Muppet Wiki

Muppet Wiki:Current Events Archive 07 (March 2006)

Talk0
27,418pages on
this wiki

Archiving discussions from Current events.

Main Page picture nominations

I set up a Main Page picture nominations page, by popular demand. We've been updating the picture on the Main Page at the beginning of the month, but I think that's getting old. What do you guys think of twice a month? Anyway, go and check out the nominations page, and let me know if you can make heads or tails out of it. -- Danny Toughpigs 20:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Does one vote at a time mean one vote per month? -- Scott Scarecroe 21:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
They way I read it is that you can only have your name on the page once. When an option wins it is removed from the page along with the names of everyone who voted for it. So when your choice wins you can then move your name under a different option. And I guess you can also just move your vote around at anytime. And at the time of picture change, the one with the most names under it wins. But you can only have your name on the page once. (So if you're the only one who really likes an image your name might sit there for months and you unable to vote until it either it wins or you decide to move your vote and give up on it). Danny, am I reading this right? Or can we cast another vote on the 1st and 15th of each month? -- BradFraggle 22:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Brad has it right. Your name can only be on the page once, but you can put it anywhere you like, and move it at any time. Right now, there's 14 pictures nominated, so you can't put your vote under three of them. You have to vote for the one that you want the most. This'll probably get more clear after we've done it once. -- Danny Toughpigs 23:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
It's April 1st, and I just updated the main page with the winning picture. "Pigfrogfrankjim" came in first with 4 votes; the runner-up was "Hensoncritters" with 3 votes. I took "Pigfrog" off Main Page picture nominations, along with the four votes, so now the people who voted for that are free to vote for something else next time. Everybody else is also free to add votes or change your votes any time you want. -- Danny Toughpigs 19:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Image uploads

I'm not sure if everyone knew this or not, but a good example came up today with some vandalism. Nate came across a pornographic image, but since he doesn't have sysop (admin) access, he couldn't delete it. Until someone could, he clicked the "Upload a new version of this file" link which replaced the bogus image. It also works well if you have a better quality image to replace a poorly scanned one, or you just need to fix cropping. So long as the image name remains intact on the wiki (i.e. hasn't been removed by a sysop), the history of the file is saved just like with an article. Just an FYI. -- Scott Scarecroe 21:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Song Template

We're about to go ahead and add the Publisher field to the Song Template. Please note that the required text as shown on that page has been updated, and any new uses of the template will need publisher= added. -- Scott Scarecroe 19:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my blonde moment, but I'm confused. Was Publisher added to the template or performer? Eeeek! --Nate Radionate 20:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm an idiot. I fixed it. -- Scott Scarecroe 21:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You aren't an idiot, I'm just a blonde. But my heart did skip a beat for a minute. --Nate Radionate 22:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

External and Wikipedia links

One thing I've noticed while looking around is there's not a lot of linking back to the main Wikipedia. Is that a faux-pas here, or do people just not generally bother? Personally, I think it's fun to be able to click on random words for Wikipedia entries, and I've been doing it in my own articles when I think it's interesting enough, like for Southern American English or Knock-knock jokes. As long as it's not obtrusive and every other word's a link, it should be okay. Opinions? - Shawn 07:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That's actually one of the things I don't like about Wikipedia. I think it's distracting, and it devalues the concept of a link. I like the fact that our links are meaningful. -- Danny Toughpigs 14:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
So does that mean you don't want people making them? Or in other words, you're against music and fun? Seriously, is this one of those things we can agree to disagree on and do our own thing in our articles, or does there need to be a vote? - Shawn 16:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Not a vote, per se, but I think it would be good to have a discussion here. I think it ought to be consistent one way or the other. Let's talk about it, and see what people think. So, people: What do you think? -- Danny Toughpigs 17:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind them so long as they don't get out of hand. Although, Wikipedia's pretty well known. People are going to think of going there for information anyway. It seems a little counter-productive to lead them away from Muppet Wiki, especially when there's nothing bringing them back. It's kinda like "Mom and Pop Bookstore" hanging a flyer up in their store for Barnes and Noble. External links have their place so long as it's not distracting you from the main event. That goes for any website. -- Scott Scarecroe 21:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I think its all about the link's purpose. If the link provides more information to clarify a statement to define a somewhat obscure, unknown or specific thing, I think they are good and should be used. But just having a link because a word appears in the article makes the links irrelevant. For example, "The Swedish Chef uses a distinct form of the Swedish language." Is an appropriate use. However, many times I've seen Wikipedia get carried away and you'll see something like "The character has a distinct Swedish accent and dialect." I think for things that, when reading the article, might make you say "What's that?" a link could be helpful; but a link just because there is a keyword of a sentence or it has a Wikipedia article is pointless. -– BradFraggle 22:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing the joke, but just in case I'm not, Shawn, your knock knock jokes Wikipedia link is dead. Otherwise, I agree with Scot and Bradt, and here's some examples. We actually do a lot of linking back to Wikipedia. Nearly every celebrity page, as long as Wikipedia actually inclueds that person, has a link back, as do pages like London or Death. I notice you've been working a bit on other shows that reference Muppets, and those contexts, a Wikipedia link for a creator or actor's name who might be significant but has no Muppet connection outside of the reference strikes me as appropriate and more useful than creating a redlink to a person or show who really have no otherwise useful connection to make a page for them worthwhile (Seth MacFarlane on Family Guy for example should be either unlinked or Wikipedia linked). In those cases, it's useful and makes sense. Laura Bush has a Wikipedia link to George W. Bush. And here's an example of what Brad was talking about. Andy contains a link to Wikipedia's entry on bildungsroman. That's not an everyday term, and linking to it is useful. I know I learned something from it. Within the rest of the text, though, there's a link to gluttony, not to Wikipedia but to a Muppet Gluttony. That's funny, as most of us know what gluttony is, but we may not know that he appeared in The Muppet Show: Sex and Violence. Similarly, it strikes me as not inappropriate to create a Wikipedia link to surrealism or something like that in discussing Time Piece. Creating Wikipedia links on Wilkins and Wontkins for "coffee," "assault," and/or "advertising" would be distracting and pointless to my mind. Creating a page on "Muppets Who Drink Coffee" and linking *that* from coffee would be insane and thus brilliant and fitting for the spirit of Muppet Wiki. Even if Wikipedia had a page on it, I don't want to read their article on knock knock jokes. A Muppet Wiki page on occasions where Fozzie Bear utilized knock knock jokes could be fun, though. --Andrew, Aleal 22:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew, I enjoyed that Count von Count's page wikipedia linked arithmomania. And a Muppet Wiki page for Seth McFarlane isn't warrented (yet) but a wikipedia link to him could help. But linking Knock-Knock Jokes from Fozzie seems trite. Maybe if it was a link to a Muppet Knock-Knock Jokes list article (that could have a link to Wikipedia in it) would be better. But a link for the sake of a link, seems pointless...but that's just me. -- Brad Brad 22:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
So there you go, Shawn, I hope that clarifies everything! You can use it when you can use it, but you shouldn't use it when you shouldn't. Is that settled now? -- Danny Toughpigs 23:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Things you can do

I guess we're not using Things you can do anymore as I couldn't find it linked anywhere. Or I'm retarded. Anyway, the Playhouse Video pages could use a lot of work. Spelling, uniformity, wiki links, etc. If, you know, anyone was looking for something to do.
Actually, this brings something else up. Wikipedia has a tag they use for just such a thing. A note at the top of the page stating that the article is in need of clean-up. Is this something we could use? We could organize it the way we do Active Talk Pages and keep it handy here in Current Events. Thoughts? -- Scott Scarecroe 03:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I know this has come up in regards to Sesame Place, and even Sesame Street still needs some work. I think the main reason it hasn't been used much here yet is because the Wiki's still growing. We haven't been using the stubs tag either (which I don't mind, though I think it really *would* be useful for all of those pages which were created with a category only and are thus completely blank, or with one picture, as I can't always remember which pages still need actual content. The Dead-end pages helps only slightly, as it also covers any pages with text but no Wikilinks (and the two issues are related but not the same to my mind). --Andrew, Aleal 03:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, those are some good examples. In the case of the Playhouse Videos, it's more that the fact that the article needs to be expanded. That would be a stub. Instead, it's a mess for the reasons I mentioned above. I went through tonight and added some video covers, but I don't want to get all caught up in the other stuff right now. The best I could figure on doing at the time was leaving a note and getting back to it unless someone beat me to it. -- Scott Scarecroe 03:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I replaced Things you can do on the sidebar with Images wanted and Name that puppet, because those two pages are clearly used a lot more. I felt like "Things you can do" was sort of a graveyard for things that nobody had time for, and I couldn't think of any examples of people who came in and got to work on that stuff. It might still be linked on the FAQ... if it isn't, we should put it in there.
Anyway, I kind of feel like almost everything needs work right now. (In a good way.) I think, four months in, we're still in the infodumping stage. There's a lot of stuff that we haven't gotten to yet. We don't have an episode guide for most of the Fraggle episodes. The albums, books and action figures are very complete, but we have practically nothing on toys or other merchandise. We're much stronger on tiny obscure characters than we are on a lot of the main characters. (Treelo and the Trash Heap are very sad at the moment.)
But who cares? We're having fun. We may never stop infodumping. If a page bugs you, put it on your to do list, or forget about it. Somebody else will come by to clean it up at some point. Maybe. -- Danny Toughpigs 04:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Walk-arounds again

Okay, I don't think it was really settled on. Should there be a page for each full bodied character created, or just one. Danny said he named the Miss Piggy Walk around "Days of Swine and Roses", but to me it looks like it was named Miss Piggy (walk-arounds). I'm about to start cranking out some pages, and I'm scared to name them incorrectly. For example, should it be "Scooter (walk-arounds)" or "Scooter (Muppet Show On Tour)"? --Nate Radionate 22:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

And secondly, if I have pictures of other costumes/puppets for characters, can we list/show them? --Nate Radionate 22:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
My own suggestion is that it might be neat to do those pages in the manner of the Character Evolution or Impersonator pages, withs a gallery of the different walkarounds, info on which production, and general notes on the design and so forth. --Andrew, Aleal 00:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I got voted down. "Scooter (walk-arounds)" it is. -- Danny Toughpigs 00:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay then, watch for works in progess and let me know what ya'll think! --NAte Radionate 18:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Character Variants

We've had Character Evolution pages for a while, but as time has progressed we've expanded the List category to include all kinds of characters-played-by-characters, alternate ages, and all kinds of other alterations. As if now, they were all slapped together, somewhat detacted, on the bottom of the Evolution page. So I came up with some new types of pages to list and document these alternate characters and puppets. I've set Kermit up with examples and, if we like them, we can create any of them for Fozzie, Elmo, Piggy or anyone else.

So what do people think of these pages? Should we continue this for other characters? Are the layouts, page names, and whatnot good? I figure if we create enough of them we can take 'em out of lists and set up a "Character Variants" cateogy (or categories) for the Alternate Identites/Ages and/or Muppet impressions/portrayals pages. -- BradFraggle 21:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I just set up similar pages for Fozzie (Fozzie Bear's Alternate Identities, Fozzie Bear Alternate Ages, and Fozzie Bear Through the Years). Before I start doing anymore of these for other characters I want to make sure I'm heading in the right direction. Is this format good? Should we create a catgory for all these alternate character variation lists? What do others think of this? -- BradFraggle 22:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
We'd been discussing this quite a bit, actually, in Talk:Alter Egos but also on other pages. I love the fact that you took the initiative and created two test pages. I like your name choice, "Alternate Identities," and within those pages, we can make distinctions between costumed movie roles, impersonations by the normal Kermit or Fozzie, or things like Phillip Phil which are in many ways alter-egos. The main exception to this approach, however, is Elmo. There's some things like CinderElmo or Elmo as Peter from Peter and the Wolf which would fit in with the others, but then there's all the Elmos in Elmo's World, which wouldn't fit on such a page due to a) sheer number (between three and six or more per page) and the fact that most aren't even really an Elmo identity, but Dorothy imagining Elmo as The Three Elmos and so forth. Key example: The "Families" episode, where Dorothy's imagination presents Elmo's Dad looking like Elmo, Elmo's Mom looking like Elmo, Doctor Elmo, and Nurse Elmo, brushing aside Baby Elmo for the moment. Over in Talk:Computer, Danny suggested a special category for those, but we hadn't quite come up with a name yet (I was thinking "Elmo Variants" as distinct from "Elmo Identities"). --Andrew, Aleal 00:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, Elmo will be a challenge, just due to all the diffrent Elmo variants - most of which are just in the mind of a goldfish. A list, or category, to put them all in could work. -- BradFraggle 00:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I started a category for all these: Character Variants (Also started Miss Piggy and Gonzo pages). -- BradFraggle 01:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Rowlf on piano

I was thinking of compiling some Rowlf skits, but I don't know what to call it. Rowlf On Piano? Rowlf Skits? -- Scott Scarecroe 19:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the question is, outside of Veterinarian's Hospital, were there any Rowlf skits that didn't involve the piano? I wouldn't count "Jabberwocky", as that was a supporting role, but "The Cat Came Back", while an ensemble performance, is in many ways a Rowlf skit. So yeah, maybe "Rowlf on Piano" with a note of skits that had him on other instruments or something. Unless you want to include everything, including the Jimmy Dean Show stuff, in which case more power to you! --Andrew, Aleal 19:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Rowlf Skits would be too vague. Didn't he have two Poetry Time with Rowlf sketches? Also, he was featured prominently in Cowboy Time, Sherlock Holmes, etc. -- Pantalones 19:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
And don't forget Vet's Hospital! I would suggest "Rowlf at the Piano". -- Danny Toughpigs 19:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Right, and like I said, by rights a "Rowlf's Skits" would imply inclusion of the 60s variety show bits as well. Really, I'm thinking there's probably two seperate pages here. Maybe a "Rowlf's Musical Performances" as distinct from a future Rowlf Skits (for those musical skits like "Cat Came Back" that involve other instruments, but are otherwise thematically similar). --Andrew, Aleal 19:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm liking "Rowlf at the Piano." -- Scott Scarecroe 19:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, this would include You and I and George and the like, but would it also include Memory Lane or other numbers where Rowlf prominently accompanies another performer? What about when he sang with the Dogs? Or when he played way in the background like Simon Smith and His Amazing Dancing Bear? -- Pantalones 19:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, we can include all those. The main feature would be his solos, but the others can have their own sections. We'll see how it develops. Once I get around to starting it that is Tongue -- Scott Scarecroe 20:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I started it! Rowlf at the Piano -- Scott Scarecroe 00:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Main Page Redesign Vote Results

Vote: Main Page Redesign 2 is closed, after 24 hours of voting.

The results:

One Color: Off-White: 11 votes
Four Colors: 1 vote
Two Colors: 4 votes

According to the Vote Page policy, the winner had to receive at least 51% of the votes cast.

"One Color: Off-White" received 69% of the vote, making it the clear winner, so we'll be switching the Main Page to that design soon.

This was our first time using the new voting policy, and I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts about how it went. I'm really happy that this question inspired us to think more about how to get people involved in the decision-making process, and I'm looking forward to seeing how it develops. -- Danny Toughpigs 19:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll give my opinion, but I should say that I don't really even like the Muppets very much.Shawn 05:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Nominations for Main Page Redesign

Now that we've got the Muppet Wiki Vote Page policy worked out, I opened up a Nominations page: Nominations: Main Page Redesign. It'll be open for 24 hours, and everybody is invited to nominate and second the options that you'd like us all to vote on.

For this Nominations page, I'd like to try out the rule that you can only sign on the page once -- either to nominate something or second something. That's listed on the Vote Page policy as a guideline rather than a rule, but I'd like to see how it works here. I think it'll help more people to feel like they're part of the process, and it challenges everyone to think carefully about how they want to "spend" their nomination. If people aren't satisfied with the way that turns out, then we can change it.

So go ahead and nominate away! You can find links to lots of different options to nominate on this page, in the Current Events archive, on Talk:Main Page, and maybe other places too. You can also nominate "No change" if you want the Main Page to stay the way it is. -- Danny Toughpigs 18:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Images Wanted page

I just set up a new Images Wanted page, a place for people to list pages where we need an image (or a better quality image than the one that we have). Listing a page there will encourage other contributors to scan and upload their images. It's already working, so go check it out! -- Danny Toughpigs 03:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Muppet Wiki Vote Page policy

This has kind of gotten lost in the fold, so I thought I'd bump it up to the top. If anyone hasn't seen it yet, Brad started a Muppet Wiki Vote Page policy in response to recent discussions as seen below. I encourage regular contributors to check it out and discuss ideas and changes on the article's talk page. I'd like to give everyone sufficient time to familiarize themselves with it before we go ahead and open up voting on particular items. -- Scott Scarecroe 16:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been up for a few days now, without inviting much in the way of comment. Can we wave our wands and call that a policy, at least for now? We can take it out for a spin, and if it doesn't work, then we can fix it up again. What do you say? -- Danny Toughpigs 00:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Zounds zpiffy to me. -- Scott Scarecroe 00:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed --Pantalones 00:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. --Andrew, Aleal 00:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Beautiful. So the first item of business, obviously, is the Main Page redesign. Do we want to set up another Nomination page? -- Danny Toughpigs 02:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The policy looks great! I think we should start up the Main Page Redesign nominations/vote process again to get the issue resolved before we all forget what the issue was. The policy looks good, let's put it to work! -- BradFraggle 05:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Anything Muppet template

Anything Muppet:

I created a new template for Anything Muppet Patterns. That sentence was just sort of sitting there on the article pages like a lump, so I thought it would be helpful to give it a place to live.

The template is called Template:Am, and you can use it by adding {{am|Green}}. You don't need to use brackets; it'll make the pattern name into a link.

The AM box should go underneath the picture, the same way that the designer box does. -- Danny Toughpigs 14:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki