Andrew, I'm writing to inquire about the page I created about Liz Smith, which you almost immediately removed. I saw you explanation, which was based on the fact that she didn't interact with any "creature shop creatures", but neither do certain other actors in "Alice in Wonderland" like Ben Kingsley and Christopher Lloyd, and yet they have pages. I have to tell you, I don't always get your line of reasoning with these interaction rules. I never quite understood why actors who have their pages aren't allowed to be listed in "connections" unless they interact one on one with the Muppets. And now I find that they're not even allowed to be included on the wiki at all. It all seems like an arbitrary detail to me. Heck, Liz Smith was even listed in the opening credits for "Alice..." Plus that page wasn't easy to create. It was hard to decide which of her multiple credits should be included and all that. So I'm just curious as to how this whole "interactions" business works.
Hi, Garrett, note the summary I left. That page was previously deleted for the same reasons (I wrote the original version) by Danny in 2010. See Category talk:Creature Shop Movie Actors. So it's not my line of reasoning and not arbitrary. (If a page has been previously deleted, a notification pops up; Danny didn't leave a summary that time because he deleted a bunch at once, but if you're not sure whya page has already been removed, it's a good idea to ask an admin first.)
If you want to nominate a page for deletion for lack of interaction, then we'll do the same thing (if they're not in scenes with any other Creatures or other Creature shop effects). There's a few we overlooked (I deleted Hugh Lloyd, who I'd also created but by mere omission wasn't deleted the first time). So if you want to list other pages that no longer belong, we'll get rid of them (if the actor has another legitimate connection with interaction, they're allowed, but it's possible there's a couple that should count only as references). As I noted in that old discussion, there were several movies or scenes I hadn't had time to revisit.
Connections rule, that it's not actually a connection if Muppets only mentioned them, is also years old and decided and agreed upon by multiple admins. Connections is for people who worked in some way with Mupppets (and you'll note many pages even have that specified), not for George Washington or the Marx Brothers. If you want to debate those rules, feel free to start a forum thread, but they're not my line of reasoning and I've linked to older discussions and definitions before about Connections (which all administrators do indeed enforce). Also as I've mentioned before, usually the simplest way to know is to check categories. Category:Celebrities is only for those who interacted or worked behind the scenes or had another relevant involvement (wrote a book about the Muppets, etc.) So if a page is not in Celebrities (a few sometimes are recategorized later, but as a general rule it's the easiest way) but only in Category:Celebrity References or something else, it doesn't belong on a connections list. Go by how the page is categorized, not whether it exists.
How actors were billed in credits has nothing to do with whether they get pages (and it's the reason on several pages that top-billed actors are unlinked, or on a page like Gosford Park where it's all just digital, only those with other reasons to be on Muppet Wiki linked). The old rule, again see that link, was really no rule, just anyone in a Creature Shop movie was a Creature Shop actor. Gradually, the decision was made that for Creature Shop-*effects* projects (Jim Henson Company didn't produce it, only specific effects or characters), then only actors in scenes with those effects counted. That's it, plain and simple, and it's a rule that has applied for years and has included pages and edits by myself and by other admins, so please don't feel like we're somehow targeting you. Any more examples you find are pages that slipped through the cracks and should be deleted (or recategorized if there's another reason for being there).
I see. Well, I guess I get the idea now. I guess the inconsistency I mentioned was what threw me off, plus I didn't take time to read all the guidelines. I was originally planning to make pages for Peter Bayliss and Peter Eyre too, as they were also in "Alice", but I guess that won't be happening anymore.
If that's your only reason and interest, I'd be hesitant to really recommend. But there's a Muppet Babies cover and might be other non-Muppet stuff you'd enjoy, and a CD can be easier for reference. The issues run 1984 to 1986, so the specification of Marvel (at the time having done Muppet Babies *and* Dungeons & Dragons, and a comic book tie-in) working on a Dark Crystal series suggests no tie-in at all to the Cartoon Network thing, but probably a slightly more dramatic Saturday morning or syndicated cartoon (given they also churned out Transformers and G.I. Joe...) They're a reliable source insofar as most of the contributors worked in the industry (with a few trustworthy enthusiasts/observers), so some would be actual announcements that didn't pan out (in that news list, I see maybe half a dozen things that never happened but were probably officially announced; possibly one or two were industry rumors, as in someone working at studio A saw or heard of plans and scuttlebutt started, as opposed to an official announcement *or* outside fan rumors).
I know some of the people who would own copies actually... but odds are they're boxed in storage areas. So for quick research, it may be worthwhile or if there's other stuff that might be worth the purchase price. But if you're really just interested in the one blurb about Dark Crystal, I could drop some feelers first (I'm in a private Facebook group for former members of our old APA, which includes several of those named).
Also, I just dropped the feeler. I can't fight that feeler any more. (Also asking former animation editor pal Harry; he's the one whose copies I know are in storage, but he knows more folks to ask or who would keep them handier.)
In length, looks and format, they were closer to say Muppetzine than a wider circulation magazine. More newsletter by professional than fanzine.
Hey, since the topic I've been staying away from has been broached by someone else at Thread:256521, I wonder if it's time we took a look at our goof articles and decide as a community what a "goof" is for the wiki.
I'll have to get to that later (since it really will involve looking closely at those pages), but at a glance, outside of subjectivity, it could use subdivision. The majority are of the visible performer/equipment kind, which are kind of dull to me en masse but also inarguable that they didn't intend for those to show, so that would be one grouping (then there's continuity between shots, and so on). Then we can narrow it down and the more subjective stuff could be required to mention on a thread before addition (nothing visual to prove it, or a matter of script or hearing, it's interpreting timing, or "it looks like an effect/prop" kind of comments, which feel like saying matte paintings or tinplate flying saucers in old movies are goofs). I'll see if I can lay it out by the weekend (or if you want to start a new discussion first, I can save it.)
To me a big issue with goofs is intent. If it can be argued that it was meant to happen or scripted, then it's not a mistake (and lots of stuff we don't count as goofs happened by accident anyway, but it fits so nobody quibbles). Or if it's something that was meant to show (or at least not an issue if it did). I saw a lot of stuff on arm rods, which in movies which delete them, seems fine. But saying it's a goof if a Sesame Street character's arm rod is in the air while waving (when the rods are always visible) seems a bit much (a mistake if a puppeteer's hair or face or hand shows, sure; not sure what to do on instances of the rod *dowel* showing, which also isn't meant to be seen normally, but when the person is still out of shot and the rod itself in shot, is that really a mistake?)
I think some of them are actually more "did you notice" trivia (which if there's a good picture and it seems worthwhile, can go on the show/movie page) than actually being mistakes (some stuff of that kind *is* already noted in some cases).
I was doing some searches through one of the databases my alma matta allows and found this in one of the articles (it's What Do Puppets And Great Musicians Have in Common? They all perform on `Sesame Street,' that's what in Newsday, August 7, 1988). It mentions some band folks it doesn't look like we have and you're best at these kinds of things.
That's all that's mentioned of them in the article, but Newsome is also quoted in Street Gang.
Neat! Everett Barksdale and Tommy Newsom (apparently correct spelling) are the new ones to me. I haven't found any other direct references to Barksdale and Sesame but noticed overlap in his discography with Cranshaw and folks.
And apparently we already have a reference to Newsom on The Tonight Show from a Sesame video (which makes even more sense if he was an old bandmate).
Given it was two years ago, not sure; it might have just been a mistake because the "Keep practicing" and addressing viewers from a black background format was used in a lot of those videos (maybe it was unused footage, but who knows). So I'm fine with the correction.
Hooray! If we ever find a picture, odds are good I can probably ID the actor (I've seen online "memories" suggesting it was Jack Gilford, and others that it was Joe Silver who Sesame Workshop has down for season 14, but they've been off on seasons before; still nothing really to go on sans image).
Also, one ticked off of Celebrities Wanted (in this case, not a celebrity, Michael Moran; his website, michaelmoranvo.com, included a higher quality video clip from the episode, but internet archive doesn't have anything saved and I didn't try to download the video, just saved the image some years ago).
Thanks for pointing it out. It's actually complicated. BMI registration has Charles Myers, Chuck Meyers, and Shepard Meyers (or Shep, Rosen's partner in an advertising firm and together they wrote, composed, and sometimes produced spots, which would apply to these).
Rosen died in 2015. Shep Meyers died in 2009 (so we can't check directly). My general feeling is that Chuck/Charles Myers/Meyers are all Shepard Meyers (whether as an alias or an error, as happens; obituaries don't mention a middle name but it could be). Shepard Meyers isn't identified for the segment but for "Sesame Street BG-Cues," but it seems pretty likely. Either way it's impossible to build a page for Chuck/Charles Myers/Meyers, but might be at some point for Shepard Meyers.
The registrations also point to two other segments by Rosen and whichever Myers/Meyers it was, "O Cowboy" and "R Ribbon," but I haven't located them yet (you might recognize them).