Category talk:Unknown Performer
From Muppet Wiki
Guidelines
I've been doing some clean-up of this category, and I think its use needs to be defined a little more clearly, with regard to two problems. One results from a misunderstanding, I think. With regard to characters like Bruce Monster and other utility monsters, or recurring backgroubnd groups like Bats, I don't think they belong. They had no consistent performer, and in many cases, we know at least one or two of the puppeteers, but not enough to fit into a template without being misleading, or even work into the text sometimes. I don't think those count as "unknown performers" as much as "inconsistent performers," and we just haven't compiled a detailed list of the latter yet, and maybe never will. It seems like this category is more useful for cases where we have reason to believe the character had a consistent performer, either for a one-shot appearance or a recurring character whose voice we haven't pinned down yet. The second note is re removing the tag. Recently, with pages like Baby Elaine, performer info has been found and sourced, but the tag remains, which defeats the purpose. I don't know if any of this is even a question, I just wanted to point it out. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
category name
Shouldn't this be Unknown Performers so as to conform to the other categories which are plural? -- Scott (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's not a group of unknown performers, it's a group of characters for whom the performer is unknown. So I could see "Characters whose performers are unknown", but that doesn't really roll off the tongue. -- Erik (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I had this same argument in my head when I created the category. Personally, I prefer Unknown Performer, but I don't much care either way. Also, in a semi-related subjec, I was wondering what you guys thought about a performer template for "Various Performers (see article)" for minor characters like Baskerville, etc. where they were passed around a lot. -- Peter (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- "Performer Unknown" would also work, but personally, I'm fine with it this way. It's really more of a housekeeping category for us anyway. In fact, we should probably mention it on current events. It's a great idea, but it would work best if users are encouraged to help out, but also to cite their sources, either in the edit summary or a talk box.
- As for the various performers, I'm trying to think how that would work. It might also be useful for characters like some of the Muppet Treasure Island pirates. To me, the performer box should be for main or first performers (for notable characters in specials or series recycled as background characters in the movies). It's a bit misleading to list John Kennedy in the main box for Angel Marie when he performed him in his second of two appearances, just because we don't know who the first puppeteer was (though maybe I'm nitpicking). Andrew Leal (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I guess I kind of like the idea of keeping all the Character pages consistent with a performer box, even if the listing is Unknown or Various. If a character appears only twice in two small roles with different performers, like Angel Marie, then I would tend to agree that it doesn't justify listing one performer over the other. If (again, for example purposes only) John Kennedy performs Angel Marie again, then the two consecutive roles would, in my mind, justify changing it him as the main performer with a note about the unknown performance. -- Peter (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- What about bit characters where two performers are known for one appearance each, or group characters? I'm thinking of Nick's changes to Yip Yip Martians and Beakie, which I mentioned to him, but actually this is a good place to discuss it as a group (don't want to bring it onto current events with more important issues right now). Both of those pages just look terribly messy and awkward to me. With Beakie, you can't link to the episode directly in the performer template, not without including the full title, and it seems sort of pointless. And with the Martians, there's more than five performers known to have played the characters, and who knows how many we don't know of. I'd actually think either one template which would just list performer names with no description (the repeated "unknown" really bugs) would work better, but even then it's unwieldy. Or let the seperate "various/multiple" templates be created and used below rather than above the image, like designers, or as a kind of table, akin to the "Casting History" included on other pages. I'd think that would work better. While I agree it's nice to see a performer template right at the top, I'd argue that in cases like this, it might be better to find a consistent way to integrate the info in a table or chart or list on the page proper rather than 8 or 10 names hitting you right at the top. Andrew Leal (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, now that sounds perfect. I'll try and work on a rough version later tonight. Andrew Leal (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)