Talk:Spliced (TV series)

ExCLAMation ExPLANation!

In Australia, the ABC3 Channel, EPG and the TV Week magazine all display the title of the show "Spliced!" with an exclamation at the end. Since the wikipedia page doesn't include it, I contacted the Nelvana website to ask them officially what the title actually is and in response, they said "...to confirm the name, the shows' name is with an exclamation "Spliced!"

So I shall now add the missing exclamations to the page so it's correct but I do still have the response email from Nelvana, if I need to show proof or something.

AnimatedZebra (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

False Credits

The user, 189.128.32.131, has tampered with the information of the show, Spliced!, by entering random people as the creditors for the shows, rather than the people who actually worked on it. Here's the correct version of the credits. Apparently, it's too late to simply undo the mass amount of edits this person has done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trosmando (talk • contribs) 02:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Platypus Kung Fu

Platypus Kung Fu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.161.130 (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Minor characters

Please read WP:IINFO. There's no need to list every one-shot character in the series — it's an excessive amount of detail that's of interest only to fans. I'm a fan of the show myself and I wish there were a more available outlet to see it in the US, but I'm not going to turn this into the Spliced wiki. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop deleting entire sections

There is no reason to remove an entire section because some of listed characters are only one shots. Many of the minor characters are reoccurring (i.e the Wunny Sharbit, Sid) there is also information about people who have done guest apperinces doing voice work of these characters. If you feel that some of the information is wrong, correct it, but don't remove the work of others because you personal don' like the minor characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girloveswaffles (talk • contribs) 08:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's not because I don't like it — in fact, I rather like this show. However, the info is unsourced and indiscriminate. We don't need to list everything that ever happened. And constantly re-adding the same info over and over again is not the right way to go about it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop deleting sections for your own preference.

It was not a question of weather or not you liked the show, but of not deleting a complete section because you don't like the minor character section. Removing a complete section of other people(s) input is tantamount to vandalism. once again, if you feel some of the information is wrong, correct it. But don't delete a complete area of a topic just for your own preferences. once again may I remind you, some of these "Minor" characters are reoccurring, and there are links and information about voice actors in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girloveswaffles (talk • contribs) 20:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's not "my own preference" by any means. Read WP:IINFO. There's no need to list every facet of any series. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Not your preference? then why do you keep deleting other people entries?

You've stated no valid reason to remove the information other than your own opinion that it's not necessary. That's a preference. If you don't think the information is important, skip over it. It's not up to you whose input should be listed, other than errors that need to be corrected. And why did you feel it necessary to edit my talk? Are you trying to keep people from seeing my posts? Knock it off. I didn't edit any of your posts.

• These lists of minor characters have no encyclopedic value. Besides, it's unverified information--there is no evidence to suggest that it's accurate. That may hold true for the rest as well, but in those cases it's at least probable that there's verification possible. WP is not a directory of information, not every fact needs to be listed, and it's not a fansite. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion again

I've listed why many do have importance of why they should be listed.

• You're still not getting it. 1.) We don't need to list everything, and 2.) YOUR CONTENT IS UNSOURCED. Do not continue to add unsourced content or you will be blocked. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 13:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never watched this show, but at ANI you said "Most of it does seem valid." It's unjustifiable to hold a hard line and say that a whole section must be deleted period, while at the same time the other guy should be blocked for adding everything or anything. Though I'm not one of them, believers in WP:BRD would say that by coming in at a late date and making a big deletion, that you're the one who should be reverted and whose changes should only be implemented after discussion to the degree that they're approved.

The characters aren't unsourced, since the series itself is the primary source. The usual warnings on interpretation of primary sources apply.

I think that in order for progress to be made, the two of you both need to start your hostages walking across the bridge toward each other. You need to admit whatever stuff that you think "seems valid" and stop trying to challenge it as unsourced, assuming good faith; and you need to strip out any excessive interpretation of primary sources (for example, we should know where any names come from - are they from the credits? An external source?). This should not remain an all in/all out edit war.

The third opinion on one-shot characters also applies - I think putting one-shot characters under "characters" isn't an efficient way to do things, though you could probably rework the material into the episode summaries. Think of verifiability - the next person to come along should be able to check on the character by watching one specific episode.

Last but not least, I think we should not lose track of the fact that a longer article is more informative than a shorter one, provided that we have some confidence that it accurately represents the subject matter. I think that most of the disputed information should remain in some form.

P.S. - There's some colorful prose in the article (less so in the disputed section), e.g. Entrèe makes a hang glider out of his chicken wings and promises to come back for Peri. But when a mysterious mutant hangs around town and becomes friends with Entrèe he forgets about Peri. After some time however, the new guy starts to torture Entrèe with a game called "Now that I have your trust it's time for revenge" Some of this is so well-written to resemble the sort of teasing text from TV episode intros that I find myself wondering about copyvios. I found a forum page with such text [1] but I don't know if it was copied from Wikipedia, made up fresh, or taken from a TV guide etc. In any case, encyclopedias are sometimes criticized for being "boring" because they don't try to tease the reader but just lay things out flat. Wnt (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That forum page post was me, I did copy that from this Wikipedia article and in the post on the top of that page I did say "I get the episode summary's from Wikipedia so they may not be 100% correct." Powergate92Talk 21:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a lot more information on an episode than what Titan T.V or T.V.) Give you (and in the case of the later, none.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girloveswaffles (talk • contribs) 10:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Third Opinion request

Response to third opinion request:

Thank you for requesting a third opinion in this discussion. I have read the article and the discussion above. The guidelines relating to list inclusion are purposefully vague on what things do and do not belong in lists. There is more specific advice available in the Manual of Style specifically regarding television shows and character listings. It says "Not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed..." and further recommends that the main articles on a serires should be divded into "Main cast" and "Recurring characters" sections. It is my opinion that including one-time characters is excessive and unnecessary to the article. Not being familiar with the show itself, I cannot comment on which characters actually qualify as recurring. I would recommend you continue the discussion here on the talk page and reach a consensus on which characters who have appeared in more than one episode are actually going to contribute to the reader's understanding of the show. There may be some characters who have appeared more than once whose inclusion in the list will not add anything for a reader who has not seen the program. I would also note that it is preferable, although not required, to have some non-primary reliable sources regarding all of the characters in the list. While notability does not restrict article content, things that are likely to be challenged (such as the importance of a particular character to the overall series) should be sourced. The ability of a casual reader to understand the subject is the primary concern in an article. Too much detail should be left to fansites and other wikis.—Jim Miller See me | Touch me 14:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for some input. You should watch a few episodes of Spliced. It' hilarious. I just hope it's available in your area. If not, you can see it on YouTube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girloveswaffles (talk • contribs)
• I've only seen a few of the episodes, but I do know that the first several characters listed here only appeared once — only Apéritif and maybe one or two others are relevant to the plot, but even then, they can just be mentioned in the episode summaries. Everyone listed from Alligaturtle downward is listed as a background character, and given that none of them have speaking roles, I would bet even the names are just fan-made names. A search for "Alligaturtle", "Batdrills" and many of these other names turned up absolutely nothing on Google, suggesting that Girloveswaffles is just making up the character names. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If you've only seen a few episodes then you obviously don't know that Sid, The Wunny Sharbit, Molsters and others show up in multiple episodes, and that Whirles, Crocowolves, Claw-o-patra and others. are mentioned by name in many episodes. And mentioning a character in a summary is not the same as a description or history. And the idea of listing this information is for people like you that haven't (or can't) see all the episodes, and Fuzzy and Compuhorse show up in less in the show than some of the "Minor" Character.. If a character mentioned such as, say, a "Batdrill" isn't valid, then remove or edit it. But don't delete a mass section of the article because YOU don't think the information is needed. A real problem I do have with the list is that it's not alphabetized. I'd like to correct that, but I have to waste my time dealing with your "Edits". Go to YouTube and swatch some episodes and learn something. Also, I sourced my information. or did you not read my contributions before you threw out an entire section? By the way, You are removing the input of several people when you do that. Once again, if you feel that some of the character listings are in error, feel free to edit. But removing all of this information is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girloveswaffles (talk • contribs)

• Can you at least stop re-adding it for now? Please don't add it back in until we've reached a conclusion in this discussion; you're not helping. It's possible that some of the "minor" characters may have a place in the article, but only the ones that are relevant in some way to the plot (i.e., not voiceless characters who appear only in the background). I've not seen every episode yet, so for simplicity I'm keeping it down to just what I know are the major characters — if I think that a secondary character needs mention in the article then I'll re-add it, but for now I'm just playing it safe. Also, if we're going to keep anything from your edits, the tone seriously needs to be fixed. Phrases like "being lazy and having other people do stuff for you" and "killed by the ton of snow when its cold" are very informal in tone, while "They are a little similar to dingodile" and "But it was presumed that he survived." are original research. Saying "X is similar to Y" is drawing your own conclusion unless a reliable source confirms that X was similar to Y. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Better yet, how about you stop re-deleting all of it instead. It's a lot easier to edit something thats already there than to start over from scratch. Try doing some legitimate editing instead. By the way, The "Tone" You refer to is from input from other posters. Don't assume that the entire article is made of only my contributions (Which are few). I didn't make any of those "X is similar to Y " comments you list and are not My conclusions. Girloveswaffles

I don't know why deletionists assume that everything has to go their way for the duration of any discussion. The state of the article before the beginning of this was to have full detail.[2] If it had to remain one way or the other, the original state would be the way to go. Likewise, if one editor has watched the whole series and made notes while the other is in the process of watching it, it makes sense to go with the version written by the one who saw the whole thing, until both have seen all the episodes. I would strongly suggest that since Ten Pound Hammer can pick out specific bits of text above that seem wrong to him, that he should change those specific bits, rather than continuing an all or nothing edit war. Wnt (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Wnt: Here here! That's what I'm trying to get across. Some of the information may need to be removed or edited, (I've done some myself) but removing all the information is in excess. I have recommended repeatedly that if necessary, specific parts should be edited / deleted, he should do so. But tenpoundhammer doesn't want to do so (and he has admitted he has only seen a few episodes). I'd edit the section some myself, but I'm wasting to much time undoing his deletions, and refuttiating his erroneous claims against me. He is the one that wants to continue an edit war.

And he's done it again, but this time he also deleted one of the main characters as well (Octocat). Girloveswaffles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girloveswaffles (talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've looked it over again and really, I can't find anything in your character list that is keepable with maybe one exception. To wit:

• • Aperitif — only appeared in one episode, best to just mention it in that episode's summary
  • Pinians — only appeared in one episode
  • Wunny Sharbit — Maybe.
  • Melvin, Eduardo, Harold, Sid, Doug, Slouch Potato, Yetis, Alligaturtle — only appeared in a couple episodes
  • Caterpillar through Career — background-only characters without speaking roles, not relevant
  • Whirrls — only appeared in one episode
  • Crocowolf, kangaraccoons — only appeared in one episode. Having seen the latter episode, the kangaraccoons are only a one-shot gag and not relevant to the plot, so they shouldn't be mentioned at all.
  • Batrdrill to end of list — Again, only appeared in one episode each.

The one-shots can easily be mentioned in their respective episodes, but only if they're relevant to the plot (for instance, Aperitif), but the episode plot summaries as they stand are kind of long and overly-detailed themselves. The article as a whole needs a major rewrite to be more encyclopedic and less heavy on the fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Needs a rewrite in YOUR opinion. And once again, get your information right. Pinnians, Whirrles, Crocowolves, Kangerkoons, and others show up in Multiple (As in more than one Episode (and not just in the background)) as well And Whirrles play major parts in two episodes as well as being part of other episodes. Watch more episodes and get your info right. I at least have seen every episode, and have copies of each. And "To the end of the list" is just Vague. What are you going to delete next? Air dates? All Characters that aren't Peri And Entree? Cast listing? Everything? Quit being a Wiki-Troll. It's apparent your not interested in contributing, just in having it all your way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girloveswaffles (talk • contribs) 09:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think I'm going entirely by opinion? Have you not read WP:IINFO, WP:WAF or WP:OR, three guidelines/policies about proper writing on Wikipedia? It's not like we go by the whims of editors here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Which of those three policies tells you that sections describing individual episodes should describe the plot of the episodes, but not mention any one-shot characters unless they are relevant to the plot? (For that matter, how can any work of fiction contain a character that is not relevant to its plot?) Note that WP:WAF specifically urges the inclusion of information going beyond mere plot summaries. Wnt (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:IINFO would preclude the inclusion of the "background characters" who don't have speaking roles, at least. That was nearly half the list. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Do deletionists have their own version of policies? I must have looked at WP:IINFO five times over the past week because of your complaint, and it doesn't have anything remotely resembling a ban on "background characters". It bans "plot-only description", which is practically the opposite of banning characters. Wnt (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that would fall under WP:NOTDIR actually: "A complete exposition of all possible details." Tell me how "X has appeared as a background character" is necessary to the completion of the article, particularly when I can't even find a way to verify that X is their name (Girloveswaffles said a couple of the background critters were named in the episode — if they were, I doubt they'd turn up 0 hits on Google). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That policy itself is flawed - there is no way to define "all possible details". How can someone say that one character is allowed and another isn't? A policy that provides no tangible direction is worthless and void, so far as I'm concerned. Wnt (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

So you think every article should list everything? Every show should list EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER, even ones who are onscreen for only 2 seconds? Every mall should list every store that was ever in it? Every artist's article should relist every single song that's in the BMI database for their name, regardless of whether or not it was recorded? The article on Little Caesars should list their entire menu, down to the increase in the price of Crazy Bread over time? Get real. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that there is no standard for how detailed is "too detailed". I won't say that we "should list" all those things - but when an editor chooses to cover details, this is empirical evidence that those particular details are of interest to someone. Dismissing their work as "fancruft" is purely a matter of personal taste. And I think that when personal taste collides, the taste of those who develop an article should prevail over the personal taste of those who just pop in once a day to revert everything they did. Wnt (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And I see Tenpoundhammer is just deleting things for no reason. I reinserted info on Octocat he deleted, and he has deleted it once again (by the way, she is one of the main characters, and was not originally inserted by myself). I Updated the information on "Mr. Wrinkles in time, and he deleted it ( a clarification on the title being listed as wrong. ~~Girloveswaffles~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girloveswaffles (talk • contribs) 01:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Girloveswaffles, Octocat should not have been removed as they're is a main character who is in most episodes of Spliced and was removed without an explanation of why they should be removed. Powergate92Talk 02:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I can tell you his reasoning: She doesn't talk. By that standard, you couldn't list the Pink Panther in any of the Pink Panther Cartoons.~~GirlovesWaffles~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girloveswaffles (talk • contribs) 09:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Who was that Guy?

Getting back to Spliced, In the episode Bowled Over: Does anyone know who played the bowling instructor in the black and white film Entree and Peri watch after discovering the Bowling Alley? It's not in the credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girloveswaffles (talk • contribs) 09:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It was Mike Kiss. The same actor who played Smarty Smarts in the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:180D:D8D0:C580:A0E9:4F19:7605 (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

why are the minor characters excluded

why are the minor characters of spliced excluded, whether or not they are not prominent does not make a difference. they still belong to the cartoon series. Seriously i thought wikipedia is about gathering information, i know that there is a lot of information and that some of the details could be freed up due to he wikias, but this is rediculous.

It is very annoying when people try to get rid of information because they think it is redundant, with that sort of thinking, they'd most likely leave every television cartoon article would be reduced to a single paragraph. It was already bad enough to delete the Space pirate article in the Metroid series, as well as the list of digimon by rank. Im just sick of the loss of information. 60.231.118.190 (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

i don't see the problem with the inclusion of the minor characters, it will only be on that one article anyway and would not make a difference. sorry, forgot to add signiture Sclera2 (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We're not supposed to list everything. Why can't people figure that out? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As I said, most of the minor characters are not relevant to the plot, so there's no need to mention them — and if they are one-shots relevant to the plot, then the info should be in the episode's plot summary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again, listing a character in a plot summary is not the same as a description / history. But not only "Background Characters" are being left out, so are reoccurring characters with info on who did the voicesof some of these characters. How much should we cut down the information on characters in the show to? Say maybe the list should read as: Peri, Entree and a bunch of chumps? ~~Girloveswaffles~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girloveswaffles (talk • contribs) 09:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

the minor characters is short anyway, its only short paragraphs for each character, i guess another solution that is possible would be to do full-detailed episode summaries, but that would be larger than the minor characters Sclera2 (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

wait a min, why can't someone just make another article be created featuring the minor characters: Characters in the Spliced series. Theres an article about the characters in "Reboot" did it, "halo" also has an article.

P.S. i though that wikipedia is for people searching for information that they need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sclera2 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

it sucks that i was only able to find the names of the short episodes on youtube. Its a shame, that we can't cast this as a vote, that would solve the issue quickly and lay it to rest Sclera2 (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Taking a vote won't help. Splitting them off won't help. They just aren't relevant. Wikipedia is for information yes, but it's not for information on everything that ever existed. Listing every single character in a TV series would be akin to listing every store in a shopping mall's article, listing every song that turns up when you search an artist's name on BMI, etc. It's just too indiscriminate. Splitting the episode list off is feasible, though it would have to be actually less detailed than it is now; it's already reading far too much like a fansite. And Wikipedia is NOT for fansite material. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 14:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

i didn't say it was for fansite material and what you say is relevent is just your personal opinion, im sure that there are more people that would disagree. And i wasn't saying that we put in every character that has made a small appearance, maybe just characters like OctocatSclera2 (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not personal opinion, it's Wikipedia policy and guideline. Did you not read WP:IINFO? That's official stuff. I don't know why you fanboys can't get this through your thick skulls. We're not a freaking fansite where you can fling any old thing around. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to revisit the 3O I had left above, please review the television section of the Manual of Style. That is not anyone's individual opinion, it is a guide on how articles should be written, and it is specifically clear on this point. A Wikipedia article is meant to be an overview, not a detailed accounting. We do not list every character of a series for the same reasons that we do not list every detail of a person's life in a biography. The article should be written so that someone who is unfamiliar with the show can gain a general understanding of it, not to replace the experience of actually watching it. TPH is correct regarding the inclusion of too many details. Wikipedia is not the place to write everything there is to know about a subject. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes to "!" or No?

Shouldn't we re-add the "!" in the "Spliced" title, as I've already contacted Nelvana about it and recieved a reply saying there is officially an exclamation in the title of the show. I don't have a copy of the e-mail any longer but even so, who would believe me? TenPoundHammer, seeing as it was you who changed it (and no I'm not picking on you) would you like to ask Nelvana? ^.^ AnimatedZebra (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Every reliable source I've found suggests that it does not have an exclamation point, including its own website on Nelvana. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Hey TenPoundHammer, I contacted Nelvana about the missing "!" and they have now fixed it on their website. So, after you check, would you like to undo the name change? AnimatedZebra (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• There are still many more sources that do not use the exclamation mark. Since most people leave out the exclamation mark, we go by the use that's more common. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

AnimatedZebra, per WP:Article titles#Common names we use the name that's most commonly used in English-language reliable sources and not the official name as the title of the article. Powergate92Talk 05:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• I understand but I thought this rule didn't apply to things like TV shows, movies, songs etc. AnimatedZebra (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Air dates are an unverified mess

The listed air dates in the episodes table at this article are a real problem – three different countries are listed (Canada, the U.S., and the UK), and currently the article doesn't indicate that all of the episodes actually aired in any of the three! Worse, the air dates are completely unverified. U.S. air dates – different from the air dates listed here – are included at TV Guide ([3]), but it's another weird case where, for some reason, TV Guide only displays half of the episodes (and I've never figured out how to get the TV Guide website to list the other half!)... OK, it looks like Amazon lists all the U.S.(?) airdates ([4]) – though with a different "premiere date" than TV Guide(!) – so that's a start.

But I have no idea what to do about the Canadian or the UK air dates, or whether the U.S. or UK airdates should even be listed here. (I'd be inclined to remove the U.S. air dates, at least, but those may be the only air dates that are sourceable! So maybe the UK air dates should go instead?...)

Anyway, pinging Geraldo Perez to this discussion to see if he has any suggestions... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I suggest using Amazon as the source of the US dates and add a column reference. For the other columns add a {{cn}} tag to the columns for now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

OK. If we go that route, I'll reorder the episodes in terms of the Amazon/U.S. airdates, as 2009 is before 2010, which means the show aired in the U.S. before it aired in the UK... This likely means the UK airdates can be removed, if they aren't ultimately soured. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Given that it is a Canadian show that has sourced US airdates, I don't see need for UK dates anyway. Foreign broadcast info that belongs in the broadcast section, not the table. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: There's a problem – when I tried to source these to Amazon, the Amazon link in the ref came up on the Blacklist (and won't let me add it)... Any suggestions here? I have little doubt about the correctness of the Amazon air dates (and episode titles), but it's a problem if I can't explicitly source to Amazon. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Don't add the url to the reference but provide enough information that someone can goto Amazon and find the data. The info just needs to be verifiable, the link is a convenience.Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: I find it odd that Amazon is on the Blacklist. On one level, I understand it. But, on another level, I think it's a really bad idea... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Updated U.S. air dates (and episode titles), based on Amazon.com page for this show. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: It is on the blacklist likely because it is treated as marketing to link directly to things that are for sale. Wikipedia is trying to stay non-commercial mainly so Google and other advertising search engines don't treat it as competition and will thus let Wikipedia be one of the main search results. Wikipedia is under a lot of pressure to commercialize its popularity and has avoided doing so. Direct links to products for sale break that model. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)