Hi, Garrett. I think I've mentioned it on your wall before (I know I have in summaries, this is an old established policy), but connections is only for people who directly worked with the Muppets, Sesame Street, or otherwise have a connection. That's why people like Dustin Hoffman or Walter Matthau are in Category:Celebrity References only. Category:Celebrities, as the category says, is only for those who worked directly in some way (acting, writing, posed for a pic) in a relevant project (Sesame, Muppet movie, Henson short film, etc.)
Robin Williams worked directly with the Muppets and wasn't just name referenced.
I don't recall this being brought up before, Andrew, but just to editorialize, I think that's a slightly arbitrary detail. Of course, I haven't checked every connection on every page, but I'm not sure this policy of yours has been totally followed. That opinion aside, might I remind you that Hoffman did play lead in "Mr. Magourium's Wonder Empourium", which a lot of the Muppet crew was involved with, not to mention the fact that Kermit the Frog did indeed make an appearance in that movie. Anyway, that's what I was basing my adding him in on.
I see I hadn't mentioned it on your wall before, but yes, it has been followed (and it's not just mine; other admins agreed and enforced it, because otherwise, counting Ronald Reagan or Humphrey Bogart in connection lists may be fun but it's cheating; originally, and still on some pages, the lists even stipulate they're for *actual* connections, people who directly interacted or contributed in some way with the Muppets, not everyone who has a page). So that's not arbitrary at all, just a clear distinction, and again, also how the categories work. It's also discussed and was adopted on the old talk page for Category:Celebrities, which isn't as accessible now. I could also link to several old user pages where this was explained to others.
If you want to argue that the Dustin Hoffman page should be redefined as a celebrity based on a Kermit cameo (Hoffman was not in that scene), feel free to start a forum page. But it won't change a policy that existed for years. Feel free to check the edit summaries for proof (for this example alone, here; also here, all over, by all admins and many non admin users since at least 2008, and I suspect before but it would take combing further back than I have time to check; tons of scattered discussions too, for example here, again on old talk pages).
If there's evidence that this is a different version or it was done twice, it should be noted on the page. Right now, the Listen My Brother page has only that known airing and claims it's the same as the DVD. What have you found that sources it as later? If it is an error, then we need to fix it everywhere, but right now it's not clear to me what the issue is from your short edit summaries.
We do have an archive listing for Episode 0266, second season, same song, so that could be it, if you can clarify exactly what in the clip dates it as post-first season.
I was just about to undo my edit and create a forum on the matter myself, Andrew, when I saw your notification. I actually did look at the LMB page and saw that they did the song twice, which makes more sense now, though why they would do the same song two seasons in a row I find rather puzzling. But I had been meaning to bring this up for quite a while. There are two pieces of proof in the clip available on DVD that it couldn't be from season 1, as the Wiki seems to imply. First, the band is performing on the stairway just above the garage, which didn't exist during the first season. And second, as the song is ending, the camera pans over to Oscar, who wonders aloud what is going on. And he is not orange, but green. So I know the clip on the DVD definitely wasn't from season 1, especially since I've seen a handful of episodes from that season which came after the one we have listed as the first appearance for the counting song, and in those, he's still orange. So there you have it. Two unshakable pieces of proof that SW's labeling this as a season two clip was not incorrect. Even if it was performed previously, we shouldn't have it indicated on the Old School page, as that wasn't the right version. Note how I did the same with "Rubber Duckie" and changed the EKA to the one for that specific version.
Aha! Green Oscar is definitely the best piece of evidence. That makes Episode 0266 a *likely* candidate (the fact that our ekas for the song are all based on archival material makes it tough to be absolutely certain, though).
Good catch, but I would encourage you to either make it clearer in your edit next time, or when it's more complicated (as in this case), start a thread just to explain (I know it can feel like an adjustment from talk pages, but in a lot of ways it's easier, and we did that all the time when citing evidence). Thanks and keep up the good work.
Yeah, that's fair. There was too much to put in the summary, and I just didn't think about the forum at the time. It's a wonder to me no one else took note of those details before I did. So, are we going to remove 0026 from the Old School page?
Definitely proved incorrect, so it can stay out. We'll need to figure out what to do on some of the other pages. The main issue right now is probably on Episode 0266 (is it the first version or the remake), but we'll likely have to leave it for now.
A specific note on the Listen My Brother page might be worthwhile (right now, as worded, the page did lead one to assume the DVD clip was of the first version; I'll see if I can tackle it later, with something simple like "as indicated by the presence of green Oscar").
Well, I wouldn't want this to go any further, but he and I are Facebook friends, and I sent him a message asking if it was him, complete with a link to the clip. So far, though, he doesn't appear to have seen the message?
Hey GonzoMan, your picture looks fine. I slightly refined it and cropped out the white space. On the page, I sized it down to our standard 300px thumbnail size. I suggest using the Style Guide for future reference. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks for your help!
Well, it really depends on which editor you use (Visual or Source), but generally they both should give you the option to add and resize the image (again, preferably to a 300px thumbnail). I use the Source editor which I find much easier in adding and resizing. You can change your editor in My Preferences under the Editing section.
Hi, Garrett. Re your latest additions here, *please* cite your sources. If you're still forgetting, see Muppet Wiki:Citations#Sources for the basic code, and for Facebook or e-mail communication, say with whom, use your first initial and last name, and the date. It really is vital.
Oh, right. I had learned the facts I added onto that page ages ago, and no one had said anything then. I was simply restating them on that particular page just because other details of that type were being added. I'm in a bit of a rush, so I can't cite them just yet (as I have to remind myself of how it's done) but I'll get to it sometime today, I promise. And I'll try not to forget from now on.
Again, this is the format: <ref>[Facebook/E-mail/Written] communication from Blank to Blank. Date.</ref>. At the bottom, if it's not already there, add a Sources heading and <references /> so the tags don't break. That's it. When it's a print source, same thing as far as code but using the format on the sources page above; YouTube interview, include the link.
We don't always catch when someone adds something without a source until we look more closely and think "Wait, where did this come from?" If nobody says anything at the time, it means nobody noticed at the time, and the number of pages we have makes it easy for stuff to slip through the cracks. That's why we're trying so hard to remind people to source statements and claims as they find it.
Thanks, Garrett! Get to it whenever you have time, and if you have any tech problems, just let me or another admin know.
"At the bottom, if it's not already there, add a Sources heading and <references/> so the tags don't break."
The warning message even tells you: "Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found "
So just add a Sources heading at the bottom, and that references tag. I'm glad you asked. How Now Brown and the Moo Wave already had a sources section and the tag, so that's why it worked without any additional code.
Hi, Garrett! You never responded to my last comments, so maybe the point got lost. Basically, "to a friend/fan" citations are improper, and could mean anything. Who is the friend? Who is the fan? I'm *assuming* it's you, and not something you read on David Rudman's Facebook in answer to someone else, but if so, you really need to say so. For examples, see Snow White (series) ("Personal communication, D. Horn and K. Falk. January 31, 2006"), Minor Unfinished Projects ("Personal communication, Scott Hanson and Craig Shemin"; the date should be there, but at least we know who told who) and most recently The Primitives ("Ed Christie, quoted in personal communication between G. Harding and Karen Falk. June 5, 2013." That really is a perfect example).
Is it because you're uncomfortable revealing your name? We'd be fine with first initial last name, but it really needs to be attributed, or it opens the door to all kinds of "So and so told someone who told someone" sourcing, which is unacceptable. We've used talk pages too (see Number 3 Ball Film), just parking the whole communication there and then citing the talk page, although we should fix and standardize that. We need to start a conversation soon to remind everyone about citation and formats, but I wanted to hear back from you first: whether you just didn't think it was needed, or whether it's a personal reluctance to state that it came from correspondence between you and a performer, which frankly is basically a necessity when it comes to original research, which Wikipedia tries to ban entirely, but which we encourage... as long as it's clearly cited. You're not the only user who's had trouble with citations lately, so it's not personal, but knowing the reasons would help when I have time to finally start the community discussion on one of the forum threads (if it's just a "Whoops, I forgot," then I don't need to get into it beyond a general reminder of how to cite personal correspondence; if it's the other, then we'd need to discuss that as a community and reach a consensus).
Hey there, Andrew. Well, first of all, if I remember correctly, your last message asked why I had removed a reference I had previously tried to post. That was because for some reason, it didn't come out correctly. Some odd message in red came up instead saying it wasn't submitted or something along those lines. Since I was the only one who would be able to cite it correctly, I simply decided to give it another try later on. But as for revealing my name, you nailed it. I don't really dig the idea of my full name actually being listed on a Wiki page. But judging from what you said, I guess I have no choice.Well, if I can at least keep my first name to just an initial, that's at least something. I'll keep that in mind for the future.
Thanks! Just so we know, yeah. It was in the message before that, in the same thread, so I can see now how you missed it. Here's what I wrote:
"The "and fan" stuff is a little confusing too.
If you're a bit uncomfortable with the name, well, that's partly the burden of doing original research, but you could leave it without the name but linking to your talk page, to be more circumspect and that's not easily Google searchable. Or else you'd have to mention it on the talk page of each article so it would be clear who added it. For an example, see Talk:Fran_Brill_Cameos#Muppets Take Manhattan (which is also an example of one of the many reasons we're cautious about IMDb)."
Since then, Scott wasn't so keen on just the username but I stll think that's probably something we could discuss (since your userpage has your fullname anyway, so there would still be an easy way to check, but it's not the established academic form and does look more amateurish). Basically there *has* to be personal attribution of some kind. Initials are fine (for a long time, I used just my first initial and last name in various online places, but it doesn't matter to me now, plus I got tired of people calling me "Aleal" like it was my name, and so on, and it's also been easier when trying to do research when some of my contacts could say "Oh yeah, I read your post and I have some more info to add to that.") It's basically what comes of doing research and correspondence in a way that can't be directly linked (in contrast to forum posts, Twitter messages, etc.) and it's basically something we as researchers need to be either willing to accept, or it can't be used. Outside of needing to follow form, it just looks bad to see that "So and so told a friend." Who's that friend?? It looks like we're just using rumors. In any cases where the correspondence *does* take place in public, where the Facebook is fully open to the public say or in Q&As on Muppet Central forums or anything like that (we've even used answers on Twitter, as long as we link to the exact tweet), than a link is sufficient, the evidence is right there and we can read what the puppeteer said, we're not trusting what a user says they were told (in which case, one has to know the user).
Thanks for understanding! And as I said, you're not the only one who's been omitting citations lately, but the other user has been using edit summaries at least so it will be a little easier to track down the examples. I'll work on explaining it all in a community post soon-ish; still prepping the house for my mother to get home from rehab though so that's been taking a lot of time).
Hi, Garrett, what's the source of all of the non-speaking David Rudman IDs you're adding? If it's an interview, you should really cite it. (If you need help with tags, that's fine, but just use <ref>Link or Name. Date.</ref> and make sure there's a <references/> tag at the bottom. If it's from behind the scenes pictures, then link to the picture, or cite video footage, or whatever.
As it so happens, Andrew, I learned those facts from Rudman himself. Since I used to own the videos those sketches were featured in, I was curious to know who performed who, and when I found information on how to contact David, I wrote him and asked. I even sent him some links so it would be easier for him to remember. I just received the information I submitted today. I frankly don't know hot to cite the fact that I learned via email, which is why I didn't try. I figured someone might write me to ask, though. So if you know how to cite an email as a source, by all means go ahead.
Right. If you don't know how to cite, ask. It's in our policies and we've told you before how important it is to source things. If you're not sure, you can even say in your edit "So and so told me, how do I cite this?" But you can't just stick it in and expect us to know how you knew. It's also on our FAQ and policy pages, and this passage which you likely missed (I know we have a lot of policy pages and not everyone reads or remembers every bit, but we *have* told you time and again about sourcing): "It's especially important to source behind the scenes information; we don't want to spread unfounded rumors."
I'm glad you did that research and we appreciate it. But that doesn't mean we won't question anything added that's not easily determined by credits or voice, and where the person adding it hasn't cited or included any indication. Nothing wrong with asking people to help you cite or clean up a mess. We prefer that to not knowing the source. Even handling it the way you did here is fine, you explained the source in your edit summary. Although Scott gave you the format above, so that's best.
You contribute a lot to this Wiki but we *have* had problems with you about sourcing, so please, just remember: if you add something where information is not available just by watching the production or clip or reading the book the page is about, not in screen credits and not evident by voice, *always* source. Remember, we can help you fix things; we *can't* figure out how you know (and in the past, some of your sources haven't been reliable); in this case there's no question, but it still has to be cited, because there's no way anyone else will know where it came from and that it isn't a guess. Thanks!
Alright, now that I know the format, I shouldn't have a problem with that in the near future. I wasn't quite sure how to cite directly on the page the fact that I was told it personally. That's why I waited to be asked. But I think I've got it now.
Hi, Garrett, I'm a little confused by your change here, which you undid. Were you the friend or was it someone else? Regardless, if you have a specific date, it's fine. We prefer that to leaving it unsourced. The "and fan" stuff is a little confusing too.
If you're a bit uncomfortable with the name, well, that's partly the burden of doing original research, but you could leave it without the name but linking to your talk page, to be more circumspect and that's not easily Google searchable. Or else you'd have to mention it on the talk page of each article so it would be clear who added it. For an example, see Talk:Fran_Brill_Cameos#Muppets Take Manhattan (which is also an example of one of the many reasons we're cautious about IMDb).
Ah, I *think* I've figured out what your problem was. A coding error? See my first post in this thread: "If you need help with tags, that's fine, but just use <ref>Link or Name. Date.</ref> and make sure there's a tag at the bottom."
The code won't work without that tag. Many of our longer or more source heavy pages have it, but most of the short song or one-shot character pages wouldn't. Just add it to the bottom, under the heading "Sources." And if you need help with that, feel free to just be a little more specific in the edit summary, "I need some coding help." You're getting it, though! Thanks again!
Well, I know you guys don't generally consider this a source to be automatically trusted, but it was in the trivia section for this movie on IMDb. According to my observations, what mistakes they make are usually regarding minor cast members or birthdates or various details like that. They're usually right when it comes to trivial items like behind the scenes details. I know because I'm an IMDb user myself. Still and all, I guess it's reasonable to be dubious, but I think the sensible thing is to assume a source is right until proven wrong.
Thanks, Garrett. We can't use most info from IMDb as it's user generated and there's no way to back it up. If we were to assume a source like IMDb is correct until proven otherwise, we'd have all kinds of rumors all over the wiki, and we'd obviously like to avoid that.
Thanks, Brad. I just watched the "Tale" featurette and it's not there. So if you say it was in those special features, that's good enough for me, as I'm probably not going to sit through the commentary right away.
Yeah, we definitely can't believe IMDb unless backed, and Garrett, we've seen enough insane and false claims in trivia, and definitely not just mistakes regarding minor cast members and birthdates. It's cropped up in countless discussions on past talk pages here (such as this one, about a false identification they still have for Follow That Bird), and it's even on the policy page. IMDb info can only be used when we know for a fact that it's verified by screen credits or bios and the like (and just don't have the time to pull it out ourselves, or it matches with other, non-user contributed sites). I've struggled for years with IMDb, from claims that people are dead who aren't, that John Cena voiced Dave the Barbarian (one of many claims from a banned user here, who also tried to claim Frank Oz was slated to direct Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and cast Miss Piggy as Charlie's mother), the claim still there that George Lucas is in Follow That Bird, false voice info on "The Jungle Book" (I managed to get it removed but screengrabbed as classic insanity, basically a wish list, including both performers *and* characters who weren't in the movie at all but were in the book; one of the claims was that Virginia McKenna voiced Mowgli's wolf "mother," a non-speaking part, because she was in Born Free and I guess the user wished she had been involved in Jungle Book), claiming that the reason that Harvard graduate Jay Ward had table reads for his cartoons was that he was "functionally illiterate." And these are just the big whoppers, not the casual credit misreadings resulting in false or duplicate entries, omissions, gender swaps (actors identified as actresses or vice versa), mistaken character attributions, and so on. (In its own way, IMDb can be worse than Wikipedia since there's no way to see who actually contributed what, and many entries violate their own rules, like revealing aliases and identities in mystery films which aren't needed as part of character names, or more recently confusing things by adding trailer announcers as part of the actual cast, and on and on).
You keep a very sharp point on your pencil, don't you Andrew? That's quite a handful of mistakes you've kept track of. Well, if all that is the case, then you're right. I never knew about Virginia McKenna being listed as having voiced the mother wolf in "The Jungle Book", but if it really was once, that's pathetic. She didn't even say anything in the whole movie. I confess I had for a while bought the rumor that Oz was in consideration to direct "...Chocolate Factory" before I learned the truth, although for the record, I don't think IMDb started it, just believed it. At any rate, someone ought to listen to the commentary to confirm the fact I submitted.
Yeah, that was the larger point. IMDb *doesn't* really start anything, they take what's submitted, and a lot of it is junk, and it's much more work to remove something (that was just the tip of the iceberg). And that includes every element of IMDb just about (the big exception is IMDb resumes, since those *are* only the domain of the person, or that person's agent/representation; sometimes the resumes have even contradicted or included info not on IMDb). IMDb staff mostly keeps the site running, promotion, etc., they have no staff to actually *watch* anything or do independent research (and to get any errors fixed, one either has to submit multiple corrections over the course of *years*, or to bring it up on the forum specifically to the attention of someone to correct it, and then only after a long record of unsuccessful efforts; I speak from decades of experience, now mostly abandoned as too much work). That's all been mentioned here before, and the reason for the policy. We'll check the commentary when we can, but just remember, please, Garrett, never again add something like this with IMDb as the one and only source (same with Wikipedia).
Hi Garrett! I can't help but notice that in a few of your edits, you've been putting periods outside of the quotation marks. However, according to the style guide, they're actually supposed to be inside the quotation marks. It's not a big deal, but I'd figured I'd let you know.