Talk:Cyberchase

message: After cleaning up Cybersite I wondered if there could be much more to it, so I've added a merge tag linking to here, Is it really needed as a separate article?
It seems that many of the characters, terms and places for this series could be merged with this article or kept in articles like "places in cyberchase" and "characters in cyberchase". I'm not familiar with this series so I'll leave it with people who are to discuss whether it is popular enough and big enough in scope to warrant a separate page for each of its terms or characters. --FlooK 16:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does every character and term need its own article? 

message: Why is there no listing of the cast members/voice actors and what characters they play? DavidRavenMoon (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast?

message: I tried to correct the "Creators" line in the info box by adding Sandra Sheppard and Kristin Laskas Martin, the executive producers who created the show for Thirteen/WNET NY, but instead it repalced their names and Larry Jacobs with "" -- what's up with that, and how do we fix it? EGregory 16:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Creators?

message: How is he a star (For Real?) in Cyberchase? He only appeared in one episode (pilot episode, The Poddleville Case). He would be considered a minor character (like the firefighter who tested Harry because Harry wanted to become a firefighter) because like the firefighter, he only appeared in one episode. So I think we should remove Kareem from the cast list. Squirepants101 20:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kareem was the host of Cyberchase: For Real in the pilot episode -- hardly a minor role.  I think hosting the segment is a bigger role than being a supporting character, like the firefighter you mentioned.  Digit LeBoid 16:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kareem Blackwell

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.See footnote
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.See footnote
*Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
See footnote
*The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. See footnote
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Squirepants101 01:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated review

message: Why don't the goofs belong? A lot of other Articles about TV Shows, such as Spongebob, have a goofs section. Why shouldn't this article? AstroHurricane001 20:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goofs 

message: Hi. I have tagged this article for cleanup because several anons are editing the article, some of which use the edit summary "(new)". I do not actually object to this, but occasionally unverified claims or POV is added. This is hard to fix because it occurs frequently. There are also numerous spellng, grammatical, or space errors. I request that someone fix and cleanup this when I am too busy. Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 02:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Don't you think that the table of contents is getting a big large with 44 cybersite entries? They only have small descriptions anyway, so why don't you just un-bold them and make them paragraphs under the Cybersite category? So they won't show up in the toc.--Jothesmo 07:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the list of cybersites to List of cybersites. Squids'and'Chips 17:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cybersite Lists 

message: The second "c" in "Cyberchase" should be lower case.  If fixed all the instances I could find on this page, and a few others.  But I can't fix the top of the pages where it says "Redirects From..."  To verify the correct usage, you can check the official Web site at http://pbskidsgo.org/cyberchase Digit LeBoid 18:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lower Case Second "C" 

message: Whoops!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was just cleaning up. 70.107.129.94 21:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry 

message: First off, this is NOT a hate comment. I love this show!!! Unfortunately, there ARE some continuity problems, and was wondering if there could be a section on it. For example, during the episode in which Slider finds his father (don't know the name) Coop shows his weakness to magnetite is advanced aging, while in another episode in which Radopolis is doused in magnetite, Coop and the other Radopolians all fall asleep. Plus, they all have the same reaction, while in the former episode Coop states that everyone reacts differently. Agree??
Thanks!!! 71.253.252.88 03:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Continuity Section??? 

message: My little brother watches this show regularly and I noticed as he was watching it today that the newer episodes have a significantly different animation style than the older ones, reminiscent of Macromedia Flash cartoons. I checked this page to see if there was verification on this, but no go- are the newer episodes done in Flash? ZaininOmega (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Animation style

message: The character "Mr. Sleaze" (or something like that) appears in a large amount of the "Cyberchase for real" things that are removed to be replaced with commercials. Credits?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.221.109 (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recurring "For real" character 

message: Ada is obviously based on Ada Lovelace. Is Dr. Marbles based on Osborne Reynolds? Reynolds is painted holding a shallow bowl filled with marbles, which he used to demonstrate his theories about the "granular substrate of the universe."
(quotation from http://uh.edu/engines/epi1529.htm)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.50.254 (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Marbles 

message: This section claims "it was on view from September 28, 1996, through May 13, 2000. The exhibition is currently touring children's museums and science museums across the UK."  Is that very likely, since the program did not debut until January 2002?  Also, it is touring American children's museums - in February 2010, it began a four-month stay at Atlanta's Imagine It!... oh no original research  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.152.94.132 (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Museum tour 

message: Why does someone keep on reverting my addition of the character of Emma voiced by Louisa Pepe? It took a lot for me to find this stuff out, it isn't easy.
204.112.104.172 (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to give a specific citation to the reliable source where you found it, not just say "I worked hard and found it somewhere". It is policy that material you add be verifiable by readers--they do not know who you are or if they can trust your personal claims. The removal of many of your edits is "speculation"--that is a policy-based reason to remove it. Your re-insertion is "I will keep reinserting it, I know it's true"--that is strictly against at least two policies (edit-warring and not inserting unsourced material). If you want material included, it is completely your responsibility to provide citations for it. DMacks (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New characters

message: Firstly, I'd like to point out there is no cast section, so I can't see which voice actor/actress voices which character. For that matter, there isn't a listing of characters on the page. Since there are quite a few characters in this show, and it would take up a lot of space to write each and every character's name on this article, I think it deserves to have it's own wiki page for a list. I also think there was an article for the characters, but for some reason was removed. Speaking of removed pages, wasn't there an article about the places/Cybersites in the show? I think we should bring that back as well (as you can see, I think a lot of things). Anyone? --188.253.134.215 (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast, List of Characters, List of Places/Cybersites 

message: The character descriptions currently contain "Iconic" lines like "This is not good, this is not good at all!". (What a strange thing to call them, BTW) I previously removed them in this edit on the basis that there is no context in the article to indicate the importance of these "iconic" phrases, so they come off as random trivia about as useful as "Jackie's favorite color is red". As  has kindly pointed out on my talk page, the phrases appear on the PBS site as "signature lines", but there is still no indication of why these phrases are noteworthy, or that they are anything more than basic catchphrases. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Simply because a fact exists doesn't mean that the fact has encyclopedic value or academic value. In contrast, Captain Marvel's catchphrase "Shazam!" is noteworthy because it is what he has to say in order to transform into Captain Marvel. Mork's "Na-nu, na-nu" has received tons of attention in magazines and newspapers over the decades, which makes it noteworthy. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not solely to catalog facts, but to provide context to a reader unfamiliar with the series and to do so from an out-of-universe perspective. For these reasons I propose that the so-called iconic lines be removed or that suitable context be presented to warrant their inclusion. Is there any cultural relevance? Have these phrases received any media attention? Have they become larger than life like Bart Simpson's "Cowabunga"? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: These lines are used throughout the series, and yes they do provide some significance. The characters can be associated with using the lines more than once through a span of a couple of episodes. Ians18 (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think I understand what you're saying.  How are they significant?  And what academic value do they provide? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They are something to recognize each character by, obviously something PBS thought was important enough to put on their website, otherwise they would not have it. Is there a reason we should remove it? Ians18 (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are shifting the burden to me to argue for exclusion. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. PBS also though it was important enough to mention that Digit often dents his beak, or or that Matt plays with his yoyo, and that Buzz loves donuts. Without context explaining why these random pieces of information are "important", they come off as trivia. From my perspective, the signature lines are part of PBS's promotional campaign, and we are not shills to promote the subject. If Matt's yoyo is a tool he uses across multiple episodes, then we have context to explain why we need to know about his yoyo. If these signature lines are used as keys to unlock doors or secret areas, then it might be important to know. But "This is not good, this is not good at all" seems like a a mundane catchphrase with no clear relevance to our understanding of the series. Per your note that "they are something to recognize each character by", we already have that: names, personalities, behaviors. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iconic lines 

message: In these edits I removed a block of content recently added by WikIan in good faith. There's no accepted community precedent for the inclusion of a large wall of production facilities and there's no context to explain why we care about each of those facilities. The Animation style section was also confusing because we're basically saying that during the first nine seasons there were several animation styles criss-crossing, but there's no sourced context to explain that, then we were suddenly into a list of video resolutions, which isn't related to animation. I also don't see what the purpose of the Executive producer list is, nor is it clear whether all of these were the creative executives (i.e. writer showrunners and art execs) or if they were just corporate suits. However I'm temporarily holding off on doing anything about it, since it seems the alternative would be to put the list in the infobox and there are far too many names for that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits make it seem you are  not here to build an encyclopedia. Your edits simply remove content and don't add or improve the article whatsoever. If you plan to remove stuff, add stuff of your own and add to the List of Cyberchase episodes too. WikIan -(talk) 00:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion that I am not here to build an encyclopedia is patently absurd because it's rooted in emotion and ignorance of what I've done across the bulk of my 60,000 edits. While I understand that it's frustrating to see your content removed, if you were more experienced in editing in television articles, or more familiar with the Manual of Style for Television (which I've pointed out to you a few times), or if you were more familiar with community preferences because you'd participated in numerous TV community discussions, then you'd be in a better position to criticize. Most of my efforts in these Cyberchase articles has been attempting to teach you about community standards as evidenced by the several discussions at Talk:List of Cyberchase episodes. The grand majority of content I've removed from the Cyberchase articles have been sheer cruft unsuitable for inclusion in any article. If you understand that the ideal for articles is GA and FA status, I don't see how the inclusion of indiscriminate lists that aren't consistent with other articles or the MOS is going to bring us any closer to those goals. And while I would love to argue further about your perception of me, I have more improvements to make across the project. Either get familiar with WikiProject Television standards, or drop the stick, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And what have you contributed in your edits?  that is exactly your problem. You think you know more than me, and maybe you do, but that is absolutely not why you should be here. You have to be here to contribute, not to patrol every single edit that anyone makes to these pages. Start by adding content to the List of Cyberchase Episodes. then I may consider you a fellow Wikpedian and contributor here to build an encyclopedia. If you don't then I know exactly why you are here and it is not to contribute. Add things like "Written by" and the "director" to that page List_of_Lab_Rats_episodes, since you always seem to point to the Manual of Style for Television which is a guideline, not a rule book by the way. If you don't start considering me an equal then you risk violating WP:5P4 WikIan -(talk) 10:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your perception of "contribution" seems to be based on a flawed premise that the only way to contribute is to add content. Contributions take many forms, including removals. And actually, in children's television articles, I'd argue that it's mostly removals. Michelangelo didn't create David by adding more and more marble, he created the piece by removing marble that wasn't consistent with his vision. Removal of vandalism is a contribution. Removal of typos and redundancies are contributions. Removal of unsourced content is a contribution.  Removal of indiscriminate trivia is a contribution. As to your suggestions of ways that I can contribute that would be more in keeping with your preferences, while I appreciate your suggestions, I don't work for you. As a volunteer, I have full liberty to plan my volunteer workload per my own schedule and level of interest. I have 7,100 pages on my watchlist and each day I have over 600 edits to review. So my to-do list is already full. That said, I'm happy to work with you, but for that to be possible, we both need to be in agreement on a mutual goal. Adherence to the Manual of Style for Television is my primary goal, since it represents established community consensus that will bring articles closer to GA and FA status. Lastly, if you have problems with changes I've made, you're free to seek other input. There's WP:3O, there's WP:DRN, or perhaps smarter, you could approach WikiProject Television and seek input from editors well versed with television articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of content 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cyberchase. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6HiF4EwPL?url=http://www.emmyonline.org/mediacenter/daytime_35th_nominations.html to http://www.emmyonline.org/mediacenter/daytime_35th_nominations.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have noticed some places on the internet referring to the characters as Inez Ramon, Jackie LeRange and Matt Quinlan. Does anyone know if there's any canonical referral to any of these surnames? I'm suspicious they might just be fancruft passed as canon. 64.231.168.119 (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: character surnames

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cyberchase. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120910015320/http://www.emmyonline.tv/mediacenter/daytime_39th_nominations.html to http://www.emmyonline.tv/mediacenter/daytime_39th_nominations.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cyberchase. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.emmyonline.org/mediacenter/daytime_35th_nominations.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222065718/http://www.emmyonline.org/mediacenter/daytime_36th_nominations_data_only_nominees.html to http://www.emmyonline.org/mediacenter/daytime_36th_nominations_data_only_nominees.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello
On the iTunes store (at least in Canada anyway), it lists Cyberchase series 1 and 2 as being from 1998.  Series 1 and 2 are the first 26 episodes or U.S. season 1.
What do we do about this?
thanks.
199.101.62.21 (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  1998 not 2002 

message: Or at least, I think the game I'm mentioning is lost. 
On the Cyberchase website, I remember playing a game called "Can't Wait To Tessellate", which was basically an interactive minisode where Buzz and Delete play with their new Hacker action figure, but then it somehow becomes messed up, though by the end, both the bots (Delete mainly, I think) and the player learn all about Tessellation and how it works. I've been trying to find footage of that game, but a few of the Cyberchase games don't seem to have been archived. Delete this at anytime you want, as I know that it's not entirely appropriate, but I just figured this to be the best place to inquire about the game. There was, if I remember right, another interactive minisode game too, but I don't remember its name, or if it even existed. Basically, the point of all that was merely to ask: is that game truly lost media, or is there, in fact, still footage out there? Triviatronic9000 (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost Game