Talk:Clarence (American TV series)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Clarence (2014 TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wirenote (talk · contribs) 02:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The first season has not even finished. I believe it is too soon for this article to be a GAN. wirenote (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You sure? Aside from the expansion I just now did (to the "Reception" section), I don't think there's any ongoing edit war or content dispute, unless this is some sort of unspoken rule. – 23W _{(talk · contribs)} 04:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Clarence_.282014_TV_series.29. wirenote (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Following what has happened to the show recently, I forfeit my nomination. 23W (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2014 (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.

Skyler Page Sexual Harassment

I've seen a few IPs adding this with no citations among other things. The main policy to cite here is WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPCRIME. ...editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. This especially applies to the 'Skyler Page' thing, no matter how many reliable sources report on it, we can't say that someone is accused or has accused of comitting a crime, in this case sexual harassment until a conviction has been secured. As to whether to include it as per the future of the show, if the show does get canceled and that's the primary reason, we'll need to have sources to say that, rather than assuming that it will be canceled because it does not have a creator. Tutelary (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple sources have been provided. Saying "until a conviction has occurred" is basically sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". The firing occurred. No charges have been filed but the sexual assault is the direct cause of the firing. You're excluding facts because of something that may or may not happen after the fact. You can't play the waiting game with this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.233.29 (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

That Page was fired is significant to the show. Why he was fired isn't, unless there were a reliable source connecting the sexual abuse allegations to the show itself. I have shortened the coverage accordingly. Huon (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The firing itself is notable as the show is somewhat jeopardized now but the reasoning has WP:BLP and possible WP:LIBEL issues regarding it. I support Huon's edit. Tutelary (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

To add, the article is now at WP:BLPN Tutelary (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Can't it say something like "Page was fired from production after allegations of sexual harassment"? I mean, it says why right in the title of the cited source. 69.246.217.44 (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP:BLPCRIME is rather unambiguous in that regard. ...editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Bold and italics for emphasis. The reasoning on why Biography of living persons policy even exists is due to the fact that it's a legal issue and an ethical one. Libel lawsuits are time wasters and are often due to unsourced information being in the article for too long, the subject seeing it and deciding to take action, even if it's removed beforehand. We have to take special care not to accuse people of committing crimes, as that is a very dangerous area to tread and indeed, should not be tread at all. I'd like to invite you to read WP:BLP or glance over some of it, and would like to ask you what the solution should be. The fact that he got fired is already put into the production section but the intricate details of a supposed crime he committed should not be added to the article unless subsequent court proceedings occur. Indeed, the article is about the show itself, there is no biographical article for Skylor Page, the reasoning on why this is even at WP:BLPN and is an issue is due to the fact that WP:BLP applies where any living person is mentioned, even on this page. Tutelary (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

So far, there are a lot of people throwing around innuendo as fact. Page was fired- that is a fact confirmed by Cartoon Network. Why he was fired- AT THIS POINT- is still a matter of speculation. CN has ONLY confirmed 1) That Page was fired and 2) The show will continue. Partridge- again, AT THIS POINT IN TIME- has NOT filed charges, and no charges have been filed against Page. Therefore, legally, there is no crime (yet). Whinyexpert (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on it. Since the creator has been fired, the show is likely to be cancelled. But CN hasn't decided yet to cancel the show. But my guess they will likely cancel the show, if the network makes the official announcement.72.148.3.214 (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, Page would not constitute as a public figure per our definition of public figures, correct? (Pinging: Tutelary and Huon.) 23W 23:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I rather doubt that, and even if he were, this article is not the place to discuss the allegations against him. Huon (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Public figures would be a politician, not a creator of a show. Tutelary (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• That's what I thought, haha. Thanks for clearing that up, both. 23W 02:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Page

I created an article for him. He meets WP:CREATIVE as he has an Emmy nomination. Please watch for WP:BLP. Thanks, wirenote (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Proper move?

Spin Boy 11 recently moved this page from Clarence (2014 TV series) to Clarence (animated series). I've never seen animated series articles disambiguated like this before. I wouldn't think the format of the show means too much for casual readers, especially compared to something universal as the year it premiered. Can we get some consensus? This would likely create a huge precedent otherwise. 23W 21:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it back as it's contrary to WP:NC:TV. Clarence is a disambiguation page so normal disambiguation rules would have the article at Clarence (TV series) but, since that is a redirect to the disambiguation page and because Clarence (1988 TV series) exists, Clarence (2014 TV series) is the appropriate location for this article. WP:NC:TV suggests that Clarence (animated TV series) is acceptable, although not preferred over Clarence (2014 TV series), but Clarence (animated series) is wrong. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

True. I was going to mention that Clarence (animated TV series) could be okay, but the year sets it apart better. Spin Boy cited "It sounds far more timeless and specific" to go with "animated [TV] series", but that doesn't really make much sense, IMO. 23W 21:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:American LGBT-related television programs

Should this show belong in that category? There was a gay couple in a recent episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:ED20:E000:225:FF:FE4F:3B8E (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Categories should only be added if there is an obvious reason to do so. Currently, there is no sourced prose in the article that suggests this series should be added to either Category:American LGBT-related television programs, Category:LGBT-related animation. And based on the the IPv6 editor's comment above, "there was a gay couple in a recent episode" doesn't seem to suggest that gay issues or themes were presented in any significant way. Just because a gay character is depicted a series doesn't necessitate inclusion in these cats. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I guess it's sorta weird because Jeff's parents were revealed to be a lesbian couple in the most recent episode. With all the hubbub over the one incidental gay couple, you'd think the press would at least make some note of it, but nothing so far.

I know WP:OR forbids against using primary sources as means of synthesizing information, but I'm wondering if it's at least worthy of a mention somewhere on there. Would that warrant the category then? 23W 02:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I totally dropped the ball on replying to this, @23W:. It seems to me that like any other category addition (WP:CAT), there has to be a clear reason why the category is added. Though I can understand and support the emotional arguments for adding the category, if we're talking about minor characters, and if LGBT themes aren't a central part of the series or a significant aspect of an episode, then we're frivolously adding the cat. And by lazily adding categories without first providing any supporting content to justify their inclusion, we're not actually educating our readers, rather, we're vaguely saying, "oh, yeah, Clarence is LGBT-related" but not explaining how. We are not statisticians. We're not here to tick boxes for this group or another, without providing context. And sorry for the late reply. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: That's okay, I've been pretty unpunctual 'round these parts too. :P

Anyway, I get your point, Category:American LGBT-related television programs does specificity "significant" characters, while Category talk:LGBT-related animation seems rather vague. Waiting for secondary sources seems like the best option, though stuff that's intrinsic (like Jeff's mothers) might be a case for it. I was thinking of making a "Neighborhood Grill" article, which definitely would warrant such categories and maybe alleviate the present undue weight in the reception section. 23W 04:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was involved in a similar discussion at Talk:Legend of Korra recently, and I yielded because a good case was made for the significance of Korra and Sami walking off into the spirit world together, as they were major characters and it was planned that they would wind up together, etc. Here, however, I feel less of a clear reason for the inclusions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Character page of this series?

Hello there, the page needs an character list, could anyone create it? Thanks. ZoriAlexandra08 (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Red link in Episode list template

The link to the section of List of Clarence episodes detailing Clarence shorts is incomplete and needs to be fixed, but this is only an issue for the template shown on the main page, the template on the episode list article does not have this problem. Editing the template shown on the show's main page does not seem possible. Ian Fairchild (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Release

What's wrong with the release saying:

Pilot: February 17, 2014
Series: April 14, 2014 ‒ June 24, 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by XSMan2016 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

See template:Infobox television/doc and look for descriptions of "released", "first_aired" and "last_aired". "released" is for streaming releases like Netflix which releases everything at once so it is inappropriate for use in this article. The value in all those parameters is a single date, and only a single date, nothing else. It is misusing the parameter to put something else in it that is not just a date. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I want another season of Clarence.

Please renew Clarence for a fourth season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.242.151 (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)