Talk:Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure

Copy Editing and Reducing Excess Details
Hi everyone! I just wanted to give a heads up that I'll be copy editing the "Characters" section for this article. I also noticed the excessive amount of detail put into each character description and will also be removing some content to make the descriptions more concise. Mkanesh (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Amaury's Reverts
Amaury keeps reverting my constructive edits & keeps reporting me for 'vandalism'. I've never faced such nuisance from other editors. And here I was thinking editors here are mature people who want to make Wikipedia a perfect source of information. 150.129.30.222 (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that this IP is a sockpuppet and has been evading their blocks by using different IPs. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet, nor have I ever changed my IP, I just want to contribute to Wikipedia but this Amaury seems to enjoy edit warring & reporting me. I think he got all those Anti-Vandalism stars by reverting absolutely any new edits he comes across. 150.129.30.222 (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree Jibjobbog (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Source
As the calmer editor, I'll start a discussion here for you instead of edit-warring. Hope that clears things up for you! --  Alex TW 04:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Per this revert: when are they "preferable"? When has this been the "standard format at these kinds of articles"? I could list hundreds that use separate refs for separate episodes. What do you mean by "these" articles?
 * Per this revert: I'm not sure what you're meaning here? as for "Where's it say only upcoming needs refs?" that can be seen at Template:Episode list: RTitle documentation, "Future episodes should include a reference in this field to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability." Also multiple discussions at WT:TV and WT:MOSTV about removing episodes after they have aired. Aired episodes act as primary sources, which is the policy that I am maintaining. See? I do enjoy policies. Also, was there a reason for removing the quote parameter? Especially given that the page that appears upon page load is not, in fact, that episode guide.
 * Also, per MOS:MAJORWORK and WP:NCF, titles of films and short films do not use quotes, only italics. See the film's article for a further example. Thanks. --  Alex TW 04:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll make this simple for you Alex – the belief among some WP:TV participants that references "aren't needed" after an episode airs is not only not rooted in policy, it's effectively contra-policy, as Amaury pointed out in his edit summary. Of course, future episodes must be sourced, as per WP:CRYSTALBALL. But there is nothing that says aired episodes "shouldn't" be sourced after the fact. Aside from that, your deep aversion to using column refs is also not based in anything but your own version WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Plenty of articles use column refs over row refs in episode tables, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that in many cases. It looks like the consensus here is in favor of column refs. Now, as it doesn't actually "hurt" anything at all that way, why don't you just leave it, hmmmm? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, aired episodes act as "primary sourcing" for things like crediting and plot details. They don't act as primary sourcing for their own air dates (how could they?!). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Since that is the title reference, the template permits it, and the episodes themselves don't contain the title it should be sourced. Also a form of vandalism is changing titles and it it very useful to have a title reference to quickly check against instead of watching an episode to verify the info even if the title is in the episode itself. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would recommend taking this to WP:TV if you disagree with their opinions - I'll happily post there pointing towards his discussion, if you'd like! I believe you didn't see my point towards WP:PRIMARY, I do recommend reading that. :) And actually, I highly support using column refs! See Game of Thrones (season 8), for example - shall I link some more? I'll happily do some. And my apologies, but I don't believe that consensus is formed between two people? If you need a source for the airdate, might I point towards airdateR? Concerning content disputes, Wikipedia is all about discussion! That's what this is! --  Alex TW 04:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, we don't have to run to WT:TV for every decision made. And it's 3 people here that seem to support column refs (actually 4, as you reverted another editor who hasn't commented here). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As you mentioned WP:TV participants yourself, I have posted there so that they might give their own opinion! Cheers. --  Alex TW 04:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You're both right and wrong. You're right that references can be removed once an episode airs, but that doesn't mean they should. Additionally, I'm fairly sure that removing sources from aired episodes has more to do with the RTitle parameter specifically so the References section doesn't become cluttered if it can be helped. That's why we use column references as a reference is then only listed once in the References section with a list of letters next to it if it's being called more than once. Column references source both past and future episodes. If there's ever date vandalism, a date dispute, a dispute on whether an episode is one or two episodes, etc., having the sources there makes it really easy to check and go, for example, "this is clearly a date vandal," without having to go and dig up the source. WP:PRIMARY is more appropriate for things like how actors are credited on the on-screen credits, but you can't tell when an episode originally aired simply by watching the episode. How does watching "Rapunzel's Enemy" tell me it aired on March 31, 2017? It doesn't. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, a reply in the middle of the discussion! Nice! I don't think four reuses of a reference is considered to be extreme - this one is used over two dozen times! And I'm noting that a lot of replies are based on being able to check if an edit is valid or vandalism by having the source there - does the source not still exist, just in a different place? And as I suggested earlier (later, since it's below?), might I suggest the airdateR for the airdate reference? It seems to be the correct one for what you're requiring. I don't believed you answered all of the concerns listed, however... --  Alex TW 04:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're using a source, as a row reference, for things like title and airdates of future episodes, then, no, it is not obvious that that reference would also apply to already-aired episodes. And when the row refs that are used for future episodes are those Futon Critic P.R. refs that refer only to the single episode in question, then, no, they aren't referencing previously-aired episodes at all. Again, this is why a general column reference in an episode table for a series (usually Zap2It and/or The Futon Critic) is preferable, and why they are used widely at the articles for Nick and Disney TV series – they will source both past and future episodes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My bad, I wasn't aware that this article was using Futon Critic P.R. refs... I'm genuinely curious, can you indicate other articles where a column ref is used? I'd like to gain a wider view on this. Nick and Disney TV series - is that what you mean by "these" articles? Why only those articles, and not general television series? --  Alex TW 05:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * has done the even better idea and added a general references section! Are the header refs still required, now that the episodes can be checked and sourced from these? What do they now do that the general references section does not? --  Alex TW 05:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, there's no reason not to just use (inline) column references. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The references can certainly be put down there, but to be used as WP:LDR in the table(s) since they're permanent or semi-permanent references. It's convenient and creates an ease of access. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a bit of a reason and I just gave it. One line answers won't help us discuss... Also, IJB, you didn't see to note any of the questions I asked; a response would be greatly appreciated. And indeed, the references at the bottom do create an ease of access, meaning that they are readily available in case of any title or date vandalism, which seems to be the main case of concern here. Now that that problem's been solved, it looks like only the future episodes need to be sourced! --  Alex TW 03:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I said having them in the table is convenient and ease of access. The issue isn't solved just because you say it is. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 03:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong-o – WP:Readers first: you put inline sources in the episode tables to facilitate readers finding them when looking through the episodes listings. Most people won't think to look at them at the bottom of the page, and there's zero reason to do that in lieu of inline sourcing that in the episode tables... As to your other questions, I suspect I didn't answer them because I don't find them germane to this discussion. Again – why are you making such a big deal about this? WP:V, etc. is on the side of us who like the referencing as it is now, and you only seem to be against it on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis. Why don't you just drop this? There's no policy-based objection here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How do the references differ based on location? Hint: They don't, they provide exactly the same content and can be used to back up and confirm the exact same things. And what you've described as the issue is anything but readers first, you've stated very clearly you only want it there to confirm titles and air dates in case of vandalism - if anything, that is editor first. They don't need to look for them at the bottom of the page - that's what the table of contents exists for! I love how that exists, don't you? WP:V states nothing about inline citations, so it's not siding on anyone's side. To paraphrase something I read once, the questions aren't not germane just because you say they are. Wikipedia is based on discussion, not just editors begging others to drop it and allow their version to stay. That reminds me of a specific policy... --  Alex TW 05:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We told you. It's ease of access. It doesn't matter that WP:VERIFY doesn't state anything about inline citations, because inline or not, they are still citations and fall into the same category as regular citations. Many readers wouldn't think to look at the bottom of the page, like IJBall said, but I guess it's not surprising that you don't seem to care about our readers. Also, WP:CONSENSUS is another policy if you're going to play that card. And you have at least three editors here so far who disagree with you—four if we count as they originally inserted the column reference which you reverted without even so much as a proper edit summary—so you're clearly in the minority here. We're providing different arguments with each of our messages here; meanwhile, you're essentially repeating the same nonsense argument over and over. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 05:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. So, the content is already verified, regardless of location, and hence, it does not need to be verified again. I'm pretty sure there's a guideline or policy on oversourcing... I might ask over at VPPOL what it was. And the number of people who oppose it is irrelevant - I recognize the consensus forming, which is why I've been the mature editor and not forced my version (i.e. the one that is actually the status quo). FYI, I've posted at WP:TV again, asking editors if past titles and airdates need to be sourced. Seems a wider view is required on this. If I'm repeating the same nonsense over and over again, then so are you - I do enjoy our discussions!! --  Alex TW 05:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Seems a wider view is required on this." Or you're just wrong. There's that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I so do enjoy your one-lined running commentary. Or you're just wrong. There's that... Or you're just wrong. There's that... Goes both ways. There is no right or wrong in discussions. Cheerio! --  Alex TW 05:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And the number of people who oppose it is irrelevant - I recognize the consensus forming, which is why I've been the mature editor and not forced my version (i.e. the one that is actually the status quo). Nice try, but no. The number is relevant, and the status quo version is the current version since it conforms to guidelines and polices. And you're a mature editor? Right. Mature editors don't go around bullying or trying to bully people into getting their way and then go seeking more opinions in the hopes that maybe one person, just one, will be on their side when they don't get their way. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 05:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * When it's 3-plus versus one, that usually shows you which side of the argument is "winning" as it were... Of course, part of your problem here is that you're viewing things like the verifiability of airdates and episode titles as an editor of currently-airing TV series – you start to realize how important sourcing airdates for previously-aired episodes is when you're dealing with 20, 30, 40 year old television series which have been attacked by IP date vandals over a period of years. But, again – I don't expect valid policy-based arguments to change your perspective here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you appear to have gained the absolutely wrong meaning of what a status quo is. What do they teach these days? Read up WP:STATUSQUO for some meaning, it's only an essay but you might just find yourself enlightened. Put simply: version, existed, before dispute. Accusations of bulling are personal attacks, I would also recommend you read WP:NPA - that one's a policy. A bit like the accusations that I ignore policies. And I'm not canvassing to one person, I appealed to the entirety of the Television WikiProject. Bit more than one person, no?
 * Tut tut tut, IJ! We all know that discussions aren't about WP:WINNING! Good golly, I'm shocked! Yes, I am viewing this as a currently-airing TV series, as Tangled: The Series is, surprising to everyone what with its quality, a currently-airing TV series! Thanks for the running commentary again. It just came to my mind that we're completely off-topic. I wonder how that happened, if anyone did that to take anyone's eye off the dispute to keep the current version... --  Alex TW 06:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * [Whoosh!]... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Whoosh indeed! What a confirmation. --  Alex TW 06:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * At most, it borders on one, but it's not a personal attack when it's actually happened, or have you forgotten about the multiple times you were dragged to WP:ANI? Because I will literally stay up all night and pull them up. And before you spew stalking BS, I regularly keep up with discussions on the noticeboards. Also, per IJBall, whoosh! Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 06:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I consider it a personal attack. The word personal means personal view, right? Yeah. Hence, personal attack. I've saved the diff about winning discussions, though. Whoosh, fellass! --  Alex TW 06:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent bold edit
A recent WP:BOLD edit has been partially reverted (the episode tables). Per WP:BRD, after a bold edit is reverted, a discussion should begin and be resolved before reinstating the content, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it.

The reason for the revert is the mass-deletion of content - that is, the directory, the "story by" and "written by" parameters. They have been included in the infobox, yes, but that is not episode-specific, and MOS:TV and WP:TV support the inclusion of this content in episode tables. --  Alex TW 10:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure we're aware, episode tables for animated series can grow big because of how many front-end credits there are, and this isn't a problem with live-action series since all you have are directors and writers. For animated series, it was suggested elsewhere a while ago that storyboard personnel should be removed since they're not that important; others disagreed, so it was kept. When there's very little variety in the crew, such as directors, it makes much more sense to list them in the infobox and as prose above the episode table if there's an episode list. There's a reason those infobox parameters are there, and they've even explained at Template:Infobox television. At the same time, just because a parameter exists doesn't mean it has to be used. If the directors, writers, etc. are listed in the infobox, then they don't need to be listed in the episode table; vice-versa, if they're listed in the episode table, they don't need to be listed in the infobox. MOS:TV may support them, but it is only a guideline, not a policy.


 * Additionally, the episode table portion of my edit contained a bunch of other cleanups, organization, and corrections unrelated to the columns, which were reversed when the partial revert took place, and there was absolutely zero reason to do that. The director column as well as the other parameters that were removed should have been manually re-added, or I could have been contacted, and I would have re-added them while discussion took place. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 01:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My impression of the current arrangement is that it's kind of ugly – Has anyone tried to see what this would look like with a separate 'Storyboarded by' column, a la List of The Loud House episodes? (Note: This should only be done if the "storyboarders" on this series are given as much prominence as they are on The Loud House – if the "storyboarders" aren't front-credited, then they shouldn't be included at all...) FTR, I generally don't watch the animated series on either Disney or Nick, so I don't have any particular POV in regards to this article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They're front-end, yes, after the opening sequence, so should be listed. See the first episode, for example, which Disney Channel's YouTube has available for free: . Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 01:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I am aware of that, yes. However, simply because there's a lot of info, doesn't mean we need to remove it, especially when there's a good deal of variety concerning who directed what episodes - if they were directed in blocks (e.g. Tom Caulfield directed the first third of the season, Stephen Sandoval the second third, and Joe Oh the final third), then perhaps yes, it could be removed and put into prose, but each episode is directed by a different director in a different order, and thus this episode-specific content should remain. As for the storyboard info, I'm not fazed that, they can be removed if need be, I only added the extra parameters to StoryTeleplay to tidy it up myself a while ago.
 * As for the infobox, the usage of an infobox in any article on Wiipedia is to summarize that article - we cannot include content in the infobox that is not included in the article, as we would not be summarizing it, we would be listing it as new information. That is to say, we cannot list the directors there and then not expand upon this at all in the article. (WP:TV articles do seem to have an issue with this, especially concerning producers, etc.)
 * BRD concerns the revert of an edit, not the re-adding of specific content. (I would note that I did re-add the production codes.) If you want, we can start adding episode tables to this discussion (probably in collapsed sections) (and as partially suggested by IJBall, we can list out separate tables and adapt them here) and compromise on a layout.
 * Another general guide to go by is the idea that column widths should be equal to each other between separate episode tables for conformity, as it currently stands (or did, before the production codes). Also, per MOS:TITLE, films (such as the pilot film of this series) should be in italics, not quotes or both. --  Alex TW 04:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * As suggested, here's an example without the "storyboard by" info, and the columns correctly formatted between tables. The shorts really don't need their own table, as its just a table of titles and dates without summaries, and one sentence of prose saves a lot more room. --  Alex TW 05:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

==Episodes==

=== Series overview ===

===Film (2017)===

===Season 1 (2017)===

===Tangled: Short Cuts (2017)===

Four mini-episodes were released weekly in May 2017: "Check Mate" on May 5, "Prison Bake" on May 12, "Make Me Smile" on May 19, and "Hare Peace" on May 26.


 * Just taking out the storyboard personnel makes the table look much better. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it looks much more like a regular series' episode table now. Especially once the "storybord by" information is removed, the "written by" information can be removed too. --  Alex TW 01:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I made a few tweaks - thoughts? I've added the combination of number in overall/season cells, so that the film is listed as 1, per the current version of the article, and Season 1 lists 22 episodes to match the series overview table. --  Alex TW 16:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Rapunzel and the Fate of Corona is now Secret of the Sun Drop
See tweet by Tom Caulfield, series animator: https://twitter.com/TomCaulfield01/status/944177433766346752  --73.106.184.225 (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also see Yahoo News: 'Zachary Levi previews action-packed 'Tangled: The Series' season finale' "For example, in the Season 1 finale of Tangled: The Series — which airs Jan. 13  ... The season finale of Tangled airs Saturday, Jan. 13, at 8 a.m. on Disney." AND Disney  'CHECK OUT THIS EXCLUSIVE CLIP FROM TOMORROW’S SPECIAL SEASON FINALE OF TANGLED: THE SERIES' - "... Tangled: Secret of the Sundrop this weekend on Disney Channel. The special episode (which is also the season one finale!..." --73.106.184.225 (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can't use unverified twitter as a source of info however this http://www.thefutoncritic.com/listings/20171220disney06/ press release says "Secret of the Sun Drop" is season 1 finale. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What it replaced had no source, but thanks for the backup source. --73.106.184.225 (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Ratings average
There really was no reason to remove that. If the issue is sourcing, the individual data comes straight from the sources in the table and doesn't need to be sourced directly in the calculations. The average is then calculated automatically with Wikipedia's expression function. See WP:CALC: Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations. The average is not coming from manually finding the answer. See also relevant comments from on a related discussion here. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No policy reason to remove the table that I am aware of. Don't want to rehash previous discussion linked above here, it would just be a repeat of same. Down to editor consensus as to what should be in the article. I think it belongs as each item in the calculation is well sourced and result is a trivial calculation. Replace it if get a final number from some other reliable source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Completely missed this one. Sorry, I don't have this page on my watchlist, I only drop by it every few days. As for the content, my (main) issue wasn't sourcing. It's acceptable to include it, especially with CALC; I even agreed to this exact same situation with the average ratings for Doctor Who! I have no issue with how it currently stands.
 * However, as the ratings table is a review of the seasons as a whole, the episodes and ratings numbers should only reflect the season as a whole, as explained in my removal and per the template documentation: The number of episodes included in the season in question. The count is for the total episodes, rather than how many have aired, and The official average viewers released by the network for the entire season. Season 1 had not yet concluded at the time; the episodes should have stated 21, and the average could not yet be determined for the season as a whole. Meaning when Season 2 is able to have a table created, the episode cell should state how many episodes will be in the season overall, and the average viewers cell should be filled only once the season has concluded. --  Alex TW 17:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Question
Why is Eugene in front of Rapunzal, I get it’s in order of appearance but shouldn’t the mains be in order of importantance? Jibjobbog (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No; per WP:TVCAST, we list them in order of credits as sorted by the series' producers, not level of important as decided by us, which would constitute WP:NOR. --  Alex TW 22:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Name change for season 2
This article is for the entire series. Name change takes effect for season 2 but hasn't happened yet. The WP:COMMONNAME for this series is still Tangled: The Series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How are we sure the title change isn't for the entire series? Is the title going to change every season like the Pokémon or YuGiOh dubs, or is this a Valerie/Valerie's Family/The Hogan Family-esque rename (without the behind the scenes drama) that does change the name of even the prior episodes?--Harmony944 (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Geraldo is absolutely correct. And this should not be moved again without a formal WP:RM – we need to wait to see how this plays out before any hasty moves are made. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We should go with the name used at the time of first publication (means first broadcast for a TV episode) as that is basically historical data. Particularly if the series name is embedded in the actual episode. Basically they can reissue season 1 with a new series name but they can't retroactively change what was already done. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The Hogan Family says hi--Harmony944 (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also see ''Star Wars. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Way to ignore the points made upthread. And a serious question, Harmony944 – have you ever edited Wikipedia under another named account? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No I haven't, why? EDIT: Also, New Looney Tunes was known as "Wabbit" in season one. If the change to Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure is permanent, then it should be moved to that title and not kept at Tangled: The Series.--Harmony944 (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME applies. If the whole series becomes more known by the new name then the article name will follow. Currently there is a redirect at Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure so no issue with people finding the article with that name. A change in article title needs to be discussed and evidence presented that the new name is the most common name before the article is moved. The WP:RM process is the proper procedure to get that done. Likely too soon now to seriously consider it but may change in the future. No need to rush this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, see, that's fair, though I think because of that, the new title has a lot stacked against it because the old one is far more on the generic side, meaning informal reference phrases like "The Tangled series" or "That Tangled show" would be far more easily conflated with it than the newer. At least you're somewhat open to the move, but it looks like I shouldn't get my hopes up--Harmony944 (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We would only be looking at official titles, the other phrases would stay as redirects so shouldn't impact the decision. Need to watch reliable sources mostly and see what they use. Page view statistics of the redirect and this page also factor into the choice to see what people are searching for. It is likely inevitable that the article name will change if series stays at the new name for a third season or more. A bit of a grey area for the second season as have more episodes under the old name than the new one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds great. I would just like to point out that this edit summary claims the alternate title parameter is only for international titles, and not those of previous seasons, however Don't Be Tardy uses it for its "Don't Be Tardy for the Wedding" title from its first season. I'm not fighting or anything, it just seems like if it weren't for that use it'd be better established from an article that's been using it for 5 and a half years (and no I'm not rushing anything either)--Harmony944 (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox_television/doc has instructions for what the parameters mean. show_name_2 is "Also known as", i.e. other names by which the show is known supports listing common aliases. Probably should wait until something is actually released under that name and also update the lead at that time too as it is a redirect target and the redirect name should be in the lead bolded if this article is the target of an alternative name. Suggest waiting until we have scheduling guides at least showing the new name being used. Not really known by that name yet. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 March 2019

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Tangled: The Series → Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure – The series has been confirmed to also be known as Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure for its third season, having been retitled as such for its second season, and will continue to be known as such both in media and by its cast and crew until its conclusion, so following the logic of Ellen having been formerly known as Friends of Mine, I am requesting that this page be moved to Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure. Thank you. MacCready (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It goes without saying, but I Support this. MacCready (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't vote on your own RMs; your position is already clear. -- / Alex /21  22:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - Coverage of the 3rd season press releases seem to show that the new title has stuck. -- Netoholic @ 19:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I came across this while doing NPP, misread the history, performed the move as a Page mover, and only when looking deeper realized that this is potentially controversial and so a full move discussion should occur. I then self-reverted to let this discussion play out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support if the name is continuing into its third season. -- / Alex /21  22:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Cautious Oppose - Interesting that the show will continue with the new title. However, it is important to note what the perceived title of the show is. Tangled: The Series has 56,200,000 results on Google, whereas Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure has 11,100,000 results (significantly less than the original title). According to WP:COMMONNAME, article titles need to have recognizable names; and Rapunzel is not yet as recognizable as the original title. For recognizability and naturalness, it seems like people would search for Tangled: The Series to find the TV series about the movie Tangled. I propose that the move is not carried out until there is a further shift in recognizability. SatDis (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There are less than 200 daily views for the redirect page of Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure, in comparison to 1,500–5,000 views of the Tangled: The Series page daily on Wikipedia. Therefore, readers should not be having any issues in finding the page. I believe all of the points from the previous discussion should still apply for now. SatDis (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's because it's a redirect, not an article. A poor comparison. -- / Alex /21  22:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Going based on the Google results for the title of the show doesn't make any sense unless you put the title in quotes. For example, "Tangled: The Series" without quotes probably finds lots of random things that just happen to have the word "series" on the page once you get far enough down the results. The better comparison would be to put them in quotes, in which case "Tangled: The Series" in quotes has 2,240,000 results and "Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure" has 228,000 results. That being said, I don't know whether the number of Google results actually proves anything in regard to whether a move could be appropriate or not. Alphius (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 *  Support if it continues to the third season Tangled the series have already been widely used and translated across the internet. If Disney continue to use Rapunzel's Tangled adventure for third season, and people also begin to accept this name,then let's change.Xiaobao (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. So, you support the name change if the name continues into the third season? -- / Alex /21  22:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes.Xiaobao (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what's happening, then. I suggest you !vote for what you mean. -- / Alex /21  12:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I came here prepared to perform the move but I have instead reverted the closing of this RM. It is OK in cases of clear consensus for an editor to close a discussion which they participated in. However this is not (yet) a clear consensus. I see two editors who support the move, one who opposes it (on a policy/guideline based reason not just I don't like it), and one who would support it if the name stuck for another season (the LEAD says we're in the third season but the episode air dates suggest we're in the second). I would ideally like to see at least one more editor agree with doing the move (now) to have a clearer sense of consensus. I have now put this on my watchlist and if there hasn't been further discussion in a week or two would be willing to consider closing it then. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support If the name will still be used for future seasons. ITSQUIETUPTOWN   talk • contribs 15:05, 9 April 2019 (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.

S1 ep15
Why not add what Eugene and Lance were doing while girls were trying to stop little beasts from destroying everything??? Randommm personnn (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

More sources for finale airing
Eden Espinosa Instagram post, March 1 and a Ben Balistreri Tweet, February 11, explicitly telling the date. If you want to put them down in the body, go ahead, I just don’t want any more fingers plugging deniers’ ears--Duroq145 (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Need verified social media accounts to be acceptable as references. Actors don't speak for the show so need reliable secondary sources, or verified social media for the network itself, or people who actually make decisions for the show, usually the show runner. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Given 2 verified social media accounts 2) Says who? 3) You blatantly ignore the co-executive producer account 4) At one point, you said you wanted a reliable secondary source. Show runners tell their actors when production is wrapping up and all that entails. That makes the actors secondary sources. 5) You previously attempted to remove a verified tweet from Disney Channel’s own public relations, so clearly you don’t actually care where it comes from, you just want to deny reality. Do not re-add the maintenance tag until you can properly justify it--Duroq145 (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked at that tweet and it initially failed verification because it had the wrong tweet link. I fixed it and left it in after I repaired the error, so yes, I care where it comes from, DisneyPR when it actually is DisneyPR is a valid source and it is a verified account. The co-executive producer account is not verified. Actors don't speak for the show. For what a reliable secondary source is see WP:RS. Second hand accounts without a reputation for fact checking don't meet that. A message from a verified account of Chris Sonnenburg would be great. A news report or a press release would work too. Leave the maintenance tag in the article until you can fix the problem identified. The information is there, find a better source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You failed to address any of the points I made. You need consensus to act further, and you do not have it. There is no better source needed because policy says it suffices The co-EP’s tweet specifically gives a date AND episode runtime which matches up exactly to what unfolded and yet that isn’t good enough for you because he doesn’t have a blue check mark?--Duroq145 (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I addressed all the points you made. Unverified social media accounts are not usable as references. Find a better reference and leave the tag on the existing one until a better one is found. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s not what WP:TWITTER says. You’re not citing policy anymore, you’re making up excuses. That’s like saying “He has to be lying about the club closing, Hes not the founder, he’s just a loyal member”--Duroq145 (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Duroq145 has been blocked indef as a sockpuppet. So we can consider this one closed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, we cannot. This guy may have been a sockpuppet, but he does have a point. You left a link from an actor inside an article in a Disney film. Tom Hanks says that Toy Story 4 is the final film, as you can see in the "Sequel" section. Why can't you allow voice actors to speak here? THEY ARE BOTH DISNEY!
 * No, they're not. The network, in this case Disney Channel, is the only entity in charge of whether a series will continue or not. Actors and crew for the series don't control that. The only other person whose word is authoritative besides the network's is the showrunner's. But the point is moot now. Amaury • 15:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright. NOW we can consider this closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.47.42.194 (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles for Cassandra and Varian
Pascal and Maximus have a shared Wikipedia article. Why? Also, these are two major well-received characters from the series, so I feel like they deserve their own Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.47.42.194 (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)