Talk:Wonder Pets!/Archive 1

Supposed WSJ review

As of 7/11 there is no article that I can find by a Jeff Widening in the Wall Street Journal. An internet search for that name, as well as the text of the quote, only returns this Wikipedia page. Suggest that this quote be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.71.150 (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree x 02:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Since there's no response aboout this, I'll remove the critic response section. It seems kind of wierd to have anyway unless there's some kind of encyclopedic point to it. x 21:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Linking of names

I also think breaking out their names to discrete links is overlinking. It's similar to doing something like The Fantastic Four. It's not truly helpful to the article.x 02:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It would make sense if there was an article for every episode to link to that article, but linking to a subject in the article does not make sense. It is not as if the subjects (wolf, egg, camel) are such rare topic that don't expect the reader to recognize them. And if they don't they can easily look it up without a direct wikilink. Jon513 21:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Production notes?

why was the production section removed from this article? looks like a vandal hit it, but then it wasn't re-added during a reversion. any reason why? Cookie3 17:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I could tell from the history, the sections were removed as part of vandalism, but when that was cleared, the sections were not put back. I think I've fixed them. x 17:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Character Article Consolidation

The same thought occurred to me--given that the main article is not particularly long, and there are few if any references to Linny et al. outside of the context of the show, it seems like merging the character's articles back into the main page would be a more helpful organization. Nareek 21:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, what I actually referred to was having a seperate link for each part of a name like The and Fantastic and Four which somebody had done for the Wonder Pets characters. Articles already exist for the three characters, so there's no sense in consolidating them. x 00:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh--well, I agree with the point that you actually were trying to make, and would reiterate my point: There's no need to discuss the Wonder Pets outside the context of the show, and therefore the articles on each character only make it more difficult for someone to read WP's info on the show. As for the articles already existing, that's what "Merge" is for. Nareek 06:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"There's no need to discuss the Wonder Pets outside the context of the show" I'm not sure what you mean by "need" in this context, but having seperate articles for the characters is a perfectly valid and standard way of providing details. This can often make searching more efficient as well.

"therefore the articles on each character only make it more difficult for someone to read WP's info on the show." It doesn't makes it more difficult, unless you're referring to an extra mouse click. So in terms of "need", there isn't really much need to consolidate the articles. x 17:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines are pretty clear on this--see WP:FICTION:

Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article.

As for why that's Wikipedia's guideline, there's a presumption that fictional things should be described in the context of the real-world works of art that they appear in. It's also true that it's easier for the reader to read all of the material on Wonder Pets using zero clicks rather than six clicks (going back and forth). Nareek 20:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding WP guidelines, that makes sense, and consolidation to accomodate that makes sense as well. Addressing a concern from the standpoint of Wiki policy is usually the most efficient way, as opposed to going back and forth regarding opinions on usability. Thanks. x 17:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Media

CD at Nick Shop Ref

I really hate using the Nick Store as a reference (very spammy), but the CD definitely exists, but I can't find a useful news item or review to refer to, so I'm hoping this is an acceptable comropmise until something better is found. x 20:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Article structure

I think it makes the most sense to keep this article structured so that the most pertinent for a concerned adult (such as a parent) is seen first. This would be a quick description, then info on who the makes it, then follow with details about the characters and stories.
There seems to be a desire of some editors to regurgitate random episode details (with a tenuous connection to what's discussed), which isn't really very informative. x 15:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The recent changes by User:71.61.219.192 resulted in a rather confused description of various parts of the show, and made it hard to understand what the point of it all was, so I've reverted until a better approach can be provided. I think it's a good idea to make it clear in the article that there is a section on episode structure, then organize it from there so it's clear what's being discussed. Also, correct grammar and punctuation would be nice. x 11:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Syndication history

Because of all the dubious changes to the section "Syndication history", the question of its actual value was brought into higher relief. How and where a TV show is syndicated says nothing about the show, really. It's like providing a list in an iPod article of all the stores it's sold at. It's filler, so I've removed it. Please discuss before replacing. x 15:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As a follow up, perhaps a better example of this kind of thing can be seen at Kidnapped (TV series), which informs and confirms. On that page it lets people know it's still being aired around the world, plus when it started and often when it airs; as opposed to a list of Nick channels with contries and no supporting info. x 15:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There's beginning to be a problem with an anon editor (usually IP 71.61.219.192) continually re-adding the syndication section w/o discussion. I've asked for discussion but it never happens. So I'm going to start considering further reinsertions as vandalism. x 14:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the information should not be there. Syndication information is also very dynamic.Happinessiseasy 18:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Serie

lol saw this in german with the lil panda, it owns:P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.207.21.167 (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Names and Genders

Please check [1] for verification of character names being Linny the Guinea Pig, Ming-Ming Duckling, and Turtle Tuck. It's recommended that info be checked before making changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtramental (talk • contribs) 02:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding genders, as shown at NickJr.com[2] Linny and Ming-Ming are female. x 17:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Linny the Guinea Pig

Just to be sure, Linny is a girl because no one I asked knew, they thought it was a he and name was Lenny. xD Unintended Disaster 04:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI: The names and genders are clarified in another part of this Talk page, since these issues seem to come up a lot for some reason. x 17:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Criticism?

Trust me, I'm as big a fan of getting science right in shows as anyone -- but do we really need this section on Wonderpets? Why doesn't the writer mention that animals don't typically speak english and that a plastic toy boat with a sail and wheels loosely affixed won't fly? How about the episode where they couldn't get the poodle off the Eiffel Tower because she was too big for their boat? They got that one right! While we're at it, who the devil calls the Wonderpets in the first place? (I'm guessing Charlie from Charlie's Angels). That section is irrelevant. --Pittsburghmuggle 14:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this section is worthless. If you look at the history I think that there is one particular person who keeps adding worthless stuff, and vandalism this site. I'm new so I don't know how to go about stopping this person but hopefully someone else will. --Tucats 23:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding Semi-protecting for vandalism

Request made to protect against vandalism. --Tucats 14:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Song section?

I removed this:
Also, when they can't acomplish their task, they work together and sing "What's gonna work? Teamwork!" They repeat that a few times then save what they came to save
since it was inserted into a section that was discussing how the show begins, making it seem just kind of stuck in there. Perhaps there should be a section discussing the music, incl. repeated motifs and such? x 22:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed... I don't yet know how to word this properly, but the article definately needs to explain that the shows follow a traditional musical formula with a fairly rigid musical structure... it definately comes across as emulating a broadway musical or an opera to me anyways... CrackerjackWannabe 05:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

it definately comes across as emulating a broadway musical or an opera that's already mentioned in the article. So that point in particular doesn't need addition.

definately needs to explain that the shows follow a traditional musical formula with a fairly rigid musical structure Good idea, however, everyone keeps inserting random descriptions of that in the general summary. It might be better if structural details are added in a separate section. Otherwise the article turns into a random stream of blurbs of what people saw on the show.

Also, please note that if it's a matter of watching various eps, and figuring out what they have and common, then describing that in the article, that may be considered original research. x 14:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Are the songs (particularly "Teamwork") original? Mcr314 (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, please see the section on this article's structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtramental (talk • contribs) 15:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Episode List

Can someone please check the episode list for accuracy? There have been a lot of edits to it recently and it may not be correct. I am not that familiar with the show (my son watches it, but I never took to it like I have the Backyardigans) so I am not the best one to verify it. Thanks! Josborne2382 01:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC) I checked the episode list on tv.com and i changed the episode titles also the wonder pets only save living things from dayle14 —Preceding comment was added at 16:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've checked the episode list and removed the unsourced entries. I've also sourced the list of DVD and their episodes. As of this time stamp, I believe that the list is correct. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

New Episodes

Save The 3 Little Pigs / Save The Owl

Near the end of the month there's a new epsiode called "Save The 3 Little Pigs"

Seen in ad on Nick Jr today

LadySatine 21:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a useful heads-up, especially considering someone keeps insisting on adding fictional eps. Thanks. x 03:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, I'll update this if I can catch the date in the ad

LadySatine 05:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I had found an online mention of the episode, with the airdate, so I've inserted the title into the ep list, and provided a link. x 10:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding the second half which is called "Save the Owl" according the the listing on the dish

LadySatine 08:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Save The Wonder Pets

Due to constant ep list vandalism, that new anon entered ep "Save the Wonder Pets" I will remove if we don't find verification in the next day or so. x 14:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I found what I think is some clarification at tv.com, so I've redone that ep entry. x 14:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Amazing Ollie / Help the Monster

ok, why the heck are these episodes are NOT in the ep list? this is the same to "save the hound dog", "save the cool cat and the hip hippo / tuck and buck", "save the dancing duck / save the dalmatian". if some one seen these episodes, they better get these episodes on the ep list, just to make me happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.243.19.150 (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Episode Titles

There seems to be some ongoing confusion regarding episode titles for Wonder Pets. To help clarify:

• Each half hour show includes two episodes. The exception is the show that features the special Xmas episode "Save the Reindeer!", which is double the normal length.
• Each ep title is puncuated with an exclamation point.
• The ep where Ming Ming is rescued is titled "Save The Duckling!" See IMDB: [[3]]
• Though most titles only feature one animal, the ep "Save the Yak, the Pig, and the Dancing Bear!" does indeed feature three (they are a performing troupe). They are not separate eps. x 17:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, x, there is one problem with your headline, Ming-Ming was saved twice! the second time Ming-Ming get saved was in "Save the Dancing Duck". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.243.19.150 (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional characters

Occasionally, additional characters have been inserted into the cast list. But they are really only featured on one episode. Perhaps there needs to be a separate section covering them. Or is that overkill to even include them? x 19:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, do we need Oli the Bunny's family to be included in the cast list? I mean, fair enough Oli herself, as she is a kind of guest-Wonderpet, but the family members? I hadn't even noticed them. Also the three proper Wonderpets have family members who occasionally appear, and they are not included (Ming Ming's cousin and Aunt in 'Kalamazoo'; Linny's Gran in 'Save the Old White Mouse.' Lord Spring Onion (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the additional characters section, including Ollie's family. Every single episode has one-of characters, and would be serious overkill - especially listing all the characters in say ... "The Wonderpets Save the Wonderpets". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Episode Structure work to be done

I think it's time to tackle the problems in the Episode structure section. There are far too many intricate details that detract from the quality of the article itself. I am going to begin trimming this shortly, probably beginning with the songs themselves. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ming Ming's voice

It seems different when she says "This is sewious" now..I guess it's because her voice actor is getting older,she's a kid va right? 98.14.15.12 (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Originally, the "sewious" was natural mispronunciation, they have asked her to continue it - so it's more "forced" now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In the British English version, the voice has definitely changed, they must have a different actress for Season 2. My kids don't seem to care! Lord Spring Onion (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Is Ollie a Wonder Pet?

Ollie's status is a bit ambiguous. He is seen living in the school, then outdoors and he often fashions himself to be a Wonder Pet ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.24.67 (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

He's not actually a Wonder Pet - a semi-regular character, yes and he's gone a-rescuing once or twice. Officially, he's not one. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have the article on my watchlist and I when I looked at one of the sections, it seemed false and is probably vandalism (specifically Tuck the Turtle). Could someone protect the article to prevent future vandalism?--Impala99 (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

One vandalism is not goign to lead to protection. I have undone those edits .. you could/should have done the same thing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes

The character infoboxes strike me as repetitive and they don't contribute anything other than providing bloated photos of the characters. Anyone have any objections to the deletion of the infoboxes? Seems we could accomplish more by trimming down the article and including photos where warranted. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Wonder Pets vs Little Einsteins

What is the differences between these two? Apollo C. Quiboloy fans (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151103184553/http://gothamist.com/2004/01/24/josh_selig_litt.php to http://gothamist.com/2004/01/24/josh_selig_litt.php

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)