Talk:List of WildBrain programs

message: Why does the article state that Zim is a DiC show? It's made by Nickelodeon, and noone else.69.141.79.71 00:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invader ZIM 

message: The show Ace Lightning was co-produced by BBC Children's Television and Alliance Atlantis but distributed in the US by DiC Kids Network. How about adding a section to the list for shows distributed by DiC but not produced by DiC?  --67.188.0.96 00:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shows distributed but not produced by DiC 

message: :Image:Gadget2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Gadget2.jpg

message: :Image:Dennis menace.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Dennis menace.jpg

message: :Image:MASK Logo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:MASK Logo.JPG

message: I recently removed The Hitchhiker from the list, only for someone to add it again. DIC is producer of series for children and families, and The Hitchhiker does NOT qualify as either! Further, "It's Punky Brewster" (called simply "Punky Brewster" on screen, but nonetheless is the animated series featuring the character) WAS produced by DIC. Now I have fixed the article using the CORRECT information, but if this continues, I am going to request protection. Consider yourselves warned, all of you. Brittany Ka (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of the changes you mentioned appears to be vandalism. I looked around the web and found several mentions that DIC was involved with The Hitchhiker at some point, but did not find any from reliable sources. If someone wants to add the show to the list they would need to provide a reliable source mentioning DIC's involvement. As for It's Punky Brewster, the only mentioned I found of DIC being involved was in the Punky Brewster wikipedia article. You added that information to the article, but did not provide a source. Your justification for adding it was: “It aired in syndication with Maxie's World and Beverly Hills Teens, so R-S couldn't have done it.” I found numerous sources including imdb and Ruby-Spears Productions that list Ruby-Spears Productions as having done the show. So your justification was not correct. If you want to include the show in this article you need to provide a reliable source that it was produced by DIC. BlueAzure 18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I'll tell you what. I'm going to re-add it, but with a mention that they took over from Ruby-Spears, because I know DIC was involved to some extent. Fair enough? Brittany Ka (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I take that back. Apparently R-S did thoughout its run, but you see, it was rerun in syndication with Maxie's World and Beverly Hills Teens, both of which are DIC series. So I assumed DIC also did It's Punky Brewster. (sigh) I don't understand this at all. "Oh, the pain" as Dr. Zachary Smith would say... Brittany Ka (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed It’s Punky Brewster again, because I don’t think it fits the criteria of the article as it was listed. Do you know who the syndicator was, because that might explain the situation. The Punky Brewster article list it as LBS Communications, but I couldn’t find any sources for that. BlueAzure (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Claster Television, the company who syndicated Maxie's World. I would say where I got this, but I know "You" wouldn't like me to list a certain "Tube" as a source, if you know what I mean. Anyway, I'm going to add it again, with the Claster note. Also, just to reassure you, I'm not trying to start an "edit war". Brittany Ka (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed It’s Punky Brewster again. This article is a "listing of television programs, feature films, and specials made by DIC Entertainment". It's Punky Brewster is not one those things and it does not belong on the list. Please do not add it to the list again. BlueAzure (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Vandalism 

message: I removed this from the list because YouTube and Google have both confirmed that no such show made by the company exists. I am requesting that this not be re-added. I have gone to the article in question, and have requested that it be deleted. Brittany Ka (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I PRODED the article in question and two other fake articles that were created by the same person. For future reference, the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy has directions on how to delete an article. BlueAzure (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bringing up Father" 

message: I see that the List of DIC Entertainment Productions article was merged with a previous list of Cookie Jar shows. However, I feel that the article merger was ill-executed and that there needs to be a distinction made. Some people might think that Cookie Jar had made the DIC shows from the beginning. In all honesty we can't simply pretend as though DIC never existed. To that end, I have separated the entries by the original company that created the shows in question (although I have also included the FilmFair and CINAR shows with the Cookie Jar ones as that would be nitpicking, especially since Cookie Jar was CINAR originally).Brittany Ka (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Merger 

message: All right, the article clearly says that this a list of projects made by DHX Media and it's predecessors and the last sentence clearly said that some may/may not be owned by DHX. By removing some of these projects from the list, the editor made sound like they weren't made by the company's predecessors. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: User:FilmandTVFan28, it seems that you may be correct about keeping the shows on this page, but you really should provide sources. Even if the old company websites don't exist nowadays, you could look them up using the Wayback Machine, for instance. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Here's a link that might be useful: http://vancouver.dhxmedia.com/productions.php Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's the other major problem with this article. It's called "List of DHX Media programs" but then the article says 'some of these programmes may or may not be owned by DHX Media" - on that basis it'd be perfectly acceptable for 'List of Ford Motor Vehicles' to also include aeroplanes as well. A list of DHX Media programs is obviously not intended to be a list of every program ever made by other companies which DHX have some connection to, but do not actually own today. The 'Ragdoll Worldwide' section is particularly bad for this since editors insert numerous Ragdoll programs which are definitely not owned by DHX, and were only produced by Ragdoll for other companies at some point in the part. Coming back to the most recent edits, I removed everything which was not listed on DHX Media's very comprehensive website, or otherwise supported by an exiting reference - although I didn't have time to check the references too closely, and there is certainly evidence that past editors have added bogus references to support their otherwise strictly fantasy-based constructions. (Programs which are credited as being made by several other distributors and historic ITV companies are particularly suspect for this problem, as no such collaborations took place, at least in the cases of the few that I checked out. But basically this article is a vandalism magnet, seeming to attract a certain type of editor who create Wikipedia articles that reflect their own private creations or what they think would be nice or should happen, rather than the real world. So verifiable references are all the more important under such circumstances, Bonusballs (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  To explain a little more - if it wasn't on THIS official DHX page, I removed it: http://www.dhxmedia.com/shows.html - that's about as official as it gets, I'd say. I do think it's not a question of "tagging" programme names but providing references, as without being listed on a page like this, there is no evidence that the programme is anything to do with DHX Media. Bonusballs (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Well, you did an OK job, except you brought back some vandalism made a few IP users. I was actually fixing it back to how it was excluding the DIC and Filmfair lists. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  List Issue 

message: This list is collective mess I have made first step in cleaning up this mess, even if DHX might own some of those shows, doesn't mean they did originally produced said TV show. This would be similar as I would go to Warner Bros Animation and start ncluding various Hanna-Barbera show produed prior to 2001 on the main Warner Bros Animation article. While Hanna-Barbera was not foled into Warner Bros Animation until 2001. Rather than list them on there own as their original productions had nothing to do with Warner Bros Animation DoctorHver (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you did an OK job, except you brought back some vandalism made a few IP users. I was actually fixing it back to how it was excluding the DIC and Filmfair lists. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean Up

message: Apparently all of WildBrain's webseries are produced under the WildBrain Spark brand. I've added a hatnote to indicate this, but I feel like the list of productions on the WildBrain Spark article should really be moved to its own section here (with a "see [this page]" hatnote on that article section), so that it's all consolidated in one place. Thoughts? Edderiofer (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Webseries