Jump to content

Talk:Paw Patrol

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.55.97.103 (talk) at 19:48, 24 July 2016 (→Voice cast: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comments

The show seems based on or influenced by the old Anime series Voltron. The leader summons the team to a tower, where he shows them their mission on a multi-media interactive display. They enter tubes and move quickly through them to their vehicles. They are each, in essence, four-legged transformers each with a special power. The correlation seems to stop here, as they never aggregate to form a super-entity. It doesn't seem the plot is wholly based on Voltron any more than on any other superhero plot, tweaked for kids. But a good amount of the footage is clearly borrowed.

74.96.87.160 (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Character bios are essential to these kind of articles. 208.54.4.169 (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So true. What's the point of excluding such piece of information? 98.119.155.81 (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Plagiarism

The vast majority of the text in this article seems to be copied verbatem from http://www.nickjr.co.uk/shows/paw-patrol/ 67.169.214.79 (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2014

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)[reply]


– 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on PAW Patrol. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paw_Patrol&oldid=731349781"