Talk:Bluey (2018 TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Release dates

The new episode premieres aren’t the same as here, check the Foxtel TV guide for details. Jedm2311 (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Viewership

75 million plays and counting.

Cementing Bluey as the #1 series ever on ABC iview*

http://about.abc.net.au/media-room/bluey-fetches-a-second-series-as-the-smash-hit-achieves-over-75-million-plays-and-counting/

This has been added to the Reception section. SatDis (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

B-Class assessment

This is a B-Class assessment of this article, under the scope of the Animation WikiProject.

1. Already remarked that everything is suitably referenced. I wondered briefly whether items in the infobox should be directly cited; a lot of it is covered by the linked production website or in the body or the article, which is great, though details like composers outside of Jeff Bosh I couldn't find much information about. This is unboastful information though, so not too concerned.
2. All important topics are covered, there are no issues here.
3. The episode guide seems to take up more space than appropriate. I recommend it be collapsed into a series guide.
4. I don't see any obvious copy-editing issues.
5. Good amount of supporting material, especially the infobox. What would be fantastic if there was picture of the producer or a voice actor, or a quote box that outlined the themes, production goals, or reception of this show.
6. Easy to read article, there are no issues here.

In conclusion, just split off the episode guide. All my other comments are just recommendations. Awesome article ^_^ especially for a pre-school cartoon, articles of which are rarely this well written. Definitely deserves praise. Derick1259 (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Derick1259: Thank you for looking at the article again! The praise is much appreciated; I love creating quality articles for pre-school content! I will look into splitting the episode list; adding some quotes/images and look into the references! Thanks. SatDis (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Episode guide has been split; upgrading to B-Class. Derick1259 (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Derick1259: I just wanted to thank you again for looking at the article. I took your feedback on board and added a photograph and a quote box to the Production section. Just out of curiosity, what would be your general recommendation before looking at a Good Article review? Thanks. SatDis (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Really nice additions. The only outstanding comment I have is related to whether there was any other sourceable information about the other composers detailed in the infobox, which could be covered somewhere in the body of the article with a sentence or paragraph discussing the production of the soundtrack/music(?) for this show. That's all really, if you feel confident from there it's your call to make a GA nomination. Derick1259 (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Derick1259: Thank you once again. I have added a "Music" section and sourced those composers - I'm liking the way the "Production" section is looking now. I will definitely be making a GA nomination again and hope to have your feedback over there. All the best! SatDis (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bluey (2018 TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Allied45 (talk · contribs) 11:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lead

• Link first mention of Brisbane

Notable guest stars

• I feel that all entries in this list should include citations if they are being deemed as "notable"
• Myf Warhurst also appears in the recurring list for a different character; this would not make her a "guest star"

Development

• Include (ABC) and (BBC) after first mentions of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the British Broadcasting Corporation
• "and Sam Moor describing it as "[Brumm's] life on screen" – and producer Sam Moor describing it as "[Brumm's] life on screen
• Link South Brisbane

Reception

• I would suggest deleting the Ratings table as there is no real value added; the air dates are covered in the Episodes section, and the ratings figures are only for select episodes. Additionally, the average viewers figures are unsourced.

References

• The following is not mandatory for GA, and will not affect the passing of this nomination, however I would strongly recommend archiving each citation you have used (you can use the Wayback Machine for this). My personal opinion is that this is best practice to ensure link rot is not an issue in the future (particularly dynamic websites such as JB Hi-Fi etc.)

Overall comments

This is the first time I have completed a GA review and I am really impressed with this article SatDis (it's great to see good quality Australian content!). I only have minor concerns regarding the lack of citations for some portions of the content, that could be perceived as original research. Article is on hold awaiting resolution of these minor points. – Allied45 (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou for the review @Allied45:, I appreciate the feedback. I love working on Australian content. I have addressed all of the issues listed above - for the guest stars, I have removed those names without available citations. In creating the article, I have managed to archive some of the citations, and I will make an effort to ensure all links are saved - thanks for the suggestion. In regards to any further lack of citations, would you be able to point out areas which need to be improved? Thanks again. SatDis (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@SatDis:, it was just the notable guest stars and the ratings table I was referring to regards to citations. Since everything I raised is now addressed, I am happy to pass this nomination. Thanks for beginning to archive the citations, I will try and help with this if I get a chance :) – Allied45 (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Allied45: Thanks for the review!! SatDis (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

what is wrong with saying Bluey is female?

In the character list, an editor keep removing "female" from the description "Bluey Heeler, a six-year-old female Blue Heeler puppy who is curious and energetic." The reason given was this quote from WP:MOSTV "listing the race and sex of the character [is] redundant". However (a) that quote is from the section on the Infobox and does not apply to the article in general; (b) it only applies "for information that is rather obvious to the reader", which is not the case here. I will also add that it is inconsistent with the rest of the character descriptions, in two ways: (a) Bluey herself is already previously described as (i) six year old (ii) a Blue Heeler and (iii) a puppy, and that information is repeated in the character description, so why is it ok to repeat that but not repeat her gender?; and (b) the gender of all other main characters is also implied. It just seems really weird to omit. Adpete (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion. I understand your point and appreciate your explanations; many of which are valid. However, my question is why should we note Bluey as a female character in her description, and not any other character? For example, do we list Muffin as a female? Jack as male? Mackenzie as male? You could argue that it is not obvious that Mackenzie is a male as the name could also be a female name. Is the Peppa Pig article forced to say Peppa is a female pig? Does The Simpsons say Bart is male? A similar case is Blue's Clues - it has been thought that Blue is a male, but she is also female - they don't note that in the article. In the "writing" section of the article, I have already included a discussion on the confusion of Bluey's sex. As for the other main characters, their sex is only implied and not directly stated. In the context of Bluey as a show, does her sex ever influence any aspect of the story or her relationships with others? It seems irrelevant. If it is supported by other editors to include "female", then we will add it, but let's wait for further discussion. SatDis (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The character descriptions of Peppa Pig (at List of Peppa Pig characters) and Blue (at Blue's Clues#Characters) both implicitly give their genders from the use of female pronouns, and I would say that Bart Simpson's gender is obvious. It is true that Bluey's gender is discussed elsewhere, but realistically, Wikipedia is used for reference and not everyone will read the whole article. I agree it does not "matter" in the context of the plots, but still people wonder, in fact it was the main reason I first went to the article! I agree "female" can read a bit odd and we can do it another way by referring to her as a sister or daughter (like most others in the character list); or probably better, by using a pronoun i.e. by replacing "who" with "she": "a six-year-old Blue Heeler puppy. She is curious and energetic". In fact that more or less mirrors what is done for Peppa Pig: "Peppa's hobbies include jumping in muddy puddles, playing with her teddy bear,..." Adpete (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That actually sounds like a good solution. How about "Bluey, a six-year-old Blue Heeler puppy who is curious and energetic. She enjoys inventing games to play with her friends and family". This extends her description and doubles the female pronouns. SatDis (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing Incident

As some of you may be aware, there is currently a racial incident going on, (more info at [1]|ABC article ), and I was debating whether or not to put this in the article. BDK1210 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It is definitely important to talk about. I have edited what was already added by an IP address for conciseness. SatDis (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Antiquity-smuggling racket pays for house

A popular theory on how the Heeler family can afford their inner-city house on a hill is that Bandit - how appropriate! - the archaeologist smuggles antiquities out of the country with the help of Chilli, who works in airport security. Zach Mander points out that a Paddington Queenslander with a view of the central city starts at $1 000 000 and that a bank is not going to approve a sizeable mortgage to an academic and a part-time worker. While this is not canon, the theory has gained considerable traction.[2][3][4]

In a follow-up, Zach notes that despite international coverage, the show's production team have not commented, the couple's tax records have not been released, and possibly they are working on a spin-off show called Breaking Bluey

How best to cover this in the article? As yet the alleged criminals have evaded the keen eye of Queensland justice. Is there some BLCP policy we can use for guidance? Does the conspiracy extend to payoffs to officials? --Pete (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Not relevant. Mostly TikTok / Daily Mail gossip. SatDis (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Bluey is a six year old... Puppy?

I don't watch the show. Never seen it. Nor heard of it. Just getting that out front. And I didn't see this seeming anachronism mentioned, so forgive me if it's cleared up elsewhere.

I read the blurb on the main page and went through this article as well trying to understand how/why Bluey is referred to as a "puppy" while also being 6-7 years old. A puppy is a juvenile dog. And as the human for, currently, five dogs, I can tell you that 6 or 7 is not juvenile in dog years.

So, does the show call Bluey a puppy? If not, where else does this word come from in reference to Bluey?

Thanks, †dismas†|^(talk) 16:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dismas: "Puppy" or "pup" is just how they refer to Bluey in articles and press releases. I think they just mean to show her as a young dog, as she has more "human" than "dog" characteristics. You raise an interesting point though! SatDis (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Bluey is two things. Firstly, a character just like a lot of other seven year old Australian kids in a lot of Australian families, because that's really what the story is about, a "typical" Australian family. Secondly, ALL the characters in the show are dogs. Being a seven year old means Bluey is a child, or puppy. Sounds a bit weird? Maybe. But it's a clever theatrical idea. And it makes them attractive to kids in the audience. Just go to YouTube, type Bluey, watch two minutes, and you will see. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I see. Thank you both! †dismas†|^(talk) 21:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

where is the citation for the inclusive language criticism?

@SatDis: This edit [5] got reverted, but I had a good look through the page before adding it and I cannot find a citation anywhere, or even any mention of it in the body of the article. Where is it? Adpete (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, I see the working "inclusive language" was chosen during the FA review [6] in discussion between User:SatDis and User:Aoba47, but in my opinion "inclusive language" is not what the criticisms were about. I'm also uncomfortable with calling shortcoming "minor", as a bit editorial. I'll have a think about a reword. Adpete (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

There IS no citation. That claim is in the lead, which is supposed to summarise detail from the body of the article, where a citation would be found. But there is no mention anywhere else in the article of concerns over inclusive language or lack thereof. I will dare to suggest that those words don't belong in the lead at all. HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Concur. Removed unless we can find a RS. --Pete (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It's referring to the criticisms of (a) the description of the mother on the web site and (b) the words "ooga booga" in two episodes. Those are both in the body and cited, no problems there. The problem is that "Minor shortcomings in regards to language" is not an accurate description of those criticisms, in the opinion of at least three editors. Adpete (talk) 06:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as mentioned above, it is in the reception sentence, fully cited. The wording was decided in great detail during the FA process. If you have an alternate suggestion, please discuss below. SatDis (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it better left out of the lead, as it is now. I know the FA review said that the lead should not only mention positive reviews, but the two criticisms are rather different so it is hard to mention them together. Plus, as those are isolated incidents, I think it is ok not mentioning them in the lead. Adpete (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Adpete: I am happy with that outcome. SatDis (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022

Disney Is Bluey Network Along With ABC Austrillia and cbeebies Lesodream (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Only original broadcast network is listed. SatDis (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2022 (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. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2022

Change second half of season from 11 to 26 since according to here at https://amp.smh.com.au/culture/music/like-putting-ice-cream-on-caviar-meet-joff-bush-the-composer-behind-bluey-20210205-p56zxm.html there was a 52 episode order for season 3. 2603:7000:3241:D900:8093:5EE7:9DB0:1121 (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that reference states the series will have 52 episode. Which is already stated on the page. The newest reference says this particular drop will have 11. The remaining 15 will be on a new row of the table, which is hidden until they premiere. SatDis (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

What the first intro paragraph should say:

Bluey is an Australian preschool animated television series that premiered on ABC Kids on 1 October 2018. The program was created by Joe Brumm and produced by Queensland-based company Ludo Studio. It was commissioned by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the British Broadcasting Corporation, with BBC Studios holding global distribution and merchandising rights. The series made its premiere on Disney Junior in the United States and was released internationally on Disney+.

(—ÐW-🇺🇦^(T·C) 02:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC))

@Dan Wescher: Thanks for starting the discussion, I appreciate it. I have taken on board your suggestion, just linking Queensland and adding "is" before produced.

I just want to explain why a "criticisms" subheading shouldn't be featured. According to the guidelines for a "Critical reception" section, the section should have both positive and negative reviews to formulate a balanced review. In this case, the first two paragraphs are positive and the third is negative. So, it is still part of the "critical reception", as the word "criticism" literally means "negative reception". So it is kind of redundant to have another subheading as it disrupts the flow of reading. Hope that clarifies. SatDis (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand. Sorry for starting a war. —ÐW-🇺🇦^(T·C) 17:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dan Wescher: I wouldn't say a war! I'm always up for the discussion on proposed changes, thanks for your input. :) SatDis (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 18 May 2022

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: not moved. No consensus has formed that the 2018 TV series is the unambiguous primary topic. Ambiguity lies in if the subject is primary when considering long-term significance. If more or stronger evidence that the subject is the primary topic, please feel free to let me know, and I will reconsider the close.( As a side note,"title is specific enough" seems to invoke WP:CRITERIA's [t]he title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.) (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 12:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

---

• Bluey (2018 TV series) → Bluey
• Bluey → Bluey (disambiguation)

– Check out "Bluey (1976 TV series)", "Bluey (dog)", and "Bluey (nickname)". You'll notice that these are short articles on subjects that might be less notable or lesser known than the 2018 TV series. —ÐW-🇺🇦^(T·C) 18:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: @Dan Wescher you need to provide more proof. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  Like this. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC

• Added it. —ÐW-🇺🇦^(T·C) 19:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Weak support: While the 2018 TV show is clearly the primary topic currently, will it continue to be so in the future? My feeling is that Bluey (dog) has more longevity as a topic (although it's always possible a more long lived dog could come along). Maybe I'm overthinking it though, it can always be changed back, in ten years or whatever. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The dog might be more notable in the real world, but on Wikipedia, it appears the TV show is more important than the actual dog. —ÐW-🇺🇦^(T·C) 14:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move of associated dab. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: I'm not sure it's the best idea. I feel this title is specific enough and adheres to the correct naming protocols. To say it is the most recognisable use of the title is up for debate. I'm open to further discussion. SatDis (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2022 (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.

Request

I would like to add an additional fact to the Themes and Chili’s character portrayal of many struggles new (and seasoned) moms face in their first few years of motherhood, and the show does a beautiful job at showing the perspective of a new mom who feels overwhelmed or like they are failing. In season two’s episode “Baby Race”, we see Chili face the struggles of early motherhood as she fears Bluey is behind in development compared to other babies (Judo). https://www.kidspot.com.au/parenting/parenthood/parenting-style/bluey-baby-race-episode-sums-up-mothers-group-perfectly/news-story/fd9ae5249f2509cd478e78adffd440b9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KDasu001 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Great idea. Thanks for the link. I will work on adding it in. SatDis (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Added. SatDis (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2022

Bluey joined the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade for the first time in November 2022. 1.126.111.184 (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you. I will add. SatDis (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
• Added. SatDis (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Characters

Please put back the other named characters: Lucky, Coco, Snickers, Honey, Mackenzie, Indy, Rusty, Pretzel, Buddy, Winton, Bentley, Missy Jedm2311 (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Also missing is Jean-Luc! Jedm2311 (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Please read MOS:TVCAST - "follow notability guidelines when creating a cast list: not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed...". The characters that are being listed with just their name show that they are not notable. They should have a description alongside them that shows their importance to the series, and their voice actor if possible. Some of these characters only appear once and do not classify as "recurring". Please remember that this is an encyclopedic article and not a fan page. The character list shouldn't be too long.SatDis (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Then why don’t you just create a separate page for the Bluey characters? Jedm2311 (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Notability criterion is going to be a bit tricky with this show. It is because the main characters like Bluey and Bingo (I will provide links when I can find the articles that I've read before) are voiced by production crew's children, and are uncredited at the moment - that said, no dispute here with the characters being notable. Meanwhile, however, Australian celebrities have been casted in minor or cameo roles, like the surfer from the beach is voiced by Myf Warhurst, which probably deserves attention. IngressMaximus (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe a section on celebrity cameo?IngressMaximus (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@IngressMaximus: Yes, there has been a section on "notable guest stars" for some time now. However, this section should only include popular Australian celebrities and not production crew who have done the voice work. I would argue that all of the minor characters voiced by production crew's children are not notable and should not be listed.

@Jedm2311: If you would like to create a separate page, you are most welcome to. But a full list of characters is not what the main page should be about. SatDis (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@SatDis: The article says that Nana Heeler is the mother of Stripe and Bandit, and the grandchildren of Bluey and Bingo. Except, who is Stripe? I would've put Chilli and Bandit instead of Stripe and Bandit. I watched all of the episodes I had access to (part of season 1) and I didn't hear anything about someone named Stripe. BDK1210 (talk) 16:18 28 April 2020 (Coordinated Universal Time)

@BDK1210: Yes, Nana is the mother of Stripe and Bandit - Bandit is Bluey and Bingo's father, and Stripe is Muffin and Socks's father, and Bandit's younger brother. He is prominent in many Series 1 episodes. Nana is not Chilli's mother; Chilli is married to Bandit. Here is the quote from [bluey.tv], "Bandit’s Mum and Bluey & Bingo’s Nana. Retired to the Gold Coast". SatDis (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@SatDis: Ok, I wasn't sure, but yes, thanks for letting me know. BDK1210 (BDK1210's talk page)

The section is entitled "Characters" not "Cast", and therefore should list the main characters, whether or not their voice artist is known. The main characters are at https://www.bluey.tv/characters/ Adpete (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Adpete: Yes, you are right, the section is "Characters", and I do agree with adding Jack, Rusty and Indy. However, there are many characters listed on the official website and not all of them are significant or classed as "main characters". The reason why voice actors are helpful is because they often come attached to verifiable references, which is the standard at Wikipedia. It is not acceptable for us to simply list every child character in the series without references. If a character is added, they should have a description which shows their importance to the series. This is why the list is limited, and if it were to be extended, it should be done so on a new page entitled "List of Bluey characters". Hope this helps. SatDis (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

That main site I gave is in several "pages", and all the characters were on the first page, so I think they are comfortably notable enough to get a mention. My personal opinion is that a couple more "kids" are important enough to be there, without the need for a second page. Adpete (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Adpete: I would say maybe Lucky and Mackenzie or Chloe? SatDis (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The first page at https://www.bluey.tv/characters/ lists (apart from Bluey's family of 4): Muffin, Jack, Rusty, Lucky, Mackenzie, Indie. Adpete (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Also Wendy is not a Spitz. She is a Chow Chow. Charlotte Heeler (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

They say in the Episode only released in Australia called Dirt. Charlotte Heeler (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Charlotte Heeler: I have changed it. Thank you. SatDis (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Bluey won a BAFTA award this year

(Here's the proof) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JagodowyLis (talk • contribs) 12:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• @JagodowyLis: I have added. Thank you. SatDis (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the removed list of shorts

Something I added to the article was reverted. The same goes for the article "List of Bluey (2018 TV series) episodes". The reason for both removals was: "(Revert - As this is a Featured Article, can we please have a discussion on the talk page as to whether or not shorts should be included (i.e. check appropriate MoS:TV))" However, don't most episode-list-related articles for animations usually list the shorts along with the episodes? (I.e. Adventure Time) I don't understand why listing the shorts would be irrelevant to Wikipedia, or why they shouldn't be included. But per the reverter's request, here's an inquiry on the talk page...

For everyone else's reference, this part of what I added to the series overview what was reverted:

Series	Episodes		Originally aired
			First aired	Last aired
Shorts	19		21 December 2019 (2019-12-21)	TBA

Addendum: I don't seek to edit war with anyone. I don't care if my recommended change isn't implemented. I'd just like to know for future reference why shorts, like those in question, should not be referenced in lists of media on Wikipedia. — Whole Life in Pink (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Responded on episode list talk page. At the very least, shorts can be mentioned on the episode list page but not in the table on the main article. SatDis (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Pilot

The Bluey pilot episode was a simpler version of the episodes The Weekend" The differences betweenthe two episodes is that in the pilot the house and characters have a different design. Chibi cat2023 (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2022

On the Bluey page it says that one of the characters is a Japanese Spitz. They aren’t. It is confirmed they are actually a Chow Chow. I’d like to fix it. Charlotte Heeler (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Charlotte Heeler: Can you please let me know the episode this is stated, or a web reference so that I can amend this? Thank you. SatDis (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess it depends when the user put it in. Before the episode dirt it would of been an easy mistake to make. Chibi cat2023 (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

BLUEY 2016 PILOT FOUND

WE NEED TO ADD IT Chibi cat2023 (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Already mentioned in the article. SatDis (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Where is the 2016 pilot mentioned in the article? QuicoleJR (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• In the development / conception section. It reads He conceived the idea independently in 2016, and produced a one-minute pilot through his company Studio Joho, with a small team in their spare time. and continues to provide more detail in the following sentences. This has been in the article for quite some time now. SatDis (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Doreen

This character appears in Wagon Ride as a non-speaking cameo, Curry Quest as a minor but useful role, Bin Night as a relatively major character, and Granny Mobile as a crucial character the story of the episode hinges on. She also appears more often than Bob Heeler, who is listed. Therefore, she should be in the character list. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR: Thank you for your comment. I agree that "Bin Night" is this character's most important episode. However, that's only one episode. And you are correct about Bob, but he is a Heeler family member also, which is something to consider. My only concern right now is that there are already 28 recurring characters listed, which seems like a lot. And MOS:TVCAST states "not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed"... perhaps we could determine some conditions/guidelines here for if a character should be listed? Thanks! SatDis (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Bin Night was important for the character, but I would like to emphasize that she was also a major part of The Decider, as well as playing a role in Curry Quest. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@SatDis: Please respond to my above statement. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR: Yes we can add this character based on your rationale. However, what I am saying is that we should be developing parameters for which characters are listed, otherwise we will end up with a list that is too long. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Floppy

@SatDis: While they are not a major character trait for Bingo, they are certainly important, due to Sleepytime and Chickenrat. The toy also appears in minor roles in other episodes. Should it be part of Bingo's bio or their own entry on the character list? QuicoleJR (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR: The stuffed toy is certainly not a character - it doesn't speak or have its own thoughts (it is a toy). So it definitely does not get its own bullet point. It also shouldn't be included in Bingo's description, as it does not describe Bingo. It does not affect who she is as a character or tell us any important traits about her. It would be like including information about Chattermax into Bluey's description. For more information, see WP:MOSTV SatDis (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

What if we added a small "Toys" section to the character list, including Floppy, Polly Puppy, and maybe Chattermax? Seems like the best option to still include the important information on recurring toys that play important roles, while not calling them characters or cluttering the bios of Bluey and Bingo. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I put it in. Thoughts? QuicoleJR (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR: Again, as this pertains to the "characters" section, toys are not classified as characters. I have pulled this quote from the WP:MOSTV - Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that belongs in the plot summary; instead, focus on real-world information on the characters and actors (this could include, but is not limited to, casting of the actor or how the character was created and developed over the course of the series). The key is to provide real-world context to the character through production information, without simply re-iterating entertainment websites such as IMDb. As you'll find, if the toys are important, they are mentioned in the appropriate episode summaries. SatDis (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on mentioning the toys in a sentence or two on toy-based play in the "Themes" section? QuicoleJR (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR: Only if you can find a high quality reference which explains the importance of toys and play in relation to the series. I haven't seen it mentioned before. SatDis (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I'll drop it. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Bandit Heeler’s Page

I’m working on a draft on Bandit Heeler for now, it needs work on the Sources. 70.114.12.183 (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend adding more info about development and adding a bit more in-universe info. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Tip: The capitalization needs work. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Controversy

We need to add a controversy section, probably a subsection of Reception. There have been a couple notable controversies, and the article should have them. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• There is a full paragraph of the Reception section outlining controversies. This was decided during the Featured Article process. SatDis (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, ok. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 May 2023

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. In this RM, the supporters argued this page had the most pageviews and search engine hits of "Bluey", however those in opposition stated that this is recentism and that long term significance has not been established. Later on, Bluey (TV series) was proposed, however seems to have been largely missed, so another RM can happen on that. Seeing as both sides had valid arguments and 17 had participated, I think it is better we close than than relist again. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 05:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

---

• Bluey (2018 TV series) → Bluey
• Bluey → Bluey (disambiguation)

– In the year since the last RM, plenty of new evidence has appeared with respect to why this should be the primary topic.

The first and most obvious piece of evidence is its result on search engines. When using DuckDuckGo, the search results for "Bluey" in the first three or so pages are all mainly focused on this show, with the only exception being a dictionary definition of the word. When searching for "Bluey series" on DDG, the 1970s series does not appear until the very end of the results page. When searching for "Bluey show" on DDG, the 1970s series is the very last entry on the results page. "Bluey dog" is a weaker case, as there are several references to the real-life dog, such as this one, as well as these two sources. Nevertheless, much of the results, including all non-WP links on the first page, are all on the show. Note that I used DDG due to the lack of a filter bubble.

Another piece of evidence is viewership levels. Since season 3A dropped on Disney+ (after the last RM), the show has consistently ranked on the streaming charts, being the #8 most-watched overall program in 2022. And even on the weekly charts this is true; this is when season 3A debuted (week of 10 August), and these are several charts in 2023:

There have also been several promotional events since the last RM that might support this move as well, such as an appearance at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade (seen by 27.7m people), and an appearance on the Tonight Show to promote said appearance.

The last RM only had pageviews as evidence, and to be fair that is also evidence in support of this([7]). But the previous RM failed in part because it was literally the only piece of evidence used.

Personally, I feel that the circumstances since the last RM have changed enough such that another discussion is merited. I have always felt that the previous RM was inadequate due to the lack of evidence, but I only decided to do this RM now since enough time has passed to give everyone another opinion.

One final note: the real-life dog's record might have been surpassed, but given the consensus of the reliability of Guiness World Records, I have decided not to include it in my initial argument. N0nuun (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC) N0nuun (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support per all of the evidence provided. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Despite the show's rising popularity, I do agree the previous RM may have been inopportune. However, given page views, streaming records, and search engine studies (which I conducted also), I do believe now would be a better time to consider these page moves.

Moreover, if successful, I propose the page List of Bluey (2018 TV series) episodes also be moved to List of Bluey episodes. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 03:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

You make a good point with respect to search engine studies. Google Trends does in fact provide evidence to support the move. Note that the graph has increased over time since the last RM (May 2022), and has surpassed the previous high prior to that RM. N0nuun (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Some recent international travel showed this Australian that the highest ranking piece of Australian culture I was asked about was Bluey. There was no question which Bluey they meant. HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• I will miss the "(2018 TV series)" label that has been here for all of my edits, but I will support the consensus that the move should occur. SatDis (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:RECENTISM. A comparison of pageviews going back several years shows there is no primary topic between the show and the real life dog. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Support - All evidence provided. Have also conducted some DuckDuckGo searches for "Bluey" and "Bluey show" - the 2018 series is listed first FearfulWarpII (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:RECENTISM. Is this Australian preschool animated television series syndicated worldwide? Seems a very parochial subject to grab the title spot from the actual meaning of "a bluey" in Gbooks. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I have also added Australian Cattle Dog to the disambiguation page, as it was the basis behind the name of both the dog and the show, yet it was never mentioned as a potential primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  It airs on Disney Junior and appears on Disney+ in the United States, where I live. I've also seen a lot of posts online and merchandise in stores. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• I don't have enough information to form a complete opinion about this specific matter, but I wanted to react to the nomination's immediate argument that Wikipedia should treat search engine behavior as evidence of primary-topic-levels of interest. This doesn't make sense because the purpose of search engines is usually to guess what's the most profitable for them to point the readers to, whereas the purpose of encyclopedia navigation is to gauge the best way to instill knowledge in the average reader. Sometimes, the average reader would most likely be astonished if they saw a list of topics related to a term and that's when we can apply the primary topic guideline to short-circuit them. Often times, they won't be, and would instead be astonished if the encyclopedia short-circuited them to only one topic. --Joy (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Your concern about search engines is why I used DuckDuckGo in my arguments. With Google, and potentially other search engines, if you are a big fan of Bluey, Google will know it through your browser history and give you results that are biased towards this. DuckDuckGo does not do this, and they give everyone the same result regardless of interests or demographics. This is why searching for "Bluey dog" results in a weaker argument than other forms of searching. Since DuckDuckGo treats everyone like the average user with no personalization, it is a better representation of what an average person would expect when looking up "Bluey" here. N0nuun (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's still a search engine and it's a representation of what one particular organization thinks their average user wants to see. This may or may not map well to what an average English reader expects to see in an encyclopedia. --Joy (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support per evidence provided above. CJ-Moki (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose by long-term significance. Does not outweigh the significance of Bluey (nickname). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Is a move to Bluey (TV series) acceptable at all per WP:PDAB? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  As the nominator, I am fine with such a move if and only if this RM fails. Looking at pageviews, the animated series consistently gets more pageviews than the 1970s series, even going back to 2019! And as stated above the search results support this PDAB. In fact, I myself thought of this idea as the RM played out. N0nuun (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per Necrothesp. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Disney has been notified of this discussion. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Television has been notified of this discussion. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:RECENTISM Quake1234 (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Surely you mean oppose per Recentism? - in any case the relist suggests this RM has failed to gather consensus. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PDAB. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:RECENTISM. Hextor26 (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2023 (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.

Bluey on CBeebies

Don't Forget! CBeebies as English channel. 136.169.174.208 (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to confirm that Bluey airs on CBeebies? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Already included. SatDis (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 8 July 2023

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus, yet again. The root of this RM is whether or not this page meets the high bar set by WP:PDAB. There is no consensus on that issue, supporters argue WP:PT1 and that this has pageviews on its side. however opposers argue recentism and hence failing WP:PT2. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 02:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Bluey (2018 TV series) → Bluey (TV series) – Based upon what I learned from my previous RM, I would now like to propose a new RM that is more modest and reasonable than my previous RM, and which was suggested within that previous RM.

When looking strictly at TV series, the only other show with the title is the 1976 series. However, when looking at all time views, the 2018 series has around 10x to 100x more daily views than the 1976 series. In addition, the 2018 series has an episode list, something that the 1976 series does not have in its article. Not to mention the search results mentioned in my previous RM. The high pageview ratio combined with the separate episode list makes me believe that this satisfies WP:PDAB. N0nuun (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I do believe that explicitly labelling both the 1976 series and 2018 series is the best way to most accurately identify the two pages. My personal belief is that it shouldn't matter which is more popular, but it should just be as easy as possible for readers to find the articles (through accurate labelling). For now I will oppose ... but this is just my personal opinion. I'd be interested to see if there's any other series where one is just labelled as "(TV series)" and one has "(2018 TV series)" with a year. If anyone knows any examples, please link them below! SatDis (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support Let's be honest, who cares about that old police show? Bluey has more search results, more pageviews, and I believe it probably has more lasting significance than the 60s show. In 50 years, more people will remember the cartoon than the cop show. All we need is a hatnote. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support If only to remove the confusion that I myself experienced, as I'm sure others have, of wondering where this year's series is covered by Wikipedia. Bluey is a current TV series that began in 2018, not a five year old series that aired only in 2018. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per TV naming guidelines: TV series go by start year. There are two series so year is needed. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you please point me at the policy that says TV series go by start year? HiLo48 (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@HiLo48: This is the official naming policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), more specifically wp:NCTVUS additional disambiguation.

"When there are two or more television productions of the same type and name, use one of the following methods:

• Prefix the year of release or program debut – (1997 TV series). This is generally used when there are shows with the same title within the same country." SatDis (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• SatDis - This is confusing, as I touched on above. How would we describe a series called Bluey that aired ONLY in 2018? Someone looking for an article on a series that is airing with new episodes created in 2023 is unlikely to recognise Bluey (2018 TV series) as that series. I didn't. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• @HiLo48: If there happened to also be an additional series titled Bluey that either started as well in 2018 or was a limited series, per NCTV, the next steps would be to use production country as disambiguator. It isn't confusing currently nor in the example you asked about would it be confusing if those naming conventions had to be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Favre1fan93 You don't believe I was confused? HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• I didn't say that I didn't believe you. My comments were that the title, per current naming convention guidelines, is accurate to differentiate it and have it not be confusing. And with this title, anyone looking for it that may simply search Bluey or Bluey (TV series), will be taken to the disambig pages in which you can then find this article listed appropriately and then can get you here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. There is more than one TV series with this name and that has an article. Adding to editorial confusion (i.e. linking to the incorrect article) and to reader confusing isn't helpful at all. Please stop with this continuing RM saga. Gonnym (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The current naming convention didn't really help me find this article. I wanted an article on a series that is airing with new episodes created in 2023. Bluey (2018 TV series) isn't a logical name for that article. It's a pre-shooler's show. The current target audience wasn't even born in 2018. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a poor argument. We aren't trying to cater to a specific age demographic. We need article titles that are clear, unique and tell readers what they are reading about. Bluey (TV series) currently redirects to the disambiguation page for any readers (possibly like yourself) looking for either of the series (as some may not be aware of this one at all and only the 1976 one and vice versa). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Alternatively rename to Bluey because this seems to be the primary topic. (At least I think it's called a primary topic.) —theMainLogan (t•c) 04:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  There was a previous RM that I did two months ago and the consensus is that there is no primary topic for the word "Bluey" by itself, as there is also a nickname and a real-life dog that held the species longevity record for over 80 years. N0nuun (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Nonetheless, Wikipedia seems to be far more interested in the fictional dog than the real one. —theMainLogan (t•c) 00:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PDAB, WP:NCTV, and WP:RECENTISM. Not having the year in this name (but still in the 1976 series) would not satisfy PDAB, nor the guidelines of NCTV. This all smells like recentism for this series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per standard Wikipedia naming conventions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per naming conventions Joe (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment: As the nominator, I would like to elaborate my reasoning for my position, as I feel that my position was not explained thoroughly enough. And in retrospect, I should've put this in my original RM request so that my position would be easier to understand.

In my previous RM, User:Brainulator9 suggested the move that I am proposing here and pointed to WP:PDAB for their reasoning. To make it short, WP:PDAB states that partially disambiguated titles can have primary topics, but the standard of proving such is tougher. There are several examples on that page, including TV series. There is even one example involving two TV shows from the same country, and that is the example involving The Office.

In any case, when trying to determine whether WP:PDAB applies here, there is only one other TV series with the name Bluey: the 1976 series. The cumulative number of pageviews of Bluey (1976 TV series) and its previous title is 114,289. However, the 2018 series (and its previous title) have a cumulative pageview total of 4,264,892, which is around 37x the number of cumulative views for the 1976 series.

And when I say cumulative, I am referring to as far back as when the pageview system allows me so (July 2015). My previous RM only looked at the previous year, which is a much weaker indication of long-term significance. The fact that the 2018 series can achieve much more views in three fewer years shows that it has more significance over the 1976 series. In fact, after only six months on the air, the pageviews for the 2018 series (47k) were starting to eclipse that of the 1976 series (38k)!

To make it clear, I have accepted that the nickname and the real-life dog both have long-term significance, which is why this new RM isn't trying to make the claims that the old RM did. By solely looking at TV shows, I feel that a show that is able to gain worldwide popularity can be considered to not need as much disambiguation as a show that only aired for around one year. N0nuun (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2023 (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.

Censored

I see the category Censored television series, but I can't find the word censored in the article. - Tournesol (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

That category refers to how some scenes were removed in the international release. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Will the characters get their own pages?

Well I mean not all characters from the show but thinking like one or four characters in each pages here. Staffierebros77 2:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there'd be enough sources or reason to justify individual pages for characters. At the very most possibly just Bluey and Bandit. Editors could draft pages as they see fit. SatDis (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I think a list could be possible, but standalone articles for characters like Chilli or Muffin seem implausible. Bandit could stand a chance though. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Outside Fandom's guide, highly doubtful beyond the exception of Draft:Bandit Heeler, which is looking promising as an AFC graduate at this writing; keep an eye out once/if it passes. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2023 (2)

Unblock It. 2600:1700:75A2:F800:782B:72F8:211:614D (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Tollens (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2023

I Would Like To Edit This Page. 2600:1700:75A2:F800:E450:A866:F9B9:9344 (talk) 23:28, 16 September 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. 💜  melecie  talk - 00:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Resembles

Was going to edit this caption

An Australian Cattle Dog, known as a "Blue Heeler, which the character of Bluey resembles.

to say something like "after which the character Bluey is modeled".

18:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)~

Revert

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

@Maxxhiato: I believe that the removed information provides important context, and it is well-sourced. I do not agree with labeling it as trivia. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

In case someone sees the deletions as arbitrary or wishes a similar explanation from me...

"The stories featured in Bluey depict Bluey and Bingo engaging in imaginative play. Brumm wanted to show that self-directed and unstructured play is natural in shaping children and allowing them to develop."

"Brumm drew inspiration for scripts from his own experiences in watching his daughters play..."

"Brumm noticed how his children would recreate interactions such as visits to the doctor, through roleplay..."

"Brumm discovered the importance of play-based learning after his daughter struggled with formal education, which led him to exclude elements of literacy and numeracy in Bluey and focus on the depiction of life skills."

"His creative aims were to make children laugh, and show parents what children can learn while engaged in play."

This is all very redundant. I would heavily suggest cutting out the repetition and keeping it as concise as possible. Something such as "Brumm drew inspiration for scripts from his own experiences in watching his daughters play." Simple.

Additionally, the mention of "life skills", so bluntly, isn't in the 'Perth Now' article. It appears to be his conclusion regarding his own experience. Finally, the bit about his creative aims being to make children laugh and so on, well, that is kind of trivia. That would be like an action movie maker saying "my creative aim was to make something action packed". I would certainly hope so. I think these inclusions just repeat information way too much. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

This is also not even mentioning the quote box in the section that also repeats this information. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Upon giving it more thought, those exclusions are acceptable. However, I would still like to retain the paragraph about Brumm's dogs. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Maxxhiato: You raise some interesting points, but you have removed an entire paragraph. For example, why has the information about formal education been removed? It provides an essential viewpoint into why play-based learning is a central focus of this program. Another example: "making children laugh" is not the same as "making something action packed" for an action movie - children's television is not always about making children laugh. Furthermore, Bluey became a Featured Article in November 2020 which means all prose on this page has been heavily researched and worked on for years. I have reverted the removal for now, but I look forward to discussing every single line of prose that has been removed, and how we can improve it together rather than just delete it immediately. SatDis (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

At its core, this information is about how the creator observed his children playing, and through his show, advocates for play-based learning rather than showing traditional literacy and numeracy. It is vitally important information for anyone wishing to gain a deep understanding of the show's purpose. SatDis (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

It does not need to be repeated ad nauseam. The best way to improve it is by removing it. Achieving "featured" status does not mean that an article becomes exempt from change or any perceivable improvements. But very well. I see I'm in the losing camp here so I'll take my leave and improve other articles. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 15:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Bluey is not for preschool

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

Yes, that word leapt out at me too when I first saw it. The appeal of the show is much broader than just preschoolers, right up to and including adults. I don't know if there are sources around that address that realty. HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

While I'm not sure the original post here is starting an in depth conversation, the "preschool" genre is included because it is reliably sourced. The primary audience of the program is for preschoolers, as it was commissioned for an exclusively preschool network. The show appeals to a broader audience, but anything other than its primary audience must be reliably referenced. SatDis (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

ABC Kids (Australia) states that the channel is, "for children 7 years old and younger," not simply or only - and certainly not "exclusively preschool." Bingo is four and in Kindy, but Bluey is six, at school, and obviously the primary focus. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This source explicitly states that the program is a preschool series [8] Obviously, the appeal is much wider... but genre must be reliably sourced. Also, this official source [9] states ABC for Kids caters up to 6 years old and describes that as an "upper preschool audience". SatDis (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

What does this even mean? —theMainLogan (t•c) 17:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

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

The best reference I can find is this [10] which states ABC for Kids caters up to 6 years old and describes that as an "upper preschool audience". But still, that falls under "pre-school" as a genre. This source [11] explicitly states it is a "preschool" series. Unfortunately there is no genre of television called "5–7 years old". SatDis (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

So don't label it with a genre. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)