As of this writing, we have 0, 8 and 19 categorized here. I think it's safe to say that every number from 0 to 20 has appeared with Muppet eyes and mouth at some point. Do we categorize them all here eventually, or do we just keep them in the numbers category to save from the redundancy? —Scott (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's at all "safe" to say that every number has appeared as a Muppet, but certainly more than those three have done so. Regardless, I'd say it would work *if* we had images of the Muppet incarnation. A catch-all page for Muppet Numbers would work better, though. Long before all the individual letters and numbers had pages, I created Letters of the Alphabet; haven't really updated it, but it's a useful way to just track Muppet incarnations of letters. Something like that for numbers would work, again *if* we have images. If not, I'd say just pull the tag until we do. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I got the ball rolling at Numerical Characters, and took 0, 8 and 19 out of this category. Similarly, I took the letters of the alphabet out of here too and placed a see also on those pages to Letters of the Alphabet. Would it make sense to rename that Alphabet Characters to match the numbers article and to also make it clear that the page is exclusively for characters which sets it apart from each individual article for the letters? —Scott (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The issue in question is unresolved. Can you help?
There are some characters that I've seen listed as debuting in certain years on fan sites (The Sesame Street Character Encyclopedia, The Complete Henson Database, The Internet Movie Database, message board posts, etc). However, I'e never seen any official sources for the character debuts. Some of these years are listed in the individual character pages, and some are lsited in various year pages (under "character debuts"). I may have listed some of these dates. However, I would like to know if there are any known official soures for the following characters debuts:
- Don Music (cited as debuting in 1973)
- Bruno the Trashman (cited as debuting in 1978)
- Two-Headed Monster (cited as debuting in 1978).
--Minor muppetz 21:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Qualifying as a Sesame Character
What qualifies a character as a Sesame Street Character? We don't segregate based on type (Muppet/human/animated/unseen/audio) as we have bigger categories for that; but we do split it up by Sesame Street production, however the line seems arbitrary and blurry. What is a "Sesame Street Character"? Currently we do not include characters exclusivly from Sesame films or specials; but we do include character exclusive to books, comics and recordings.
Currently we treat characters from the Sesame "universe" as such, in reguards to being a "Sesame Street Character":
- TV Series - include
- Films only - exclude
- Specials only - exclude
- Direct-to-Video only - mixed
- Records/audio only - include
- Books only - include
- Stage Shows only - exclude
If this is to be for the whole Sesame "universe", I think we should include all characters from the universe of Sesame Street - the Tv show, books, films, specials and other media. If it is only for the TV show (and not for characters, never used again and isolated in a way from the larger 'universe') then we should exclude all isolated media - not just films/specials but also books/records and others not part of the television series.
- Really, most of this mixing you point out, outside of stage show characters (which I'd argue should probvably stay that way) is my doing, and has nothing to do with "universe" arguments. Rather, it's precisely the dual connotation of Sesame Street referring to the universe and the show itself, and while it's patently obvious that illustrated or audio only characters were never on the show (since otherwise we wouldn't have them as illustrated only characters, we'd call them Muppets), that's not necessarily as apparent with the others and can be misleading. I just like to make a distinction between characters like Miss Finch who in puppet form, were only used in the one film (well, and The Muppets: A Celebration of 30 Years) and Board of Birds or Alarm Clock Bird, characters who were introduced in films or specials but have been recycled either as utility puppets or themselves (the only sort of out of universe thing is Cinderelmo, and I'll even give that a pass). The earlier discussion I had with Scott on disambviguating Sparky (stuntman) as "Sparky (Sesame Street)" was precisely for that reason, since the character had only appeared on Elmopalooza and never on the show, not to place him somehow outside "the universe." I'd still like to find a way to make that apparent from browsing categories without resource to either assuming the reader will getr it or a clunky "So and so never appearwed on the show itself" sentence, but I'm certainly willing, more willing than I might have been months ago, to agree about the "universe" grouping thing. I just think there should be a useful way to clarify that, and at the very least, continuing use of subcats for groupings, even if they are small, helps in that (though as mentioned here and then sort of dropped, I wouldn't necessarily object to merging Sesame Street Specials Characters in such a way). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think the reason why we initially decided to put the illustrated characters into Sesame Characters was the "universe" idea -- that they're part of the Sesame universe, and therefore, they're Sesame Street characters. I forget why we never included the films, specials and stage shows in that. I like the "universe" idea, as long as we also keep the separate categories for browsing. -- Danny (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think the "universe"-theory is the best way to go here. Just like we do withSesame Street Songs, I don't see the need to discriminate based on TV show, film, TV special, video, album, stage show, etc. Having other categories (such as "Follow that Bird Characters" or "CinderElmo Characters") is fine too, but I think this should be for all Sesame characters from all of the show franchise - specials and films included. -- Brad D. (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It's been a month since I brought this up (and not much discussion since). So I'm bringing it up again. Should this be for all characters in the Sesame universe (films and specials included) or just for characters from the TV show, books, record and some direct-to-videos titles? -- Brad D. (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- All the characters. This is a wide "universe" category, and it includes everybody. -- Danny (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's been over a week with no active discussion or response, so I'll ask one last time before I just let the discussion die off with no closure or conclusion...So can we add category tags to the film and special characters and get this talk box out of here? Does anyone care? Anyone? -- Brad D. (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd still personally like to make a distinction with puppet characters who were re-used on the show and those who were exclusive to films, and I still think it feels odd to add The Monkey King (should we add Santa Claus as a Sesame Street character, on that score)? Scott brought up an issue with Muppet Wiki: Universes, which I haven't responded to because I don't disagree with his universe groupings, but I do think with many categories, it's arguably more useful to focus on the production than the "universe," especially with so many items which fall outside such neat groupings anyway. I also think it's terribly misleading with something like Sparky (stuntman), who never appeared on the show and only had a single brief appearance in one special. But I'm clearly in the minority, so go ahead. I do think it wouldn't hurt to include the film or special category on top, though, and the "universe" category beneath in such instances, to at least better ameliorate any conflation. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- The thing is this category (currently) isn't just for characters that were on the TV show - right now we have characters exclusive to records, characters exclusive to books, and even a whole bunch of character only seen in one direct-to-video title. I think listing the film only and television special only characters in here wouldn't be bad. Keeping "Sesame Street Special Characters", "Follow that Bird Characters", "Elmo in Grouchland Characters" to group the characters that were exclusive to the films and specials is great, but this category (in my mind) should either be the whole universe (which includes films and specials) or it should be just the TV show (which means dropping a bunch of articles). But this mixed "just some parts of the universe" thing for this category makes no sense to me. -- Brad D. (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think the discussion slowed down because the votes are pretty much in. Brad and I (and Scott, on some other page somewhere) think this should be a "universe" category; Andrew has mixed feelings about it. So I think Andrew has a good compromise -- put the film/specials category on top. Makes sense to me. -- Danny (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, Where do Direct-to-video only characters go? There are many are in here and some are in "specials". Scott had started "category:Sesame Street Video Specials Characters" (but that question hasn't really been resolved either).
- I guess my whole thing is that while it may feel odd to list The Monkey King here, it seems equally as odd to list Elmo's Sister Daisy. Now I understand that once you open the article you can see that Daisy is an illustrated character and she only appeared in books; but likewise if The Monkey King was listed here, you would open the article and see that he is a listed as a "Sesame Street Special character" and you could read that he only appeared in the one special. From the category list there is no indication on who's illustrated, film, special, audio TV show or something else. So why not have "Book Characters" as a separate category at the top too then too? Having the character "Daisy" in the listing here seems just as odd or misleading as having The Monkey King here. Also characters like the turkey from Emeril Live, only appeared in a guest appearance, and it seems just as misleading to list him here as it would to list Lightning (who only appeared in Elmo Saves Christmas). But if there isn't a strong enough consensus to agree to add them in, then I guess I'll concede lobbying for the films and specials to join the books, records, guest appearances, television show, and other media. -- Brad D. (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- We already have "Illustrated Characters." That can be on top. Book Characters is unncecessary. As for the Turkey, I'd honestly say take him out entirely (and I just checked, he isn't in the category anyway). I don't think that even fits the "universe" theory. I'm more than a little confused by your response, Brad. Danny gave you the picture. I'm pretty much giving in with that one qualification, including the main category on top and the "universe" category on bottom. Pardon if I'm misreding, but when you go on about conceding lobbying and so in, it doesn't make sense. You've won. Go ahead and do what you want to do. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wait, maybe I misread Danny's post. So let me make sure I got it straight, we keep the film & special categories to denote those exclusive characters but they also go in the main universe category too? So Miss Finch, for example, would be in "Follow That Bird Characters" and "Sesame Street Characters" now? -- Brad D. (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah -- you and I have been agreeing the whole time. Sesame Street Characters is a "universe" category, which means it covers every character, no matter the medium or the format. Characters from the show, the specials, the films, the books, the albums, special appearances -- even characters from Sesame video games, if we have any. The only caveat I'd add would be not to include celebrities, or people playing themselves. -- Danny (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Another inconsistency issue, is whether to stick animated characters under Category:Sesame Street Characters. Most are, a few aren't. Do we add them all automatically or be selective? Right now, I'd say that any recurring character, or a one-shot like Wanda the Witch who has featured in ad materials and merchandising, is a Sesame Street Character. The other one-shots are Sesame in the sense that they appeared on the show, but they aren't really cast members, so that's iffy to me. Andrew Leal (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think we should make it consistent with Sesame Street Animated Segments. Recurring animated characters like Typewriter Guy and Global Thingy should be here, but one-shot animated characters shouldn't. I think we make an exception for Wanda the Witch because of some historical significance, but otherwise, one-shot characters shouldn't be considered Sesame Street Characters. -- Danny (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking. And actually, category cleaning has taken care of most of them, the main iffy ones being The Old Lady Who Lived in a Nine (which may well be deleted/merged into Bud Luckey), and more borderline, Alligator King and King of 8, but they're already in three categories each, and while it's quite likely someone would browse Sesame characters for Suzie Kabloozie or Typewriter Guy, it's unlikely they'd be thinking, "Hey, where's the King of 8?" Unless they're Frank and Northern fans. Andrew Leal (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Human character questions
- I'm thinking about adding more of the human characters, but I have two questions about the previous owner of Hooper's Store, and one about other guys:
- Was his named spelled "Mr. Hanford" or "Mr. Handford"? I can't really find an official source online, and my Songs from the Street liner notes are elsewhere.
- Can anyone confirm that before David L. Smryl, Handford/Hanford was played by one Leonard Jackson? That's what my web search turned up, but I have no memory of there being two of them.
- Should Mr. Noodle and his brother Mr. Noodle get two separate entries?
PrawnRR 21:25, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
It's Mr. Handford, hence Snuffy occasionally calling him "Mr. Handfoot." He was played by David Langston Smyrl (that's the correct spelling). Pawnshopsign 18:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
We need to establish "official" spellings for characters like Bip Bipadotta, Ferlinghetti Donizetti, Hard Head Henry Harris, and probably some others also too. -GrantHarding
I think we go with Sesame Encyclopedia, which agrees with all your spellings, unless there's a good reason to say otherwise. Any variant spellings should have a redirect page pointing to the right one. Are there other questionable character spellings? -- Toughpigs 03:32, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- The link that supposedly went to Sesame Encyclopedia just went to a bunch of ads... Lycanthrope777 05:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)