Idea for page
OK, I have been thinking, it seems a bit overkill to have the whole Yoda article in this category. I think that similar to how that there is a separate Frank Oz page that answers the question of why Oz no longer performs with Muppets here, there should be a page called "Is Yoda a Muppet?" Because, I gotta say, I just did a google search for that question, and it is something that comes up in the suggestion box, and the question does show up in the search. Yes, the Yoda article is one of the first links that shows up, but the title doesn't overtly include the question. So any thoughts on this?--Gonzofan 23:03, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, that makes sense (and that is how the question typically comes up, so it would make sense for searching, as you said) and given how rumors as a category has developed, I agree with you that the pages should be of a piece (we have plenty of larger articles which *contain* sections on rumors which aren't yet major enough for their own page, but don't categorize them here). I'm just debating whether to simply rework and rename the Yoda page, or break out. Looking at it, there are enough distinct references to him (or characters playing him), the most out of any of the many Muppet Star Wars references, plus the possibility of at some point just merging Yoda Muppet, that I think we could just trim the other portion out into it's own page (statements like the George Lucas quote where he says "It just would have been a disaster if it had been this silly little Muppet..." can go on both). Plus, for a rumors page, we can even toss in some pop culture mentions, which we don't always track, but something like that NewsRadio episode which flat out stated that "Yoda is a Muppet" seem relevant. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 23:30, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, apparently my idea is out. I tried making a sandbox page, but it was deemed unnecessary and deleted. I guess we should just look into changing the name of this page and as you said Andrew, rework it. Any other thoughts before I try anything else?--Gonzofan 17:40, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, at this point, whatever anyone wants to do is fine by me. Its really no skin off my nose. Although, I didn't think that it mattered that the sandbox page was still in rough form and a work-in-progress. That's what a *sandbox* page is after all. Its not like it was a real page.--Gonzofan 18:37, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
Well, the original question was whether to break out the rumor portion, rather than just lumping Yoda into the category, so they wouldn't be duplicates (and would be a better place to include stuff like the aforementioned NewsRadio bit, contemporary film reviews, and others that added to that specific misconception of Yoda as a Muppet). It just hadn't reached that stage yet. It was that or rework and rename the existing page to focus on the rumor aspect more clearly and named to match the other pages, and move the references to the Star Wars page (since minus those, the rumor, the great but otherwise unexplained pics with Piggy and Mark Hamill, and Frank Oz and co. are the only real Muppet relevance of Yoda himself; we don't even have a solo Darth Vader page, despite Dearth Nadir).-- Andrew Leal (talk) 19:07, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's a more interesting article to have everything all on Yoda. I don't think we need to split it up. —Scott (message me) 19:18, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
- It was in terms of naming and categorization (given the structure of the rumors category and the page names as questions; there are other examples, like Kermit's Birthday which could be "When is Kermit's birthday?" to match), so the double categorization is what makes it a little awkward (that and the table of contents appearing between the lead-in and the chunk of background/rumor section, with no heading). But we do have other examples (like Smoking Muppets) that really couldn't effectively be renamed and are fine as are, so it could go either way. The original question was just why it isn't structured as a rumor page or named like one (and it struck me as not hurting to do so). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 23:19, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's more interesting to have things all on one page, and don't think we need to split it up. We have Star Wars, Yoda and Yoda Muppet. It seems kind of weird to separate all the Yoda references/mentions out from of the Star Wars page; and it seems redundant to track them on two (or three) different pages. I understand the separate Luke Skywalker, Chewbacca, C-3PO and R2-D2 articles (they appeared as legitimate guests in Muppet productions). By why exactly do we have a separate Yoda page? And why not a separate Darth Vader page (there are enough references/mentions/connections to that specific character to make up a pretty full article too)? Personally, I think the Star Wars page should handle all the references/mentions/connections and we turn the Yoda page into more of a rumor/connection page (“Is Yoda a Muppet?” or something). -- Brad D. (talk) 13:56, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
- We've got Yoda separate from Star Wars just because there are a significant amount of references. I prefer having more information together on an article, too, as it makes the article more interesting. But, as Star Wars is already considerable in length, it would just be overload. Enough so that we'd want a section just for Yoda, and why bother when we can give him a page? —Scott (message me) 15:57, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
Alright, so I might as well start a discussion about this. So, the claim was recently made that the reason that Count von Count's page has "Sesame Street" in the title for "Search Engine Optimization", and that other rumor articles like the "Is Ernie Dead?" page don't bother to mention Sesame Street in the tile because it should be clear since there is only one Ernie. That's a pretty moot point, since there is only ONE Count on Sesame Street, just as there is only one Ernie. The claim was also made that the Ernie page is older was created before "we knew what we were doing". Well, that's hardly an excuse. All in all, SEO is a fair point, but I'm not sure how necessary it is. I was not under the impression that the Count rumor was even that popular. Ultimately, I think these things should be consistent. So, any thoughts? Whatever decision is made, I'm fine with it, but I wanted to bring this up--Gonzofan 19:17, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
- The difference is simple. Anyone searching for Ernie's death already knows his name. The terms "Ernie" and "dead" are in the article title. "Count" is a generic phrase and doesn't help the searcher find what they're looking for. However, in the more likely search "who is the vampire on Sesame Street?" they're going to find our article at the top of the search results as all the keywords are in the title. —Scott (message me) 19:34, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
- Well then, wouldn't it make more sense to use his full name, Count Von Count? Or would that just be too confusing to causal readers?--Gonzofan 22:20, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
- We moved "Ernie and Bert's Relationship" to "Are Ernie and Bert gay?" (which covers the same topic and controversy) because the word "gay" is what people are looking for. We moved "Cookie Monster: A Cookie is a Sometime Food" to "Is Cookie Monster now the Veggie Monster?" because more people would be looking for the "Veggie Monster" rumor. We moved "Does Brian Henson perform Kermit?" to "Does Jim Henson's son perform Kermit?" because if someone was enough of a fan to know Brian's name, chances are they'd also know he's not Kermit's puppeteer. I think that the people who question if Sesame Street really has a monstrous vampire won't know/use his full name (Count von Count) and would just refer to him as "the Count from Sesame Street." -- Brad D. (talk) 22:39, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
Is the FOX News/POX News controversy worthy enough to have an article about? The gag is mentioned on the Fox News page, but the controversy isn't. It was apparently a big enough deal that they invited a new Grouch character to be interview on the subject. Should this be its own page or go on the Fox News page? - Oscarfan 20:45, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- It was more of a kerfuffle. It wasn't a misconception or rumor, just a lot of misplaced outrage. So it really doesn't need a rumor page and there is some additional information on our page for The O'Reilly Factor. However, more details and general coverage of the flap, either on Episode 4160, FOX News, or both, would definitely be a good idea, synthesizing what we have and adding other details (looking around, it was also mentioned on The Colbert Report). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 21:09, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't really consider it a rumor, I just couldn't think of another place to ask this. I think condensing the info into one of those pages would be good, most likely the episode page itself. - Oscarfan 21:22, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
There are a few articles here that feel misnamed to me.
- Are Ernie and Bert gay? -- Asks a question that implies there's an answer. It's provocative for an internet search, but not good practice for an NPOV encyclopedia project. I propose we move this back to Bert and Ernie's Relationship. If we want to sneak a bit of the provocative back in, perhaps, Bert and Ernie's Gay Relationship.
- Cookie Monster: A Cookie is a Sometime Food -- This has always been a clunky title, hard to find and easy to confuse with the song. Not sure what would be best here... maybe Cookie Monster's diet or Cookie Monster: Veggie Monster.
- Ernie is Dead -- Absolute statement that's misleading for the content of the article. I suggest Ernie's death or The death of Ernie.
- I moved Ernie and Bert's relationship to "Are Ernie and Bert gay?" because it brings more people to that article.
- I just looked at our Google Analytics stats, to see how people are getting here. In the last six months, we had 42 visits from people searching for variants on "ernie and bert's relationship", and 602 visits from people searching for variants on "are ernie and bert gay".
- If people are searching for "Are Ernie and Bert gay?" -- and they clearly are -- then I want them to find our article first, and I want them to click on it. We're the best source on the internet on this topic. If we want people to know what's actually true, then it should have a title that gives it the widest possible exposure. -- Danny (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)