Some of the articles in this category seem somewhat non-notable to me. And I think we might want to clean up this category by merging and/or removing some of the articles in here.
In terms of fansites: Muppet Central, Tough Pigs, The Muppet Newsflash, Muppet Wiki and The MuppetCast are fairly notable fansites - they have sizable contributions to the Muppet fandom, they have had some longevity of activity, they have substantial content, they've have had contact/endorcements from actual Muppet people and/or organizations, and they have original content (such as interviews) that are referenced in articles on this wiki. I would also include the now-defunct Kermitage and MuppetZine (which was essentially a printed fansite) as past fan projects with equal notability. Likewise the Fraggle Rock DVD Petition and Save the Muppets campaigns have been referenced by official organizations in press releases and by the Muppet performers in interviews. These articles are worthwhile.
However creating pages for every Muppet fan with a GeoCities or Blogger account that posted a collection of Muppet pictures, lyrics and other related text doesn't real add to the quality of the Wiki. I think it might be helpful to simply create a single "List of fan sites" page that would serve as a kind of open directory for all the active fan sites out there. We can list all the various fansites on the web and maintain a list of links for people to browse. Currently this category includes pages for such sites as Backstage with the Muppets, MuppetDanny's The Best Jim Henson's Muppets Website..... Ever!, The Grouch Report, and others that really aren't that notable. They aren't horrible sites; but in the total scope of Muppetdom, they aren't really notable. Anyone can create a website nowadays - having an article for every single peice of unofficial online Muppet-based content seems pointless. Would we allow articles on individual's fan-fiction or a page on an online portfolio of Muppet fan art? Where do we draw the line for an article on a "fansite"?
Also some of the other articles in here we might want to reconsider (and either delete or move to someone's userspace). The Muppet Show in Ham's Deep (as cool as it is) seems out of place. We don't have pages for all those pictures of the fancy Muppet cakes that show up on flickr every so often, and I'm sure other people have made elaborate dioramas with their action figures (they just weren't displayed in the window of a local comic book store; or they were but pictures never reached the web). The Bear Wit Project is a fan video that is no longer online; we don't have pages for other fan videos (like Sad Kermit, The Muppet Matrix, Resident Evil 5: Muppet Edition, or all those mash-up Muppet rap videos).
Wookieepeida has a policy for fan projects (see Notability of fan projects) which outlines some really good guidelines for creating pages on fan created items -- mainly they need a level of notability (simply showing up in Google is not enough). I think we should adopt a similar policy here and clean up the fandom category. Thoughts? -- Brad D. (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Usually, I'm the guy on the wiki who says yes, let's clean up the category and take out the non-notable stuff. In this case, I'm inclined to be more generous.
- This category documents Muppet fan history, which isn't collected anywhere else in the world. MuppetDanny's site isn't Muppet Central or Tough Pigs -- but it was part of the Muppet fansite world in the late 90s. Someday, that site will shut down, and I feel like if it's totally forgotten forever, then that's a little piece of our history that's gone. It's not a big thing, but I think we would be diminished.
- Same goes for the Bear Wit Project -- that page isn't very fleshed out, but that short was popular, and very important at the time.
- I do get your point about the Grouch Report -- I think we created that page because the guy tried adding links here, and we mostly did it so that he would be satisfied and go away. He lost interest in the blog after a couple months, and I think we could lose that page.
- But if a site stays up for years, like MuppetDanny's site, or Backstage with the Muppets, then I think it deserves our respect. We were all pioneers in those days, and if we hadn't each gone out to stake our claim for Muppet fandom back then, then we wouldn't have a Muppet Wiki or a MuppetCast today.
- I actually like the Muppets in Ham's Deep page -- and I kind of wouldn't mind if we had more like that. I wouldn't necessarily want a page for every single Muppet-shaped cupcake on Flickr, but some of that stuff is really cool, and I wouldn't mind preserving some of it for posterity. It's a part of our story, and I'd rather have a page about Travis Frost's pumpkins than a page about some random Creature Shop thing. I'm glad that I put those pictures on Tough Pigs, so they're preserved and still accessible. If we don't collect those things, then they'll disappear, and I think they deserve better. -- Danny (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I understand your desire to preserve the history of Muppet fandom before it's lost to the ages...however I think there should be some rules and guidelines for what we do (and don't) do here. There needs to be more rules than just "if its on the web, and its about the Muppets, and I think it's cool... then it gets an article." With that standard I could easily create 100+ articles tonight about various Muppet fansites (past and present), various unofficial fan films, and other fan creations that have reached the web and I think are neat.
- A while back someone created an article on "Sad Kermit" but it was deleted because it was considered non-notable and irrelevant to the purposes of the wiki. Now I understand we may have evolved since then, but if "Bear Wit" is okay as a notable fan creation, shouldn't "Sad Kermit", "The Muppet Matrix", "Shatner on the Muppet Show", "Muppet Resident Evil 5" and many of the other Muppet fan films also be allowable? Currently we have just around 15 articles for fansites; but there have been more than 100 sites, blogs, and webpages set up about the Muppets - are they all notable enough to get their own pages in here?
- I don't mean any disrespect to the creators of this content - I think a lot of it is really really cool. But are we opening the floodgates for any fan who has had a webspace with semi-original Muppet content on it?
- We have guidelines for dealing with "Muppet Mentions" (whether they gets its own page, is just listed as a "minor mention", or if its not even worth our time at all to track). I just think we need some guidelines here to make sure things are fair, balanced and don't get "out of hand." I'd love to create articles on more fandom items - but I don't want to cross the line. -- Brad D. (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree, it would be good to have guidelines -- both to keep non-notable stuff out, and to inspire people to find more examples of stuff that fits the guidelines.
- I mentioned one potential guideline above, which is the length of time that a website has been active and maintained. I think sites that are active for several years are different from something like the Grouch Report, which was created and abandoned within a month. So that could be one thing.
- Another possible guideline is to include things that are put on public display, like the Muppet Rawk gallery shows. That guideline would need some fleshing out as to what qualifies as public display.
- A third potential guideline: The subject is mentioned in the press, or on significant websites?
- Those are all good guidelines – I think a level of longevity and some notable outside coverage (aside from fan forums and personal blogs) are important to establishing a level of notability. I started sandboxing a guidelines page to outline rules for fan projects -- see Sandbox:Notability of fan projects. Take a look, and please feel free to add to it, clean it up, or suggest additions or revisions. Hopefully we can get a good guideline for what's type of articles are worthwhile. This might mean cleaning up some of the articles that we already have, but overall I think we're on the right track; with potential for some other great articles. -- Brad D. (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
custom figures Edit
I made a new catagory for custom figures. if anyone cand find photos online it would help.--Gtaz