I should probably be scrolling down to get the rest of the feed, but I'm screenshotting at 1920x1080, so most of it is there. No telling when those will be gone! I love the little puns in the names, like KrysiKrysi.
Hey, I know Yoda is not considered a Muppet yet is inserted here for continuity reasons but still I think it's fair to mention him in an article since he's one of Frank Oz's best known roles along with Fozzie Bear and Grover.
Hey, we actually never *did* discard the policy on avoiding tags until the product comes out (though there may have been exceptions). It makes sense enough for stuff due in March or otherwise likely to happen.
But right now, I'm dubious about it for stuff like Universal Studios Dubailand (where the best update from July is that they "were in talks" about it after a several year hiatus). Qualcomm feels similar to me (although putting it in video game companies makes sense, regardless of when or if any product actually makes it to market, they did make prototypes for tech shows). And now, Untitled Muppets Broadway Musical Concept is in both development *and Category:Unfinished Stage Productions which is basically contradictory. So for cases like that, where basically it could still go either way, I think it's wisest for us to just leave "In Development" only. Since that only applies to a few cases, which like these are fairly explanatory, I think that makes sense. What do you think? (And what's the simplest way to express that in the polices and guidelines?)
I knew you didn't mean that. I just don't remember any actual discussion that we would abandon that policy entirely (and certainly our continued editing practices have not suggested such a change, barring maybe an exception somewhere), regardless of the article. For many "In Development" announcements that are really vague (we've had some where they're not even sure if it would be a series, a special or what) or less likely to reach fruition (comparable to Dark Crystal movie and so on), that's rather a problem.
Yeah, see, I agree with that when it comes to merchandise and things that are likely to happen (and by now, although stuff still gets canceled which we don't expect, we have a better way to gage that). An announcement for a theme park in 2008, a prototype from 2012, and a very vague stage show concept don't fit in that category.
Especially since the concern raised was being able to find the Fraggle Rock movie in Fraggle Rock, but the category changes here a) suggested a proposed theme park actually exists unless one clicks the article to see the tag, b) that Qualcomm is a video game title, and c) that we know for sure the Untitled Muppet Stage Show is unfinished, which basically would mean it *shouldn't* be in development (we use one or the other, not both, based on a mixture of the two-year rule and our current knowledge). So those are the type of articles I'm concerned about, not CDs or Elmo DVDs which usually come out on time. I'm still not sure we actually did reach a conclusion, beyond that 2010 article, unless it was something you asked Danny on his page as far as "Hey, is it okay if I add this?" I'm doing a full google site search and nothing appears otherwise.
Yeah, but again, see the examples I mentioned. It's misleading in the interim, Qualcomm isn't a video game, and a show can't be both in development and unfinished. I'm basically suggesting a middle ground. I'd put it like this: "Articles in development can be in multiple categories, with the exceptions of articles where the project is vague and when or if it will reach fruition is unclear. This will be judged on a case by case basis, but does not typically apply to projects with specific release dates."
Thanks, that fixes my concerns on those. Did you want to put the categories back on Universal Studios Dubailand (which I keep misspelling), or check to see if you can find the e-mail?
Basically (and I'm not sure this could be expressed as well in a policy), I don't think we should change the old dev rule for articles where the key words are "are in talks about," "considering the possibility of," and so forth, since these are the ones where 9 times out of ten, they never happen, or else become something else entirely (and the concern about forgetting to put them in the categories *if* they happen is less than suggesting they already exist, especially a problem when Wikipedia copies us; it happened in the past with a few international projects which were abandoned).
But we can make it clearer that this really doesn't apply typically to books, DVDs, and so forth (one reason I mentioned a specific release date as a factor, and even "projected for fall 2014" if announced in 2014 makes sense, versus "expected in theaters in 2021.") Or just not deal with it in policy but use administrator discretion as we often do (since I agree this would mostly be the exception and not the rule). It is made easier of course by the fact that we moved so much to Optioned Properties (imagine having twenty Henson-announced titles in "Movies" or whatever.)