Talk:Step by Step (TV series)

Identity of amusement park in opening credits
Does anyone know the name of the amusement park that was shown in the opening credits? I was hoping to find this out in this article, but unfortunately came up disappointed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, found out that it's Six Flags Magic Mountain. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting enough, I just randomly came upon the Michigan Amusement park on Google Earth today. There's a wooden roller coaster next to Lake Michigan. I thought it was shot at this location at first. I always wondered where this was growing up, thinking it was a digitally altered Great America, seeing as I'm from Illinois. I wonder if it was intentionally made to look like this theme park seeing as the family is from the Midwest.JanderVK (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That Buster Postcard Section at the end
Can anyone... make any coherent sense of that? I don't know what on Earth they're talking about in that section.


 * i was going to post the same thing, but clearly i'm not the only one who thinks it's nonsense.

It's crap. I removed it. 71.68.70.236 10:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Rename to "Step By Step"
I've put in a proposed move to rename this article from "Step by Step" (lowercase "b") to "Step By Step" (uppercase "B"). This matches the on-screen title of the show. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 09:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct. Why was this was changed back to "by"? Tpcrotty2 (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Because "By" violates MOS:TITLECAPS. And considering how many works there are at Step by Step, parenthetical disambiguation seems completely appropriate here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Back-and-forth renaming
Folks, please, let's leave the article at Step By Step (capital "B"). This is how it's formatted in the show's on-screen title, and so it seems more correct than the other version with a lowercase "b". SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Naming conventions (capitalization) states "In general, titles of books, films, and other works are also capitalized, except for articles (a, and, the) and prepositions and conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., to, from, and)." Extraordinary Machine 15:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My question then becomes, what if the producers of said work capitalized such words themselves in a title? Do we follow naming conventions to the letter which makes the title incorrect, or do we use the capitalization as used in the work itself?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's very wise to suppose that the show's producers believed the capitalisation of every single word in the title was absolutely necessary. It's just as likely that the show's production company's manual of style suggests capitals for all words (including prepositions) in titles, in which case that's "correct" for them; ours doesn't, which is thus "correct" for us. The one thing that we know for certain is what standard Wikipedia style (which follows what is stipulated in most major manuals of style) is, which is why it's best and safest to use it. As Naming conventions (capitalization) says, "Because credibility is a primary objective in the creation of any reference work, and because Wikipedia strives to become a leading (if not the) leading reference work in its genre, formality and an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility." If you have evidence to suggest the reason that "by" was capitalised is unrelated to the style preferences of whoever created the title card, then please provide it. Extraordinary Machine 15:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * On some shows all letters of each word in the show's title are capitalized on screen, not just the first letter of each word, but I don't think articles about those shows should be named with all letters capitalized. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not? Why should the MOS overrule what the most primary source there is indicates what this show's title actually is? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but the show Where I Live is spelled "WhERe i Live" on the title screen, but that doesn't mean the article should be named WhERe i Live. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a good point – we generally ignore (over)stylization of series titles, esp. if other sourcing ignores it. But I don't think this is a case of that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I moved this to Step by Step (television)
Because Step by Step is too US-centred. People who live outside the US don't necessarily think that the television series is well known enough to warrant main use of that Wikipedia title. --Barfoos 22:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Step by step opening.jpg
Image:Step by step opening.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series
I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Previous Hit Shows
I think it's worth mentioning the success of the characters in previous series. Suzzanne Sommers in Threes Company, Bronson Pinchot in Perfect Stranger and Patrick Duffy and Sasha Mitchell in Dallas. I just dont know the best way to write it. 70.167.219.28 (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Too many references
I understand why the author did this, but this doesn't seem necessary: "Like Chrissy Seaver (Growing Pains), Nicky and Alex Katsopolis (Full House), Nicky Banks (The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air), and Andrew Keaton (Family Ties), Lilly (Emily Mae Young) was suddenly aged five years after one season as an infant." I think it would just be simpler to say, "Like some other young sitcom characters..." rather than listing them all. Chrissypan (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you have it backwards...
The article says Frank (Patrick Duffy) was divorced and Carol (Suzanne Somers) was widowed. I think you have that backwards. As I recall, Frank was widowed and Carol was divorced.24.56.113.27 (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think they were both divorced. There was an episode where Carol revealed that she kept some money in an account in case her marriage to Frank didn't go well. Cody later mentioned that Frank kept his black book after getting married to Carol. Carol then said something like "We both had marriages that didn't work out." Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Should stick to what reliable, secondary sources say in describing them. TV Guide says this in the description for the series (which you can read here): A divorced contractor and a widowed beautician impulsively marry, then must blend his three laid-back kids with her three compulsively neat children. (emphasis mine). Divorced obviously referring to Frank, and widowed referring to Carol. I'm thinking TV Guide has it right, but if any other reliable sources say otherwise, please bring it up here. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! – Editors have been switching that back and forth for a while, and I couldn't remember what was what. Your source should clear this question up permanently. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I know everyone seems pretty settled here, but I just thought I'd throw this out there. The episode that Nine hundred ninety-nine is referring to is Close Encounters of the Marital Kind S3 E12, and Carol does say that they "both had marriages that didn't work out the first time." Maybe TV Guide just messed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikey8619 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:Verifiability, not truth: On Wikipedia, we follow what sources say about the show, not what a show like this says in dialogue (often inconsistently) – i.e. Secondary sources are preferred over the show itself (which is a Primary source). (Also, what Carol actually says there does not rule out her being a widow...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Right. I even thought of that possibility (and here is one explanation ;) ) but I was waiting for sources. But I should have waited for sources that contradicted what was there.


 * I definitely remember Frank complaining about what a terrible person his first wife was.


 * And it's not that TV Guide messed up. The script writers changed their minds or forgot.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  15:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

CGI lake?
Does anyone have any sources saying that it was CGI in the opening sequence? I really don't think it is.... it looks more like a composite image to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.194.250 (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Premise

 * There is no proof that that is actually the premise of the show, much less how the show's title is defined. If that section isn't improved soon, I'm going to delete it.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 14:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Season 6 questions
1. Not a Hulu subscriber and was wondering if Hulu shows the Season 6 episodes in the order that they originally aired or production order? 2. Why in the hell did ABC air 24 episodes throughout the spring and summer of 1997 and what show was cancelled to make room for Step By Step's return? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahiy (talk • contribs) 20:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sabrina_the_Teenage_Witch_(TV_series) and Clueless_(TV_series) premiered on TGIF during Step by Step's hiatus. Step by Step returned after Clueless was canceled. Step by Step was originally going to be canceled at the end of season 5 but ABC renewed it for season 6 in case the new shows didn't do well. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity
anyone know why there's no longer a Wikipedia article on Angela Watson? It seems odd that out of the show's regular cast members, she wouldn't have an article Shotguntony (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * She's not notable – this is basically her only major role. WP:NACTOR requires multiple significant roles. Watson disappeared after SbS – presumably she retired. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it's questionable that Christopher Castile merits a standalone article either – I doubt the current version would survive at WP:AfD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like someone is intentionally burying it. She had some serious personal drama. http://web.archive.org/web/201907140206/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Watson I don't know how to find the deletion discussion, but https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angela_Watson&action=history Sadsaque (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)