Talk:PBS Kids
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on July21, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. |
[edit] PBS Kids Channel
An anon tried to move this to PBS Kids Channel, but did so by duplicating content, which made the primary page one that no longer had any history of the recent (survived) VfD. I don't disagree with the move, but just wanted that history on the primary page, so the new page was deleted, and the move done in the more traditional way (using the WikiMedia move feature). Thanks go out to admin smoddy for the help on this. -Harmil 20:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- This page shouldn't be called PBS Kids Channel because the PBS channels only have PBS Kids on for about a third of the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.195.133.53 (talk • contribs)
[edit] Storytime
Should we put up an article for storytime? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.112.169 (talk • contribs)
[edit] Dash and Dot
Dash is on the Miss Lori and Hooper block. Verification at: http://www.pbs.org/parents/preschool/about.html . Dot is not on the Miss Lori and Hooper block, but at http://www.primalscreen.com/home.html , click on THE WORK, then NETWORK BRANDING, and select PBS KIDS. You can choose WEATHER and see the PBS Kids girl's name is Dot. PKGO 00:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I'm going to put references. I was the one who put "verification needed" on those areas. --Addict 2006 23:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Dash and Dot are now both integral parts of the "Miss Lori and Hooper"block, as of Season 2--they're part of "computer time" and "art time" segments and are used to introduce games and viewer-submitted artwork.Gladys j cortez 00:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Syndicated Shows
I think the attribute "(syndicated -- not distributed by PBS)" should be kept, because I don't think they had any PBS logos after them. One reason why is the original PBS article uses this, and another thing is, it could be truthful. So please, don't revert to the previous version of this article. --jonghyunchung 18:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] About "PBS Kids 2004"
Shouldn't it be "PBS Kids 2003"? Because some people might feel confused about it right now, and we can't have two 2004 idents. And just what is "PBS Kids 2004 (er, 2003)"?
[edit] "Logos" should be deleted from these lists
I think the "logos" (example: PBS Kids 1999, PBS Kids 2004 and PBS Kids Sprout 2005) should be deleted, because the List of programs broadcast by PBS accidently got their "logos" removed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonghyunchung (talk • contribs)
[edit] Copyedits and idents
This page was such a mess, I hope I helped a little. Are the extensive descriptions of every single "ident" really necessary? Kat, Queen of Typos 02:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I helped a little too. I went through and changed things that didn't make sense. About the idents, on PBS Kids, after evry show they show idents. So it's kind of important.PKGO 18:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Kat, what makes the ident spots so important that it warrants taking up half the article? The lengthy explanations of minute details beg the question: why are the announcements of upcoming shows more important than the entire format of the time block? If anything it should be in its own article, but I'm not sure it's relevant enough for its own article. Also, the whole section seems a bit like original research, with few sources cited (that's not to say it's inaccurate, but there are no sources cited). So I propose that the entire section be summarized into a sentence or two. --68.62.239.224 04:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I personally think the whole "idents" section is of questionable relevance, and I think it can go. Although the amount of work researching and writing it makes me reluctant to recommend tossing it completely, let's ask ourselves: What importance does it contribute? Is anyone really going to look for this info, ever? If they do, will they need ALL THAT INFO? With data as exhaustive and infinitesimally detailed as this, and with its minimal impact on the relevance of the topic at hand, I think we can cut it without harming the article as a whole. Anyone disagree?Gladys j cortez 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pbskids99 b.jpg
Image:Pbskids99 b.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pbskids99 a.jpg
Image:Pbskids99 a.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Non PBS Shows
I don't understand why people say Nick Jr. is coing to PBS. It is not true. The only show from Nick Jr. is Bob the Builder. PKGO 16:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] PBS Kids GO! Channel
Someone wrote the sentence after I wrote about the PBS Kids GO! Channel on the PBS Kids article! When is the PBS Kids GO! Channel launched? I saw that there's a launch for the year 2008. But PBS took a long time making the PBS Kids GO! Channel until 2008. I don't understand this. The PBS Kids GO! Channel has to launch in 2006 or 2007. [User: Nate Speed]
[edit] New Show
If I am not mistaken, there is a new show on PBS that just aired today. What is it calledThegreatglobetrotter 17:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It's Mama Mirabelle's Home Movies. (70.107.146.211 21:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC))
[edit] Sections and bits needing work
I'd clean these up but I don't know where to start:
[edit] PBS Kids Bookworm Bunch
In September 2000, PBS Kids launched a three-hour block PBS Kids Bookworm Bunch to compete against Nick Jr. on CBS. The block's shows were Corduroy, George Shrinks, Elliot Moose, Marvin the Tap-Dancing Horse, Seven Little Monsters, and Timothy Goes to School. Then Corduroy and Elliot Moose were cancelled. In September 2004, the block got discontinued for shows airing October, then Seven Little Monsters got discontinued after in the half-hour time period as the Berenstain Bears. George Shrinks is airing, on some stations.
First: "to compete against Nick Jr" sounds like original research--do you have a citation to verify that info? Second: do you have approx dates of the cancellations? The last three sentences aren't entirely...sentences, exactly. Not to be mean, but: ?????
George to George On February 19, 2007, there was a George to George special on PBS Kids with Curious George.
What made this a "special"? It sounds like "episodes of Curious George"--or did it have something to do with Presidents' Day (hence the "George to George" reference--George WASHINGTON and CURIOUS George)? Anyhow--as it stands, this section doesn't say much...
On the ads for all of them, it seems to have a slogan: Friday, the day after Thanksgiving.
I'm not sure that was intended as a slogan; it might just be an indication of when the shows air. Same with this: "This Program was made possible by your support of your local PBS Station." AFAIK, that's a boilerplate statement that's made at the beginning and end of all PBS shows, not just kids' shows; it's less a "motto" than a piece of information.
I apologize if I sound like the ghastly nitpicker I am. Gladys j cortez 00:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Boldness and apologies...
I removed the idents section, since I heard no arguments against removing it; if that offends anyone, I'll apologize in advance. However, if you choose to revert it, please don't revert the whole edit, as I also cleaned up a lot of formatting issues in the same session, and though removing the idents section is a matter of opinion, the formatting stuff was definitely for the better. Gladys j cortez (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Seriously, now.
To user 70.107.xxx.xxx--I would appreciate it if you did NOT revert changes which were made with the intent of IMPROVING the article, unless you care to offer your justifications for having done so. I made major changes to this article, but I explained WHY I felt those changes were beneficial; to have those changes largely undone and no explanation given is just...rude. Gladys j cortez (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Specials
I moved the last few special programs to another section. They had very little information and were less significant, than, say, the Pet-Tacular. I also added some that weren't previously mentioned. 72.86.109.118 (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Images
So, reading the Fair Use guidelines (along with some of the comments above), it seems like our logo images don't conform; Dot and Dash are not the main logo of PBS Kids, nor are they the main topic of the article, nor do the images fulfill this:
Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
I'm thinking we could safely delete these images without compromising the article. Does anyone violently disagree? Gladys j cortez (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] To Our Anonymous IP Editor
Repeatedly placing previously-deleted, non-encyclopedic, non-consensus material in an article, especially under an anon IP, is generally not considered good form. If you feel passionately that your edit ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY belongs in this article, then please register an account--then we can discuss it further on a talk page. Or better yet, make your point right here, where everyone can see it. Simply replacing deleted content again and again, anonymously, with no explanation, just makes you look like a vandal, instead of a person with a strongly-held point. Gladys j cortez (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Knowing Jamesinc14, the sockpuppeteer behind many of these edits, I won't be surprised if these warnings, once again, fall on deaf ears. -- azumanga (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Oh, joy; not just a vandal, but a sock. I wasn't aware there were suspicions as to this individual's pedigree. Do you think we should take some sort of steps to have an admin verify that this is indeed what we're up against?Gladys j cortez (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
