Talk:Odd Squad

Agent Names

Oscar mentioned in an episode that there was one Odd Squad agent who does not begin with O which all agents names begin with. Will he or she have his or her own episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLegoCat (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was Todd. He had his own episode. --Wyatt2049 (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

But there is also Dr.O, so who knows who Oscar was talking about? Only him.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:141F:8400:D97C:20D1:1A9F:3F68 (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC) 

"Dr." is an honorific title. (This section is treating the talk page like a discussion forum for the article topic, though, which is not what this place is for.) - Purplewowies (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Is the list of the gadgets important?

I feel they're not really notable in the show's context, and the long list is undue weight. However, I didn't just jump directly to removing them because I've already done it once before and the list was re-added. Thoughts on their inclusion? - Purplewowies (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

No, that's trivia. My shortcut test for trivia: do independent reliable sources discuss it? No? It's trivia: great for a blog or fansite, not encyclopedic. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That was my rationale removing it first time. *tentatively removes it again to see if the removal sticks if it's done again* - Purplewowies (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

...Okay, the same IP user has added it twice now. If my wiki time and energy weren't stretched so thin, I'd have a very clear idea of what to do next. *sigh* - Purplewowies (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Two people here is a WP:CONSENSUS, albeit a weak one. I've removed it again and asked the IP to join the discussion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's happened again, and I'm not sure removing it would prevent its re-addition (i.e. I don't want this to be a slow-moving edit war). I'd go to a dispute resolution avenue, but I'm pretty sure they all require the other party (the IP) to be responsive, which they're not. Would it be wrong to take this to WP:RPP or am I jumping the gun with that thought? - Purplewowies (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We're back here to discuss the issue. The discussion still shows a solid WP:CONSENSUS to not include the list. Until such time as there is some discussion saying it should be included, there is no way it will be included. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Still no discussion to the contrary. I'm removing the list again. Further restorations will lead to warnings/page protection/blocks as required to get either discussion to establish a new consensus or compliance with the one we have. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Math Room

Why is the Math Room listed in main characters. It hasn't appeared in that many episodes. I'd actually say Math Room is secondary, not a primary. TheLegoCat (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the article could benefit from a short plot section that might include a mention of Math Room (i.e. "Blah blah something about their starting of the investigation of the process and the way the math is integrated in. Blah blah blah often reach a point in their mission where they cannot find a solution. The agents occasionally visit a talking "Math Room" (T.J. McGibbon) where they can discuss what they know about their problem and visualize it on the Math Room's large, floating origami papers."). The cast lists are already fairly bloated with what I think are extraneous characters that might be more appropriate on Wikia or a fansite, but not necessarily here. I think Math Room is notable enough to include but would probably fit better in a plot section of some sort. (Of course, that would need to be written and sourced, which I could do... but not at this exact moment.) - Purplewowies (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Should this article be protected?

Anonymous users keep adding information that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I'm considering going to RFPP and asking for semiprotection, but I want to make sure there's no reason I shouldn't first. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree. I realize, yes, it's been 5 months since you posted this and all, but I think this article completely does not follow the encyclopedic tone of Wikipedia. I think it should be protected until someone steps in and fixes it. Cattyboi (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Source discrepancy

The currently cited source for US airdates (KET) lists three episodes near the end of the table as having premiered in October. (They didn't air in all PBS markets on those dates, but I can't determine whether or not they aired on KET. Anonymous editors keep repeatedly changing the dates to this week, and now that my guide has caught up, my local listings display those episodes as new this week, but I can't determine if the source should be replaced with a general source, if KET gets episodes earlier (and therefore technically is correct for premiere dates, or if there should be some other solution. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Odd Squad (TV series). 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/20160822114910/http://www.radiotimes.com/tv-programme/e/d8nps7/odd-squad--s1-e41-potato-ultimato to http://www.radiotimes.com/tv-programme/e/d8nps7/odd-squad--s1-e41-potato-ultimato

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this article written in Canadian English or US English?

Just asking since there was a change in spelling today of "humour" to "humor" calling it a "typo" (it's not, unless the article is in US English), so I wanted to figure out if a spelling scheme could or should be pointed out to avoid disputes over which is "correct". - Purplewowies (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this has been established yet, but I'm thinking that if it were to be in a specified english, it should be Canadian english. A lot of the characters are Canadian and have Canadian accents (in one episode, Oona says "Moo-stache"). Anyways, it's really the decision of whoever first makes the decision. Ghinga7 (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The movie

Should the movie have it's own page? I have it on Dvd, do I would be able to make an article about it if necessary. Ghinga7 (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's independently notable enough; it's really more like a long episode more than anything. It's currently described in the episode list page. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that might be the case. If it means anything though, Rotten Tomatoes, (a major review site) made a rating of it. Ghinga7 (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 December 2020

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: page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Nnadigoodluck███ 14:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

---

• Odd Squad (TV series) → Odd Squad
• Odd Squad → Odd Squad (disambiguation)

– As WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The Odd Squad (TV series) page receives an average of 437 pageviews a day while the rest of the pages on the Odd Squad disambiguation page receive an average of 62 pageviews per day meaning that the Odd Squad (TV series) page is viewed around 7 more times than the rest of the pages on the disambiguation page on a daily basis. The disambiguation page itself receives only an average of 10 pageviews a day meaning that most users go straight to the TV series page and don't view the disambiguation page first. Also, when I searched Odd Squad in the search engine, I could not find any results unrelated to the TV series on the first nine pages. Pamzeis (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Of the set of relatively obscure topics on the disambiguation page, this one clearly has the strongest hold on both interest and long-term significance. BD2412 T 00:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support: I don't know why I don't just normal support this, but I'm definitely not opposed by the logic brought forth in the nom. - Purplewowies (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2020 (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.

Style issues in the article

Recently, there have been edits to the article that have added things that I believe are out of line with the Manual of Style, namely excessive or unwieldy semicolon use and linking some terms that the MOS suggests should not normally be linked. Originally I had thought this was cut and dry, so I simply (partially) reverted the edit that added these things and notified the person who had made the edit to let them know. However, since then, a long but not necessarily productive (in terms of improving the article) section grew on my user talk page, and I thought that wasn't a great venue for discussing this kind of back-and-forth over this article's content, so I've brought it to this talk page (which is... actually the article's! heh) to try to let other people see it so it's not just me and someone else going back and forth and not getting anywhere. (A good half of that link to my user talk page is at best tangentially related and potentially even entirely unrelated. It's just linked for background context as to where this discussion's been prior to being here.) I think that the article would be better if it stayed aligned with the manual of style in this way. What does anyone else think? - Purplewowies (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)