Talk:Blue's Clues/Archive 1

Archive 1

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.

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)

Steve Burns quit because he didn't want to spend his entire career doing the show. He loved teaching kids, and doing music, but he wanted to move on and do regular music as well. He was also loosing his hair at the time. He didn't want to have the kids watch him go bald, and he wanted to shave his head for a while. The first thing he did when they shot the last scene of his final episode was shave his head. He has a new album out called "Songs for Dust mites". Retep dnesnwot 04:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retep dnesnwot (talk • contribs)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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"

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)

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)

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)

i wanted to tell you that Terry Nova is the Bestest Show-girl in the show but Blue's Clues was the perfectly good show and nice one is it and I needed it back somehow, i needs some techincial.--64.53.186.195 (talk) Eroll Muller  —Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC). 

That's right! Tera Nova's Blue's Clues is good. If she does more of that, blue's clues is back! --64.53.186.195 (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Elie Muller.

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.

1. In the US (and in most other countries and languages) the content has only been released on VHS and DVD (not Video CD).
2. 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)

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)

When you say the "Early seasons" you mean the first 5 seasons? It's over half the series. There were only 8 seasons. I don't see how people get that messed up. Blue is a girl, they say it EVERY episode. Retep dnesnwot 04:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retep dnesnwot (talk • contribs)

Blue is female and her friend Magenta is male. The creators intentionally wanted to break gender norm stereotypes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtn2012 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Magenta is female too. A.U (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

Vandalism:

There was blatant vandalism in the Origin section that I have removed. Blarvink 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It is discussed pretty thoroughly in there. I would like to see a little more about that instead of just the format as a quote. I personally have the audiobook (listened to it while I was running and it kept me pretty entertained) so I would have to play around with it a little to get some of the good information. Does anyone think this would be a good idea to at least explore the sources they use instead of the long quote?Cleanelephant (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Cleanelephant (love that user name!), Gladwell's book is used pretty extensively in this article, other than the long quote. See refs 9, 17, 21, 22; it's also listed in the "See also" section. The sources could probably be formatted in a better way, for certain. I agree that Gladwell's analysis of BC is interesting and exceptional, and was a jumping off point for much of this article, which was one of my first GAs. It could probably use some improvement/expansion, but unlike Sesame Street, there's not nearly as many sources as you'd think. It could use some additional research. I currently have access to a university library, so I should do a search there and on google. I stand by the long quote in the "Format" section; it's a good summary of the show's unique format, without venturing into close paraphrasing. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

His name is Donovan Patton, not Domminic. And there was another host. He was in the UK, his name was Kevin. He was African American and wore Steve's outfit. I don't know much other than that. Retep dnesnwot 04:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retep dnesnwot (talk • contribs)

The UK version of the show had an African American host? Why not British? Dementia13 (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

He would have been a British gentleman of African descent, most likely. I remember seeing thiis once on YouTube, but golly gosh, it's been ages. I'll need to find it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The brave celery (talk • contribs) 14:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

POV isn't just about "taking sides" for or against the subject, it also has to do with little statements that don't just present facts, but also provide readers with an interpretation of them. One example that I removed was the "tongue-in-cheek" description given to Burns' explanation of his departure from the show. Phrases like that tell the reader what to think, and thus impose a point of view. That's a rather trivial example, but there's potential to sneak some subtle bias into an article that way. Dementia13 (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the har, perspective, and the copyedit. Of course, when I wrote the above, it was way back in 2008, both before the creation of better sources and before I had access to those sources that present a more comprehensive take on BC. This article has come a long way since; for example, I obviously no longer believe that it doesn't have the potential for FA-hood, especially since its expansion. I also believe that if an FAC reviewer had the same issues, I think we can make a strong case for this article presenting all POVs and that it is comprehensive enough. Removing peacock words is exactly why articles need copyediting and reviewers; for me, who has a vested interest in this article and how the subject is presented, it's important to get some impartial eyes to catch these instances when they're there. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a good article and covers the subject thoroughly, but I think that a FAC reviewer will shoot it down as overly dependent on a single source. You should first submit it for a peer review. That will provide you with the feedback you need to prepare it for FAC submission, and will improve the article even more than it already has been. Dementia13 (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for the ce. I am a little worried about how much this article depends upon the Tracy book, something that others have pointed out. Tracy may also have too positive POV, something another editor has suggested. In spite of these things, however, I think that Tracy provides the subject with comprehensiveness that wouldn't be available without it. There are other good sources as well, so I disagree that it's overly dependent upon it. I'll go ahead and follow your suggestion about the PR, although I haven't found them to be all that helpful. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

The Pink Snail

While watching "Blue's Clues" with my child, I've noticed that each episode has a little pink snail in it somewhere. None of the characters ever address or acknowledge the snail. Is it an unspoken challenge? "Can you find the snail?" What is the significance? Jenstone (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

From what I can find, a pink snail is shown three times per episode, as a sort of fun challenge for viewers. --S-man (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The creator put the snail exactly three times in each episode, to be a challenge for older kids. He even appears three times in all the Blue's Clues book too. Retep dnesnwot 04:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retep dnesnwot (talk • contribs)

British version

Why is there nothing about the British version hosted by Kevin Duala? Foxless (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Because I've never seen any written sources about it. If you find them, and they're reliable, by all means, please add them. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, hello? A little country called Britain?

Can someone please expand upon the British version, at the moment it's all 'American American American, oh and it was broadcast in the UK too.'--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 22:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, if I had seen any reliable sources about the UK version of Blue's Clues, it'd be here. I pretty much exhausted all the reliable sources about the show that are out there, which is why no significant edits have been made to this article in over a year and a half. Of course, if you were to do the research, find good and reliable sources, and edit the article, no one would stop you, or even revert you. --Christine (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Characters

I'm placing this section here because as per discussion with User:Weemer, the creator of the content, it needs references. When research is done to find references that support the content (see WP:REF), it can be replaced. Christine (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Main article: List of Blue's Clues characters

The series generally revolves around Blue, a blue-spotted dog, the host (Steve, played by Steven Burns, from season 1 to season four and Joe, played by Donovan Patton, from season five to six), and talking, moving household items (a mailbox, a side table drawer, a family of spice shakers, a clock, a soap bar, a shovel, and a pail). There are also a few recurring characters: Magenta, Blue's best friend, Periwinkle, Blue's cat neighbor, Cinnamon, the youngest member of the shaker family, and several animals Blue meets at her preschool.

Re-vamp, part 2

Almost four years after this article became a GA, after literally neglecting it for most of that time, I have finally expanded this article so that it's more worthy of passing to FA. That was always my goal, something no one else in this huge project obviously had no interest in, but real life and other interests got in the way. Blue's Clues is still my 12-year old severely developmentally disabled son's favorite thing in the whole world, so it was only a matter of time before I finally got around to it. I've always wanted to bring this article to a similar place as Sesame Street; my involvement in that article and its ancillaries was inspired by my work on this article, so you may notice some similarities in structure and tone. I don't think I could've done this article the justice it deserves without the lessons I learned from the SS articles. I'd like to get this article either copyedited or peer reviewed; I prefer the PR process, but I already have another article pending there. Then I'll submit it to FAC so that articles about two important children's TV shows FAs. If anyone out there would like to assist in any way, please feel free to do so. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

September 1996? I don't think so.

I was in kindergarden in spring of 1996, and we had cable in the classroom. I remember the teacher tuning into Nickelodeon and showing us an episode of Blues Clues. Multiple episodes of Blues Clues were already aired by September of 1996; that date has to be an error. Their's got to be some sort of article that gives the actual date it premeired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmaven555 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not an error. There are several sources that support it: the 10 Years documentary, the Tracy book, and many news and journal articles. I'm sorry, but just because you remember it as a five-year old doesn't mean that it's so. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Changing "was" to "is" as per Wikipedia guidelines

Wikipedia guidelines state the following:"References to the show should be in the present tense since shows—even though no longer airing—still exist, including in the lead (e.g. Title is a...)." thus "was" will be replaced with "is" --Fandelasketchup (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. I believe that it was changed by an IP who was unaware of the the policy, and it slipped through the cracks. Sometimes I get so tired fixing the "vandalism" that occurs on this article! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

History Section needs an ending

The history section tells about the creation of the show, but not why it ended its filming in 2006. It also doesn't mention whether episodes were repeated by Nickelodeon, syndicated, or available for purchase. Ileanadu (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ileanadu: as this article's main editor (I'm responsible for expanding it and bringing it to GA and FA status), I'm inclined to agree. However, I've looked for this information, and it's simply not there. It's Wikipedia policy to not include information that can't be supported with reliable sources, which is why it's not here. I'll look again the next several days, though; if you can find anything, that would be great. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Why did Blue's Clues end?

Without closure the article reads like a PR piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.17.73 (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

So find some referenced info and contribute. This is a volunteer project. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

According to something I read, the ratings weren't very good after Steve left and Joe took over. Whether that's true or not, I don't know, but I would venture that the producers probably chose the end the series to work on Blue's Room. Dpm12 (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Plot section

In the past few weeks, different editors (2 IPs and User:Squiddaddy) have added a Plot section to this article. I've reverted each attempt, with brief explanations in my edit summary. It's become apparent that we need to discuss this issue, as per WP:CAUTIOUS. I'll start the discussion by explaining why I don't think a Plot section is necessary. (1) This is a FA and no reviewer felt that a Plot section was necessary. (2) Squiddaddy's reason, as explained in his edit summary [2], is that this article doesn't state what the show is about. That is incorrect. The "Format" section, especially the quote by Malcolm Gladwell at the beginning, does an excellent job of describing what happens during a typical episode. Plus, it's sourced, which brings me to (3): All the plot descriptions have been unsourced and should be removed, as per WP:V. Based on these points, I support removing a Plot section because as I've stated, it's unnecessary and brings down the high quality of this article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Figureskatingfan, I agree with your argument that the Plot section is redundant to the Format section, and thus is not needed. One way to go might be to move the Format section up, but I think that I like it starting with History since the lede is so beefy. What might sense is slightly expanding the existing summary in the lede, which reads: The show follows an animated blue-spotted dog named Blue as she plays a game with the host and the viewers. Maybe something along the lines of "The show follows an animated dog named Blue as she helps her owner and the viewers solve puzzles by marking clues with her paw prints." Obviously we can improve this if it's not quite right, though I think we can still keep it a single sentence with some clever writing. I would caution that we avoid parentheticals, as these are sloppy. We already know in the lede that there are two hosts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Reboot

Is there really a Blue's Clues reboot coming on June 5 or is it a hoax? --Alec Borden (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hoax. We have one notorious hoaxer who likes to go round a lot of articles about discontinued children's programmes claiming that a reboot or new series is due within a year or so. Normally this nonsense gets reverted quickly but this has slipped through. I'll nuke it as soon as I have posted this reply.

If you ever see something implausible like that added without a reference by an IP or a new user then it is best to revert it on the spot. If it is real then whoever added it (or anybody else) can add it back with a reference. Normally it isn't real. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Somebody else got there before me but the important thing is that it's gone now. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate page

There seems to be a duplicate of this page, that somehow links to this talk page and with a coment in the lead section along the lines of: "Nothing around here for Blue" I'm not an admin so I can't delete it and I'm relatively new at membership here (been reading for a long while) so I don't know how to AfD. I'm fairly certain that something on this page links to that duplicate. I can try to clarify if you need it. Thanks! The brave celery (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't find it. Maybe it was already deleted? If not, please can you paste a link to it. It sounds like a simple speedy deletion case so it shouldn't be too hard to get rid of it. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I can'r find it now either. Yeah, it must have been deleted. I do however clearly remembering it existing. I don't remember exactly how I got there at the time. Thanks for your interest. The brave celery (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Nick on CBS

Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that the show aired on Nick on CBS from 2000 to 2006? Dpm12 (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2018

I can't edit on the Main Blue's Clues Page. I will have to use Semi-Protected edit now. 32.210.213.35 (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Correct, that's what semi-protection means. If you would like to edit the article, you'll need to register an account. You will have access to edit it four days after account registration if you've made at least 10 constructive edits to other pages first. In the meantime, if you'd like to request an edit to this article, make a specific request using the form "Change X to Y". ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

On whether the new "reboot" should be covered here, or be "spun out" as a new article

For the record, there is currently a draft on the new "reboot" of Blue's Clues at Draft:Blue's Clues (2018 TV series). As there is still time, a discussion should probably commence here, now, on whether the new version should be covered here, or in a separate article such as this draft.

In favor of covering the new reboot in a separate article are the fact that there will be a new host, and the animation style will be different.

If production and filming does indeed commence in August 2018 as indicated at the draft article, then the new version will be "ripe" for its own article under WP:TVSHOW, so a decision on how to handle the reboot needs to be made by then. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

As the main editor of this article and other BC articles, I think that the reboot should remain here. I looked at articles about Roseanne and Will & Grace, and the idea of a separate article wasn't even discussed on their talk pages. This reboot is on the same network, shares some of the same producers, has some of the same characters, has the same philosophy and production values, has the same format. I vote that this reboot remain here, as is standard in other reboots. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

On an unrelated score, I'd advise transcluding the series overview table over to this article from List of Blue's Clues episodes (as is general practice at most TV series articles), especially if the intention is to cover the "new" version over at the LoE article as well... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I've always thought that children TV shows are in a different category than ones created for adults. Most of the time, there are no continuing plotlines, they're not strong on character development (in many cases, how characters are portrayed aren't consistent), and sources are weak. For BC, one season is much like others, except for the recast and Burns' hairline. For those reasons, I don't think an Episodes section with a list of seasons is necessary. I'm fine with adding a see also template to a section, perhaps to "Production". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Guys, at things develop, I'm rethinking my position about the above discussion. The reason is that the reboot has a different title, "Blue's Clues & You". There is precedence: The Conners, which has the same cast and crew except for one person. It seems that the folks involved with the new show considers it a different series. My suggestion, then, for this show, is that we wait to pass judgment if "BC & You" is a continuation of the old show or if it has the feel of a new one. Will it be a spin-off? That's unclear at this time, so I think we should wait until we have more information. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Especially being that the reboot even has a different name. I would consider it as a different show entirely. Dpm12 (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Longest-running reference

The page currently says, in one of the top paragraphs, that Blue's Clues was the longest-running NickJr series until it was surpassed by Dora the Explorer. That isn't mentioned in any of the listed sources and looks to be the result of someone just doing the math of which one ran longer. I really don't think it's noteworthy especially for the top of the page. Thoughts?--2600:1000:B051:1A44:150F:4F3E:16B5:8B86 (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. How did we miss that? Thanks for bringing it up here. Man, this article is so hard to manage, especially lately with the re-boot. I'll let you go ahead and make the change. Ya know, you could have just done it, explained what you had done in the edit summary, without bothering to ask here. Be WP:BOLD! ;) Also, you should register for a username; it'll make your life so much easier. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Character/cast section

A character/cast section is a key component of any TV show article (MOS:TV), and this one is no exception. I see that users have tried to add one over the years before me, dating back to 2011. Is there a reason (beyond wanting to retain the FA status, which shouldn't interfere with necessary info like this) that a character section is continually removed from this article? The information about the characters should be included somehow... I'm open to a different format than the current list (paragraph/prose) but removing it altogether whenever it's added isn't constructive. Which of the sources in the current section need updating or changing? Lagoona Blue (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I've always thought that children's television is a different animal than other genres. And Lagoona, your character list was full of unreliable sources; for example, ref 52, which is a badly filmed YouTube clip. It's that kind of thing that brings this article's quality down. The reviewers during this article's three FA nominations only brought up character lists once [3], and when I explained why I didn't think a character list was necessary--that there weren't enough real reliable sources about character names and their voice actors, other than Steve, Joe, and Blue--no one pushed back. There were so many characters in this show that it's impossible to list them all. List of Blue's Clues characters is a more appropriate place for what you want to do. I'd support linking the list somewhere in this article, perhaps in a "See also" section. For these reasons, I oppose a character list. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree about there being too few reliable sources about voice actors, which is why I didn't include most of them. A character list isn't supposed to list all of the characters who ever appeared in detail; only a sentence or two about the noteworthy ones, which is what the current section does. Children's television shows are no exception to what MOS:TV says about a character/cast section (just take a look at any of the articles in the Nick Jr. shows category). I reformatted and mostly rewrote the List of Blue's Clues characters article a while ago, so I'm familiar with it. Most TV shows with separate character articles still include a concise list of the main/supporting cast on the main page. Lagoona Blue (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the category is now Category:Nick Jr. original programming. – Fayenatic London 10:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Featured article in need of review

This show was a big part of my toddlerhood, and I like seeing that a pre-school show getting promoted to featured article status, given that those usually don't get the same type of pop culture coverage as much bigger shows targeted at older audiences. However, I'm noticing multiple issues that's making me consider nominating this for featured article review.

• There are major organizational issues
  • Overly-long paragraphs that could be split and/or made into its own subsection. That entire paragraph about the greenscreening and animation could be its own subsection and split into multiple paragraphs
  • History goes into a long history of its conception, into a brief summary about its release and 2019 reboot (some parts of which are detailed in other sections) back into the original series' conception with its casting. There's no timing flow to this.
  • "Blue's Clues premiered in the U.S. on September 8, 1996.[24] It was a smash hit, largely due to the producers' extensive research,[25] and became crucial to Nickelodeon's growth.[26] Within 18 months of its premiere, Blue's Clues was as well-known as more established children's shows such as the 30-year-old Sesame Street.[27] By 1998, it became the highest-rated show for preschoolers on commercial television.[28], and was watched by around 14.6 million viewers weekly, making it the #1 highest-rated children's show, surpassing even PBS' top 3, which were Arthur, Barney & Friends, and Sesame Street.[29]" In addition to ending with an overly-long section, shouldn't all this be in Reception?
  • The first two paragraphs of History should be a background section, and the stuff after that should be a "Conception" section. Easy stuff that isn't being incorporated into an article noted with the golden star as being the best on Wikipedia.
  • Second paragraph of Educational Goals doesn't seem to be about the "Goals" of the show but rather research methods.
  • I don't see why the info in note 2 needs to be a note and not in prose.
  • "Cultural influence and impact" is difficult to navigate due to its overly-long paragraphs, and a big chunk of this section isn't even about the influence on culture. In fact, I don't think most of it is. What culture? All I see is an indiscriminate summary of a few studies on the show's affect on children's brain patterns. I think these studies are essential to discuss, but far more concisely and tidily than a quote-farm-ism study list.
• I have no clue what ref 29 is, and it's a Bare URL.
• The citation formatting is inconsistent, going all over the place from Harvard cites to full-on footnote sources (even for print sources like ref 25 and ref 10). Some work and publisher names are linked, others not at all. Ref 82's work is incorrectly not italicized and not presenting its actual work name, and date formatting goes from numbered to European to American to European.
• Certain citations are also incomplete, such as Ref 51 and Ref 52. Check for others. Speaking of which, why are we citing an iTunes listing?
• Half of the Main characters section do not have voice actors credited, neither do most of the Recurring characters. You do not need citations for these, as they'll already be credited in the credits section of episodes of the series.
• There are statements repeated in disparate sections
  • "Educational goals": "the Blue's Clues research team field tested every episode three times with children aged between two to six in preschool environments such as Head Start programs, public schools, and private day care centers." Production: " Script drafts, once developed and approved by the show's creators and research team, were tested at public and private schools, day care centers, preschools, and Head Start programs by three researchers, who would narrate the story in the form of a storybook and take notes about the children's responses."
• "this was done was in the use of pauses" Grammar mistake.
• "Ratings for Blue's Clues were high during its first season, and it was Nickelodeon's most popular preschool program.[76]" Only one review is cited. That's not enough to indicate even half of its reception, and the article about the VHS cites other reviews.
  • Excuse me, wrong quote. This is the correct one. " The show's first direct-to-video production was Blue's Big Musical Movie (2000), featuring Ray Charles and The Persuasions; it received mostly positive reviews[101]" 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Certain parts are too dependent on quotes that could be paraphrased. For example
  • "By 1990, parents, teachers, and media experts had been criticizing "the lack of quality fare for children on commercial television" for many years.[4]"
  • The entirety of the Format section.
  • "Twenty years worth of research had showed that television, a "cultural artifact" accessible to most American children, could be a "powerful educational agent."[67]"
  • "They used content and production characteristics such as pacing which gave children time to respond,[58] as well as "camera techniques, children's voices, musical cues, sound effects, clear transitions, repeatable dialogue, and visuals."[57]"
• On a more positive light, there are plenty of well-written and interesting parts of this article, but certain parts just aren't at their greatest. In addition to the dependence of quotes I mentioned above, this are other examples:
  • "Each episode was in development, from idea development to final production, for approximately one year." Repetitive, and how is "final production" part of a "development" process?
  • "Ratings for Blue's Clues were high during its first season, and it was Nickelodeon's most popular preschool program.[76]" It was their most popular program for the first season or of all-time, and if we're talking about the reception of the entire franchise, why are we starting with first season ratings?
• Blue's Clues & You has garnered much coverage for its representation of minority, particularly its Filipino host and an episode celebrating LGBTQ rights. I know this article isn't mainly about the reboot, but minority representation in a television industry that is predominantly white seems pretty significant to discuss for a least a couple of sentences.

Figureskatingfan has done a great job on expanding this article, and it may just be that the article in later years has been heavily edited by good-faith but less-experienced editors that have less consciousness on MOS formatting guidelines and prose quality, but I don't think this article is FA quality and improvements need to be made to get it there. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs further improvement. Things are way busy for me IRL, but I will put it on my to-do list when things slow down in May and over the summer. User:HumanxAnthro, you're right about the less-experienced editors coming here and bringing down the quality of this article over the years. The vandalism is also difficult to manage, so I'm certain that there are sections that have suffered from that as well. This is one of those special articles, IMO, that really should be permanently protected because of the amount of regular and consistent vandalism that it endures. To be honest, I haven't been diligent, especially in the last few years, ensuring that this article remain high-quality. I did most of the initial improvement, back when it was a FA, and back when I myself was a less-experienced editor and writer. All that to say if you wanna go ahead and work on updating and improving it, please go ahead. I just won't be able to help much for several weeks. I'm glad to hear that this show has meant enough to you that you're willing to help improving its article. I have severely developmentally disabled children, and BC has always been a big part of our family life. We just watched the old version this morning before school! And I always say that BC is my son's favorite thing in the universe. (His 21st birthday is tomorrow--argh! He's also OG BC and refuses to watch the new show.) ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Characters and Episodes sections

I'm working on improving this article, as per the above section on this talk page, to bring the quality back up to FA. I'm also creating a new section here to resume the conversation/discussion about the Characters and Episodes section. I was the one who initially improved this article and the one who brought it up FAC way back in 2014. I've consistently gone on the record my position about these sections, and continue to be of the same opinion. This article doesn't need these sections. It's impossible for them to be correctly or reliably cited. Most of the main characters and crew are already discussed in other parts of the article. These sections bring nothing significant or new to the content. These sections are easily vandalized and many additions can't be verified. And finally, as I've said before, I don't think articles about children's educational TV programs, especially older ones like Blue's Clues, require these sections because not all its episodes are available any more. For the Episodes section, I think that a link to List of Blue's Clues episodes is sufficient.

That being said, I can be talked into the inclusion of these sections, if those who support their inclusions provide good reasons for doing so. So please do that here. There needs to be an agreement so that other editors don't either include or remove them. I'll also go on the record saying that the reasons for including them need to be better than something like "Other articles about kids TV include them." That may be true, but do other high-quality articles (GAs and FAs) include them? As I also state above, this article is notoriously and regularly vandalized, which is one of the reasons that its quality has gone down so significantly in the past few years. As its main editor, I was more diligent about correcting vandalism for many years, but eventually I gave up because the vandals are relentless and I had neither the time or energy to combat it. So I will go on the record again: I want this discussion and decision so that editors know the community's position, even if these sections get added.

Thank you all for your time and consideration in this manner. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, no response, so I'm going to go ahead and remove these sections. This is my game plan: I will revert when other editors put them back, but I refuse to engage in any edit wars because I don't consider it a good use of my time. If this vandalism is persistent (as I expect), I'll continue to go on the record regarding my opposition to these sections, but won't bother to take the steps to stop it. If others want to take on combatting it, knock yerselfs out. As my dear departed mother used to say, "Choose your battles." She also would say, "Chris, you always make things harder than they need to be," so I'm trying to take her advice on both counts. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Go for it! What you say makes sense. (I have nothing invested in the article or topic, but I love to see a well stated and supported plan.) SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit Conflict 22/07/2022

It seems to be that 98.235.155.81 seems to be having an edit conflict with themselves or someone on the same IP address. Regardless of that, I have reverted the edits made by this IP address and strongly encourage whoever is in the conflict to attempt to resolve it on this talk page. Lakwat (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)