Talk:Doug (TV series)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Doug (TV series) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 1095 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Doug (TV series). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Doug (TV series) at the Reference desk.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Spock of Vulcan, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 26 January 2011.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Television: Nickelodeon Low‑importance

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

Animation: American / Television High‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Animated television work group (assessed as High-importance).

Disney Mid‑importance

	Disney portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Animation / Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Animation portal This article is supported by WikiProject Animation - American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Youtube[edit]

the picture clearly has a YouTube pointer on it.

i get the feel it's from one of those "The 90's and it's shows" videos

i found a better picture to use (through it does not show it's title)

http://www.walldesk.net/pdp/1024/23/03/Doug%20Funnie/dougfunnie1.jpg

I'm a goofy goober, YEAH!, Your a goofy goober, YEAH! (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The crap I've found so far in the Characters section[edit]

Section is written in the wrong tone, first and foremost, and needs a proper tidy up.

"She despises Doug's dog Porkchop and the two usually get into fights, being a cat and dog."

This is bad. It's established all over the paragraph that's taken from that it's talking about a cat, no need to keep repeating that information. It's also clearly in an inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia.

"Gets worse - Her skin is slightly brighter than Doug's, her hair is blue, and is shown to be rather meek, but also an outgoing environmentalist."

Her hair is meek. Her hair is an outgoing environmentalist. And this is only as far as I've read down the page.

Why is this article so crap? 86.182.176.137 (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - confirmed, it doesn't get any better from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.176.137 (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why the article is crap, is that you haven't improved it yet. Wikipedia is composed of volunteers; if you feel you can improve the article, feel free to do so. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you fix the highlight thumbnail?[edit]

The thumbnail highlight picture for Doug (TV series) is Richmond, Virginia, and not the Doug logo. How can one fix that? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IronMaidenRocks, why do we need to use the logo? The logo appears in the infobox and there's another logo in the Disney acquisition section. I don't see the value of adding another logo. And frankly adding another logo opens up questions about fair use. We don't want to overdo it with someone's trademark unless there's a legitimate reason. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. How do you we use the logo that's already in the infobox? Also, when you highlight this series' name, it appears confusingly to be an article about a city. A page teaser should tell the user exactly what the article is about. There should be no element which prompts them to actually go to the article if they only want a summary. Also, it looks sloppy, and I have never seen a page with this problem before. Doug (TV series): highlight this to see what I mean if you're using a web browser.

We could use a lose res image of the cartoon, or I could send a letter to the current IP holder and ask if they have an image we can use, if the logo thumbnail can't be used in both the infobox and the highlight box. Otherwise, I'd suggest removing the city picture as it really adds nothing to the article. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IronMaidenRocks, I'm not sure I understand the bulk of what you are saying. I don't see a problem with the inclusion of the Richmond skyline. It's merely there to make an otherwise dull text wall slightly more visually appealing. We've already used the Nick series logo in the infobox, so there's no need to use it again. I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to a "page teaser". Maybe you'd benefit from turning on "Hovercards" as found in your user preferences? (Don't forget to click "save" at the bottom.) Not sure what you mean when you're talking about "highlighting" the series' name and it displaying an article about a city. Are you talking about hovering over a link, and seeing a pop-up window or something? If so, I don't see the problem you're describing by hovering over the link. If you're talking about selecting the text and highlighting it by drawing your cursor across it, I don't see the problem you're describing. I'm also not clear on who you plan to send a letter to, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hovercards. As you say. You see how it's a picture of a city on the card? That doesn't seem jarring to you in any way? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could we seperate this page into two?[edit]

Is it fair that we and I can seperate this page into two, one named "Doug" and the other named "Disney's Doug"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.37.124 (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest we not do that. The series is complete, lots of stuff is common that would need to be repeated. I don't see a real advantage to potential readers to split now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, Doug and Disney’s Doug are two different shows from the same franchise, so we should really just split them up. Ren and Stimpy for example is split up into two different pages, one for the original Nickelodeon series and then another for the Spike TV version. So we should have one page for Nickelodeon’s Doug and another for Disney’s Doug. Sandwichey Boy (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page Split[edit]

I think the page needs to be split. I think the shows are completely different even if related. The Nickelodeon series should be considered the original series while the Disney series should be considered the sequel series. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be helpful, as Geraldo Perez said above. Lots of shows have seen creative changes after shifting networks for a new season or more. The two runs of episodes share so much in common that it's best to just explain the revamp. This source explains it: "Nickelodeon failed to renew Doug after 52 episodes had been produced, whereupon Disney picked up the franchise in early 1996, produced new episodes ... Nick continued to run the older episodes". Hammill Ten (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What Sandwichey Boy said, they are technically two different shows though, despite being from the same franchise. The Disney series is distributed by a different company, and over run as a different show respectively to be a sequel.
- Another Nicktoon franchise Ren & Stimpy has two different shows despite the same franchise, one is for kids and the other being for adults. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon vs. Disney[edit]

They are still two separate shows technically, because they are from different distrubutors, and the streaming services said so.

I don't want to have more edited wars with people so I decided to make this post. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Jinkins and Jumbo Pictures were the ones producing the show at all times. Shows change distributors a lot, and Disney+ only having their distributed seasons does not automatically make those seasons a whole separate show. Please do not continue calling it a "sequel series" as this is misleading, and it's much easier to just explain that Jumbo was acquired by Disney, which then greenlit more episodes. Sheolvise (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Doug-72210-2.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]