Muppet Wiki

Muppet Wiki:Current events

Revision as of 21:50, October 13, 2008 by Scarecroe (wall | contribs)

29,527pages on
this wiki



Current Events is a centralized spot on the wiki where the community can discuss topics that concern the whole of the wiki. Think of it as a talk page for the entire database. If you want to open up discussion about a particular article, please do so on the Talk: page for that article. Don't forget to indent and sign your posts to make discussion easier to navigate.


Check it out. Sesame's got an official channel on Hulu. What's interesting is that they're providing episode information for sketches. —Scott (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for pointing this out. The episode info is great. I kind of hope, since Hulu allows for longer chunks than the Sesame site, that they might eventually put up a few whole, not-on-DVD episodes as well. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Looking a bit closer, the episode information seems a bit out of whack. The Andrea Boccelli clip says that it's from Season 28, episode 333. I have no idea how Hulu or the Sesame folks could have arrived at that number. The first 3 may be a production prefix and it's actually the 33rd episode of that season, but at least we know what year it was. —Scott (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


There are some News Flash transcripts that link to episodes, but not to the big News Flash page. Can we link them to it, and if so, how should it look? I'm asking because we already have the sketch release box for audio and video, and I didn't know if we wanted to have transcript links look the same. -- Ken (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Main page font

I'm not really crazy about the new font on the main page... Are you going for a different look? -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it a lot. It contrasts with the Upcoming column which reads like a ticker. The news section reads like a newspaper and looks classy to me. What do other folks think? —Scott (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I would like it better if it only applied to the news section. Right now, it spreads to halfway through the quality articles section, so it looks weird to me. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
When the font changed, at first I thought it was my browser or something (which has sometimes altered fonts when something isn't loading right or what have you). Now that I know it's intentional, I'm not sure how I feel. I can kind of understand the newspaper look, but it *really* looks awkward for the opening statement of purpose right at the top. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Originally, I only had the news section use the Georgia font and everything else was the standard Arial. It looked really funny, so I tried the whole column and it looked better. But I guess that's just me. I just thought it was all looking dull for the front page. —Scott (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm ok with the font although I find it a bit unexpected. What bugs me much more is the irregular spacing between words. I know it's a function of lining up the column edges, but it bugs me. I've always found it hard to read (ie not just on this page). -- Wendy (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
By the way, did you guys take down the welcome box with the "x articles since 12/05/05", or is that just me? -- Ken (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, we took that off when we switched to the new layout. It's pretty redundant -- the number of articles is already listed in the community box on the left. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh. I'm running Monobook, so I'll have to switch over and see what it looks like. -- Ken (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So, the font -- the more I look at it, I really just don't dig it. Georgia is a serif font, like Times New Roman, which means it has a lot of extra bits of black on each letter. So it looks nice, and fancy, but in small type, a serif font is harder to read than a sans-serif font. This is from the WP article on sans-serif: "Sans-serif fonts have become the de facto standard for body text on-screen, especially online. It has been suggested that this is because the small size of the font causes serif fonts to appear excessively cluttered on the screen."

Georgia is more readable than other serif fonts, but I think in general it's better to use a sans-serif font for text. Maybe it's cause I've passed the shadow of the valley of 35, but I have some love for the older folks who don't happen to be blessed with perfect eyesight as I am. Arial looks dull, but it's readable. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This conversation kinda stalled... I took out the Georgia font for now, so we can talk about it some more. Anybody have an opinion one way or the other? -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bolding and Italics

Danny and I were talking, and I guess it's never been a clear policy about whether we should italicize and bold a book or album title when it's at the beginning of an article page. How does everybody else feel about it? -- Ken (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Right now, the majority of pages with a book, film, or TV title are bolded and italicized, including our core articles (The Muppet Show, Sesame Street, Fraggle Rock, etc.) and have done so for years (almost since the beginning). It's how Wikipedia does it and it's how myself, Scott, Wendy, and quite a few other users have been doing it before. When someone forgets, it usually gets fixed. It's the same way song titles have it in bold and quotes, since that's the rule and it makes it easier at a glance to see what's being discussed and to tell it apart from a character or culture or merchandise page. I never thought anyone had a problem with it. The only issue, which was discussed so long ago I can't recall when, was at one point using quotes versus italics and coming up with a style guide, which we did (italics for movies, TV shows, books, etc.; quotes for individual episode titles, sketches, etc.) -- Andrew Leal (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this is another example of me having my own stupid opinion. :) I think the bolding at the beginning of an article is enough emphasis that you don't need italics. But if I'm outvoted on that, it's okay. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 06:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm just surprised because, as per the example of Monster at the End of This Book, you started it and have been doing it for years, up until the past few months even when you've been adding books in vast quantities. :) It's not a matter of emphasis but the basic rule that titles of books, movies etc. are italicized, songs, short stories in quotes, and the bolding really doesn't change that. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Aha! Looking around, I did find this discussion from December 2005, so Danny *is* on the record as saying he prefers articles titles without italics *or* quotes, and looking through the contribution history, he's left them out most of the time (not always, as seen here and here, among others). Danny, since that was the only statement and you've never removed italics from titles and since you've followed the grammar rule in all other instances, I think we all assumed your omission was carelessness rather than an organized protest. :) -- Andrew Leal (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm fine with the quotes for song titles. I think italics/bold for books doesn't look right. It's been kind of an unorganized protest. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it just books, or period? The examples I could find of your recent italicizing were movies. But strictly speaking, the rule applies to everything that would normally be italicized in a sentence, since the bolding doesn't really change or affect that (and the italics don't add emphasis so much as they simply follow the rule and at a glance denote the title as a movie, book, album title, or TV production as opposed to a character, song, or some club Telly made up). Though has come up before, while we *generally* follow proper grammar rules (especially if the majority are used to it), we have made adjustments for the specific needs of the Wiki. It just feels kind of late in the day to completely reverse in this instance, if that makes sense. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense. This has just been my stupid opinion, so I'm okay with changing what I do. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We have a standing guideline on the wiki that the topic of the article gets bolded in its first mention. This is a carryover from WP. We also decided some time ago on a style format for titles which I won't bother repeating as it's been covered. I don't see any reason to forego one situation when another applies. —Scott (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; follow both styles when both apply (ie italics and bold). Although I think I forgot to do it on the books I just added.... -- Wendy (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

International capitals

We've been adding a lot of international books and records lately, and I've realized that we're inconsistent about how to capitalize titles in other languages. We know the English rules, and apply those consistently, but German and Dutch seem to have different rules.

In German, what we call Die Schönsten Geschichten is written as Die schönsten Geschichten on both CD releases. The Pixi-Books include both Guten Morgen, Bert! and Grobi kann super nett sein.

In Dutch, the only capital is at the beginning of the title (except for proper nouns). What we call Pino Zingt Cijfers is written as Pino zingt cijfers; ditto for Poehéé! Het verhaal van Sesamstraat.

I'd like to propose going with the local capitalization, as best we can figure from the book or album cover. When the title is written in all capital letters, we look on the internet for another source which writes it in upper and lower case, or we make our best guess based on other titles. I think if we default to English rules, then we'll probably look silly to readers who know the language -- it's kind of like mistranslating the words, or not using accent marks.

What do other folks think? -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just going to ask you about that. I've been spending a lot of time on German and Dutch eBay and Amazon, as well as other sites, and it's like getting a crash course in those languages. The capitalization was starting to bother me too, so what you proposed sounds fine to me. -- Ken (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify something, shouldn't we still use English rules when we're capitalizing the translations? -- Ken (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
So far, I've been trying to follow the general trend of the original, but you're probably right. It's kind of weird to follow the original, since it never ends up working well. Yeah, let's use the English rules. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I generally go by what's on the cover if we have it, but the international roles not only vary from country to country but seemingly at whim sometimes, so I'd be fine with following the English rules. So by that logic, all important words would be capitalized, but conjunctions, articles, and so on in the middle ("och," "el," "le," "con," etc.) would remain lowercase. Would that make sense? Also, it would probably help to let our currently active overseas editors (Henrik, Paul) know so they can weigh in. I think that's the biggest downside, whether it would potentially discourage or confuse international users, but that's easily clarified by, well, asking our international users. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Andrew, I think you misunderstood... We decided above that we're going to do the actual titles exactly the way they are on the cover. The question that Ken and I were just discussing was how to capitalize the English translation that follows.
For example: on the page for Het beste bedtijdboek van Bert en Ernie -- do we write (The Best Bedtime Book of Bert and Ernie) or (The best bedtime book of Bert and Ernie)? I've been doing the latter, but now that Ken's brought it up, I think the former is probably best. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, as written, the follow-up question didn't seem especially clear, and I wasn't sure what you meant when you said "you're probably right." In that case, yeah, capitalize. Sorry for the confusion. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's a crash course in the Danish language. Names and places are always in capital letters. Then theres a handful of words that have more than one meaning it concerns the words "I", "Dem", "De" and "Deres" (variations on the english word "you") capital letters are used to separate them from "i", "dem", "de" and "deres". But as in many other languages the publishers sometimes use capital letters in titles, that differ from the proper rules due to design. With Danny example I can see the logic in both, so I will remain neutral on this subject. Henrik (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, for every language, we're trying to use titles that reflect what's on the book cover / DVD / title card. The exceptions are for obvious things like titles that are written in all capitals, like The Muppet Show Book, or all lower-case, like Waar is Purk?

The conversation that Ken and I were having above was to establish that that same principle should apply to German, Dutch, French, etc., as well as English. So here are some recent examples: Tommie zoekt Purk, Mariechen, die rasende Reporterin, Wie viele Kätzchen sind es? and Mystiske dager på Sesam Stasjon.

When a title is all in capitals, then we try to follow the rules as best we can -- for example, Oskar hat Geburtstag is all in capitals, but I used Tutter hat Geburtstag as the model for how to capitalize. If we're not sure, and don't have any models to go on (as with Des Experts en Bévues, for example), then we default to English rules until we learn better.

I hope that makes everything perfectly clear. :) -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Main page news section

We haven't updated "Today on Muppet Wiki" for three weeks, so it looks like we're just tired of updating it, and it may be time to call it a day on that. Ever since the ads started appearing on the main page in June, I've been thinking that it looks a little bare -- the ads push the picture down. So I wanted to come up with something we could put in that space that would provide a little current-events vibe, and also include some pretty pictures.

So this is my proposal: Sandbox:Main page news. If the New York Times is to be trusted, we may be heading into a period where there's more news for us to post, so we might as well use that space to draw attention to our up-to-the-minute wiki coverage. We can just update it when we get something new, without feeling the pressure of the old dates staring at us. Having the brand-new stuff featured on the main page may also help us a little with search engine stuff.

What do you guys think? -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem of maintaining that section has come up before and lately it's just gotten worse. I've had a hard time getting the gumption to update, especially as days mount and since periods will go by where new pages either aren't very interesting or, as of late, most of our energies are spent on cleaning up or pruning existing areas (with new articles just as kind of a sideline). Son the whole, I agree with the news box idea. However, I still like the original "Today on Muppet Wiki" idea, which was to showcase odd, unusual, amusing, or newly discovered articles and obscurities. Nearly three years in, obviously that happens less often now, but a few gems still come up that could merit main page exposure. So I'd like to save a slot in the newsbox for that kind of thing, but instead of the pressure to update daily or even six at a time or what have you, it can change when and as someone comes across some really nifty article or merchandise picture or what have you. A lot of other wikis use a "Did you know" format. I'm not sure about phrasing, but maybe something like that? (And if need be, if there's a time where Muppet news is slack but a lot of new Wiki discoveries are added, the balance could be adjusted). Just a thought. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with everything you said. It would be nice to also have some space for non-news items. Do you think a separate space, or mix 'em up? -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
That's a great idea! I've been feeling like things are getting better for the fans, as far as new stuff, as well as re-releasing old stuff. So the main page would be a good place to highlight that, as well as other strange or interesting finds. And I like the layout on the sample page, although I know that that could change. -- Ken (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not a bad idea, but it's still something to update on a semi regular basis. Less than a "daily" for sure, but still something that could go forgotten for a while. —Scott (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, the benefit is that if it's forgotten, then at least it's got something that will look fresh to a new reader. Taking out dates means that it doesn't look as stale, even if it is. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that taking out the dates would help (and I'm as guilty as everyone else of not having the gumption to go update the front page). However I think the layout with the pictures makes the page too cluttered -- I don't know where to look or what goes with what. I think the News and the featured articles could be mixed together quite handily; we're unlikely to feature something for news that we don't have an article on anyhow.... so my vote would be just to take out the dates. -- Wendy (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I just put the current draft on the main page to see what it would look like. I agree that it's a little cluttered, although at least now it's cluttered with Muppet pictures rather than just ads. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We got sidetracked on this yesterday because images weren't appearing, but I don't want to lose track of it. My suggestion is that we put the current draft on the main page, and then fix it from there. It's not perfect, not everyone is happy with it... but it's better than our third straight week of September 1st. What do you think? -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter much to me because I use 1280px screen resolution, but the accompanying screenshot is what it looks like for most of our anonymous readers. It's looking more than a little cramped. —Scott (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that looks fine. It looks cramped to us because we're used to having a huge wide-open wiki page, but by web standards, that's pretty much the usual column size for text. I think it's important that when someone comes to the main page, they see a clear picture of Miss Piggy, rather than a lot of text and the top of Big Bird's head.
We've put a lot of time and love into the main page picture, but let's face it, the ads have pretty much negated the value of that picture. In the screenshot you posted, Sugarloaf and are so dominant that the only way to make the page Muppety again is to get a picture into the left column. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Another thing that I think would be good for the main page would be to have featured articles that have recently been improved. Sometimes there are articles with only a little bit of info that get updated in big ways, and unless this is noted in the edit summary, people might not realise it. I've noticed this at times when Sesame Street episode pages are improved. If the pages already existed then there isn't an N beside them in the recent changes page, and sometiems I don't realise it until awhile (I can usually figure it out, though, if I see several new images loaded in "new images", especially if an epsidoe number is included in the image title). Just something to think about. --Minor muppetz 17:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
For right now, it seems like the only objection to swapping in news is whether the pictures make it cramped or not. So I'm going to swap the text now, and then we can talk about how/whether to include pictures... Any objections? -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Works for me. I'm on the fence right now about the pictures, especially one for every news item (just one, to counterbalance the ads and attract the eye, *might* work, I'm not sure yet). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't want to necessarily have one for every item... but if the picture is left-aligned, then it always looks weird to have the text wrap around it. So I put in two pics to keep a consistent left margin. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I made a few adjustments to Sandbox:Main page news: I added ad space and took out the header so we can see what the spacing will look like. I also made the left-align pictures smaller so things don't look so cramped. I moved the Kermit-peeking picture just under the 300px box ad because you can see and identify something Muppety there rather than just the top few pixels of whatever picture we happened to have voted on that week. It also brings the added bonus of bringing the Upcoming schedule back up again where people can see it. I figure if we really want to have a nomination process for the community to pick a picture of the week, we can do it at the bottom and feature three at a time or something so there's something interesting there and a variety. But, I'm sorta leaning toward letting that part of it go. —Scott (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That version looks great to me! I really like putting the Kermit pic there -- that gives a little extra "white space" and also keeps it Muppety. Now that I look at it, we should've had that there all along! It's perfect.
The one tweak that I would make is to give it a little bit more breathing room around the "Muppet News" header -- like half a line above the header and half a line below.
Yay, this is awesome. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I agree about letting the main page pic go. I'm sorry to see it go, but what can ya do. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I added some space to the template we're using for that header bar. —Scott (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I like it too. I'll miss the main page picture, but as noted, the ad situation ruined that anyway. An idea might be, during holiday weeks or when someone has something timely and fitting, to include an image there in the leftbox. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Wendy had expressed some concern... I'd want to hear from her before we put it up. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not in love with the extra column of pictures: 3 columns always looks cramped on my smallish screen to me. But it is better without the main page picture.... And I'm willing to be overruled. -- Wendy (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Linking dates

I don't like linking every date. There, I've said it. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean linking years? --MuppetVJ 03:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been kind of feeling that way, too. For example, in the celebrity bios, it doesn't make sense to me to link every year in a person's career, when the links will suddenly take you to what the Muppets were doing that year. That's always seemed kind of strange to me. In some cases, it makes sense, like with the merchandise, so you can see what else came out that year. But not every single date on every page. Is that kind of what you were thinking about? -- Ken (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it's good to bring this up. It all started with the timeline pages, really, and escalated when song boxes were added, often linking to dates in the 1800s until they were removed. I do think it's worth linking years for Muppet books, show dates, etc., since they're directly relevant *and* it provides a useful linkback (the timeline pages in general could benefit from clean-up, since a lot has been added or corrected since then). For other stuff, not so much, especially when, say, one's including random years in a person's bio or for the run of some show that the Muppets mentioned or were referenced by. Speaking for myself, and I'm probably not the only one, it's reached the point where one links dates only because of the certainty that if you don't, someone else will (and in general, the year pages are not and will never be the most interesting pages, outside of the current year in development). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you guys said exactly what I was trying to say. I feel like we've created kind of a monster with the timeline -- a set of fairly boring pages that are linked from most of the pages on the site. 2005 and 2006 are both in the top 25 of most linked article pages; 2006 has 637 links. (Well, 638 now that I've just made another one.) It feels like linking the dates has just become a habit, which doesn't add much value to the site. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it makes most sense to link to dates when the date is relevant to the article as it directly relates to the Muppets. So: "Candice Bergen (b. 1946) is a celebrity well known for playing Murphy Brown from 1988-1998. She appeared on The Muppet Show in 1976." Note that the only date linked out of the four used in the sentence is 1976, for her TMS appearance. —Scott (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
How about on merchandise pages? "Hallmark released a Miss Piggy address book in 1980." Link, or no? -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd say link, especially since in many cases, the merchandise isn't mentioned on the year page yet, as we're finding new stuff all the time. Right now, it doesn't really work, but prune out the extraneous celebrity-related dates (ala Scott's example), check "What links here" for 1980, and one could easily bring that page up to date with current Wiki knowledge. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess my thought is -- why bother? It seems like a lot of work to link and update pages that ultimately we don't really care that much about. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
So, you're saying just do away with all year links, regardless? -- Andrew Leal (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
No, don't get rid of year linking. As Andrew said, if we can weed out the extraneous stuff, clicking What Links Here on 1980 would be very useful in building up the page for 1980. —Scott (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we agree on the general stuff. I'm just advocating for fewer links. You guys have said take it out for celebrity dates. I think we should take it out for some other areas too. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes for merchandise pages. We don't cover a lot of merch on the date pages, but it would be interesting to do so beyond just books and DVDs and xmas ornaments. —Scott (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Danny, what other areas were you thinking about taking them out of? -- Ken (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Now that I look at it again, Scott's example with Candice Bergen above really says everything that I wanted to say. Just link when it's directly related to the Muppets -- the kind of thing that we would put on that year's page.
That being said, we've got thousands of pages that don't follow that rule, so it's not like we're going to go and fix all of them now. If we agree on that guideline, then we'll just do that from now on, and then fix pages as we go along. -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


My YouTube account was recently shut down for non-Muppet/Sesame related reasons. I'll be removing some dead links, please feel free to remove any I missed. I was using the account to source a number of items on the wiki. I'll be setting up another account where I can link to for sources if they need be. If there's something that needs a link, please let me know. —Scott (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

NYT article on Muppet relaunch

There's a great article in today's New York Times: "Disney Prepares to Use its Marketing Magic to Bring Back the Muppets".

It's an exciting article, which fleshes out some details on Disney's plans, which include merchandise, books, and live appearances, leading up to a movie in 2010. There's also some good info there that we can use on the wiki. Go check it out! -- Danny@Wikia (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


12/05 01/06 02/06a 02/06b 02/06c 03/06a
03/06b 04/06 05/06 06/06 07/06 08/06
09-10/06 11/06 12/06 01/07 02/07 03/07
04/07 05-06/07 07-09/07 10-11/07 12/07 01-02/08
03-04/08 05-06/08 06/08 06/08a 07-09/08

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki