Talk:Bluey (2018 TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured articleBluey (2018 TV series) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 3, 2022.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 23, 2020Good article nomineeListed
November 27, 2020Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Bluey is not for preschool[edit]

i have 9 years old and i watching bluey (is the Best serial for the all Ages) 2A02:2F0E:C502:E600:D917:D09A:4F5C:BE39 (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that word leapt out at me too when I first saw it. The appeal of the show is much broader than just preschoolers, right up to and including adults. I don't know if there are sources around that address that realty. HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not sure the original post here is starting an in depth conversation, the "preschool" genre is included because it is reliably sourced. The primary audience of the program is for preschoolers, as it was commissioned for an exclusively preschool network. The show appeals to a broader audience, but anything other than its primary audience must be reliably referenced. SatDis (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ABC Kids (Australia) states that the channel is, "for children 7 years old and younger," not simply or only - and certainly not "exclusively preschool." Bingo is four and in Kindy, but Bluey is six, at school, and obviously the primary focus. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This source explicitly states that the program is a preschool series [1] Obviously, the appeal is much wider... but genre must be reliably sourced. Also, this official source [2] states ABC for Kids caters up to 6 years old and describes that as an "upper preschool audience". SatDis (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does this even mean? —theMainLogan (tc) 17:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose amending pre-school to 5-7 years old as that is what age range ABC the producers state the show is aimed at. If you watch it, it aimed at slightly older children than actual pre-school programmes like Peppa Pig and Hey Duggee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.108 (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The best reference I can find is this [3] which states ABC for Kids caters up to 6 years old and describes that as an "upper preschool audience". But still, that falls under "pre-school" as a genre. This source [4] explicitly states it is a "preschool" series. Unfortunately there is no genre of television called "5–7 years old". SatDis (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So don't label it with a genre. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

If you strongly disagree, then I imagine you would have no issue in explaining why. @QuicoleJR Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxxhiato: I believe that the removed information provides important context, and it is well-sourced. I do not agree with labeling it as trivia. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In case someone sees the deletions as arbitrary or wishes a similar explanation from me...
"The stories featured in Bluey depict Bluey and Bingo engaging in imaginative play. Brumm wanted to show that self-directed and unstructured play is natural in shaping children and allowing them to develop."
"Brumm drew inspiration for scripts from his own experiences in watching his daughters play..."
"Brumm noticed how his children would recreate interactions such as visits to the doctor, through roleplay..."
"Brumm discovered the importance of play-based learning after his daughter struggled with formal education, which led him to exclude elements of literacy and numeracy in Bluey and focus on the depiction of life skills."
"His creative aims were to make children laugh, and show parents what children can learn while engaged in play."
This is all very redundant. I would heavily suggest cutting out the repetition and keeping it as concise as possible. Something such as "Brumm drew inspiration for scripts from his own experiences in watching his daughters play." Simple.
Additionally, the mention of "life skills", so bluntly, isn't in the 'Perth Now' article. It appears to be his conclusion regarding his own experience. Finally, the bit about his creative aims being to make children laugh and so on, well, that is kind of trivia. That would be like an action movie maker saying "my creative aim was to make something action packed". I would certainly hope so. I think these inclusions just repeat information way too much. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is also not even mentioning the quote box in the section that also repeats this information. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Upon giving it more thought, those exclusions are acceptable. However, I would still like to retain the paragraph about Brumm's dogs. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxxhiato: You raise some interesting points, but you have removed an entire paragraph. For example, why has the information about formal education been removed? It provides an essential viewpoint into why play-based learning is a central focus of this program. Another example: "making children laugh" is not the same as "making something action packed" for an action movie - children's television is not always about making children laugh. Furthermore, Bluey became a Featured Article in November 2020 which means all prose on this page has been heavily researched and worked on for years. I have reverted the removal for now, but I look forward to discussing every single line of prose that has been removed, and how we can improve it together rather than just delete it immediately. SatDis (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At its core, this information is about how the creator observed his children playing, and through his show, advocates for play-based learning rather than showing traditional literacy and numeracy. It is vitally important information for anyone wishing to gain a deep understanding of the show's purpose. SatDis (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not need to be repeated ad nauseam. The best way to improve it is by removing it. Achieving "featured" status does not mean that an article becomes exempt from change or any perceivable improvements. But very well. I see I'm in the losing camp here so I'll take my leave and improve other articles. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 15:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2023[edit]

Masierra1 (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC) Change: Bluey (fictional character)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2023[edit]

On the preview page of the Bluey TV series page, it calls the show annoying. This is a very blatant opinion and doesn't help the idea that wikipedia is used to give unbiased information. I'd recommend changing that description to "popular" as it is correct and unbiased. This will be the only wikipedia edit I will ever suggest. Anonymoususer2277 (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done looks like the page was vandalized by a now blocked user and has been reverted to its prior state and the word "annoying" no longer appears in the article. By "preview page" I assume you are referring to the little blurb that comes up on a Google search - I believe that should correct after you delete cookies? Not sure, but it will eventually correct - we can't change that directly as Google manages that Cannolis (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NEW episodes possibly coming in 2024[edit]

According to this source[1], 2024 will come with new episodes of Bluey through Disney Plus. However, it should be noted this has not been directly verified. 216.164.254.3 (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Long piece on Bluey in the Financial Times today[edit]

Paywall link, though I have the physical newspaper version and it looks like a really good source for additional material to the article, e.g. "the success of the cartoon has created a problem within the breeding industry [for Blue Heeler dogs], with unscrupulous sellers taking advantage of unsuitable owners desperate to buy their kids a Bluey" https://www.ft.com/content/0a3c9806-8b0f-4cca-a4e5-e1e6dd6d395b JAYFAX (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fault in ages[edit]

As of the current airing, 2024, Bluey is seven, no longer six. Socks has also learned to walk on two legs and speech. Seemslegitz (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to see in the Characters section that both Bluey and Bingo's age change is mentioned with an episode reference. SatDis (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 February 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. This discussion was originally closed as "not moved" on 00:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC), but I've changed it to no consensus per a discussion on my talk page. (closed by non-admin page mover)Hilst [talk] 19:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


– Likely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If the page was moved, redirect Bluey (TV series) and Bluey (Australian TV series) to the 2018 TV series. If not, move the 2018 TV series to Bluey (TV series), and redirect Bluey (Australian TV series) here. 176.33.244.31 (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Bluey. Easily the primary topic by pageviews (80–85%) (Bluey (dog) needs to be moved too but that's another discussion; note that its average pageviews have doubled since Bluey debuted). As for long-term significance, the show dominates results on Google Search, Images, News, Books (ok those hits aren't independent), and most convincingly it already claims the first six Scholar results for bluey. There will be negligible impact on user navigation from Bluey (nickname), which already gets a measly nine views/day. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No primary topic. If there was one it would be Bluey (nickname), which easily has more long-term notability than the TV series. See previous RMs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose the real dog among other uses seems to have enough long-term significance to suggest no clear primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I'm Australian, and I think the TV series is brilliant. I know it's also very popular in other parts of the world. But the problem I see is a form of WP:RECENTISM. It's not time yet to claim that current position of the TV series is going to be a long term one. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Evidence for the long-term significance of other topics would be welcome (WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY); I didn't see any cited in previous RMs either. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the long-term significance of the nickname, which has been common for many, many years, is obvious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • "It's obvious" is unconvincing, and historical age is not determinative (WP:DPT). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Heavily agree that this feels like WP:RECENTISM and that, given the nickname, there isn't a primary topic. Moreover, given this has already been discussed three times in less than two years, this feels like relitigating until you get the result you want. Incidentally, I'm surprised an IP editor can even start a requested move discussion. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The redirect Bingo (dog) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 4 § Bingo (dog) until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Chilli (dog) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 4 § Chilli (dog) until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing the characters[edit]

I didn't think it would be controversial, but my edit categorizing the characters has been reverted twice, most recently by SatDis. Currently, they don't seem to be organized in any logical way. I propose three categories for recurring characters: extended Heeler/Cattle family, friends and classmates of Bluey and Bingo, and other adults not related to the Heelers (teachers, other kids' parents, etc.). Indeed, this is how it's done on the official website as well. Since the show doesn't use traditional credits for most of the cast, this may be the closest thing to a primary source. Specialsam110 (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Specialsam110: for the discussion. I don't completely oppose your edit, but I was just wondering if there's another example of a Featured Article that categorises characters? MOS:TVCAST states that "recurring and guest stars will not necessarily be credited in the same order in each episode, so their place in the list should be based on the order of credits from the first episode in which they appear." I will admit this is not currently accurate, but something to work on. SatDis (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at other featured articles, it seems many of them have separate character pages, while the main page lists the characters in prose (usually describing their function within the show rather than how often they appear). Sesame Street has them spun out into a list of Muppets and a list of humans, Animaniacs breaks it down by segment on both the main page and the character page, and Hannah Montana's character list breaks it down by their role within the series, like I tried to do here.
An issue unique to Bluey is that there is no primary source for credit order since the child characters aren't listed there. I had a similar issue when I was making the page for Soap characters; in that show, every character, regardless of whether they're a lead, a recurring character, or a one-time guest, is listed alphabetically in the episode's credits. I decided that the actors who appear in the opening portrait were "main" characters (listed alphabetically), and that "recurring" characters were those who had made six or more appearances (listed in order of appearances). All other characters (some of whom were very important) were only mentioned on the character page. Scientific, maybe not, but compared to the mess that the characters page had grown into over who knows how many years, it looks pretty good.
Bluey doesn't have near as many characters as Soap, but they are still poorly organized. As it stands the characters are not listed in any obvious order; it isn't alphabetical, not the order they first appeared; a cursory glance at the episodes list shows that Lucky, Coco and Snickers all debuted before Muffin and Socks while Stripe and Trixie debuted in the same episode as Muffin and Socks but are listed after all the kids, including characters like Lila and Jack who debuted in series 2. Clearly, there's already a degree of categorization going on, there's just no labels, and within the unlabeled categories, little organization.
Perhaps the number of characters calls for a spun-off page, with the main page just having a prose section describing the Heeler family and the general scope of the other characters. Considering the page on Bandit is as long as all the other character descriptions combined, there's obviously the content to expand the other characters' descriptions. Specialsam110 (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Specialsam110: There is a separate page currently: List of Bluey (2018 TV series) characters. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes this whole discussion academic. The real question is why isn't the characters page linked on the main page? In that case, I think that the character section on the main page should be changed to prose. Specialsam110 (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a hatnote. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]