Talk:The Penguins of Madagascar

Tara Strong and other items

I've just made some edits to the article[1] based on other edits today.[2] For the benefit of that editor, and maybe others, the following explanation is presented.

• Tara Strong is clearly credited as a cast member in "Popcorn Panic". Strangely this isn't shown at her IMDB bio, which lists roles in "Paternal Egg-stinct" and "Operation Plush and Cover".[3] We don't normally provide citations for cast members in the infobox where they are clearly credited in the episode.
• The comment "The show is based on characters created by Tom McGrath and Eric Darnell from the "Madagascar" film" is not "probably wrong". This is stated in the opening credits of each episode.
• The correct number of episodes is 52, not 61. "Multiple online sources" show 61 because the epsiodes are aired in pairs. They aren't always the same pairs, episodes are often paired with different episodes. If you check the list you'll see only 52 different episodes. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

First, Tara Strong and her character do not appear anywhere in the actual article prose. Infoboxes are not stand-alone mini-articles with any form of independence. They are summaries of details from the article prose. This article will never get past C class if it continues to treat the information in the infobox as independent. If someone wants to add information about Strong and "Eggy" to the main article, then it can also appear in the infobox.

Second, I'm not sure who you mean by "we". Wikipedia editors very certainly do provide source information when claims in an article have been challenged. Strong's crediting as a main cast member, not a guest star or extra, has been challenged so much that her appearance in the infobox (which isn't even legitimate until the article discusses her in main prose!) has turned into an edit war so entrenched that invested parties have even been editing each others' HTML comments. It's ridiculous. It is also very much an active editing dispute, so your ideas about what "normally" happens don't really apply here. I have removed the material because the article itself never mentions her. I believe you that she has become a regular cast member, but WP doesn't have anything to do with faith. You and whoever else has been editwarring Strong back into the article have been called upon by multiple parties to provide reliable sources and have not done so. You now appear to be refusing to do so, considering it "abnormal" to provide sources when sources are demanded. Or am I somehow misreading you? Source it or leave it out. If Strong is added again without sources, or added to the infobox without appearing properly in the main article prose like the rest of the main cast, then I will seek page protection on this article to stop the editwar, until the dispute is resolved.

Third, I didn't say the statement that "The show is based on characters created by Tom McGrath and Eric Darnell from the 'Madagascar' film" is probably wrong. That statement doesn't even appear in the article, it's just an HTML-comment note. I said that crediting McGrath and Darnell as show creators is probably wrong if this has been done on the basis of them having invented some of the main characters. The term "show creator" has a very specific meaning in Hollywood-ese, and it rarely has jack to do with who created what character. This is therefore another dispute, and I'll flag it as such. Show us a reliable source that credits them as the show creators, not just the creators of some of the characters, and remove the HTML comment.

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not that Tara Strong is listed in the infobox; as a credited cast member she should be there. The problem is that there is no information on her in the prose. Removing a credited cast member from the infobox has no justification. It's counter-productive and almost vandalistic. A far more appropriate and professional solution is to add {{expand section}} to the relevant section of the prose. Removing her name from the cast list just hides the fact that she is a cast member. It doesn't encourage addition of relevant and necessary information. If you care to review other articles, you'll be hard pressed to find a citation in the infobox confirming that a person is or is not a cast member. This information is usually taken from the program itself, with cast often/usually listed in the order credited. Wikipedia doesn't require that everything be cited, just that everything be verifiable and Strong's status is easily verified simply by viewing the cast information in the program. It's a little more complicated with this program because every actor gets equal billing and actors are not credited in every episode, but WP:V doesn't require that verification must be easy. On edit-warring, it works both ways. When there is a single editor removing content and more than one editor restoring it, as is the case here, it's usually the single editor removing the verifiable information who is the one doing the edit-warring. I don't know what you mean by "have been called upon by multiple parties to provide reliable sources". Until now only one editor has requested sources, and not by using an appropriate template such as {{Citation needed}}, but by adding an obscure hidden comment that only a very limited number of editors would notice. When I removed the comment yesterday, her name was present in the article[4] and I provided the source for her status here so please, don't accuse me of doing something I clearly did not do. Strong's name has been removed on previous occasions, almost always by hit and run IPs who don't bother to provide edit summaries. Since she is a valid, verifiable cast member, such edits have been reverted. This is not edit-warring.

Regarding the show's creators, you are correct. Both McGrath and Darnell are credited as "Creative consultants" in the episodes but that doesn't mean they created the program.

On to other matters. Since you've deleted "present" from the infobox three times now,[5][6][7] it seems you did not understand my edit summary restoring the word,[8] it seems necessary to raise the matter here. Consensus at Template talk:Infobox television#Last_aired was that |last_aired= should be "present" if the series was ongoing or renewed, and the Template:Infobox television instructions reflect this: "The original airdate of the show's last episode. Use "present" if the show is ongoing or renewed and {{end date}} if the show is ended." This is a widely used template and if you have problems with use of "present" in "|last_aired=" you'll need to address that at Template talk:Infobox television. Don't edit war by constantly removing it here when it's being used quite in accordance with the template instructions. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Does Tara Strong voice a significant or reoccurring character?

Regarding Tara Strong, I’m not sure that she voices characters on the show that are significant enough or reoccurring often enough to justify the “expand section” tag placed atop the Characters section of this article. From what I’ve gathered here, Strong has so far been credited with the following roles:

• Mother Duck (for reference, she has so far appeared in two episodes: “Paternal Egg-Stinct” and “Snakehead!”);
• Eggy the duckling (for reference, he appeared so far in the same two episodes as Mother Duck);
• Boy with popcorn (for reference, he appeared once in brief scene in “Popcorn Panic”); and
• Teacher (I do not recall having seen a teacher speaking on the show, so perhaps this will be in an upcoming episode).

I have also found that IMDb credits Strong with voicing Alice in one episode (“Operation: Plush & Cover”), but I cannot say for sure at this time if that is correct or not.

I mention all of this because not all actors who voice minor or infrequent characters are placed within the infobox. For instance, Diedrich Bader, the voice of the Rat King in three episodes so far, does not appear in the infobox. Neither does Fred Stoller, who has voiced Fred the squirrel in multiple episodes, nor Richard Kind, the voice of Roger the alligator in two episodes so far. Other examples also exist.

I’m not sure how many people who regularly edit this article actively watch the series, but as someone who does, I figured that I’d place this up to perhaps be helpful regarding the whole “Tara Strong” situation. If it doesn’t help, I hope it still serves some purpose in the discussion. Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem we have with this program is that it doesn't make distinctions between main and guest/recurring characters as other programs do. It just has a single cast list in each episode. Without a reliable source to identify the "stars" of the program, we have to either list all of the cast or none of them. Making our own determinations as to who is a star is resorting to original research. I agree with you that the expand tag probably shouldn't be there, but this is needed to satisfy another editor who I assume doesn't watch the program. We can probably use the url provided as a source for cast information. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly respect the need to not use original research, and you’re right – with the way this show lists cast in the credits, it does indeed make it harder to prove who is or isn’t a regular cast member.

But what about the characters I mentioned in my first post (Roger, Fred, and the Rat King): Should their respective voice actors be added to the infobox or not? The individuals who voice these characters are credited the exact same way as Tara Strong (and for that matter, Tom McGrath and everyone else who voices a major character).

For me, I would say that the “regular cast” consists of the people who voice the most seen characters on the show: Skipper, Kowalski, Rico, Private, Julien, Maurice, Mort, Marlene, Mason, and Alice. I feel that this is not original research, but rather a case for WP:UCS. If it isn’t a case for using common sense, than who are we to even decide if we should list a character as being a “main character” or a “secondary character” on the article? Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for using common sense but, unfortunately, common sense is something that can't be defined and people have different opinions about what common sense dictates. For example, your opinion as to what constitutes a major role may be different to what somebody else believes is a major role. Comparing with other programs, I can certainly see some people considering Mason and Alice as only supporting roles while others may also consider Maurice, Mort, Marlene and even Julien as supporting roles. If you consider Alice to be a major role then Tara Strong, who has apparently voiced Alice, becomes a star even though she has only voiced Alice once. As far as this program is concerned, my personal opinion, based on common sense, is that I'd include actors whose characters have appeared in a significant number of episodes, ie James Patrick Stuart, Jeff Bennett, John Di Maggio, Tom McGrath, Danny Jacobs, Kevin Michael Richardson, Andy Richter and Nicole Sullivan. (Remember, we need to talk about actors here, not characters) They've all been in most episodes. By contrast, Mary Scheer and Conrad Vernon have appeared in far fewer episodes. The characters they voice are clearly supporting and this is supported by what's currently in the article. Unfortunately, even personal opinions based on common sense are still original research. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Something to note regarding this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Cast information states, "When organizing the cast section, please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time. Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series." Some of the more important points to note from this are:

• Main cast status is not determined by screen time
• Articles should reflect the entire history of a series
• Actors remain on the list even after departure.

This would seem to support an argument that all actors that the producers have determined to be in the cast list should be included. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Update

The second paragraph really needs to be updated, because it makes it sound like there have only been a total of 52 episodes ordered so far, when there have obviously been more. Aside from a sentence about ratings, it doesn't seem like that paragraph may have even been updated since 2009! Alphius (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Annie Awards

It's been announced and some won some were nominated so add them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.38.1.39 (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Feature film

I've removed, at least for now, the "Feature film" section, which mentioned a future DreamWorks film starring the penguin characters and titled The Penguins of Madagascar. There is no current indication that the film will be a direct spin-off of the TV show and not the theatrical films, where the penguins have different looks and two have different voice actors than in the Nickelodeon series. In fact, according to an interview with Bob Schooley, executive producer of the TV series, "There is a Penguins movie in production at DW, but at this time it's unrelated to the series. That could always change though, I guess." —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hiatus

according to IMDB, weren't there new episodes into February 2013 anyway? Not one of the more reliable sources, I realize (their attempts to make the site more reliable notwith... a subject for something else.) - and so not using it as a source but as a prompt for a question. Schissel | Sound the Note! 00:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Vesuvius Twins

Should they not be in the villains section ? 46.142.32.135 (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No, because there shouldn't be a Villains section per WP:ANTAGONIST. If we can't tell who the villains are without labeling them as such, then the problem is with the prose. But otherwise, yes, your suggestion is fundamentally correct. I've removed the Villains section though, as the villains should be reincorporated into the article as either Main or Recurring. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Penguins of Madagascar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120607040037/http://www.nicknz.co.nz:80/Shows/The%20Penguins%20of%20Madagascar/ to http://www.nicknz.co.nz/Shows/The%20Penguins%20of%20Madagascar

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Penguins of Madagascar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120607040037/http://www.nicknz.co.nz:80/Shows/The%20Penguins%20of%20Madagascar/ to http://www.nicknz.co.nz/Shows/The%20Penguins%20of%20Madagascar

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Addition of original research

Eshumaitreyus has made a number of edits to the article today, most of which constitutes original research. The changes are in two main areas regarding the characters of Private and Marlene. Dealing with the latest edits:

• Private - A comparison is being made with My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. After requests a citation has been provided regarding this but it does not support the claim being made that "The Lunacorns" are a "My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic- esque program". The only mention of this in the reference is the question "Are the Lunacorns really the show’s jab at the My Little Pony fandom?" The response to the question is cryptic at best and does not explicitly support the claim. The second issue with Private is the accent. This has been changed a couple of times and is now "Estuary English". That is not supported by any citation. In the past we settled on British, but in the past somebody even had "Asutralian" in the article. I have asked Eshumaitreyus to provide third party sources for his claims but to this matter he claims he doesn't need any.[9]
• Marlene - The changes to Marlene pertain to the type of otter that she may be. Marlene's species has never specifically been stated, although in one episode a map showed "Asian otter" on her enclosure. Eshumaitreyus' additions are a long, speculative comparison. Three citations have been added, but none address this series, or Marlene, and so do not support claims about what type of otter that Marlene may or may not be.

Prior to his last edits I asked Eshumaitreyus' to discuss the edits here,[10] to no avail. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It is original research and doesn't add to the understanding of the characters even if it were backed up. I generally dislike comparisons to other works as that presumes the average reader is familiar with that other work and that the comparison would add value to understanding this one. Seldom the case. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all, it doesn't matter what one likes or doesn't like; every conclusion I have made is verified by either evidence promptly given (without editors asking for it or even giving me a SINGLE chance to change my work myself IF sufficiently proven to need changing, which so far i've proven over and over again that it hasn't), linguistics analysis or biological identification of species (all part of academic processes which are able to be proven and reverified on their own by ANYBODY who can reasonably apply the scientific method or um, look at sources i suppose), and are not WP:OR since every conclusion i've made is restated in the internal Wikipedia articles and multiple verified external links i have proven. Just because one doesn't "like" something or doesn't personally find "value" in another's work doesn't give one the right to just decide to censor it unilaterally, especially if somebody else could like it or find value in it (say, a brony researching the already proven connection between My Little Pony and The Penguins of Madagascar, again as verified by executive producer Bob Schooley himself <whose answer "one man's jab is another man's homage" is not "cryptic"; technically the only thing in doubt in the interview, left ambiguous for humorous purposes, is whether the brony parody is a "jab" or an "homage">, or a Penguins fan for whom English is not a 1st language and for whom linguistics research may actually prove to be useful/interesting). Second of all, I don't see what some past editor calling Private's accent "Asutralian" (misspelled on purpose for effect?) has anything to do with my work since it wasn't me, and again by the process of linguistics analysis using the simple rules as outlined by Wikipedia's own linguistics articles, one can, within about 5 minutes, definitively prove that Private's accent is NOT "Australian" in a way that would be agreeable to actual linguists as well as Wikipedia's own guidelines to boot. Third, due to the previous point about linguistics, I said I "didn't need 3rd party sources" to prove my linguistic points, but I never said "I don't need 3rd party sources for anything EVER"; I simply want to make this clear (although i've already proven i am wiling to promptly provide as many 3rd party sources as i humanly can, usually only when asked civilly but this time i've already made copious exceptions), and again my assertion is not "my claim" as i can prove it by logic, linguistics and internal Wikipedia links alone. Lastly (for now at least), editors ONLY targeting me, despite NUMEROUS other possibly fixable points on this article (you know, for a very long time, some editor made an unverified claim that Private spoke a "middle- class" British accent, which was supposedly indicative of "English soldier-characters in wwii films" or something rather; I only bring this up because that uncited, unverified post was curiously untouched for a while as Wikipedia own view & editing records can attest to, but as soon as i corrected it in a manner justified by Wikipedia's own guidelines, i suddenly suffer nonstop 24- hour targeting by certain editors who call me out by name, make comments verging on personal attacks, and cannot sufficiently convince me of their essentially subjective criticisms of my work), what do you think the show means by "asian otter" (which by the way is explicitly referenced on the tv program on zoo maps multiple times throughout the show, not just in "Popcorn Panic", which is still specific episode evidence I've given)? Scientifically, by reading up on otter biology here on Wikipedia and on verified third party sources, i've found "asian otter" to be a biologically specific kind of otter in Eurasia, only the species more commonly known as the "asian small-clawed otter" or explicitly as Amblonyx cinerea of which undeniably matches Marlene's claws, fur markings and stature... therefore, by the processes of binomial nomenclature and biological systematics able to be verified, (sigh) again by anyone applying the scientific method and supported by both internal Wikipedia and verified external links, my assumptions are tenable BECAUSE the show runners specifically referred to her as an "asian otter" and not just as an "otter"-- this is scientifically significant (and supported by given scientifically verified evidence, again within and beyond Wikipedia), or at least it becomes relevant to the points I've made. Honestly, if she had just been called an "otter" SPECIFICALLY on the tv show I'd agree with you, but "asian otter" has specific biological context, and doesn't simply mean "an otter from the landmass of asia". Eshumaitreyus (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does matter what other editors believe should be in the article. We work for WP:CONCENSUS on articles and Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You are making additions based on your own personal evaluations which is original research, no matter how much you think your conclusions are correct. We can't use other Wikipedia articles as references, each article must stand-alone and be well-referenced in the article itself. What is added to the article also has to be something that will improve readers understanding of the topic. Those additions don't add meaning and understanding. If they were supported by reliable sources that directly stated the conclusions and also show why it matters to this topic, that would support inclusion but so far there is nothing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Oh jeez, really? Again? Please STOP twisting my words and making me all straw man- like already!!! You are such a bully, and not a very effective one if i may be so honest. I never said "it doesn't matter what other editors..." etc. (not gonna repeat you word for word again), i said "it doesn't matter what you like or don't like" because you just said you "generally dislike" my comparative work which is FINE but your subjective opinion, and as long as you don't have a justifiable reason which others who aren't you agree upon, that won't stop me and what i write in the long run, oh believe you me. For the last time stop falsely accusing me of original research and using wikipedia as references, it literally would take 5 SECONDS to see that you are not speaking the truth... i used internal links to buttress my points (oh, i'm sorry, does wikipedia not allow that anymore?) without putting wiki articles in the reference list itself, and if you read that link you keep pasting over and over again, WP:NOR, it clearly states at the very top that Original Research is "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas— for which no reliable, published sources exist... this includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Let's see, what did i say? Oh. 1) TPoM says Marlene is an "asian otter" <can't refute this, episode evidence!>; 2) my verified sources say "any asian otter less than 1m tall with short, prehensile claws and these distinctive markings <multi pics given, can't refute that!> is the asian small-clawed otter/Aonyx cinerea" <wanna refute species biology? Go ahead. But since you asked for 3rd party verified sources which directly report on what TPoM's explicit reference to an "asian otter" means, those were my best shots, what i [erroneously] thought you would be able to easily comprehend... i got plenty more ammo where that came from, um figuratively speaking> 3) in conclusion, i simply put it all together and said "if TPoM explicitly lists Marlene as an "asian otter" AND NOT just an "otter", as that is biologically specific AND relevant, given her features, then it is LIKELY she is either an asian small- clawed otter, or said species served as her model inspiration". <as you can see, i've made no new conjectures or analyses that weren't supported by the evidence nor did i overstep the boundaries of what was said in my sources, literally, WORD FOR WORD). Lastly, it is not for you, or me really, to decide what is "worthy" of this page, because WP:CONCENSUS, remember? How can you alone decide that somebody wouldn't want to know that Private speaks with <again, linguistically- supported> distinctive Estuary English shibboleths, and i guess nobody can ever be interested in comparative work between cartoon shows? Like, ever? Like, seriously??? So say my work is unacceptable for this page and keep trying to unduly pressure me to stop and/or get off of here all you want, but me, my family and friends will just keep proving you wrong until your teeth get tired and sore from biting hard on all us disagreeing newbies in a great, big, gigantic, fluffy(? no. hardcore lol) horde. Geez, have a blast, and goodbye. OH! PS: in case i didn't make this abundantly clear, unless you have something editing- related to discuss AND we all assent to said discussion OR you have a legitimate warning this time, please just stay away from my own, my family's & my friends' personal user talk pages (everyone else with "beef" please do the same), i swear, you and the other editors who seem to have suuuch a problem with this brony dude on the Penguins of Madagascar TV show page make me, my family & my friends feel pretty unsafe and definitely unwanted here (good thing i warned them all about IP addresses beforehand...), so please do not try to contact us personally ever again if it doesn't relate to your issues with our collective work, okay? Eshumaitreyus (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Socks blocked courtesy of Bbb23. I've reduced the protection to a temp semi to protect from socking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

References

"Nickelodeon debut" section

I noticed the "Nickelodeon debut" section, and it seems pointless to have a separate section, the information should be moved to the "Broadcast" section, and by the looks of it, parts of it to the "Production" section. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

About the Lunacorns: Justified Evidence from Bob Schooley Allowed?

Hello:

So i'm having a really hard time getting evidence in that Bob Schooley, the show's executive producer and longtime animation veteran, acknowledges that the Lunacorns is a My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic parody, as described in this direct interview given by an accredited animation industry worker/expert as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines for reference sources (he even lists his credible work done onsite), something which is likely to be obvious to anybody who has seen the Lunacorn- themed episodes "Hello, Dollface" or "Operation: Lunacorn Apocalypse" and again this is something which Schooley himself acknowledges. I was wondering if I or another person may edit in (under full protection) this strong evidence from, if you excuse the expression, "the horse's mouth" itself? And if not, can we all discuss why it's not allowed, and what exactly would be allowed (if suppose I found more source examples or even got Mr. Schooley in here miraculously for his agreement) as evidence of this intended parody, instead of me just being shut down with "that doesn't exist simply 'cus i said so" and having my work erased without any tags and no warnings given whatsoever? Lastly, i'm making an open call to any bronies, PoM fans, people who have actually worked on the amazing PoM program or anybody else to post any relevant info and/or verified proof that the show creators meant the Lunacorns (come on, it has the highly visible MLP: FIM character "Luna"'s name right in the title!!) to be a parody of MLP: FIM (hopefully, indisputable as it seems even mentioning bronies or MLP is very greatly disliked by some here, yeesh). Thank you, and take care Eshumaitreyus (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Sockmaster blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Source for distributors

If anyone has reliable sources for distributors, please add them. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be no available proof as to if CITV in the UK ever aired this show. CITV always acquired and still acquires and aired and later re-aired some nickelodeon shows before taking them at some point before taking the shows off the schedules when they didn't want to keep on re-airing them anymore and I remember watching some of them, but I have no memory of ever seeing this particular show on CITV and there is nothing available of CITV on the internet such as next bumpers or promos on CITV of this show or even a DOG caption of the CITV logo on the show on videos of it on the internet. 123typewrite123 (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

My mistake. Apparenly it aired on toonattik on citv from 12 April 2009. I'm guessing if that was the case then CITV ceased to continue to air the show by the time toonattik was discontinued. 123typewrite123 (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

CITV DID AIR THE SHOW

IT DID AIR ON CITV BUT IT ONLY SEEMENGLY AIRED ON TOONATTIK ON CITV FROM 12/04/2009 BUT WHETHER CITV AIRED THIS SHOW OUTSIDE OF TOONATTIK IS KNOWN AND WHETHER CITV CONTINUED TO RE-AIR/AIR THE SHOW AFTER TOONATTIIK ENDED IS UNCERTAIN YET IT SEEMS MORE LIKELY THAT THE SHOW WAS TAKEN OFF SCHEDULES OF CITV AFTER TOONATTIK ENDED. BUT I DON'T THINK CITV AIRED ALL THE EPISODES OF THE SHOW AND ALL THREE SERIES.