To discuss article changes, please use:


If you see comments on this page, they remain for archive purposes.


Animated Muppets.

I think all animated versions of Muppets should go into this category. Could I please do that? User:Antsamthompson9

As you raised the same question on Talk:Animal (animated), I still think it would be awkward and it's not how this category is structured, to include individual character pages as opposed to a larger comparison page or list (which you started with Animated Muppets but didn't format in any way). I can see why you asked, since a few pages were in here which really shouldn't have been (like Gordon (animated) and a few others Brad added at some point, and we hadn't noticed). Elmo (animated) works since it's a gallery of multiple versions, but that doesn't apply to most of the ones you were adding. As I said in the other discussion, a *list* or gallery page or other article would work, but not just retagging everything. That's my opinion anyway, since I think it looks messy and even just plain silly to have World's Oldest Fraggle (animated) or Eliot Shag (animated) here. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 00:39, July 9, 2012 (UTC)
The reason I didn't format the page was because, I'm not good at adding pictures. So if anyone who's good at adding pictures wants to improve that page, go right ahead. The reason I wanted to do this was because, I think it's kinda frustrating to not see animated versions of Muppet Show Muppets or Fraggle Rock Muppets to not be in the category when all the animated versions of the Sesame Street Muppets are in the category.User:Antsamthompson9
I took a whack at reformatting Anthony's page into a gallery, to make it more visually interesting. I'm still convinced, however, that we don't really need the page since the Animated Characters category covers all of those bases Ant mentioned. -- Jon (talk) 08:37, July 9, 2012 (UTC)
I get what Ant was trying to do with the categorization, but I don't think it works. However, I think putting Animated Muppets in the category is the perfect solution. That way, you find the variants by browsing the category without cluttering it up. We should also make sure that each character page is linking to the animated version at the bottom in a "See also" section if they're not already. —Scott (message me) 16:26, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

Through the Years protection

The "Through the Years" pages have always been a magnet for the more OCD contributors, who find it hard to tell the difference between a major change to the puppet and a costume or lighting change. They just attract crappy edits. Whenever I see a new person editing a Through the Years page, I start wondering how long it'll be before we have to kick them off the wiki.

What do you guys think about protecting the Through the Years pages? I'm not sure which setting to use -- there's "block new users" and "administrators only", but I don't know how long you have to edit until you're not a new user anymore. Ideally, I'd like to have these pages editable by the regular users, even if they're not admins.

Anyway, the idea is -- protect the pages, and we direct people to post additions on the talk page. We did that for about a year, from mid-2006 to mid-2007, and I think it was a good idea. What do you guys think? -- Danny@fandom (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say set it for "block new users", and if they can't edit the page, they'll either do something else, or ask somebody for help, and then you can see if they're trying to add something helpful. By the way, when I first got here, I couldn't edit certain pages for about 4 days because I was new. Do you know if that's still in effect? -- Ken (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the article that gets the most of these types of edits is probably Miss Piggy. What if we had a page about Miss Piggy's Hairstyles? —Scott (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a great idea... -- Danny@fandom (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"Through the Years" guidelines

We talked recently about the guidelines for creating "Through the Years" pages on Talk:Mokey Fraggle Through The Years. Andrew summarized them on Policies and Guidelines, and I just made some clarifications. This is what I've got as a guideline for these pages:

"Through the Years" pages in Category:Character Variants are limited to significant design changes for major characters. The group consensus is that these pages are meant for major characters who have gone through a lot of changes, like Kermit, Fozzie, Miss Piggy and Gonzo. Old puppets get refurbished or remade, sometimes resulting in minor cosmetic differences that are not the result of deliberate design decisions. Costume changes and new hairdos don't count. The changes should be immediately apparent to the reader looking at the pictures on the page. There should be more than three pictures on a Character Variant page -- if there have only been one or two major changes to the look of the character, then the changes should be noted on the character's article.

So if folks agree with that, then there are a few pages in this category that should be deleted or merged into the character's page:

Anybody have thoughts? -- Danny@fandom (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the others we'd already discussed and agreed on changing but hadn't deleted. Mr. Snuffleupagus has one very major change which I think is worthwhile, and some changes in fur, but it could go either way; right now I'm leaning towards merge/delete. Statler and Waldorf does have some real changes: start with a prototype, a switch to foam (technical, true, but one we count), and more recently, some very obvious changes, plus a nice planning sketch. I think Statler and Waldorf would benefit from consolidation rather than deletion; i.e., merge the Muppet Show into one entry (and just note the foam switch there) so the later changes are more apparent. It's clear even from the not so hot Muppets Tonight image that there's been a change (most notably to Waldorf) and a few more from there. I think it basically could just use trimming, a text adjustment, and maybe some better images; but as is, I think the changes on the page are noticeable, it's simply that the row of Muppet Show images throws one off (and the one for season 5 is really terrible and blurry, added by a long gone user who did similar things on other pages). We might go ahead and move the planning sketch up, in fact, rather than burying it, so the visual chronology is clearer and more interesting (we originally kept them separate because of things like Ernie Through the Years, when Moldy Hay was added and clearly is *not* an early Ernie, but does have many design similarities, but coming back more than two years later, we can probably do a lot of individual adjustments and tweaking to the pages we are keeping). The rest can go, with maybe some of the better pictures migrated to the character page if they aren't already. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think for Snuffy, the change from the original puppet to the more loveable one we know is striking and definitely worth writing about. We already talk about it on the Mr. Snuffleupagus page, although I think it could be highlighted more than it is. The other changes in fur and so forth are more subtle. I think that something could be said about it, but it would need stronger images that clearly show the differences. -- Danny@fandom (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. Maybe tag both Snuffy and Statler and Waldorf on their talk pages for attention, and if they haven't been significantly improved in, say, two months (or maybe three, since it may involve some DVD sifting and also checking for any quotes from the puppet builders and so on), go ahead and merge or delete. I don't think keeping either around a little longer would hurt, *but* it would also be a good incentive not to treat it as an indefinite "we'll fix it someday deal," and may even encourage others to contribute, whether pictures or ideas on how to show changes and so on. Right now, the most obvious issue on Snuffy is that the leap from the scary first Snuffy is to a circa 1980s-looking photo (which looks like it may be scanned from somewhere) as representing Snuffy for 31 years. Which suggests either there was only one change, or we're missing some transition images. Even if a subtle change, a screengrab from one of the appearances on the Old School DVDs might help, or the Sesame website. In fact, for any ofthe "through the years" Sesame pages that need help, that's a huge resource which we didn't have before, and it's also something just about anyone can access and add pictures from. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Merge Character Evolution with Character Variants

How would you guys feel about merging this category with Character Variants? The distinction between the two categories makes sense to me, because I've been here while we've come up with the pages, but I'm not sure that it would make sense to a new reader. They're very similar kinds of pages, and I think they could all work together in the same category. -- Danny (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it sort of makes sense, especially since both use the image table formats. However. by the same taken, for new readers, the distinction between the types needs to be clear enough to avoid mislabeling. That is, that only the development of a puppet is termed "Through the Years" and any impersonations/recurring alter-egos/different ages are "Alternate Identities/Ages." It seems obvious, but a brief text definition might not hurt. Andrew Leal (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea. Also, I agree with having text definitions at the top of the category page. Perhaps one line for each type of subcategory (Alternate Identities, Alternate Ages, Through the Years, et al.) Of course, we could also do it as subcategories. -- Peter (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Early Elmo?

I remember seeing an early Elmo with much smaller pupils in We Are All Monsters. --04:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor Evolution

Okay, I've noticed that some characters have very minor evolutions, such as Beautiful Day Monster, or Snake Frackle. The H*R Wiki has some minor character evolutions on that characters page (see the bottoms of here,here, and here for more details). I was thinking that it would be good if we add a small evolution page at the bottom of the characters that had minor evolutions. --Dark Frackle 18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If you've got good pictures and descriptions, then definitely add them to the characters' pages. -- Danny (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Er, actually we have those not for "minor evolutions", but for "Evolutions of minor characters". As there are only twelve major Homestar Runner characters, that just happens to be most of them. User: 23:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Not sure whether to bring this to current events yet, but at least one complaint has arisen over Boppity Through the Years. (My only real concern is that there's some image duplication from the same show without even a performer change or useful progression, as some of the multiples on major characters go). I love this category and sort of hate to ruin it through over debate and guidelines (since the freedome to create whatever Muppet related page, however insane, as long as its NPOV and factual and preferably interesting, is one of the main things I love about this Wiki), but can this be settled here quickly, or are we at the point where we need a Current Events notice to discuss this as a community? --Andrew, Aleal 00:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Questionable additions/omissions

As lovely as most of these photos are, a lot of them don't seem to serve a point. There should only be a photo if a character has gone through a significant change, but there are a whole bunch of photos that seem to be thrown in for the heck of it, while other versions of the puppet don't make an appearance at all. For instance:

  • Fozzie: The first three are all different, for sure. But then the text for #4 describes two entirely different Fozzies with only one photo. Then we get a Season 5 Fozzie and a GMC Fozzie, both of which I'd wager are identical to the TMS/Season 3 Fozzie. I see no differences. Then the more teddy-bearish-looking Fozzie (used in TMTM, MFC, JHH and MCJH) is nowhere to be found, nor is the misshapen, wig-wearing Fozzie from the '90s. Then there's a photo for Fozzie when Eric Jacobson takes over, though there's no actual change in the puppet.
  • Gonzo: Again, many of these Gonzos seem to be listed when a new show starts, as opposed to an actual change in design.
  • I'm not trying to pick on anyone here, just asking if anyone else thinks I'm crazy or if they see what I'm talking about. Am I missing something? Or should we (or I) start changing stuff around here? -- TomH 03:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Fozzies you describe, we don't have photos for. If you have them, feel free to toss them in. While certainly the point is to showcase character evolution, I'd argue that performer recasts are part of that eveolution, even if the design doesn't necessarily change. And I'd argue there's definitely a noticeable change in Fozzie there, though it's not easy to describe, and I actually think it probably started around Muppets from Space, but the face seems rounder and the nose position seems to have shifted slightly. Part of it's the angle of the screengrab, but I think it is a valid change. So please don't change anything until more discussion has been had. (Though personally, I'm inclined to delete Betty Lou Through The Years. A crank started the page, and it just looks sad in contrast to the others). --Andrew, Aleal 03:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Tom, I'd say that you should absolutely feel free to add stuff -- cause as you say, there's lots of holes on these pages where we could use some good photos. I don't think it hurts to have extra pictures on these pages, even without a major design change. Having multiple pictures of the same puppet from different projects helps to tell the story of that character -- if the same Fozzie puppet was used over a long period of time, then having photos from those different projects illustrates that point.
Andrew, I'll second deleting the Betty Lou page. Sad is the word. -- Danny Toughpigs 03:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I kind of think it's bit odd to just mention a performer change throughout the years. Maybe it would make more sense to me if audio clips were also included, though I'm not sure if that's allowed (audio clips could also be used for other time periods where the characetrs still had the same performer, as a lot of characters voices have had slight changes over the years, even when they had the same performer). --Minor muppetz 04:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to throw my hat in with the crowd that says that new performers don't merit an entry on the Character Evolution site. It's a picture-based page, after all. I also think that some of the entries on some of the pages to be unnecessary. The page is at its most useful and informative when not only the pictures of the puppet are distinct but the changes are well-described. So "TEXT" under Great Muppet Caper Fozzie renders the picture useless. There ought to be a change in the puppet itself, or a major, long-term change in costuming (I'm thinking Gonzo starting around Muppets Tonight). --Peter Pantalones 13:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm starting to lean towards that side too. Maybe we shouldn't have pictures for new performers. It is supposed to be a visually-based page. -- Danny Toughpigs 14:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. Everyone seems to agree that changes need to be made, though there's some disagreement over the performer issue. I'll make some changes, and add in pictures where I have them. (I hope someone else has more.) Thanks to all for their input on this! (P.S. Andrew, I offset your Boppity question since it's a new train of thought. I want to make sure it isn't just buried here.) -- TomH 00:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's probably worth burying, we seem to have settled the question of whether or not certain characters deserve pages (or I hope we have, anyway), as now the big debate seems to be over issues more closely related to this, i.e. how many pictures are needed to justify an evolution page etc. I took a general survey of the evolution pages we have, and I'm beginning to see your complaint more clearly. Fozzie didn't seem like the best example, and I tried to fill in design details, since whether you want Jacobson mentioned or not, there is some alteration at that point (though there is a season 5 image with no real discussion of how that Fozzie differed from the earlier one; I know I don't see it). But Oscar Through the Years and Gonzo Through the Years have several pictures in a row with rather sad "TEXT" placeholders. While I like to see a progression, and I'd still argue that one image of the most recent version, regardless of sudden changes, might be of value to go from earliest to final result, a whole bunch of Gonzo images with no text inbetween save "Gonzo is now an alien" isn't especially helpful. So yeah, feel free to do some housecleaning, and missing link pictures are always nifty. --Andrew, Aleal 00:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Characters from other shows

These all need some love and care and work, but its a start. Hope you enjoy! -- BradFraggle 06:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Will you eventually include characters from Sesame Street? --Minor muppetz 13:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why not. We could do them if people wants to. Many of the main characters have some good evolution history that would be fun to explore.
If anyone can get help more pictures of the characters feel free to pitch in there are a lot of gaps that I can't fill (especially with the Sesame Street gang). This is quite a project (but a fun one)!
-- BradFraggle 23:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Character Evolution: Suggestions

  • I've got a few ideas to suggest, but I don't have pictures to back myself up. Offhand, I can think of the Statler, Waldorf, and Bunsen Honeydew puppets that have evolved significantly. -- JParanoid 15:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
There are a handful of characters that could get their own pages. I could see a page for Statler & Waldorf, Bunsen, Sam Eagle, and Rowlf someday.
Should Statler and Waldorf share a page or be separate? -- BradFraggle 20:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
My DVD drive recently busted, so I can't supply any comparison pics as of yet, but I'd have Statler and Waldorf together. Unlike even Bert and Ernie, they've never really had any existence outside of each other (with one exception each, the Muppet Show episode with Waldorf and Astoria, and The Cosby Show appearance with Statler paired with Bill Cosby). I'd especially mention that because any special puppet changes and alternates have been in tandem (the young versions used in The Muppet Christmas Carol and Kermit's Swamp Years), and often literally attached (shackled as the Marleys, the ship's figureheads in Treasure Island, the critic creature in Oz). And as the second oldest continuing Muppet outside of Kermit, if you can find enough early pics and screen grabs, I'd definitely prioritize Rowlf. --Aleal 20:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I have a Janice Through the Years planned out. I have pictures of her various stages. Ones I'd like to see are: Floyd, Rowlf, possibly Herry Monster, Snerfs,

or possibly Beuatiful Day Monster or Guy Smiley page. I'll stop talking now. -- Big V 20:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


I was thinking of putting an evolution page for Snerf, but I don't have any information between 1965-1976. Can some one help me out.--Dark Frackle 01:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, all I know is that he started out as a brown monster with a glove for a hand. Then, on The Muppet Show, they became blue, green feet and horns for noses. And in the Zero Mostel episode, they had beeks.-- 01:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)