Talk:Just Roll with It

Vote winners

Hi. As you know, the studio audience has to vote on things that will happen next when the foghorn is heard. I was wondering if anyone thinks it's a good idea to list the winning votes in each of the episodes. What do you people thing? --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I can maybe see some readers finding it interesting, as with main cast absences, but it seems kind of trivial to me and far less notable than absences. Amaury • 20:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that would be fine info for the Wikia, but I don't think it's appropriate for here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

"You Decide LIVE!"

Walt Disney Television Press is marking "You Decide LIVE!" as just special. No production code. What do we think here? Should it be listed separately? And if so, should it be done like at Hunter Street/I Am Frankie, with the recap specials being listed at the bottom, or like Girl Meets World/Make It Pop, where it would be listed between the first and second seasons (once the second season premieres)? In other words, what kind of special is it? Amaury • 06:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Probably need to see it first. My guess is that it's just a "special episode", rather than a "special special", but we'll need to see what they do with it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing guest cast

For the record, I don't agree with this edit for a whole host of reasons. First, the full name is given in the secondary source, so it's totally appropriate to list in the 'Guest' section – we have the "names per credit" name list in the episode summary itself. Second, there is no reason to move that source from the 'Guest' section to the casting section – if we insist up having a 'Guest' section, then we should secondarily source cast there, and not move ever guest cast secondary sourcing to the 'Casting' section. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

We could have both the primary and secondary sources after the name, but there's no reason to source a bio. Also, with regard to credits, primary triumphs secondary. We can have full names mentioned in the episode summary, but the both the guest stars line in episode summaries and "Cast" sections should follow names per credits. If we were to use that logic, shouldn't Big City Greens, despite what the opening sequence has, be showing the last names of Green, as well as Gramma Alice, for the main characters, because the bios page for Walt Disney Television Press supports that? Amaury • 18:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I explained this – we have the "names per credits" version in the episode summary. The 'Cast' sections can go into more detail. That's why it's OK to have something like: "Hal Sparks as Davenport: Donald Davenport is the billionaire inventor who is Leo's stepfather..." – the first part is the "names per credit part", and the second part is the WP:COMMONNAME part. In the case of Big City Greens, this is why it's important that we have that intro sentence in the 'Main' cast section, before we list them. In this case, the secondary source explicitly list Higgins' character's full name, so there's no reason not to include it – that meets WP:V. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

But the other part of this is that there's no need to move this to the 'Casting' section – the secondary source is fine where it was in the 'Guest' section. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The Guest stars line below the episode summary should include names per credit. But in the "Cast" section, it should be the full name if it's mentioned in the show AND is WP:VERIFIABLE from another reliable source. I say "mentioned in the show" because full names can change from the casting version. I don't believe in passive mentions though, especially if they're made in a form of a joke or mocking like when Bradford called Cherry "Cherry Seinfeld" in Thundermans. I don't think that should have been accepted as her full name but I digress. As for guest cast citations, those should appear alongside their names in the cast section, not separately in the "casting" section. Starforce¹³ 22:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but you appear to be contracting yourself. That's why it's OK to have something like: "Hal Sparks as Davenport: Donald Davenport is the billionaire inventor who is Leo's stepfather..." – the first part is the "names per credit part", and the second part is the WP:COMMONNAME part. In that case, it should just be John Michael Higgins as Caleb (names per credits), and then we have something like: ...a former army friend of Rachel's whose last name is Barnswallow. This is something that requires further discussion. Amaury • 17:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Explained above – names per credits in the episode summary, names per source in the 'Cast' section. Doing what you're suggesting would just serve to make the entry unnecessarily wordy.... Anyway, it's worth quoting WP:TVCAST here – "All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source." What we're doing here falls under the second part of TVCAST. So we're not "breaking any guidelines" here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Then the same could be said for your example with Donald Davenport, except in that instance, we don't have a secondary source supporting "Donald," so I guess the point is kind of moot there. The other problem is that "All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source." means exactly what it says: Names should be referred to as credited or by common name supported by a reliable source. The hierarchy goes by credits -> by secondary sources -> by common name. The second part, by secondary sources, is only when we do not have the names in the credits (which in this case we do have the credits with both the actor and character names). Then we go with what reliable sources state. By credits has the highest importance. Now, the other way we could use Caleb's last name would be if we had a character list article, where the header is by credits and the bio contains the full name, like with List of Backstage characters, but this series nowhere near close enough to even start thinking about that. Also, if we're going to be using that argument, we should be listing Page and Schartz for the last names of Charlotte and Schwoz, not just on their bios on List of Henry Danger characters, but also in the headers and in the cast section of Henry Danger. Add: And there's still no reason to source the bio, we can just add have the source directly after the last name. Amaury • 18:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

There's no reason not to source the character description – it's right from the source. Again, when you can source something to a secondary source, you should – that includes things like character and plot summaries. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

We should still stick with names per credits in short descriptions. The TVCAST guidance about using common names from reliable sources is meant to be a fallback to use if we don't have a credited name and it shouldn't be used to override the credited name. The exact wording as written, though, makes it an editorial choice of which to use. I think the credits should be the preferred source when we have them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, that's not correct – the current wording is a compromise because some editors expressed concern that the credited name is not always the WP:COMMONNAME. IOW, a "sourced name" is not just meant as a "fallback". And in this case, for the zilltionth time – the credit name is included: it's included in the episode summary! The cast section is a supplement to that, and a sourced "full name" there is entirely appropriate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Except that, like summaries, bios should be in your own words, so it's technically COPYVIO, even if sourced, which is why before a series premieres, there should be no bios. But there's still generally no reason to source bios, only names. WP:PRIMARY applies to the name and bio, if written in your own words. Amaury • 18:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe it's correct to say that "OR" implies ordered hierarchy. That's not how semantics work. When WP or MOS intends for one option to be considered first before a fallback, it's always clear. I believe both are correct unless they contradict each other or there's dispute over one version. So, there's nothing wrong with using the more complete source. Starforce¹³ 19:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The original intent was for it to be ordered with a first choice, then a fallback. How it ended up being written broke that making either acceptable. However anything written in a secondary source about a work of fiction should be supported by something actually in that work of fiction so the actual work itself is generally preferred for this sort of straight factual information. Credits are generally preferred for names. Names revealed in the work itself are usually OK. Only if those are missing should we go to other sources. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, that's not right – see above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

No, dude, that's not right – you can use "short quotes", provided they're sourced, and you can use a secondary source to supplement something like a character bio. You seems to think that WP:PRIMARY >> WP:SECONDARY for stuff like this – that is almost never the case on Wikipedia: WP:SECONDARY is actually preferred – we just fall back to WP:PRIMARY on things like plot summaries because generally that's all there is (and because we are trying to avoid WP:COPYVIO issues). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Work of fiction doesn't mean "end credits only"; it also means the content from watching the show. If a name can be verified by watching the show (WP:PRIMARY) without any dispute and can also be supported by a WP:SECONDARY source, there shouldn't be any reason to invalidate it just because the wording in credits isn't the WP:COMMONNAME. Starforce¹³ 20:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For straight factual uninterpreted information the work of fiction itself is authoritative. Beyond that we need secondary sources. The allowance for common name of characters for works of fiction are for the cases when the credited character name is not how the character is most commonly referred to inside that work of fiction, and should not be used for how that character is referred to outside that work. Secondary sources can support what is common usage but shouldn't create names that are not used in the fiction itself. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez, if the full/common name is clearly identified multiple times in the show, wouldn't that count as authoritative and verifiable from work of fiction by your definition? Or do you define work of fiction as the "credits section" only? For example, Minty Matheson on Coop & Cami is often referred to as "Minty Matheson", not just "Minty" as listed in the credits. If there was a reliable secondary source confirming "Minty Matheson" as the common name, wouldn't it be acceptable? (PS: I'm not particularly interested in this Caleb case here but there are several other instances where the name is clear and undeniable. I would consider Donald Davenport as a potential as well.) Starforce¹³ 20:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Starforce13: There are cases where the credited name is not normally used in the show or film itself and a character is more known by the some other name or name variation. Again it comes down to what is in the show or film itself. Secondary sourcing helps here as they do tend to reflect what a character is most known as without watching the show and trying to figure it out. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, @Geraldo Perez: that's what I'm saying. If 1) it can be confirmed from watching the show/movie AND 2) it can be verified from a reliable secondary source, then it is acceptable even if credits are different. The two conditions need to be met to use a name other than what's in the credits. In this case, the name can be verified from both watching the show and from the secondary source provided by the editor. Starforce¹³ 22:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Starforce13: A common name is not just some alternative name, it should be fairly pervasively used more so than the credited name. Not just mentioned in passing once then dropped. According to the reference, he is playing a character from another show and that name is what is being given out, not necessarily the name most used in this show. I'm wary about fuller names being the commonly used name as that seldom happens in shows. Usually the credited name is the common name. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm talking about cases where the full name is used just as much (if not more) than the credited name - or is the most recognizable name like "Jonah Beck" vs "Jonah" or "Amy Pond" vs "Amy." Starforce¹³ 22:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The Big Sneak before Family Squabbles

pinging @Amaury:. I think the IP edit is right. The Big Sneak aired on Nov 15 and Family Squabbles on Nov. 22. I can confirm from my DVR and you can also confirm from other sources like iTunes. If you have VOD that includes release date, you can confirm that too. There seems to be a numbering issue causing Family Squabbles to appear before The Big Sneak in some listings despite airing after it. Starforce¹³ 17:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The order can also be confirmed from DisneyNOW. Starforce¹³ 17:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Starforce13: Not always, but IPs generally tend to vandalize children's television series articles by inserting incorrect dates or changing correct dates to incorrect dates. See User:SummerPhDv2.0/KIDSTVDATES. So I was going to watch the episodes myself and see what was correct. (I still need to get caught up on episodes 13–17, as well as the last new episodes of Bunk'd and Coop & Cami Ask the World. Otherwise, I'm caught up with Disney Channel's current live-action comedy series.) The Futon Critic supports November 15 for "Family Squabbles" and November 22 for "The Big Sneak." Zap2it has November 15 for both episodes, but obviously the episodes did not air on the same day. Walt Disney Television Press has the same as The Futon Critic. Amazon, like iTunes as you said, has November 15 for "The Big Sneak" and November 22 for "Family Squabbles." DisneyNOW doesn't show air dates, but does have "The Big Sneak" before "Family Squabbles," so we do seem to have more support for what you have stated. And Amazon and iTunes generally do follow what actually happens when they post the new episodes the following day at 12:00 AM. Although they too of course sometimes make mistakes—see, for example: Talk:Cousins for Life#Amazon listings. Amaury • 17:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Amaury, I agree. IP edits usually need extra scrutiny. In this case, they're right. And yes, Amazon and iTunes make mistakes too. So, the more sources the better. So, if you don't mind, you can restore the IP's version. Starforce¹³ 17:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

About the “cancellation”

See current edits, I have now put a header regarding about the cancellation, so this should be settle things down regardless of vandalism. TheRavineStudios (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Please don't pretend there isn't a valid source.

The show is cancelled. The lead actress Kaylin Hayman on her verified instagram account made that realllllly clear in her video talking about the show being done, forever. Due to the pandemic, she said.

This account recorded her story which displays her username (and also if you think its a deepfake you're a lunatic cuz it's very obviously her)

https://twitter.com/_grxnttt_/status/1393505842759036931 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.218.3 (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "with" in the show title be capitalized?

Most sources and articles on the internet have the "with" capitalized in the title of "Just Roll With It", so shouldn't the page be renamed?

Please? Now that it's finally marked as "Cancelled" let's fix this, k? The name of the series is Just Roll With It. The With is capitalized. I could link you to Disney's library / API but would prefer to not... you can visually see the format via DisneyPlus.com anyway.

It is improperly labeled Just Roll with It on the "Roll It Back" series on YouTube... but the logo and all other official mentions capitalize With including the non "Roll It Back" YouTube videos. I think it looks very odd.. can we please fix this? https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLiv1IUQDVSNL1PeuZ5EiKDhgjvOa-FnAP

72.128.218.3 (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Not happening. We only capitalize prepositions/non-important words that are five or more letters according to our guidelines. Amaury • 03:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Cancelled

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Edit it. Now! The show was removed from their press / PR site. This is literally how a series is cancelled. It's absolute confirmation. You don't remove a series from the press site that is ongoing. They always remove a series approximately 6 months after the cancellation. In addition, the series was removed from DisneyNow. The only time a series is removed from on-demand is when the series is complete. That is why BUnk'd is still there. Bunk'd is doing a 6th season (per production weekly).

Take Just Roll With it Down. Do not wait until May, it makes everyone here look like fools. The PR Team REMOVED the series FROM THEIR LIST OF SHOWS. You don't remove a show from your PRESS SITE UNTIL ITS OVER. https://www.dgepress.com/disneychannel/shows/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.218.3 (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Not happening. Also, Bizaardvark is an ended series, yet is on DisneyNOW. Likewise with a few other ended series. So your logic is flawed. We need a definitive source stating the series as canceled. Otherwise we wait until one year has passed since the last new episode before adding an end date. Trying to say, in the case of Disney Channel, that a series is over because it has been removed from WDTV Press or DisneyNOW is total WP:OR. Amaury • 11:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, well how come Kaylin Hayman confirming on her Instagram story that the show got canceled ISN'T a reliable source? And how come Robbie Countryman saying "SERIES WRAP" on an Instagram post isn't enough info either? (Robbie is a director of some episodes) User:Peacerocker07 • 01:51, 28 November 2021 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.135.81 (talk)

You shouldn't be in your position with such limited understanding of the industry. Yes, Bizaardvark DID leave DisneyNow as always. A few months after it ended right around when Disney+ launched. It RETURNED in what's known as the Free TV Window or syndication (Do some research) 3 months ago. That's how DisneyNow works... they rotate 1 season every 2 months, then the series falls off again. That's what just happened with Gamer's Guide and on December 1st a bunch of other series that they recently brought back will fall off again as their 3rd (and final) seasons hit the 2 month mark of availability. I've been tracking this for years.

You do not understand what you're talking about, but hide behind stubbornness and "artificial" power. But worst, you exhibit incompetence thinking that the removal from the PRESS SITE (which is a legally motivated move done when they are done with the contracted period of promotion) isn't confirmation. Reached out to my pals in the industry to get the official confirmation. We've pushed through announcements for 5 series this year and will do so for this too. 72.128.218.3 (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Curious if Matt Mitovich from TVLine is reliable enough source--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course he is. TVLine is highly reliable. As are we. We told you we'd "push through" announcements on November 29th... and both Gabby and Just Roll With It (ended all the way back in May) came within a couple days. Coincidence? haha told you we like accurate data. 72.128.218.3 (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.