Talk:List of iCarly episodes/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sixth season

I feel like this should be brought up again. The only source provided that indicates a sixth season states only that new episodes will be produced. I originally thought these could possibly be more from season 5, as there are several that have not yet been announced. I was told that season five production wrapped up in July, meaning the new episodes would be season six, but the only indication I can find of this is an unsourced comment on the season five article. Could someone point me to where this information originally came from? Thanks. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The following three messages were copied and pasted from User talk:Kevinbrogers and User talk:Jabrona so as to keep the discussion in a centralized location:

I read that you weren't entirely convinced that a Season 6 exists. But I just want to assure to you that it will happen. On the link on the episode page next to the sentence in the Season 6 section, it features Dan Schneider's blog entry written by Dan himself who states that he's producing more episodes of "iCarly" back-to-back with Season 3 of "Victorious" sometime in early 2012 since he's been prepping for it for about a month now. Season 5 ended production back in July, so this would be Season 6. - Jabrona - 00:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that there are new episodes being produced, but I'm not convinced that they are part of season six. If production truly did wrap up last summer on season 5, I'll be entirely convinced. However, there are no sources given to suggest that production for season 5 really is over. The only thing suggesting this is an unsourced sentence on the season 5 article. An extensive Google search reveals nothing other than links to Wikipedia and the iCarly Wiki, both of which are unsourced. Can you point me to the original source of this information? If not, then the only thing suggesting a sixth season is an unsourced statement and a lot of assumptions based on a short sentence on a blog. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well you can find all the information you want regarding the seasons on the show's main page in the "Season 5 and Onward" section through each of the links you find on there. You see, Dan shot 13 production episodes for Season 4 from May to September 2010. In October, Nick ordered 13 more episodes to be added to the season which was to start production in the spring of 2011. Then in April 2011, they renewed the show for a fifth season of 13 episodes to start production in 2012 and air in that year. Well the episodes meant to have been part of Season 4 Nick ordered back in October; the 13 production episodes Dan shot in this year from May to July 2011 were marketed as the show's fifth season. So the 13 episodes renewed in April 2011 to happen next year would be the show's sixth season since it was a separate renewal of episodes meant to be Season 5 before Nick decided to split the second half of Season 4 into it's own season. - Jabrona - 02:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand. This whole season controversy (what to label each season) is awfully confusing. This has clearly been discussed before (as I've noticed most prominently here), but I can't help but wonder why the promo is given such considerable weight when discussing this. Every independent source I can find with a Google search (including the very sources we've cited on the main page) says that our interpretation of seasons 2 and 3 is a single second season, and that our season 4 is really 3, and so on. The DVDs use this distinction as well. I think we're reading too much into promos here. A great example of this is most shows on the USA Network. Many times when a show takes a midseason break, they advertise new episodes falsely as a "season premiere". Just to avoid future confusion and countless inevitable changes that arise from it, should we just go back to the "seasons 2 and 3 are a single season" plan? When the primary source here (Nickelodeon) releases conflicting, confusing information like this, I think we should revert to the many external independent sources. I propose that we use the Production Season plan outlined by User:Dreamerforever in the discussion I linked to above. This would put us currently midway through season 4. Episodes 1–25 would be considered season one, 26–70 would be season two, 71–83 would be season three, and 84–96 would be season four. Season five would be the episodes (97–109) that will air later this year. This plan is supported by the following reputable sources: 1 (a highly respected site by Wikipedians), 2 (confirmed by "a Nickelodeon rep"), 3 (another respected site that even includes the full text of Nickelodeon's press release), and many others. Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Kevin, I think everyone is going by the "new" theme songs that aired when each season was. The problem with USA Network and Nick is that Nick has Theme Songs whereas USA Network barely use Theme Songs. Nick did order 45 episodes for season 2. There is a new theme song for the second half of Season 2 (which is why everyone said it's a new season as there's a "new" theme song stated by Dan). Meaning Nick had split up the season. So now Second half of season 2 is Season 3. Prod. Wise Season 3 is four, Prod. Wise season 4 is Season 5, etc. - Alec2011 (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a theme song change is enough to designate a new season. Many shows (including Monk, White Collar, and The Office) have had theme song changes midseason, and Wikipedia has never considered these to be new seasons. White Collar's return from midseason hiatus this past year was even advertised as a "season premiere", but we do not consider this to be a new season. The fact that every reliable external source uses the 45-episode second season and that the only source used to justify the split (Nickelodeon itself) is sending mixed reports out should be enough to go back to the 45-episode plan. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Look at this link from Noah Munck,

http://www.facebook.com/noahBmunck/posts/10150496050078270 this is his official facebook page. Also Dan did a blog about the split as well http://danwarp.blogspot.com/2009/09/icarly-second-season-third-season-huh.html If were gonna do it we have to all be on the same page on iCarly Wiki, wikipedia, tv.com and other fan related sites. Since that blog allm of us even people on youtube have been making videos for season 5. I will try to contact someone from the iCarly wiki and see. Also in this article it says season 5 we are in http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/01/03/michelle-obama-visits-icarly/#start — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.148.225 (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to be on the same page as fansites or the iCarly Wiki. Assuming that is the real Noah Munck (I'm not saying it isn't), he even said that they are going into a fifth season, not currently in one. The post never says anything about numbering; it only states that an airing season is not the same length as a production season, which is something no one is disputing. And who are "us" or these "people on YouTube"? The EW article you linked to also says nothing about season 5. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If worse comes to worse, the DVD listings is the final say in how the article should be laid out. Whatever the DVD's indicate, that's the final say. If all 3 volumes of of Season 2 all include the same episodes, then all 45 episodes should be included in one season. Meaning we'd be on season 4 not season 5. - Alec2011 (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the DVD listings should be taken into account as well. All 45 (episodes 26–70) are spread out over the three season 2 volumes, while the DVD labeled "Third Season" includes episodes 71–83. So just to summarize, the basic evidence is this: support for the 45-episode second season comes from official DVD releases, press releases concerning the season in question and all subsequent seasons, and reliable external sources. Support for the split season is limited to one promo and subsequent derivative works (including Dan Schneider's blog). If merging the 45 episodes together is what is decided, I don't mind doing all of the work that this change would require. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I support your motion. We could make a note saying something about mid-season there's a new theme song or something but if they don't include it on Monk, White Collar then I guess we don't have to. The DVD is basically the final way we lay out the season pages (as I stated above). Regardless weather there's a new theme song or not. Nick ordered 45 episodes for season 2 hence why production codes go from 201-245. Nick did order 26 episodes for season 3 however they decided to split the season which is why the production codes are different. 301-313 & 401-413. Nick ordered a fifth and final season of 13 episodes to begin production early 2012 to premiere later this year. - Alec2011 (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

But you Alex fail to see some thing regarding the the split issue for both S2 and S3 and for S4 and S5. The fact remains that Nick decided to split Season 2 and marketed the second half as the "third season" as Dan implies in his blogs hence why he created a new opening sequence for the third airing season. Despite the change in broadcast seasons, the press issues and DVD releases would still go by the production season. Seasons 4 and 5 were split because they were both separate production seasons hence why they have separate numbers, whereas Seasons 2 and 3 were just one big production season, hence why the coding are the same. The fact remains that Season 2 was split for it's broadcast airing. - Jabrona 000:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, that blog post is extremely unreliable. See User talk:Jabrona#Re: iCarly. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I know what you said, but it's not totally unreliable. It explains the whole ordeal that got around the internet a couple months before this blog was written and has been understood by most people ever since. I know what throws it off is Dan's confusion at first but he likely got over that by the time he explained it all since all of this is a result of what the network was saying. It explains why he created the new opening sequence in the first place. It seems to me that Alex assumes the sequence was create for the heck of it or because there was still many other episodes of the season needing to air. But if you think about it, Dan probably would have only slightly altered the credits if Season 2 wasn't split rather than alter the whole entire thing. The network's decision to split the season broadcast-wise is what led to that. Here's another Dan blog regarding the ratings of the "third season" premiere as he has it labeled as. -http://danwarp.blogspot.com/2009/10/ratings-vs-ratings.html. - Jabrona 001:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's the same site, so it still fails multiple points of WP:SELFPUB in this case. And like I stated above, a title sequence change does not specify a new season. It's completely plausible that they did just create it for the heck of it. This conversation isn't going anywhere, so unless there's any new evidence, it's done as far as I'm concerned. The list is fine the way it is now, as there's no evidence to support the opposite. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware I couldn't use another blog from that site as evidence. I'll find something else since I don't really like how the list looks and think Seasons 2 and 3 should remain split. It's overlong and I could see why the network decided to split it for broadcast reasons despite the production numbers being kept the same. As for the opening sequence, I don't think Dan would create a completely new one unless a new season is being authorized. That's different compared to him slightly alternating the opening within the same season as we witnessed in Season 4 with the episode "iSam's Mom" and Season 5 "iDate Sam & Freddie". But don't you worry, I will find something else that can be use to possibly change things back. - Jabrona 002:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Season 2 DVD set announcement came from Nickelodeon and Paramount and they advertised the set as the Season 2 DVD set with all 45 episodes. The DVD set announcement and the DVD set itself is the most current official statement from Nickelodeon as to what they consider season 2. It conflicts with marketing stuff they stated earlier with caused the original split of the S2 article but they changed their official corporate minds about this. That justifies, in my opinion, merging the 45 eps back into an article that reflects the DVD set and Nickelodeons last statement about the issue. What they stated earlier is overridden by what they said and did last so earlier marketing about broadcast seasons doesn't matter any more. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact is, the split resulted in the later seasons being seen as Season 4 and Season 5 by many web sources. You notice that all over the internet. It's understandable if the network still decides to go by the production numbers when it comes to the DVD releases because they likely go by the production seasons. There must be some reason they didn't bother having the Seasons 3 and 4 DVDs labeled as such to avoid us having this problem. Other releases follow the broadcast order and list them as "Volumes" (with Seasons 3 and above labeled by their broadcasting season number). I just feel it'll just be more of a mess to change things now. - Jabrona 002:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

My name is Alec :D. Second I'm not confused that they made a a new theme song. I feel that their "intention" was to order 45 episodes so they could air them for a long period of time (and Victorious was getting ready to start production so when the 45 episodes were done filming, Dan could go to victorious). You can only fit so many episodes into a DVD hence why volumes release. Season 3 and Season 4 were originally suppose to be only 1 season of 26 episodes however new episodes (Season 4) were filmed so long after season 3 had started airing that when they came back to film, they were filming season 4. Jessie is a different story. Jessie was ordered for 13 episodes then they wait until the premiere of the show to see if the premiere is good. Then 7 more episodes were ordered for a total of 20 for the season and cast came back together to finish the remaining episodes. This didn't happen for season 3 & 4 of iCarly. Regardless, both Nick & Disney have the most confusing airing, what they call episodes, when they air, etc. for their shows that's it's confusing for everyone. Other networks like USA Network, ABC, FOX, etc. are more concise with their airings that it's not a problem. Regardless of what Dan says, Nick, and what they release on DVD does not matter. Besides all 45 episodes are released in 3 volumes for a Season 2 DVD with 2 theme songs. If Nick wanted the "Second" half of the 45 episodes to be a separate season, they would've put the "new" theme song episodes onto 2 different volumes and marketed it as season 3 DVD's not Season 2. - Alec2011 (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

First off, sorry for getting your name wrong. Second, when I was talking about the "volume" releases, I wasn't referring to the production labeled ones. I was talking about the ones you see on iTunes where Seasons 1-5 are labeled just that. I should have been more specific on that one. Third, on his blog, Dan did admit that they had an insane schedule so he must have intend to stop shooting episodes after just a few months. He didn't say anything about Victorious, so I don't think that had anything to do with why he shot that many, but it was a good suggestion. But come to think of it, I don't even think Nick ordered 45 episodes. It just seemed too much for them to order compared to the amount they usually order like in the 13-26 episode range. It makes plausible sense if they decided to split the season up broadcast wise because of how many Season 2 episodes they had and how many have aired by August 2009, leading to Dan creating a new opening sequence for the remaining episodes as a "new season" because of it as I stated and as he implies on his blog. The DVDs likely still go by the production labels and the Season 3 episodes are still technically part of the production the second season. Though this isn't much, but here's an interesting interview with Nathan Kress before production on Season 5 began (I'm still going to refer it as that): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_Tpz2YUxZA in which one of the ladies interviewing him refer to it as such at the 4:40 mark. Nathan doesn't correct them apparently because he likely understands the broadcast labels as oppose to the production ones. - Jabrona 021:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here's a piece of evidence at the moment I'm using to support my claim in the split season defense. As I posted on Mr. Brogers' talk page here's a season list of the show from sites like Amazon and iTunes where there are the downloaded volumes of the seasons available apart from the from the DVD release labels of the seasons released by the Nick studio. The seasons on these sites are labeled according to their broadcast labels as a result of the split in Season 2 that had to take place. Scroll down to look at each of the episode lists:

AMAZON:

Season 1: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001J9H9QE/ref=atv_dp_season_select?ie=UTF8&redirect=true

Season 2: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001JG113Y/ref=atv_dp_season_select?ie=UTF8&redirect=true

Season 3: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002P8ETHA/ref=atv_dp_season_select?ie=UTF8&redirect=true

Season 4: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003Y3OCE0/ref=atv_dp_season_select?ie=UTF8&redirect=true

Season 5: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005HBT5YY

iTUNES:

Season 1: http://itunes.apple.com/us/tv-season/icarly-vol.-1/id263187724

Season 2: http://itunes.apple.com/us/tv-season/icarly-vol.-2/id290882237

Season 3: http://itunes.apple.com/us/tv-season/icarly-vol.-3/id329885929

Season 4: http://itunes.apple.com/us/tv-season/icarly-vol.-4/id380670972

Season 5: http://itunes.apple.com/us/tv-season/icarly-vol.-5/id450548497

Now this seem to have an impact on "True Jackson" resulting in a split in Season 2 that was originally listed covering the whole 2009-2011 season. However unlike "iCarly" the split of it's season was known before it happened and listed that way on a lot of websites. Now Alec made the assumption that DVD releases have the final say in how an article should lay out a season list. However, that is not true. As most of us are aware of, broadcast and production cycles are different from one another. The fact that a season usually last one year would make sense to result in a 45 production episode second season to be split at the right moment when 25 of them had aired by the time the third season was marketed for the other ones. It's clear by the DVD labels that Nick still uses the production cycle. It is supported by how they promoted the fifth season. As I told this as well to Mr. Brogers, "iLost My Mind" was clearly the start of the new season, but "iDate Sam & Freddie" was labeled as the premiere episode. You wonder why this was the case, but look at the production numbers. "iLost My Mind" was the second episode produced whereas "iDate Sam & Freddie" was the first (I'm confused at why this was the case).

So Hint. Hint. Like the DVD labels, one could think that Nick could have promoted "iLost My Mind" as the premiere since it came first and the story coming before "iDate Sam & Freddie". Just like how they could have still labeled Season 3, Season 4, and (later Seasons 5 and soon 6) the same way as they were marketed on TV. But seeing how things were handled it's clear they follow by the production labels despite what the TV label is. But we still tend to use the broadcast labels because it's how it was presented to us. I mean, we didn't count "iLost My Mind" as a Season 4 episode. So there's no excuse why the second season can't remained a split season of Seasons 2 and 3 if you guys become entirely convinced this was the case. - Jabrona - 05:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

My "assumption" that DVD releases have the final say in how an article should be laid out is not wrong. Editor's I've talked to all say "DVD listings are the final say in how they are laid out." Just because you like it split does not follow Wiki standards. Yes the links you posted above show a "split" season but those ARE NOT the Physical DVD's NICK released. The Physical ones are the final say, not the ones from Amazon & iTunes. As Kevin already stated, they have their own ideas of how to release their content.

Your assumption that "The fact that a season usually last one year would make sense to result" is not true. Many shows have aired over 2 years, Hannah Montana, Wizards of Waverly Place, That's So Raven, and even Phineas and Ferb. Now, most of those seasons had either 30 episodes or more for their seasons. If they wanted to split for 2 separate seasons, they would've. They just order more episodes so they have time to shoot another season before the filmed episodes run out.

As already stated as well, Nick & Disney promote episodes differently. Nick said the premiere of season 4 is "iDate Sam & Freddie" but "iLost My Mind" was promoted as a special episode (like Nick usually does when a new episode hasn't aired in 2 months). Disney doesn't even promote their "new seasons" at all on TV, all they say is "New episodes." The only time I've seen Disney use "A Brand New Season..." on TV was for Sonny with a Chance Season 2 and Hannah Montanan Forever Season 4. So baiscally the first 3 seasons of Hannah Montana could be put into 1 article as Disney only said "new episodes" and not new season on TV. The reason they aren't is because of the DVD listings and press releases that state new season. We have a reliable source that says "A FIFTH Season" has been ordered. - Alec2011 (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, everything you said here sounds so strikingly familiar. It looks like you're the user Ruffmanfan882 over on the iCarly forum on TV.com. I thought you were familiar to some one over here I've spoken to. At first I thought it was Kevin, but I'm surprised to see it was you. Well, I pretty much covered everything you said here over on the iCarly forum when you said the same thing here, so there's no need for me to recite it all here. Well I came across this link regarding Noah Munck written last year: http://www.cisionwire.com/noah-munck/r/noah-munck---gibby--on-nickelodeon-s--icarly-set-to-host-orange-carpet-pre-show-at-2011-kids--choice-awards,g558884 where the media writer of it mentions the episode "iPsycho" being a Season 3 episode, supporting the assumption that the second season was split during it's BROADCAST marketing. Here's a link to a iCarly that's labeled being the "best blog to stay up to date with iCarly" where if you scroll down you'll come across a status written on September 12, 2009 before the airing of "iThink They Kissed" where it talks about the plot of the episode and how it was the Season 3 premiere of the marketed third season: http://www.icarly-show.com/blog/tag/icarly-notes/. Here's another web source from 2010 about an "iCarly" contest that launch after the airing of "iGot a Hot Room" where it references that episode as the start of Season 4: http://tv.spreadit.org/icarly-iwin-igot-a-hot-room-www-nick-comiwin/. These web sources all reference the season split. - Jabrona - 3:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? My username for tv.com is basically the same as the one here "alec2011." I typed all the information above from my mind. I did not look anywhere else, not on tv.com but from information I found on Wikipedia and from what I've experienced. Regardless it seems to me that from your perspective that it's "my way or the highway." I used to be like that until I followed Wikipeida's rules. You are the only one with a problem and still trying to get the split back to what it was. All the information Kevin & I stated have more sources that say it's 1 full season and not 2 separate. Just becuase you want it one way, in reality it's not.

I just checked out the forum on TV.com and I assume someone is copying my information posted here putting it on TV.com. - Alec2011 (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, which is why I thought it was you. I can admit I did kind of get even a bit suspicious with that when you didn't reference who I was there when I mentioned being involved in the situation that's going on about here regarding the topic. I guess I'm going to have a talk with that user on behalf of this. You may feel free to do so since you have an account there. But here is basically what I wrote to that person who the said the same thing you did:

Nick works differently than Disney. Plus, iCarly had a whole production season of 45 episodes lined up. That's way more than what's been aired on a regular basis for a season for Nick. It makes sense why they would split it up in the marketing. The highest season of episodes Disney had was 35 in the third season of "That's So Raven" that lasted from 2004-2006. Speaking of "iCarly" Season 2, we simply can't ignore that after 25 of them aired from September 2008 to August 2009, the last 20 that aired from September 2009 to June 2010 were given a whole new sequence. We have Dan's blog where he is confident of this and talks of how the network was referring remaining episodes of the Season 2 production as the "third season", two interviews with Nathan Kress before the airing of Season 4 and Season 5 that can be seen on Youtube where the broadcast labeled seasons are referred to as so. You think Nathan would have corrected these people if they were wrong had no split took place? You think Dan would have said something regarding the split if it never happened? Even when it was talked about at the time it took place? We have many web sources and sites such as Amazon and iTunes that have the seasons labeled like this. Were they wrong too? As for "iLost My Mind" it's understandable why it wasn't labeled as the premiere of a new season. It's not because it was the first one within two months but that the episode was produced second whereas "iDate Sam & Freddie" was made first. Had "iLost My Mind" been produced first then it likely would have been referred to as the premiere of the new season. Disney also promoted "Season 3" of Wizards of Waverly Place as such by the way before it began in October 2009.

But getting back on topic here, you're right I do have a problem. The fact is the season split is what we stuck by with for two and a half years. Many other websites stuck with this and Dan's blog is what helped transpire that. Since that couldn't be used, I had to dig up more info and I did. If you ask me, I think I have more sources supporting the fact that it was separated for it's broadcast labels. As I've said before, it's apparent the press release and Nick will still go by the production cycle. I never denied that, but I just don't like that it's being used now all of a sudden when we usually go by the broadcast cycle. - Jabrona - 3:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You're suggesting that we revert back to the old way just because it's what we've always done. We need to what is correct, not what everyone is used to. Furthermore, what's do say that all of these sources you've provided (mostly blogs, fan sites, and YouTube videos) didn't get their information from us? If we've been reporting this incorrectly all these years, it's possible that we've caused that big of an impact. The sources I and Alec2011 have provided have all gotten their information from firsthand knowledge, not second or thirdhand. Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm saying we should revert back to the old way if I am able to entirely convince you guys there was a season split as we've believed after all this time. Then you came along and decided to question it because of sources that give out production cycle labels (which we knew about) and assumed that's all there is and that the broadcast cycle was never a situation. As for where the the sources I provided got their info from, you can't jump on the conclusion that it was from us. If you ask me, we've simply been following off of other sites. I'm pretty sure Season 3 wasn't listed here yet before "iThink They Kissed" aired, nor was Dan's blog used as a reference link on the ordeal until like last year when people were trying to change the episode listing. Plus how do you know your sources were all first hand knowledge? Just because it said something else apart from all the stuff I showed you? We have sources that go by the production cycle and the broadcast cycle. I'm just trying to provide evidence to prove support on the latter. - Jabrona - 4:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My sources have been accepted by the people at WikiProject Television for a long time, and have a long history of being reliable. They also tell where they received their information. One included the text of a Nickelodeon press release, and another received its information from a Nickelodeon rep. Just based on what I've read in the past couple days, no one questioned a change when this was originally split. A year ago when it was questioned, a source was provided that satisfied whoever asked for a change. Just because it was accepted doesn't mean it was right. I came in looking at this from a new viewpoint, as I wasn't very active in this area of Wikipedia at that time and never saw the previous discussion. Without being swayed by previous conversations, I evaluated what was in the articles, looked at reliable external sources (which all support a single season), and changed the pages accordingly. I even discussed it here first. I see nothing wrong with this change, and neither does anyone else. It's time to put this discussion to rest. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well unlike you, we tend to believed Dan's word on the issue and he was pretty confident which is why his blog reference was there in the first place (like how it's used to link new episode titles along with things from his twitter account, Youtube account when he posts video, and info from the cast members' twitter accounts). You cut him out to be a liar because you feel you don't want to believe it (and he's the guy behind the show whose associated with the network and informs what they talk about). No one had a problem with it until you showed up when you learned of the production cycles that we didn't go by because we went by the broadcast marketing. You keep saying how there's sources that support a single season like that's all there is to it. WE KNOW THAT, but we have sources that support a broadcast season apart from Dan's blog I was able to drag in here to please you. If I were to conjure up something worthy of your expectations at my defense (since I didn't seem to impress you with anything, even my latest sources linked above I don't even think you looked at), then what? I don't like how the lists looks now because I'm convinced there was a broadcast split after seeing everything I came across and I'm not the only one. I know people trying to contact Nick to some to a more definite circumstance that there was a season split. - Jabrona - 4:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not calling him a liar. I'm saying he doesn't seem very confident in his remarks. To be honest, I'm not fond of the aesthetics either. But if it's right, it's right. It doesn't matter if it looks good. I also didn't base a decision on the production cycles. I based it on the sources I gave you on your talk page. You say that you have sources that support a two-season plan. But what are they? I explained on your talk page why all the YouTube videos, blog posts, and fan sites are unreliable. You also say you aren't the only one, but where are all these other people? You're the only one that's putting up a fight here. Until a reputable Nickelodeon representative puts out a public statement explicitly saying that the 45-episode order is intended to be two seasons, there's nothing left to say in this conversation. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I gave you practically every source I could bring to the table, even ones that referenced the broadcasted label seasons. The other people I'm referring to are over at IMDb.com and TV.com on the forums for this show. However, I'm here to speak on behalf of this issue. But trust me, I will be digging for more info and hopefully if I can reach a Nick representative then I will gladly make sure you get this public statement. - Jabrona - 5:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've recently contacted a Nick press writer Marianne Romano and is currently waiting for a response. Soon after, I came across this from the Nick press page from the Nickelodeon website I think was rather interesting: http://biz.viacom.com/sites/nickelodeonpress/NICKELODEON/Pages/showsdetails.aspx?NewId=6&ShowName=iCarly. Here you'll come across the "iCarly" section of this page. I scrolled down to the "Consumer Products Press Release" section where it says something from May 2011 about the release of the "i<3 iCarly Collection" that was set to be released on July 19, 2011 (which it was). Now if you click on the link and read about it which you'll find on this link: http://biz.viacom.com/sites/nickelodeonpress/NICKELODEON/Pages/showpdf.aspx?FileName=iCarlyCollection-PRfinal.pdf&ListName=Consumer%20Products%20PressReleases&ItemID=86, it gives great details about it and states how it includes specials and favorite episodes from Season 2 and Season 3. Now, take a good look at the episodes listed here from those seasons:

iSpace Out, iWas a Pageant Girl, iEnrage Gibby, iFix a Popstar, iWon't Cancel the Show, iBelieve in Bigfoot, iSaved Your Life, iQuit iCarly, iThink They Kissed, iTwins, iMove Out, iFight Shlby Marx, iDate a Bad Boy, iLook Alike, iCarly Awards.

Now it seems to me that the "Season 3" episodes listed here are from that of the apparent broadcast marketing season that we've been aware of after all this time that the Nick press has listed here. Not episodes from the production Season 3, but from the known broadcasted Season 3. So I believe this supports there being a broadcast split of the second season production doesn't it? Not to mention it's press written info. - Jabrona - 03:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

...and a month later they defined season 3 as the 3xx production line: [1]. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well three months before what I have listed they were marketing the release of Season 3 as "Season 2: Volume 3" [2], and that's understandable since we're all aware of the production cycle the DVD releases are going by. So what you have listed regarding the broadcasted fourth season DVD release didn't mean anything. It's following the production cycle like the DVD releases of seasons after it are going to do. The fact remains that I have provided a written press statement that clearly referenced Season 2 production episodes as Season 3 as they were known to be marketed for on TV after all of this time, hence implying a broadcast split did take place. - Jabrona - 04:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

...and I have more recent press releases. The source you just provided supports a single season anyway. Please just drop this. Your last 123 straight edits over the past six days have been spent on nothing but debating this. You have multiple people telling you that you are wrong. Wikipedia is a community that works on consensus, and the consensus right now is that you are wrong. How much longer will it be before you stop this pointless discussion? Until you get a reply from this person you spoke to, I don't want to have to spend more time on this. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent press release sources? How recent are we talking here? The ones I've seen from you came like around the same time as the one I just provided did to support my claim did. But doesn't really matter if we have a broadcast cycle and a production cycle going on here? No. Not to mention you're wrong here in what you just said now. First off, I didn't have "multiple people" debate this with me. Just you and Alec for the most part who claimed there was never a split within the second season production where the second batch of episodes were labeled as "Season 3" broadcast-wise. Since all the evidence I provided, even from the creator of the show himself wasn't good enough for you, I finally came up with a press written source that clearly supports my claim referencing Season 2 production episodes as the marketed Season 3 (listing those same episodes from that marketed season). The source I provided regarding the "Season 2: Volume 3" release was just to show you why your source regarding the "Complete 3rd Season" release meant nothing since it's clear the DVD releases of the seasons are going by their production labels. Now you're trying to brush a press release source over? It just shows how anxious you are in keeping the the whole second season production together and the succeeding seasons labeled the way they are. I will be making sure this is reverted soon since I have clear evidence of there being a broadcast cycle despite what the production label is. We don't go by the production label anyway unless a broadcast one never came about. - Jabrona - 05:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

We're talking more recent than yours. A month and two days to be exact. You gave a source that had a more recent one listed right above it that went against your point. We go by most recent information, not the one you want to be correct. You did have multiple people tell you that you were wrong. How is three people not multiple people? Why can't you just accept the fact that you were wrong? This is a classic case of the "my way or the highway" behavior that Alec2011 stated above. Before you say anything else, I must say that I read your source and actually second-guessed myself for a moment. Then I went back to the main page on the source you gave and found a more recent press release that stated that I was correct. In this case, we're going by production label because a broadcast one doesn't exist. Accept that and move on. Kevinbrogers (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm certain a broadcast one does exist. The source I just gave supported that that you had to second guess yourself on. As I've stated, the press releases will still refer to the show's seasons by it's production cycle. It doesn't ignore the broadcast one since that can still be acknowledged, and I was rarely able to come across that. Just because the production label was used afterwards again doesn't mean anything. We had the press use an already well-known broadcast season label to describe a season after marketing it's DVD release titled "Season 2: Volume 3" DVD three months before and talking about the renewal of the show's fifth season production-wise. Besides if we have two different season cycles going on here between the filming and TV airing of episodes, it's apparent that either one will be used from time to time on web sources. The production one is likely to be use a lot by the Nick press since that's what they technically are apart from how they are marketed on TV. Plus, Nick is associated more with the production cycle so it's label is capable of being used a lot. It doesn't contradict the broadcast one. Heck, a broadcast label can be used again soon to support how they can be swapped as well as there having been a broadcast season label of the later batch of Season 2 production episodes. - Jabrona - 06:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You say press releases will be using the wrong information and then you give a press release as your latest source? You haven't provided any reliable evidence that a broadcast cycle differs from a production cycle. You can't use the argument that all reliable sources are reporting production seasons when you haven't proven that there is a difference between production and broadcast labels. Don't say that you've provided reliable sources, because I've demonstrated that none of them are considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. You need to either find a reliable source that corrects what is currently shown, or you need to accept the changes and move on. Kevinbrogers (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now you're twisting things. When did I ever say the press release was going to be using the wrong information? Let me make this all clear once more. Apparently the press release can still acknowledge how the seasons are labeled broadcast-wise on TV as I've provided a press source that referred to the broadcast season label of Season 2 production episodes, hence indicating that a split with the second season production did take place for broadcast purposes that was known for of happening the whole time. You wanted reliable info and you got one. But now you're trying to blow that off and used recent press info that go by the production season labels. They were used before hand so what's your point? As I've covered in my last statement, the use of them afterwards doesn't omit the broadcast ones when they're capable of being referred to again soon to show how they can be swapped and indicate the fact that we so have two different season cycles between the filming and TV airing of episodes going on here. Once again, the production cycle is obviously going to be used mostly since Nick is associated with the production work cycle of this show. - Jabrona - 06:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not twisting things. You said countless times that we shouldn't use press releases because they would be going by "production season." I looked at the press source you provided for me, and then I gave a more recent release from the same website that supported my opinion. I've now given you several sources (and linked to at least four of them). You gave me one reliable source, which I countered with several more recent sources from the same site and external sites. Do you not see the problem here? Newer sources make the old ones irrelevant. Kevinbrogers (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No the problem I see here is that you just don't want to change anything regardless what I show you. Even from a press release site you're still willing to blow past my defense. Pity. Now I don't know what these "more recent" sources are you've been looking at supporting your claim of a single season, but the ones I've looked at that came after May 2011 one I listed sure didn't say anything on behalf of the seasons other than the DVD release of the broadcasted Season 4. But it doesn't matter if they did say something on behalf of the production season cycle as I already explained this three times already. Apparently you're still holding by the fact the recent press release said one thing, so it completely blows over what's been said in the past. Um no, because before that May 2011 status on the DVD release of Seasons 2 and 3 episodes, we had many things that went by the production cycle labels such as the "Season 2: Volume 3" DVD release and the fact that the show was renewed for a fifth season production in April. Um, yeah. The broadcast label wasn't meaning to change any of that and didn't since we had production labels used afterwards. But how can you be so quick to say that discard the broadcast label just because it was used again? The production season cycles were used again. So they both can be used at anytime since we're apparently dealing with two season cycles here. Of course, the production one is going to come out more since (as I've said already) Nick is associated with the show's production cycle, which is different from how they market things on TV. Are you understanding this? If we got something soon that referred to the broadcast season labels like I showed you then that obviously throws out your little theory. There is a broadcast cycle, so accept that and stop trying to ease your way around it for your own personal insight. - Jabrona - 08:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to blow past your defense because I used the same site to find a more recent source that supports my view. The "most recent" source I'm speaking of is the one I linked to immediately after you listed yours from the press release site (posted at 4:17, 14 January 2012). It's the same site with a more recent press release. And in fact, the most recent source does throw out the previous one. If Nickelodeon goes back and says something else, we go by the most recent. The source you linked to is speculative at best. It doesn't say which episodes would go into which seasons. It could be inferred, but we don't do inferring here. I've done my best to find the most recent reliable sources on this matter, and that's how I came to my conclusion. There is no difference between the production and broadcast seasons of iCarly. You need to stop assuming that there is, take a step back, and look at the sources. The problem with your argument is that you keep saying that there is a difference between production and broadcast seasons. You're trying to tell me that press releases are only going off of production seasons. But how do you know that, other than things you've assumed? Based on your assumption, wouldn't the source you gave be based on production seasons too? Yet you are trying to use it as broadcast seasons. Either way, it doesn't matter. The source has been rendered irrelevant by a new Nickelodeon press release (I'll link to it again, just in case: [3]) that indicates the third season as Nickelodeon intended it. The reason I don't want to change anything is because there is nothing to change. If you can provide a more recent reliable source that indicates a split in the 45 episode second season order, I'd be happy to make all the necessary changes myself. Since you haven't provided any, there's nothing to do. Consensus is to leave it alone. Kevinbrogers (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

First off, even though my source doesn't say which episodes go into which seasons I think that's obvious by which one has the Season 2 or "Season 3" opening intro broadcast-wise. The episodes: iLook Alike, iTwins, iFight Shelby Marx, and iDate a Bad Boy, all go into Season 2, whereas the episodes: iCarly Awards, iSpace Out, iWas a Pageant Girl, iEnrage Gibby, iFix a Popstar, iWon't Cancel the Show, iBelieve in Bigfoot, iSaved Your Life, iQuit iCarly, and the known premiere episode, iThink They Kissed all being part of the apparent broadcasted marketed Season 3. Second, there is so a difference between the production and broadcast seasons of iCarly. You saying that there isn't doesn't mean anything if you're asking me to provide you with evidence. I did, and you're trying to backhand that with your most recent source usage excuse I'll elaborate on more shortly. Some one even quoted a Facebook comment Noah Munck said regarding that which you didn't want to take into account for the fact that it might not have really been him. So I didn't bother referencing it at all. Third, as for the press release labels, I had the assumption at first that they only used the production seasons because of Nick being associated with the production cycle of a show and them using those labels in the first place. Yet, I surprisingly came across their reference of the broadcast cycle which shed some light on the fact that it does exist as a lot of us already known (thanks to Dan's blog mostly). The fact that it was referenced after giving going by the production cycle for some time (for the "Season 2: Volume 3" DVD in Feb. 2011 and the renewal of the show's fifth production season in Apr. 2011) shows that the two season cycles coexist. It didn't contradict what was said before. But whose to say that it won't be used again? That's the issue I'm having with your "more recent" source usage here because we're not going to keep flip-flopping the episode list each time the press uses a broadcast label and then a production one as they did last year. It's just confusing which is why things are best left the way they were with the list looking on account of the broadcast cycle with the production one acknowledged (like how it was before you came along) since it's clear they both co-exist. Plus regarding the press article on behalf of the DVD release of the broadcast marketed Season 4 that you linked you felt over-wrote my source, let's elaborate on that from a different viewpoint. Considering that they issued an article prior to the May 2011 reference of the broadcasted season "third season" regarding DVD release of that season titled "SEASON 2: VOLUME 3" I linked above: [4] (and seeing how the DVD releases are obviously going by the production cycle), it should have been no surprise the broadcast-marked Season 4 was going to have the "Complete 3RD Season" title on it's DVD release since that's technically what it is according to it's production cycle that's being used for these releases. So later having the press refer to is as that is no surprise either, so it shouldn't have gave you the satisfaction to use it as a contradiction just to discard the existence of the broadcast cycle. You ran yourself into a brick wall with that one. - Jabrona - 11:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't run myself into a brick wall. You're the one that has no sources, and I'd say that that's a pretty big wall. Stop bringing up the ones that I've already told you don't support your viewpoint (I've already explained that Noah Munck's Facebook actually supports the single season) or shouldn't be used. You're also suggesting that we ignore current and future sources because of a single source in the past. What about my sources though? I've provided four very reliable sources that go against everything you've said. Apart from your assumptions, how do you know that they go by production season and not broadcast? Where is that in writing? Assumptions are also what caused this rift between production and broadcast seasons in the first place. How can you support this using current reliable sources? Without making any assumptions, explain all of this to me. Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You are truly full of yourself. I had plenty of sources, you just ignored them. In fact, the one useful one I've recently came across you're one again trying to blow over. Not surprised. Noah's Facebook supports there being a production cycle (obviously we're not denying that of course), and he talks about the season he and the cast members are heading into from the production standpoint (obviously). But he also makes a direct statement regarding that and broadcast cycle being different (which we have here you're refusing to accept). As for ignoring current and future sources, um no one is saying that. Again you're talking utter nonsense. Apart from what other websites said regarding the broadcast cycle after the marketed Season 3 aired, we had press releases go by the production cycle since that's what these seasons technically are by their production codes. Then we have a release which references the broadcast cycle which supports my claim in a more definite manner since nothing else before hand was good enough for you. But then you think because a production label was later used afterwards it automatically discarded the broadcast reference. Um, it didn't. The fact that we have two cycles going on here reference the fact that either one can be used at any given time. From your viewpoint, you just feel like ignoring the broadcast cycle because it wasn't used afterwards. But it can be used in the future which is only going to prove once again that cycle exist, but we already knew that did we? Are you just going to keep saying it doesn't exist each time a production cycle is only referenced? Buddy, you're not making any sense with that. So you have sources that reference a production cycle big deal. I have sources that reference a broadcast cycle including one from the press themselves. They both coexist, has been, and always will. And it's clear the press often go by the production labels seeing how many times they did so compared to the broadcast labels, which doesn't mean a thing considering the production cycle is still accounted for in this case hence why "iDate Sam & Freddie" was marketed as the "new season" premiere instead of "iLost My Mind" since that episode was made first. Hence why the DVD release labels are following the production cycle. They are obviously STILL ACCOUNTED FOR apart from the broadcast ones to show that they both exist here. So I don't need a current reliable source to prove anything. What difference does it make afterwards if a broadcast label is then used again and then a production one? The fact a broadcast label was used after the production label the last time is enough to show a swapping. Yeah, you're not getting anywhere with that one. - Jabrona - 18:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There isn't even a difference in the production cycles/broadcast cycles. After iFight Shelby Marks, the next episode aired, sure it's a different theme song but Season 2 continued. Also, we use the "more recent" sources because they are more recent and up-to-date then the previous old source. You don't use a source from 1 year ago when 6-months later there's a new reference with updated information. Example: The new show on USA "Common Law" was suppose to come out on January 25th but USA changed the date to Summer 2012. So we have to update the source, we can't keep the January 25th source as there's a new source that the Network released saying they changed the date. So we have to use the "new source" not the old one. - Alec2011 (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Your example don't mean anything. We're not talking about air dates here. That's entirely different and obviously a whole other story when it comes to keeping up to date with things. We're talking about two different season labels here that were used back and forth as a result of a broadcast split in the second production season of episodes. Production cycles and broadcast cycles are different. Accept it. Season 2 continued production-wise after "iFight Shebly Marx" because the last 20 episodes of that production cycle season followed, but they were broadcasted on TV as the third season hence there being new opening specifically for those episodes. Dan states on his blog (which is rather useful in this case) that he didn't know when the "third season" would air apart from being informed that it was going to air in a few weeks, and even suggested that we were still on Season 2 (the broadcast one) at the time he wrote the thing 11 days before "iThink They Kissed" aired where he soon must have found out that was where the start of "Season 3" would begin since we got a new opening with that episode. The fact is, the press referenced this on a surprising occasion just 8 months ago after already using the production labels so there. It's clear they can use either one but mostly the production ones since they're still accounted for. So what difference does it make if a broadcast label is likely to be used again by the press now at this point if it's then followed by a production label? Do we just feel like discarding the broadcast cycle this time and each time this happens? Like seriously? That wouldn't make any sense. It's clear both cycles exists if they were both used one after the other by the press itself so it's best to keep them both acknowledged and indicate that a broadcast cycle does coexist. - Jabrona - 19:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You assume too much. Take a minute and think about this. Forget everything you've thought for the past two and a half years and start over, looking only at most recent reliable sources. None say that there is a difference between production and broadcast. None say that we are currently in a fifth season. Your entire argument is based on assumptions and unsourced or unreliable statements. Look at the sources only. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at the sources and provided some. If you ask me you're trying to overwrite all of my evidence, especially my press evidence on later press references to the usage of production labels which doesn't mean a thing. You can't accept the fact that is a broadcast season cycle that can be acknowledge on behalf of the production cycle because you don't want there to be one. You don't like that as much as the fact that I'm overriding all your statements here trying to make mine look bad. Some sites lists the broadcast cycle, others lists the production cycle that's still accounted for. All I know is that I found a press article that referred to the broadcast cycle after already using the production cycle, and I doubt it was trying to override that. This isn't over and a change will come soon. - Jabrona - 21:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Now this discussion has gone on far enough, and I really don't want to keep going on with this. But lately, all I've been encountering is excuses between you two Kevin and Alec, just to not want to admit that you're wrong and get things changed back the way they are. Both of you are full of yourselves and these counter arguments you want to throw at everything I provide and the examples at everything I say are about as weak as it could get. I mean my goodness. Well this is going to be the big one yet. I don't have anything new to share because I simply don't need it. This is going to recite everything I have said and provided in the most exquisite manner and re-counter argue everything you guys have said.

As early as June 2009 during the run of the second season we had people here who was questioning exactly how this 45 episode season would get handled. You can take a good look at that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_iCarly_episodes/Archive_1. An IP user specifically by the numbers 64.53.133.102 was telling people that the half the second season episodes would get split to air as the show's "third season" with a new opening. This person was also saying that Dan had stated that the "third season" was going to air in the fall. This person was saying what was stated from Dan himself but provide the info to back it up. So nothing was changed. If you were to dig back to episode page archives from 2009 as I did recently (since I can't obviously link you to them), then you would notice how many people after the airing of "iFight Shelby Marx" were setting up the "Season 3" table with the following episodes listed as such. This was reverted back however since there was no evidence to indicate that a split had taken place. At this point, the episodes were listed as Season 2 episodes until September 1, 2009 when Dan wrote his blog trying to resolve the issue after being asked countless about the ordeal: [5].

Now you might not find the blog useful, and I'm not surprised if you're so eager to keep the episode list the way it is on behalf of sources that follow the production cycle. Even though blogs are considered "unreliable" usually, it's as useful as it could get if it's written by the creator of the show himself whose associated with the network. Not to mention manage to be acceptable here for two-and-half-years. The fact is, Dan clearly puts out that we were going to enter into the third season on behalf of what the network was putting out: "And I guess what the network is calling the "3rd" season starts airing a few weeks from now. That's when you'll start seeing the new opening sequence." Now he obviously wasn't confused about the issue itself if he makes a confirmation like that. When he starts his blog off with this statement: "Recently, my Twitter and DanWarp gmail have been filled with iCarly questions about when the 2nd season ends, and when the 3rd one begins. Believe it or not, I kinda don't even know myself. Well, I do and I don't. I'll explain..." it's clear to me that he was confused on the fact that he didn't know when Season 2 was going to end broadcast-wise and when the "third season" was going to begin in this cycle from the remaining Season 2 production episodes that haven't aired yet by the time he wrote this. Now what could the network have possible been calling the "third season" if, production-wise, Dan haven't shot any episodes for it? Perhaps the remaining 20 from the 45 they had shelved somewhere that were made during the second season production.

There is obviously a difference in a production cycle and a broadcast cycle between the filming and TV airing of episodes and this is one of them. Alec surely wants to deny like there's only one cycle and that's the production. Well that's wrong since the difference between the two you could have picked up with a lot of other shows. We have episodes that are aired out of order all the time specifically on Nick and Disney since you want to compare the two. So an episode production-wise that was the fourth episode of a season gets aired as the second or third, or the tenth or eleventh. Episodes from one season can get shelved and air as an episode in the next season as you Kevin showed me with an episode of the TV show Fringe. So there's obviously a difference Alec. The production cycle is how the episode is produced by it's code while the broadcast cycle is how it's marketed on TV. The fact is, the second batch of episodes from Season 2 production of "iCarly" was aired out as "Season 3" as evident by Dan's blog and why he decided to make a new opening for those specific episodes in the first place, otherwise he wouldn't have done a thing. Yet you want to deny the fact that Nick did this with iCarly not only because of sites that use the production cycle, but because of how Disney never split the production seasons of their shows to market them as two broadcast ones. So what? That's Disney who does their own thing. This is Nick who does things differently. I mean, Season 2 of "The Suite Life of Zack & Cody" had 40 episodes, the most episodes in a season they ever had (with Season 3 of "That's So Raven" coming in second with 35 episodes). They could have split them up if they wanted to but didn't and managed to air them all out in the course of one season cycle (March 2006 to June 2007). There would have been no need to split it up. Plus, Nick doesn't air out episodes quickly like Disney does hence why when it comes to the amount "iCarly" had they kept it all as one season for the broadcast airings too, it would have expanded over the course of two full season cycles (September 2008 to June 2010). A bit long don't you think? Now you elaborated on this above when I pointed this out, but even with Disney shows that lasted a "two year period" as you put it out it surely wasn't two exactly two full season cycles. S3 of "That's So Raven" was from October 2004 to January 2006. S3 of "Hannah Montana" was from November 2008 to March 2010. S4 of "Wizards of Waverly Place" was from November 2010 to January 2012.

Now true, a new opening doesn't always indicate a new season of course, but in this case it did. For an obvious reason, if there was such as split then a new opening would be needed to indicate that this was a new season for the broadcast cycle. Now Alec uses shows like "The Office" and "Monk" to support the fact that their intros were changed during their seasons but it wasn't indicating a new season. My response to that is, so? As far as I'm concern both those shows aired their seasons over the course of one season cycle each or half of that cycle (like the first seasons of BOTH shows). On the seasons that did air over the course of a full season cycle, their intros were change only halfway through it whereas the intro of "iCarly" for it's production season was changed after a certain amount of episodes from the Season 2 production had already aired over the course of a full season cycle. Plus, the "iCarly" transition took place during the time a new season would likely begin in (September). Considering that both "The Office" and "Monk" had a normal amount of episodes each season (16-26) there was no need to take their production season cycles and split them into two broadcast seasons to air over the course of one season cycle. The openings were changed yes, but with "iCarly" it's different because we had a whole season of 45 episodes in which 25 of them had already aired over the course of one cycle. What sense would it make to create a whole new opening for a second batch of episodes that would only throw everyone off if it wasn't intended to be a new season broadcast-wise? Not much sense apart from it being just slightly altered. Yeah, Dan made the new credits for a reason not just for the fun of it. He would only do that for a new season, which according to him the network was marketing out of the remaining Season 2 production episodes.

Then comes the web sources. Ah yes, the web sources, the most useful things to come by. Now as you know, we have sources that go by the production cycle and the broadcast cycle. Here's sources that go by the broadcast cycle as I already shared: [6], [7], [8]. Then there's the web sources you shared that went by the production cycle: [9], [10], [11], and most commonly the labels of the DVD releases. Now here's the thing, considering that we have sources acknowledging the two season cycles should tell you that's what we have going on. If the split of the second season of production episodes never happened to begin with, Dan would have said so (since he would know as he's the creator of the show after all) and we wouldn't have this problem. Most importantly we wouldn't even have sources indicating such a thing with this show. But considering we got the opposite it matters. The production season cycle is still used because it's still accounted for, hence why the production code number of episodes are used to tell which ones were made before the other despite what their airing number is. Hint. Hint. The fact that even the Nick press themselves referenced the broadcasting cycle in May 2011 when it came to the release of the "i<3 iCarly Collection" they wrote about, clearing stating it having episodes from Season 2 and Season 3 [12]. Well from the production season cycle if it was in fact broadcasted that way, it wouldn't make any sense. Heck if this was the case the whole time the press sure wouldn't have written like that at all considering they wouldn't have a reason to unless that was the case. But from the broadcast season cycle where ALL of those episodes are ones with 2xx production codes, proving that both the broadcast Seasons 2 and 3 resulted from a split then it makes perfect sense.

As a result of that Kevin, you had to second guess yourself. But then you came back with a lousy excuse to toss that aside, and all because of the fact that the press later talked about the release of the broadcasted 4th season a month later that was being released as "The Complete 3rd Season" DVD a month later [13]. You really thought you were being slick here didn't you because you weren't. The fact that you tried to use that to put out that it supported there only being a "single season" at a later time period meant to disregard what was said before was the most ridiculous excuse yet. First off, apart from having both the broadcast and production season cycles acknowledge for exquisite reasoning, prior to the May 2011 Nick press article, they were already going by the production season cycles but only to talk about the DVD release of the broadcast 3rd season that was titled "Season 2: Volume 3" back in February 2011 [14]. Also prior to the May 2011 Nick press article there was the renewal they heard from the executives on the show being renewed for a fifth season to start production and air in 2012 in April. Well since it's evident that Nick is going by the production cycle to label their DVDs for PRODUCTION REASONS then they're obviously going to refer the show's production seasons as such. And as a result, their press is surely going to refer it as such too if they're TALKING ABOUT IT. It would've really been the fourth production season if Dan shot all 26 episodes during the third production season, but since only shot half the episodes shot the second half of that seven months later, the second half of production basically became a whole new season production. So the fact that the press release referenced the broadcast season cycle afterwards (since a split in the second season production had to happen for them to do that), it's clear we have a broadcast season cycle coexisting with the production one. So broadcast-wise the fifth season Nick renewed would be the airing SIXTH season.

Plus, regarding how the Season 3 DVD was titled and why, and talked about in February, it's clear the broadcasted fourth season would have obviously been titled "The Complete 3rd Season" when it came about and be referred to by that title if the press was going to be talking about it. So it was really stupid for you to think that it contradicting what the press said before regarding the broadcast cycle; nor was that contradicting everything that was being said before. If both season cycles exist between the filming and TV airing of episodes, they'll both be acknowledged. So which ever cycle happens to be said afterwards by the press (especially on account of it being a DVD release which is going to have the production season label anyway and be referred to as such if it's being talked about) it doesn't mean anything. So Alec's excuse on keeping "up to date with info" and then using the changing of episode air dates as an example was very weak. As I said in response to that, we're talking about two different season labels here that were used back and forth as a result of a broadcast split in the second production season of episodes. Production cycles and broadcast cycles are different. Accept it. Noah Munck even says this on his Facebook you Kevin got all happy over to support your "only single season" cycle view. Well, considering the "iCarly" seasons to the cast and crew members still apply by the production cycle he is correct when he stated that they was going into the 5th season - as in their 5th production season. Not broadcast season, PRODUCTION season.

With you guys it's either one thing or the other. So you guys think because one source go by the production cycle it's suppose to discard the broadcast one. Um no. If we had sources that referred to an episode number by it's production number let alone it's air date number then does that automatically mean we have to refer it as such? Nope. The fact that the episode aired the way it did broadcast-wise indicates how it should be listed with it's production number acknowledged. So the Season 1 episode of "Fringe" that aired as a Season 2 episode was listed as such as wasn't counted for a "Season 1" episode. Speaking of a new intro, again doesn't always specify a new season if it's done mid-season of course of that one season (like "The Office" or "Monk"), but it does if it's after a bunch of episodes had already aired over the course of a season cycle especially if the network doesn't promote there being a new season (the case with Disney shows), and if a new one is in fact being marketed out of a high number of episodes from a season production after a bunch of them had aired over the course of a season cycle (with this case being "iCarly"). Alec used the point of the DVD release being accounted for to describe an episode list as a result of how Disney hardly promoting new seasons of shows. So a DVD release of their shows is how to determine a season. I'm calling bull there. First off, there was always the production numbers, so we already determined them before the DVDs even came out. Second, if a production season with like 50 episodes was broadcasted as two separate seasons of episodes and word got out on it by anyone associated with the network, that would be an entirely different thing compared to how they're released on DVD since they'll still be labeled being part of that production season because of them still sharing the numbers. This was so "iCarly" with Season 3 since the episodes were all part of the second season production hence why it's DVD release labeled "Season 2" and part of it's volume set. It's similar to the reason "iDate Sam & Freddie" was listed as the premiere of it's new season because that episode was produced first before "iLost My Mind" though the story of it comes after "iLost My Mind". Sure, like the DVD Nick could have handled it the way it is on TV, but they didn't because of PRODUCTION REASONS. Hint Hint.

So overall, a broadcast cycle does exist as stated by many sources including Dan and the press, referencing of production ones don't mean a thing towards it other than to account for how the episodes are produced so Kevin, your more "recent source" thing means nothing as the broadcast label can come up at anytime since one sure did beforehand after a production season cycle label was used (not surprised if it was discussing the DVD releases). Plus, the fact that we go by how an episode airs on TV by their air date, and not by the number it was produced shows you something. So since an entire season amount of episodes from the second production season of "iCarly" was clearly marketed as the third season (which there is evidence to support this) then that's how the episode list should look and will request that change on behalf of all the users here since you're not in charge of it. - Jabrona - 02:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

So I was searching for the link of a Nathan Kress interview from 2009 to show to some one where he mentions that they were pushing for 45 episodes and came across this other interview instead from August of that year shortly after production had finished. He clearly makes it a definitive that there was definitely a split within the second season production, before Dan even wrote his blog. Just read this: [15] - Jabrona - 05:20, 16 January 2011

I only got through about half way before I needed to discuss this. Nick and Disney do NOT go by "full season cycles." The Office, Glee, etc. do. A season cycles is new seasons air from September - May of the following year. Example the 2011 - 2012 cycle is Sep 2011 - May 2012. Nick and Disney air their new "Season" usually a week or 2 after the final episode of the last season aired. So basically they can have 1 season cycle in 2 years. An I'm in the Band episode from Season 2 aired towards the end of Season 1. That episode is in the Season 1 episode list. There's an episode of Victorious "A Christmas Tori" that aired during Season 2 so it's counted as a season 2 episode until the DVD releases then it will get moved to Season 3. The final season 2 episode of HM was suppose to air but got pulled. It was re-written and aired in Season 3 and is counted as a Season 3 episode as a "new" episode because of the differences. Also the final 3 episodes of Season 1 of That's So Raven aired "AFTER" season 2 started but they are still listed in Season 1. I will have more to comment about once I read the abundant use of text you wrote down then I will continue with what I'm saying. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't even bother. I've just about had enough of you and what you had to say that's been nothing but weak excuse after the other. This conversation is done as far as I'm concern, considering I've been talking to the same person the whole time between you and Kevin. - Jabrona - 02:14, 17 January 2011

Hey, hey, hold on a little, Jabrona. I think Alec will take a decision or reconsider his previous one after reading everything you wrote and examining every source you've provided. I also want things to go back the way they were, mainly because of the readers and people who come here for information: we're probably confusing all of them with all this changes. We've been writing the iCarly episode/season articles according to the broadcast cicle, and it's been that way for years now. So why change things now, when we could've followed the production numbering since the beginning and avoid all this discussion?

But if at the end it is decided to keep things according to the production order, then it'll be fine for me. I'm only worried for the millions of people who will feel mislead and confuse by the change. I'm in charge of the iCarly episode/season articles on the spanish WP, and we're keeping things the way they were, according to the broadcast cicle. That way we'll avoid the confusion, discontent and problems that would arise. Please, fix this soon, 'cause I don't want to confuse anyone (especially the WPs in other languages) and I'm sure you don't want to eather. But overall, respect and examine carefully each other's arguments, otherwise we're not going anywhere. - Fantasma del Espacio (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Fantasma del Espacio (sorry do not know your name). I'd just like to say this for right now. You're saying we should go by broadcast cycle then right? Without looking at any sources or anything but the broadcast cycle, here's what we got. iFight Shelby Marx airs on August 8, 2009 then iThink They Kissed airs on September 12, 2009 with a new theme song. Does that mean it's a new season, not exactly it could just mean a refresh in a theme song just to give the next batch of episodes their highlight (since they do use both episodes from before August 8th and after September 12th in the "new" theme song). Now that's just going by how it was broadcast without referencing Dan's blog, Nick promos, etc.

Now once I do finish reading it (I do not have time right now) I may come back with something but I'm not sure. Now just because we have "newer" sources that override yours does not mean it's wrong. Also this statement by you "So a DVD release of their shows is how to determine a season. I'm calling bull there." is wrong. Just because you think going by DVD's isn't right, it is. I've talked to numerous other editor's (and I only know you from this year from editing this last season of iCarly with the whole "and" and "&" dilemma. It seems to me you are not that experienced in knowing what is reliable sources. Editor's I've talked to use the DVD releases as the final say. They also say "blogs" (regardless if the creator actually writes on them) are NOT reliable. I remember on the blog he put the episode title "iBloop 2: Electric Bloopaloo" as "iBloop 2: Electric Bloop-a-loo" when all the other sites (Nick, MSN.TV, Futon Critic, etc) all use it without the hyphens. Which is why it's unreliable as he puts what "he" wants to say and sometimes it's not the truth. As of right now, I'll finish reading it tomorrow, put what I have to say and then we'll go from there. - Alec2011 (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay Alec, we have certainly gone a long way here. I'm sorry for putting you off but I just didn't think everything I wrote in that huge short-story was going to do anything. Now without getting feisty I'm going to be as calm as a camper. Now about the DVDs, I don't think they determine how an episode list should look depending on if a split took place in a production season. If a DVD of a season had it's episode list put in the order by it's production does that mean that's how the episode list should look? I pointed out we don't use the production cycle to write it out but we do acknowledge them, hence why we lists the episodes by the airdates but still put what their codes are. Production is one thing, broadcasting is another and I presented enough evidence to prove this whole season thing with iCarly. If you don't find Dan's blog acceptable fine, but a lot of us do and I got a lot out of it. You don't find it acceptable mostly because it's a blog, and as you've been aware of and I've been aware of, they're not reliable. But if it's from the creator of the show himself whose associated with the network he sends episodes to, and is behind the production of the show, I think it's more reliable because of that. He is the creator of the show and obviously knows more. Considering he's the top dog here on his show perhaps the "iBloop" sequel episode is spelled just like that with the hyphens. How is it that websites get the final say in how it's written compared to the show's creator himself? That doesn't make sense to me. I see you basically putting Dan out like he's lower than these websites that have nothing to do with the show (except Nick, but still). I recall a "Law & Order: SVU" episode titled "Lost Traveller" but NBC spelled it wrong. You see, they spelled it wrong because Warren Leight had it with an extra L in it so that it could have 13 letters like all the other episodes in Season 13 of the show do in their titles. Luckily, the episode list still has it spelled with the double L's. As for the opening intro (not theme song), there's certainly more to it than just to freshen up the other episodes. I can see if Dan slightly alternated it if there was never a broadcast split and if it was after a few episodes in a normal season of episodes. But a completely alternated one after 20+ episodes aired in one whole season cycle and informing about a "third season" out of the remaining episodes apart from the 25 from what count that aired out of that 45? Yeah, I'm not going to oppose anything on behalf of that. But hey, take a good look at Nathan's interview I linked. It's not a blog and he even confirms there was a split in the production season a month before Dan himself wrote anything. - Jabrona - 06:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This has gone on way too long. We've explained countless times why you shouldn't use the blog and other sources that you tried using. We're not "getting a kick" out of it, and most of your last post is WP:OR. I would like to point out that making all of the changes you made today before the discussion was finished was completely inappropriate, as was your edit summary you used ("The user KevinBrogers apparently was eager to ignore that.") when making the changes. Kevinbrogers (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Kevin, your behavior over on the iCarly Wiki was complete ridiculous. All I saw you doing here and there was ignoring even evidence that was absolutely reliable I went out to get that you were just trying to get around at. Perhaps I shouldn't have wrote that remark but you really got to me. The fact that your changes were made in the first place on behalf of this discussion barely not being known for other people to get involved was a surprise enough for me. But I did my duty and proved myself that this was the case. I never understood the problem with blogs, but when it comes to ones written by the show's creator himself it should mean a lot. At least it's not written by some stranger speaking on behalf of what is going on with the network they have no connection with. It still comes in handy on the issue along with the two other good sources that I provided (the Nick press article and Nathan's interview). - Jabrona - 21:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Some technical matters have come up, see Talk:ICarly (season 4)#Move? -- 76.65.128.132 (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

For years season 2 was split into seasons 2 and 3. Why is it just now being combined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.10.144 (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Because we now have people trying to overwrite the issue and claim that the broadcast cycle never took place on account of there being sources that only go by the production season cycles. However, there are sources that go by the broadcast season cycle as well most notably a press release from May 2011, and I'm trying to get things reverted the way they were. - Jabrona - 22:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

DVD Releases?

The following has been moved from my talk page so it's easily accessible for those who may wish to comment on the RFC below:

Aren't the DVD releases the final say in how a page should be laid out? You told me that bunches of times. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you speaking about a specific page? --AussieLegend (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

So it's page specific? Also what's your thoughts on the whole iCarly episodes talk page? - Alec2011 (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Aussie was asking you what page you were referring to since you didn't say what is was. Plus, regarding DVD releases, it's clear to me they don't have a final say. For example, the "Meet the Browns" TV series DVD releases of each season is different compared to how it's layered on TV. For example:

Season 1 - 10 episodes

Season 2 - 26 episodes

Season 3 - 42 episodes

Season 4 - 54 episodes

Season 5 - 8 episodes

Season 1 DVD - Episodes 1-20

Season 2 DVD - Episodes 21-40

Season 3 DVD - Episodes 41-60

Season 4 DVD - Episodes 61-80

Each DVD release season contains the next set of 20 episodes each different from how they were broadcasted on TV. In this case apart from iCarly, exactly why it's like this is unexplainable. But it doesn't make sense to change it's episode list to go by the DVD layout here. The show has five broadcast seasons and that's what it's going by. - Jabrona - 07:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Normally we use DVD cover art in season article infoboxes, and colour the infobox and season list based on the DVD colours but, except for exceptional circumstances, episodes are ordered by original air date, not by DVD episode order. In most cases, DVD seasons do reflect the season breakdown of the episodes, but not always. For this reason, it's best to look at various reliable sources to see how seasons are split. In the case of iCarly, the evidence seems very heavily on the side of four seasons having aired until now, with a fifth season on its way. This evidence includes press releases from Nickleodeon that specifically state season 5 will be airing in 2012. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but there's still the evidence that states that there was a split for broadcast purposes within the production of the second season. Aside from Dan's blog [16] that was like the most reasonable information on the issue for quite a while, I came across this Nathan Kress interview prior to Dan writing that blog regarding the second and third seasons: [17], also a May 2011 Nick press release statement linked from their website, also referenced it when talking about the release of the "i<3 iCarly Collection" [18]. They specifically state the set to have episodes from Seasons 2 and 3, and all the episodes they listed on there in the set are with the 2xx production coding. This is the later evidence I provided on the Talk Page I thought was very useful. Of course that never truly meant the seasons had to be referred to that way due to it's production cycle hence why certain web sources use them specifically Nick, the cast and crew of the show of course with the numbering, and when it came to the DVD release labels. Kevinbrogers tried to backhand the press reference due to the fact that a month later, they were talking about the DVD release of the broadcast Season 4 as "The Complete 3rd Season". But obviously that doesn't mean anything considering it's due to the production cycle, and it was clear this was the case when three months before in February, they were talking about the release of "Season 2: Volume 3" in April. Plus, I believe some of the "Season 3" episodes were already included in the "Season 2: Volume 2" DVD and in return, the Season 2 episode "iTwins" was placed on the Volume 3 DVD set. So these episodes were even like switched around for some reason through the volume releases. - Jabrona - 19:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There certainly seems to be some confusion over this, the statement from Dan's blog, "I kinda don't even know myself. Well, I do and I don't" attests to that. The DVD set does only contain episodes with season 2 production codes, despite saying it contains episodes from seasons 2 & 3. However, all of this falls by the wayside when you take into account the more recent press release from Nickelodeon which says, in part, "Nickelodeon Greenlights Season Five of Blockbuster Hit "iCarly"" followed by "SANTA MONICA, Calif., April 14, 2011 -- Nickelodeon, the number-one entertainment brand for kids, has greenlit a fifth season of its mega-hit comedy series iCarly. The new season will roll out in 2012".[19] This is a straight forward statement from Nickelodeon and, based on this, our verifiability policy requires that we treat the new season as season 5, not 6. Since we can't have two season fives there really seems no alternative but to treat all episodes with 2xx production codes as season 2. This is supported by other reliable sources, such as TVGuide and the episode production codes. It is entirely possible that somebody decided to split season 2 into 2 seasons at sometime, but the season 5 press release suggests they've rethought this. As far as I can find, there never was a statement from Nickelodeon saying that the season was split so, other than a questionable claim from a blog, a non-authoritative comment from an actor in an interview and a press release that requires some form of WP:SYNTH to reach the s2/3 split conclusion, there's nothing that really stands up to WP:V that can be used to support the current listing at List of iCarly episodes. Please note, I don't watch this program, I'm only using available evidence to form my opinion on this. As a side note, it's not unusual for Nickelodeon to have seasons much longer than are normal with other netorks. The Penguins of Madagascar has aired 112 episodes to date, in only 2 seasons. The first season consisted of 48 episodes broadcast over 15 months, while season 2 has now been going for 22 months with 64 episodes having been aired. A 21 month, 45 episode second season for iCarly is really not unusual. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing with Dan's blog I'm afraid was a misread. I don't know why people keep misreading this because I took the impression that he said this: "I kinda don't even know myself. Well, I do and I don't" due to him not knowing when the marketed third season would begin airing from the remaining 2xx production episodes, not that he didn't understand the issue. That makes sense, otherwise he wouldn't have flat-out confirmed that "We're in the second season now" (since the broadcasted Season 3 haven't aired yet), "the third season will begin airing in a few weeks (with a new opening sequence)". Apparently, it began sooner than expected since those few weeks turned into just 11 days since he wrote the blog entry on September 1, 2009 and "iThink They Kissed" aired on September 12. Most commonly, him working on a new intro for those episodes certainly expands more on this when it comes to the broadcast split. He surely wouldn't have had a good reason to make it unless he was being informed that there was a new season airing and there were like 20 episodes stored? Also, I find it strange how all of the "Season 3" episodes are directly coded after another (227-245) with the exception of one episode that's labeled 223. As for the special collection DVD set containing episodes with Season 2 production codes, yeah well they're all from the same production season so that's understandable. The coding obviously couldn't be changed. The press release statement regarding a Season 5 renewal was a month before the article on this DVD came out. Due to the production cycle, it's apparent Nick would still follow it, hence the DVD labels and calling the seasons by their production labels. They are associated with the show's production, so if they're referring to a fifth season renewal then they must mean the production season that would have the 5xx coding due to it's labeling. I currently wrote to a Nick press writer for a definitive answer last week on the issue, but haven't got one yet so I doubt I'd get something. But in the meantime, I do find Dan's blog (read carefully), Nathan's interview (he is associated with the production with those associated with the network), and even a Nick press release as proof that a broadcast split did happen. I don't care much for "The Penguins of Madagascar" since nothing seems to indicate a split for that show apart from what we have here with this show. Plus, it's a cartoon and Nick does run those a bit differently especially with how their segments are managed. - Jabrona - 07:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that everyone else seems to be "misreading" Dan's blog post and you are the only one who isn't, have you considered it might actually be you who is misreading it? Most of the conclusions that you've made in this post would constitute original research if we applied them to the article. Everything we add to Wikipedia must be verifiable and the only verifiable content we have in relation to the upcoming season is that it is season FIVE. That's authoritative, since it's from the network. What Nathan Kress said 3 years ago in relation to production aspects is not authoritative; he's an actor, not a member of the production staff. Dan is part of production, but he doesn't determine which season is which and the uncertainty in his blog post damages the credibility of what he says. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I certainly did not misread Dan's blog entry and neither did a lot of other people who took it into account. As I've posted out here and on the talk page, why would Dan later say: "We're in the second season now, the third season will begin airing in a few weeks (with a new opening sequence)"? That doesn't sound like some one whose confused on the issue. In ties to how he started out the blog, to me it certainly sounds more like he didn't know when the broadcast third season was to air since he never gave out a direct air date. The only people that have overlooked that so far has been Kevin, Alec, and now you. Plus we have the fact Dan made a new intro for those specific episodes as a result of that, even one that was coded 223 when the others were directly 227-245. True, Nathan is just a cast member but I believe his word still takes into account of all of this considering he's associated with Dan and the staff members as well as the production. He only tell what he knows and he certainly knew something on behalf of this. Plus, we have a Nick press release referencing this, the broadcast cycle of course - after they had already written what Nick said regarding a fifth season renewal due to that production having a 5xx coding. - Jabrona - 08:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"That doesn't sound like some one whose confused on the issue" - If you look at only that statement it doesn't but hwen you look at the whole post:

"Believe it or not, I kinda don't even know myself. Well, I do and I don't." - That clearly indicates that he's not really sure. He goes on to acknowledge that the boundaries between seasons aren't very clear, which is a bit peculiar because the production order makes that very clear.

"I guess what the network is calling the "3rd" season starts airing a few weeks from now" - As you've acknowledged above, what you call the third season started airing only 11 days later, which begs the question, whereis the source confirming that "iThink They Kissed" is part of the third season? The blog says "The 3rd season starts airing in a few weeks (with a new opening sequence)", which I assume is what people have used to determine this, but application of that is, at best, WP:SYNTH since there's no direct source.

As I've said, everything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. Sources must directly support claims being made. We can't assume. We now have an authoritative source that says season five will be airing in 2012. That means the season before it must be season four, not five as it is currently listed, as there simply can't be two fifth seasons. The logical conclusion is that all of the episodes witha 2xx production code must be part of season 2. Unless you can find sources that directly support a season 2 split into s & 3, that's how we have to treat the list. Of course, if you can find sources, then we have a whole host of other problems. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, why are we trying to make Dan's blog sound full of itself just to discard the fact that there was a split in the second season production? Clearly he wasn't really sure when the new airing season according to the network was going to air. The boundaries of the seasons are clear considering "iThink They Kissed" had the new opening sequence that the following 19 episodes ended up having. It's clear that was to be the start of the new airing season. It's makes me wonder why people question the obvious. Dan apparently thought it would have started later than expected. How many times did we have episode airings found out within days of their airing? "iBalls" was put on blast after "iStill Psycho" aired being put out to air that following week, for example. There certainly can be two fifth seasons: a broadcast marketed one and the production one with the 5xx coding one. We don't determine this. Just because codes say one thing doesn't mean that's how we have to follow it. We're just simply following what was put out people are trying to ignore here. If they put out a broadcast split and we have the show's creator, a cast member, and one of the network's press release saying so then I think that's enough to not to question it. Especially the Nick press release on the "i<3 iCarly Collection", stating that Season 2 and Season 3 episodes were on there, and all of the episodes listed having to have the 2xx coding, indicating a split did happen to result in two broadcasts seasons. There's no getting around that. I don't know what other useful sources you want but apparently I must look for them, though I think I found all I needed apart from Dan's blog. So by accepting the split, sources indicating about a Season 5 in 2012 (which has been out since April 2011 so it's not brand new) is understandable considering that season is going to have a 5xx number coding in it's production. And seeing how the DVD labels are, it's no surprise Nick would call that production season Season 5 since that's technically what it is due to it's production cycle. - Jabrona - 09:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"had the new opening sequence that the following 19 episodes ended up having. It's clear that was to be the start of the new airing season" - No, it's not clear. It's an assumption and therefore original research unless a citation can be provided to prove it.

"If they put out a broadcast split and we have the show's creator, a cast member, and one of the network's press release saying so then I think that's enough to not to question it." - The show's creator admitted he wasn't sure, the actor isn't part of the production team so he's not authoritative and there is no press release that directly supports the episode being part of season 3. The press release is about DVDs. There's no evidence that "they put out a broadcast split". --AussieLegend (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You're clearly misreading Dan's blog. He was sure on the issue, he wasn't sure when it was going to start for the 3rd time. Nathan Kress is a cast member, but that doesn't mean that he can't be informed about these things, especially when he was talking about it a month before Dan put his two cents out. If Dan wasn't sure then how the heck could he be so sure? Doesn't add up. Dan had to be sure in order for him to say something. The press release talks about episodes from Seasons 2 and 3 being on the DVD release they were talking about in May 2011, episodes that only had the 2xx coding together but made up the broadcast Seasons 2 and 3, a direct reference indicating the situation. A source so far I was able to find indicating that "iThink They Kissed" was the started of the new airing season was this: [20]. But it's a blog entry written on the day the episode aired but before it actually aired. But Dan later made this blog entry regarding the episode being the Season 3 premiere: [21]. Here's another web source from 2010 about an "iCarly" contest that launch after the airing of "iGot a Hot Room" where it references that episode as the start of Season 4: [22]. There was also this media article regarding Noah Munck I linked to the talk page that referenced "iPsycho" as a Season 3 episode I figured shared something in this [23]. We have a few good sources here supporting this. - Jabrona - 10:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

More discussion by involved editors

I support a merge as well. Jabrona, where is your source that production cycles and broadcast cycles are different? When you say "Technically" you are providing Original Research. You just can't seem to accept the fact that 3 editors who've had experience editing Wikipeida articles know what we're talking about. We have sources that say a fifth season was ordered and that season 2 was aired as one season over 2 years. Sure the blog is by the creator but blog's aren't reliable sources. - Alec2011 (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Alec, you nor Kevin strike me as people knowing what they're talking about considering all you two been doing was making excuses just to discard everything indicating a broadcast cycle. Plus if you knew Kevin, you would have know that he's the one whose been reciting things you said last week over the iCarly forum at TV.com. Yep, he's Ruffmann. You still say there isn't a difference despite everything I said above? You sure love throwing things aside do you? I have sources supporting a second season production split from Dan, Nathan, and especially a Nick press release. So seeing how the production cycle is still accounted for, that fifth season Nick renewed would (for the 500th time) be the fifth production season, the one with the 5xx coding. The one happening this year. It seems like everything I throw at you two you'll find a way to deny it by misreading or making silly excuses. Plus, I don't think Dan's blogs should be treated as though it's something written by a stranger. The fact that he's the creator of the show should matter considering knows a lot more regarding this show. But still, you're trying to get around that and make him something extremely unimportant, especially when you think the way a regular website spells the name of an episode is correct apart from how he spells it particularly the "iBloop 2" sequel episode. The fact that he spelled it "Electric Bloop-a-loop" doesn't matter because websites spelled it without the hyphens in "Bloop-a-loop"? You didn't think for a second they get the spelling wrong considering they didn't come up with the episode name?- Jabrona 01:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is this "Ruffmann"? I've never even been to an iCarly forum, and wouldn't even know where to find it. It really doesn't even matter. There are three people who have explained why your position is wrong. I think this is enough to warrant a merge. Wikipedia is based on consensus; it is not based on what a single editor wants, no matter how badly he/she wants it. - Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Um you. I suppose you're not CheckerFred either on the iCarly Wiki. Yeah, it's amazing that user knew things regarding my talk with Aussie both you and him just magically came across. No merge is needed and all I see is three people, particularly you and Alec relentlessly trying to discard things presented to you on behalf of my defense. - Jabrona 01:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not CheckerFred. Stop accusing me of things you have no proof of, and stop accusing me of random things that have no bearing on this discussion. Then, take an hour and read WP:RELIABLE and WP:OR. Read them very carefully. If you do, you'll see why three people "discard everything" and "throw things aside." Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm only bringing it up because this goes with your character. I just find it funny how Ruffmann sent Nick press writer Adriana Lemus a message regarding the issue, the same one CheckerFred forwarded to me when I wanted to look at it? Ruffman mentioned Aussie to me and I told him that I was going to talk to him, and when I did you come strolling by into the discussion. When I asked if you were stalking me, you tried to cover it up by later saying you were checking up on a discussion you haven't had with him since May (huh?). CheckerFred reciting something I said to Aussie I never mentioned a thing to him regarding that. He and Ruffman have both said the same things you said, and the list goes on regarding that. But getting back to the topic here, it seems that any research supporting your claim of just a single season is reliable to you. Any supporting the broadcast split isn't. We have a Nick press release statement referencing it on behalf of what was already said by Dan and Nathan themselves and their words matter since they're part of the show's production. But you tried to get around that and still are because you don't want it conflicting with your claim of no broadcast season cycle. - Jabrona 01:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

My character? If I'd written to Nickelodeon, don't you think I would have brought that up here? I have AussieLegend's page on my Watchlist because I never got around to taking it off. When I saw that you'd taken this to him/her and mentioned me by name, I took notice. I never said I was checking up on a discussion from May. I said that that's the reason I had it on my Watchlist. Did you ever think that maybe Checker Fred happened to read one of our multiple conversations? Maybe the fact that we're all saying the exact same thing should be an indication that it's correct. This is the first I'm hearing of any of this Checker Fred, Ruffmann, or iCarly Wiki stuff. And like I said, even if any of it was true, it has no relevance here. Anyway, the sources that support my view are reliable because they fit the criteria at WP:RELIABLE. Your sources aren't because they don't satisfy the criteria. Read the link I just provided. Your replies indicate that you haven't even glanced at it. Kevinbrogers (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah okay. CheckerFred and Ruffmann are the same person for sure. But his attitude on the CheckerFred account was strikingly similar to yours and reciting exactly everything you said, even on my talk page. That just brought suspicion on me. But anyway as for your linked sites regarding reliable sources, you posted those on my talk page. But I could have sworn I posted something regarding a Nick press statement supporting my defense after already using the production labels to talk about a DVD release and a new season renewal. Hmm.....plus we previously had Dan and Nathan saying something on behalf of what the Nick press had referenced two years later. Hmm.... - Jabrona - 02:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Jabrona for one, you seemed to have followed me to Aussie page when I started to talk about DVD's so you just pop up right away with a discussion that was between me and Aussie. When I said "Is it page specific" I was asking in regard to DVD releases and what he had to say, i wasn't even talking about the iCarly page. This is the answer I was looking for "Normally we use DVD cover art in season article infoboxes, and colour the infobox and season list based on the DVD colours but, except for exceptional circumstances, episodes are ordered by original air date, not by DVD episode order. In most cases, DVD seasons do reflect the season breakdown of the episodes, but not always." but you had to interrupt it. I don't follow TV.com as it really isn't a reliable source for anything as anyone can add to it so why would I go on that site? Look I'm not "throwing things aside" yes, the creator of the show is important and I'm not saying it's reliable but blog sites aren't reliable so even if he has a blog, it's still not reliable. Trust me, I've been where you were before. I've had multiple arguments with Aussie about prod. codes, episode #'s, with quasyboy about Writers being presented, etc. I now read the Original Research and Synth and learned about Wikipedia. The reason I'm "pushing things aside" is because NEW references from Nick push your sources aside. Sure nick said "from seasons 2 & 3" but later on there's a new reference that states a fifth and final season was picked up. Even Aussie agrees with Kevin & I. There's more references that support a Fifth season is going to air this year not a sixth season. As for production/broadcast cycles the only thing I see is the season premiere and season finale. Even this is skeptical as both Nick and Disney do not follow these. We're not trying to just change the page because, it's because it went so long without being changed to what it should be as no one indicated with a reference (way before this started) that there was a season split. Way back before Kevin brought up the discussion, everyone was going by the "blog" and the "new theme song," so they all said "sure it's a new season." Now that Relaible editors are saying something, we're automatically wrong. There's more sources that indicate a fifth season is airing this year, not a sixth season. - Alec2011 (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well as opposed to what Kevin did, I was recently writing with Aussie and keeping up with what he was saying considering he doesn't reply on the other person's page but his own. You had recently spoken to me regarding DVD releases with this show and how that should determine an episode list. You brought it up to Aussie soon after so I assumed you were talking about this show. Sorry if I misread that but you never replied back anyway. As for you following TV.com, didn't you say you had an account there when I mistook you for Ruffmann when I brought up how he was saying the same stuff you were saying? Does it matter if the site is reliable the fact is it has a forum there to discuss the show, like how this happens to be one of many discussion pages to discuss the show. Getting back to my sources you are once again not looking at things clearly. The Nick press source indicating a fifth season production was in April 2011. The Nick source I provided referencing the broadcast split was in May 2011. You got your order right here? So it wasn't new evidence it was old that came before mine. So you, Kevin, and Aussie saying it "pushed it aside". But hey, it still goes with the fact that the season Nick renewed will have the 5xx coding which is why they are calling it "Season 5". It's like how the DVD season releases being labeled the way they are, like how "Season 3" was labeled "Season 2: Volume 3" that the press already talked about in February 2011 on behalf of how it was titled due to it's production coding three months before the season renewal article even came up. - Jabrona - 02:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Source was actually from August 2011. That's more recent than May. Kevinbrogers (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't access that site as something is coming up. Plus the source anyway is clearly a direct recall from the April 2011 one. It still doesn't override anything. The broadcast cycle reference surely wasn't overriding what was already said regarding the production labels since we already had a DVD release of one season that wasn't labeled as such on the DVD. So it was definite by how the later Season 4 was release as "The Complete 3rd Season" the press talked about in June the production cycle was still going to be accounted for by Nick. But the fact that the broadcast cycle was reference by the press shows that it's in fact the case when it comes to the television marketing. - Jabrona - 02:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's the exact same site you used for your source. It's a press release describing what Nick thinks is the third season (the 3xx production line). Anyway, read through the links I provided above (they outline Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources and original research), and then explain why your entire argument doesn't violate these policies. From what I see, your entire argument (that there is a difference between production and broadcast seasons) is entirely based on assumptions. Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so I was able to get access to the site. Two things, that wasn't the site Alec was talking about. He was clearly talking about the April 2011 one regarding Nick renewing the show for a fifth season production that was to take in and air in 2012. Plus pay attention to the date it was clearly from June, not August. The August date was referring to when the release of that DVD was to happen. Why do you keep bringing that up? We already had a DVD release of one season that wasn't labeled as such on the DVD. The "Season 2: Volume 3" DVD back in February? But the fact that the broadcast cycle was reference by the press shows that it's in fact the case when it comes to the television marketing. Nick doesn't have to refer it as such because the production cycle is still accounted for, which is why the seasons are labeled by their production numbers. - Jabrona - 03:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Explain why your sources and arguments satisfy WP:RELIABLE and WP:OR. Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

With the exception of the Nick press article (we are not elaborating on again because for ten times now I've overshadowed your way around it) let me talk to you on Dan's blog and Nathan's interview. First of all, Dan of all people is associated with the network. He's the guy who sends them the episodes he edits and is informed by what they do. You simply misread his blog and used that as a reason to why it shouldn't have supported the split when he was clearly confused on when the airing third season was going to start. The fact that he knew about the issue is what led to him making the new intro for those remaining season two production episodes and him stating how the marketed third season was airing soon. To say he did the new intro for the heck of it is just a sad excuse on your part and Alec's part. Alec wanted to ignore the blog because it was that, a blog that's considered not reliable here. If it's from a total stranger that isn't associated with Nick or the show, that's one thing. But Dan's the creator here. He's obviously to know more about this show and what he's informed by the network than any of us. If the blog was from a Nick executive himself would it make a difference or would it still been considered "unreliable" because it's a blog? The same with Nathan's interview. Aussie wanted to brush that aside all because of the fact that he was a cast member. How sad. So apparently cast members don't know anything right? The same people who are constantly questioned about the show and what's going to happen. Apparently they do since they're part of the production and only know what they've been told specifically by Dan. Nathan wouldn't have said what he did unless Dan himself knew of the issue. So that excluded how you looked at that blog. Everything isn't always exactly by the book. Some rules are bended for the sole purpose of the info founded on still being useful. It's not like a Nick executive wrote anything we linked, so my info is as good as yours and supports the fact that a broadcast split did happen. Many websites support this but the evidence I have is a lot more sufficient since it's from those associated with Nick and the show who would obviously know more. That's why it still stands as important. Also, I'm not making assumptions. I'm giving you a deeper understanding at things you're trying to back me into a corner with. You and Alec did quite a lot of assuming yourself when it came to the intros of other TV shows, and how Disney Channel shows are and whatnot. - Jabrona - 03:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Jabrona, his new reference overrides yours as the reference you provided was from May 2011 and Kevin's is from June 2011. I still want to know your reference that production cycle and broadcast cycle is different? That's all I want to know... - Alec2011 (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you been paying attention to anything I've said or do you have read things? How many times have I spoke on that particularly why his new evidence don't override mine? Let's review this again in bold print: We already had a DVD release of one season that wasn't labeled as such on the DVD. The "Season 2: Volume 3" DVD back in February 2011? So it was definite that the broadcasted Season 4 was going to be released as "The Complete 3rd Season" the press talked about in June due to the production cycle still being to be accounted for by Nick. The split for the broadcasting realm didn't mean Nick still couldn't refer the seasons by their production status to which has that exact number coding. They are still associated mostly with the show's production. The coding obviously couldn't be fixed for "Season 3" on behalf of them all being part of the Season 2 production. The fact that the broadcast cycle was reference by the press shows that it's in fact the case when it comes to the television marketing. The broadcast cycle represents how things are aired and marketed on TV. The production cycle represents how things get made and produced. - Jabrona - 03:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• @Jabrona - Please stick to the facts. Comment on content, not on contributors posting here. I've posted further on your talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize. - Jabrona - 03:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You didn't use any WP policy in your argument. In case you still haven't read WP:OR, I'll quote it here (I'll also italicize the information most important to this argument): "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." You still haven't provided a reliable source that explicitly states that there is a difference between a "production season" and a "broadcast season" in the context of iCarly. Therefore, the rest of your argument is based on the assumption that there is a difference. Because there are no sources explicitly stating that there is a difference, all information deriving from this assumption falls under original research. The only sources that specify a split season are unreliable, as we've shown many times. When you consider only the facts and the reliable sources provided (I've provided them above; do not say they follow "production seasons," as I just finished explaining why this is original research), the 45-episode order should be considered a single season. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What reliable source do you want? A hand-written statement by the Nick executive himself? Dan or Nathan's word isn't good enough for you because it doesn't hold up to your standards? The fact that they are part of the show and associated with it's production makes their word rather reliable. Especially Dan's? What about the Nick release article? What sense does it make that they stated episodes on the "i<3 iCarly Collection" containing episodes are from Seasons 2 and 3 when all of the episodes on there are with the 2xx coding? Well, if we go by Dan and Nathan's word where they explain this whole broadcast splitting on behalf of the network then it makes perfect sense why the press would say that. The info by itself is confusing. But with all the info from before, the release article makes sense and adds into what was said before. - Jabrona - 04:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The "i<3 iCarly Collection" source epitomizes OR. It gives a list of the episodes that are on it, but doesn't say which would fall under season 2, and which would fall under season 3. Based on the source alone (which is what is required), we wouldn't know where to split them. Schneider's word "isn't good enough" for me because he says "huh?" and "I kinda don't even know myself." We don't cite sources based on maybes, even if he "seemed" sure of himself later on. What we can cite, however, are the multiple reliable sources I and others have provided (press releases, external reputable sites, etc.). Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "i<3 iCarly Collection" you clearly said the same thing Aussie said regarding that. As I told him, obviously the episodes with the "Season 2" or "Season 3" intro is enough to distant the episodes. It's not like all 45 episodes of that production had the same opening. And for the last time, Dan didn't know when the third season was going to air. That's why I brought Nathan's interview into this since he flat-out confirms this and clearly didn't assume this on his own behalf. He was informed and Dan would be the one to do that so he had to be aware of the issue before writing his blog, and ended it on a confident note. But apparently, I must look for more sources, though I feel like I'm just going to be wasting my time. - Jabrona - 04:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the fact that both of us said it is some sort of indication that it is correct. The argument of the "Season 2" or "Season 3" intro being enough to distant the episodes is also OR. You don't know that either were confident in their claims. If three other people call their confidence into question, we shouldn't base a major change on it. We should base a decision/change on the sources we know without a doubt to be reliable. Please find new, reliable sources, or I really don't know what else I can say here. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what else to say here either, but I will do just that in the meantime because I am 100% convinced I am right, so this can't be ignored due to sources not good enough for you. I still think the sources I provided are good enough on behalf of the issue's defense itself despite what role they play in Wikipedia's standards. Rules can be bended when a need is suited, so I was hoping for some consideration here. Besides, what claims are you talking about regarding the "Season 2" and "Season 3" intros? I thought it was pretty obvious which episode belonged in with each broadcast season batch. - Jabrona - 04:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"It's pretty obvious" isn't going to work. The source didn't list which episode went with which season. Assuming that half go with season 2 and the others go with season 3 is original research. (I'm still confused as to why you are using a DVD press release to support your opinion when you've tried to tell us this entire time that the DVDs are based on production, not broadcast seasons.) Anyway, rules shouldn't be bent in this case. We have sources that we know are reliable that can be used instead. Kevinbrogers (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The source didn't have to list which episode went into which season. The episodes with either of the two intros is enough to indicate that. What sense does it make to have a seemingly episode with the "Season 3" intro but belonging to Season 2 with the other episodes following it belonging to the broadcast Season 3 with that exact same intro? Do you really want to go there because that just doesn't make any sense. If it belongs in with the broadcast Season 2 then it would have the opening to indicate it. It's like that obvious and this goes with what I've saying with you trying to get around things. The episodes from September 27, 2008 to August 8, 2009 have one opening, the episodes from September 12, 2009 to June 26, 2010 have another. Hint. Hint. Plus, I don't see why you're so confused over my DVD argument. A DVD release of the seasons is one thing, not a special collection DVD with episodes taken from more than one and in this case broadcast seasons at that as the source was referencing. - Jabrona - 05:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what original research is. The source does have to list it or we can't decide what it should be, no matter how obvious it may be. Here's the source of my confusion over the DVD argument: you used a press release source (i<3 iCarly Collection) that mentioned seasons 2 and 3, and you said it was going by broadcast seasons. When I used a press release (The Complete 3rd Season, or Season 2, Vol. 3) from the same source, you said it was going by production seasons. Which one is it? You can't pick and choose which you want it to be just because it supports your argument. At this point, I really don't know what to say. We're just talking in circles. I could cite policy all day and explain why sources shouldn't be used, or why points of your argument fall under original research, but I don't think it will do any good. Please do one thing though. Do what I did, and look at this with an open mind. Forget everything that you've said, and everything I've said, and then take a look at the reliable sources again, taking into account only the things you read. Kevinbrogers (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine, forget how obvious the episodes on the DVD set are. But your confusion over that and a regular season DVD release still doesn't ring to me. The press release source (i<3 iCarly Collection) mentions episodes on there being of Seasons 2 and 3 and lists all the episodes on there that happen to have the 2xx coding. That statement itself was referencing the fact that there was a split season since broadcast-wise, Seasons 2 and 3 would be made up of all the 2xx episode coding and listed episodes on there with the "Season 2" intro or "Season 3" intro but apparently we have to be a whole lot more specific here. The DVD release seasons are the regular releases of the episode simply going by the number that their production coding is labeled by. Besides, you tried to use "The Complete 3rd Season" DVD many times release to backhand everything to support your argument. I know I'm right and will prove myself. I'm sure I have but apparently it isn't etiquette enough for Wikipedia's standards so I have to dig a whole lot deeper than I have to. The only thing I see going in circles is this whole broadcast and production cycle situation where we have various sources and good sources referencing the other. - Jabrona - 06:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I used the Complete 3rd Season because it is more recent. If you're so sure you're right, provide a link to the sources that proves this. Prove that there is a difference between broadcast and production cycles using reliable sources and without using original research. Kevinbrogers (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

But you using "The Complete 3rd Season" DVD was meaningless considering (as I've already said before) the DVD release of "Season 3" was talked about by the press in February 2011 being titled "Season 2: Volume 3" which was released in April. What do you think the broadcast Season 4 was going to be titled as on it's DVD? What was it's production coding? Yeah, but don't worry, I will provide these sources. - Jabrona - 06:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Jabrona, the intro does not say anything about when a new season was. When iGot a Hot Room aired on July 30, 2010 for the FIRST TIME, it had a completely different intro. Then when it aired later (after September 11, 2010), it had ANOTHER DIFFERENT intro so that episode itself would need to be listed as a new "Season" since it had a completely different intro. Stop using the intro as the difference between "broadcast" and "production" because that's Original Research. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you think before you speak? What point are you trying to make with that? First off, the intro "iGot a Hot Room" had (the "Season 3" intro with a few different clips) was because of the lack of episodes from the new season that were already shot to grab clips from. So by the time "iSam's Mom" aired a month and a half later the season intro was able to be updated because more episodes were shot. So what does that have to do with why the 20 episodes of "Season 3" starting with "iThink The Kissed" had a completely altered opening instead of just a slightly altered one had there not been a split for a new airing season? Dan talked about the whole season thing that led to him making a new opening for those episodes, but apparently the source isn't good enough. But still once again, your logic has been countered. - Jabrona - 22:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR before replying to anything else. At this point, I think it's clear you haven't done that yet. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You already posted that on my page. What do you think I'm doing at the moment? - Jabrona - 22:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Since your arguments have all been based on original research, it's hard to believe that you've given it much thought. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't question the obvious. How specific do you expect things to get apart from what's already in front of you in like the simplest way possible? - Jabrona - 22:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Wikipedia requires us to question this. If it doesn't spell it out in the source, it's original research and isn't allowed. I really don't think you're understanding that. If you have to say "it's obvious," it's probably already OR. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

But what is there to question? iCarly has had a different opening intro each season cycle which has been a new airing season. The only difference is with Seasons 2 and 3 all those episodes were shot during one big season production where we have proof that they were set to air as two different seasons, hence the two openings to differentiate the two. Dan's only had to majorly tweak a season intro a couple times, but that doesn't mean anything like Alec tried to put out. Once again Alec, just in case you didn't read my response above, "iGot a Hot Room" is understandable since there wasn't enough completed episodes of the season to grab from for the new opening. So the "Season 3" one was used with just a few added clips from the new season from the few episodes shot Dan could grab them from to indicate it was the start of a new season. It would have been confusing to just leave the whole "Season 3" intro in there because it would have looked like a Season 3 episode (even though it pretty much did which is why Nick should have held this episode off until a much later time). It was a month and a half before the next episode would air and by then production on the season finished filming and he could have updated it more because all the episodes were shot. Plus, this episode was known to be the new season premiere to begin with before it even aired since it was part of a new production season. "iSam's Mom" was just the start of featuring the ACTUAL season opening. Now the second occasion was the Season 5 intro that was tweaked in a similar manner after "iLost My Mind" aired, but not as heavily since it was basically still the same thing. Plus production had since ended in July 2011 so there was no need to heavily tweak it, so the only thing we got out of that was four new clips and a different special effect during the main title sequence. Only thing is, "iDate Sam & Freddie" was labeled as the premiere, and that's only because it was the first episode of the season to be made. That's probably why Dan decided to tweak the opening with that episode. - Jabrona - 23:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, iGot a Hot Room was aired as a "Special" and iSam's Mom was promoted as the season premiere but it's the fifth episode produced. iGot a Hot Room was the first episode produced but wasn't promoted as a season premiere. Nick & Disney air episodes out of order (sometimes produce episodes out of order). Hannah Montana season 4 the first episode produced was where the storyline continued from the second episode produced. The second episode produced was aired first because that was meant to be the beginning of the season but they had to produce it later. Not sure where you're getting at. When did this turn into a conversation about theme song/intros? None of this shows anything about broadcast/production cycles being different. YES I AM READING EVERYTHING YOU'RE TYPING! You don't seem to read what Kevin and I are saying. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

iSam's Mom was not promoted as the season premiere. You're definitely lying because it was also labeled as a "special". Of course the "Hannah Montana" Season 4 situation is similar to the first two episodes of iCarly Season 5 because the premiere episodes were the second ones produced of their seasons though the stories of them obviously came first. But I'm pretty sure the second episode of "Hannah Montana" wasn't labeled as the premiere since it aired what a week later? Plus, you got carried off into this whole opening intro thing. I'm just saying that it does matter with this show like a whole lot of other shows out there in a new airing season because why else would Dan make it for the 20 episodes of this apparent third season if there wasn't a split? The new intro helped support the fact that we were entering a new airing season cycle after a whole year where we had 25 episodes aired throughout a previous season cycle with a whole different opening. - Jabrona - 00:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The theme song actually doesn't matter. It's possible that they just got tired of having the same old clips and decided to update them. Shows update intros in the middle of a season all the time. Some even change the song. Saying that they updated the intro because of a new season is pure original research, and we shouldn't base an argument on that. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Jabrona, You're right it wasn't promoted as the season "premiere" it was promoted as an iCarly Special. I did my research and I apologize. I didn't start this whole Theme Opening (not theme INTRO). All I said was that you were using the "theme openings" to differentiate between "broadcast" and "production" cycles. I gave an example as to why you cannot use them to differentiate them because the theme opening changed twice. But you however kept going on using the opening but you can't because a theme opening is a theme opening and that's it. Well the third episode produced of Hannah Montana season 3 aired first. The "preview" of A.N.T. Farm premiered on May 6th and it was the first episode produced. The "Series Premiere" was aired more than a month later on June 17th and was the second episode produced. Okay, Kim Possible had the same theme opening for the first 3 seasons then a new one for season 4. That's So Raven had 4 theme openeings but after season 3 aired Season 2 & Season 3 had the same theme opening. Many people thought That's So Raven had 3 seasons because Disney added the season 3 theme opening to Season 2. Cory in the House didn't have a theme opening change for season 2. You cannot use theme openings to differ between broadcast/production cycles because not all shows have a theme opening/do not change their openings. - Alec2011 (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this talk about the the production episode airings of Hannah Montana and A.N.T. Farm is unnecessary. I only brought up that whole issue with "iDate Sam & Freddie" being labeled as the premiere of "iCarly" as a result of the whole issue with you saying how "iSam's Mom" should have been labeled as the premiere episode of Season 4 due to it having a new intro. "iGot a Hot Room" obviously was not a season by itself and the opening it had obviously wasn't the official opening for it's new season. I used "iDate Sam & Freddie" as an example to show you why that episode wasn't the premiere of it's new season despite actually being labeled that way and having a tweaked opening compared to what was shown in "iLost My Mind". Okay, we can let that one go.

Now getting back to this intro thing, whether it's called an intro, opening, it's the same thing. Sure, intros to TV shows can be the same for seasons. I know that. But in cases like that as you used with "Kim Possible" and "Cory in the House" (heck you can even thrown "Wizards of Waverly Place" in there), we have the season productions, promos, and media info to separate these seasons. As I can recall, "Wizards" Season 3 was promoted as such before it aired by the way. Kim Possible and Wizards changed there intros (finally) as a result of having their other ones for three seasons each and to indicate a new season. Now other shows do work different, and they need a new intro each cycle to indicate a new airing season. With iCarly it's just that, and with the Season 2 production episodes, there were 20 episodes left to air and both Nathan and Dan confirmed that the network were calling this the third airing season that ended up airing over the course of the 2009-2010 season. And since it was marketed as a new airing season, Dan helped make it to look like one by giving these episodes a new opening intro.

So Dan didn't make it for the heck of it. Since it's clear he tweaks openings for a season after an official one was already made and shown (or after an unofficial one like with Season 4), then he would have did that for the last 20 episodes from the Season 2 production because of the huge amount if the network did not want to market them as a new airing season. Why would he completely change it at the right time a new season would begin in anyway for it, just to look like a new airing season if it wasn't intended to be? This does not add up or make sense. - Jabrona - 02:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You still don't get the concept of original research. Read this again: "The term 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." Why do you insist that a revised intro indicates a new season? That's pure original research, so any argument based on that is completely useless. Don't bring up the theme song again unless you have a reliable source for it. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm bringing it up because it went with the fact that Dan made it because we were entering a new airing season as he specifically stated. Intros are normally made to indicate a new season and it's always been like that with iCarly each year. It never had a couple seasons where it had the same opening. The only difference is, we have two different openings of two apparent broadcast seasons that just happen to come from the same production season I'm trying to prove was in fact split up by the network because of what Nathan and Dan said. - Jabrona - 04:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly did he say it was a fact? On the blog post? I don't think I need to explain again that the post shouldn't be used. It violates WP:SELFPUB, and he is extremely unsure of himself. It also says nothing of the new sequence being made for a new season. All it says is that he made a new sequence. Assuming it was created for a new season is, again, original research. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, he specifically states that he made a new opening for the new airing season that was to happen soon out of those remaining Season 2 production episodes. He clearly wasn't confused on that. - Jabrona - 04:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Again: "Huh?!? ... I kinda don't even know myself. ... I think ... I guess." He didn't even know for sure (he said "I think") which episode began the second season. How is this not being confused? He sat down to write that blog post with no idea of what was going on. He even said that himself in the post. Did he just magically figure the whole thing out by the time he was done? He has absolutely no credibility after saying "I kinda don't even know myself." Kevinbrogers (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Dan didn't know when the season was going to start because he didn't list an air date. That's what he was confused about, when the second airing season was going to END and when the third one was going to BEGIN. So again, he wasn't confused on the issue itself for the billionth time. One thing is for certain on behalf of that is, Nathan sure as heck wouldn't have confirmed it in his interview with the Star Scoop if Dan was confused about the issue. Plus there were those two video interviews with Nathan from 2010: [24] and 2011: [25] I linked above where the interviewers referred the coming production seasons as how they were going to air on TV, and Nathan doesn't correct them. He would have if they were to be referred as to how their production cycle code numbers were if a broadcast split never happened. But he wouldn't have if he did an interview in 2009 confirming this was the case. - Jabrona - 05:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

Why is this being brought up in the first place? Everybody was happy with the was it was until KevinBodgers came in here and started changing things, causing a fight. Why cause problems? Why screw things up? If you you've just left it alone, everyone would be happy and we wouldn't be having this stupid conversation. -pscf3. Pscf3 (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's wrong, shouldn't it be fixed? Kevinbrogers (talk) 11:59 am, 24 January 2012, Tuesday (1 month, 2 days ago) (UTC+11)

And, the I <3 iCarly DVD release lists episodes from the "Merged" Season 2, but lists it as "Season 2 and 3". Whhhaatttt??

Like I said earlier, why list the episodes in broadcast order, but seasons in production order? It's inconsistencies like this that kill episode guides. Pscf3 (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I brought it up because I feel it's wrong. If it's wrong, shouldn't that be addressed? The change wouldn't cause inconsistencies though. The episodes would definitely be listed in broadcast order still; all this would do is combine the second and third. If there never was a split, then there is no difference between production and broadcast seasons, and therefore no inconsistencies. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, considering according to the broadcast cycle, there was a split. There's your inconsistencies. Pscf3(talk) 01:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, considering the fact that there really is no difference between broadcast/production cycle. This isn't the discussion part. It's only your decision as in "SUPPORT MERGE: Reasoning" or "SUPPORT SPLIT: Reasoning." Feel free to discuss this above not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec2011 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to get into another huge argument here, but... you're assuming that a broadcast season exists. We're trying to determine if it did. If it didn't, then there's nothing inconsistent about it. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you want then? Me and Jabrona have provided more than enough sources for a broadcast season. Pscf3(talk) 01:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second, if you'd like. I'm neutral, just let me put my two cents out here: Sorry for being the "meddling guy" again, but I'd like to say I somewhat agree with Pscf3. The only thing we're causing with the constant changes is confuse more people as I stated before. Nevertheless, all my time in Wikipedia has taught me one thing: always follow the rules and procedures.

We clearly need to decide, what to guide us from: the production cycle, or the broadcast cycle. Most of the people out there (readers, viewers, even internet sites) many times come here looking for reliable info, thinking WP is a primary source, though obviously it isn't, and Nickelodeon has promoted, so far, 5 seasons, with the split as "seasons 2 & 3." Jabrona has presented reliable sources too (not the blog posts, but the press releases about the DVD's), but... that isn't enough. We need more reliable sources to proove there was a split, and moove on.

So, here's my idea: could anyone here contact a Nickelodeon executive, someone in charge of ordering the episodes, and obtain a real and clear answer, straight from him/her? Jabrona said something about contacting a Nick press writer Marianna or something along those lines a while ago, but obviously she hasn't answer back yet. We shouldn't be discussing here, we should be looking for the most reliable source we can get, and the closest to that is a person directly involved with the show's broadcasting. I think Nick should clear this up once and for all: why broadcast and market the seasons one way, but anounce them in press releases and DVD's in another?

Otherwise, as I said a while ago, we won't be going anywhere with this. Space Ghost, from the spanish Wikipedia. -Fantasma del Espacio (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

But the problem is, there's really no source for the difference between broadcast/production cycles except for that I <3 iCarly DVD collection. However there's also the problem of all 3 volumes of Season 2 all have season 2 episodes on them (those included in the I <3 iCarly DVD Collection). - Alec2011 (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@Pscf3 - This has been brought up because there is evidence that the split is not correct. We have numerous third party sources saying that the current season is 4, not 5 and there is a press release from Nickelodeon saying that the next sesaon is season 5, not season 6. There is a distinct lack of reliable evidence for the season 2/3 split in this article. Most of the evidence for the split is dubious at best. Dan's blog post displays a level of uncertainty and inaccuracy (e.g. he said the new season with the new theme would air in 3 weeks when it aired only 12 days later) and the DVD press release, while stating that the DVDs would contain episodes from season 2 & 3, did not specifically state which episodes were from either season. Sources need to directly support claims. That's explained in Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of our core policies, and it's something we can't ignore. Use of that press release to justify a split constitutes "synthesis of published material that advances a position", which is addressed in Wikipedia:No original research, another of our policies. I'm not sure what you mean by "why list the episodes in broadcast order, but seasons in production order?" The intent is not to do that. The intent is to list them according to season, based on verifiable information. It just so happens that, not surprisingly, the reliable information we have just happens to directly support a merge of what is now season 2 & 3. As for "It's inconsistencies like this that kill episode guides", Wikipedia is not an episode guide, it's an encyclopaedia and we have to be accurate.

"Considering according to the broadcast cycle, there was a split" doesn't make a lot of sense. There was no formal announcement saying that there was a split, all of the TV guides talk about a single season and the "season 3 premiere" aired only a month after the "season 2 finale" which is unusual. This, and the episodes all having 2xx production codes points to there being a single season, not two. So where is the verifiable evidence that directly supports a split?

@Fantasma del Espacio - "Nickelodeon has promoted, so far, 5 seasons, with the split as "seasons 2 & 3."" - Do you have a source for this? So far, I've been unable to find anything from Nickelodeon that directly supports this. As I've said, I don't watch the program so I've never really taken notice of ads. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you don't watch the show, then why are you here? Pscf3 (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Because I was asked to provide input. But that's not relevant. Anyone is welcome here.--AussieLegend (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because sources go by the production cycle doesn't mean the broadcast one isn't correct. There's enough evidence to support it, even if it doesn't hold up to Wiki's standards. Sure, there's a press release with Nick saying that they renewed the show for a fifth season to be produced air in 2012 which is correct since it will have the 5xx episode coding. However it was never said it was going to air as the fifth season. Because of the two different cycles, the production one is still accounted for when it comes to the DVD season releases as a result of it's coding as evident to when "Season 2: Volume 3" came out in February 2011. Should it also be aware that some of the airing "Season 3" episodes were already featured on the Volume 2 set? There was no need to change the coding to the "Season 3" episodes because they were part of the second season production, not a third. You seeFumitol? That's why things will always be crooked when it comes to the airing seasons and their production codes as a result of the Season 2 split. Season coding always go by the number of production seasons made, and at this point there was only two. So the later seasons get affected by it. The episodes from the second season production just got split up to broadcast as two different seasons, but that wasn't going to change the coding, especially when one of the episodes was labeled "223" anyway and the others were directly 227-245.

Now Aussie, Dan never stated in his blog an exact number of weeks as to when the airing third season with the new intro was going to air, he only said a few weeks. He didn't know it would have started 11 days later otherwise he would have said so. But that's nothing because how many times have we had been informed about when an episode was going to air at the last minute just days before it's airing? Quite a few to be exact. The problem here is that we constantly have people misusing or misreading Dan's blog just to support the fact that there wasn't a split because of what other sources are going by. Kevin wants to keep on saying Dan was confused over the issue, yet Dan was confident about it all in the end. Why did this sudden change happen? That wrap-around doesn't add up anyway because I could have sworn the purpose of the blog was to inform people when Season 2 was ending and when "Season 3" was going to begin, not if all the 45 episodes were airing as one big season or if there was going to be a split. The split situation had already taken place seeing that Dan been informed on the Network calling these episodes Season 3. Nathan had previously made the same statement regarding this a months before so this obviously been settled. As a result, Dan made a new opening for the remaining 20 episodes to depict that this 45 episode season production was being marketed as two airing seasons, otherwise he wouldn't have done that and just left the Season 2 intro in and probably still tweak it a bit eventually. But if that was the case, then the last 20 episodes were better off being just another batch of Season 2 episodes as how they were produced. You see, intros do play a role when it comes to new season airings with certain shows.

So when Nick was referring to the fifth season renewal, they were referring to the production season since it would have the 5xx episode coding. Plus we have the press release that came a month later where it talks about Seasons 2 and 3 episodes on a DVD collection whereas all the episodes listed in the set is with the 2xx coding. Now without Dan's blog (read correctly) and Nathan's interview, how exactly would this Nick press statement make any sense? Plus Aussie, I don't know why you find the fact that "Season 3" aired only a month later after Season 2 unusual. We have shows that air seasons in that gap all the time, even within just a single week ("Victorious" for example). Plus, "iThink They Kissed" aired at the right time anyway from where a new season would start in, September 12, 2009 - quite a distance from where the last episode aired back on August 8th with a different opening intro. - Jabrona - 21:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Jobrona, but then iBeat the Heat aired on June 26 and then a month later (July 30) iGot a Hot Room a new season is unusual as season 1 was in September and season 2 was in September, wouldn't season 3 start in September as well (since you're making that case). - Alec2011 (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Technically it should have considering the fact that only a few episodes of the season were shot and a proper intro for the season couldn't be made yet until it was time for "iSam's Mom" to air which ended up looking more like the season premiere due to it's opening intro and when it aired. September 11, 2010 should have been the air date for "iGot a Hot Room". I was never too fond of that early air date Nick placed for what I'm still calling the Season 4 premiere. It just messed things up a bit. I wasn't too bothered by the August 13, 2011 premiere date of the next season despite Nick promoting it with "iDate Sam & Freddie" on September 10th (You see? The September cycle) since it was two months since the last season ended and wasn't too early on like how "iGot a Hot Room" was; even if all the episodes of the season were shot for there to be a new intro. That's what I'm worried about with the new season coming this year starting completely early like in April or May since the current season is just about done airing episodes and the new season production begin sometime next week. - Jabrona - 21:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What are you worried about? That's how Nick and Disney are. Nick will probably air Season 5 early. They don't follow the major networks (Usually Between September - May) by how they air their series. USA Network doesn't follow it either. See you're comparing iCarly to shows like Law & Order: SVU, the office, etc. iCarly has episodes ending in July. Starting in July, etc. Disney does that and so does Nick. USA Network & ABC Family have Spring/Fall or Summer/Winter seasons that air for 10-12 weeks then break for a couple months then return with the rest of the episodes. Nick and Disney don't air episodes in order nor with the (September- May) schedules. That's just how they are. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If it doesn't hold up to Wikipedia standards then it's still an issue, Jabrona. I still have yet to see anything that convinces me (That doesn't violate WP:OR) and I do not feel as though I will be seeing any evidence of the sort.-Fumitol|talk|cont 22:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it doesn't hold up to Wikipedia's standards. But I don't think that should mean just discard the whole thing and just say that it didn't happen. I can understand Dan's blog being issue because it's a blog, despite the fact that he's the creator of the show and is greatly associated with the network he produced shows for for many years now. Perhaps if it wasn't a blog (and not being misread or misused) then it wouldn't be a problem. But still, we have Nathan's interview with the Star Scoop and the May 2011 press release which is another thing. They just manage to support Dan's blog since one did come soon before it and another came a while after. I just don't see why we must try to get around it all on behalf of the production labels. If both cycles exists then both would be acknowledged confusing as it may seem, but the production cycle coding will always be the one thing affecting that.

And Alec, as we already pointed out, shows run differently. iCarly just sort of followed the September-May cycle despite having some earlier start points (like July and August) and ending later (like in June-August). The show was pretty much the closest to any on Nick that followed closely by the usual season cycle along with a few Disney shows (like Wizards, Suite Life on Deck, Shake it Up, etc). Didn't really care except for when "iGot a Hot Room" aired. That season premiere did in fact air sooner than it should have and should have been giving the air time "iSam's Mom" ended up getting. - Jabrona - 5:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Jobrona, I feel that you're clutching at straws with your responses. You keep talking about a "broadcast cycle" but what exactly do you mean? Any broadcast cycle seems to be irregular. Nickelodeon never said that the fifth season was going to air as the fifth season because that's implicit in the press release. If the network says it's the fifth season it's expected to air as the fifth season, not as some other. You're correct that "Dan never stated in his blog an exact number of weeks". He did say "a few", but "a few" is not 12 days. One would normally expect "a few" to mean three to four or more weeks, but certainly not less than two. Clearly Dan didn't really know what was going on, which he did state when he said "I kinda don't even know myself". As the series creator and somebody closely involved with production, you'd expect him to know and he didn't. "So when Nick was referring to the fifth season renewal, they were referring to the production season since it would have the 5xx episode coding", if applied to the series, would constitute original research which is unacceptable. everything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable and you haven't met the burden of evidence required. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm clutching in defense of this issue because people don't seem to think the second season production of 45 episodes was split to broadcast as two different airing seasons. Especially with you, you seem to think a production season label must always depict the airing season label. Because of that, sources that go by the production season label must be correct, when others indicating that a broadcast season cycle exist that's different due to a split of episodes during a season production to air as two separate ones isn't. But really, there's no questioning it especially if it did happen, and if so it's clear to have an affect on the later seasons when it comes to it's production season label in comparison to it's broadcast season label. That's not hard to understand. So with this show, we have three good sources used to support that statement. So a fifth season production would then be different from the fifth season airing that comes off of the fourth season production because the third airing season came off from remaining episodes from the second season production. Again, Dan's blog was never about the split issue that has since been situated going by Nathan's interview. It was about when the broadcast Season 2 was going to end and when the "third season" was going to begin. Plus the network decides when they air episodes. The creator of the show isn't really informed on that and basically knows the same time we do. He thought it would air within a few weeks tops, it could have been three, I don't know because he never gave an air date. That's where I was getting with that response to you, not that it couldn't have been three weeks, but we didn't get an exact number so we shouldn't be placing numbers regarding that. - Jabrona - 21:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

On behalf of my defense, I am so happy to inform you guys that I have found a recent source that supports the broadcast cycle. I've just been shared a recent twitter message written by none other than Miranda Cosgrove where she specifically states that this was "Season 6" of iCarly: https://twitter.com/#!/MirandaCosgrove/status/162294729671847936. Now unless you guys want to get around that, I wouldn't surprised, but this is Cosgrove talking now. - Jabrona - 6:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You still keep talking about a "broadcast cycle" without explaining what you mean and without providing any sources in support. Your assertion that "Dan's blog was never about the split issue" clearly is not correct. The blog post is titled "iCarly: Second Season? Third Season? Huh?!?" and starts with "Recently, my Twitter and DanWarp gmail have been filled with iCarly questions about when the 2nd season ends, and when the 3rd one begins." You've even said it in your post when you said "It was about when the broadcast Season 2 was going to end and when the "third season" was going to begin." That was where the alleged split was supposed to have happened, and he was wrong about that. The Twitter post suffers the same problems as the nathan Kress interview. It's from an actor who is not part of the production crew. It's trumped by the press release from the network. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh my, you seriously must be delusional if you're not understanding this "broadcast cycle" thing I've been talking about countless times. The broadcast cycle - how episodes are marketed on TV apart from how they're produced. We see that all the time with episodes of a lot of shows airing out of production order, or held off and aired in a different season. You should have known that. With this show apart from the episodes airing out of order, you clearly know the situation this show has regarding a huge season production of episodes that was split off to air as two different broadcast seasons, affecting how episodes of later production seasons are labeled as on TV as a result like how it's been. So I don't even have to go any further with what this "broadcast cycle" thing is do I? And when I said that Dan's blog "wasn't about the issue", I was referring to the fact that he wasn't going on about if all 45 of the Season 2 production episodes were going to air as two seasons and being confused about that. He was flat out telling people that the third season was going to air soon with a new intro, so it was clear the remaining episodes from the second season production was going to be this "third season". He wasn't wrong if he's saying that the network was calling it that. As regards to what Nathan said beforehand and what we have Miranda saying now, let me point out that these two cast members happen to be associated with that production crew and Dan all the time as much as they are with the network. So I find their words quite believable since these are the people who are questioned all the time about the show. A Nick press release even referenced it even after production season labels were used to describe the DVD release of "Season 3" and the upcoming production season happening now. It's clear the production labels are still being accounted for due to the production season cycle. Plus we have sites like "iTunes" following the broadcast cycle that Nick themselves often promote and sends episodes of their shows to be downloaded by people. So I'm sure as heck convinced a split did happen. - Jabrona - 9:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for calling me delusional. Please, be civil. Now please provide some reliable sources for this broadcast cycle. Remember, everything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. "He wasn't wrong if he's saying that the network was calling it that." - But he was wrong in when it would air. If he had said "two weeks" and it aired in 12 days, that wouldn't be a big issue. If he had said "a few weeks" and it aired in 3 weeks, that wouldn't be a big issue either. The problem was, he said "a few weeks" and it aired in only 12 days. But did it? The only evidence that the episode was the "season 3" premiere seems to be the new theme song, and that really isn't enough. It doesn't meet the threshold required by Wikipedia. And there we have it. "let me point out that these two cast members happen to be associated with that production crew" - Being associated with the production crew doesn't make them part of the production team, they're still only actors. When the network says there's a fifth season coming, we have to believe the network, not the people who only work for the network. "A Nick press release even referenced it even after production season labels were used to describe the DVD release of "Season 3" " - The only press release I've seen is the one saying there were episodes from s2 & 3 but that didn't mention which episodes were from which season. That doesn't meet the WP:V requirement. "Plus we have sites like "iTunes"" - I wouldn't be too sure about iTunes. I've seen people editing articles recently to comply with iTune scheduls despite the iTunes schedule being different to the actual airing schedule. "So I'm sure as heck convinced a split did happen" - OK then, provide a reliable, secondary source that says "iThink They Kissed" was the first episode of season 3. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As for Dan's claim for when the new season was to air, perhaps the episode was intended to air in a few weeks and Nick decided to move the air date up at the last minute. We don't exactly know about that ordeal. All we know is that Dan wasn't informed on the exact air date of an episode and he isn't anyway. As for "Season 3" having a new opening intro, that of course plays a role in these 20 episodes being marketed as a new airing season and "iThink They Kissed" just happened to be the first episode to have it. Here's a Dan blog where he indicates "iThink They Kissed" was the Season 3 premiere: [26]. There's also this Nick press article from September 10, 2009 on behalf of iCarly "returning" since the airing of "iFight Shelby Marx": [27], but "True Jackson" had the same statement but was still airing Season 1 episodes from it's gap so that might not help. But iCarly still has it's new opening to account for with "iThink They Kissed" that the following 19 episodes had. Why else would Dan create it they wasn't being marketed as a new season? If it was, then it makes perfect sense why he would create a new intro for those episodes, to show the fact that this was a new airing season on behalf of the network. If they didn't intend for it to be the new airing season, he not only would have made the blog entry, but he definitely wouldn't have had a reason to create a new opening just to lead to an utter mislead to viewers. But he states the network was calling it a new season which led to him making the new opening. Plus, here's a blog entry of Dan's from the very day "iLost My Mind" aired on, but posted hours before the episode actually aired: [28]. It featured spoilers from the episode, and in the "New Opening Credits" column, he clearly states that each time there's a new season, there's a new opening credits. So there you have it, and since we know which of the 45 2xx coded episodes have the Season 2 intro or the "Season 3" one, I don't see why that shouldn't be clear enough to figure see which episodes listed on the press article that are on the "i<3 iCarly Collection" DVD set belong to either Season 2 or Season 3. The fact that it references Season 2 and Season 3 and then lists just 2xx code episodes is enough to support a split. The actors may not be part of the production team, but that doesn't mean they don't know things from them especially when it comes to the seasons. And just a little FYI, it's not like we actually gotten a written statement from the network executives themselves. Everything the network stated was recited on behalf of everyone who works for the network, which includes Dan and the press and both had acknowledged the broadcast split. So just because a Nick press article use the production labels, don't mean anything. A split like this show had could cause some shifting to how a season is labeled and whatnot. - Jabrona - 12:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In this video, which was posted on February 6, 2012, Jennette McCurdy says "This week we are shooting one of our first episodes of season five, that's right kids, not 1, 2, 3 or 4 but 5". The video is also available here, where there is a photo showing the "iGot Jungle Worms" production code to be #501.[29] --AussieLegend (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that video. Didn't think too much on it because you know technically it is the real fifth season since it has the 5xx coding, but it's not airing as such as a result of half the Season 2 production episodes airing as Season 3 hence keeping the 2xx coding since I already pointed out why that couldn't be changed so I don't see where you're getting at with the video or the fact that the season has the 5xx coding. The use of production labels don't mean anything. It's just representing the real show cycle. - Jabrona - 18:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Where I'm getting at is that you've cited, as evidence of a split, cast members saying that the second half of season 2 is season 3. Here we have a very very recent (less than 10 days old) video of a another cast member saying the new season is season 5. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So? The fact that we have two apparent season cycles going on here filming-wise and airing-wise is no surprise that either label can be used one after the other. The broadcast split of Season 2 was referenced after the production label was used before, and now we had it again so there's no need to try pulling that whole "recent thing" on me like Kevin did. That's how conflicted this whole thing is which is why it can't be ignored and just saying the labels matter whenever they're used last is such a silly notation. Since the May 2011 Nick press article we recently had Miranda reference the broadcast cycle by calling the upcoming season Season 6, but referring to how it was going to air of course. Jennette was referring to how it's filming cycle is since she's clearly referencing their production of the new season that's the real Season 5 due to the coding. I have provided more than enough evidence to prove my case, but I'll just rehash everything I said last before you returned in case you missed it because I did add some things in there like a day later. The most common thing regarding the split is the new opening intro to those "Season 3" episodes to indicate that it was airing on TV as a new season, with Dan later confirming here: [30] that he only makes them when there's a new season, and he and Nathan were stating that the network was calling those episodes the third season and how that filming cycle of 45 episodes were basically counting as two seasons anyway. Again Season 3 premiere reference in October 2009 by Dan: [31]. The Nick press article I shared clearly wouldn't make any sense if it wasn't for the blogs and Nathan's interview, and after the Miranda tweet, we then had the Spin or Bin music production company using it here: [32]. So there's definitely no need to doubt the existence in difference of the broadcast season cycle any further. The use of production labels either by the cast and crew of the show or sources is just referencing the real show cycle. It's not there to discard away it's counterpart label. - Jabrona - 22:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll preface my response by reminding you of what you've been told many times now: Everything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. Editors can not make assumptions about what somebody has said. If somebody says "fifth season" we can't assume they are talking about a production season or your broadcast cycle, we can only report it as the "fifth season". Original research is not permitted. Here we have two actresses, both from the same program, within a very short period of time with one referring to a fifth season and one referring to a sixth season. This demonstrates what I've been saying, that the comments made by cast members about production aren't authoritative. Because the two actresses seem to contradict each other, adherence to policy requires that we discard both statements. What we do have that is authoritative is the press release from Nickelodeon saying that the new season is the fifth season and that is authoritative. We therefore have to treat the new season as the fifth. Dan's 2009 blog post has been covered a number of times. The inaccuracies in it, and the 2011 press release by Nickelodeon require that we discard that as well. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There are no inaccuracies in Dan's blog. You and Kevin just want it to look like that because you want to change everything the way you see it because of the use of a production label. In a way, you're making the wrong assumptions about that while trying to be righteous here talking about rules and verifiability. I'm just simply tying in all the information I have provided that support my defense since you don't seem to understand. At first, this was all a denial about the broadcast cycle and you still seemed to be in denial about that which I don't know why. Don't call this my broadcast cycle. At this point, there's no need to deny it. I provided more than enough evidence to support this was the case, so we can't discard it. As I've said, with this two season cycle thing going on it's confusing when it comes to how one later season is labeled. We have the actual numbered season, and the one that aired as that number because of a broadcast situation where one season got split and aired as two, conflicting the later ones. What the Nick press article called Season 5 is technically what this upcoming season is because of the 5xx coding. That however doesn't mean it's being called that in reference to how it airs because of how things worked out with Season 2. May I remind you that that article came from April 2011, and the one I provided supporting the broadcast split came from May 2011? That's why the situation cannot be discarded at this point, especially when we have Miranda saying Season 6 in regards to how the situation is. Both her and Jennette would be right, the season technically is Season 5 (no denying that one), but it would be airing as the show's sixth. - Jabrona - 04:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think AussieLegend gave a great response; this whole argument is based on WP:OR. What you are suggesting is that we toss out newer evidence in favor of older. The entire distinction between two different labelings is entirely OR. It hasn't been said in a single article you've cited, meaning it's entirely your creation. Almost every statement in your last post is a claim that you have no way to verify. Looking at the most recent reliable evidence (which does not include tweets or other posts from cast members), the seasons should line up with the production codes. In my opinion (and I think a lot of people would back me up on this), a statement from the network should supersede tweets from cast members. They can be discarded, especially when they contradict each other. This leaves the most recent press releases (5xx episode order, etc.), which state that season two was a 45-episode season. Two posts ago you (Jabrona) even said "the use of production labels either by the cast and crew of the show or sources is just referencing the real show cycle." Note the use of the word "real." Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"I think AussieLegend gave a great response" of course you do Kevin. You guys are over here trying to be all fundamental with the rules while trying to throw out a situation that's as clear as day. There's no denying that when we have a Nick press article referencing it besides the cast and crew. May I remind to you that that article came from April 2011, and the one I provided supporting the broadcast split came from May 2011 since you want to talk recent here? And I don't know where you're trying to get at on behalf of what I said regarding the real show cycle. Yeah, and I don't know where you're trying to get at on behalf of what I said regarding the real show cycle. You don't want to believe this but since we have two season cycles here (the filming one and the TV one), the filming one is technically the real one because of how the coding is layed out and the TV one is a different one that we must got by in acknowledgement to the situation. Again, this just goes to show how you overlook things and misused them. - Jabrona - 04:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to use something that requires tons of WP:OR. And take a look at this press release from June 2011. It's the exact same site that you used with your May 2011 source. Don't give us any of that "one is referring to the production season and the other is referring to the broadcast season" stuff, because that is pure original research. You have absolutely no way of knowing which is which. Look at this objectively. Without using any OR, it is clear that the newer release should render the one from May irrelevant. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's as clear as day. What sense does the May 2011 press release statement make without Dan's blogs and Nathan's interview to support it? Again for the third time, may I remind to you that Season 5 renewal article came from April 2011 since you want to talk recent here? Plus look at how "Season 3" was released on DVD in February 2011 which led to how Season 4 would be released as by August 2011 that you tried to use to backhand the May 2011 article which didn't make any sense at all. We now have Miranda referencing it this late in the game? So I believe something is still cooking, but you're just trying not to smell it. - Jabrona - 05:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I said nothing about the renewal in my last post. All I said is that the most recent source from the same website you are using was in June 2011 (I even linked to it), and it lists the 3xx as being season 3. That makes the May article (which epitomizes OR anyway) irrelevant. How does that not make sense? Also, don't try to use the cast as sources anymore, because a) they can't seem to agree on it; and b) saying that one references production and the other broadcast is all original research. Do you know what OR is? Kevinbrogers (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, you didn't say anything about the renewal. But I did still point out what you did try to do once again with using that Season 4 DVD release label as an excuse beforehand a few times. Look at how the entire filming cycle of Season 2 was being released on DVD back in April from a February Nick press article. All 45 episodes (that aired as the second and third seasons) prior to the May 2011 article. What do you think the next season was going to be labeled as on DVD? Apparently Season 3 because of it's filming cycle and number coding. And it's not that the cast can't agree on it, it's because they're both right seeing how this all ended up. - Jabrona - 05:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Everyone take a chill pill. Jaborna, I agree with Aussie on this (and NOT because I favor him and not you but because he makes a good point). You have 3 trusted editors saying viable information to someone who thinks the "rules don't apply" to this situation. Using the cast members as references in this situation isn't reliable. Miranda said one thing and Jennette said the opposite, they cancel each other out. Using ANY blog isn't reliable. Regardless if it's from the creator or not. We have a reference from the network stating "A fifth season has been ordered" if the network split season 2, it would be calling it Season 6 with 5xx production codes. The "3rd" volume released on April 11, 2011 is the remaining Season 2 episodes, the August 30, 2011 DVD release is of Season 3 episodes. - Alec2011 (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

All I'm seeing is people trying to ignore the broadcast cycle like it doesn't exist or is trying to discard it because what another source says. I went beyond my scope trying to defend this and the existence between the two season cycles. I don't see why Dan's blog can't be reliable since he is the show creator and writes them himself. Just throwing that aside and saying it's not reliable because it's a blog is just confusing to me. If it's from the creator of the show then his blogs by themselves should be pretty reliable since he would know a lot about the show. If there was never a split between the seasons then we wouldn't have had Nathan, a Nick press article, and very recently Miranda say anything about it or indicating it. The fact we have both Miranda and Jennette using different labels shows how they can be use one after the other in referral. So the fact that we didn't see "Season 6 with the 5xx production codes" from the press to describe the upcoming season doesn't really mean anything. It's clear it would be airing as Season 6 because of how things had worked out. It makes sense why they would call it just Season 5 because of it being the show's fifth season cycle with the 5xx coding that they renewed to be produced and air later this year. - Jabrona - 05:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just came across this other Nathan Kress video interview from October 2009 where he talks about the difference between the two cycles: [33]. Here he tells the interviewer that they were taking a hiatus from shooting new episodes (after spending time filming episodes from April 2008 to August 2009), but within a few months time were going to do their third season of filming, which was going to be their fourth season in airing. He says all of this around the 2:00 minute mark and I quote:

Interviewer: So you're in production now, how many more weeks or months do you left of this current cycle of production?

Nathan: Well right now actually we're in between seasons, we're um, we're out of production and on hiatus right now. Um, we're going to be taking a little bit of a break before we do are uh, our third season of filming, but it's also going to be like our fourth season of airing. It's kind of confusing how it all works out but we're uh, we're going to be filming some more episodes in a little while.

Now you guys can call him a liar or that he's "just a cast member" and doesn't know what he's talking about and whatnot to get around this. But I'm willing to believe he got that information from the crew members or Dan who, in return, had to have gotten that info from Nick. Nathan makes it clear as day there's two season cycles going on here between filming and production so you guys can now stop acting like I made that concept up though it was clear to begin with with other examples I provided in the same vein (such as the airing of episodes out of production order and those that get shelved a season). - Jabrona - 06:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

Now on behalf of all the evidence I provided not only to support there was a split that was not discarded by sources that use the production cycle, I would like you remind you guys about sites from big cooperations that list the shows' seasons on behalf of the broadcast airing cycle like Amazon [34], iTunes [35], CastTV.com [36], and LocateTV [37]. If a split did not happen, then we wouldn't have had Dan or Nathan say anything about it or a Nick press article or Miranda referencing it, and these big cooperation sites surely would not be having the show's season listed like this on behalf of the airing cycle. - Jabrona - 09:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Something else I uncovered in defense of the Season 2 split. Here's something from the official iCarly Facebook page that was written back on September 12, 2009 before "iThink They Kissed" aired, indicating the episode was the season premiere [38]. Aussie, I recall you a while back wanted something that indicated this and here's something other than this blog of Dan's where he indicated it that I used before in response: [39]. Now we have something else I'm sure should come across as good evidence in support of this. - Jabrona - 11:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I just came across this from the "TV Shows On DVD" website where it too indicates the split [40]. It's a link talking about the release of "iSaved Your Life" on DVD which was release during the show's third airing season which this site review indicates at the time this was written in (July 2, 2010). It also adds at the DVD included episodes from Seasons 2 and 3. The other episodes on the DVD includes "iQuit iCarly", "iThink They Kissed", "iTwins", and "iMove Out". - Jabrona - 13:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

And then the next year, Nickelodeon released the season 2 vol. 2 and vol. 3 sets, indicating that there was no split. We should use the most recent, not the one you want to use. Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not about what's recent and what isn't. This is about whether or not there was a split and if there was, then we know that a decision was made airing-wise that was going to label the seasons different apart from how they're produced and that was surely going to affect the show throughout it's run. As it should be apparent now based on all the evidence I provided, there was definitely a split. It's DVD releases don't mean anything other than to account for the show's production cycle when we have all of these sources and big cooperation websites indicating a difference in the show's airing cycle as it was known for. We definitely wouldn't have had Miranda refer to this upcoming season as "Season 6" on two occasions if it wasn't going to be that: [41] and [42], airing-wise of course. You want to talk recent, there's your recent. Both of these are from January 2012. But I don't care about that because I'm mostly concern with the fact it indicates a split happened and we're still following that trend that's not going anywhere. So again, you're not going to pull off this recent source thing just so you can discard this decision like it never happened or think it can be discarded because a production label is used. I don't know why you're making this complicated than it needs to be. A split happened and will always be the case so I don't know why you hate it so much. - Jabrona - 22:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

So besides Twitter and Formsprings.com, Miranda also made it clear on her Facebook account that the upcoming season is Season 6: [43]. Three times in a row she's said this on three different social networking sites. I don't think she would have done this if this wasn't the airing sixth season as opposed to it being the produced fifth season. But since there's clearly enough evidence to pin-point a split in the Season 2 cycle episodes airing-wise that can be seen listed below in the "Discussion Relating to the RFC" section, this was going to be the case anyway. So these references by even the cast members referring the upcoming season as "Season 6" just supports a split happened and is still in effect and isn't going anywhere ever. - Jabrona - 08:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As has been explained numerous times, what actors say doesn't trump what the network says. That she's said the same thing on three sites doesn't make what she's said any more authoritative, it just means she's been wrong multiple times. If you don't believe that, try this: There's a million dollars under your bed. There's a million dollars under your bed. There's a million dollars under your bed. There's a million dollars under your bed. There's a million dollars under your bed. There's a million dollars under your bed. There's a million dollars under your bed. There's a million dollars under your bed. There's a million dollars under your bed. There's a million dollars under your bed. I said that ten times. Was I any more correct than when I said it the first time? If I was, let me know. I really want a Lamborghini Aventador. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Aussie, apparently it was the network that made the decision to market the Season 2 filming episodes as two airing seasons. How could you be so quick to say she's wrong when there's numerous evidence indicating this was the case? You might not like it, but it's all there listed above and even below in my response to Checker Fred's IP Address. So your million dollar example didn't really do a justice. And considering Miranda is a cast member on this show and the central star of it, she would clearly know how the seasons work better than us especially at this point. And because there was a split, it makes sense why she would call the upcoming season Season 6 because that's how the airing cycle is labeling it. Nick renewed what is really the show's fifth season, but because of the decision they made that's been confirmed by Dan, Nathan, a Nick press article, websites of big cooperations, the show's official Facebook page (that would affect the course of the labeling of the succeeding seasons between their filming and airing cycles), it's not airing as the fifth. - Jabrona - 22:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Really, how many times do we need to go over the same points? The network has said the next season is season 5. Your original research stating that the network meant a production season and not a broadcast season is inappropriate. If the next season is season 5 then the split is clearly inappropriate and the consensus of editors is that there should be no split. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The network renewed what would be Season 5 because it's the show's fifth season cycle in terms of production, but it's airing as the sixth might I have to say why? You want to talk inappropriate? You're the one wanting to ignoring evidence here that there was a split along with a couple of the others like Kevin. This should not be overlooked by things such as the next season being referred to as "Season 5" as that's understandable why (since two previous airing seasons came from one renewed season order, so "Season 4" was renewed from the third season order that would have aired as the third season, and so on), I find it inappropriate in trying to ignore it when there's all this evidence backing it up. - Jabrona - 13:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment – It seems that the definition of a "season" is becoming less clear as time progresses, as opposed to in the past when season = year. We may have to go solely by production code in the future to avoid this mess. – Confession0791 ^talk 13:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As convenient as that is, this whole discussion was basically revolved around if a split did happen with the Season 2 production episodes and if the second half truly did air as the show's third season and by doing so label the succeeding seasons different as opposed to their production standpoint (so what would be produced as Season 3 that would have aired as Season 3, being labeled on TV as Season 4, and so on). The split is known for happening and tons of websites have the show's seasons listed the way they do because of it. Here we had this blog entry Dan wrote supporting the issue on behalf of the network: [44] that was used as a reference. But it's been challenged due to the fact that the upcoming season was labeled as the "fifth" when Nick renewed it back in April 2011. Over the course of the discussion I've been uncovering tons of info supporting the fact a split happened on behalf of the network you can find above or all linked below in a nice list such as a couple of Nathan's interviews: [45][46], the show's official Facebook page: [47], and the fact that sites such as Amazon, iTunes, CastTv have the show's seasons listed: [48][49][50]. I'm here defending this was the case and why the airing cycle deserves to have it's seasons listed the way it's apparently marketed on TV like how we mark the episode number by their air date and not their production number. So understanding the situation regarding show's seasons it makes sense why Nick would call the upcoming one the "fifth" since it's technically fifth but would air as the sixth. We have Miranda referring the upcoming season as Season 6 on three occasions each time on different social networking sites: [51][52][53], and a Spin or Bin Music tweet regarding One Direction's appearance on the show: [54] - Jabrona - 21:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

To add to my list regarding a split I came across this doing some more research. This is from September 28, 2009 featuring Nathan being interviewed once again. He states that the entire 45 episode filming cycle of Season 2 was "two seasons worth" to the network that they decided to split it as two airing seasons: [55]. - Jabrona - 23:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Nickelodeon > Dan Schneider > Other RS > cast. What the cast says is not really that substantial compared to the other sources. I also don't care a thing about CheckerFred or the wiki. – Confession0791 ^talk 03:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well the cast and Dan is saying on behalf of what Nickelodeon decided to market the seasons airing-wise. It's not as if they decided how to label the seasons in that case. Plus, I never asked for you to care about Checker Fred or the issues he disputed out on the Wiki. He just happens to have a long line of bad history and behavior here, especially towards me debating against his claims on the iCarly Wiki. He brought this discussion here over onto the Wiki and TV.com and the whole thing got settled on those two sites where it was decided a split happened and things were going to stay the same. He couldn't get access here though on his computer as he claimed but somehow managed to write a comment on the very day he said he'll comment on at TV.com, threatening to debate against me because of his choice in having Season 4 and 5 merged over on the Wiki I argued against. He's been trying to get his accounts here unblocked but that didn't happen and lately he's been saying he's been talking to you and Aussie through email. - Jabrona - 06:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Listen, for season 2 of iCarly, 45 episodes were ordered, however the network just decided to split the order into two seasons, thats why, airing wise, there are 5 seasons. Production wise, 4.

Even evidence from crew and cast members are apparent:

• Nathan's interviews: http://www.thestarscoop.com/interviews/nathan-kress-exclusive-interview/ and http://www.mediablvd.com/magazine/nathan-kress-talks-about-the-succes-of-icarly_200909283074.html
• Plus places such as Amazon, iTunes, etc has the show's seasons listed the way it and Miranda who referring the new season as Season 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.210.230 (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I like to add in that Amazon has the episode "iApril Fools" added to it's list for purchasing and has it listed as a Season 6 episode: [56]. iTunes also has it listed as the start of a new season page labeled "6": [57]. - Jabrona - 21:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The LocateTV and CastTV websites currently have Season 6 episodes listed: [58] and [59]. Also, here's another good website which also lists the show's seasons by their apparent broadcast cycle: www.aceshowbiz.com/tv/icarly/episode.html. - Jabrona - 03:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)