Talk:Supernanny

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

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Supernanny on Drawn Together

Note that there is a Drawn Together episode entitled Super Nanny which sort of spoofs the show, even down to having a variant of SN's theme song on it. I don't know much about the actual Supernanny show to edit the article here. --naz 13:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why post that here? 88.111.8.75 22:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies

The "trivia" section at the bottom only describes parodies, and it's nearly as long as the article itself. I vote that it be removed until the main article is beefed up more. xxxyyyzzz 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...

Why should the US version have its own content section when it was neither the first to air nor does it have any particularly special information regarding it? The bits in the 'Broadcast' content section about other countries' versions have almost the same info as the US bit does.

In fact I think the entire article should have an overhaul which I will do soon... If anyone has anything to say with regards to this then please do as it would be most helpful!

Benedictwest 20:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, there are a bit too many mentions of the programme being shown in the us considering it is a british programme. Agree?

britishy-ness

it article sounds really british. is this on purpose?♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a British show with a British nanny, why shouldn't it? Why does the US version feature more prominently in the article than the UK version, which is after all the original? Where is the ratings information on the British series? Perhaps consider a seperate article i.e. Supernanny (US)? Although the series are essentially the same there are some editorial differences. Also, "britishy-ness"? Don't you mean Britishness? --mattymax (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professional without qualifications?

The article describes Jo Frost as a professional nanny before going on to state that she holds no professional qualifications in the field. Therefore I motion to alter this to say "working nanny" or "experienced nanny" rather than "professional". --mattymax (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about simply stating "nanny" ? Since that's all she is. Pvanheus (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Working nanny" or "experienced nanny", as in done it as a job/got paid. For a lot of jobs/professions that is professional. My understanding is she actually did work as an actual nanny, not just as a 'nanny' for the show. Simply stating nanny is good most of the time. In this case, I think indicating she isn't just filling the role of 'nanny' for the show needs putting forward. Dannman (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ctiticism?

I believe there should be a section about the criticism of the show and most importantly of the method supernanny uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.226.245 (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image in infobox

I didn't think that the opening screens from international versions of the show were usually used in the infobox? Shouldn't it be the original (UK) opening screen, or nothing at all? What does everyone else think? Zestos (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The UK version wouldn't have featured the British flag and probably wouldn't have made the Mary Poppins connection. Obviously, that's a theme that's being used to market it to an American audience. I've had a look on channel4.com - the website of the channel that it first aired on - and found that they have the UK version available On Demand (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/supernanny/4od). I checked the first episode and found that, as I said, they didn't use this logo. (Here's a screenshot of the UK opening "logo": http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v221/002994/supernannyuk.jpg) I also checked the last episode of the UK version and that doesn't feature the US intro/logo either (Image: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v221/002994/supernannyuk2.jpg). That being said, after looking at the website that you suggested, it seems that the US series is supposed to be seen as an official continuation of the UK series. Personally, I don't think that any logo should be included. Would you be happy to take this to the article's discussion page? Zestos (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are Jo Frost and Nick Frost related?

Is it just coincidence that the star and narrator share the same last name, or is there a relation? I checked both of their biography pages and found nothing, so I assume it is coincidence, but am still curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A2Z (talk • contribs) 15:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a coincidence. 77.96.95.141 (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section: OR

While a criticism section is interesting and should add value to the article, the section relied on original research and synthesis to produce "criticism" of Frost and/or the TV show. Examples include using a Guardian opinion piece written by a columnist, with no professional qualifications in childcare or nursery nursing, in support of "Lack of credentials/qualifications: Although Jo claims to have experience as a nanny she does not have a degree, let alone a postgraduate degree. She lacks any formal training as a counselor, nor does she have any formal training in psychology or child development." The article cited doesn't discuss her education at all, but does say she worked as a nanny, which is basically a domestic worker position, for 15 years, and as a perusal of the WP article on nannies will show there is no such thing as a nanny degree. The criticism of "time outs" is not aimed at Frost, does not mention her or the TV show, and was written 6 years before the show first aired in the UK. The third section of criticism, regarding apologies, again is taken from a columnist's opinion piece, again makes no reference to Frost or the TV show, and again is hardly a reliable source for child care/nursery nursing information (Slate) sugar-dusted with another line from the first mentioned Guardian op ed. Don't get me wrong, criticism of Frost or the show, produced by people in the field of child care, has a place in the article, but not original research with cherry-picked, irrelevant sources added almost as an afterthought. Gwen Chan 10:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about putting something along the lines of this in the article: "Jo Frost uses time-outs as a method of discipline almost exclusively. Many child development experts claim that time-outs have negative long-term consequences for the child and should not be used under any circumstances." That is the gist of what I meant to write. What is a suitable reference for this? How many "experts" would I need to find references from? Is one not good enough? 208.81.212.224 (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's still synthesis, taking criticism of, in this case, child time-outs (which is not quite the same as the naughty chair anyway) and forwarding it as criticism of Frost or the show/show format. (It also relies on the assertion that "many child development experts claim..." That's rather weasel - who are these experts, what is the capacity of their expertise, and are their claims backed by reliable research?) In a nutshell, to avoid being OR, criticism of the show and or Frost must be explicit in the source. Gwen Chan 12:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought it was important for people to know, that some of Supernanny's techniques like time-outs (time-outs are a general term, naughty chair is a specific implementation of a time-out) are not necessarily beneficial for the child in the long term. This would at least as useful as the other information in this article. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet time out is one of the most used and recommended techniques in homes and schools (Jane Nelsen, H. Stephen Glenn: Time Out: A Guide for Parents and Teachers Using Popular Discipline Methods to Empower and Encourage Children; Russell A. Barkley: Taking charge of ADHD: the complete, authoritative guide for parents; Stephen Ray Flora: The power of reinforcement; Fred H. Frankel, Robert Myatt: Children's friendship training; Ennio Cipani: Punishment on trial etc.) I think you may be pushing a point of view with this, rather than an offering an unbiased evaluation. Gwen Chan 18:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to spell it out for you again...I was watching Supernanny and I saw this whole timeout thing. It seemed pretty cool and then I started wondering, is this recommended? I searched online and while I found lots of talk about how it works well, yada-yada, I saw some articles (and an advertisement about a talk by a local psychotherapist/counsellor) talking about how it can cause some long-term emotional damage. I came to the Supernanny article and was surprised that there was no mention of her techniques and further information about them (ie. the pros and cons). Secondly, I personally don't care if time-out (or technique X) is the most used and recommended technique. Putting your kid in front of a TV is one of the most used techniques to keep your kid occupied but there are known problems with that and studies to back it up. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Where?] Tag on the "French Canadian version".

I suppose I can't just say "Really?" on wikipedia, and hope that somebody with a combination of insight, a sense of humour, and importance in the vast wikipedian hierarchy will read it. Thus:

Does not the use of the adjective "Canadian" imply that the stated "version" of the show originates in Canada? And, assuming some knowledge of the country, the preceding adjective "French" would imply that it is both French-language and had a high probability of being aired largely in Quebec and New Brunswick (although somebody without knowledge of Canada wouldn't know that second bit, making the act of giving its physical internal location basically pointless). Is it really necessary to say "a French Canadian version was aired in the French part of Canada."? That seems tantamount to a tautology. It seems to me that if you're that bad at English, shouldn't you be reading a different version of wikipedia? (Simple English wikipedia comes to mind).

I won't change this myself because the inner workings of this website are completely beyond me, and would probably just get changed back without said knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.246.130.200 (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in norway it airs on tv 2

i dont however know how to add a source but just check tv2.no and you will find it at 13.10 from monday to thursday. currently they air the american version but that could change at any time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Former Diabetic - Really?

In the show Format section, at the bottom, there is a selection of episodes with a brief description. One is:

One family was dealing with a son who has type 1 diabetes, so Frost compiled a chart of celebrities living with diabetes and called upon a professional snowboarder who was a former diabetic as mentioned on the video and runs snowboard camps for children who are diabetic.

It refers to someone as a 'former diabetic'. I don't know about over there in America, however here in the UK there is no such thing as a 'former' diabetic. Once you have diabetes, that's it, you are diabetic for life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannman (talk • contribs) 14:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you found some old vandalism.[1] - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A separate article for British and American versions

This article is currently a merged article for both British and American versions, and to be honest, it looks really cluttered. I propose a separate article for both British and American version like was both versions of (Ramsey's) Kitchen Nightmares did. Neverrainy (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International versions

Could someone please add the following networks to the "International versions" section of the article and/or start a separate section for international broadcasts of the UK show? If these networks were broadcasting the American version of the show, could you please change the link in the article to Supernanny (American TV series)?

Adult Swim (which nations' versions of Adult Swim broadcast which versions of SuperNanny?)
CMT (American TV channel) - see List of programs broadcast by CMT
CTV and CTV 2 - see List of programs broadcast by CTV and CTV 2 and 2008–09 Canadian network television schedule
Citytv - see List of programs broadcast by Citytv and 2009–10 Canadian network television schedule
CMT (Canadian TV channel) - see List of programs broadcast by CMT (Canada)
Discovery Home & Health - see List of programmes broadcast by Discovery Home & Health
Discovery Real Time (US version)
DMAX (British TV channel)
Esquire Network - see List of programs broadcast by Esquire Network
FBC TV
GNT (US version)
Kanal 11
MBC 4 - see List of programs broadcast by MBC 4
Prima televize (US version)
Slice (TV channel) - see List of programs broadcast by Slice
TV 2 (Norway) - see List of programmes broadcast by TV 2 (Norway)
Up TV - see List of programs broadcast by Up
Virgin Media Television (Republic of Ireland) - see List of programmes broadcast by Virgin Media Television (Ireland)
W (British TV channel)
Yes Drama (UK and US versions)

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]