Talk:List of Sam & Cat episodes

Weird Problem
Hi. I was editing this page, and I added a few episodes. When I previewed my most recent update, everything was fine. However, once I saved it, something odd happened. The episode list is now in the wrong place on the page, and the formatting is off. I tried to undo my edits, but when I previewed it, nothing had changed. Can someone please fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyeybob (talk • contribs) 22:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Wrong Detail Of Sam and Cat Episode List
i am true follower of wikipedia and also love sam and cat show.

But today i found wikipedia shows wrong information of Sam and Cat episode list, The next episode of Sam and Cat is #Lumpatious but it shows Magicatm.

I already research lot and found that #Lumpatious is the episode which will air on January 4 2014.

Also no official word yet about other episode but i can confirm by showing official photos that the next episode is Lumpatious.

My Source- [Unknown Source Rmove By Myself] --SamCATfan (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

PS - i m new to wikipedia editing stuff so may be there is any typos error


 * Futon Critic episode guide http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/sam-and-cat/listings/ and Zap2it episode guide http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/sam-and-cat/episode-guide/EP01739643?aid=zap2it both show MagicATM as showing on Jan 4 and Lumpatious as showing Jan 11. Both are reliable sources. Blogs, unless they are hosted by the network, are not reliable sources for scheduling info so can't be used for any info. The network is the final say in when episodes are broadcast and the scheduling guides get their info directly from the network. The networks can, and often do, show episodes out of production order or not show an episode at all at their discretion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks for clearing my confusion--SamCATfan (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

TheKillerTunaJump is a one hour special
The issue of whether or not to count a single episode twice is being discussed at Talk:Sam & Cat as the issue effects both articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2014
Sam and Cat #FirstClassProblems 2.5 http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings/2014/04/29/saturdays-cable-ratings-and-broadcast-finals-nascar-nba-playoffs-top-charts-960214/cable_20140426/

50.96.148.237 (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 01:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2014
please change the viewership of #firstclassproblems to 2.5 million households http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings/2014/04/29/saturdays-cable-ratings-and-broadcast-finals-nascar-nba-playoffs-top-charts-960214/cable_20140426/

Hillcats17 (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC) ✅ --Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2014
Add Russ Reinsel as the director and 134 as the production code for Episode 34.

172.56.29.182 (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

❌ - All info about unaired episodes requires references. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"series finale"
Maybe, maybe not. A recent revert says: "So how come Nick said there is only 2 more episodes left then? The source is already hinted. Gee whiz." Basically, this says, "What else could it mean?" I am not here to provide an alternate hypothesis, merely to point out that the claim that the claim that "There's only TWO episodes of Sam & Cat left!" might mean the end of the series is a hypothesis, not a fact. Adding this is using a source (apparently the only source for the claim) that "serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." WP:OR. If it is the end of the series, rather than a hiatus or merely the end of the season, reliable sources will eventually state this unequivocally. Until then, your guess might be correct (or not). It is not, however, verifiable. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The tradition of using Nickelodeon promos to infer facts, is a tradition I would gladly watch disappear. Ever since the TMNT "Booyaka-Showdown" nonsense where all the kids were so sure that "Booyaka-Showdown" was the series finale title, and it turned out it was simply "Showdown"...well, it was a frustrating time.  Also, Nickelodeon is notoriously bad at promoting its shows and delivering consistent and reliable information. I don't have a problem waiting until reliable sources confirm the cancellation. I agree with your comments that "two episodes left" is not definitively "cancelled", as it requires us to infer meaning.  And since Wikipedia has no deadline it is not crucial that we include this information right now. Anyhow, "series finale" implies a planned event, like Family Ties, M*A*S*H*, Seinfeld, not the rolling, severed head of a prematurely ended series.  But that's tangential to the issue.  The real question is how the kiddos will deal when they're sure as shit that this is the end of the series.  If there's one thing the kiddos have problems understanding, it's the difference between being correct, and being able to source it properly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to get something a bit more direct about the series ending but I don't think "There's only TWO episodes of Sam & Cat left!" with no qualifications can be interpreted as anything other than there is nothing to follow, there are no more episodes to air after those two. A lot of times series just fade out of existence with no formal declaration of it ending, this statement on a network site is probably the best we will get. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Who should I believe then? Nickelodeon or some members of this site who says things out their way? JoesphBarbaro (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are interpreting what the Nickelodeon promo says to mean more than it actually says. So far, three editors have said as much. If you can find reliable sources stating that the show has been cancelled and/or is ending, feel free to restore it. At the moment, your statement seems to be WP:OR. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe this falls under WP:CALC - "Routine calculations do not count as original research". A statement with an obvious and unambiguous corollary is not WP:OR, nothing is being interpreted or synthesized here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll bite: What is being "calculated"? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record, in my own brain, I too interpret "two episodes left" to mean "the series is ending". In fact, I have previously expressed relief that FutonCritic finally started designating series as "cancelled" if it hadn't aired new eps in 12 months or released new information because FINALLY there was one source the kids could use to support these ghost cancellations.  But, I am also aware that the community is sensitive to such determinations if they are vague or require interpretation.  So, I could go either way on this, but I prefer to maintain the prevailing opinion.  This is a local flare-up of something that needs to be hashed out by the community once and for all, but the fires I've tried to light haven't yielded much in the way of specificity or change.  I'd love for us to finally arrive at a decision about what constitutes the "end" of a kids' TV series, and for what constitutes a "series finale" since I think these ideas, though linguistically similar, are not interchangeable.  This is probably not the venue for that, but if anybody wants to come with me to city hall, let's go! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The promos say "there are only two episodes left". Why not take it at face value? I think it would be synthesis to not believe what they say is true. — Confession0791 talk 00:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The promo says "there are only two episodes left in the series"? No. It says "there are only two episodes left in the season"? No. It says "there are only two episodes left". That you feel "face value" adds one of the several possible phrases that isn't there doesn't mean that you are correct. The source -- the only source -- says "there are only two episodes left". You can't think of anything else it could mean does not mean that is the only possible answer. "Look! A light in the sky! I can't think of anything else it could be, so it must be a faster-than-light spacecraft guided by advanced beings from the 17th planet of the the Draco star system, here to confer with the Queen of England, George Bush and the other part-alien lizard people who secretly rule the Earth... Or, wait, turns out it's just a helicopter. Who knew?" - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You could have made your point just as well without that level of sarcasm. — Confession0791 talk 03:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * They said there are two episodes left period. They didn't qualify it with anything, they left it as an absolute statement. If they had meant to say more they would have said more. Assume they are communicating clearly and correctly. Only one interpretation of that statement is really possible - as of the date of the statement there are two episodes left and then there are no more. I can't personally think of anything more clear they could have said. This is not theorizing about seeing a light in the sky and concluding what caused it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To add - this is still from a primary source and as such and per guidelines for use of primary sources we really should have a reliable secondary source for this type of info. Wouldn't hurt to wait and it could make this whole discussion moot. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I just looked for another source on this. I found a fair number of blogs discussing the rumor in April. More recently were two pseudo-newspapers in broken English discussing it as a rumor, with speculation tied to a Tweet from McCurdy. Considering the show is fairly high profile, the opinions here that this "obviously" means it's been cancelled don't seem to be widely held among the blogs dedicated to everything Nickolodeon. If we leave it in the article long enough, of course, that opinion will spread. Reliable sources, however, are obviously not convinced. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Now we've been given a second source for the series end:. I cannot for the life of me see how this source supports the claim that the show is ending. If anything, it supports the idea that sources disagree. It says: "BROADCAST HISTORY: 6/8/13 - ???". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't support anything other than that of the date of the second episode the first reference mentioned. It wasn't obvious to me initially why that reference was added. It is the same reference as one used in RTitle in the last table entry that supports its air date. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I placed that reference there only because, as I stated in my reason for the edit, the promo clip says nothing about when the last episode's date is (though that could change after the airing of the second to last episode on July 12, but I am speculating per WP:CRYSTAL). My thoughts now:  I suggest blanking the season finale column, and leave blank until an official cancellation or other indication from a secondary source that the episode scheduled to air on July 17 is indeed the final episode of the season/series.
 * Darn, forgot to sign comment above lol. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I tagged the reference used to support end date as requiring a non-primary source. At least indicates in article that we want something better. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Now not an issue as we have a good reliable secondary source reference supporting cancellation and a date for it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit summary length and content
Many of these edit summaries are far too long. Ideally they should be between 100-200 words per WP:TVPLOT. This is difficult to achieve when editors have difficulty discerning crucial information that improves our understanding of the plot, from non-crucial information that can be gleaned and enjoyed by watching the series. Wikipedia is not a replacement for watching the series and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Our aim at this article is to provide an overview of the episodes, which includes succinct synopses. We don't need to include every nuance, or every fact, or unsourced explanations of pop-culture references ("Inside-Out burger is a parody of In-N-Out burger", for example)--only what is necessary to understand the A-story, and a B-story if applicable. For example, twice  added the following text (emphasis mine) which doesn't explain anything about the plot:
 * Cat accompanies Dice to a job modeling hair for a Cover Boy magazine photo shoot in Arizona since Dice's mom and Aunt Ferjeen have come down with Coyote Fever.

How does Dice's mom and aunt having Coyote Fever influence the storyline? Because they normally would have gone with him, so Cat has to go instead? Firstly, that's something readers are left to guess, because it's not written clearly, and secondly, who cares? The stories are: Two people go to Arizona to do the hair modeling, two people do some stuff back home. Something's got to be omitted to turn a half-hour TV series into a 100 word synopsis.

Another example: In this version of the article, episode 2 begins, "Sam and Cat babysit two boys: Ethan, who asks a lot of questions, and Bob, who can't stop hugging." This content doesn't seem to have any other relevance to the story, except that Nona offers to babysit them, and Nona brings them back at the end of the episode. So I deleted the mention of the kids, because there was no indication they were crucial to the plot.

I'd like to continue cutting down these summaries and encourage help from editors who are capable of wrapping their heads around succinctness. (I say, fully amused with the irony of my rambling diatribe.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It was stated that Dice's Mom and Aunt Ferjeen were supposed to take Dice to Arizona only for them to come down with a disease called Coyote Fever. That is to answer the "Coyote Fever" thing. Perhaps the other editors wanted to have the names of the main kids that are being babysat mentioned in the plot. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The content you twice submitted about Coyote Fever, was ambiguous, and doesn't impact our understanding of the story. When it gets changed, it is up to you to figure out why, either by reading the edit summary, or being open to the possibility that there was something problematic about the content you submitted, instead of just submitting the problematic content again. You have been asked by a variety of editors to avoid excessively wordy and overly detailed plot synopses, but I don't sense the requests have ever resonated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The episode did mention that Dice's mom and Aunt Ferjeen came down with a disease called Coyote Fever which is why Cat had to take him to a hair-modeling job in Arizona. If this is what you don't want in the summary, how else can we rephrase it to your standards? --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It was rephrased to my standards when I cut it. I brought it up as one of many examples of information that can be cut from this bloated article. If people want to know why Cat went with Dice, they should watch the episode. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Trivial notes
I noticed some of the back-and-forth removals/additions of the various notes present in the article, for example here. MPFitz1968 did a great job watchdogging, and I probably would have reverted those edits simply because there was no coherent argument for why they should have been removed. That said, we typically don't include trivia in articles, and especially unsourced pop-culture analyses, which seems to be a hallmark of the Wikia contingent. I think notes like "This marks the first episode in which Bots appears [sic]" and "When Cat is yelling at Dice on her PC, one can see the PCA logo which references Zoey 101" can be sliced with a box cutter. Notes should exist for (get this) noteWORTHY events. Penny Marshall's and Cindy Williams' presence is noteworthy, but crap like: "In the last episode of Victorious on the Slap.com, Beck tweets that he feels Lumpatious" or "Ariana Grande appears with her natural brown hair in this episode" is total drivel. Most of this stuff is guided by MOS:TV, for example, WP:TVPLOT, which discourages unsourced pop cultural references, and is pretty clear about what sort of interpretive content should not be included. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that TheKillerTunaJump: Freddie Jade Robbie be merged into this list, as the former does not meet the general notability guideline (no critical reception, not enough third-party sources etc.) 23W 03:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: I agree, it is an extended episode but article does not expand on what is in this list. No need for a standalone episode article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To add, that article and the vast majority of its content was extracted from this article by indef blocked user, a sock puppet of indef blocked . Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I redirected back to ep23 as there seems to be no objection to doing the merge. Content already in this article is sufficient coverage for this topic so no content needed to be copied back to here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: Doesn't seem necessary to have stand-alone episodes for a show that didn't last a season, and there doesn't appear to be a significant expansion of the content in this article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Series overview section
Since July 10, 2014, I've been seeing the table headings flip-flop between Season Premiere/Season Finale and Series Premiere/Series Finale. The first time I saw it happen was with this edit [1 ], which I subsequently reverted [2 ], and indicated how it affected the integrity of the table ... with Season in the first column. However, in future changes to the headings, I've let stand, even where one edit changed it so it just read Premiere/Finale [3 ]. There needs to be a consensus on how the headings should read, and stick to it. Personally, I would go with the original Season Premiere/Season Finale, since this table on a general scale is designed to show each season's start and end date (as is shown in other television series' articles, like with the show's two predecessors, iCarly and Victorious).

During this time frame, I've also seen the section blanked out altogether, like here [4 ] and here [5 ]. I'm against that, but again, we need consensus on whether the section should exist.

MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggest changing the table to just:


 * It is good to have an overview of episode total and end and start dates. Don't need to mention seasons as this series not really a season based show now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey Fitz, I could either take or leave the overview. I think these are useful for series with multiple seasons, but I think the overview is not as important for a show with less than one season of content. But whatever you and Geraldo prefer, I'm cool with. I've opened a discussion at WikiProject Television about "Series finale" because I've got a bug up me arse. Please drop by to lend your thoughts if either of you get a moment. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Just took out the "Season" column in the table, as Geraldo suggested, and labeled the "Season premiere" column "First episode", and the "Season finale" column "Final episode". MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. I like the overview as I don't have to scroll to bottom of list to get the episode count and end date. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge with Sam & Cat
This may be a very bold move on my part, but I'm going on this edit which removed the series overview section, and the editor has a valid point, per the WP:TVOVERVIEW guideline, as it did not go more than one season. Splits to "List of ... episodes" articles normally do not occur until there is a second season, so it baffles me why this has been separate from the TV show's article in the first place; it was even around before the first episode of the show aired back in June 2013 (like this version from May 23, 2013). MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of meh on this and have also considered a bold merge. I decided aginst it, as even though only one season, 35 episodes is a lot and close to the episode count for two seasons. This show ending was a surprise, thus the initial split. If you do a merge, I won't object. Just be sure to give proper attributions per WP:CWW and WP:MERGE Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Merging 35 episode listings back in to the main series article may be overkill. I think I'd advise against it. WP:TVOVERVIEW is a guideline, and in most cases it makes sense to leave one-season TV series episode listings in at the main article, but this may be one of those rare cases where following the "letter of the guideline" may be too WP:BURO-y, and leaving the episode list split out separately may serve the encyclopedia's readership better. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree they should stay separate. 35 episodes would really unbalance the main article. Happy Squirrel (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm against because there are so many episodes already, and originally there were only going to be 20. The extra page is easier to acess the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AriIsGrande (talk • contribs) 04:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

This merge attempt does illustrate how this info unbalances the main article. I undid it because there does not seem to be concensus in this discussion to merge at this point and also because WP:CWW and WP:MERGE procedures were ignored. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

. Merge proposal has been open a year. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Sam & Cat episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nick.com/shows/sam-and-cat/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150708071928/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/07/18/thursday-cable-ratings-pawn-stars-tops-night-loiter-squad-married-pawnography-more/283964/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/07/18/thursday-cable-ratings-pawn-stars-tops-night-loiter-squad-married-pawnography-more/283964/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Sam & Cat episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130720232341/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/07/16/cable-top-25-rizzoli-isles-again-tops-cable-viewership-for-the-week-ending-july-14-2013/192151/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/07/16/cable-top-25-rizzoli-isles-again-tops-cable-viewership-for-the-week-ending-july-14-2013/192151/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

About the changes from "Guest star" to "Special guest star" in recent edits
This is the most recent of the edits, but has happened a few times now:. All of them have been reverted because the change in billing isn't correct. Or so I thought.

I decided to take a look at the credits of the two episodes in question, "#TheKillerTunaJump: #Freddie #Jade #Robbie" and "#SuperPsycho" ... found at the end of each episode. I checked both Amazon and Netflix (both, just to be double-sure, though the "KillerTuna" one is split into two parts on Netflix and for some reason the credits appeared only in the first half, and didn't include Matt Bennett). Here's how it looked for "special guest stars" and "guest stars" on the Amazon versions, exactly how it appeared and in order ... and Netflix was for the most part the same, with the exception noted above:


 * Episode 23: "#TheKillerTunaJump: #Freddie #Jade #Robbie"
 * Special guest star: Nathan Kress
 * Special guest stars: Matt Bennett, Elizabeth Gillies
 * Guest starring: Mary Scheer, Cyrus Arnold, Steve Lewis


 * Episode 30: "#SuperPsycho"
 * Special guest star: Noah Munck
 * Guest starring: Reed Alexander, Danielle Morrow
 * Guest starring: Ronnie Clark, Anthony Heald

Now if I recall right, the way Nickelodeon showed the credits when the episodes aired on the network vs. how they are shown in the VOD versions have been different - not sure whether the billings were different or if certain credits were added/omitted when comparing the two - so I'm not sure whether we should go with the changes outlined here, or keep the credits as is in the article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, I noticed the edit also included the episode "#SalmonCat" (Episode 17), but I haven't checked that one yet. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I doubt they'd change the credits between original airing and syndication, but they may have decided to. I suggest going with the credits we can verify and making the article match the credit levels shown if we can't verify against the original. I reverted as the changes were made without saying why and looked to be WP:OR evaluations of importance other than reflecting how credited and stuff that has been stable for a long time is presumed to be correct over recent unexplained changes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, will make the changes in the article in a little bit. Just checked "#SalmonCat" and it shows Penny Marshall and Cindy Williams receiving special guest star billing, right after the opening credit sequence finished (both names in the same frame, with Marshall's name to the left and below Williams, which is to the right ... so if I remember right, per this style for the leads in Shake It Up and Best Friends Whenever, Marshall should be listed first). I don't doubt that's the way that was shown in the original airing of that one. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)