Talk:Victorious

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page removal[edit]

I'm not sure if it's known that this is a new show. So I'm thinking that maybe this page should be removed. Anyone think this too? Theguywhohatestwitter (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. Heinah (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Heinah[reply]

Don't worry, it won't be. Theguywhohatestwitter's comment was from Dec. 2009, before the show began airing. liquidluck✽talk 17:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tape setting[edit]

I just reviewed the ending credits of the pilot and it says: "Taped at Ren-Mar Studios in Hollywood, Callifornia" (Since January 2010: Red Studios) i'm not sure it should be on the page because this is the only reference i found about this all the other references are saying Nickelodeon On Sunset. It maybe that only the pilot or a part of it was shot there, should it be mentioned in the Location section? W.G. | W.G.'s user talk 22:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cat/Misty similarities[edit]

I think that it should be noted that Cat from Victorious is similar to Misty from an Amanda Show skit called Moody's Point. Both characters over-react and say "What's that supposed to mean?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moorglade (talk • contribs) 03:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Yeah, I noticed that too. You can see it here, at 0:27-0:31. 96.231.217.111 (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Anonymous[reply]

Maybe Cat was a recycled character in a sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazychickennthang (talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other Shows[edit]

It says that Dan only made The Amanda Show, Drake & Josh, Zoey 101, and iCarly He also made All That and Kenan & Kel" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.82.97 (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

No, he produced those series but did not actually create them; All That was created by Brian Robbins and Mike Tollin, and Kenan & Kel was created by Kim Bass. liquidluck✽talk 22:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't he also create What I Like About You? On his blog, it says (On an Article about Moody's Point on The Amanda Show): "...so she could star in What I Like About You (another TV show I created)."96.231.217.111 (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Anonymous[reply]

What I Like About You is not a Nickelodeon show. Jon23812 (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it was still a Dan Schneider-related production. ----DanTD (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International release[edit]

Nickelodeon Indonesia don't show the serie on August 29, 2010! Nickelodeon Germany show the serie on August, 29 this is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.14.70.167 (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced first and middle names[edit]

Names of characters must be referenced with a reliable source, or they will be deleted. TheSlap.com is a good place to find this info. --Confession0791 talk 03:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Character Page[edit]

Don't you think that there should be a page specifically for the characters (List of Victorious Characters)?

~~Maxwell Derwinee~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxwell Derwinee (talk • contribs) 04:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I dont because very few if any will actually meet the criteria for a stand alone page - significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Active Banana (bananaphone 16:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella West[edit]

Why is this character noted as a main character if they haven't made and major appearances on the show? Swimmerwinner72 (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

becauseanythingweeverheardorthoughtweheardaboutmyfavoriteshowneedsabsolutelyneedstobeherebecauseitisimportant!!!!!! Active Banana (bananaphone 21:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything regarding Isabella West needs to be removed. There is no citation, no proof not anything —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.234.21 (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont bold character names[edit]

Please stop bolding the character names. Wikipedia's manual of style indicates that there are only very limited circumstances in which bolding should be used, and Character lists are not one of them. WP:MOSBOLD. Active Banana (bananaphone 19:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

I've added Victorious Wiki to the list of links. The discussion last year concluded that the wiki hadn't been around long enough to be included, but the wiki is now over a year old. Feel free to discuss this if you disagree. --Confession0791 talk 10:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link was removed with this edit without discussion. I'm reverting the edit. --Confession0791 talk 12:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the wiki official or an especially WP:RS reliable source? Given the high number of unauthorised looking links to episodes on YouTube and Megavideo, etc, I would guess that it's not. Bonusballs (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikis utterly fail WP:ELNO. It goes. without need for discussion. Active Banana (bananaphone 15:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ELNO #12 states: Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.
Wikis are not necessarily prohibited by WP:ELNO; and again, you reverted without consensus. --Confession0791 talk 20:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP: ELNO also discourages links to fansites, and without exception "Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked." - Given these I can't see a strong justification for linking to this site, and many reasons not to. Bonusballs (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking specifically at the gallery/image collection of the Victorious Wiki, I share Bonusballs' concern about copyright. I'm not convinced that the site has gone beyond a fansite to a resource that warrants the exception in WP:ELNO #12, so I say not to link it. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sikowitz[edit]

I believe that the name of Sikowitz is a wordplay with psycho. Sadly, I couldn't find any information. Can anyone check that and give me a feedback, so I can write it in the article List of Victorious characters. Regards --Simon.hess (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're unlikely to find a reference for a pun like that. Either it's intentional and obvious (thus doesn't need to be in the article) or it isn't (thus doesn't belong in the article). - SummerPhD (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish?[edit]

It is clear that Skiowitz is Jewish. There have been hints that Robbie Shapiro is as well. Rex has mentioned a Bar Miztva and Tori discribing Robbie as "possibly Jewish." in the episode they had to role play characters for a night. Should this be mentioned in the article?DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie's Jewish, but what indication is there that Sikowitz is? Jim Michael (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 4 December 2011[edit]

Someone else changed the premire date of the special Locked Up! to July 31, please change it back to the correct July 30. Also, there are now 33 episodes (A Christmas Tori premired yesterday).

65.254.159.13 (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Credit for Elizabeth Gillies[edit]

The starring section in the infobox and the names of the cast in the cast section should match what the show opening credits say. Each of the cast members is wikilinked and their full names and common nicknames are on the actor page. I have been restoring Elizabeth Gillies as a credited name as, even though she commonly uses her nickname "Liz", she professionally never uses "Liz" for her Victorious actor credits. I assume she has her reasons and we should honor that. In the episode "Blooptorious", the cast is being interviewed by "Christopher Cane" the ventriloquist dummy who portrays Rex in the show. He refers to Gillies as "Liz" - consistent with how co-workers would talk to each other. The opening credits for the episode still list her as "Elizabeth Gillies" though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Farrow as the voice of Rex Powers needs a reference[edit]

Jake Farrow, a writer on the show, is commonly understood to be the uncredited voice of Rex Powers. This is now tagged in the article as needed a citation. I have looked fairly extensively for verification of this stated fact and have found nothing that supports it. It needs a reference that is not just a repeat of what everyone thinks they know. The reference needs to be from some source that meets the requirements of WP:RS (that excludes IMDb by the way) - it should be from some source that actually knows for sure and is not just repeating common knowledge. Interviews and verified account tweets from cast, crew, producers, writers would be fine. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Robbie moving his lips is acting then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.8.140 (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect page[edit]

VicTORIous should redirect to Victorious, as the former is actually the correct way to spell it. I would do this, but I forgot how.. --TaylorLanebore me 18:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is extemely unlikely that someone looking for information on the show would go to the effort to use that spelling as a search string. When you do use it as a search string the first entry in the results is Victorious anyway. Also there are currently no pages that link to that spelling. Redirects are cheap though so added I added the redirect. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: not moved without prejudice against a move in a few months. Good arguments on both sides, but adjective forms of nouns are not what readers typically look for in encyclopedia headings (and we're not a dictionary). Suggest letting the recently linked disambiguation stats percolate for two or three months, and then revisit the traffic stats to see how many readers are using it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Victorious → Victorious (TV series) – While redirecting to Victory. As this is not a primary topic, per "The Roman is victorious". Victorious commonly refers to victory. 180.183.123.187 (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support adjective form should redirect to noun form. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Doing a search on Victorious leads to many articles, this one is not the primary topic that most people will search for. The other articles are distinct in some way but it would make better sense organizationally to create a disambiguation page with the title Victorious, rename this article Victorious (TV series), and populate the disambiguation page with links to every article that might be looked for in a search for the word "Victorious". Some examples of other articles:
Likely that the desired search will be for one of those more than the kid's TV series. See also WP:Article titles. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that the disambig page was just recently linked to from a hatnote on this page. The stats don't indicate how many views to this page were in error when looking for something else. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Looking at the other topics at Victorious (disambiguation), this appears to be the topic that the largest share of readers will be looking for. I also fear that if the disambiguation page were to be moved to this title, we would wind up with a lot more clean up work as fans of the TV show defaced the disambiguation page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not a primary topic, most people refers to victory. --101.108.17.187 (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move[edit]

Victorious (Nickelodeon television series. → Victorious (Nickelodeon television series) – I was attempting to make what I see as an uncontroversial move of what I see as a blatant attempt of name space squatting giving undue prominence to one use of the name over others, however I was sloppy in the move and left out a bracket, an attempt to rectify this led me to the discovery that the page already exists and I was not able to fix my result. For everyones information I was not aware that a poll had been held on just a move until the need to complete this template, I would still think that the community desicion was flawed and misguided but I would have abided by it.--KTo288 (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the topic straight above this one. A move of that page wasn't supported by the community. So please move it back to Victorious. --Simon.hess (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done per the request below and the discussion above - there appears to be insufficient consensus for the move. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Page restored to Victorious and redirects deleted. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection[edit]

A move protection for this page would be nice. In the last 24 hours this page was moved twice without discussion and the result of a previous discussion (see above) was not to move that page. --Simon.hess (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --NrDg 07:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: yesterday's move reverted per above move request. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victorious (Nickelodeon television series) → Victorious –

  • Was moved without discussion to incorrect title. Needs to stay (IMO) at "Victorious" until further discussion, or at least be moved to "Victorious (TV series)". Also, a move protect would be nice, since this has happened twice in the past 24 hours. Thanks. Kevinbrogers (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Kevinbrogers (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not uncontroversial. "Moved without discussion" is not a reason to revert without discussion. If you feel that the page should be moved back, feel free to open a regular RM. Jafeluv (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This specific example is now moot, but it was my understanding that it was OK to request BRD-type moves here. Also worth noting that the last RM for this article, Tak:Victorious#Requested move, ended as "not moved". Jenks24 (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or Victorious (disambiguation) to Victorious. The naval vessels are at least as noteworthy as a routine sitcom. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We must stop this move war! If there's a problem with the original article's name I suggest to move it to Victorious (TV series), but not to Victorious (Nickelodeon television series). Finally, the disambiguation page of Victorious should be moved to Victorious. Are there any other opinions? --Simon.hess (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why it needed to be moved in the first place. I understand less why an administrator reverted another administrator. – Confession0791 talk 09:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

On the iCarly article, it says that iCarly "has also garnered a large adult fan base". I think that this article should say the same thing.

Fladoodle (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move? (2)[edit]

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 No consensus to move. Arguments from either side boiling down to "I haven't heard of this or that subject" aren't particularly compelling, and there's no clear agreement that this isn't the primary topic per Wikipedia standards.Cúchullain t/c 13:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victorious → Victorious (TV show) –

  • And Victorious (disambiguation) to Victorious, as currently there is no recent undiscussed move to have to revert. For example, the naval vessels are at least as noteworthy as a routine sitcom. How much is Victorious (TV show) known and spoken of in America? I had never heard of it here in England. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the move to Victorious (TV show) as this article is about a TV series, not a stand-alone TV show. I would support a move to Victorious (TV series) where there is currently a placeholder redirect as that conforms to the normal disambiguation style for a television series, but that is not being proposed here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the move of Victorious (disambiguation) to Victorious (leaving the redirect), if this page is moved. I do agree with the reasoning for Victorious to be the disambiguation page. It is ridiculous, in my opinion, for a kid's TV series to be the primary for this title even though it might currently have the highest traffic due to current interest. Long term this will not be the case. Concerns listed in previous discussions of a high rate of unhelpful edits to the disambiguation page can be addressed with the appropriate protects if needed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – I'd prefer that it remain the same, but that might be from a subjective standpoint. I'm not so sure that the ships are as notable (the only ships I've ever heard people speak of are Titanic, Edmund Fitzgerald, and Black Pearl, while I hear people speak of the TV series occasionally in everyday conversation, even in college classes and among other adults). In fact, I don't see anything at the disambiguation page that is as notable. On a more objective level, I doubt that anyone looking for the page for "victory" would use the form "victorious" as a search item. Reviewing some statistics, the page for the TV series has been viewed 347098 times in the past month, while the page for "HMS Victorious (R38)" (the most-viewed page regarding the ships) has been viewed only 5073 times. I doubt anyone looking for the ship page would simply type "Victorious"; they would more likely try "HMS Victorious" and then be sent to that disambiguation page. Therefore, I don't really think that there were too many people in the 347098 who were accidentally sent here. The only other page that would be exactly titled "Victorious" is Victorious (album), which has only 361 views and clearly isn't as notable. Maybe if the stats were closer I could understand that the high traffic is due to the series being ongoing, but the gap is enormous (more than 340000 additional views and 6742% more views than "HMS Victorious (R38)"). All other pages linked at the disambiguation page are preceded by some sort of ship designation or have some other distinguishing characteristics that make it clear what is being searched for. I simply see no reason to move the page. However, if this is moved at all, I agree that the "TV show" designation should read "TV series", and the primary "Victorious" page should be occupied by a disambiguation page. Kevinbrogers (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a move to Victorious (TV show) or Victorious (TV series) or whatever. I have nothing about teen sitcoms, but do not think that it deserves such primacy over other uses of the name which have more enduring notability; Victorious (disambiguation) should be moved to Victorious bobrayner (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is silly. No-one searching for HMS or USS Victorious would reasonably expect to find it just by typing in 'Victorious' - such a search would be incomplete. However, someone searching for the word in a standalone format is virtually guaranteed to be searching for the only widely-known work styled with that single word alone, by far the primary and largest single use of the term. The way it is, with the disambiguation link, seems just fine. Bonusballs (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This reasonably appears to be the primary topic, and the hatnote is sufficient for disambiguation purposes. —C.Fred (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support clearly not the primary topic, and we have a disambiguation page that can be used. Otherwise, the topic of "victory" would be the primary topic, so it should either be a disambiguation page, or redirect the victory. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - generic dictionary entry. See wikt:victorious. --180.183.103.223 (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Kevinbrogers's statistics indicate that the current setup is probably helpful for a large majority of readers who type "victorious" in the search box. Jafeluv (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Casting section is screwed-up[edit]

Too many people keep screwing up the casting section of this article by adding movies and TV shows that castmenbers were in after Victorious premiered;

Monet guest starred in three episodes of Zoey 101, the Nickelodeon television film A Fairly Odd Movie: Grow Up, Timmy Turner!, the Supah Ninjas episode "Morningstar Academy" as one of the main antagonists named Clarissa, and in Fred 2: Night of the Living Fred (in lieu of Jennette McCurdy) as the deuteragonist Bertha.

The segment of this article is supposed to be about previous projects (primarily Nickelodeon related) that the cast was in before joining the cast of Victorious. Therefore Daniella Monet's role in Nancy Drew is appropriate and her involvement in A Fairly Odd Movie: Grow Up, Timmy Turner, Supah Ninjas and the Fred franchise aren't, and to answer User:Geraldo Perez's question, she was in the 2007 film adaptation of the book, which is only tied to Nick because Emma Roberts was still known for her involvement with Unfabulous. Therefore the titles that are in here now should be removed, and Nancy Drew should be put back. Or course Daniella Monet's guest appearences on other Nick shows should be added as well. ----DanTD (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then link to Nancy Drew (the original link was to Nancy Drew, a character article. I missed the hatnote). --Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is victorious back[edit]

the reason i say this is because recently ryan seacrest just put up a article say ariana is not leaving victorious but i thought tom myself isnt the show gone how can she come back if the show isnt coming back so i assume the uncancelled ? I am a very confused fan please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.102.62 (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "is Victorious back". When was it gone? The current 4th season will be the last season for the show. --Webclient101 (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I honestly don't know I knew that the current season was it's last but recently Ryan seacrest said Ariana grande confirmed she isn't leaving the show but I thought the show was like over by next year and no one said that the show would return for a new season — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.102.62 (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true[edit]

It the whole series finale plot thing is true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randis101 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the series finale, yes. The last episode will air today, marking the end of the series. Cheers, Webclient101talk 17:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But why is over with a poor episode. :( 78.181.102.212 (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Separation[edit]

I think Victorious 3.0 Has enough info to become its own page even if it doesn't we can just do what we did with victorious 2.0 and put the tour on the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.227.220 (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, were 60 episodes of the series, not 58!!!![edit]

The series originally has 60 episodes, not 58, but the first double part episodes, counts as a one episode every one, example: "Freak the Freak Out" and "Locked Up!", as the first one, as the episode 13, and the other, as the episode 25, but the third double part special, "Tori Goes Platinum", it's count as two episodes, Part 1 & 2, please, the episodes 13 and 25, really are the episodes 13-14 and 26-27, because they are Part 1 & 2, as of total number of episodes were 60, that it has planned, right??? --190.250.171.213 (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable source reference that meets WP:RS standards shows that 60 unique episode were ever broadcast. TV Guide, used in the episode list shows 58 unique episodes, iTunes shows Vol 1 with 19, Vol 2 with 12, Vol 3 with 12, Vol 4 with 14 for a total of 57 unique episodes (Volumes there don't match season breaks). No reliable source that I can find says anything about a long episode counting as anything other than a single long episode. What was planned is not what actually happened. This article on a completed show no longer needs to consider planning info as what actually happened is well-documented. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To add - [http://www.amazon.com/A-Christmas-Tori/dp/B006IBKC5I Amazon] agrees with iTunes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible finale should be mentioned[edit]

This article should mention the fact that Dan Schneider and most of the Victorious cast members want to do a Victorious finale. http://www.danwarp.blogspot.com/2013/08/victorious-big-final-episode.html Fladoodle (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted scenes[edit]

I am posting information about deleted scene's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taoism74 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't in show so they don't belong unless reliable secondary sources not connected with the production gives them some coverage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Cancellation" of Victorious[edit]

Maybe, maybe not.

Look at this link below:

http://danwarp.blogspot.no/2012/08/victorious.html JoesphBarbaro (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the terms of art used by Dan Schneider where "cancellation" has a very specific meaning in the TV series production business. I wish we would use the words correctly on wiki but unfortunately most people outside the business and that includes most editors on wiki consider a show cancelled when it is not renewed - thus all shows get "cancelled" eventually. There is a discussion about this at Cancellation (television). Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2016[edit]

the show will return for a 2017 special

108.56.139.178 (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2019[edit]

Remove "Victorious at Nick.com" external link as that link (http://www.nick.com/victorious/) no longer exists on Nick.com Latest archive June 29 2019: https://web.archive.org/web/20190629152618/https://www.nick.com/shows/victorious Aaronmcgrogan (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done Looks like the site does exist, even though it doesn't contain more than a brief description of the show, not unlike a number of other series at Nick.com. Some do have episodes or games, or other stuff, but the fact Victorious doesn't is not grounds to remove the link if the site still exists. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add category[edit]

I want to add Victorious to the Category:American television programs featuring puppetry Category:American television shows featuring puppetry basically because of the character Rex, and this show is not in that category yet. Just wanted to ask permission if I can do so. --MisterBwaar (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably WP:NOTDEFINING. Rex is a very secondary character, so you can't say that Rex is a major feature of the show... But let's see what others think. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite NOTDEFINING, as he has been around since the beginning of the show to the finale, more than just a few episodes. And the fact that he is a puppet, and this is an American show, justifies adding the show to the category. That's why the category was created. But like you said, we'll see what others think. Don't want to rush in or get flagged as this is a protected article. --MisterBwaar (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should be in the cat, because one of the main characters frequently uses a puppet. If the cat was something like Puppet shows or TV shows about puppets, then it wouldn't be relevant enough to include, but this cat says featuring, which Victorious certainly does. Jim Michael (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Video from the show possibly in the Creative Commons[edit]

This video, posted by a verified/checkmarked account called "NickRewind" which i believe is affiliated with Nickelodeon, has a creative commons license. Would this (a screenshot from the video) technically be allowed to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia? 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 12:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Nickelodeon would release its copyrighted television series content under a free-use license, no matter what the video asserts. Original content created for the video would be OK to use, but unlikely they have the legal permission from Nick to relicence existing Nickelodeon copyrighted works under a free use license even if the channel is owned by Nick itself as claimed. The video is legally using it under fair-use rules. If the original work they extracted exerpts from is still under a restrictive copyright, it is still under that restricted copyright. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible revivals[edit]

There has been talks over the years about revival. It has never ben officially announced yet. Can a section be created about those talks? Cwater1 (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it is well-sourced in reliable sources and not based on speculation from commentators who have no connection to the production, reports of fan desires, or former cast statements. I doubt there is much we could base a section on that had anything we could use as a reliable source. If there were actually discussions by decision makers in the production team or network about revivals that we could source, we might have enough for a section about it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
makes sense. I do know that Wikipedia is not a fan site of rumors and speculations. Cwater1 (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The series ended without a proper finale..."[edit]

There's a sentence in the Production section that starts with those words, with a quote presumably coming from the spinoff series Sam & Cat attributed to Cat that reads What kind of network cancels a show without giving it a proper finale? A recent edit (which was reverted) changed that to one attributed to Sam, What kind of TV network cancels a big hit?, which I'll say doesn't exactly fit the context the sentence is presenting. The episode of Sam & Cat alluded to in the sentence is that series' second episode, "#FavoriteShow", which I just watched and couldn't find the Cat quote originally showing in the article - but I could find the Sam quote made in the edit. I might be missing something here and will tag the quote with a citation needed. I'm not sure if the Cat quote ever shows up in any episode of Sam & Cat (definitely not the one I watched), and if it's true that it never shows up, this sentence may need to be updated or removed. I am aware Victorious ended without a proper finale ("Victori-Yes" definitely wasn't), but in supplementing that fact by alluding to something from its spinoff, a proper (existing) quote from the spinoff is needed. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The exact quote and a reference to the episode name and location time-stamp it appeared in should be there for verification. I believe it adds no value to this article to have that quote in it. It is something a writer put in some other TV series and it is an WP:NOR evaluation, likely correct, they were alluding to this series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2023[edit]

76.76.178.122 (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Victorious is an American teen sitcom

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Victorious&oldid=1210482637"