Talk:Be Cool, Scooby-Doo!

San Diego Comic-Con 2015

Be Cool, Scooby-Doo! new episode is "The Love God", Daphne feet wiggling his toes, He announced in SDCC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B41C:1AAF:AD1F:AC4B:5FDD:523C (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.82.112 (talk)

Please don't waste editors' time with nonsense. SDCC hasn't happened yet and your claim is dubious and unlikely. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Bold change to character list

In this edit I boldly swapped the Cast list to a Character list. In my extensive experience, cast lists for animated series tend to invite all sorts of crufty additions like "Prisoner #1", etc. We should only be focusing on significant recurring roles. I've brought the character list into conformity with MOS:TV, however, it's unclear of the many names in the Recurring characters section who is a recurring character, or who is a one-time character. It would be helpful if people familiar with the series would please remove the characters that have not appeared in more than one episodes. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually none of those characters have appeared more than once in the series, so I've deleted the whole section. Isabelle♥ 23:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason why we can't have a Guest voices section, because as it has been pointed out it's unlikely that there will be recurring characters. Radiohist (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no necessity for a guest voice section. Any guest voices could be added as notes in the relevant episode. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a really great idea! Radiohist (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

"If You Can't Scooby-Doo the Time, Don't Scooby-Doo the Crime"

There's been some issues lately on how we should handle this episode, since it was released on iTunes and Amazon but then removed within a day. For those familiar with the show, should we list "Scary Christmas" as episode 14 since it aired on TV first, or leave it as it is? Katniss♥ 03:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-block request

"Eating Crow" didn't air on March 19, 2016 and apparently for some people they can't accept this, and they also apparently can't accept that fact that we can't copy descriptions from TV Guide. All the constant undoing isn't going to stop the inevitable next undoing that me or someone else with a brain will have to do. I've seen this being done on other talk pages, so I hope I don't get a "Yeah, but no" answer. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That has to be requested here which I've gone ahead and done. Katniss♥ 13:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I see. That's good. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Move request

The comma needs to be put back in. It's not in the title card, but it's necessary for grammar. It's not that big of a change. It's not like adding a completely new word. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

We have two problems here: 1) Yes, the move should be discussed. While the title card does not have the comma, many of the sources cited, including some of the quasi-official ones, do include the comma. 2) If the consensus is to move this, the article needs to be moved -- not copied from one location to another and blanked at the old location. As the proposed new title exists as a redirect, this would require admin action to delete the redirect at the new location. To correct begin correcting this, I am requesting admin intervention to correct the bad move. (As there have been edits to both the article and the talk page, I cannot simply "undo" the bad edits.) Next, we need some discussion here as to which title we should use. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems we need to undo a copy-paste move and partially merge the histories due to intervening edits (then discuss the proposed move). I could be wrong, having never studied mopology. You, dear admin, however, are likely an expert on such matters. In addition to respecting your call on this pressing matter, I can only offer my sincerest thanks. "Why all the kowtowing, Dox?" Glad you asked. I currently have two, count 'em: two,admin help requests up. I feel needy. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• I have moved and history merged the article. @KatnissEverdeen: It is not acceptable to move the contents of an article by cutting the contents out and pasting them into another page, as it loses the editing history, which has to be kept for copyright reasons. The move is now being discussed, and if there is consensus for the move to be repeated, then it can be done properly, by renaming the existing article, not by copying its contents over. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0 JamesBWatson My sincerest apologies for the bad move. I wasn't at all attempting to do it in bad faith, I unfortunately didn't realize about the copyright issues and loss of edit history (I realize that's not an excuse, but I wanted to explain what my original reasoning was). In the future, I will look into the Wikipedia policies and make sure that I am doing things correctly before making another major edit like this. I can assure you I am definitely using this mistake as a learning experience to help make me a better editor in the future. Thanks so much to you both, and I apologize again for the trouble. Katniss♥ 16:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@KatnissEverdeen: No apology needed. I didn't imagine for a moment that you had done it in bad faith. That kind of way of moving content looks perfectly natural and reasonable to any editor who has never been told that it isn't the way to do it. I told you about it simply so that you would know not to do it that way again, not to reprimand or blame you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Definitely no need to appologize, KatnissEverdeen. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Back to the question: We have a mixture here. Reliable sources go both ways. Additionally, we have the title card without and quasi-official sources with. Finally, though hardly the arbiter in such cases, grammar would call for a comma before a noun of direct address. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I thought we just went by whatever the title card said, I didn't realize that we took the quasi-official sources and grammar into account at all (meaning I'm probably not the best person to discuss this). Is there any deciding factor then that we usually use to determine the page title? Katniss♥ 17:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Typically, we look to WP:COMMONNAME. The examples usually cited are that we have articles for Bill Clinton and caffeine not "William Jefferson Clinton" or, um, "1,3,7-Trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione". In this case, the most relevant example seems to be that we have Romeo and Juliet not The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet.

I don't know that grammar really should enter into it, we have plenty of song titles and such that would have my 5th grade teacher spinning in her grave.

The title card is an interesting problem: I'd see it as a piece of art. If a little comma gets in the way of the artist's work, I'm sure it would disappear.

By "quasi-official" sources,I'm referring to periodicals printing press releases (the original press release might get a once-over by in-house editors before going to press), Amazon (who presumably received the basic info electronically) and such.

I don't see a clear answer here. There seem to be reliable sources that go both ways and I can't find plain text (rather than text rendered as art) from the producers. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Zap2it

It seems there's contradiction in following a reliable source with Zap2it and TV Guide. They've been reliable with names (mostly) and descriptions, but not air dates (and now season designation), which has been getting worse and worse. The reality is, there was 26 episodes for season 1, and then 26 episodes for season 2, as is the regular order these days (as it was for Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated). We shouldn't uphold to something that Zap2it and TV Guide have been clearly misdirected with, and won't bother to correct themselves on it. And since it won't be airing on US television anymore, what they say is irrelevant. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Anythingspossibleforapossible TV Guide does now list each season as 26 episodes, so I'll switch those five episodes over to season 2. In case anyone else is reading this, I've also left out the air dates in the episode chart as TV Guide and Zap2it have conflicting airdates, and pretty much every other site says no episode past "Giant Problems" has even aired yet. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 15:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Intro

The introduction is far too long. Most of that could be put into the production section. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Mention of Boomerang SVOD premieres for final six season one episodes

I've gone ahead and made a WP:BOLD edit to the first season episode list and deleted all mentions of the Boomerang SVOD service premieres. It seems unnecessary to mention, particularly since the episodes premiered a month before on the actual Boomerang network, so thus it isn't a "world premiere." In my opinion, the same WP:NOTTVGUIDE policies we have regarding repeats would apply for this, since the episodes were made available (albeit at a very inconvenient time of 2 a.m. eastern) previous to their release on the Boomerang streaming service. If anyone has thoughts or concerns on this I'm happy to discuss the inclusion (or exclusion) of this content further. Regards, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 22:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The same thing has happened with the some season 2 episodes, although no one seems to have paid much attention this time. "Some Fred Time" apparently aired in Tuesday morning slot last week, and on Monday morning (tomorrow), it will be "In Space". I don't know what's happened between those days, however. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Be Cool, Scooby-Doo!. 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://www.webcitation.org/6RQOVdo96?url=http://comiccon.thewb.com/wbsdcc-2014-tv-guide-covers/ to http://comiccon.thewb.com/wbsdcc-2014-tv-guide-covers/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it over?

According to this article Be Cool will continue to premiere new episodes throughout 2018. But if it's already aired, how is this true?--Harmony944 (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Harmony944 They mean the remaining season 2 episodes. If you look at the Boomerang streaming site, only 41 out of the 52 episodes have been added. The other 11 episodes have aired in a late-night slot on the Boomerang television network, but not on the streaming service yet. Hope this helps, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 16:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah thank you. I don't have the app, as it seemed there was no free content, and I'm not in a position to have a subscription (I'm honestly more willing to wait for DC Universe), so I didn't bother to see the current status of the library--Harmony944 (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Critical response on the show.

Aren't we gonna add the reception of how people thought of the show's concept? --XSMan2016 (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

No, as it's not really very notable. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 18:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with this. The "notability" factor is about the existence of a page, not a topic on it, so that criteria is already met. Just look at video game pages, which all have a section on critical and popular reception. I would argue that the controversial redesign of these characters alone fulfils "notability" in regards to its response, which is wholly missing from this entry. I dare say the entry is incomplete without it. Mokushiroku no Yami (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Be Cool, Scooby-Doo!

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Be Cool, Scooby-Doo!'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Copy":

• From Steven Universe Future: Steven Universe - Copyright Catalog
• From The Fungies!: The Fungies! - Copyright Catalog
• From Tig n' Seek: Tig n’ Seek - Copyright Catalog

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The difficulties in the creation of the show and the reason it was cancelled

I was curious about why the show was cancelled, and did some digging and came across a couple of reddit posts and forums about why the show was cancelled, and it sounds pretty serious from the perspective of the creators of the show, whose work was being constantly interfered with by WB, and weren't even credited as series co-creators or producers. I was wondering if it was worth adding a section about this? Here are the links:

Dramahttps://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/6jekz1/creator_of_be_cool_scooby_doo_comments_on_the/

Ratings infohttps://www.reddit.com/r/Scoobydoo/comments/8erxsg/do_we_know_why_be_cool_scooby_doo_has_been/

Original Creator's forum post

https://scoobyaddicts.proboards.com/thread/4595/official-return-boomerang-streaming-service?page=4 Suushathet (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)