Jump to content

Talk:Paw Patrol/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Characters listing

Why did you get rid of that? That info wasn't hacked it was from the actual site. Please revert it. Thanks64.121.83.151 (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That I also wonder. In articles about films or TV sitcoms, it is necessary to add some info about the characters. Whoever removed it must give a good explanation for doing so. 172.56.17.129 (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Character bios are essential to these kind of articles. 208.54.4.169 (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
So true. What's the point of excluding such piece of information? 98.119.155.81 (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It is not essential, it is not even close. The list here was, as far as I can tell, an exhaustive list of every single character in the series, regardless of noteworthiness. That is never appropriate for the main article, let alone an article that is pretty devoid of anything else. An exhaustive list of the characters may justify its own article, but it should not be in this article, and NO other main article will include an exhaustive list unless there are only ever 4 or 5 characters and nothing else, or it doesn't comply with standards. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Three of the 4 IPs that commented above geolocate to the same geographical area, and could conceivably be one person attempting to appear to be several people. Diannaa (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Well can we at least put the cast? I mean just the characters and the actors? 76.94.79.84 (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:TVCAST is what's relevant here. I believe the list recently fails the notability part; This is a kid's show, the characters are hardly all going to be as noteworthy as, say, Arnold playing the Terminator. Furthermore, none of the voice actors are known personalities. I believe WP:LISTCRUFT applies here. Eik Corell (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It probably doesn't matter wether the actors are celebrities or just up-and-comers. If they receive screen credit, then they're worth adding. 172.56.30.37 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 24 February 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. — Music1201 talk 03:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


– I boldly moved this page yesterday, but it was questioned on my talk page by Squiddaddy so I reverted and bringing it here. In my view, calling it "PAW Patrol" is simply a style issue, making this a MOS:TM issue, and it's a styling not even universally used by Nick Jr. themselves [1]. Reliable sources are split on this. Given that "Paw Patrol" is certainly not an unusual usage though, in newspapers and books: [2][3][4][5], I would argue that we should use default Wikipedia title case here, not a stylism that isn't overwhelmingly the common rendition. Finally, Squiddaddy mentioned on my talk page that PAW was originally intended to be an acronym, for example for "Pups at Work", because they registered that as a trademark. That may be the case, but it doesn't seem to have persisted. The show is not marketed or referred to with any such acronyms now.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose: "PAW" is still used as an acronym and not a stylization; only the "P.A.W. Patrol" trademarked variant has been put out of usage, due to the final logo not using the periods (another logo, however, did use them as seen in this production image]). The "Pups At Work" tagline (what the PAW acronym stands for) is present on some recent merchandise as well. Acronyms are simply not to be spelled lowercase, as this would be incorrect. Nick Jr.'s official site uses the uppercase lettering, and while you reasoned that one game page on the NickJr.co.uk site did not properly capitalize the acronym, this was most likely a mistake as the main show page on the same site does use the uppercase "PAW". To follow MOS:ACRO the page title should be left as is, and we should probably consider specifying what "PAW" stands for on the article as well. Squiddaddy (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As one of the major fans of the show and the primary authority figure of the official Wikia website for it, I can nearly assure that the "PAW" in PAW Patrol is indeed fully capitalized. I know it's been mentioned before, but copyrights were filed by Spin Master in 2012 (a year before the show began) that were called Protect and Wag & Pups at Work. Yes, they aren't officially used in the show or any merchandise, but this shows that the creators likely wanted to have some sort of meaning behind the "PAW" in mind. Some official game applications such as this and this also capitalize "PAW". Another reason its most likely "PAW Patrol" is because the "PAW" lettering is much larger than the "Patrol" section of the official logo. All letters are capitalized in the official logo but some entities use smaller capital letters in place of uncapitalized letters. I am also currently asking a director for the show for his word on it.

Statefairshows (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose: As said above, the acronym is still used, it's also still used in the main modern logo.

ChrisD36 (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose: There aren't any sources that suggest "PAW" is no longer an acronym. The third-party sources listed that do not capitalize "PAW" seem to be simple mistakes, especially since other articles on the same sites (such as this other article from The Guardian) use the capitalized "PAW." Overall, it does not seem correct to assume the few sites that mistakenly keep "PAW" uncapitalized are proof of the acronym being a stylization. Pablor2010 (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
    @Pablor2010: that's fine, there aren't any sources that say it's not an acronym, but are there any sources published since the 2013 launch of the show that *do* say it's an acronym, or indeed spell it out? I'm not being difficult here, and I am ready to be convinced on this, but my feeling is that the "Pups at Work" (or indeed "Protect and Wag") thing was just a preliminary idea that the creators decided to register to make sure it didn't get stolen, but it was not used in the final production, just as the periods in the logo didn't get used, and they basically dropped that idea. If there's no official or third party source that still mentions the acronym, I would assume it's not in use any more, and that the "PAW" simply means paw and nothing else. If, on the other hand, there are modern sources telling us it's still an acronym, then I'll be perfectly happy. Squiddaddy, Statefairshows, and ChrisD36 I'd be happy to hear your views on this as well. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
(Sorry to add my views on this before Pablor2010 does) Assuming the acronym has been put out of use is drawing a conclusion definitely not stated by any official source. This kind of analysis seems to go against WP:NOR, especially since the only supporting sources that exist are the acronym trademarks. I haven't been able to find a post-2013 page that explicitly states "the title was originally an acronym, but this was changed despite most sources still using uppercase letters for 'PAW,'" and I doubt there will ever be such a source. We have to go by what the references give us. Again, this means it would be best to leave the page at its current title. Squiddaddy (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Fortunately, I have found that every storyboard produced for the show lists "P.A.W. Patrol" as the series' name, proof that the acronym is still very much in use. This gallery is the best collection I've been able to find, but a simple search for "paw patrol storyboard" should come up with other episodes' storyboards, all of which use the period variant of the title. These sources are from 2013-present, so now we have references from both before and after the series' premiere that prove "PAW" is an acronym. Squiddaddy (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Sorry, kids, I have to agree with Amakuru here. So, you say it's an acronym for either "Pups at Work" or "Protect and Wag" – which is it? It can't be both! The obvious meaning of "PAW" in this context is dogs' feet. Looking up WP:primary sources, and drawing your own conclusions from them, is exactly what WP:NOR is all about. It is easy to misuse primary sources. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Find us some secondary sources, such as the Guardian or New York Times, that spell it out and say what this "acronym" means (hint: when they use lower case, they don't think it's an acronym). Compare Cops (TV series) with COPS (animated TV series). Neither term "Pups at Work" or "Protect and Wag" even exists in the current version of the article. MOS:ACRO says that "some are written as common nouns (e.g. laser)", and certainly paw is a common noun. You are of course free to maintain this styling over at Wikia, which I assume operates by somewhat different guidelines. I'm somewhat open to making an exception to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks for children's television programs, as I sometimes see this guideline overlooked for some pop-culture topics such as song titles and artist's names, but you would help your case if you can decide what this "acronym" actually stands for, sourcing it to a reliable secondary source, and get that into the lead sentence, as you see with COPS (animated TV series). – wbm1058 (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
"Pups at Work" has a more-recent filing date, and it is present on some merchandise, but as of now the show has not specified which tagline the acronym stands for. However, your comment seems to be quite a misunderstanding. We didn't "say" it was an acronym. The trademarks, which are reliable sources, did; they clearly show that the name (which is trademarked as both "P.A.W. Patrol" and "PAW Patrol") stands for one of the taglines. There isn't another way to interpret these sources. No opposer was drawing conclusions from the acronym-supporting sources; the requester of the move, however, drew conclusions that went against WP:NOR. Squiddaddy (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
If the show has not specified what "the acronym" (your assumption) stands for, then they really haven't specified that it's an acronym at all. The PUPS AT WORK trademark is for "Entertainment services in the nature of on-going television programs in the field of children's entertainment; entertainment, namely, a continuing animated television show..." The fact that PUPS AT WORK has "PAW" as its acronym may be just a cute coincidence; it's your interpretation of primary source material to connect the trademark for toys, games and dolls, etc. to the name of the TV series. Maybe they just meant "PAW" to mean what most kids would think it meant – an animal's foot. Maybe it's intentionally vague, to convey double – or triple meanings. Like a double entendre. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
You're continuing to misunderstand the statements made above; it is not our "assumption" that the name is an acronym whatsoever. The name has been spelled with periods in between each letter of "PAW" on multiple occasions, such as the 2012 "P.A.W. Patrol" trademark and every storyboard. The main logo lacks these periods, which is likely why some people do not know the name is an acronym (although an alternate logo includes the periods). Squiddaddy (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Interesting primary sources; you neglected to show me this one. Clearly the sources are inconsistent, and one of the risks of primary research is that sources suiting your POV will be cherry-picked. It is impossible to "know" the name is an acronym without knowing what the acronym is. The periods in P.A.W. could be just more stylization, or they could be some legacy of an earlier form for the title of the show which may have been proposed earlier, but not actually used when the show was released.
But again, I'm not a hardliner on capitalization, as I know that exceptions to MOS:TM can be found in pop-culture topics. For example, while the lead of The Man from U.N.C.L.E. clearly explains the acronym, in Get Smart I see that "CONTROL" is not an acronym, but it is always shown in all capital letters as if it were, and like "CONTROL", "KAOS" is not an acronym. There's some discussion of this at Talk:Get Smart#CONTROL and KAOS. We should probably have some sort of rationale for leaving PAW in caps, if conclusive confirmation of the acronym can't be found. I'm even open to citing primary sources to support the rationale, though that's leaning against Wikipedia's general guidelines. I'd rather just leave it as the lower-case dog's foot, since we have found several secondary sources doing just that. wbm1058 (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm still strongly against changing the name to a lowercase "Paw" because of the considerable amount of sources that show it is supposed to be an acronym (or at least spell it in uppercase letters without periods). The sources using the lowercase "Paw" are most likely simple mistakes (not one specifically states that the title is no longer an acronym), and neglecting the many sources that do use the uppercase "PAW"/"P.A.W." would render the article incorrect. Squiddaddy (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
All you guys have shown is your cherry-picked links to primary sources, while ignoring the overwhelming weight of the secondary sources. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
There is an overwhelming amount of secondary sources that do treat it as an acronym, too. None of your listed sources specifically state that the title is not an acronym, and are most likely mistakes. For example,
I do agree, however, that the article should better demonstrate that "PAW" is an acronym. Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we should go about doing this? Squiddaddy (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Finding some references would be a start, Squiddaddy, beyond trade marks registered years ago that are no longer in use today. Like I and Wmb1058 said above, I am not being difficult about this, and I'm perfectly willing to be convinced that this is an acronym. I will amend my proposal to move to Paw Patrol just as soon as you can prove to us that *as of today* it is supposed to be P.A.W. patrol rather than Paw Patrol (the dog's foot). But as yet I've not seen that convincing evidence. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Amakuru: A Yahoo News article from just yesterday consistently spells "PAW" in all capitals here, if you'd like to see the most recent usage of "PAW." However, I still feel that the fact that every episode's storyboard uses "P.A.W. Patrol" is the best evidence that it is still an acronym (see here for examples of these storyboards). There are also other storyboards using the exact same spelling on other sites. Will these more-recent links suffice as evidence? Squiddaddy (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Voice cast

The voice cast section is essential and is worth inclusion in the article. True, the infobox mentions some of the actors who play the main characters but it doesn't mention all of them. Also, the infobox does not specify who plays who in the show. This shows that the cast section gives better detail. 173.55.97.103 (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

This issue has already been addressed (see "Characters listing"). The cast section is not essential whatsoever as the infobox already lists the main cast members. A duplicate list (especially one listing every actor who has ever provided a voice on the show) is not notable for inclusion (WP:LISTCRUFT may apply to this situation). Additionally, almost all of the voices are provided by child actors without WP articles of their own. 108.20.47.212 (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
It should also be noted that most of the minor voice roles listed in the unneeded cast list were unconfirmed and some verifiably false (Eric Bauza was listed, but he has specifically stated that he is uninvolved with the show). Some voices in the list, like Juliana Paul, have never been listed in the end credits, and saying "possibly (name)" as you did in the cameo section qualifies as original research. 108.20.47.212 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
With regards to the listcruft page you added here, I'm a little doubtful that it applies on this case, considering you only said "may apply" instead of "applies". As to the way a lot of those child actors don't have articles, I don't think that matters. In a book encyclopedia I read years ago, there's an article listing world champions in various sports. A lot of those listed champions don't have articles in that book encyclopedia. Anyway, if you look at every article here about a film or TV show, you'll notice almost all of them have a section listing the cast. 173.55.97.103 (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, if I may offer an opinion as an experienced editor who helped to shape WP:TVCAST, rather than a voice cast, including a list of characters might be a better way to incorporate noteworthy characters and their character actors. Since Wikipedia does not wish to replace IMDb, we're under no obligation to include giant lists of voice actors who may or may not have actually participated in the series. Focusing on noteworthy main and recurring characters would help to alleviate the cruft that bare bones voice cast lists tend to attract, and would make it easier to spot false information. I find that for children's television articles, character lists tend to be better choices than voice cast lists, as they are slightly less prone to vandalism. Of course you'll then need to be vigilant so that the character descriptions don't become in-universe cruft magnets, but that's another matter. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Politically-motivated vandalism

Since August, this article's lede section and infobox have been vandalized with claims of the series being "ultraconservative", "right-wing" and other similar terms. I believe this has something to do with the introduction of Chase's spy drone in season two, but these vandals certainly haven't been sourcing criticism of this aspect (which, surprisingly, does exist) and recently began linking to sites like RationalWiki in their edit summaries. This has definitely gotten out of hand and I'm wondering whether or not the vandalism is coming from the same person. 108.20.47.212 (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I've warned them on the talk page of their latest IP. Eik Corell (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

UK/Region 2 DVD releases

Someone please add the release dates and titles for Region 2 DVD's of PAW Patrol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logosncompanies (talk • contribs) 15:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Nickelodeon Productions

I moved this discussion from my talk page as this is a more appropriate place for it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Why did you remove Nickelodeon Productions when it was confirmed that the logo was on it?--Logosncompanies (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Logosncompanies: I looked at the list of production companies on IMDb which is an extract of IMDb pro so pretty reliable. Spin Master Studios, a Canadian company was the only one listed. Article content shows no actual production activities by any non-Canadian company so it looks like the Nickelodeon Productions card is tacked on for Nickelodeon broadcasts in the US. It would be interesting to see if it shows up on Canadian broadcasts. Besides for animation Nickelodeon Animation Studios would be listed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I know, but on SpongeBob on TV, Nickelodeon Productions' logo is used. And anyway, on IMDb, search Rusty Rivets, Spin Master's second most popular show. Look at the companies and you will see not Nickelodeon Animation Studios, but Nickelodeon Productions. And other than 1, they are both made by the same company. So, I think that Nick Prods. produces both of those shows.--Logosncompanies (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Logosncompanies: Having not seen the actual credits I was just going by what IMDb stated. Still it would be interesting to see if Canadian broadcasts have the Nickelodeon Productions card. It is possible, I guess, that Nickelodeon is partially funding this series beyond just licensing it so would get a production credit that way and by the strict reading of the template instructions should be included in the infobox and mentioned in the article. Usually IMDb gets this right, though, so I wonder what is going on. Based on other article content we should still consider this a purely Canadian series as U.S. involvements looks minimal. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Geraldo Perez, I noticed the edits on the page too. I'm from Canada and there is no Nick logo at the end. There is an extra card (not in American broadcasts or the episodes on NickJr.com) that includes TVO's logo and some more info though. I uploaded this card to Imgur for you to see https://m.imgur.com/LrY2HKE. 108.171.130.175 (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that is what I was looking for. It looks like Nick Productions only contribution to the show is adding their logo at the end of the credits when they broadcast it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

They have to have produced it. If they didn't, then their logo would not be there. -- Logosncompanies (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Logosncompanies: It looks like the actual production they did was limited to tacking their logo on to the end of the video to brand the video. They did make a change to the video so I guess that counts as a production credit. Also the clip you added as a reference says produced in association with which sort of limits what production activities they really did do. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

They probably just did small parts of production, which is probably why TVO didn't show the logo. -- Logosncompanies (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Development

This article really goes deep into how the show was created, even down to early production sketches. It's a great resource to flesh out the early part of the Production section.

I also suggest the production section acknowledge the continually departing voice actors. Damnedfan1234 (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Propose WP:Merging List of PAW Patrol characters back to here

I propose merging the contents of List of PAW Patrol characters back to this article (and converting the latter into a redirect). The LoC article is only about 8,000 kB, which is far short of the size that justifies a Split under the infopage WP:SIZESPLIT. Finally, merging the LoC content back to here will not unbalance this article (esp. if the LoC content gets some needed trimming...). If there are no policy based objections, I will carry out the merge of the LoC article back to here in the near-future. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I see the split has been proposed again, by an IP editor, and there is still no good reason for it. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Swearing in Children's WP Articles

Someone keeps trying to add swearing into this article. I first noticed when my youngest daughter asked me what were all the characters from the show. I named a few, but said I don't know the rest, ask your sister to look it up. My oldest daughter came back and told me there was SWEARING in the wikipedia page. SWEARING! I wonder if this same editor is going to add swearing to Sesame Street and Peppa Pig articles as well? In any event, I have removed the swearing sentence and its source. The source was from some random blog anyway, so I don't think it should have been included regardless. Please keep things PG on a article for preschoolers for goodness sake. Peerreviewededitor (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

State-sponsored thuggery

In this edit, an anonymous editor removed a quote about the film being "An apawlling attempt to normalise state-sponsored thuggery". This was restored in good-faith by MPS1992, but I have also removed it. I read the whole review[6] and it seems to me to be an over-the-top tongue-in-cheek "analysis" that uses pretentious argumentation to satirically suggest this kid's film is sinister propaganda to suppress revolt and forward a fascist ideology. I can't imagine this is actually what a reviewer thought about a bunch of puppies who fight weak crimes. It almost reads as a fuck you to the critic's editor for making her watch the film. It doesn't seem like a bona fide (bone-eh-Fido?) review, and since there is likely no other reviewer in the world who shares this sentiment about the film, that quotation lacks sufficient context and stands out as a bizarre and highly dubious opinion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it was very out-of-place. I tried to remove the review back when it was added in May, but the user Cameron Scott restored it because it's from a known source. I think this is the kind of case where just being printed in a newspaper doesn't mean it should automatically be put on the article, since even if this (hopefully joking) review is taken seriously, it's such a fringe opinion. FunhausFrank (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Dubbing in Latin America

An editor has added a long list of characters and the voices that dubbed them in Latin America (as well as an unnecessary "trivia" section). As the article doesn't currently provide that type of information for the English version, I didn't accept the pending edit and suggested the editor discuss it here. So, for editors interested in this subject, please take a look at the edit history and give feedback on whether that content should be added to the article, presuming a reliable source can be provided. (I just saw this as a pending changes reviewer, I won't be watching this article but wanted to get the discussion started.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Also not particularly interested in this article, but the list of dub actors caught my eye since I spend a lot of time looking into international dubs/broadcasts. Usually, only the original voices are listed. It's different if other voices are notable to the show history, but don't think that applies here. TheFallenPower (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2020

I notice that this page is missing a couple of awards in the awards and nominations box. I been searching for awards that were nominated from this years and last years Canadian screen awards and last years daytime Emmys awards. Movieknower59 (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 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. JTP (talk • contribs) 01:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

'Video Services', i.e. 'Streaming' and 'Direct Purchase' Services

[I have moved this discussion from the Talk:List of PAW Patrol episodes to here, because I just added a "Video Services" table to this Paw Patrol 'Wiki page', and therefore it directly affects this page, not the page in which this discussion thread started.]

The last three episodes of season 3 ("Pups Save a Giant Plant/Pups Get Stuck", "Pups Raise the PAW Patroller/Pups Save the Crows", and "Pups Save Floating Friends/Pups Save a Satellite") have been available on Netflix Canada since last Friday, the 23rd. Is there a way I could cite this in the article to make it clear that the episodes were available online before they actually aired? I'm able to find the direct links to the images for each episode on Netflix's servers if that helps. 9gagger Frank (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

We can't source it, since content varies by country, and the English WP is edited by people around the world. However, we can put a note on the airdate. CriticismEdits (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
'Streaming' services have come a long way since 2018. Indeed, some even ridicule those still purchasing DVDs. One could argue that adding such content keeps this 'Wiki page' relevant and contemporary. These days, the 'streaming' service content does not vary that much between countries, where such services are available, or change that regularly. Furthermore, since Wikipedia is updated daily by editors from around the world, any such variance can be accounted for. Some websites keep detailed lists of 'streaming' and 'direct purchase' video services, so such a section is possible. I have created a section of the available 'streaming' and 'direct purchase' 'video services' on the Paw Patrol 'Wiki page'. Please give me some feedback! SMargan (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Later characters

Rex is a Bernese Mountain Dog not bernise Dkitty145 (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Extremely long home-media list

I don't think the long home-media list is at all necessary on this page. Maybe a sentence or two about the show being released to DVD would be better. It's intricate trivia and it references a bunch of shopping websites to buy the DVDs. SBSPfan (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Where is Apollo the super-pup?

In some episodes the pups are watching TV and seeing Apollo the super-pup. He became an important figure in the show and there are even Apollo toys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.56.15 (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Confusing Broadcast History

How is it that there have been two seasons of PAW Patrol running concurrently since the start of season 7 ? Tyrekecorrea (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Question about name

Is "PAW" an acronym for anything in the show, or just in all caps for effect? Trivialist (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Late reply, but as discussed above, "PAW" was (at least initially) an acronym for "Pups at Work", though it's unclear if this is still the case or if this ever made it on the show itself. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 15:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2021

In section Release, change Tele-Quebec link to Télé-Québec 203.128.167.42 (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done   melecie   t 10:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

PAW Patrol home media releases

I know the PAW Patrol got their own show, but this page needs some home media releases. In 2015, the first PAW Patrol was released on DVD, and in 2021, Paramount's new deal with Elevation Sales was starting. I think it's a good idea that the PAW Patrol home media releases will be appearing on this page. 20doyld (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

PAW again

The 2016 move question needs revisiting. It seems to me that, while sources close to the entertainment industry tend to use "PAW Patrol", that is because of their general respect for trademarks; by contrast, general sources tend to use "Paw Patrol", and it is the latter sources that we should give priority to per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TM.

First 100 google hits
Google PAW Patrol Paw Patrol
"PAW Patrol" site:nytimes.com 14 69
"PAW Patrol" site:theguardian.com 16 83
Books "watching PAW Patrol" 10 39

As an aside, official merchandise naturally uses "PAW Patrol", but FWIW the copyright notice on books reads:

© YYYY Spin Master PAW Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved. Paw Patrol and all related titles, logos and characters are trademarks of Spin Master Ltd. Nickelodeon and all related titles and logos are trademarks of Viacom International Inc.

Based on the TV series Paw Patrol™

jnestorius(talk) 12:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Producers

Jennifer Dodge returned to Spinmaster and to Paw Patrol for seasons 5-8. Would recommend that this be edited! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckgowowow (talk • contribs) 16:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2022

I was wondering if someone could add Nickelodeon and Nick Jr. to "original network". 24.186.67.161 (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Colonestarrice (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2022

I think that Nickelodeon & Nick Jr. (United States and International), TVOKids (Canada), and Channel 5 (Milkshake UK) should be added to the Network part of the page. Bluecluesrocks (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Let's see what anybody else "thinks" - FlightTime (open channel) 21:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2022

In the Rubble spinoff series section, it just has “in February 2023” while the intro has the fully identified February 3, 2023 date that the intro section does. Please update it to match. 108.41.81.126 (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lemonaka (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
The reliable sources are already in the article. It's updating the information of one section to match that of a section that does have the updated information--108.41.81.126 (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 Done Lemonaka (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much 108.41.81.126 (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2023

I would like edit this page, please. Bluecluesrocks (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. PianoDan (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2023

I think that The Cat Pack should be in between Rex and Liberty on account of Wild debuting before Liberty. And I also think that It should say Wild (formerly called Wild Cat) instead of Wild Cat (sometimes called Wild). Bluecluesrocks (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I really think that it would be good idea to put the Cat Pack between Rex and Liberty and change Wild (formerly called Wild Cat) into Wild Cat (sometimes called Wild). Bluecluesrocks (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
All I'm saying is: It wouldn't hurt to put the Cat Pack between Rex and Liberty. After all, Wild did debut before Liberty. And I also think it would be a good idea Wild's part of the list was changed to Wild (formerly called Wild Cat) instead of Wild Cat (sometimes called Wild). Bluecluesrocks (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2023

As I said before: I think that the Cat Pack should be in between Rex and Liberty on account of Wild debuting before Liberty. And I also think Wild's character description should say Wild (formerly called Wild Cat) instead of Wild Cat (sometimes called Wild). Bluecluesrocks (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


All I'm saying is that the Cat Pack should go between Rex and Liberty because Wild debuted before Liberty, not after her. Plus his old moto vehicle was given the number "21" while Liberty's vehicle was given the number "22". And also Wild's description should say Wild (formerly called Wild Cat) instead of Wild Cat (sometimes called Wild) because nobody calls him Wild Cat anymore. Bluecluesrocks (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2023

Look, all I'm saying is that I don't want any of the facts to be mixed up, so I'm going to ask this one more time. Can you please put the Cat Pack between Rex and Liberty and change Wild's description from Wild Cat (sometimes called Wild) into Wild (formerly called Wild Cat)? Please?! Bluecluesrocks (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2023 (2)

DereckGalaxyOfficial (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
That's a good point. I wanted to add Nick Jr.(Nickelodeon) to original network too. Bluecluesrocks (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Add Nick Jr.(Nickelodeon) to original network

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Sucks

This show sucks 2600:1700:1992:3250:D133:5DD:51B4:8F71 (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

New PAW Patrol Live Show!

There is a third live show and it's called PAW Patrol Live: Heroes Unite!. The live show follows as Ryder and the pups must rescue Robo-Dog after Mayor Humdinger dognapped him. It premiered on February 3, 2023. 151.226.196.250 (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

Add "App" section for PAW Patrol Academy. PAW Patrol Academy is the official PAW Patrol app for preschool learning launching on September 28, 2023. Created by an award-winning team, who specializes in educational app games, PAW Patrol Academy is the perfect blend of learning and entertainment. It is available for pre-order from Google Play or App Store Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).. Whct06117 (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Might be better to wait for this app to be released and sufficient secondary sources to comment on it before adding here Cannolis (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

second request

purchase items with money -> purchase items with real money

critical reception section 2001:8A0:7778:0:7879:A1C3:FB2A:D5A0 (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

(Ignore the emphasis) 2001:8A0:7778:0:7879:A1C3:FB2A:D5A0 (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 Done Pinchme123 (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2023

Add a new "Mobile App" section. Below is a description.

PAW Patrol Academy is the official PAW Patrol app for preschool learning that launched globally on September 28, 2023. It is available for download on Google Play or the App Store. The official site is https://www.pawpatrolacademy.com. Whct06117 (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please include reliable, independent sources. Edit requests based solely on self-published sources will not be implemented. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. New contributor here. Here is an article about the app. https://www.romper.com/entertainment/paw-patrol-academy-piknik-apps-for-preschoolers. I'm a bit confused because earlier it was rejected because an independent source was quoted too heavily, so I guess I don't understand the right balance.
It was also the number 1 kids app in the App Store and probably around top 10 now. To me, it's an important new feature of the brand. It's been discussed on Spin Master earnings calls. Not sure what the issue is. Whct06117 (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 Not done Per above comment by SamX and Romper does not appear to be a reliable source. That article seems to be mostly for promoting the app. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 01:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. Additional articles have been written about the app. See below. https://kidscreen.com/2023/09/20/an-oral-history-of-paw-patrol/ and https://kidscreen.com/2023/11/03/spin-master-had-a-13-8-revenue-bump-in-q3/
Would those work to verify it's existence and inclusion? This app is literally one of the top 5 most downloaded apps for kids under 5 in the App Store - https://appfigures.com/top-apps/ios-app-store/united-states/iphone/kids/5-and-under - so it feels odd that it be left out of the Wikipedia article mentioning the brand.
I wish this wasn't my first contribution, so I understood more about reliable sources. At least it seems like Kidscreen has been used in the past as a Wikipedia source, so it should work. Thanks for your help. Whct06117 (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 Done. I've added a subsection for the PAW Patrol Academy app. Since PAW Patrol has other apps, they may become notable in the future. Signed, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2023

Add mentions of PAW Patrol Live. Kirbybenign102 (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

 Already done – please see PAW Patrol § Live events. Tollens (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2024

Change "An mobile game named PAW Patrol Academy was officially made and released in late 2023." to "A mobile game named PAW Patrol Academy was officially made and released in late 2023." This is a grammar change.

Change "franchaise's" to "franchise's." This is another grammar change.

Add "PAW Patrol Academy has been awarded Google Play's Best of 2023 App for Families. The app has also been nominated for Kidscreen's Best Learning App - Branded" Award.

Source: https://blog.google/products/google-play/google-play-best-apps-games-2023/ Source: https://awards.kidscreen.com/Nominees Whct06117 (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Not a WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magical Golden Whip (talk • contribs) 19:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Reliable sources shouldn't apply to typos fixes, so I don't know how to comment.
For the additional information, I thought citing the actual organizations giving out the awards would be reliable, especially Google. If you need more sources, here are two more sources: https://venturebeat.com/games/google-names-honkai-star-rail-monopoly-go-and-others-in-2023-awards/ or https://www.techradar.com/computing/software/these-are-the-10-best-android-apps-of-the-year-according-to-google.
Altenatively, here's an article about the nomination - https://kidscreen.com/2023/12/04/disney-dominates-the-2024-kidscreen-awards-nominations/ or https://www.awn.com/news/15th-annual-kidscreen-awards-shortlist-announced — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whct06117 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
All edits made: Thank you!
— Urro[user][talk][edits] 18:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2024

Change Emily to Alex. WATT TV (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 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. Jamedeus (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Cries to... Ryder! 103.3.81.16 (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Split and move proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Franchise information was split to PAW Patrol (franchise). There is no consensus to move the TV series off the base title. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm proposing a split as the article list more than just the series information. I'm also proposing a move for the current article to PAW Patrol (TV series) as the franchise article would become WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. So it would end up looking like this:

kpgamingz (rant me) 15:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose. It's not a good idea for such a high-visibility and long-term stable page like this to be split based on such a low-attended discussion. The article is fine covering the TV series and associated franchise in one page, it's not like it's overlong and really the TV series is by far the most notable aspect of this. I have reverted the split, needs a lot more consensus than this and probably a move discussion too if the main page is to be re-housed.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - Since PAW Patrol (franchise) has been created, I presume this Split proposal can be closed. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
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.

Requested move 14 August 2024

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: moved. Moved per consensus for WP:COMMONNAME over two oppose for WP:OFFICIAL. (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

– Per sources and WP:NCCAPS Schierbecker (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Official website uses PAW. Gonnym (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with your oppose EpicTornado (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I suggest to review what WP:OFFICIALNAME has to say about officialness versus independent reliable sourcing. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Also see #Requested move 24 February 2016, #Question about name, and #PAW again. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Who knew a kid's TV show could be so controversial? Schierbecker (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
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.

Requested move 28 August 2024

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: Speedy close, this was only discussed about 8 days ago and no new arguments are being made here so we don't need to have this discussion again. If the close is incorrect it needs to go to move review, if the close is correct then wait a few months or at least bring new arguments. (non-admin closure) Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Official website uses PAW. Because the first three letters are majuscules. D21or (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

— D21or (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Only a few prior edits, likely inexperienced.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree. It's the most official source I can think of too. The site is from the owners, so they know the best what is "right" when it comes to how you should write PAW. EpicTornado (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
— EpicTornado (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (No other edits.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
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.

Style for names

In the most recent edits here and here, the Paw Patrol mentions in the plot summaries have been changed to PAW Patrol. However, as per the recent move consensus back in August, Paw Patrol is more of a WP:COMMONNAME.

Does the capitalization issue apply to other mentions of the group (such as the plot summary and character sections) outside of the title? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paw_Patrol/Archive_1&oldid=1258992529"