Talk:List of Good Luck Charlie episodes

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

Plot Summaries[edit]

Summary for 'Kit and Kaboodle' is wrong. It has nothing to do with a cartoon show or Gabe camping. ~JediLiz

Season 2 confirmed, but....[edit]

Season 2 is coming, but I doubt it'll air in 2010. My guess is it won't premiere until 2011. ~~JediLiz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jediliz (talk • contribs) 01:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Season 2 "Let's Potty"[edit]

There is a season 2 episode called "Let's Potty", I found it on showfax.com, Wizards, Suite Life, iCarly, and Big Time Rush uses showfax as a source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.82.97 (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Shakes It Up[edit]

I've found out on Good Luck Charlie's page, that they're planning a crossover with "Shake It Up"

Also: 2nd time Davis Cleveland appears on Good Luck Charlie. 1st time being Snow Show, part 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.214.69 (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skyler vs Skylar[edit]

There seems to be some disagreement of the spelling of Samantha Boscarino's character so I checked all the episodes in which she has appeared. The name is spelled "Skyler" in 1x20 and 1x21. The character is uncredited in 2x02 and I don't have 2x07 yet so I couldn't check that. Examination of the press releases for these episodes revealed a different result. In 1x20 and 2x02 she is not mentioned,[1][2] while 1x21 shows the spelling as "Skylar".[3] Only 2x07 uses "Skyler".[4] Based on the consistency in the episodes and the spelling of the press release for the latest episode to be aired, "Skyler" seems to be the correct spelling. The 1x21 press release is likely a typo. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Shakes It Up[edit]

All future episode content requires citations from reliable sources. Despite this, the episode summary for Charlie Shakes It Up has been removed several times because it is unsourced, but it keeps being restored without sources. "I saw it on TV", "I saw it on YouTube" and "it's available on demand" do not constitute reliable sources and do not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability which requires that all content added to Wikipedia must be attributable to reliable sources. Episodes are copyrighted and if they have been uploaded to YouTube by anybody other than Disney, it constitutes a violation of copyright. Linking to such works, or using them as a source for a citation is not permitted, Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works applies in such cases. If citations can't be provided, the content should not be added. The note attached to the episode summary is quite clear on that. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Babys new shoes[edit]

teddy mom buys new shoes and charlie ruins them the schools cost 400 dolllars. teedys joins a club pj meets the kid who he cut his hair from byAmanda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psp534 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The Bob Duncan Expierence[edit]

I have seen it on Verizon On Demand!!!!!! I was telling the truth and I did not violate anything!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.4.68 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All content added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. All future episode information requires citations from reliable sources in support. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 76.28.124.33, 2 September 2011[edit]

I would like to edit to make the show more popular.

76.28.124.33 (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid edit request - need statements of exactly what needs to be changed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 69.14.77.125, 6 September 2011[edit]

Jason Dolley who plays PJ gets electrocuted on the next Good Luck Charlie Ditch Day and he will be wearing jeans.

69.14.77.125 (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to split article into separate season articles[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • The result of the discussion was that there is no consensus to split the article at this time. However there is some agreement that the subject may be revisited after several episodes of season 3 have aired. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is getting too long and a bit unwieldy to maintain. With a new season coming soon, it is proposed to split the article into separate season articles as is done on other shows. Perhaps when Season 3 is officially announced the article can be split up or when Season 2 ends. Please comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec2011 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

  • Strong oppose - There's no justification to do this at only 56 episodes. This usually happens around 80 or even more, and sometimes even never. The justification that other shows do it is irrelevant, because they shouldn't have done it in the first place (for example, List of Harry's Law episodes or List of Community episodes). Maybe after the third or fourth season. Kevinbrogers (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit: "strong" is a little overdoing it. 56 isn't terrible, but I still think another year should go by first. Kevinbrogers (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I'd agree with after season 3 is complete. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree I agree with Geraldo Perez. Maybe after Season 3 comes out, I'd give it a go.★♛iluvselenagomez1234♛★ (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Why was Sonny With a Chance given a split when it's only had 2 seasons of 46 episodes total? - Alec2011 (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was just a premature split (these happen quite often) that was soon turned into a redirect (which usually happens), but was later changed back into full articles. Looks like no one has really bothered with it since then. Same thing with the examples I gave above: the first only has two seasons of 17 aired episodes, and the second (when split, if I remember correctly) had two seasons of around 30 aired episodes. Kevinbrogers (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - WP:SIZERULE recommends that consideration be given to splitting articles once an article reaches 50-75kB of readable prose (it was 40-60kB until recently). Even using a very loose interpretation of the definition of readable prose, the amount of readable prose in the current version of the article is only 28kB,[5], which is well below WP:SIZERULE's upper limit of the "Length alone does not justify division" category. Splitting is typically reserved for shows with several seasons, making the "List of" article overly long, and that just isn't the case here. Based on article growth to date and current size I don't see a need until after season five (not three), unless substantial season specific content can be added to the season articles. Without that extra content, splitting forces the reader to look in multiple articles for the most basic episode content that is currently all available in a single article. It makes far more sense to include everything in one page if the only substantial content is the episode tables. The cast and characters information can be included here if necessary, although that should be limited to seasonal cast changes, since the cast is already handled in the main article. Justifying a split based on the argument that this article is becoming unwieldy is specious. Splitting the article results in three, and soon four, articles covering what one currently does and they all need to watched. Managing four articles is almost always more unwieldy than managing one. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I think that splitting articles should happen when season a few episodes of season 3 have airedElektrikBand 02:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think that splitting up Good Luck Charlie (Season 1), Good Luck Charlie (Season 2), and Good Luck Charlie (Season 3) is a great idea and I think it should be done, especially with a movie coming out on December 2nd and Season 3 slated to start next year. Queenissoawesome (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I agree that this page is getting too long. Especially with season 3 coming out. We're gonna have to split eventually, so why not now? Jaxsonista (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no guarantee that we're ever going to need to split the article. Look at List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes and List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes, both of which had three seasons, or List of Castle episodes, which is up to four. There are many other series that haven't been split. I've already explained the reasons why there is no justification to split the article yet and it's interesting to note that, despite four episodes having aired since then, the amount of readable prose hasn't actually increased, mainly because of edits to other episode summaries, making the argument to split even less compelling. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Edit request from , 14 November 2011[edit]

69.14.77.125 (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)In episode 27 of Season 2 of Good Luck Charlie the total U.S. viewers part was 4.2.69.14.77.125 (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

69.14.77.125 (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source used in the article, the figure was 4.555 million, which rounds to 4.6. Do you have a better source for 4.2? --AussieLegend (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy on Ice[edit]

Ivy invites teddy to her house on the lake, which is literally on the lake. She looses Mr. Wentz's fishing rod and must get it back. Charlie says a bad word, and Amy and Bob try to figure out who taught it to her. 74.98.248.247 (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This show is listed as "Teddy On Ice". To follow the capitalization used elsewhere on the page as well as in a majority of the references to the show on the Internet, should this be changed to "Teddy on Ice"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.224.90 (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 18 December 2011[edit]

69.14.77.125 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC) For the episode Teddy On Ice I see there is no prod. code and the prod. code is 229. I got it from http://goodluckcharlie.wikia.com/wiki/Teddy_on_Ice. 69.14.77.125 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

69.14.77.125 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they got their information from IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 19 December 2011[edit]


69.14.77.125 (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that you want done? Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the "Proposal to split article into separate season articles" discussion.[edit]

I actually agree on it because Good Luck Charlie has too many episodes in a season. For example, there are 26 episodes in Season 1...and there are 30 episodes in Season 2! Also I noticed that Sonny with a Chance had an article of the two seasons when they only had TWO seasons! So I agree on the making an article about the seasons of Good Luck Charlie. 125.237.123.182 (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting articles and Season 3[edit]

Well first-up, I say that all of these Good Luck Charlie seasons get split up into their own articles because it would be easier for them NOT to be packed on one full page. As it looks as Good Luck Charlie will probably reach 100 episodes, I say that it is time for them to get split into their own arcticles. I also want to talk about the premiering of Season 3 because at first it has been changed from "April 2012" to "Spring 2012" and now to "Fall 2012." I say that we wait until the right information comes before we post the notices of the Season 3 premiere and it ends up scheduling at a different time. So we should split the seasons into their own pages and wait until final information comes out for the premiere of Season 3. Thanks! ~ RomeAntic14 (Talking 2 Me?) 10:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus from the split discussion at #Proposal to split article into separate season articles is to wait until season 3 is well underway before reconsidering a split. The Fall 2012 mention has a reference from the official Disney up front presentation to the press about Disney plans - it is a very good reference. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I agree on the premiering of Season 3 of Good Luck Charlie and considering a split. If the last episode of Season 3 is confirmed and there was no split, we HAVE to split the articles! The reason is because people will complain a lot if we don't and the split is necessary as the Good Luck Charlie episodes page will be too long to be together. Secondly, I was confused with the Season 3 premiere. When the HECK is it?! April 2012? Spring 2012? April 2012? [Geraldo Perez] talked about "The Fall 2012 mention" and he said that it was a very good reference because the reference was officially from Disney. My question is, why was the "Fall 2012" changed to "Spring 2012"? Disney said it was "Fall", not "Spring"! Lastly, can we split the Good Luck Charlie characters section? I know some of the information is "unsourced" and not cited but the characters section is too long to be in the Good Luck Charlie article. Also, I noticed that Shake It Up already split their characters section! Good Luck Charlie was aired before Shake It Up and already, Shake It Up has their "characters" article. Please reply and decide... Streamerlovesmusic (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to split anything. Splitting is done when an article becomes too long and, based on our guideline, this article isn't too long. In fact it's far too short to split and doesn't look like becoming long enough until season 4 or 5. Regarding the premiere date, the Disney source in the article quite clearly says "Spring 2012". It would be nice if Disney, and in fact all US networks, would learn the names of the months though, to avoid the the problems highlighted in WP:SEASON. As for the characters, that's best discussed in the main article, not here. However, you can't split characters out to a separate article without violating Wikipedia:Notability. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out List of Shake It Up characters. I've corrected some errors and tagged the article appropriately.[6] --AussieLegend (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season 3 premiere[edit]

SEASON 3 IS NOT HAVING A SPECIAL ONE-HOUR PREMIERE IT IS HAVING A TWO-EPISODE OR TWO-PART PREMIERE!!!!!!! PLEASE STOP CHANGING THIS INFORMATION BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT HAS THE RIGHT INFORMATION!!!!!!! ~ RomeAntic14 02:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So why not find a reliable source saying that? And try to be polite and use lower case please. Ratemonth (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference for the first two eps supports the fact that it will not be a one-hour long single episode but two back-to-back episodes that could and probably will be separated in re-runs. It is obvious that this is meant to be a one-hour long premiere special based on the scheduling but that was not explicit in the references used. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the capital letters and thank you for changing that into a two-episode premiere! Also, I added summaries to the premiere episodes because I think that it should be the perfect time to add summaries for the two-episode premiere. I hope no one changes that because I took that on in my own words. ~ RomeAntic14 23:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 20 May 2012[edit]


There is an episode before "Special Delivery" called "Name that Baby"


50.83.157.253 (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. please provide more info Mdann52 (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 24 June 2012[edit]

I would like to write some more for the description of the episode "Special Delivery" please. Awesome20132 (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the article is currently semi-protected, only autoconfirmed users may edit the article. You need to make 7 more edits and wait at least 2 days before you are autoconfirmed. If you wish to change the article before then you need to be specific about what you want changed and another editor may change the article if your suggested changes are appropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lame edit war[edit]

It really does not matter what colour is used in the series overview table for the moment and the edit war over this is quite WP:LAME. Even the edit summaries used in the argument are lame. For example, despite this assertion, the colour was first added in July, with this edit and the original colour was neither of the two being argued over. I have warned both involved editors, who have well and truly breached WP:3RR.[7][8] If there is any more edit-warring those involved are likely to find themselves blocked and/or the article fully protected so nobody can change the colour. -- AussieLegend (✉) 17:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GLCFan1 user keeps changing it. 85.101.201.197 (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just let it go. It absolutely doesn't matter what color that tiny box is now. It will start to matter when there is actually a table and then it may have to change to meet rules for MOS:COLOR but right now it is meaningless. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the film section[edit]

Why is there a film section in the middle of a list of episodes? Isn't this page listing the GLC episodes (as per it's title)? Should the film not be listed elsewhere (on a different Wikipedia page)?

Or, at least, could the list of films (of which there is only one at this time) instead be after all episodes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.234.23 (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess because the film is like an episode from the point of view of the entire series story arc and is placed in the article at the appropriate sequence in time. I think it is OK to be there and the major info is in a separate article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This basically kills my show scraper (which works with all the other series I watch and keep track of). I guess I can make a special case to try to work around this, but it's a real shame that there is this inconsistency for this one show... :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.18.69 (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is a show scraper and I don't see the inconsistency. There are several other shows that include film or webisode sections. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All Fall Down[edit]

I would edit it my myself, but page is locked. At bottom of summary could someone put- Note: This is a special one-hour season finale.

--68.202.1.35 (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attic[edit]

Could someone add as a note under All Fall Down- This is the first episode to show the attic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.1.35 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All Fall Down Viewership[edit]

For viewership it says N/A despite viewer numbers available via tvbythenumbers for quite some time now. Could someone put for viewership: 4.2 (Milllions) and here's the link for proof- http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/01/23/cable-top-25tops-cable-viewership-for-the-week-ending-january-20-2013/166087 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.88.193.192 (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split Article[edit]

This page is over 100 KBs and it lists almost 80 episodes. Should it be split into Good Luck Charlie (season 1),Good Luck Charlie (season 2),Good Luck Charlie (season 3),and Good Luck Charlie (season 4) .user HH (contact | edits) 03:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we wouldn't split to those titles, as the captalisation is incorrect. Splitting would be to Good Luck Charlie (season 1) etc. We don't split based on file size, we split based on readable prose and there's only 48kB of that, which is just below the "may need to be divided" boundary specified by WP:SIZERULE. However, there's little to be gained by splitting unless season articles contain significantly more content than is present in the main list article. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The captalisation is not incorrect .user HH (contact | edits) 15:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was incorrect before you changed it,[9] which is something you shouldn't do after somebody has replied to your post. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How many episodes should I wait for .user HH (contact | edits) 23:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't split on episode numbers either. There are a number of reasons to split an article, and also reasons not to split. As I said above, there's little to be gained by splitting unless season articles contain significantly more content than is present in the main list article. If the only reason to split is to break one article up into five, there's no gain in splitting as it just makes it harder for the reader to find what they're looking for. On another note, you seem to be having a lot of trouble with your signature. If you haven't customised it, just sign using four tildes (~~~~). If you have customised it, you might be better off going back to the standard. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you measure the readable prose .user HH (contact | edits)19:25, 29 March 2013
Per Wikipedia:Article size#Readability issues, readable prose is the main body of the text, excluding material such as: footnotes and reference sections ("see also", "external links", bibliography, etc.); diagrams and images; tables and lists; Wikilinks and external URLs; and formatting and mark-up. There is a script that measures readable prose size in accordance with the definition. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The script isn't working.user HH (contact | edits) 17:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be installed in vector.js properly so it should be working. Have you asked the script author? --AussieLegend (✉) 01:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I may not be using it right. Where should the readable prose be. user HH (contact | edits) 5:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
What is the readable prose user HH (contact | edits)19:56, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
At the bottom of the "Toolbox" section on the left side of the page is a link marked "Page size". Click it when you're looking at the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Idea On Spliting Article[edit]

It would be better organized and better for people to look at it and also easier to find information about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.77.88 (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The articles would be organized no differently to the way this article is and it certainly wouldn't be easier to find information as readers would have to look in four articles to find information that is currently altogether in one article. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a well thought-out idea. Since we have shows like the Brady Bunch and Jessie that aren't to be split up, why split Good Luck Charlie? Anyway, it would take up more space, splitting the seasons. It is preferable to split it if it is a different television show, but it is not, so why split it? Bad idea, Wikipedia, bad idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.111.245 (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
Splitting a good idea because it keeps pages from getting too big. Usually when shows get split they contain more info on each season .user HH (contact | edits) 11:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out before, this page isn't too long. Unfortunately, far too many lists like this get spit up and no additional content is added. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How much longer does it need to be? user HH (contact | edits) 13:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
It is not just a matter of length. Can you create a season article that looks like one in the list at WP:Featured lists in the Media/episodes/seasons section (those are examples of excellent articles - don't need to be at that level but should at least be the basis to be able to eventually get there). The Simpsons (season 9) is about as small as they seem to get. There is a lot more than just splitting the list of episodes into a separate list of episodes per season. You might try creating a Season article for this show in your personal space to illustrate that there is enough well sourced info over and above what is in the list of episodes article to make a separate season article notable. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between the premieres of season 3 and 4[edit]

I've added a note to the summary of the premiere of season four because the plot of the episode is much similar to the season three premiere "Make Room for Baby." In the season three premiere, the entire family thinks that getting a new house isn't such a good idea, which leads up to Amy having a nostalgic moment just before they moved to the new house and she then suggested that staying at the original Duncan house would be a good idea. In season four, Charlie and Teddy are influenced by the original Duncan house and think that its a bad idea to build a new one over it (even though the new Duncan house was still gonna go through until they found the price extremely expensive). I think that both episodes have something in common, as they both deal with new houses and nostalgic moments. ChicagoWiz 01:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split episode list[edit]

Should we put season 1, 2, 3, & 4 into separate articles. I also was wondering if we should do this to ANT Farm and Fish Hooks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHall2002 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why they aren't split in articles per season is simply because no one created them. You must be wondering that because of my recent creation of articles for JONAS and Jonas L.A.. I'm currently unable to create these articles—due to lack of time—, so it will probably stay like this for a while.
P.S.: To sign your comments, all you need to do is tipe 4 "~" in a row at the end of it. Artmanha (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion above at #Split Article. Article is fine as it is. If season articles are to be split out need much more than just putting the season tables of this article into separate articles. If you want to do this, create an article in drafts area and see if it is notable as stand-alone articles. If you do copy from this article be sure to give the required attributions per WP:CWW. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Seasons Into Seperate Pages[edit]

This page is way too big, and the show has over 80 episodes so it is a good idea to split them up. I know shows that only have one season, and are split. If it is ok with everyone, I plan on making seperate pages, help would be appreciated though.--Jonathan Joseph (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion above at #Split Article and #Split episode list. Article is fine as it is and size is not excessive. If season articles are to be split out need much more than just putting the season tables of this article into separate articles. If you want to do this, create an article in drafts area and see if it is notable as stand-alone articles. If you do copy from this article be sure to give the required attributions per WP:CWW. Geraldo Perez (talk) Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Good Luck Charlie episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Good Luck Charlie episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Shakes It Up Aloha Holidays Karate Kid-tastrophe and Monstober Crossovers Should Get Their Own Page[edit]

Many crossover episodes with other shows have their own pages. IParty With Victorious already has its own page when it first premiered on June 11 2011. (extended was on August 27)

Would it be a good idea to have the episodes split off that were mentioned in the headline? The 2015 Monstober crossovers were like the Wish Gone Amiss and Wizards on Deck for Halloween.

Lights out,

99.203.16.222 (talk) 05:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Good_Luck_Charlie_episodes&oldid=1199248302"