Hi, Anthony! Scott already asked you not to add categories for awhile. If you feel something's wrong with the way certain pages are organized, please *ask* first, starting a forum conversation about it. In the case of Category:Muppet Character Types, several of the pages you added aren't full articles, just disambig pages (and if you wonder because you see a page like Moles, then you should ask about it first, not try to make everything match).
I already undid those of your changes where the page is a disambig by name (Robin includes Robin Hood, Robin the Frog, etc.; same with snake) and Lemur likewise is right now a disambig (with Dominic included, who isn't a Muppet character). It could *become* a character type page with some actual text, in the fashion of Chickens, Frogs, Beavers or even Sandwiches.
Looking at the category, there is occasional but comparatively rare inconsistency regarding that model (so far, apart from Moles, Moose is the only one that's just a disambig page). So it's worth bringing up so we can do some clean up, and I'm glad you noticed. But we can't do proper reorganization without first understanding what's in the category and why, and which pages need to be either expanded or recategorized, whichever is decided. So please start a discussion before you change anything in that or other categories, like Scott told you. Thanks!
Hi again, Ant. Could you please refrain from adding The Muppets Characters category to pages until further notice. Andrew left an edit summary on the Andy Williams Muppets page last July basically explaining that they're excluded because they were not reused in further projects.
Ant, I need you to stop adding character categories to pages for the time being. Something as extensive as that merits a discussion with the community first. I'll open up a thread within the next couple of days, but until then, please focus on something else. Do you understand?
Ant, from now on, you're not allowed to add categories to any page until further notice. I think your intentions are good, but you're a little too focused on categories right now. Is there something else you see on the wiki that could use some help? Let's talk about that instead.
Ant, I reverted a few of your edits concerning substitute puppeteers for the Sesame Workshop gala. Most of them are one-time performances, not formal recasts, and frankly I wouldn't consider a lot of them noteworthy beyond what's already listed on the gala page. (Tartaglia performing Ernie is one obvious exception, since he's also played him for some projects.)
Not everyone checks the "See Alsos", which are for related pages or disambiguation which otherwise don't fit readily into the text, but when relevant and integrated, we also sometimes link to pages within the body. It doesn't do any harm and really makes the information more accessible.
We don't. Jonathan's point is that an annual gala, where the characters may or may not speak depending and are held up visibly by the performer anyway, are akin to noting non-speaking fill-ins or background performers. If anyone else plays the characters in an actual speaking role in a production, then we can add them. If you want to erase them, we'd just have to create them again if that happens and lose the Frank Oz note which really does work much better than as a see also. (Plus, to be fair, your current argument actually sort of supports our original reluctance to include more performers in the box to begin with unless they'd played the character enough times in major speaking roles in significant productions over a period of time; because we could be more specific about it in the casting sections.)
Sorry. I'm just concerned that so much has happened since those pages were last updated that I want them to be updated. At the same time, it seems like I'm the only one who cares about that kinda stuff.
We've got 26,890 pages on the wiki, and only a dozen or so active editors, each with other things happening in our lives. If you see a page that needs updating, you're welcome to update it. Continuing the way you have been lately with the edit summaries isn't helpful to the wiki, or yourself.
Hi! I saw your note on Global Grover. Remember, you can actually customize how you view the page, whether by location (which is alphabetical outside of "World") or by first appearance. Location is just the default, that's all.
The one episode for which we don't have an eka yet will be first, but otherwise, you can easily scroll down in episode order. Just click that tab in the table, the arrow which (when you hover over) will say "Sort ascending" (or sort descending for reverse order, highest numbered episodes first).
Also, don't hesitate to start a discussion on such things. I know you've complained that people don't notice your questions, but it's partly because you leave a lot of your comments in edit summaries, and not as actual discussions, and often those comments don't have anything to do with the actual change you made. (Another factor was just the transition between talk pages and the forums, so messages left on talk pages weren't noticed, and we're still figuring out how to best make users aware of new forum discussions).
I just happened to be online just now and caught this one, but otherwise, people don't notice, or it feels like you're just expressing an opinion (as in "I don't think it should be this way," in this case). People can't discuss issues in an edit summary (unless it involves a change they've made or are undoing). Just a suggestion to keep in mind. The "Please help" notes, on the other hand, are indeed useful (I didn't see anything wrong on Trash Gordon, but that's different, it alerts other editors to a possible formatting or coding issue) so that's smart thinking. Thanks!