Talk:Dinosaur Train/Archive 1

If Buddy's parents died, then who gave the egg containing him to the Pteranodon family? GVnayR (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

episode guide

I can't wait for an episode guide! 24.183.52.110 (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

They're still making new episodes. It would be best until least summer of 2010 before someone makes an episode guide. GVnayR (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I found some episodes at PBSKids.org!

One Smart Dinosaur/Petey the Peteinosaurus
Fast Friends/T. Rex Teeth
Now With Feathers!/A Frill a Minute
One Big Dinosaur/Play Date with Annie
Armored Like an Ankylosaurus/Campout!
Night Train/Fossil Fred
Derek the Deinonychu/Don's Dragonfly
One step closer... 24.183.52.110 (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I found another!

I'm a T. Rex!; Ned the Quadruped
One step closer...24.183.52.110 (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I found another one!

One Small Dinosaur/T. Rex Migration
One step closer... 24.183.52.110 (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Look! I found one!

Laura The Giganotosaurus/Dinosaur Poop!
One step closer... 24.183.52.110 (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Predator X

Uh, guys? The article says that Predator X was mentioned on the website. However, I just looked. No Predator X. I did find Pliosaurus there, though. 70.80.215.121 (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Still inaccurate

This show may be very accurate,but still has lots of inaccuracies

• Buddy should have feathers since he's a young t-rex
• Pronated hands (most annoying of all)
• Feathers:Some dinosaurs have them,but other ones lack them
• The pterosaurs should be covered in bristle-like structures.Same thing for ceratopsians
• Pterosaurs have bat-like wings.Dino-Mario (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This is trivial information, possibly POV, just FYI. I may be just a bozo for replying to a half a year old post but this information does not belong in the article. Thanks! ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Characters

Is the list of characters in the article really nessecary? I mean seriously, the main characters and a couple subcharacters can go, but like 80% of the article is this whole list and strays away from the subject. How about making the list of characters its own subject and revising it to fit the article? --Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I put in {{trivia}} tags. Those sections can go into their own article. I'm thinking about adding another Template message to the top of the article. This is a very poor article that strays away from the point. I'm not saying the other sections I tagged are not helpful, I suggest they go into their own article.--Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Violation?

Although the IP Address "71.174.73.114" may have reverted vandalism. It appears he/she directly copied and pasted main character descriptions from the PBS Kids website. This is possibly in violation of copyright and I am currently working on manually reverting to the latest non-vandalised and original-content version of this article. I've added a severe cleanup tag not to be removed until the issue has been resolved. Thanks! --Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done I successfully managed to manually revert this section to the last edit by 92.86.97.156, resolving and removing to copyvio tag. :) --Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

OK, just want to clarify here; why is there a Main Characters section as well as a Cast section? It makes no sense. Consider merging these section together. The Main Characters will still keep their descriptions, however, a list of cast will be listed underneath. Possibly under a heading level 3. The problem with these sections is that one states the character and their actor, and another lists the voice actors and a whole bank of their characters. Again, it makes no sense. Otherwise, delete and seriously cleanup either one of those sections. Thank you! ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Never mind about this, BTW. I understand the necessity for both sections. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

new talk

we need info of the show in different languages because i've seen the show in portuguese on tv Neowikier (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you look at Portugese Wikipedia, they have an article about it. See pt:Dinosaur Train Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Snee oosh?

Snee oosh was uncredited — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connorizback2000 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Shiny\Gilbert Romance Plot

Look, I’ve put in the same edit about three times now, and someone keeps erasing it. They said it’s because “We don’t know for certain whether Shiny and Gilbert are in love.” But I disagree. Haven’t you seen the episode Gilbert Visits the Nest? In it, Shiny gets extremely nervous when she’s told Gilbert’s coming to the nest, and starts cleaning everything. She clearly wouldn’t do this if she didn’t regard him as more than just a friend; she didn’t go crazy when Tank Triceratops came over to the nest. And if that isn’t enough, haven’t you ever noticed that in almost every episode Gilbert appears in, every time he makes so much as a simple quip, she laughs to the point of snorting loudly. And every time he compliments her in a simple way, much like he does others, she says “Oh Gilbert,” and gets bashful, he’s complimented Tiny several times, and she didn’t respond in the same way. And in the episode when she was given the rank of Junior Conductor she heard Buddy imitating Gilbert, and immediately perked up, ran over to him (thinking he was Gilbert) hugged him and said “Oh Gilbert! It’s so great to see you!” before realizing it was Buddy. And in the same episode, when the Dinosaur Train left, she didn’t say “Bye everyone,” or even “Bye Mr. Conductor,” like everyone else; She specifically said “Bye Gilbert.” Furthermore, Shiny doesn’t seem to act much differently around Gilbert than Mr. Conductor acts around Erma Eoraptor, aside from the fact that she hasn’t overtly admitted her feelings for Gilbert, but that might be because she’s just a ten or eleven-year-old kid! And nobody deleted the section that said Mr. Conductor had a crush on Erma! On this extensive evidence, I am convinced that Shiny is in love with Gilbert. I am however unsure about how Gilbert feels about Shiny. He doesn’t seem very shy around her, and doesn’t seem to esteem her over Buddy, Tiny and everyone else. But I never claimed to know that. The point is, this is one of the few romance plots in the PBS kids TV shows, and one of only two in Dinosaur Train. Let's not break cupid’s arrow.2606:4100:1840:808:1848:808:0:7977 (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well hey, we don't know for sure that Mr. Conductor has a crush on Erma either! Let's at least just say Shiny has a crush on Gilbert, maybe not neccesarily in love with him. There's just too much evidence to deny it.

• • That is your own opinion, not ours. And also, I do not start edit wars. You need to learn to think things first before you jump to conclusions. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Do you think you could specify what makes you think Shiny doesn't love Gilbert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:4100:1840:808:1848:808:0:7977 (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's my two cents: I think this entire debate surrounds a piece of information that is trivial at best. Is omitting this information about having a "crush" on another character going to have a negative effect on what the reader takes out of the description? I don't really think so. For the character descriptions, we should be brief and remain in an encyclopedic point of view. As for your "romance" point, this is a children's television show; whatever romantic plot that exists here is probably tucked away in obscure plot elements which are synthesized by enthusiastic fans to be a form of puppy love. In my opinion, we shouldn't include this information at all—not that it isn't true, but because it isn't important enough to add to the already too-long character descriptions. If and when there is an entire episode explicitly surrounding this information, we can then consider including it. Now, it's just not pertinent. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe this information is not trivial, because giving a certain character a love interest (no matter what degree of love it is) gives said character a sense of individuality, it sort of shows that Shiny is indeed Shiny and not just "Buddy's less infamous sister". I don't think the Jim Henson company would have written in implications of romantic feelings in Shiny unless it was meant to be a plot point. And actually, there is an episode that revolves around this plot, it's called "Gilbert visits the nest".2606:4100:1840:808:1848:808:0:7977 (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I will look into this. Mz7 (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I already saw the episode and that whole romance subplot never happened. So my objection is true - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, technically, your saying they aren't in love is an opinion as well, but opinions can be proven as fact. And that's exactly what I've done. You see, this fact is verified by a calculated due process of elimination of comparing it to uncontroversial, proven occurences in the show. You see, if Shiny regarded Gilbert as just a friend, she would treat him like Petey Peteinosaurus, Tank Tricerotops etc., but she regards him higher than others. Which proves she's in love with him. There are now no other possible scenarios. It's like telling a blindfolded man that there are two cups, a green one and a red one, and the one on the right is red. This proves that the one on the left is green. The blindfolded man cannot say "But I don't know for sure that it's green," because there are no other possible scenariosCharlieBrown25 (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Your "calculated due process of elimination of comparing it to uncontroversial, proven occuraneces" is WP:OR. Bottom line: you added something, it was challenged, now you need to cite a reliable source that agrees with your interpretation. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

That Shiny might have a crush on Gilbert is implied by her behaviour but not specifically stated. It's a subtle understated element of Shiny's personality and best to let the viewers make their own determination. For all we know the viewers could be getting set up for a plot twist other than romance. As someone stated in this thread, character descriptions should be kept brief and simple. SlightSmile 20:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry CharlieBrown25, but I remain unconvinced that the sentence is necessary. As others have stated, we want to include information that is verifiable and an important part of the character. I agree with Slightsmile when they say, "That Shiny might have a crush on Gilbert is implied by her behaviour but not specifically stated." It's an element of her character that is debatable--a point of view. Until a time when romance is confirmed explicitly, rather than implicitly, we should probably leave it out and have the readers make their own determinations. Mz7 (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

But do you honestly think there are any other possibilites? (And P.S., SummerPhD, it's not original research, its just watching the show) (and P.S.S., slightsmile, as Mz7 mentioned above, this is a kids show, I seriously doubt they would set the viewers (especially children) up for a plot twist, this isn't a novel) [[CharlieBrown25 (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There are no possibilities and I agree with the other admins. We have to keep it brief. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

No, no, I mean are there any other possibilities other than the fact that Shiny is attracted to Gilbert. Because her behaivior makes it rather clear. And if you want to make it brief, get rid of things that I got rid of, like listing that T-rexes cannot fly. (And I actually don't know how to cite articles, but I did notice one interesting piece of information. The official Dinosaur Train wiki actually says shiny has a strong crush on Gilbert.CharlieBrown25 (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikia sites are not really reliable sources. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there any way to confirm this information somewhere else?CharlieBrown25 (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope. There is no other way. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

No, what I mean is, is there another way to verify that the romance plot is true somewhere other than the Dinosaur Train Wiki. (I need to rephrase these things better, you just can't understand my terminology.)

Oh, I understand completely. There are no ways to clarify this and what you just added to the article isn't helping at all. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This idea is original research. Saying it is "in the show" does not help for two reasons:

1) It is not explicitly in the show, rather it is an interpretation of numerous details (she does this, that and the other thing which can only mean (you believe) she has a crush on him. That you cannot think of another explanation does not make your interpretation correct. ("I saw something in the sky and couldn't tell what it way. It must be beings from another planet here to stomp on wheat fields.")

2) The show is a primary source. If this supposed sub-plot were a meaningful part of the show, independent reliable sources would discuss it. They don't; it isn't.

Bottom line: Your addition has been disputed. To re-add the material, you MUST cite an independent reliable source for the material. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You see that's the whole problem, I can't figure out just what is considered an " independant reliable source." What does that mean? (I still can't get a straight answer from FilmandTVFan28. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

And besides, isn't the fact that it is argument from incredulity enough to prove this fact? - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

And I would give up that idea about "there's nothing else it could be other than romance" if someone could come up with another thing it cold be. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

"Independent": Not connected to the show. The show is not an independent source.

"Reliable source": published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You are not published. Blogs and forums do not have fact-checking.

Common examples of "independent reliable sources" are widely circulated magazines (Time, Entertainment Weekly, People, etc.) and large newspapers.

"What else could it be?" Is not an argument that something is what you think it is. It is an argument from ignorance: "I can only think of one thing it could be, so it must be that." That light up in the sky that one person thinks can only be a spaceship full of aliens could be: a weather balloon, flares from military aircraft, a distant oil refinery burning off waste natural gas, Venus, a man made satellite, experimental aircraft, a blimp, a drone, etc. What you believe can only be a "crush" could be: absolutely nothing (i.e. your imagination), idolizing, mere admiration, etc. So far, you are the only person who sees it as a crush. Without independent reliable sources for this, it will not be added. Until you have such sources, you are wasting everyone's time. Unless you find such sources, please drop it. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

All right, but consider this: no one has ever even disputed that the conductor has a crush on Erma Eoraptor, and there is no specification of a crush between them. And yet, this stays on the page. Why is that?!?! - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

And furthermore, isn't there enough information in the show to suggest that it's highly probable or at least possible? - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

So far, you are the only person who sees it as a:

• certain/highly probable/likely/possible/unlikely but not impossible/etc.
• past and/or current and/or future
• crush/puppy love/passionate love affair/lifelong loving relationship/partnership/BFF/frienimies/close friendship/suitor/etc.

Without independent reliable sources for this, it will not be added. Until you have such sources, you are wasting everyone's time. Unless you find such sources, please drop it. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

But you didn't answer my question. What is the source for The conductor's attraction to Erma? Because I may be able to use the same source to prove my point. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that there currently is a source for that. If you disagree with that, you may remove it form the article as unsources or mark it as needing a source by adding {{cn}} ofter the statement in question. This question, however, is separate from your other question. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: I've closed the case at DRN as CharlieBrown25 appears to be ignoring consensus and has not provided an adequate source per WP:BURDEN.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

(Closed case at DRN: [1]. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Purpose of the character description

As this discussion is approaching a natural end, I would like to take the time to write down my general thoughts with regards to the development of the character descriptions. In accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, information we include about fiction should be written from a real-world perspective. The character descriptions in the article should include information about the real-world production/development of each character, the impact the character has had (in the real world), the author's intention, and a limited description of the character written from (again) a real-world perspective. So the fictional elements of a character is only part of the story.

Currently, the character descriptions are only documenting the characters from a fictional perspective, and very little about the real-world impact of each character. Thus, we should rewrite them from the appropriate perspective, including more information about the character's real world production and the role the character plays in the show. We should include less about the fictional elements of the character (only including the most important aspects).

This is the primary reason I have opposed the inclusion of Shiny's supposed crush: it is just not necessary in the character description. Furthermore, other editors have noted that the information is original research—it is a conclusion drawn from your own observations, and something that has not been discussed in reliable sources. CharlieBrown, unfortunately I believe we have reached a rough consensus to not include the information. Let's move on past this. Mz7 (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the reason there is no "real-world" perspective in the character descriptions, is because no one has really said anything about it. If there's nothing to work with, you can't put anything in, so the next best thing is to describe them from a fictional perspecive. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

And on another note, I have an idea for a reliable source to prove my crush point. What if we have someone with an objective standpoint email The Jim Henson Company and ask them whether the crush is true or false. That would end this whole thing in a more comfortable way. I'd suggest having someone who was not involved in this dispute to do it, so we won't have any forged emails. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; thus, it's articles should read and sound like one. The Manual of Style essentially states that a fictional "in-universe" perspective is contrary to our goals as a neutral real-world encyclopedia, and should be avoided entirely. It is not the "next best thing". If no one has really said anything about the characters, then it is best to just scrap the detailed character descriptions entirely (forgive my bluntness) and stick with a cast list and perhaps the species of dinosaur the character is. (i.e. Shiny, voiced by Erika-Shaye Gair, Pteranodon) On Wikipedia, no content is better than unencyclopedic content.

Now, regarding the email idea, as you say, emails can be forged (rather easily if you ask me). So I wouldn't count an email alone as a reliable source. And that aside, I have consistently opposed the inclusion of the information because it is contrary to the purpose of a character description.

I would like you to read the following essay: WP:STICK. I think we have all lost interest in this discussion, and I think it's best if you stop bringing it up. There is a dedicated Dinosaur Train Wiki that looks like it needs help. Feel free to start adding the fictional information you want to add there. But here on Wikipedia, it's simply not encyclopedic, and therefore not appropriate. Mz7 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The fetid pool of goo at your feet (and ground into the stick in your hand) used to be a horse. It has long since expired. It is not resting, stunned or pining for the fjords. It is dead. Wikipedia is based on reliable, third-party, published sources for two reasons. The first is reliability: Readers must be able to check out the source to verify that the information is true. They cannot do this with an email. The second is to weed out obsessive fanboy trivia. If reliable third-party published sources haven't mentioned something about a subject, it is simply too trivial to include here. This is just such a case. Please, please, please, please, PLEASE let it go. - 02:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually Mz7, I think you're right. There shouldn't be all this fictional perspective stuff on the page. True as it may be, the whole crush thing doesn't work for Wikipedia. I'm glad I can finally put this to rest feeling comfortable about it. So I'd consider getting rid of all the fiction stuff. I don't really even like this show!!! (But I think everyone should at least admit that the crush is true (but no pressure)). Relievedly - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Voice Cast

So the voice cast got removed because they were already in the character section? Actually, most of them were not listed in the character section at all. By removing them, the editor just made it sound like they weren't in the show at all. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought the section was superfluous, as it repeated a lot of the information already contained in the "Characters" section. To eliminate redundancy, I think we should merge the sections somehow. Mz7 (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I will admit that the removal of the entire section was probably too hasty. However, like I said, a good portion of the list is repeated information. Further, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a credits roll. We should only list the most important cast members and characters, such as the ones that have had major roles in multiple episodes. I am toying with the idea of splitting the character list from the article into a List of Dinosaur Train characters page, so we can focus on providing more real-world information at the main article. Mz7 (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the character list idea. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I also agree, (finally we agree on something about Dinosaur Train) CharlieBrown25 (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 May 2014

I am CharlieBrown25, the person who has been making the statement about the Shiny crush on Gilbert. I would like to request that this block be lifted, because I now agree with the other editors. We need this block to be lifted, because we've all agreed to change the page to make from a strictly real world perspective. CharlieBrown25 (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2014 (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. Mz7 (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I am User:SummerPhD. I was part of the other discussion and took CharlieBrown25 to the 3RR noticeboard on the issue. (Incidentally, had there not been a backlog at that point, you would have been blocked.) I did not agree to the change Charlie says "we've all agreed to". I don't know that the others agreed either. S l o w . d o w n . a . b i t , . C h a r l i e. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@SummerPhD: CharlieBrown25 has agreed to rest his case in light of my explanation above. I don't foresee any further issues with edit warring now that this has occurred. Consensus is established. Let's move on. Mz7 (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, consensus has established that the "crush" doesn't belong. Charlie, however, believes we have all agreed to some other sweeping change to the article that I, for one, haven't given the slightest consideration to. Given his past editing, I do not want him to think he has a mandate that does not exist. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Charlie and I have agreed that the fictional content in the article should be written from a real-world perspective, which the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction supports. In essence he is saying that all of us have agreed that the information about the "crush" doesn't belong because the article should be written from such a perspective, and that the page should be unprotected so we can develop the article from such a perspective. The article has been unprotected, anyway. Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

This must be removed

Well, I suppose if someone was going to delete my edits, I should've expected it to be you TVfan. As explained in this talk page, we are removing any biographical elements in the page and keeping only real-world information. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no. You just turned the Character list section into a duplicated cast list section one cast list is enough. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, in that case I think we need to remove the chaaracter list completely; Mz7 says that the only real-world information included in that section is the voice actors. There is not supposed to be any biograhpical information. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)