Talk:List of Star vs. the Forces of Evil episodes

Episode Bon Bon question.
Reading the information about the episode. I have the a question of use the word Jealous. Star don't know about Marco or Jackie happiness.

I refer in episode 3 season one for Star vs the force of evil, show Star is jealous.

Need to explain the word use Jealous? I think it better using word envy... what the wand did will explain in the future episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.187.157 (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it applies to season 1 episode 3, but at least in "Bon Bon" it's closer to jealousy than envy. Here's an Internet article to explain the difference.  It's also subconsciously manifested by her wand action. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 08:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I just use episode 3 in season one ("The Other Exchange Student") as a example of Jealous of Star reaction. I read the article to post about difference between Jealous and envy. It seen to be more to quote "as unpleasant as it can be, usually doesn’t contain a sense of betrayal and resultant outrage." (Envy). I not going to explain about her wand power. That is in the future episode later on 2017. Star never want to hurt her friends. Even in her subconsciously, she do want to hurt her friends. At first Star realize about Jackie and Marco. The sound she make was not anger but sadness at the part when she looking at Jackie and Marco use spell All-Seeing Eye. Afterward wand cause Jackie and Marco fall, Star was angry (at herself). The wand act on positive or negative energy depend on user. I like the quote of Glossaryck saying "Spying leads to crying." In the sense, how interpret will be the problem. I hope the reader (people look at episode guide) understand that word Jealous is not about relationship, but sense of loneliness. Its is the most important part. 100.12.187.157 (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Autosigned by SineBot-->


 * Looking at reviews and comments pertaining to the episode, it looks like more people are calling it jealous than envy. But either word can work as long as it's subconscious AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Please hold off on adding February 2017 airdates
There are a bunch of IP edits wanting to put in the February 2017 schedule for Star vs. the Forces of Evil based on what is shown in the Calendar. http://www.disneyabcpress.com/disneyxd/calendar/ (click February 6, 2017, note there are no entries from February 13, 2017 onwards) and that it would end on February 27. However, these times are not confirmed as these were listed multiple weeks ahead that it would not appear in the regular television guide. You'll notice in the February 6 entry that "Raid the Cave" would premiere at 12:30AM, which makes NO sense for a Disney XD show premiere. So please hold off on adding airdates pertaining to February until they officially announce them. The Disney TV animation post https://disneytvanews.tumblr.com/post/155650822408/rest-of-season-2-thanks-nick-and-more-mon-26, which originates from Nickandmore (NOT a reliable source) is not official and is there only to confirm some of the episode titles according to the writer's response. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Is Disney a reliable enough source? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ykHYPYqK4c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.216.75.247 (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Let's use Zap2it and the usual listings first. Some of the episodes are now updated, but their prod codes are not listed yet. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's been updated with the February press release. So it's now pending production code confirmation from Disney XD press website. In the meantime, do not put February 27 end date until the 27th happens. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Production codes are now posted to Disney XD Press site. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Star vs. the Forces of Evil 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/20150801172423/http://www.tvmediainsights.com/tv-ratings/monday-final-nationals-gotham-fox-returns-season-low-numbers/ to http://www.tvmediainsights.com/tv-ratings/monday-final-nationals-gotham-fox-returns-season-low-numbers/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150927165930/http://www.tvmediainsights.com/tv-ratings/monday-final-nationals-scorpion-cbs-concludes-inaugural-season-positive-note/ to http://www.tvmediainsights.com/tv-ratings/monday-final-nationals-scorpion-cbs-concludes-inaugural-season-positive-note/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=disney%20star%20vs&Search_Code=TALL&PID=aht8fcc4XPmxejCuVOT4AhB8J&SEQ=20160318152446&CNT=25&HIST=1

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) 13:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The Battle for Mewni
Please hold off on adding the numbering for The Battle for Mewni until Disney XD Press assigns it proper production codes. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 02:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Finnsh off
Can I have help finnsh of Draft:The Battle for Mewni page 92.233.114.139 (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You need to find some news articles that review the reception and cultural impact of the television movie and show it is notable apart from the other episodes in the series. See Wishology for example section that details this. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks is anyone who can help actually edit it a bit a help complete TBOM 92.233.114.139 (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Do not add Part numbers
Do not give part numbers on the Battle for Mewni episodes as footnotes or title modifications. They are not referred to with part numbers in any of the published guides, and were originally presented as a two-hour special. The article already shows the order in which the episodes were first broadcast. Similarly, do not add "part 1" to divide and "part 2" to conquer. Those are NOT the titles of the episodes, and since the episode titles are not identical, they don't need to be distinguished like that. If you look at most serial dramas that have a "to be continued" type of story, they don't have part 1 to 4 unless the titles are identical. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

A spring in a season
with the upcoming fouth season should we split this page it seasons like Gravity Falls? Fanoflionking 12:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What you are proposing is the creation of season articles, not really a wp:SPLIT of this article as such. Season articles are not list articles like this one is, they cover the series on a season by season basis and look a lot like a series article with only one season. Need to meet appropriate notability guidelines as for any stand-alone article. I am not sure whether or not there is sufficient well-sourced season unique information on this series to support season articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Name change of Sabrina Cotugno
There is a conflict between MOS:TVCAST and MOS:GENDERID. Reading Cotugno's twitter message there are credits for "S. H. Cotugno", the name on the Twitter account and books published, and "Sabrina Cotugno" for existing TV credits. Cotugno wants people to use "Sage" for everything going forward. From the tweet dated June 6, 2023: "From now on, please refer to me as .. Sage". That would indicate Cotugno doesn't require retroactive changing of existing credits. For this article that means we should keep the name as credited and only use Sage for new work. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I don't quite see why their would be any conflict between MOS:TELEVISION and MOS:GENDERID. MOS:TVCAST states that "All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source." I see no reason why the second option of that rule, "common name supported by a reliable source." shouldn't be considered compatible with GENDERID. (In this instance, the "reliable source" would be Cotugno's social media post, as falling under the details of WP:ABOUTSELF. It should perhaps be noted, however, that since Cotugno is a series crew member, rather than cast member, the issue would probably instead fall under MOS:TVEPISODE rather than MOS:TVCAST. But even then, TVEPISODE does state that "Episode title, writers, directors, episode numbers, airdates, production codes, and viewership numbers must be reliably sourced, either from the opening/closing credits or from secondary sources", and I again see no reason why the "or from secondary sources" option shouldn't be considered compatible with GENDERID. Second, Cotugno's announcement also states directly that they want to have their previous television credits updated with their new name. From the tweet: "I'm credited as "Sabrina Cotugno" on the shows I've worked on! This is the main reason I hesitated to announce my name change. I'd like to get my credits updated". — Jamie Eilat (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The sourcing for credits just needs to be a reliable source, what is in credits on episode broadcast is generally used but that can be supplanted with a later reliable source giving different info. Normally a name change announcement doesn't change that - name changes are common and we generally don't change what is sourced based solely on that. A source that says the credits have been changed from what was in the broadcast would. So far we don't have that. Catugno states "I'm credited as "Sabrina Cotugno" on the shows I've worked on!", supporting what is in the article now, and "I'd like to get my credits updated", but so far that hasn't happened. I think we are conformant to MOS:GENDERID given what Catugno has stated by leaving things as they are until Catungo gets the credits changed and we get reliable sourced info that that has happened. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Doesn't MOS:GENDERID state that a person should be referred to with the name "that reflect[s] the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources"? To my viewpoint, Cotugno's name-change announcement would count as "the most recent reliable source", meaning that it would be more conformant with MOS:GENDERID to use "Sage" for the articles now, rather than waiting for other sources to also update Cotugno's crediting. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise." The statement: "From now on, please refer to me as .. Sage" would seem to meet that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That is ignoring the more direct statement by Cotugno later in the tweet that they would "like to get [their] credits updated". The "From now on" phrase is more reasonably meant to be a general statement, and there is no reason why it shouldn't include cases of referring to Catugno's prior work in the present day, especially when read against Catugno's direct indication of wanting their previous credits updated. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thus, their indicated preference is that they would want their prior work to be under their new name, "Sage". — Jamie Eilat (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That is the crux of the disagreement here. I put a lot more weight on "From now on, please refer to me as .. Sage" as reflecting the main message. Catugno wants Sage to be used going forward and would like existing credits updated. We should wait for that to happen before changing this article. Reading the rest of the tweet Sage actually transitioned some amount of time ago and made a deliberate choice after transition to use "Sabrina" and "S. H." as credited names for pragmatic reasons. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, Cotugno does explain that they were previously hesitant to reveal their name-change due to recognizability with their previous work, but that does not change that they have now chosen to reveal their new name, and have directly stated that they would prefer their existing credits to be updated. Again, if we know directly that their preference is for previous credits to be updated with their current name, and since MOS:GENDERID establishes that a person's most recently self-identification should be used, regardless of if it is not used most commonly by sources, then why wouldn't it be conformant to MOS:GENDERID to change the name now? Jamie Eilat (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is that Sage made a deliberate choice to use "Sabrina" and "S. H." after transition and after choosing "Sage" as their name. It is not a conflict for people to have a real name that differs from the pseudonym they choose to use as a professional name. This article reflects the name Sage as Sage deliberately chose to use for credits in this project after transitioning. Sage confirms that in the tweet. The fact Sage wants to change the old credits now to reflect a new professional name is something we can wait for. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What is absent here is a proper justification for why this is something that we can or should wait for. Cotugno's most recent personal and professional identification is "Sage", and it is established that they have directly indicated their current preference for being referred to by their new name for their previous body of work. The fact that they had previously used separate professional names, even for a period after coming out as non-binary, is not a relevant argument under MOS:GENDERID, which makes clear that a person's most recent preference for self-identification is what takes precedent (and part of Cotugno's most recent preference is for their current name to be applied to their previous work). Additionally the argument that a change of credits to their current professional name has not yet fully occurred to a substantial degree, and so we should wait, is also not a relevant argument, since MOS:GENDERID makes clear that a person's most recent preference for self-identification supersedes commonness in sources. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)