Talk:Caillou

Canada: Quebec / Television C‑class Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian television.

Animation: Canadian C‑class Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Canadian animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Television C‑class Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Television needs episode list

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

More References

Added a few more References. It still may need more additional References. (TheLoverofLove (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

article quality templates

added templates to list out items that need cleanup to bump it up the quality scale (currently "C"). The "Caillou (character)" article is written better, and much of the information listed on this page is better said on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.77.52 (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

'No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caillou → Caillou (Canadian TV series) – Not only would this change conform with other similar articles, but I believe this article may be using the wrong template as I see the italics tags in the title when using Firefox on Windows (they don't show up in IE). The template used by most titles using the "(TV series)" title do not have this problem per a search on "canadian tv series". JoyceD (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what similar articles? what template? 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Definitely in all readers' interests. The only possible objections are legalistic and blinkered. Let's have more such qualifiers, so everyone can tell at a glance what the article is about. Noetica^Tea? 03:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation, no reasonable case has been made yet as to why such disambiguation is required. The "(TV series)" qualifier is only needed to resolve conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous, or when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles. It is for this reason some articles like Dallas (TV series) have them and some like Cheers and Seinfeld don't. It is also not meant as a means "so everyone can tell at a glance what the article is about" – that is what the lead section of the body of the article is for. Furthermore, the nominator appears to be experiencing a repeated bug that has been occurring in IE, and has received advice about it on Wikipedia:Help desk#Italic tags in titles seen in Firefox on Windows; this is also not a sufficient reason for a page move. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Zzyzx. No-one has given a reason why disambiguation is necessary. Noetica seems to arguing that every article on television series should have "(TV series)" tacked on the end of its title, which is definitely against the current community consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Similar pages:
1. Cailloux (a DAB page usually pronounced the same as "caillou")

2–10. Pages listed at Cailloux

11. Caillou (character)

12. Caillou's Favorite Songs

13. Alan Caillou

14. Edmond de Caillou

15. Caillou's Holiday Movie

16. Château Caillou

17. Caillou: Ready for School

Jenks and Z, both of you please explain: Why would anyone want to risk inconveniencing anglophone readers all over the world by avoiding the simple qualifier "(Canadian TV series)"? The majority of them have never heard of a TV show called "Caillou", and care nothing about such things in the children's media of a far-off country. Their needs are unknown to you, and pretty well unpredictable for us all. Everything can be made rational and helpful by adding "(Canadian TV series)".

Supplementary question (to which I would also like an answer): Do you, Jenks and Z, think that Caillou: Ready for School should be moved to Ready for School? Please give reasons.

Noetica^Tea? 07:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:PRECISION makes it clear that our style is avoid unnecessary disambiguation in titles. I hope we do not see any more of these tactics. Kauffner (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tactics??? What tactics? What on earth do you think we are doing here? Do you want evidence to support opinions here, or what? Do you want discussion, or what? Will you answer questions? That's what makes a discussion work. Noetica^Tea? 20:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I express my earnest hope that you will someday accept the revealed truth contained in our titling guidelines, return to the One True Faith of shortest unambiguous title, and cease your attempts to befoul the titles in this manner. The monstrosities alluded to by LtPowers below may serve to inspire appropriate horror. Kauffner (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Unnecessary disambiguation is confusing and unwieldy. We don't name articles Barack Obama (United States president), Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (film), or spaghetti (food), so there's no reason to apply a disambiguator here, either, unless the topic can be shown not to be primary. Powers ^T 20:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The longstanding convention at WP has been to not add anything beyond the name of the topic in the title of an article, unless additional precision is necessary for disambiguation. It is not needed in this case.
The specific guideline that applies here, WP:NC-TV, is quite clear:
When additional precision for disambiguation is not required, do not disambiguate the name in the title of the article

I understand some people want to change that convention, and lean towards making titles more descriptive, not just name identifiers. I respect that effort, which includes trying to change policy/guidelines as well as ignore policy/guidelines in the mean time on an individual article basis, like this one. But I oppose it. I oppose that effort because I believe it makes titles less predictable, and because it makes titles more open to debate, discussion and conflict than they already are. If adding more precision than necessary becomes acceptable, then that raises the question of exactly what extra information should or should not be added to the title. In the majority of cases where that extra information is unnecessary, it's much simpler to leave it out altogether. And for readers who are not sure what the article is about from just looking at the title? Well, that's what the lede is for. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (snowball?) per WP:NC-TV and WP:D. Consensus is that preemptive disambiguation is not required. I see no reason to invoke WP:IAR in this case. --MegaSloth (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Music" Section

Is this section really notable? It cites the YouTube video posted by the artist as its only source, and it really doesn't contribute to the article at all. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 05:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Live Action Segments

I section on the Live Action Segments of the show would be interesting. An listing of the puppet characters and some information of the various actors is the type of information to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.8.10.9 (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New season

I was watching caillou with my child and it said that the episode was made in 2013. Can we update this to show the new season? Pure Awesomeness Commonly called Evoogd20 17:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New season

I was watching caillou with my child and it said that the episode was made in 2013. Can we update this to show the new season? Pure Awesomeness Commonly called Evoogd20 17:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]