Archive of Current events discussions.

One-time skit Anything Muppet characters

I brought this up on The King and His Problem and The Mystery of the Four Dragons. There are a bunch of Sesame Street sketches that star one-time use Anything Muppet characters. These characters are somewhat nameless and appear once. As Muppet Wiki we've been detailing all kinds of Muppet goodness, and I'm not saying that these characters are not worth our attention. However I don't think each and everyone merits their own individual character page - especially when the only real difference between the pages for The Emperor and The Evil Prime Minister are the pictures, AM types and performer boxes.

On The King and His Problem and The Mystery of the Four Dragons (where each skit had spawned 4-6 nearly identical pages) I merged all the non-redundant information into a character table (the formatting of which could still be played with if wanted). I think that these characters are worth showcasing but don't merit their own pages (especially if they are unnamed, non-recurring, simple Anything Muppets, and only in one skit). If Statler and Waldorf and Andy and Randy can share pages, I think The Smallest, Tallest, Smartest and Fasted Person in the Kingdom can share the page. I think we'd get better descriptions, more complete details of the skit, less redundancies and more full (and useful) articles. Thoughs? -- Brad D. (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the character pages. You say "the only real difference between the pages", but then you list four major pieces of information that change between those pages -- the character name, the picture, the AM type and the performer box. Yes, the "text" itself is the same, but the sentences aren't the only source of content on these pages. The photo and infoboxes also contain information, and shouldn't be ignored.
I support the creation of any character page that has a source and a photo. A page with a vague description and no source is useless, but the Four Dragons characters have nice photos and are impeccably sourced. -- Danny (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, it's possible, as per a previous Current events discussion, that there was more than one sketch with the Japanese characters. -- Danny (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well why do we merge character pairs (such as Statler and Waldorf or Andy and Randy Pig)? Each has their own "source and photo". They just all seem redundant. I guess my issue is I see a skit page and a list of 6 characters from it. I want to know more about the skit and whatnot, but after going to the 6 other pages all I've really gained is a list of the performers, 6 more pictures and the chore of re-reading the same basic information. When all that information could logically and efficiently be in one spot (plus maybe elicit more comparisons, analysis and overall discussion of the skit in one place rather than stretched over 7 and repeating things over and over). I just think sometimes we're stretching things out over a lot of little pages that won't be able to get much bigger, rather than make one nice big meaty article that gives a lot of information on a topic and has potential to grow more. -- Brad D. (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, Statler and Waldorf and Andy and Randy are defined in relation to each other. That's not precisely the same with Evil Prime Minister and the rest. Plus, there *is* theoretically room for expansion. I think it would be worth discussing what minor pages are good and bad (see Talk:Grenadier Guardsman and Talk:Safari Animal Tracker), but there *is* potential to discuss these characters in terms of what they say about the Sesame depiction of Japanese culture, politics, and folklore, and the performer info is worth having. (Incidentally, re consolidation, Brad, ever decide what to do with Frackles? We'd discussed merging the pages, but then you recreated the one page which was merged). Anyway, I'd agree on The King and His Problem since there's no images, and I'm not even sure the performer/patterns are correct until someone verifies, but I'm not so sold re the Japanese crowd. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that I've had more time to look at them and know there are more than just one skit and all that, I think the Japanese ones might have room to grow and are fine as is. I withdraw the push to merge that information together. They have sourced names, and there is room for growth (if we gather information from these other skits they appeared in and whatnot). But there are some pages that I think there is no point in having each character separated and stretched out. I like going to big meaty articles and some of these I fear will never be able to be bigger than a paragraph (and if that's the case, why not just give each character their due paragraph and picture on the main skit's page). Short stubby pages are frustrating and I hate having to hop over 6 pages just to be able to put together any significant amount information (and that's if I'm lucky). I know we're growing, but honesty how much will you be able to say about the 30-second Anything Muppet of The Messenger that won't just be repetitive or patronizing? We just have to watch ourselves and not be afraid to draw a line sometimes and merge stuff.
As for the Frackles, I think we do need to figure it out and get a consensus on what we're doing there. I support a merge, I made my point before and I feel the same way now...Plus I really hate seeing us names like The Dark Green Furred Hunchbacked Boppity-like Frackle Monster Thing being used and perpetuated for no reason. -- Brad D. (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's tricky, and I'm always happy to talk about individual cases. The problem for us is that we can't really come up with a hard and fast rule about this stuff. Some one-time AM characters are interesting, and some aren't.
For example, I like having pages on the Geefle and the Gonk, as well as a page for the sketch they were in. Those are one-time characters, but I think many people remember them with affection, and they're worth having. A less clear example is the "Hunt for Happiness" characters. Personally, I like having pages for Helen Happy and Harold Happy, but I could easily see somebody else thinking they're useless.
One argument for having pages on these guys, when there's a sourced name, is that having their own pages lists them in the Muppet Characters category. It's fun for readers to browse through that category, and run across old friends. I can easily imagine a reader seeing "the Young Son" on that list and wondering who that is -- and then clicking on the page, and being pleasantly surprised. -- Danny (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sesame Street on imdb

Sesame Street now decides the stars of a series, by how many episodes they're credited as appearing in. Just for a hoot, here's who stars on SS: Martin P. Robinson, Jessica Peters, Anthony Daniels, Kevin Clash, Joe James, Carmen Osbahr, Sean Sanders, Stephanie D'Abruzzo, Joey Mazzarino, Jennifer Barnhart, and David Rudman. Oh boy. -- Zanimum 15:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

But isn't that just due to the way IMDb is structured? I'm pretty sure every television show on IMDb is listed similarly. But yeah, this is just one of many errors made on IMDb; just today I had to put in for Sue Westerby to be changed from "Sue Wetherby" --Cantus Rock 01:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Attention: Firefox users!

After hours of toiling in front of the computer (with no computer programming know-how, by the way), I managed to upload a plugin for the Firefox searchbar for the Muppet Wiki. Just click here and enter "Muppet Wiki" (without quotes) into the search bar. Then just click on the Muppet Wiki link and it'll install itself! — Joe (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It works perfectly. I love it! -- Danny (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Character Lists

I looked over this page and didn't see anything on the subject, so I'd like to bring it up to the community. I had editted Jim Henson's Muppet Show Bill page, adding a bulleted list to the characters section, but my edit was reverted in favor of keeping character listings separated by commas (apparently to save space on the page). I personally feel that the commas make the list look sort of mashed together, especially due to the fact that there are so many linked characters on the list, some of which are listed with plain text also (see Marvin Suggs on that page). The bulleted list is just more aesthetic, and allows for the characters to be broken up for easier reading (rather than having to look through at the commas to see where one's link ends). I don't see what the difference would be if a page is a little longer due to the list...So, I thought I'd see what everyone thinks about the subject. I think it'd be a worthy style change for the sake of readablity. :) --Cantus Rock 16:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it might look better, but the comma'ed list fits with the patterns we've set with other character lists. Check out any episode page of The Muppet Show and you'll see what I mean.— Joe (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I do see what you mean...I'd be willing to edit every page myself if need be (if fact, I'd be happy to). I'm not trying to upset the applecart or be the n00bie who comes in and wants to turn everything on its ear; I just think its a change that'd be better for the wiki as a whole. --Cantus Rock 01:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm opposed myself, unless it's in the form of a performer/character cast list. There's too many bit characters in the movies and episodes for a bulleted list to really work, I think. A better solution would be to come up with a more standardized format for how characters are listed, whether it's alphabetical, in order of appearance, credit order, role significance, etc. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I think using commas is better than bullets. It's hard to really focus on a list of names, no matter what format you put them in. For the most part, we use lists as a functional tool, a way of keeping track of the information so we can use it on other pages. (For example, if you're working on the Muppy page, it's useful to be able to click "What links here" and see all the projects that he's appeared in.)
Technically, there's no limit to how long a page can be -- it's just a web page, and it can be any length. However, there is a limit to a reader's patience. If I have to page down through four pages of a character list to get to the information that comes after it, then it annoys me, and makes me less interested in looking at other pages. All that white space can be irritating to a reader. I feel very strongly that the lists should use commas. -- Danny (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
A bulleted list divided into two or three columns wouldn't take up much more space than a comma-delimited list. Too much whitespace is indeed bad, but so is too little. Powers 00:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it depends on the size of the list. A list of 0-10 characters works fine as a bulleted list (I think you could do up to 20 if you did two columns). Anything more then that I ask what's the point of the list on the page. For example, a full list of every Muppet in the closing shot of "The Muppet Movie" is cool, but no one is going to sit down to study the whole thing character-by-character. It's there for someone wanting to see if "what's his name is there" (and then they can scan the whole block of text), or for a reference tool (it's a good tool for the "what links here" feature users), and it helps document the characters there (if someone cared). If you're listing the 8 characters in a Muppet commercial that's cool for a bulleted list, but a full bulleted list of the "Muppet Family Christmas" cast seems unnecessary. If I really wanted to see if Henry Monster was there I can, but I don't need an easy to follow (and space-taking) list organizing every single bloody character on the Muppet Family Christmas page. The only time a long bulleted list works nicely is on a separate list page. If it's more than 25 things I would ask what's the point and audience for this information in the first place. Not every bit of information we can dig up is important enough to warrant that amount of space. -- Brad D. (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My thinking is that, if a person is already on the page wanting to read its information, a bulleted list makes the characters easier to browse through, and that a little scrolling through a list of characters isn't going to seriously outrage any casual viewer, especially if the list is split into two or three columns (good suggestion Powers). If anything I'd say its impressive; every character listed with a separate bullet just looks more organized than a block of some-linked-text some-plain-text separated by commas. And a nice bulleted block list fills out a page nicely, giving it a decent body. I agree with the "Too much whitespace is indeed bad, but so is too little" school of thought also. --Cantus Rock 05:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a little scrolling will outrage the casual reader. It frustrates me, and I'm not casual at all. -- Danny (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I feel the same way about long lists delimited only by commas... Powers 19:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, if we can't work out a compromise, then it's going to end up being one or the other. If it comes down to it, we can have a vote about it. There needs to be more discussion before we get to that point, though. I'd like to hear from some other people about which way they like better, and why. -- Danny (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I just gave myself handcramp creating a Character List Format Test, as an example, using The Muppets: A Celebration of Thirty Years. Frankly, while I can see why people who prefer to scroll down quickly rather than closely read the page line by line would like it that way, it makes it harder to separate the many character groups at a glance. This is one of the more extreme examples of listed characters, but still. Plus, if we're bulleting characters, why not bullet performers and everyone in the credits, instead of seperating by role (writers, puppeteers, workshop)? To my mind, that would also look rather ugly and be pointless, unless, again, in a performer/character style cast list. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
A smaller example is Matt's addition to Wembley Fraggle and the Magic Stone. I totally appreciate the upgrade to the page as a whole -- the synopsis is great, etc -- but I think the character list looks silly. It's just the same five Fraggles that are in everything. I don't think they need to be named so prominently, especially with big subheadings for "Major" and "Minor". I think this is an example of the bullets making a bigger deal out of the character list than is necessary. -- Danny (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I tried making my own example of The Muppet Show episode 101 in the Sandbox, but my computer wonked out before I could save it. Anyway, in the preview, it looked ungainly with the characters all bulleted. Even with three columns, which I couldn't figure out how to do, it would still take a lot of space. I definitely prefer the character lists separated by commas, although I imagine there can be exceptions. I do think we should discuss how to order characters in the lists however. Alphabetically, by order of appearance, prominence, etc. Also, I'd like to differentiate what separates a main character from a background character, particularly in regards to The Muppet Show. If the Electric Mayhem performs, but Janice doesn't speak, is that a background appearance? And if Boppity has one line in At the Dance, should that be a major appearance? Etc, etc, etc... -- Peter (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I created that distinction when we first started the wiki to create a distinction between characters with speaking parts and characters who didn't speak. It may have drifted since then. -- Danny (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

So, before this becomes archived, and in light of The Phantom of the Muppet Theater, are we anywhere near a consensus? It looks like, from this discussion, that Danny, Brad, Peter, and I are against the bulleted format and in favor of commas, Matt and "Lt. Powers" in favor of bullets, and Joe seemed somewhere in the middle. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Would there be a way to create a template wherein a person just inputs all the necessary characters (divided into Major and Minor) and it autoformats it into something agreeable? That'd be a good compromise I think, but I have no clue how the technical side of that would work. --Cantus Rock 03:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I think a template would be more trouble than its worth (and "Major and "Minor" not applicable in most cases), and still wouldn't solve the central problem. I don't see how it would be a compromise if we can't agree on whether the template would use bullets or commas (Though there does seem to be a general agreement that, if the list is of six characters or so, bullets are okay, but "Major" and "Minor" divisions are probably redundant in such cases, like Danny's example where the only characters are the main five Fraggles who are in everything). I'll be frank, it seems like you and the enigmatic "Powers" are the main proponents of bulleted lists right now, but I'm bringing it up in hopes of gathering more input (Scott hasn't weighed in, for example). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
A template doesn't have to utilize commas or bullets necessarily; thats up to the person who makes the template. I also don't understand why the major and minor is so rallied-against; there are major and minor characters in every book and production, and some people care to know when Beauregard is actually influences the story being described or is just in the background. Its the same with the Fraggles; yes its the same core characters, but its about who affects the story.
I don't particularly care if the bulleted character list isn't put into affect; it was a suggestion I felt made the articles more readable and would improve the wiki as a whole. I'll edit accordingly. But it is one of a number of formatting issues that needs to be addressed for the sake of uniformity, which is why I suggested a template, and encourage templates in general. --Cantus Rock 04:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
That's the point. If you're saying "it's up to the person who makes the template," it's no compromise. And as for major and minor, I'm not against it as a whole, but it's messy in cases like the Fraggle book. It seems easier to me in such a case to just include a synopsis, which would make it clear which characters influence the plot, and add a note "Red and Boober make cameos" or whatnot. Otherwise, at some point, you'll have a list with every character but one listed as major, and a single name under "minor," and that just looks silly to me. Also, the wording is inconsistent with the other pages for specials and TV shows and so forth; switching "minor" to "background characters" would help.
And I don't see what you mean by "other formatting issues" (the only related issue mentioned here is character ordering, which a template wouldn't solve). Explain please. Part of the problem with templates, and why they're not a be-all-end-all, is that as of now, they pretty much go at the top of the page. One could re-locate it, but with the general format, it would still look like a box. We have plenty of templates now (more than many of us can keep up with), so if you have a suggestion for a new one, feel free to look at the format for the present ones (some, but by no means all, are identified at List of Templates), and be specific about what you have in mind. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well if the template is agreeable to both parties and doesn't utilize bullets or commas, I'd say that's a compromise. But it was just a suggestion to end the issue. I see what you mean about the major and minor in the books, but I don't really think that in that one instance of a single minor character it would be too much of an issue because of the fact that its uniform. When you set a format for how the articles are to look (which of course can be tailored to the needs of the type of article, whether it be books or television show episodes, etc.), and every article is in that format, it doesn't matter that certain articles have a single minor character and it might look a little off because thats just the way the format is. People stick to it, its neat and professional, and the only variation between articles is the actual information, rather than the set-up of each article.
Background characters is a bit of a misleading term; if a character has a single speaking line, are they still considered in a background character? Minor allows for such small instances. I have no gripes about that though, I'd gladly change "minor" to "background." My only real concern is that every character is accounted for, I just wanted to mention that point.
As for the other formatting issues, its the same issue of uniformity. It doesn't have to be by way of templates; I was just saying that templates are a good way to achieve the same outcome. For example, go down the line of Dinosaurs Episodes; there is a general format (Description; Guest Stars; Notes; Seen on TV), but there isn't uniformity in things like text formatting. If an episode doesn't get a video release, should there be a "Video Releases" Heading and (none) therein, or not at all? Its minor formatting, but if a person goes down the episode line, its noticable. Thats just an example, but its those kinds of little tweaks that I'm talking about. Templates definitely shouldn't become the end-all, and aren't right for all situations; I just think there should be a sort of "internal template" so-to-speak that we follow, so everything looks clean and uniform. A place for every thing, and everything in it's place, as mother always said (which is of course why my apt. is so messy currently, such a hypocrite, hehe) --Cantus Rock 05:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
One series that is a great example of what I'm talking about done nearly perfect is Category: Muppets Tonight Episodes. The format is perfect for the information, and if followed through by way of the episode navigation box, its like flipping the pages of a reference book. --Cantus Rock 08:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming late to this conversation, but I can't believe there's been so much discussion on whether or not to list characters with commas or bullets. I say we bring it to a vote and let it be one thing or another. — Scott (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a vote is necessary here. Matt's adding a bunch of different questions about formatting into this discussion -- Matt, I think if those other questions are important, please start a new thread for them, because it's getting hard to focus on the one question that we started with.
So, back to the main question: Should character lists have bullets or commas? The format for the wiki has been to use commas for character lists. Matt doesn't like the commas, and asked if we could switch over to bullets. I feel like the general trend of the conversation has been: No, we like commas better.
We could go through a whole voting process, but basically, this is about whether Matt still feels like we ought to change the format. Matt, now that we've had this discussion, would you be okay with using commas for the character lists? -- Danny (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I do still think that it should be changed, but I don't think its necessary to put it up for vote if it'd be my one vote against the rest of the world. Sorry I kinda went tangental with the formatting and whatnot (its all connected, but the other issues will be discussed another time). If its gone this long, and there is no forseeable compromise like a character list template or some stylization that both spaces the characters for easier viewing without taking up a tremendous amount of space, etc., then that would seem like end of story on the subject. If you'd like to send it to a vote anyway that'd be fine; just no public execution if I'm the only dissenting opinion. :) --Cantus Rock 21:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
No, if you're cool, then we're all cool. I'm not sure what you'd like the new template to look like, but if you want to experiment with a template, then go ahead and try it out! I'm glad you brought this up; it's good for us to keep talking about what we're doing. -- Danny (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking into how one goes about making a template now. Fascinating stuff. I'll see if I can produce something workable. --Cantus Rock 11:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Active Talk Pages

I'm not around much right now, but I see that the active talk pages category has swelled to 64 pages, and 10 category questions. Frankly, that seems a bit much. Some have been answered and the boxes removed, some are unanswerable (and a few not so much questions as opinions, I suspect, or requests better suited to forums), and a few have been sitting there for a month or so. Technically, according to the category description, questions should be removed if not answered and involving no discussion after one week. I know we all are reluctant to abandon our questions, and I'm as guilty as anyone else, but right now, for, well, even me, with limited net time, it's hard to check the list and see what questions are actually new and unanswered. I can't really do much on it right now, but if someone would care to pare it down, if possible (whenever it reaches more than 30 active boxes, it becomes overwhelming for me, and for some, probably sooner), it would be appreciated. And it might be worth thinking, especially in light of Category:Attention or Muppet Wiki:Still Stumping, if there's a better way to make use of active talk pages collectively as a category. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sure. I usually clean it out, but I haven't recently. I'll try to get to it soon. -- Danny (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have deleted the "Talk" box on some pages where the talk pages have not had any responses for more than two weeks. I'm still looking for some more. --Minor muppetz 04:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Interesting note: Sesame Street is the featured article today on Wikipedia. — Scott (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sesame Street Season 37

I just went ahead and added a link to the Sesame Workshop pressroomp page for Sesame Street Season 37. The pressoom section includes artwork, but in order to get into the artwork section, you have to have a username and password. I happen to have one, due to my work on Dragon Tales over at, although technically I'm not supposed to give them away. However, I could get the pictures though for possible use at the Wiki. I believe it's okay to use them, however they do require that when you use one of their images, you include the notice "Sesame Street® and associated characters, trademarks and design elements are owned and licensed by Sesame Workshop. © 2006 Sesame Workshop. All Rights Reserved." George B. (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Press release

Anyone want to use this? -- Zanimum 17:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a Hurricane... Hunter

I was watching a show called DragonFly TV today and they had a meteorologist on there. He said that he sometimes gets to fly the hurricane-hunter planes and he said that their names for the planes are Kermit, Miss Piggy and Gonzo. Of course, I immediately though of the Wiki and was wondering if there was some use we can make of that. George B. (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you know who owns the planes? The government, commercial forecasters? -- Zanimum 17:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Offhand --- I believe that he worked for the government, although that doesn't necessarily mean that the government actually owns the planes, I suppose. I still have the episode on tape --- I'll try and check and see if I can get anymore details. George B. (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
A quick search turned up that the aircraft belong to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA's "Hurricane Hunter" Aircraft). Jim Henson Productions designed the logos; photos of those would be great on the wiki page for them. -- Melissa (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The nose art for Kermit and Miss Piggy are about two-thirds of the way down this page: -- Melissa (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Should the article be National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration? National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration aircraft? NOAA's "Hurricane Hunter" Aircraft? Miss Piggy (plane)? -- Zanimum 14:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like you guys have done a good job on finding the exact details on this. I'll leave it to the powers-that-be to determine what a good name exactly for the page would be. George B. (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

American Library Association


I just found this image and I'm not quite sure what it's from. The website I grabbed it from was advertising that it's for sale as a poster and bookmark from the Library of Congress gift shop, advertising the American Library Association. Anyone know anything? (By the way, my apologies if this isn't where a question like this goes) -- Joe (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the poster for "Building a Nation of Readers", the Center for the Book's national reading promotion theme for 1997-2000, produced by the Center for the Book and the American Library Association. I don't know its current availability, but as far as I know the products were available for purchase through the Library of Congress Sales Shop and the American Library Association. -- Melissa (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've seen that poster before at either the library where I work or one or more of the branches in the system. George B. (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I have those bookmarks, and I also have the previous Muppet bookmark, which had Piggy as Cleopatra. The Muppets' participation in ALA materials goes back to the Muppet Show era. There was also one with Zoe around the same time as the "Building a Nation of Readers" one, and there were probably other Sesame ones before that. I can scan the two bookmarks that I have, although I'm going away for a few days, so I won't be able to do it until I get back. -- Danny (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.