Talk:Blue's Clues
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Editorial Assistance Needed Desperately
Someone give this article more merited treatment. The show is aimed at toddlers. That doesn't mean its Wikipedia entry should read like it was written by one.
[edit] Controversies
"Also in 2004, Pat Robertson urged a boycott of the show citing satanic messages embedded in episodes of the program." Is there any evidence to back this up? I can't find it on Google. If there is, shouldn't there be a link for it? Because if it is true, it should be more accessable. If it is false, it should be removed. Headrattle 02:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I've also looked for verification and can't find any, so I'm removing it. If someone finds an actual citation for it, it can go back. - Nunh-huh 01:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- In that vein, the section entitled "Controversy" doesn't give a citation. Is there a story that backs up the claim that there was a controversy over the Love Day episode? Danahuff 05:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I've heard from a couple of unreliable sources that he quit because he couldn't bring himself to be as cheerful as that character (i.e. he couldn't take it anymore). I note at the bottom a suggestion that "He left to listen to Death Metal music and eat pineapple and drink wiskey." [sic]. I've corrected the formatting, but it should probably be removed if there is no actual proof (and I can find none). cerise 01:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted the statement saying that Steve left to become a Nacho Vender, among other things (that you've already stated above). This is absolutely rediculous and absolutely unconfirmed. There are no sources for it and it does not belong in an encyclopedia. If it continues to be vandalized, we should petition for it to be locked. Thanks. captbananas 19:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I went ahead and deleted the statement "Rumours had it he died of a drug overdose" under Steve in the hosts section. The rumor itself is an urban legend, and was documented on the page for Steve Burns already. I don't think there's any need to have something like that mentioned in the article for a kids television show. Codernaut 17:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I think Steve quit because he couldn't take it anymore. It was probably too embarassing and ruining his social life. It also would be hard keeping up a stupid little kid voice all the time. Shouldn't he be back from "colledge" now. Where was Joe? He just seemed to pop out of nowhere. The_Little_One_Smiles 19:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] South Park comparison
I really don't think something like Blue's Clues should be compaired to South Park, its a bit of a constrast, isn't it? Could we not think of something more relevent to the people that woudl be looking for this information.Shamess 10:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The South Park comparison is particularly unnecessary in that:
1. The South Park animation is rendered on and from computer-created elements. In an extra on one of the BC DVDs the show's creators demonstrated how much of what is seen on screen are actually organic everyday objects that are shot against a felt backboard. Those items are then imported through a Photoshop-like process as individual components that are later part of the animation or worked into a background setting.
2. South Park does not have a real-life character that is integrated into the episodes via green chroma-key backdrop.70.35.232.123 00:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think the second point is so crucial--no one's saying that the show's are exactly alike, just that the animation techniques are similar. But you may have a point with your first objection--are the animation techniques really that similar? I don't know enough about the animation of either show to be able to say--South Park looks like actual pieces of paper are photographed and then manipulated, like Blue's Clues, but maybe not. Anyway, whether the comparison is apt or not is to me a technical question, and I'll defer to someone who seems to know what they're talking about. Nareek 03:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- The main target audience of Blue's Clues are pre-school children--I doubt many of them are going to Wikipedia for further info about Blue and Tickety-Tock. In fact, I suspect that only a small percentage of this audiences knows how to read, even at the Hop on Pop level.
- The secondary audience for Blue's Clues are the parents of pre-school children; they should not be shocked to see a reference to an animated show not aimed at children. Nareek 16:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the recent rewrite and expansion, the article is much better now, I saw recently that Steven Burns said one of the reasons that he left was he was going (now is) bald and did not want everyone to see this happen on the show. It was on the recent "Behind the Scenes of Blue's Clues" special. I mention it here because I'm not sure if it's relavant enough. Davidac18643 05:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Controversy"
I did a Google search to see how "widely" Blue's Clues has been criticized for celebrating Love Day rather than Valentine's Day. I came up with one blog and one [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1353581/posts webpost]. Given that Valentine's Day hasn't been a Catholic religious holiday since 1969--before the parents of most Blue's Clues viewers were born--and that it was always a thinly disguised pagan celebraton, I would say that this "controversy" is non-notable. Nareek 22:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I thought their treatment of Christmas was really tastefully done.. "a special birthday".. yep, that'll cover it without offending people. ^_^
WTF is this nonsense about nudity, racism and hidden Nazi clues? "an obscene amount of subliminal nudity of the host, Kevin Duala's penis ... very similar to many Nazi rituals ..." etc. Sorry, but without substantiation of any kind, this is getting deleted. --Jamiem 00:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism of Blue's Room
I completely agree with the criticism--oh, how I hate Blue's Room--but it still seems like POV to me. If there's really a lot of criticism, can we cite some? Nareek 21:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind "Blue's Room" as a seperate spin off, but adding the segment to the show turns a nice 23 min. program into a rushed 18 min program to make room for the last segment. Also, one of the important reinforcing messages, "Now it's Time for So Long" has been discarded for a trite good bye, but I don't know how to add this without making an opinion out of it. I think it's a valid point, but it might be too subjective to be factual.Davidac18643 05:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I saw it once. It was freaky. Suddenly Blue can talk and he's three-dimensional! Well, why didn't he ever talk before? Does Joe and Steve know he can talk? Have you ever seen his "room" in the Blue's Clues show? If you do I'd like to hear about it. The_Little_One_Smiles 19:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Blue's a female. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.128.144 (talk) 02:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] South Park similarity
I don't find Blue's Clues to be very similar to South Park. Blue's Clues is different because it features an actual live-action person superimposed on animation. South Park is more like animation superimposed on animation.Chaz 14:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Schlau = Smartly?
I don't think that Schlau should be translated as "smartly" since this word is almost never used in the English language. I see it translated in German-English Dictionaries more often as "clever" than "smartly" I propose the translation be changed to "clever"
[edit] Episode dates
1. If we don't have a date for an episode, can we just leave it blank? Seems like clutter.
2. What does it mean for a first season show to have a date in 2006?
3. The 1/2/2003 format is kind of problematic--since not everyone reads that as Month/Date/Year (or Date/Month/Year, for that matter). Though longer, the January 2, 2003 format would probably be better.
4. Episode titles should have quotes around them, right? Nareek 02:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I cleared the 0/0/0 entries. It looks like those were probably pasted from tv.com(?) The 2006 dates for early season episodes also appear to have been copied form an external source, there are other lists on the internet that provide identical dates. I'm not interested enough in the subject to undertake the effort, but WP:TV has published updated recommendations / guidelines for episode listings. - Srice13 21:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cinema Movie
There is a reference to Blue and Baby Bear here, but I can't find any info about this "movie" elsewhere on the net - and given that it's got a 2006 date on it, you would think there'd be something to find. Nothing on IMDB.
This would seem to be a candidate for a "need citation" mark, I would think. Dopefish 22:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cancellation
Is Blue's Clues still in production? I saw a recent programing guide in the local paper that says new episodes of Blue's Room will be coming out in 01/2007, but no mention of Blue's Clues. Also, as noted, it has been dropped from the CBS schedule. If the show is no longer being produced it should be noted. I will try to get information and either add it or post here. Davidac18643 03:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Blue's Clues does appear to be over, however the spin off Blue's Room is still in production and has taken the place of Blue's Clues. The format is basically the same as previous Blue's Room episodes made previously, but Joe (Donovan Patton) is featured in each episode. There needs to be either an improved Blue's Room section or a new article for the new show with a link to this one. Most of the supporting and minor characters have yet to appear in the new Blue's Room episodes. The main characters are Blue, Joe, and Sprinkles, and mostly the episodes revolve around trying to educate Sprinkles about a different subject, often involving clues or hints, but no game of Blue's Clues or notebook has yet been involved. Also, the 10th anniversary special should be changed to a Blue's Room episode, not a Blue's Clues episode. Davidac18643 17:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Singapore Video CDs
I'm sure the effort required to add the information regarding the 14 Volume (disk?) Singapore Video CD collection was nontrivial. I chose to delete the information becuase it was trivial, and (in my opinion) not relevant to readers outside Singapore.
- In the US (and in most other countries and languages) the content has only been released on VHS and DVD (not Video CD).
- The number of home titles and contents seems to vary by format and language; Information specific to Singapore released VCDs without similar information in other formats seems POV. (An honor usually reserved for US-centric or British-centric content on the English Wikipedia).
If someone feels the need to revert it, I'm sure they will. I do hope they'll take a few minutes to work on the grammer, etc. Srice13 22:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blue's Gender
Blue is often thought of as a male dog when in fact she is female. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.70.158.25 (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
Who cares what gender Blue is? I refer to it as an it. The_Little_One_Smiles 19:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Blue is female. In the early seasons, the intro has Steve looking for Blue, and asking the audience: "Have you seen Blue, my puppy? Oh, there she is!"Figureskatingfan 20:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but Blue sounds a whole lot like a boy doggy in the recent "Blue's Room" segments. Retcon? Or possibly subliminal transsexual messages? Eew, I'm hoping it's retcon. Waluigi Freak 99 00:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Episode title assistance
Can someone help me find the title for a certain episode? All I know is that Steve reads a story that shows that it's Blue's naptime. Angie Y. 00:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sadam Hussein??
What What What??? In the Animated Characters section, it says that Ex-Dictator Hussein appeared in an episode of Blue's Clues. I'm 99.9% certain that he didn't, but I'd like to make absolutely sure that he didn't before I delete it. --Anoma lee 02:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm 99.999% certain, so I went ahead and reverted it. --Spiffy sperry 06:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism:
There was blatant vandalism in the Origin section that I have removed. Blarvink 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vincent Doelling?
How about a citation? Looks like hastily posted vandalism to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.126.237.133 (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Original Goodbye Song
The article states it's from 2002 to 2004, though I believe the "original" song was from the show's inception. Would like verification before changing. -- JoeTrumpet 17:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Episode Names, Part 2
I notice that someone has placed wikilinks (whatever they are called) in the name of most episode titles, so that, for example, there are dozens of links within the article to the Wikipedia article blue. I don't think this is necessary, but perhaps there is precedence for such editing. Eran of Arcadia 20:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose deleting this section entirely. It's one of the useless information that has been mentioned on this talk page. There are also other places on the internet that name and describe each episode, and there's a link to it at the end of this article. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Other (human) actors and animated characters sections
I think these sections need to be cleaned up some. As a result, I changed the Other Actors section to include real-life human actors (like Marlee Matlin) as opposed to the voice actors of the animated characters (like Traci Paige Johnson), which should go in that section. I got the information from IMBD. Obviously, there's work to be done on the sections, and actors and characters to be added. If anyone wants to help, that's be great, and thanks in advance. Figureskatingfan 20:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article Quality Needs Definite Cleanup
I went ahead and changed the rating from "B class" to "Start" simply because the tone of this article is not encyclopedic, several of the links in regards to characters link off to unrelated articles (the link "Blue" in this article takes you to the page about the color, not the character), and the whole page is really a mess of scattered, often irrelevant information. Waluigi Freak 99 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- As stated in the next section, I agree. The "Blue" links seem to be fixed, but there are still a host of problems with this article. I've come to the conclusion that this article needs to be totally revamped. For example, there needs to be a more fully developed section about the development of the show, and its use of research. The information in the current section, "Format," can be folded into that section, since it's about the use of repetition in its basic structure and architecture. As I also state below, there also needs to be a better section about the show's influence. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lists
As the first section of this discussion page states, this article is in dire need of editing, so I've taken it on. It's a shame that the quality is such that it has been denigrated in status.
To that end, this article has way too many lists. I've already deleted the episode list. Next, I'm deleting the Network list and replacing it with a simple statement about Blue's Clues in other countries in the intro. I'd like to develop a section about the impact and influence of Blue's Clues (and put the info there too), as well as a Criticism section.
For example:
Blue's Clues is shown in over 60 countries. In most of those countries, except for the U.K. and Korea, where the show is localized for its viewers, episodes are aired either in English or dubbed.[1]
Blue's Clues is all about research; its WP article should reflect that. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Repetition
There was a time when the same episode of BC was shown everyday for a week. According to the research and references I've found, they were doing it when the show premiered in 1996, and had all kinds of early childhood research to support doing it, in spite of how crazy it made parents. I remember that they were doing it back when my 7-yr. old son discovered BC, circa 2001. So why did they stop? I could find nothing (NOTHING!) explaining why Nickelodeon stopped the practice, in spite of a morning of Google searches. Nik doesn't explain the practice on any of their websites. They don't have a published e-mail address, so I may have to snail mail them, if I wanted to go to that much trouble. Does anyone out there have any ideas or sources about it? --Figureskatingfan (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that practice (the repetition) was quite well discussed in Malcolm Gladwell's book Tipping Point... Unfortunately I can't find my copy at the moment so I can't refresh my memory. The book was pretty popular seller so should be easy to pick up second hand, or online if you want to follow it up. In NZ TV2 (free to air) I believe continues the week-long repetition thing, but I don't think Nickeloden in NZ does. ---- My wife asked me what I was typing, and happens to remember the justification from the book. It's because by the fifth day the kids are actually able to answer Joe/Steve's questions, and are able to play along. Essentially because children learn by repetition. So rather than keeping them entertained for 20ish minutes, it aims to educate them. --118.90.86.203 (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re-vamp
I have pretty much completed this article's revamp. Below is a description of what I've done. Discuss, discuss, please.
1. Expanded the "intro." This could use more work, and can be expanded even more.
2. Expanded and added sections. The content is much improved, I think. It now has better references and is supported by research. There's more about its origin and development. I added a section about the show's influence and effectiveness for kids. I think some of the previous content suffered from WP:NOTE and WP:POV. The most flagrant example of POV was the paragraph about BC's use of American Sign Language, which was unsupported by any references. It's mentioned in the present version, though.
3. Deletions, lots of 'em. I deleted the sections that were unnecessary, especially lists. I believe that much of the deletions had POV problems, especially the section about "Blue's Room," even though I completely agree with what was said.
I need some discussion about the rest of the article. I believe that the sections about the actors (since they're mentioned in the article's body) should also be deleted, and that the section about the animated characters should at least be in a new article. Feedback, please.
I believe that this article is now worthy of its subject. I think that it's no longer a "start" article; it's at least a "B." What do *you* think? (She asks with big, wide eyes, with huge pauses for feedback.) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, so no discussion for over a week, so I went ahead and did as I threatened. I deleted the actors and animated characters sections, since they were unreliable and unnecessary. I may create another article ("Characters on Blues Clues"), if and/or I feel it's necessary. Currently, I'm not of that opinion, so someone either has to talk me into it or create one yourselves. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rating change
As per my request, User:Waluigi Freak 99 (who originally downgraded it) has agreed that this article has been improved enough to warrant a higher rating. Therefore, I went ahead and changed it back to B-status tonight, as my children watched an episode of BC from TiVo ("Blue's First Holiday"). Next, GA &/or A! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA comment
On the section about the format of the show, I think the blockquote should be paraphrased, because most people would skip the blockquote. miranda 06:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review
The article is very well-written. There are a couple of problems that I would like to see fixed first. The lead section needs to be expanded a little bit more (maybe add a little bit about the show itself or something related to that). The article itself needs to be expanded more, but I personally do not let article size affect whether an article is "good" or not. As for the references, it would be good if there were some more because there are only about 8 or 9 references and half of the citations in the article refer to only 3 or 4 of those. In conclusion, before I pass the article, there should be a lead section expansion and a bit more referencing. Otherwise everything seems OK. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 01:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- What miranda said above is also something I noticed too, though I failed to mention it. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 02:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate the input; this brings up something that I've wondered about. The reason there are so "few" references in this article is that the current references were the ones I was able to find. I admit that the article is really based upon three exceptional sources: The Tipping Point, the 10th anniversary special, and the Tracy book. There really aren't sources out there more than that, and I included the others that filled it out. I need to revisit the article to see how it can be expanded. I will also expand the lead section, as I have time. As far as the block quote goes, I need to be talked into it if I were to make the change personally. I guess someone would have to give me some better reasons and/or arguments.
- At any rate, this article has been substantially improved, and as its main editor/contributor, I'm very proud of it. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Forget that second opinion notice. After recent changes, this article is almost fit to be features (I may be overestimating the article's potential but who cares). This article passes with flying colors. Good luck. The templates should be up withing one or two minutes of the posting of this comment.
[edit] Post Domminic Patton Host
I heard there was a another person to replace Joe (Domminic Patton). But I haven't been able to find any info on that. Mr. C.C. (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Problem
I say there's a problem, but from the perspective of the show, I'm sure it's not such a terrible problem to have.
When this article was submitted for FAC review (as the primary editor, I think it was a bit premature, although I appreciate the attempt), one of the criticisms was that it suffered from POV and didn't have enough criticisms of the show. As a result, I went ahead and did another Google search to find sources that did that. Other than a minor complaint, I found none. So what do you do when every article, even every research project, compliments your subject? I literally could not find one negative article, except for the unreliable, "Blue's Clues sux." I suspect that this may mean that this article simply does not have the potential to ever become a FA. I'll look into getting it rated A, though. It definately needs a copyedit.
The other count against this article is the lack of pictures. Commons has nothing, other than the image that's already there. There's nothing free out there that I was able to find, not even of Steve Burns or Dominick Patton. I will keep my eyes open, and maybe something will turn up. It may be a while before we can even consider nominating it for FA. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Steve Burns vandalism
I was able to find Blue's Clues for Success, the book that much of this article is based upon, and although it's full of shining POV praise for BC, it's got some good information about the development and influence of the show, so it's my intention to use it to further develop this article. The book states that one of the ways that the pop-icon status of BC is most apparent is the "Steve is dead" rumors that persist about him. For the last several days, vandals with anonymous IP addresses have attacked this article by inserting this rumor (or the rumor about Steve's drug use), over five years after Steve left the show and almost two years since the show stopped being produced. This seems to happen regularly with this article. I and others have been really good about reverting this vandalism, but I wanted to at least put a note on this talk page to document it. The reoccurance of it this week also makes me wonder why it's happening this week; it at least demonstrates the power of this show. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

