Nine months after the below discussion, with the way References has been split up the way it has, it's looking like this category might more appropriately be renamed "Celebrity References." I'm thinking that Gregory Peck, although not directly spoofed, should be included in the same category as a reference. When the Muppets have spoofed a celebrity, it's basically just a glorified reference. Or, another idea would be to keep Celebrity Spoofs as is, and just make a new category for Celebrity References in addition to it. Thoughts? — Scott (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know. While there's been quite a few celebrity references, as opposed to spoofs, it seems odd to make a seperate category for it. So I'd be in favor of a single catch-all Celebrity References category. In particular, cases like Lionel Barrymore tend to be awkwardly classed as is (he's under "Movie References," because of his film career I guess, but the actual line refers to his stage career). I'd been a little unhappy with certain aspects of this category anyway (those who've inspired parody Muppets combined with any time Kermit or Miss Piggy appeared attired like a famous person for a magazine/calendar; with plenty of the latter not included). So a Celebrity References category, eroding any such distinctions, makes sense to me. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am. It seems to me that by including John Cougar Mellencamp, because Bunsen dressed like him, it's not that different. It's sort of a spoof, but really seems more like a visual reference to me. So we might as well include the verbal references as well. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I like moving the category from Celebrity Spoofs to Celebrity References. I'm a little unclear on the definition of the category, though. There's lots of References categories now, and many of them include celebrities.
- I think this category should be for celebrities that are actively spoofed. That would include:
- I think celebrities who are just referenced verbally as a celebrity, like Lionel Barrymore, Gregory Peck and Arthur Godfrey should be listed in the other References categories -- Stage References, Movie References, etc. If we keep them here, then we would have to move every human from all the other References categories into this one, which I think would dilute the two groups listed above. -- Danny (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know. Not every human is a celebrity (I'd probably take out historical reference slike Grover Cleveland). I still don't like having Barrymore as a Movie Reference, which it really isn't, and Gregory Peck isn't much better. Those kinds of references almost never explicitly link the celebrity and a project, and we just have to categorize them subjectively, based on whatever somebody thnks would be the dominant field the person was in at the time of the reference. Arthur Godfrey starred on TV concurrently with his radio show, and while the former ended fairly quckly, was still starring on radio until 1972. So when The Muppet Show name-checks him, do we just stick it under TV and Radio References on that score? Fred Astaire, where they explicitly allude to famous film moments of his, is clearly a Movie reference, but I don't know about the others. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think we should use this category as the catch-all for people who were famous in several fields. If there's a question about where they should go, like with Arthur Godfrey, I think it's okay to double-categorize -- he could go in both Radio References and TV Referencees. You were right about Barrymore; his page mentions "theater greats", and therefore, he should be in Stage References. I think Gregory Peck is just known as a film actor, and won Academy Awards; he should be in Movie References.
- Personally, I'm comfortable with including historical figures here, if the Muppets spoofed them -- I think the people in "Great Moments in Elvis History" would fit here. I know that it would be odd for Isaac Newton to sit alongside Sally Jessy Raphaël, but still, they were both spoofed by Muppets. -- Danny (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
the way things were
I don't really understand this category. Why are some people categorized in Celebrity Spoofs but not in References? It seems easier to me to merge this category with References. -- Danny (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- This category cites celebrities who have been spoofed by the Muppets. References categorizes things that have been mentioned or referenced in Muppet material without a direct spoof done. If you look at the contents of the pages in each category, you'll see the distinction. -- Scott (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- It might help if there was a link in the description to Parody Muppets, which is basically what's in here. People who have inspired parody characters. Though it does get iffy with some of the Muppet Magazine stuff, so Max Headroom, who was portrayed by Link Hogthrob, count as a celebrity spoof, but Kermit the Frog as Batman doesn't? I think I'd be in favor of keeping most of the people here, but maybe think about moving some of those like John Cougar Mellencamp who were portrayed by established characters in magazines and posters, and thus are closer to references than a full-on spoof character like Bruce Stringbean, Bob Hack, or good old Moe Cocker. Andrew Leal (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the text in References says: "Books, films, TV shows and people that have been spoofed or referenced by the Muppets." I guess I understand the distinction that's being made, but why bother making that distinction? As a reader, if I'm browsing through the References category, I would expect to see John Cougar Mellencamp there, along with Seinfeld and Fred Astaire. Having two categories seems like needlessly splitting hairs. -- Danny (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm in full agreement on Mellencamp. I just think it's sorta useful as a cross-reference for some of the other people, especially those who have had no other Muppet connection or been referenced except to be spoofed. References now covers a pretty broad range of stuff, while I think this could be useful if limited to strictly those who inspired individual Muppet characters. Though that applies most heavily to all those Canadian news producers and stuff used on Sesame Park and who haven't been added yet, so I dunno. Andrew Leal (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, the category would make more sense if it was just for people who have directly inspired Muppet characters. And it would make even more sense to me if it included the characters themselves, rather than the celebrities. If this category had Meryl Sheep, Sharon Groan etc., then there would be a clear distinction between this and References. -- Danny (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, Celebrity Spoofs is a sub-category of References. If you were browsing through Refernces, you would look at the structure of hierarchy and see that, "oh, there's also a whole special section under this just for celebrities who have been spoofed -- neat!" -- Scott (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- See, I think you'd be browsing through References, click on Celebrity Spoofs, and say, What's the difference between this and References? For example, Fred Astaire is currently listed under References. What's the difference between him and the other Celebrity Spoofs? -- Danny (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- The difference is there was never a Muppet named "Ned Upstairs." Or if there was, we haven't found it. As I may have indicated, I'm sort of on the fence on this, but there is a difference, however mild, as far as people like Derek Jeter (spoofed as Ferret Jeeter) compared to Jascha Heifetz. Andrew Leal (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- But, that's not how sub-categories work. I know you don't like them because they push something down, but file structure is set up very specifically so that you can group similar items together in a parent category that defines a broader scope, leaving smaller differences to the sub-categories. I have a tough time describing tech things that make sense in my own mind so that someone else can understand it. The best example I can cite is the way folders work in Windows, like this: Image:Folders.gif. There's a structure that defines where files can go and that each folder can have a sub-folder. Wikipedia has been doing it for far longer than we have and it works out brilliantly for them. I'll see if I can find a good example over there to better illustrate. -- Scott (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Dude, I understand how folders work. I just think that the people who created the wiki software applied that concept inappropriately. In a file structure on your computer, a file can only be in one folder at a time -- it's either in "Veronica Mars" or in "Maxim", but not both. On the wiki, a single article can be in both. So if Derek Jeter is in both References and Celebrity Spoofs, then what's the point of the subcategory?
- The guideline I've tried to follow -- that you can either have articles or subcats in a category, but not both -- is actually more like the way folders work in a file structure. For example, Muppet Merchandise is a branching tree structure, just like the example you're showing. -- Danny (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)