Talk:Jon & Kate Plus 8

message: In other news, this talk page is waaaaaaay too long. There are some discussions that haven't had any activity since last year! :O I would say that anything that hasn't had any activity since March should be archived and anything that has had activity in April or later be kept. From eyeballing the page, that would take out 1/3-1/2 of the length of this page. What say you? --132 19:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Wikiwikikid (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Yeah, no problem. KASchmidt (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Every discussion with no activity newer than April has been archived to /Archive 2... but this page is still very long. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Is there away to make this talk page look more professional and less like a soapbox for people to bash the people in the show?  I do agree that this page need some major clean up could it archived for new activity after may? This page talk page and article's attract a lot of vandal's as well, can they be protected? Marvelousdaze06 (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that it's mid-June, I think we could archive everything that hasn't had a reply since mid-May. I think we may also want to consider setting up an auto-archive for every couple of weeks. The main page is already on an indefinite semi-protection due to high levels of vandalism. Unfortunately, we can't get this page protected. Since this is the talk page, it needs to remain open to anyone to bring up issues in the article. All we can do for now is to revert the vandalism, warn the editors, and, if they persist, report their behavior at WP:AIV. --132 12:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sounds like a good idea to me. Anyone else support it or know how to archive it? Marvelousdaze06 (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving? 

message: Hello, if I'm not mistaken, Joel was born before Leah.  Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.124.31 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now I can't find any information about this. Everything I'm Googling about their birth order is quite clearly using this page as their source, so that wouldn't show any change. The TLC site only lists them alphabetically, not in birth order. The family's official site is down due to exceeded bandwidth, so I can't check there. If you can point me to an external link that is reliable and doesn't use this page as the source, please let me know so I can verify it and change it. Thanks! --132 21:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

text: The birth order in the article is correct. I've got the show on right now and they just had a chart up with the birth order of all the kids. --132 14:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth Order of Sextuplets 

message: Ive seen Jon and Kate try to be excellent parents who love and are devoted to their children. I'd like to see more of them respecting one another and be just as devoted to one another, too. From my own observations, Kate has issues with being respectful to her husband, and giving herself honor by honoring him. And Jon sits back and takes any kind of insult as if it were just any old thing, and it chips away from his character. After having been married for nearing 25 years, and having 7 children ourselves, I understand the pressures and stresses of life, but you cannot disrespect each other in such a way and have a healthy marriage for very long. I certainly wish them the best though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.130.182 (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't these astounding ratings be included somewhere in the article? Cactusjump (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was already added to the intro by someone else earlier. :) --132 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Respect 

message: It is also broadcast in Canada, dubbed in French, on Canal Vie, as "8 à la maison". See  http://www.canalvie.com/emission/8-a-la-maison/
The infobox can be updated.
70.29.208.129 (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign broadcasters 

message: I didn't think this would be a controversial addition to the article, but since User:R7604 has reverted my edit twice... Is there a reason why we can't have a See Also section that links to the Kate Gosselin page? Cactusjump (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: She should be in a see also section and also get a link from her name the first time it appears in the article.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  According to Wikipedia Layout, the See Also section is a valid part of an article and should appropriately link articles that are along the same subject, such as Kate Gosselin to this article.  So I put it back in.  Cheers! Cactusjump (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Also per that page: "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"...A "perfect" article then might not require a "See also" section at all." That section of that page, despite cactusjump's quote above appears to heavily favor not including already-linked to items and not creating a "See also" section just to have a "See also" section. Also, keep in mind, "See also" sections are generally reserved for links that have a strong connection to the topic, but aren't linked in the article for some reason or another. I don't have an opinion either way on this, but since all that's here is support for inclusion, I figured I'd play Devil's Advocate. One idea is to actually go ask the people over at WT:GTL and get their opinion on it. *shrug* --132 00:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid point, and I have asked for a third opinion on this.  I'm surprised it's even an arguable topic, but from my perspective, the only way I saw that there was a Kate article was on this talk page.  So why not help other readers? Cactusjump (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I don't see this as a "perfect" article...yet. Cactusjump (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, Devil's Advocate: Perfect articles don't exist, even featured articles are not considered perfect, which is exactly why it is in quotes on that page. The statement is still valid. You shouldn't add a "See also" section just to add a "See also" section. There should be a valid reason to have one. Repeating links that are already in the article is probably not a valid reason...I wish R7604 would come and argue his/her point since they seem so adamant to keep it out. --132 00:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, cactusjump, you may want to edit your request over at 3O. It might get removed without being reviewed because it is not a neutral request. You should have just left it at "Disagreement to add a See Also section in the article pointing to related article Kate Gosselin." --132 01:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm so over this disagreement anyway.  R7604 has been invited to come to this talk page a couple times, but has chosen to use my talk page instead.  I've agreed to concede on his talk page.  I just wish he could've participated in a discussion on this page as I asked him to much earlier today.   Oh well. Cactusjump (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I think that see also sections should exist to point out important other articles, even if they exist in the text of the article, since you might have missed the link while reading the article. (especially if it's a piped link) 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the biggest arguments to be made against inclusion is that, since it's already linked, it shouldn't go in the "See also" section. Excessive linking is a big no-no on Wikipedia. If a reader wants to read more about Kate, they can either go up and click on the link or do a search for her. I'm probably just slightly more in the camp in not including it, just because I think it's a waste of space (since it's already linked) and unnecessarily lengthens the article. Just like you wouldn't repeat information in the article, you probably shouldn't relink either. --132 14:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

text: It's a kind of policy/guideline that is not useful for the purpose of the encyclopedia, since if people use Wikipedia to find information on things, and they can't find it, it's not really useful. Major related topics should be easy to find. If you link things through a piped link it certainly may not be obvious that the linked to article is about the topic you want. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, because the guideline exists at all is because it's useful for the purpose of the encyclopedia. If it weren't useful, it wouldn't exist. It is extremely easy to find information on this site. Besides being linked to within related articles, see the search box on the left? Plus, if you do an internet search for almost anything, Wikipedia is almost always in the top ten hits. Please argue this issue based on policies and guidelines because this "We need to hold the readers' hands!" thing is rather irrelevant. --132 14:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

text: One further comment from someone not conversant with the show - it might also be worthwhile to rewrite to include or to add sections dedicated each of the actors who has an article, and link using  or . - 2/0 (cont.) 18:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for the suggestions. I really like your suggestion about adding who stars in it in the infobox (this is a television show, after all) so I will go ahead and add that in (I will include a linked Kate plus non-linked Jon and the kids). --132 14:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, I'm just going to have Jon and Kate in the infobox. With the kids included, there would just be too long of a list for it. Plus, the show is more about the parents and how they deal with the eight than it is about the eight anyway. --132 15:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad a decision was reached. :) Cactusjump (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Kate Gosselin page 

message: so, this article says something about there being six sacs with seven embryos when kate was pregnant with the sextuplets.  Are any of the sextuplets indentical? and I'm assuming one of the babies died?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.39.44.145 (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As a fraternal twin, I can tell you.  If there are boys AND girls among the multiples, it's impossible for them to be identical, due to the different chromosomes.  And they have to ALL be fraternal.  You can't have "some identical" and others fraternal. If they all shared the same sac they'd be identical; either all boys or all girls.  Cactusjump (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Cactusjump, you are incorrect. In multiple births you can have fraternal twins, identical twins, and in the case of more then two, combinations (or higher order) twins. Consider two eggs fertilized by two sperm, yielding fraternal twins (different resulting DNA), now consider one of those eggs splits. You now have triplets with two being identical and those being in fraternal relationship relative to the third embryo. The article on wikipedia on twins is actually decent, and covers even the "half-twin" scenario where DNA identical twins develop differently.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.118.251 (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I saw my answer previously and realized I had explained that a bit mixed up.  I was speaking specifically to twins.  Twins who share a sac are identical.  If there are multiples who share a sac, those are identical, while a seperate sac may hold a fraternal sibling in the same womb. Cactusjump (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  identical? 

message: Please refer to release dates of show. Following certain regions (bottom part of the article)
its not Cananda but CANADA if you are referring to the country
pretty bad typo
:All I've got is...wow. Thanks for bringing that up. I've fixed it. Let me know if there's one I didn't catch. --132 12:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  proper spelling of Canada  

message: I've seen this changed every day at least three or four times.  Can anyone verify if they purchased or adopted the dogs (with a source) so that it's not edited hourly? Cactusjump (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually fairly confusing so I actually do understand why people keep changing it. The Gosselins were going to purchase the dogs from a breeder, but the breeder told them at the last minute that he was going to give the dogs to them for free. --132 20:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember seeing on the show that they wrote a check to the breeder, but all the money went to a charity.  How could that be worded?  I'm actually wondering...Are the dogs an important part of the show to be included? Cactusjump (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly? I don't think so. They were featured on a whole one episode and have only been seen a couple of times since. I think the "Gosselins" section should be strictly limited to actual Gosselins...that is, animals of the human variety. ;) --132 22:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  But every time it's deleted, it's put back.  Cactusjump (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove it again. We can always just revert and point to the talk page later. --132 20:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Sarcastic, snarky comments are unnecessary. Please consider contributing to the discussion in a more productive way. --132 20:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. How about this: I don't believe that the dogs are important enough to be included. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, which was why I removed them yesterday. Hopefully it stays that way. --132 12:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dogs Adopted ... Dogs Purchased 

message: I do not see any problem with the neutrality of this article, so I will remove the tag for that.  Am I completely blind? Bearian (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's fine to remove it. It probably should have been removed a while ago. The issue that caused it to go up was resolved fairly quickly; the tag just never got removed. So thanks! --132 15:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality? 

message: The 'family history' section goes from birth of the sextuplets right to 2009 allegations of infidelity. Is there really nothing to say about the period in between, like, when they decided to appear on a reality show? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family History 

message: "is a eality television"  
This is missing the "r" in "reality"
--Out There Live (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiny typo 

message: Since the next episode that airs June 29 is a recap show, doesn't that make them on hiatus from filming from now until August? Cactusjump (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiatus dates 

message: Under family history, it currently says "The couple have denied these allegations" but shouldn't it say "The couple has denied..."? It is referring to a singular group. 
Kylel2005 (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo? 

message: The DVD multimedia chart near the bottom of the page is incorrect. The release dates were the same in the US and Canada, with certain States and Provinces getting it later. (Alaska, Hawaii, Northwest Territories) Having (Canada) after a list of 3 dates is misleading and just plain unnecessary. Also it's not referenced, and the link to the DVD regions have been removed. I tried to change it a few times and was verbally attacked by the chart creator. lol
If it's unreferenced and incorrect it should be changed to show just the one date for Region 1. Any comments/concerns ? --PhilthyBear (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. I'm still at a loss for why this is even an issue. --132 19:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I still completely agree with PhilthyBear on all points. I have not seen anything convincing to keep those edits. --132 12:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect chart 

message: Hey guys, when sourcing stuff, try to avoid articles from MSNBC. They take them off of their site so fast that at least one of the sources we were using was already defunct, despite the fact that these allegations surfaced a mere two months ago. If you can, please try to find a duplicate article on another site and use that instead. Also, if there are any other MSNBC articles being used as sources, please help find replacements for them. Thanks! --132 00:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid MSN articles 

message: I'm confused...Why would there be a question on the article's neutrality placed on the Criticism section?  I believe it to be written neutrally, as it presents the criticism that exists, and how Jon and Kate and TLC have responded.  The link from the tag goes to a short essay that basically says "Sometimes you should have a Criticism section, and sometimes not."  So then what's the point of the tag? Cactusjump (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism sections are, ideally, supposed to be interspersed throughout the article, rather than in a separate section. A good example is Peace Corps. It's got a TON of criticism in it, but it's talked about throughout the article in the appropriate sections, as opposed to a specific section dedicated solely to criticism. Essentially, it's best to avoid a specific section, as opposed to having it in appropriate places throughout the article. I hope that explanation wasn't too wordy or repetitive. --132 04:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that makes sense.  I guess my next goal is to work it all in.  Thanks. Cactusjump (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section tag

message: Logo of the show indicates that the number is spelled out ("Eight") and not the single digit value ("8"). Article is locked so I can't edit it and it needs to be edited numerous times throughout the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoudFlatulence (talk • contribs) 02:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: TLC lists it as "Jon & Kate Plus 8" (numerical). Unless we can get a more reliable source than the actual network website this is aired on, we can't change it. Sorry. --132 04:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the logo actually has the numeric "8" in place of a "g" in "eight". Just an observation that could show it could go either way, even within the logo. However, the logo is still not as good of a source the site. --132 17:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  A logo is just a stylized title.  It's not necessarily the exact phrasing or wording of the title. Cactusjump (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Umm...where do you see that anywhere on that page (and not within a logo, mind you, which I don't see anyway)? I've done a page source search for that page and never once found "Ei8ht" anywhere on that page. At all. However, I have found "8" referenced as the title...8 times...which is somewhat amusing as well. You're going to have to do better than simply claiming TLC uses it as the title without actually showing any proof. Sorry. --132 17:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Make that 9 times. It's also the title of the page. --132 17:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, an editor has been bold and settled on Ei8ht. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found a source far more reliable than any of the gossip sites being used (and there are several others I could dig up and cite if needed) that says the new name will simply be "Kate Plus 8", no other variation. On this subject, "Ei8ght" was never being used, not in any sources, even the gossip ones, so I don't understand the insistence on changing it. "Ei8ht" is just original research and should be removed unless a reliable source can be cited. --132 18:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: TLC has finally released the name as, officially, "Kate Plus Eight". I have sourced this information and added it to the article. Right now, this is the most definitive source and any other updates to the name will need to be backed up with even more reliable sources (which is pretty much limited to the Discovery Communication network or the Gosselins themselves). --132 21:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "8" vs. "Eight"

message: I've protected the page. Please use the talk page to get consensus for changes. Tom Harrison Talk 13:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! --132 13:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Per the discussion at the top, I've archived everything that was stale or resolved (essentially anything without replies in July). This page is still really long though. :( --132 20:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just archived three discussion strings from May.  All had been resolved or were inconsequential. Cactusjump (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: Since John and Kate have decided to move, and both no longer stay exclusively in PA, should their new addresses be added to their location? 
Jon is in NY and recently Kate decided to move next door to me in MD. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless there's a reliable source. Besides, unless the filming is to be done at the individual locations, I'm not too sure what this has to do with the television show. --132 03:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The couple's divorce has been of major media attention, so it might just be worth noting. The Michelle Malkin and Kimora Lee Simmons articles note that each woman had moved. However, I personally believe it's still too early to say anything. If the filming does change locations, or "Jon suffered a kitchen fire in his new Brooklyn apartment", then we can put it. ★Dasani★ 01:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The location should not be included at all since the country's location is the same as the country of origin. The Wikipedia administrators decided that it's not relevant where in the country a show is located just whether it's in the same country or a different one. See Template: Infobox Television Since it's in the same country as the country of origin, I removed the location.  74thClarkBarHG (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Location

message: Please don't get ahead of ourselves here, all right? Yes, Jon isn't going to star on the show and yes, the show's title is changing. However, this will all be occurring in the future. Until the first episode airs with the new name, this article has to stay at this location. We also need to continue using any verbs connected with Jon's appearance on the show in present tense until the change actually takes place as he is still currently a star on the show and not a guest...not yet anyway. Thanks. --132 16:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, at this point, there has been nothing released that says Jon was fired, just simply that he's leaving. Please do not introduce material that says he was fired without a cited reliable source. If it is introduced without a source, it will be removed as original research per WP:BLP. Thanks. --132 17:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

text: We regularly have articles about television shows and movies and video games (etc) before they're released. I see no reason not to move the show once such has been confirmed. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 02:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're comparing apples to oranges. Those have been announced under those names and those are the only names they have been known as. They are not currently existing, so we go off of what little we know just to give information about the subject to readers. This show, however, exists right now, at this very moment. It has a concrete title that has, quite literally, been in use for years. It was just only announced today that there will be a change to the name...and in a Gossip magazine, no less. It's not a working title. There is always a chance that TLC decides to keep the name, which is why we wait. We aren't a crystal ball. Until it happens, it doesn't change. Period. We give the info that it will, but we wait to change the article title. Just like we won't say they're divorced until it goes through, we don't change the name until it goes through. --132 02:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, this show has been aired and sold under this name, the examples you gave haven't. Unless there's an example of, say, a featured article (I say featured, because they're the goal) on a television show/movie/video game in which the title was changed midway through the series and the article was moved without argument before it actually changed, your argument doesn't hold up. Pre-released =/= released. Apples =/= oranges. --132 02:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

text: (Edit conflict) I'm in full agreement with this--as long as the show is operating under the current title, that's where the article should be. I'm not totally sure it should move as soon as it starts airing under the new title (the current one will still be the best-known; what if TLC cancels "Kate Plus 8" two weeks after the name change?) but it definitely should not move before then. Propaniac (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show changes 

message: I propose that we do not use wording such as "and soon to be Kate Plus Eight" in the lead sentence or, for that matter, anywhere in the article. The article should absolutely make mention of the fact that TLC announced the name change but there is enough ongoing litigation that it cannot be known for certain that a show titled Kate Plus Eight will ever be filmed and broadcast. TLC has publicly announced that filming has been suspended "pending further conversations between both parents". The wording in the article should be limited to the announcement of a name change and the explanation of its surrounding factors. This should be included in the lead paragraph but not the lead sentence. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is fine with me. I'll also mention here as well that using "was" instead of "is" is a violation of WP:MOSTV and saying production, instead of filming, has been halted or wording things in a way to imply the show has been canceled is a violation of WP:OR. Due to the recent drama, I am bowing out of this article for a while until I get input from some admins. I just wanted to put that out there for other users to consider in the meantime. --132 13:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: 
The line:
| show_name_2          = Jon & Kate Plus 8
needs to be removed from the infobox, as it is identical to the show_name parameter. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 02:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Skier Dude (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error correction 

message: Please fix the end of the first section, where there is a run-on sentence.  Specifically, "The producers are in talks with the parents" should be its own sentence, not a phrase jammed onto the end of the preceding one.
|MSK (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar fix 

message: Could someone please update the episode count to 109 and continue to do so until the page is unlocked again, every week?  Thanks.  TH43 (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode Count 

message: People article, Another People article, this one picked up by CNN. Time to call it? — NRen2k5(TALK), 05:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest to not label the show as over just yet. The first source provided contains the sentence "It's not clear whether TLC would restart the show should Jon change his mind about filming the kids" so nothing's confirmed with any sort of finality. The second source contains a statement from Kate that she told the kids they're "not filming at this point" and it also mentions that she "lost the reality show franchise". Both of those are also fairly vague and I try not to take to heart any information that a borderline tabloid magazine tries to validate by saying "according to sources" or "sources say". Who are the sources? It's against Wikipedia's official guidelines for us to write "some say" but People does not have an editorial policy to avoid weasel words so we really don't know how realiable their source is and, in turn, how reliable they themselves are. The sheer amount of legal proceedings surrounding the show and the family makes it impossible for even those closely involved to know what the final outcome will be. We're not a news outlet, we can afford to wait and see what happens. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with all of this. --132 17:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I also agree. The only credible source I can think of to confirm that the show is actually over would be an official statement from TLC, explicitly saying so. Anything else should be considered drama and gossip. Propaniac (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show’s over 

message: Why is there no mention of the show being staged? There have been several reports, and reliable ones at that: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/30932161 seems like maybe fans or TLC is working to keep this info out of the article 207.81.141.208 (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  STAGED? 

message: Looks like the last episode of Kate Plus Eight will be on September 12th, 2011. 
According to people.com, the series was cancelled. 
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20518349,00.html
--99.108.248.29 (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series cancellation 

message: It seems to me (and I'm sure there are reasons some would disagree), that the show having been cancelled, that this article should be moved back to Jon & Kate Plus 8.  Why?  Because it aired far longer, and had far more episodes, with the former title, and thus is likely how most people think of the show. 98.71.223.130 (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, because other series whose names were changed are titled under the name that was used the longest.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.224.43 (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to be moved back 

message: The article, Kate Plus Eight: Sextuplets Turn 10 should redirect here or not? For knowing about the article and its last situation, you can go through this link. I have came here only after I followed a request from other editor, who had posted a request for deletion on my talk page, as well as the talk page of . OccultZone (Talk) 02:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes because it belongs with the show and the specials are already listed there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kate_Plus_8_episodes#Specials_2 2607:FA48:6DE7:2720:B830:D3C9:BF2D:6AD (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the June 19 ratings to it, but, unless even more is added, I also think a red to the list page is in order. — Wyliepedia 06:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: New redirect

message: has been nominated for deletion -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:Jon & Kate Plus 8]]

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Kate Plus 8. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090611233304/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20090529/ap_en_tv/us_tv_jon___kate_investigation to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090529/ap_en_tv/us_tv_jon___kate_investigation
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Kate Plus 8. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090611194017/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20090603/ap_en_tv/us_tv_jon___kate to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090603/ap_en_tv/us_tv_jon___kate
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The series completed its run five years ago. It's remembered mostly for its earliest seasons, in which it was most popular, and which it was known as Jon & Kate Plus 8. This decision is based on Google News results, in relation to the sextuplets' 18th birthday.  --   Zanimum (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title