Talk:List of iCarly episodes

Requested moves

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved. Nominator should see WP:HISTMERGE for attribution. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

– See old discussion about this at Talk:List of iCarly episodes/Archive 3. Decision in that discussion was to stick with seasons as defined by Nickelodeon broadcasting announcements. This is very contentious and needs a concensus for these moves to happen. Also there is old content in ICarly (season 2 part 2) that should be history merged as it has edit histories that MUST be retained for the required attributions. I listed this article as a null move as the template requires that attribute be the current article and here is the proper place to discuss the proposal. Moves must be made in order to retain attribution history. The reason to reopen this is the latest information, a press release from Nickelodeon here, explicitly and with no ambiguity states 5 seasons. Also series is complete so this is a reasonable time to revisit this issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * List of iCarly episodes → List of iCarly episodes
 * ICarly (season 2) → ICarly (season 2 part 1)
 * ICarly (season 3) → ICarly (season 2 part 2)
 * ICarly (season 4) → ICarly (season 3)
 * ICarly (season 5) → ICarly (season 4)
 * ICarly (season 6) → ICarly (season 5 part 1)
 * ICarly (season 7) → ICarly (season 5 part 2)
 * Oppose: Well I pretty much stand on what I said above. Nick has used the production and broadcast cycle references in the past and have jumped back and forth between the two. They did refer the final production season as the "fifth" when they renewed the show back in April 2011, and afterwards we still had sources and Miranda call it, and list it as Season 6. Nick using the production cycle reference now is just this constant back and forth reference on how the show's cycles are displayed. As discussed in the Archive 3 link, in February 2011, Nick makes a press article regarding the release of Season 2: Volume 3 DVD. In April 2011, they make a article on behalf of the last renewed season they would call the fifth airing in 2012, and then in May they write an article on behalf of "iLove iCarly Collection" consisting of episodes from Season 2 and Season 3 with those particular episodes being the episodes shot during the show's second season filming cycle. Listing the split off seasons as "Part 1" and "Part 2" I think will be confusing and look odd. I believe it should stay the same or possibly at least be reduced down to six airing seasons like many sites have the show's seasons listed as including the show's official facebook status: . - Jabrona - 07:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer: Nickelodeon keeps going back and forth on this with their official statements. The latest press release announcing the last episode of the series explicitly stated 5 seasons. The DVD releases are labeled consistent with that. Since the first airing of the series is finished I think we should look to be more consistent with way Nickelodeon is packaging this series moving forward. Keeping the 7 season articles keeps the link to the way the series was aired but the renaming matches the last official statement, the production cycles and the DVD sets produced by Nickelodeon. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Geraldo, I would like to point out a couple things I didn't point out above. Listing the apparent split seasons as "Part 1" and "Part 2" would not really be consistent with the DVDs since the two separate seasons of Seasons 2 and 3 make up three DVD volumes and the last season of 15 episodes altogether I think we can all be sure of will not make up two separate DVDs seeing how Seasons 4 and 5 both consisting of nearly the same amount of episodes take up a single DVD release. Plus in regards to Part 1 and 2 labels, if we are to keep the still keep the split seasons as listed on behalf of the information given in the past regarding the broadcast cycle, then I don't really see the point in wanting to make any changes to their season labels because of Nick's latest article reference when they've mostly been going by the production cycle in their articles anyway apart from how they've been marketing the show on the TV. - Jabrona - 08:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason for the names is to keep the articles the way they are, just change the names. It is not just the latest PR, it is also the DVD titles. I would like to use the DVD cover art to act as illustration for the season articles as is used by most season articles and the names of the article should at least come close to what the cover art states. That is not the way it is now. I am not hung up on the exact names, I just would like to see the season part of the name match the PR and DVDs. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's good for you to want to keep the articles the way they are for the sake of having to revert and merge everything. However, it's not too much of an issue considering the details we have explaining this whole situation. I really don't think we need to display cover-art on the pages since having them merely listed works out fine too. However, there is some recent information I would like for you to look at on behalf of this "Season 6" and "Season 7" issue though from some good web sources. Aceshowbiz.com posted an article on November 24th here: www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00055771.html regarding the show ending after six seasons, while Hollywood Reporter posted an article the next day on the show ending after seven seasons here: along with this other sources:, , ,  to name a few. I was rather shocked to see all the "Season 7" references. - Jabrona - 22:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I oppose changing the format. Nick ALWAYS switches between production references and broadcast cycles. The fact stands that Nick promoted "iShock America" to "iGoodbye" as the seventh season, which is what we should stick with instead of some stupid "Part A/Part B" mess. It really does not have to be that complicated. The show is ending tonight. Please let all this debate over the seasons finally RIP with the show.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshwim8 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The show has completed its first run now, the broadcast cycle is less important than what is left to be viewed. The DVDs are the last official tangible output of Nickelodeon now. The naming is from example seen at The Sopranos (season 6). Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: But putting "part 2" will be confusing. If what Jabora says is true, and Nick keeps switching between the two, then we should refer to what the DVDs states since that's the next official statement to Nickelodeon. Jon23812 (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: what we have is kind of confusing to look at. When some sites say season 6 and some say season 5. None I see say Season 7. Lot of ther people don't think WP is that reliable anyway.Some do though. I am tinking that the people who are making the posting are going to what were saying. Also I know that Nickelodeon does not have a very good promoting department. They say new season for almost every show and its not a new season. Putting it into 2 parts might be a bit confusinbg but it should settle things. Also all of the DVDs are being released that way anyway. WP Editor 2012 (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I think it's clear seasons two and three are meant to be a definitive split. dan and the cast supported it and a new intro was even made for the season three episodes to seperate the two I'm a bit edgy on the whole season seven thing and think Nick should have never promoted the second half as a new season because of the little episodes. Many relaible sites are saying six seasons at the least anyway so I think we should follow that. i can understand the dvds being different since some shows tend to be different labels on dvd than the airing seasons like Soul Food where seasons three and four are merged and labeled season 3 on the dvd and Meet the Brown which has seven dvd seasons but only had five airing ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.92.223.203 (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think this can be argued both ways, and is well argued both ways above. Difficult. Andrewa (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. Both cases can be made but I think it'll be confusing if they are split up.-- Astros4477 ( talk ) 20:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It's common for seasons to be split for DVD releases. Doctor Who (TV series) and Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) are two instances. Amazon's instant page for the series shows how the series is split, with the episodes being divided into seasons without the "volume" stuff. Ω  pho  is  02:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose! Just because they are being split up in DVD or any other formats doesn't mean Episode articles need to be! The DVD part of the infoboxes give the proper delineation and you can also add a home media section to either the Episode List or even the main series article to explain the separate DVDs. — WylieCoyote 21:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quality Scale
I vote its WikiProject Television / Episode coverage quality scale as Low-Importance. ICarlytranslator (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2013
You should put summaries of the episodes.

66.211.57.234 (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This is already done on the individual pages for each season. Putting it all on one page would make for a very long, unwieldy article. This is common practice in articles about TV series. -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 00:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

List all specials as one episode
As per this discussion, I propose that the episode listing for iCarly be updated so that all specials, such as iGo to Japan, iDate a Bad Boy and iGoodbye, are listed as one episode in order to accurately reflect how Nickelodeon aired the episodes. Similarly, the concerned specials are also sold on iTunes and also displayed on The Futon Critic as one episode. This is also the way episodes are listed for other Nickelodeon shows on Wikipedia, such as Victorious and The Thundermans. I hope that this can be discussed and if there are no valid concerns raised or opposition, the episode listing can be updated. Thundermans (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – This is the general WP:TV consensus, and Amazon and iTunes selling them as one episode is a pretty good indication they should be listed that way, in addition to the episodes having aired with one set of credits. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Per above and my comments on the linked to discussion. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 15:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Should have been done before but a lot of other articles need to be updated to keep things consistent and correct. Also this article trancludes the episode lists from the season articles so those are the ones that will need to be worked the most. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, provided iParty with Victorious is also included in this. Basically any episode that is consistently rerun as a 60- or 90-minute episode (e.g. iGo to Japan, iParty with Victorious, iGoodbye), and sold that way on iTunes and Amazon, etc. should be listed as a single episode in the LoE, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is one caveat about that, and knows this all too well: Disney Channel, especially, seems to create a mess with its reruns of double-length specials. K.C. Undercover's "Coopers Reactivated" and "Tightrope of Room," for example, originally aired and are sold as single episodes on Amazon and iTunes, but Disney Channel chooses to rerun them separately, and I have a feeling the same will happen with "Coopers on the Run." It's even more confusing when they seem to go back and forth between airing them how they are meant to be aired and airing them separately. (That's why I believe the most accurate statement to go by is just how they are sold.) For example, the other night, a rerun of "Tightrope of Doom" aired how it was meant to by the production team, reflected by how it is sold. Additionally, sometimes, I think because of its length, "Tightrope of Doom" sometimes airs with the first part of the circus performance edited out. It goes straight from Cecil B. DeVille starting the circus to the Coopers' performance. Nickelodeon seems to do this as well sometimes, but it's not as bad. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nick has definitely done this with Game Shakers "Sky Whale" (and probably with others) – in reruns, they often air it as two separate 30-minute episodes, though they sometimes rerun it in the single 60-minute version. AFAICT, though, no one has seemed to do the reverse – e.g. take a separated 3-part saga like Best Friends Whenevers "Fight the Future" or Girl Meets World's "Girl Meets Texas", and reassemble it into a single 90-minute airing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * They sometimes seem to do this with "Henry and the Bad Girl, Part 1" and "Henry and the Bad Girl, Part 2," both of which aired on different dates, from Henry Dangers first season. That's the only one that I know and can think of off the top of my head. However, in a case like that, it's not being shown as a single episode, but rather two episodes back-to-back, much like how Make It Pops season two finale premiered. That's the argument that one user was trying to make here, but in that case, they were wrong. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like "One Henry, Three Girls" is another one as seen here on The Futon Critic. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I saw this discussion and I've changed the episode listing to list all specials as 1 episode. I did a search for pages that link to List of iCarly episodes (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&limit=500&target=List+of+iCarly+episodes&namespace=0) and tried to change the redirect pages to point correctly and was given 3 warnings by ClueBot NG for disruptive editing so I'm unable to continue changing the links. What can I do? ICarly episodes (talk) 07:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Edits looked OK to me so I undid the bot edits. ClueBot is sensitive to new editors doing certain things but ClueBot will generally let itself be reverted without complaining. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You want to check with AWB just to make sure nothing was missed? Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for the help! What do you mean, ? By the way, I've done changing the redirects for most iCarly pages to point to the correct episode. However, here's a few misspelled pages that I'm not sure how to proceed with: ISam'sMom, ISamsMom, Isamsmom, I sams mom, Isam'smom, ISam'smom, Isam'sMom, ISamsmom, IsamsMom, I samsmom, I sam's mom, I sam's Mom and I Sam's mom. These all seem to be created by one user and not really useful redirects. Only iSam's Mom should be kept. ICarly episodes (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fix them to point to the correct place too and otherwise ignore that they are pointless. It is hard to get redirects deleted, process is through WP:RFD, but generally if the redirects are not incorrect or obvious vandalism they mostly don't get deleted because of the "redirects are cheap" rational. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I made a typo. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks! I have pointed the redirects to the correct page and all the links should point to the correct episode in the listing, so this is done. ICarly episodes (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge season seven into season six
I did have a look through some of the archives both here and on the parent article—the latter of which had nothing on the matter—and from the discussions I did see, it remained unclear and there weren't 100% conclusions to any of those discussions. However, once the matter above is taken care of, I believe this can be taken care of.

Vendors, such as Amazon and iTunes, sell episodes and movies how the network provides those to them. If a network provides them a 40-minute episode, for example, they must sell it that way and can't re-package it as two 20-minute episodes or there would be legal issues. Season two of iCarly contains 45 production episodes, which is about the length of two seasons; because of this, I'm sure, Nickelodeon decided to split the season, with about one half airing as season two and about one half airing as season three. Amazon matches how Nickelodeon aired those episodes as can be seen here (21 episodes) and here (18 episodes). Here's where the complication comes in, though. Nickelodeon allegedly split season five, which contains 15 production episodes, into seasons six and seven. However, Amazon doesn't match this and has all season five episodes under season six as can be seen here. iTunes also only six seasons with season six containing all season five episodes. As such, I believe we should merge season seven into season six.


 * Support as proposer. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Definitely complicated, and I don't know where I stand exactly with this. The "iShock America" promo - one version here - clearly says "the final season of iCarly begins" with that episode. With Nickelodeon supposedly marking the start of that season (7) with that episode (not sure about whether any press releases came out to further establish this), and Amazon and iTunes showing it to be in the middle of season 6, definitely a tough call. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments – iTunes, unfortunately, can't be used as definitive: for example, iTunes groups episodes by "volume" and these often don't correspond to the broadcast seasons (e.g. see Bunk'd, which has had 2 seasons, but is in 4 "volumes" on iTunes). Further, when you click on "iCarly: The Complete Series", there you see iTunes arrange episodes by production season (of which there are only 5). So I'm not sure we can base much off iTunes. The Amazon arrangement of the episodes appears to be much more compelling that season 7 should be folded into a "combined" season 6. And it is probably noteworthy that iTunes' "Volume 6" contains exactly the same 13 episodes as Amazon's "season 6" does. However, the previous discussion at Talk:List of iCarly episodes/Archive 4 seems rather definitive, and is hard to ignore. Also, both Epguides and TV.com list "7 seasons", as does The Futon Critic. ("TV Guide" and Zap2It, OTOH, go off the prod. codes, and lists only 5 seasons...) Based on the preponderance of sourcing here, I think we're stuck with Nick's arbitrary decision to "announce" a "final" season that ends up being what most now call "season #7"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My suggest proposal here is that we add a line or two of prose to the top of the "season #7" section (and maybe to the "season #6" section as well) about this. But I think we're stuck as there are too many other sources out there recording "7" seasons... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For right now, let's focus on fixing the episode counts/numbering issue, and worry about this after that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For the individual volumes, in this case, iTunes does match all of Amazon's seasons. This is definitely a complicated issue, though, and while not quite as complicated, this reminds me of Andi Mack, where the producers sold the first two episodes to Disney Channel, Amazon, and iTunes as two separate episodes, but Disney Channel decided to package the first two episodes into their own version of a special. Here we have Nickelodeon promoting something one way, but selling it to vendors, like Amazon and iTunes, another way. And, typically, how episodes are sold is what we go by, especially when it comes to how to count episodes and the like.


 * But I agree. Let's worry about the above discussion first and then we can come back here when we can put our full focus on this. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting the merger
My thoughts from the discussion above are pretty much the same, only that integrated his own ideas into it that would make this work better. His proposal is to have one season six table with 13 episodes, as I mentioned above, and simply divide the table into season 6A and season 6B, with episodes 1–6 in season 6A and episodes 7–13 in season 6B. Having six seasons would match what Amazon and iTunes have as well, as previously mentioned. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Still support as proposer. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My full (recent) thoughts can be on this subject can be seen here . In a nutshell, I've come around to thinking that it's highly problematic that we on Wikipedia are the only ones listing "7 seasons" for this show when no other outside source are doing the same. Most list "5 seasons" (based on the production batches). Amazon, at least, lists "6 seasons", with Amazon's "season #6" roughly corresponding to Wikipedia's "seasons 6+7". So, as a I result, I now support merging iCarly (season 7) into iCarly (season 6), and using the Episode table/part template, and calling our current "season 6" → "season 6 (part 1)" and "season 7" → "season 6 (part 2)". If necessary, we can deal with Geraldo's concerns in the iCarly (season 6) article's prose, by mentioning that Nickelodeon advertised "Part 2" as a "new season"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Neutral on this now. In the past it was a big deal as the network did announce a new season. A note as part of the intro to a 6B would likely suffice. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood. But, effectively, that's elevating the Primary source over pretty much every Secondary source out there. And that's the problem I see with the current arrangement. Now, normally, we do give the primary source "extra weight" in cases such as these, but the fact that pretty much all of the secondary sources are handling this differently in the case is telling me that we shouldn't be giving the primary source "primacy" in this case... Also, as I pointed out in the discussion I linked to, other cable nets play this "spring season"/"fall season" game where they "split" one production season into these sort of "half-seasons" (e.g. Vikings (2013 TV series)), and I think treating the way Nick handled these last episodes of iCarly the same way makes the most sense in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

FTR, I'm going to give this another couple of weeks or so. But if there are no further comments by then, I'll be carrying out the season 7 → season 6 merger. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * With it clearly having been more than two weeks, are you still on-board with this? Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. But because of how I'd like to see it done, it's probably better if I do it. Unfortunately, that means this likely won't happen before late December or January... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Mechanics of merging
OK, so this is what I am thinking of, in order to carry out the merger that's been suggested...

For the 'Series overview' table, I'm suggesting we do something like this (focusing on just the relevant part of the table...) – I suggest possibly changing the two colors for the new "season 6" from the current colors (as the current "season 6" and "season 7" colors don't match up well...):

And for the episode table for the newly merged "season 6", something like this ( I'm just showing "selected" episodes here – basically the first and last episodes of the current "season 6" and "season 7"...):

Any thoughts on this? Or does this look OK to people?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I would have just 13 in the overview and continuing counting up and go from 6 in P1 to 7 in P2. The part labels themselves will explain things, in my opinion. Add: Since it is "one" season, just parted, colors should probably stay the same. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's generally not how it's done for the 'Series overview' table (see: List of Vikings episodes). Also, the reason I'm doing it this way is I'm trying to acknowledge Geraldo's original point – that "season 7" was advertised as a "new season". Again, this situation is similar to a show like Vikings where the seasons are usually split into something like a "spring season" and a "fall season" (e.g. Vikings (season 4)) – how Nickelodeon handled the "season #5 production batch" of episodes was very similar. So I think handling this in the same way that Vikings does is the way to go... But I've fixed the episode numbering in the table – you're right: the "season" number is just supposed to "count up" from 1 to 13 (e.g. a la Vikings (season 4)). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No arguments there. Although while doing this, it may be a good idea to remove a BUNCH of trivial notes, as all the episodes you selected above have, including the continuity part. Honestly, the only notable notes would be "This is a double-length special episode." There may be other notable ones, but the ones in the selected episodes here are completely trivial, outside of the double-length part. And I do have my own my plans on getting around to doing a huge cleanup on this as well as Sam & Cat. Like, we don't need a controversy section on the Sam & Cat article as it has nothing to do with the series. That's more appropriate on the Jennette McCurdy article. Just like the reasons behind Jake Paul's firing are more appropriate on his article, and on Bizaardvark, just state he left. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm purposely leaving those issues aside for now. iCarly is currently airing pretty heavily on TeenNick, so if anyone wants to go through these episode tables and "clean them up" and correct them, they're free to do so. On my end, I'm just going to focus on the "merge" part... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Conclusion
OK, I think I have completed the merging of the season 7 article into iCarly (season 6). At the least, the Wikipedia article now matches Amazon's "iCarly: Season 6" – – so at least Wikipedia is not wildly divergent from outside sourcing anymore... But I would appreciate it if everyone would look over the iCarly (season 6) article, etc. to make sure that I got everything, and hit all the highlights – so pinging, , and. TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)