User:MuppetArchives/Current Events 14 (Nov 2006)

Archive of Current events discussions.

Linking to External Sites

I just did an entry with a few new external links and I noticed that nothing came up asking me to do an image verification or anything like that. Was that something that was done on our end, or has Wikia maybe finally sorted that so that established users don't have to put with that anymore? George B. (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. They might be toying around with things -- I'll see what I can find out. — Scott (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Earliest Known Appearance" template

I think tracking the Earliest Known Appearance of each sketch is one of the coolest things we do on the Sesame Street episode guide pages, but it bothers me that we don't have a consistent format for it. So I created a new template, Template:Eka, that we can use for that. You add {{eka|0001}}, and it looks like this: (EKA: Episode 0001). The "EKA" part links to Muppet Wiki:Earliest Known Appearance, which explains what the "Earliest Known Appearance" thing is all about.

I tried it out on these pages, so we can see how it looks: Episode 0304, Episode 0305 and Episode 0871.

Now, I'm just playing with it, so I'm not sure about how well it works. I tried a couple different sizes, italicized and not, and I think this is the one I like best -- but it's definitely open for improvement. Also, the text I wrote on the EKA page is terrible, because I'm tired and my brain isn't working properly. So what do you guys think? Is it a good idea? Should the format change? Or what? -- Danny (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! I think we should also make it clear that we don't use that on sketch pages, but it might be a good idea to link to Muppet Wiki:Earliest Known Appearance from the "Earliest Known Sketches" header on those tables. — Scott (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is for episode pages. We could also use it for pages like Lena Horne, where we mention an insert sketch that we can't date exactly. I'm glad you like it... -- Danny (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

12,000 pages!

According to Special:Statistics, we have hit 12,000 articles. Apparently it takes a bit longer to update on the main page, though. George B. (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but we're starting the process of re-organizing Category:Grover Sketches and others, which will mean several deleted/merged pages. But even with that, we'll get back to 12,000 before the 5th. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I was wondering what all the Grover activity was about and so I thought I'd chip in. (See the Recent Changes.) :) George B. (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, before the Grover pages started getting deleted, the 12,000th page was Episode 0300. I guess there'll be another 12,000th page coming along soon, but I still claim the original. -- Danny (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yay for you! I just deleted the ones with absolutely no content, just "There are no sketches for this season at this time." Most of what is there can be fit into Grover's Lectures, Grover's Jobs (since that page was re-organized to *remove* sketch by sketch listing, not quite sure how to deal with that), or Grover Songs, with just a few flotsam involving other characters. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way: We rule. A super shout-out to Andrew and Scott, who each added about a hundred new pages in the last week, to make sure that we reached 12k by our birthday. We've still got another week... Do you guys think we could hit 13,000 by then? -- Danny (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh! I dunno, but I'm on holiday break now. It's from school, but not from work, but that still gives me some additional time. I should be able to do at least a little to help out. George B. (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

References

The References category was getting large and unwieldy, so we've split it up into subcategories -- Literary References, Historical References, Musical References, TV References, etc. If you're adding a new page to the References category, please check out the list, and add your article to the appropriate subcategory. Thanks! -- Danny (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ernie and Bert sketches (2)

Based on the below discussion, I started Ernie and Bert Sketches: Nighttime. I was about to do something with the Living Room, but I figure we should probably include the other areas of the apartment that aren't the bedroom in with the living room. I don't think there are too many that take place in the bathroom or kitchen (are there any in the kitchen?) and it would be pointless to have such a short list. If we end up having a lot of them later, then we can branch em out further. — Scott (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, and here those are: Ernie and Bert Sketches: Apartment. So far, I'm just whittling down what's in Ernie and Bert Sketches: Date Unknown. If anyone wants to dig in on the season pages, feel free. — Scott (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there an official name/title used (possibly in production notes/scripts/documents/etc.) for the Sesame Street sketches that take place in front of a solid background (usually with a waist-high brick wall)? It's kind of like a weird purgatory like area of nothingness? -- Brad D. (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I am guessing we should title those sketches Brick Wall. Can we start on E&B songs like a chart and list the songs Ernie's sung without Bert and vice versa. That way we won't have to waste space on the characters page. Should we start on page that seperates sketches with Ernie and another charcter not Bert? -- User:Ernie and Jim (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Brick Wall wouldn't work because many of them don't have a brick wall. I've never heard of an official term, but something like "Blank Background" might work. — Scott (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would think the scripts would have to use something to denote the setting of the sketches (unless the absence of location means they take place there). I just don't know if that information has ever "gotten out" or even been consistent. -- Brad D. (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ernie and Bert sketches

Recently (as discussed here and here), I revamped the Ernie and Bert sketch pages to conform with Muppet Wiki's (as yet unwritten, but still adhered) policy for citing our sources regarding questionable content. I'd like to point out a perfect example as to why this needed to be done. Since I made the move, and explicitly pointed out that I hadn't done anything yet with seasons 1-5, sketches have been moved from (for example) season 4 into season 5 without any explanation as to why, and most importantly without providing a source for the move (such as an episode number or other documentation citing the year of origin).

So, my question is, what makes the person who made the more recent move more qualified to guess what season a sketch premiered in than the person who added it originally? At what point do we qualify ourselves as saying "the crease in Ernie's mouth is more crooked in one season than in another"? That's just an example, because I have no idea what criteria are being used to determine these things. Can someone please explain this to me?

Also, please understand that this is not an attack on anyone. This is a concern about the reliabilty of the wiki, and the desire we all have to maintain its accuracy. — Scott (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

In support of the move, I've also seen users take sketches out of Date Unknown and place them into season pages where we have a source for its appearance -- which is exactly how its supposed to work. As is the case with any source, that Earliest Known Appearance is subject to change if and when we find an earlier episode the sketch appeared in, but at least there's information there for those who wouldn't otherwise understand why sketch X was placed in season Y. Additionally, a few other cases cropped up where we didn't have an episode number, but (for example) album liner notes were used to confirm the first appearance.

So, mostly I think the move has worked out really well. Eventually we have to find at least one episode each sketch appeared in, and that's the season that it goes in until we find an earlier episode -- at which time it can be moved. To make it easier, I've recently updated Date Unknown with notation ragarding what season they were categorized in before the move. That way, whatever work had been done to determine where the sketch was originally classified still remains, and stands to serve as at least a clue as to how we can track down the information in the end. — Scott (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the most important thing for people to know is that the single best way to improve the "Ernie and Bert Sketches" pages is to start posting episode guides for episodes that they have on tape. That's how we establish more hard facts about which sketches were in which episodes. We'll probably never have access to every single episode of the show, so there'll always be gaps -- but the more episodes that we can do, the better we get.

I would suggest locking down the "Ernie & Bert Sketches" pages for a while. Put everything into "Date Unknown" if we don't have a solid episode number for it, and then lock the pages. That'll encourage everybody to focus their attention on adding episode listings rather than moving sketches back and forth based on guesswork. -- Danny (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that maybe categorizing these sketches by season is a losing proposition, and not even worth doing. We currently have 37 pages for Ernie and Bert Sketches, and many of them don't have a single entry. The same is true for Grover Sketches, and I'm sure Cookie Monster Sketches will be the same. Those pages are for the most part sparsely populated, and difficult to browse through. For most readers, I don't think there's a point to having the "Season 16" Grover sketches and the "Season 17" Grover sketches on separate pages, especially if they both have two items.

I think pages that list sketches by type are much more successful -- Waiter Grover, Sesame Street News Flash, Monsterpiece Theater, Super Grover and Grover's Jobs are all fantastic. They're comprehensive, they're easy to maintain, and they're fun for a reader to browse through.

I would suggest finding different ways to categorize the Ernie and Bert, Grover and Cookie Monster sketches, so they don't have to be split up by seasons. I think "Ernie and Bert in the Bedroom" would be a great page (or set of pages, if it's too long). There could also be "Ernie and Bert at the Movies", "Ernie and Bert in the Apartment", "Ernie and Bert Songs", etc. All these pages could be in the larger "Ernie and Bert Sketches" category. -- Danny (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. From the moment E&B sketches was split out into separate pages by season, it's never made any sense. There's too much fluctuation, it's not as satisfying to read and it's cumbersome. Cataloging them by theme would seem to make much more sense, but what do we do with those which don't really fall into a theme? Do we plop them all into Misc. E&B Sketches? — Scott (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Misc. works for me. If we put them together, we might be able to figure out some more subcategories from that list. Is there a name for the blank background area with a wall? Cause that could be a category. -- Danny (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that I can think of. But the term could apply to plenty of other articles, so it might do us good to come up with one. I would suggest we group them with other blank background sketches, as some of them don't have a wall. So, I can think of "Ernie and Bert Songs," "Ernie and Bert Nighttime" and "Ernie and Bert's Apartment." "Ernie and Bert at the Movies" might be a little too specific and limiting, but we could do more with something ambiguous: a phrase to describe sketches that take place away from Sesame Street, perhaps. — Scott (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are some category title ideas:

• Ernie and Bert Sketches: Living Room
• Ernie and Bert Sketches: Bedroom
• Ernie and Bert Sketches: Bathroom
• Ernie and Bert Sketches: Other Apartment Areas
• Ernie and Bert Sketches: At the Movies
• Ernie and Bert Sketches: At the beach
• Ernie and Bert Sketches: Vacations and trips
• Ernie Sketches
• Bert Sketches
• Ernie and Bert Songs
• Ernie and Bert Sketches: Games
• Ernie and Bert Sketches: Blank Background
• Ernie and Bert Sketches: Others

--Minor muppetz 03:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bear Tenth Anniversary

Great news! According to this here, Disney has some big plans to celebrate the Bear in the Big Blue House tenth anniversary. They're talking about a possible movie, syndication, all sorts of new merchandise and more. Sounds wildly exciting! I'm going to work on getting details about it posted here at the Wiki. George B. (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That's awesome! That is good news -- definitely bring everything you find here, so we can keep track of it all. Yay! -- Danny (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's wonderful! I'm positively giddy. I really hope that syndication thing is true. I'd be fully willing to pass on all that other stuff that was mentioned, just so long as the thing about the episodes airing in syndication were true. Since there's still a lot of eps I'm missing. George B. (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Main Page is Locked to Registered Users Only?

I thought we kept it unlocked because it's generally the first thing any non-registered vandal would go after. Or did we decide against that? George B. (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that may have been before page protection could be limited to non-registered users and the like, back when it would have meant only admins could edit it. Scott protected it back in October, probably during a particular onslaught (and that was also when we were having some problems with a bug which kept us from blocking certain users, if memory serves). He may have simply forgotten to unprotect it, but I can't say as it seems to hurt. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

More Fame!

The New York Post mentioned Muppet Wiki yesterday: [1] -- Brad D. (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The New York Post? No way! Excellent. That's a major national paper! George B. (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fab. I love that the article says that Wikia has everything from Star Wars to the Muppets, as if those are two completely different areas of human knowledge. That's like saying we've got everything from A to B. -- Danny (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, especially considering each of the two wikis has an article on the other's topic. =) Powers 01:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even think about that. That's a hoot when you consider Yoda and some of the other close connections there. George B. (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I forgot about those, too. Though, looking, Wookieepedia's article on Eric Jacobson could use some serious correction. =) Powers 21:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Muppet Wiki subject of article in Information Today

Info Today is a library sciences publication. If you look here, it indexes the most recent issue. I've got a photocopy of the article, I'll try to scan it in the next few days. It also references a blog post by the same author, which only has a lone paragraph on MW.

On why it held his attention for 90-minutes on a train, besides the topic: "Wikipedia is much the same as the encyclopedia I used for research as a kid. Muppet Wiki felt more as if it were a coffee-table book, one that I would like to page through at a friend's house or while watching TV." -- Zanimum 00:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Neat, we're famous again! Thanks for posting, and offering a scan of the article! — Scott (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, it's nice to know we're being talked about in stuff like that. George B. (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Muppetheads? lol :) --Cantus Rock 01:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's fantastic. Nick, please do scan that article; I want to see that very very much.

I really like what he says in the blog post, and I think he's absolutely right: "More narrowed focus wikis separate from the "Big Wiki" will work better, bring in core users, and thus thrive." That's why we decided to create Muppet Wiki, when other people were asking why we didn't just add Muppet stuff to Wikipedia. Niche wikis allow you to create a community of contributors, which we've done.

I love being a coffee-table book that people flip through for fun. That's exactly what I want this to be. -- Danny (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

New Categories

Just to let everyone know, per the discussion at Category:Themes, I've started adding some new categories. Two for right now --- [[:Category:Learning Concepts|Learning Concepts]] and Category:Colors. I'm starting basic work on adding articles to these, but I thought everyone should know, so you'll be aware of the categories in the future and if you come upon / want to do work on getting articles / other categories sorted into that. George B. (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Song Lyrics

Okay, so I know posting of complete lyrics to songs is out on the Wiki because of copyright concerns. But what about something like what I did on this page here? Wouldn't it be fair to say that that's reasonably covered under Fair Use? George B. (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, quoting a few lines is fine, as long as you identify where the quote comes from. I'm not crazy about the way that's formatted on that particular page, but quoting lyrics is fine. -- Danny (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What would be the preferred format on that? George B. (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure... If it was a regular quote, then I'd say use the quote format, like on the Animal page. I can't think of a way to quote from a song at the top of a page without having it look clumsy. Can anybody else help out with this? -- Danny (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What about the format I use on my song lyrics pages maybe? George B. (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, anyone? Because if nobody says otherwise, I'm just gonna roll with that format. George B. (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Fozzie: 1965?

Maybe Scott or Danny or someone who has visited the archives knows better than me, but the first Fozzie was auctioned at Sotheby's, but it has a 1965 ha! tag. Was he used for commercials or anything? It may have been a random bear puppet that was dressed for The Muppet Show. I found these images at Getty. -- User:Scooter 15:38, October 8, 2006

The "ha!" tag can't be from the 60s -- they were Muppets, Inc. until 1974. Do they usually write the date that a puppet was first built on a tag? "1965" might mean something else -- maybe the number of the box it was stored in? -- Danny (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, most Muppets are tagged with their date of completion. Unless the tag was added later, I'm stumped. Scooter 16:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The only records the Sotheby site has, that include the word "Muppet", are as follows... no auction in their records references Jim Henson or HA! (Note that the password only site goes back from 1998 to 2007. -- Zanimum 00:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No,1965 is not a year.It could be a puppet inventory number.Fozzie could not be sold at the Auction because of the deed of gift.He was withdrawn and donated to the Polka dot theatre in the UK.

Johnny Cash

SESSION 5 | 16 Sep 04 10:00 AM.

LOT 521

GROUP OF CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING JOHNNY CASH'S 1992 APPEARANCE ON "SESAME STREET

500—700 USD Lot Sold. Hammer Price with Buyer's Premium: 3,300 USD

MEASUREMENTS

letters approximately 11 in. by 8 1/2 in., photograph 9 1/4 in. by 6 1/2 in.

DESCRIPTION

Including an original signed letter by Johnny Cash regarding the parameters of his appearance as Ronnie Trash; an eight-page typewritten script; several letters and sheet music for "A Tall Tale" and "Ring of Fire"; a handwritten letter by Johnny Cash in pencil on Johnny Cash stationery responding that he would love to appear on the program, and that his alter-ego, muppet Ronnie Trash, could sing his song "Don't Go Near the Water"; a carbon copy of the contract; together with a color photograph of Johnny and Big Bird, matted and framed. 42 pages

Miss Piggy Shoes

Planet Hollywood, Selections from the Vault

SALE N07818

SESSION 2 | 14 Dec 02 2:00 PM.

LOT 264

MISS PIGGY SHOES FROM "THE MUPPET SHOW",

1,500—2,000 USD Lot Sold. Hammer Price with Buyer's Premium: 1,912 USD

MEASUREMENTS

N/A

DESCRIPTION

1976-1980, grey ultra suede open hooved pumps lined in purple satin with purple piping at the edges and inner soles designed with pink hearts and the letter `P'. (2)

Provenance: Sold Christie's, June 19, 1993, Lot 50.

The Muppet Workshop

It makes me a little sad that we're almost a year into the wiki and we still don't have a page for The Muppet Workshop yet. I know I've mostly avoided it due to the complexity and largeness of what the article could/should potentially be. Does anyone have any ideas on how to get it started? — Scott (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gathered info on it from The Muppet Show era, and some nice articles on it in the 1990s, but the main reason we have no page yet is not just the complexity, but the history is vague and confusing for me. The formation of Jim Henson's Creature Shop, exactly when and why, is clear cut and well documented. The Workshop isn't. When did the name "The Muppet Workshop" begin? When did it expand from just Don Sahlin building and Jim Henson sketching? We know by the debut of Sesame Street in 1969 that there were other builders and designers involved (Kermit Love, Bonnie Erickson, and John Lovelady, for example), but when exactly did it expand, and when did the name first begin? Was the New York workshop the starting point, or was "Muppet Workshop" already being used for Don Sahlin's garage or whatever early on? Also, the end of the Workshop. We know it's no more, with Sesame Workshop keeping its own division and Disney now outsourcing to Puppet Heap as the "new Muppet Workshop," but exactly when, why, and how did this happen? If someone can clear up those two big blanks, I think I have enough bits (or access to them) to get it started, and it can grow from there. But right now, I've been reluctant to start the page without being able to state when it began and clearly define the current status. There's plenty of stuff that could then flesh it out, from the "Magic Triangle" to key design personnel to quotes to the whole line of Muppet Workshop ("The Art and Craft of Having Fun!") merchandise in the mid 1990s (almost none of which, save a McDonald's thing and The Muppets Make Puppets, are covered yet). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've collected some of my own notes for a potential page as well, but it's just bits of unrelated information that I'm not sure how to put together yet. Mostly for the same reasons you've stated. — Scott (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the only thing to do is to stop stressing about it, and just go ahead and start adding sentences to a page until it turns into something that looks like an article.

Firefox 2.0 --- Recommended for Wiki Editing!

Hey, I just wanted to say that for those here who haven't already, you should consider downloading the new Firefox 2.0. This thing has a built-in spell-checker! It instantly underlines in red any spelling errors. Which means you'll never make a typo when it comes to posting anything on the Wiki ever again, at least not any obvious ones. And with the custom dictionary, you'll no doubt be adding many Muppet-related terms. The enhanced tab features with this browser are really useful as well! George B. (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the news, George! I use Opera myself, but I would stand beside any recommendation for a browser that has a built in spell checker. — Scott (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I tried Opera a while back, but I decided I didn't like it. It doesn't, or at least the version I had anyway, doesn't allow you customize it using any sort of extensions and it also seemed to have major problems with the cache. And I'm on dialup, so I rely on my cache a lot. George B. (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the spell checker in FF2 is a good thing when doing wiki stuff. It has helped me a lot to avoid the worst spelling errors and saving me the time to look up words in the dictionary. So now if only FF would fix my grammar errors as well :) Rytter 23:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Attention and Citations

Just wanted to mention here that we have a new template to use for unsourced information. Just enter the {{cite}} tag after the unsourced information in a sentence, and add a note about it on the talk page. The page will automatically go into Category:Citations needed, which you can now access from the Attention link in the left navigation sidebar of every page. — Scott (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Awesome pawsome! That'll definitely help for articles of that nature that require extensive sourcing, but don't have it at the moment. George B. (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Episode Template

Would it be possible to tweak the episode template to include editors along with writers and directors? The editors for Bear in the Big Blue House vary from ep-to-ep and I'd like to be able to list them. I'd change it myself, but I seem to recall that tweaking existing templates is off-limits to non-staff. George B. (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a reason for that. Adding fields to a template already heavily in use on the wiki breaks the template. In order for them to look normal, every single page on the wiki using that template needs to be updated. In this case, that's over 600 pages. I don't think editors is that important to note for each episode. If we included them, we'd have to consider director of photography, lighting designer, etc. I could see that information being useful as a comma delineated list on the main Bear in the Big Blue House page though. Much in the same way we list credits on The Muppet Show. — Scott (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think there already is a list on the main Bear page, although I'm not sure if it's formatted the same way as the one for The Muppet Show. I'll look into that. But I thought there was a way though, if you tweak it right, so that it doesn't show up if you don't include anything in it. In other words, if you left the editor field blank, it wouldn't show up on the page. George B. (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The requestor field is still required to be blank on all the pages that use the template. I just looked at Bear in the Big Blue House, and the list of editors looks fine the way it is. If you have more, go ahead and add them in a comma delineated fashion. — Scott (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, will do! Thanks. George B. (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Two Performers, One Production

See Discussion Here. Anyone liking this idea? If so, anyone want to help me get the article started? I'd do it myself but lo, I only know of the mentioned Boppity switch and now the others mentioned on that page. Thoughts? (Also, there might be a decent Thunderdome joke in here somewhere, but I didn't think "Two Puppets Enter, One Puppet Leaves" really made any sense...so if you can figure out a good one please share :-D ) --Cantus Rock 16:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If we can find a good amount of instances, it could be an interesting list in the least. In addition to Boppity and Piggy, there's Mr. Johnson in Elmo in Grouchland. — Scott (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Should we count instances where it's obvious that a character was voiced by another performer by mistake? There have been quite a few times where a character was only voiced by its regular performer and actually performed by someone else, and sometimes the editors forgot to loop a line or two that was recorded by the normal performer (or the performer forgot to record every line). David Rudman performing one of Mr. Johnsons lines in Elmo in Grouchland was obviously a mistake. Steve Whitmire performing one of Statlers lines in It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie was obviously amistake. I don't think Richard Hunt performing Miss Piggy's voice was a mistake. --Minor muppetz 01:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...maybe these instances can be included with special notation detailing their circumstances (like the way you described Whitmire mistake)? Maybe an indented italic or something of the sort? As long as the cause of the error can be specifically traced so its accurately described I'd say it'd fit.. --Cantus Rock 04:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I just found another one. The Fragglettes in episode 214 of Fraggle Rock have different performers for their speaking and singing voices. — Joe (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking vs. Singing voice can be included in its own heading...guess that'd technically include Nicky Holiday because of "Piggy's Fantasy" (ironically, if you check the talk page on Piggy's Fantasy, I was just asking about the dub perfomer on that track)? I'd say it works as long as both performers can be identified and its not mixed with the "1 Character, 2 Speaking Voices" section, being that "1 Speaking Voice, 1 Singing Voice" isn't as uncommon in the broader spectrum (though it is a great deal more rare in the Muppet realm, but still). --Cantus Rock 16:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's another candidate: Frances Oznowicz. — Scott (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)