Talk:Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood
|WikiProject Animation||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Television||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Pittsburgh||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
I am so sick of seeing the edit war that is going on here. The sources given as references, and every source I've come across merely say this show will premiere Fall 2012. Is there a source that verifies the specified date of September 3? If so, state it! If not, leave it alone! Enough is enough! No more edit wars! That's a violation of WP's policies of verifiability and civility. It ends now. Is that clear? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- The user Antonio keeps pushing the date of September 3 in spite of all the sources that say Fall 2012. I move that we request a block on this user. He refuses to accept the cited sources. Desperate times call for desperate measures. I'll warn him once more, and if he continues his vandalism, I move that we request that he be blocked. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- He's already been blocked for 24 hours -- hopefully this will get his attention. Trivialist (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the list of episodes combine the episodes with related themes, since they aired together? Let me explain. Episode 1 and Episode 2 aired during the same half-hour show, as did 3 & 4, 5 & 6 and so on. I don't have time or desire to fix this myself but feel that this ought to be addressed. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I reverted them back now. I basically like it the best when the episodes with related themes are separate. Please look at the number of episodes in the infobox. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- But they're not produced as separate episodes, are they? Each half-hour program has two linked parts, but they're produced as a single episode. See how they're listed on PBS's site. Wikipedia should follow the reliable source and list each program as one episode. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the list on this page should be organized in the same way, because we need to follow the usage of reliable sources. I'll make the change soon, unless anybody objects. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've started work on this in my sandbox; feel free to check the format I'm thinking of and let me know what you think. Is there a source for the "production codes" currently used in the article? Because the PBS Daniel Tiger site, which is probably our most reliable source, gives episode numbers for whole episodes (that is, one episode with two segments). Unfortunately, it only goes as far as the first 18 episodes. That's fine as far as it goes, but episode 118 is "Daniel Plays Ball/ O Builds a Tower", which aired after "Daniel Gets a Shot / A Stormy Day". I would guess that the broadcast order changed, and that we should list "Daniel Gets a Shot / A Stormy Day" as episode 119, but that's not based on a reliable source. I wish PBS would update their site! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Question: the article says that, "episodes are linked by a common socio-emotional theme". Is that a specific reference to Social emotional learning? If so, it would be helpful to users not familiar with such things to have a link to the social emotional learning article. Otherwise, it might be better to just say the episodes are linked by a common theme. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Information about my recent edit
Okay, I was trying to tweak up the episode list by separating it to two seasons because my question is: Did you know that the actor for the singing of the opening and closing sequences changed? And secondly, I was trying to change the production codes to make sure that they're separate episodes with the related themes being told about twice because most of the time, I like it the best when the episodes are separate like that. Also, since it's because of the fact each two separate episodes air at the same time, do you know how many episodes there are right now? 42. So, now that I mentioned the reasons, is it okay that revert it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- No. That's not sufficient. I have heard the so-called changes in theme songs, and the only change was from many singers to one singer. Additionally, the issue with the production codes has been discussed before, and this method was agreed to be the best. As for the episodes themselves, common themes make the episodes connected. Since they were aired during the same half hour show, they should have the same production code. I understand your reasons for wanting to make these changes, but your explanation is not sufficient grounds. In order to say that the newer episodes were from a different season, you need to cite a source proving that this is the case. Also, your edits would hold greater credibility and be challenged less if you had a user account. At least, this is my perspective on the issue. I will leave it to others to add their perspectives too, but until the consensus (that's two or more editors) decides this issue one way or the other, it needs to stay as it is. With that said, are there any other comments? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I was pleased to see some new episodes of DTN on this page. However, I have a question. Since it has been several months since new episodes came out, could we say that these newest episodes mark the start of a new season? In the past, I have opposed listing episodes under season 2 because there was no source provided. But when the precursor to this show, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, aired, they always had new episodes in September as the start of a new season. If we could find verification that this is the start of a new season, that would be great. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- No one has provided feedback on this issue yet. Does that mean you'd all be in favor of what I proposed? If so, someone else would have to split the table, as I'm not sure how to do it. Please comment. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
According to this article, Season 2 of DTN will begin next September. Therefore, we should continue listing new episodes as part of Season 1 until that time. At least, that's my opinion. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- A closer reading of this article made me realize this information (including the source I cited above) is already in the article. OOPS! Sorry. Next time I'll be more careful. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
New Episodes just added
I just attempted to add new episodes that will air on January 20, 2014. But in so doing, somehow the description for the last episode added won't show up properly on the page. I have tried numerous times to fix it but don't know how to finish off the fixes. Please help! And please post here afterwards to let me know what I'm doing wrong. Thanks in advance! --Jgstokes (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I see that the problem has not been fixed yet. HELP! Thanks in advance. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Number of episodes note
Do we really still need the "(this number refers to episodes aired, not created.)" note in the infobox? We know from this and this that there were only 40 episodes created for the first season, all of which have now aired. There will be 25 episodes in the second season. I made a mistake a while back in prematurely changing the infobox number to 40, but now that all the first season episodes have aired the note is moot until the second season begins. Perhaps we could put it in hidden text, so that nobody else makes the same mistake I did; but I don't think we need it to be visible to casual readers. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I had not realized that all the episodes for Season 1 had aired. I was somehow under the impression that more were coming between now and when the next season starts in September. With that in mind, I would be fine getting rid of the note altogether. Thank you for explaining your reasoning. Unless anyone else has any objections, we can eliminate the note entirely. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Use of "Fred"
So, I was looking at a couple lines where Fred Rogers was referred to as "Fred" such as "In 2006, three years after Fred's passing" and I was thinking that wasn't really encyclopedic. I would expect it to read as "In 2006, three years after Roger's passing" as my understanding of the style guide is the first instance should have the full name and additional instances should use the last name. It seems overly informal as it stands now; especially for a man who went by "Mr. Rogers" for his professional career. Just thought I'd mention it here to see what the logic for first name use was. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- You raise an interesting point. I don't know the answer, and I'd like to hear feedback on this point as well. However, it should be noted the correct possessive is "Rogers'", not "Roger's". Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Season 2 table needs to be started.
According to cited sources, season 2 will begin one week from today. I believe we should get the Season 2 table up and running complete with the Season 2 episode descriptions that are available. So far, I have been able to ascertain that there are four new episodes planned thus far as follows.
- 201: Air Date: August 18, 2014. The Tiger Family Grows: Daniel finds out he is going to be a big brother. Daniel Learns About Being a Big Brother: Daniel wants to help prepare the baby's room but struggles with having to give up his old things for his new sibling.
- 202: Air Date: August 18, 2014. The Baby Is Here: Everyone welcomes the new baby, Margaret, home to the family.
- 203: Air Date: August 19, 2014. Time For Daniel: Daniel gets upset when Dad interrupts their playtime so he can care for baby Margaret. There's Time for Daniel and Baby Too: Daniel is upset when Prince Wednesday wants to play with the baby instead of him.
- 204: Air Date: August 19, 2014. Playtime Is Different: Curious baby Margaret interrupts Daniel when he plays restaurant with O and Katerina. The Playground Is Different With Baby: Mom and Dad encourage Daniel to include Margaret at the playground.
It's a little confusing, because local listings give different air dates for 203 and 202. But these are the listings and air dates and descriptions as posted by http://tv.msn.com/tv/series-episodes/daniel-tiger%27s-neighborhood. These should be implemented onto the page ASAP. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I've got the table started. A few small points:
- I've tried to reword the episode synopses, since the synopses found on other sites (even official sites) are copyrighted, and shouldn't be used verbatim here.
- I'm not actually that expert at table formatting myself; I just copied the formatting from other pages. Do we like the crimson for the color? I was thinking it was like Daniel's sweater and Trolley.
- I really wish that the PBS Parents page would update with the Season 2 episodes and the rest of Season 1. As it is, the episode numbers we're using are sort of original research.
- IMDb has episode titles for all 20 episodes of Season 2, but of course they're not a reliable source. Does anyone know of a RS we could use for the rest of the season, or will we have to wait until they show up on the MSN or PBS schedules of upcoming episodes? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
My feedback on your comments:
- 1: Excellent point. In that case, we may want to go over the season 1 episode synopses and reword some of them since some are taken verbatim from available sources.
- 2: Crimson sounds like an excellent color to me.
- 3: I've just been basing my information off local listings. I wasn't aware there was a website with the airdates and titles for the entire season. I would say that if IMDB can be shown to be a reliable source that would be our best option. Barring that, we could always just base our information off local listings, as I have continued to do.
- Nah, IMDb's content is mostly user-generated, and therefore not reliable. I think we're stuck with the local listings, unless PBS updates its site. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
That's too bad. We'll have to go with what we have then. I notice that you didn't comment on my other responses to your questions. Are we in agreement then, on the issue of color and perhaps redoing the first season's descriptions so they aren't a verbatim of other sources and thus a copyright violation? If we are, then that's something we could both work on. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, yes. I don't know when I'll have time to work on that, but I'll try to chip away at it when I can. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Sounds great. I don't know how much help I'll be. I'm much better at describing an episode when there is no episode description existing. That way I know I'm not stepping on anyone's toes. Whereas, if an episode summary already exists, I might inadvertently offend someone by changing wording they worked carefully at. That's not an issue here, of course, but still. I'll take a look and see what I can do. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
SummerPhD recently reverted an edit by a user with only an IP address. The user had added a description of what disability Chrissy Thompson had that was transferred to the Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood character Chrissie. That description was spina bifida. SummerPhD reverted this, claiming it was off-topic. I would like to discuss this point. How is discussing a certain disability a character based on an actual person had off topic? I was tempted to revert it, but I wanted to give SummerPhD the chance to defend his edit and the chance for a rational discussion about this point. I fail to see how including this information is off-topic. In point of fact, I view it as very on-topic and vital information for interested readers who may be curious about what disability the character in question has. But rather than potentially wage an edit war, I wanted to discuss it here first before reverting. What do you guys think? Is this information off-topic? Or would it be helpful for others to know? Please remember to keep the discussion civil and agreeable. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- We have an in-universe description of the character (her legs "can't work on their own") which, as it stands, reads as a disease-with-person description (note the characters are uniformly discussed by the relatives, jobs and activities; oh, as this one has non-working legs). Attached to this, we have the unsourced statement that Chrissie = Chrissy. Who is Chrissy? She is the visitor with spina bifda, another disease-with-person. This unsourced description is glued on so that we will see the unsourced connection: legs don't work = spina bifida. Let's call it synthesis.
- (Seriously: The only parallels we are given between characters in the two shows are the Fred Rogers paraphernalia attached to Daniel and legs don't work = spina bifida. Anyone caring to describe me as "X's wife, associate professor at Z University, with disease Q" can go to hell.) - SummerPhD (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I have to say, I don't find your attitude to be very helpful or conducive to contributing to a discussion about the real issues. I understand the point you are trying to make, but find that you are making it in a manner that is most disagreeable. I have to say that given your stated opinion, I would be in favor of reintroducing the bit about "spina bifida" as I feel it would be most relevant. I have seen people with spina bifida and can confirm that this is what Chrissie on the show has. I myself have cerebral palsy and have gone to many spina bifida clinics, so I am perfectly familiar with what the symptoms of the disease are. And both the Chrissy on MRN and the Chrissie on DTN match those symptoms to a tee. Since we have differing opinions expressed on this subject, I will wait to act on this issue until we get more feedback, but my vote would be to restore the good faith edit by the user with only an IP address. I believe this information is important and vital for those wanting information about the show to know. What say the rest of you? --Jgstokes (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- Is there a source that says the one character is based on the other? If there isn't then I think that entire point may be moot, since that stament should be removed if there isn't a source for it. Saying that you've seen people with spina bifida and that this means this fictional character has it is WP:OR; it needs a reliable source saying this, personal experience and diagnosis is insufficient. - Aoidh (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- (Sorry my tone upset you. I do not like being reduced to a disease-with-person, nor do I like seeing it employed elsewhere. It's similar to saying "The people at the table were: John, a nurse; Kim, a taxi driver and Joe, a writer with cerebral palsy." That's two "normal" people and Joe. I find it offensive.)
- We do not have reliable sources directly stating any of this as directly related to Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood, the subject of this article. I'm willing to bet there are sources discussing the educational/diversity value of including a character who uses crutches. (We do not, however, have such a source at the moment.) My point is not whether or not your diagnosis is correct, my point is that the addition of the material without discussion in independent reliable sources would be similar to adding content to various other articles singling out which characters wear glasses, are Asian American or whatever else any individual editor deems notable.
- If we write an episode summary, and the episode in some way revolves around her using crutches, her diagnosis or some other aspect, that's one thing. Otherwise, it's the equivalent of saying, "Arthur Timothy Read is the main character and titular protagonist of both the book series and the PBS children's television show Arthur which was created by Marc Brown. He is nearsighted." - SummerPhD (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
There's where we disagree. I don't mind people identifying me by my disabilities. I am who I am because of my disabilities. I have had the experiences I have had because of these disabilities. When I see a statement like your sample one above, my automatic thought is, "How cool! He rose above his disability to become a writer and influence people!" And rather than serve to diminish that person in my estimation, it actually magnifies them because I understand fully the obstacles they overcame in order to become what they are. It is silly to be offended when someone is identified by their disability, because that rarely offends the person in question. I speak from experience. However, I recognize what you said about not having a reliable source that describes Chrissie's disability. In my haste to defend this edit, I forgot that point, and that was my fault. I'm sorry. I ran an internet search for it and failed to find anything specific. So I guess I agree now that this information shouldn't be included in Wikipedia unless and until a source can be found verifying that it is correct. Sorry. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)