would justify a season article. There needs to be some significant value added. The article is still small enough where a split is not required so I see no value in doing so as it doesn't really make it easier for the readers and additional articles to maintain seems unnecessary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose this article currently follows MOS:TVSPLIT and as those above have said, unless there is significant content that can be written about each individual season its best as is. You were also the one that split the third season of Cobra Kai prematurely. This is what the article looked like when you initially split it and this is after I moved it to draft space and developed it properly. I don't mean for this to come across the wrong way but you should read over MOS:TVSPLIT and look over some season articles such as Grey's Anatomy (season 17), Stranger Things (season 3), and/or Magnum P.I. (2018 TV series, season 1) to gain a better understanding of when season articles are justified and what they should look like. The Doctor Who  (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing to justify individual seasons article being separate. There is not significant content beyond the plot summaries that can be written about each season, as MOS:TVSPLIT outlines. If you think there is something significant missing from the current list of episodes article that needs to be added, please explain what that is here. I can't see anything justifying the split to three separate articles right now, though. Katniss   May the odds be ever in your favor ♥  14:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Per above opposes. There aren't very many television series that merit standalone season articles, let alone standalone episode articles. And even putting that aside, we wouldn't even consider a split to season articles until after four seasons, at a minimum, so if a series ends or is canceled after its fourth season, no reason to split to season articles. If a series is renewed for a fifth season, then we would, following minimum standards, split to season articles, once episode information for the fifth season becomes available. Some examples include The Middle, The Goldbergs, and Modern Family. Although these are more examples of the minimum needed for season articles and would actually be better staying with just the episode list without the season articles. Amaury • 16:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to adhere to the Manual of Style in the article
I have edited this article three times. Every time it was reverted by User:Amaury. The first time no reason was given; it was just a blank revert. The second time, they reverted an edit that was explained as "use mdy dates, wp:commas, wp:spaceinits" with the rationale of "Not for date danges. And names per credits.". They appear to have misunderstood WP:DATERANGE. The third time, they reverted my miniscule addition of a comma per MOS:COMMA/MOS:DATECOMMA, repeating their daterange claim.

I then contacted Amaury on their talkpage, explaining that the added comma is prescribed by the Manual of Style. In their response(s) there, they seem to think that
 * 1) you don't have to follow MOS because it's only a guideline – never mind they apparently refer to a guideline (DATERANGE) in the edit summary of their reverts – and one should use "common sense", and
 * WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can override wiki-wide consensus. It can't. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."

MOS:DATERANGE, which Amaury seems to refer to, applies to date ranges where dates are separated by an endash, not where a range given as running text.

MOS:DATECOMMA explains the following:
 * Dates in month–day–year format require a comma after the day, as well as after the year, unless followed by other punctuation. The last element is treated as parenthetical.

Thus, this sentence in the article
 * ... that aired on Disney Channel from June 27, 2014 to January 20, 2017. is incorrect, while this version
 * ... that aired on Disney Channel from June 27, 2014, to January 20, 2017. would be correct.

I hereby seek consensus to adding the missing comma in the pair of commas that is prescribed in MOS:DATECOMMA.

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There seem to be two issues here: the spacing of the initials in M. C. Gainey, and the comma following the date.
 * In issue one, it may seem somewhat surprising to use the title of our article (with M. and C. separated by a space), as even at MOS:NAMES there's an example with spaced initials (George H. W. Bush), but the reason provided by Amaury, "names per credits" seems reasonable, and M.C. Gainey redirects to M. C. Gainey anyway, so I'd say the unspaced version is the preferable one. See MOS:TVCAST, in the paragraph beginning All names should be referred to as credited (third-last graph in that subsection).
 * For issue two, I don't see why Amaury is claiming "not for date ranges", unless they are indeed thinking of a dash-separated date range, as in the example Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist at MOS:DATERANGE. Since the edits in question use the word "to" rather than a dash to separate the dates in different years, and the dates are in the Month DD, YYYY format, there should be a comma after YYYY (2014, specifically), as at MOS:DATECOMMA.
 * The meta-issue here, not yet addressed by me, is whether we should adhere to the MOS. I say, we should. The problem is, people disagree on the interpretations of same, or they may simply misremember what the MOS says, while there may be overlap and conflict between the various MOS pages, besides which we keep refining the damned thing. I mean, improving it. So we should adhere to it, the question is often . &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Commas in date ranges like this is frankly ridiculous – I honestly don't care what the MOS says on the issue: doing that is completely nonsensical IMO. Frankly, I would rather wholesale reword the lede so there's no "date range" in that sentence than allow a situation where "...from June 27, 2014, to January 20, 2017." is allowed to go forward – the latter is just awful: it's basically a quiet murder of the written English langauge. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised and bemused to read this, IJBall. I see nothing nonsensical or awful (or murderous) about it. It is, in my view, a of the English languge to insist upon the comma after the "2014". If, in your view, use of the comma is so egregious a crime, I encourage you to go over and (try to) get consensus to "fix" MOS:DATECOMMA. That would be better than just "not caring" about the offensive MOS. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 18:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please – you and I both know, 1) a lot of the MOS's are controlled by a small cadre of editors whose views are not universally shared (and who are in some cases using the MOS's to run endarounds on things like WP:ENGVAR), and 2) changing anything on Wikipedia, esp. a MOS, is basically impossible. So, no – I am not going to follow MOS's in those cases where doing so will lead to nonsensical results. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It is a date range. June 27, 2014 to January 20, 2017 is the exact same thing as June 27, 2014–January 20, 2017. Both mean the same thing and both are correct. Commas also indicate a pause. When reading aloud June 27, 2014 to January 20, 2017, there is no pause after "to." If it means avoiding this ridiculous issue altogether, which shouldn't even be an issue, I lean toward 's idea. I'll likely thing of something, Amaury • 02:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My preference for rewording this would be something like "...that premiered on Disney Channel on June 27, 2014. The series ran for three seasons consisting of 72 episodes, airing its final episode on January 20, 2017." This actually adds more information to the lede anyway.
 * On the other issue, JohnFromPinckney is correct – HandsomeFella is confusing guidance on WP:AT versus MOS:TVCAST which clearly states to list "names as per credits": WP:NOTBROKEN clearly applies in this case – we should list the credited name and let the redirect take readers to the correct article title. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You can call it a date range if you want to, but WP:DATERANGE applies only to ranges separated by an endash. There isn't a single example that doesn't have an endash.
 * Also, an endash in a date range should be spaced: June 27, 2014 – January 20, 2017.
 * By the way, what was the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS you referred to? Please be specific, you cannot just namedrop a guideline.
 * HandsomeFella (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you paying attention? – We're past this: we're going to reword, so we can avoid the stupid comma here. Also, you may want to take a look at WP:GUIDES – Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Not putting a comma in a daterange is an obvious common sense exception. The MOS's are not a rigid "laws", and editors are not required to robotically follow them. I certainly will not when I think a MOS is wrong in a particular case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Recasting the sentence is a good workaround, but it's not "common sense" to skip the comma. It risks changing the meaning of the sentence (see last example below). As mentioned in the guidelines above, the last element is treated as parenthetical – with the exception of "other punctuation". To point out the "uncommon" sense by omitting the closing comma, I have replaced the commas with parentheses here:
 * ... that aired on Disney Channel from June 27 (2014 to January 20 (2017). is incorrect (more obvious mow), while this version
 * ... that aired on Disney Channel from June 27 (2014) to January 20 (2017). would be correct.
 * To further emphasize the need for the closing comma, consider this sentence:
 * ... but on January 18, 2022 workers at a construction site uncovered ...
 * Something major is apparently being constructed since there were more than 2000 workers on the site ...
 * HandsomeFella (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "...but on January 18, 2022, workers at a construction site uncovered..." would obviously be correct, with the comma after "2022." However, it is not a date range and a completely different case, and you very well know that. All you are doing there is comparing apples to oranges. Amaury • 16:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't calling for the comma on a date-range basis. I was referring to the DATECOMMA guideline, which has no date-range exception whatsoever. Your date-range claim is purely anecdotal. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * said it best that guidelines aren't rigid rules that we must follow robotically. That's why they're called guidelines. Exceptions will arise. If you can't understand that, that's your fault. Amaury • 18:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the rewording of the lede here, but the bigger problem is dealing with DATECOMMA across many other articles, particularly related to Disney and Nickelodeon shows. I am aware of what that guideline says, and like HandsomeFella has said, there doesn't appear to be exceptions regarding the "from ... to ..." and the related "between ... and ..." constructs on having a comma after the year of the first date. I probably would want to see a (reliable) source, outside of Wikipedia, that talks about standard English grammar and applies this exception, or perhaps a similar discussion within Wikipedia not involving any of us that says this exception should apply. Still, if there is no comma following the "from" or "between" year, for me, I don't bother fixing it, or if someone adds a comma that wasn't there, I don't bother reverting it. This problem is too contentious and needs some kind of arbitration past Wikipedia, honestly ... common sense and WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationales aside. I will point out that the comma following the "from" year is applied across many other TV articles outside the Disney Channel/Nickelodeon realm: Ghost Whisperer, One Day at a Time, The Dick Van Dyke Show, Home Improvement, Alice, Silver Spoons, The Office, The Donna Reed Show, Full House and The Jeffersons ... just to name a very select few. (Boy Meets World, the predecessor to this series, also currently has this comma after "from" date convention.) The point is: let's stick to the guideline, and hopefully I will too after being convinced beyond any reasonable doubt about one being completely wrong. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * On the contrary – don't "stick to guidelines" when it leads to stupid results. Just reword to avoid the idiocy. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Linking autism
on the episode Girl Meets Farkle it says that Fakle might have Asperger's a form of autism, autism should be linked. technicly Asperger's dosen't exist anymore and is just autism so i left a note behind: but then user:Amaury undid it they seid it sounded like i was talking with a personal option, so i just did the link with out the note and they undid it again, they tould me it's a common word, i dont think its a common word and i see autism linked on alot of other pages such as Autistic meltdown, stimming, OCD, Developmental coordination disorder, Borderline personality disorder, Social anxiety disorder, Heartbreak High (2022 TV series), List of YouTubers so its not a common word like these common words: car, cat, dog, toy, house, home, computer, personal computer, laptop and you are alowed to have two links close to each other so there is no reason why autism should be unlinked.

lets vote on it

I also would like to change the word "symptoms" to "traits" as autism is not a disease, but if i cant do that and mention the episode was wrong about Asperger's being a "form of autism" then the least i wanna do is link autism.

another thing i did in my original edit was link difficulty understanding love but that probably dosent need to be linked so i get that change. Anthony2106 (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree on autism not being a common word. But more so on readers wanting to know more about it through a link (per MOS:UL), like a number of other disorders that Anthony2106 brought up above. For the record, I originally wrote the episode summary for "Girl Meets Farkle" and didn't think of linking autism, because I had linked Asperger's right before that. (If I recall right, didn't the episode have some sort of PSA at the end? ... certainly another way people could find out more about autism.) I did look at the Asperger's article where it says in the lead that it has been merged with other conditions into autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and is no longer considered a stand-alone diagnosis. While it's no longer stand-alone, I'm thinking the diagnosis may still exist, just that it is identified as autism as well.


 * My first exposure to the word was with the movie Rain Man, and I was 20 when that came out. I know that in itself doesn't establish whether autism is a common word on not, but I think it isn't. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, of course, as the word is common knowledge; however, I will accept whatever the consensus turns out to be. This discussion should have been started after the first time instead of continuing to attempt to include contested material, per WP:BRD. Amaury • 19:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Amaury"If I recall right, didn't the episode have some sort of PSA at the end?"
 * I would not show a non-autistic person this episode to teach them about autism, I would rather them read the wiki page. Anthony2106 (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)