Muppet Wiki

Muppet Wiki:Current Events Archive 15 (Dec 2006)

Talk0
27,352pages on
this wiki

Archive of Current events discussions.

Talk Page Archives

For both current events and user talk pages, after awhile some of the content gets moved to a "Talk page archive" from certain dates. I was thinking maybe we should start making archives for talk pages that have a lot of discussion and questions/ sections. The talk page for Sesame Street News Flash is a good example of a non-user talk page that could have an archive for certain dates. --Minor muppetz 17:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's very big. I can't think of any reason why an archive wouldn't be a good idea, as long as the discussion sections being archived are no longer active. George B. (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, I could see it going either way. Current events and user talk pages are about a wide variety of topics, and you wouldn't necessarily go to one of those pages to find that particular topic. But an article talk page is the entire history of conversations about that one page. It's useful to have that in one place, so somebody who has a question or a comment can look through the discussion page and see if that question has been answered before. -- Danny (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm personally against it. I don't think the talk page in that case, while long, is such that it needs to be taken out. Current events and user talk pages are always more active on a frequent basis, and often include less formal discussion, than article talk pages. It's all there in chronological order, and as long as new questions are at the top, I don't see any real benefit to taking older issues out. In fact, with Talk:Sesame Street News Flash, many of the same issues keep coming up, making it all the more beneficial to have the old discussions below for reference. Yeah, a few trite quicky questions remain in the mix, but until/unless the time comes when, say, there's over 50 seperate conversations on that page, it strikes me as just creating more work. Since the archives pages are all a mix, and not always easy to access, especially user talk page. Which is fine, since for the most part, they're not needed, and when they are, it's worth the extra work to find the older post. But doing so for article talk pages, it just seems like an unnecessary complication to me. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Today on Muppet Wiki

If it hasn't been updated in like four days, is it okay to just go ahead and update it (maybe with stuff from the nominations page?) or are only the admins supposed to do that? On a related note, I noticed that we have to pull stuff out of the Development section and the calendar on the main page manually. Might it be possible to come up with some kind of automated bot or something to update that stuff automatically? Wikipedia uses bots. George B. (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

For the first question, that's generally Danny's domain. In his absence, Scott and the other admins (though it's always a hassle to catch up when it falls behind, and to fit the new expanded format). I've been busy with the vandalism and such, and on dial-up, and hardly any of the other admins are around just now. I'll see what I can do about it tonight or early tomorrow. As for bots, we're not Wikipedia, and it would be up to Scott to figure out how or even if he could incorporate their code for that stuff. It wouldn't work for Development anyway, as far as I can see, since it's removal is entirely dependant on when the product is released (aired, published, etc.) and that can sometimes be before or after the original date in the article. So with both that and Template:Upcoming, if you see anything out of date, feel free to update. That's an area where anyone can help. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry -- I was away for a brief vacation. I thought Scott might update Today on MW while I was gone, but I hadn't really asked him to do it or anything. Anyway, I'll catch up with that soon. -- Danny (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Yeah, development I guess it probably wouldn't work for. Unless somebody were also working with in tandem to police it closely and make sure that all the newest info is posted. The main page calendar --- I think that one could probably be fine if something were worked out. As for the use of the bots, not sure, but I think bot code, like anything else on Wikipedia is open-source. So I wouldn't be surprised if something could be found and modified. George B. (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Profanity?

I know that this Wiki is something of a family site, so if a quote or something we want to use contains profanity, should we just not use it? George B. (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's a relevant quote, I see no need to censor profanity. — Scott (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds excellent to me. Thanks! George B. (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
So, for example, the use "the f-word" in the description of the first sketch of Puppet Up! - Uncensored is alright? -- Brad D. (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a quote. There isn't a reason for us to use profanity in the text that we write, but we should reproduce quotes faithfully. It's not necessarily a "family site"; it's an information site. -- Danny (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

We need an infobox like the one Wikipedia has for links to major sites for people and shows, like IMDb, TV.com, and also now FilmSpot (a new TV.com companion site based on Movie Tome.) It would really help out. George B. (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Themes

This discussion is getting split between two pages, so I've moved the discussion at Category talk:Learning Concepts here... -- Danny (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

While I previously posted in favour of keeping this category, I now notice absolutely everything in it, safe Shapes and Opposites, is double counted in Themes. Can we better discuss the difference between a learning concept and a theme? While some could be both, there's some like shapes and colors which are more clearly pedagogical, and those like Chores or Manners or Cleanliness which fulfill a curricular function re behavioral education, in contrast to themes like Pirates or Mystery and so on. I'm in favor of either deciding exactly which items if any need to be in both, or otherwise just dumping this category (much as I think it's more useful) and merging in the only two items left out. Thoughts? -- Andrew Leal (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right about that. I think it's like this --- items that are tagged as Theme aren't necessarily being doubled in Learning Concepts, but items that are in Learning Concepts are being doubled as Themes. I noticed that Family is Learning Concepts. I don't know. Maybe? Maybe not? Friendship might be a sketchy one too. In fact, for that one, I would tend to say yes in some cases, but no in others. What about splitting it up? I.E. Learning Concept --- "Making Friends" and then ones more general in nature in regards to friendship? George B. (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Part of why it bothers me is because Learning Concepts itself is in themes (and something more broad like Family, though, I'd be tempted to take out entirely, since then we might as well add Birth and Broadcasting as "learning concepts" of a sort). So it seems like just going in circles. I'm a bits tressed out and have a 5 am flight to El Paso. But it might not hurt to take a look at each item in Learning Concepts, and what's in it, and assess how to better deal with the category. Since right now, I don't know how really helpful it is, and clicking on it from themes and just seeing repetition of a microcosm of the above seems less than effective. In general, in fact, I don't think any "Themes" categories ideally should be inside of each other; if they are, it seems like an indication that either something is mislabeled or that a merge would work better. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I've never liked Learning Concepts. I also think we're going a little crazy with pointless categories. I don't see why we need a "Cleanliness" category, or a "Friendship" category. Who cares? -- Danny (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
How is having a Friendship category any different from having a Family category? Or less closely connected, but still want to use as an example anyway --- Sports, or The Museum. Sorry, but not sure what your reasoning is there on that category particularly? Friendship is a Theme that comes up often. Now whether or not it belongs in Learning Concepts is debatable, I would suppose, but I'm not really following this on why the category itself shouldn't be there. As for the Cleanliness category... well, I suppose the same thing, really. Oh --- and who cares? I do. And I'm sure a lot of others would too. If "who cares" is the only criterion we're using when it comes to this, then there are a lot of categories that should probably be nuked. George B. (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I just proposed a guideline on Current events that before starting a new category, we post about it first and get a check-in on whether other people think that it's a worthwhile category. Obviously, if you created the category, then you think it's worthwhile, but that doesn't necessarily mean that "a lot of others" do too. In order to know that, we'll need to hear from some people.
I think it might be worthwhile to go through each of the categories in Themes/Learning Concepts and discuss whether people like them or not. Some of the categories will be easy -- I think we'll probably see strong support for Alphabet, Numbers and Fairy Tales -- but some of them might not have as much support. Up until now, it's been easy for anybody to start a new category, so there's the potential for infinite category inflation. We should check in and make sure that the group is on board with the categories that we have right now. -- Danny (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. It also helps if there's misunderstandings or disagreements on the usefuleness or how a category would work; sometimes it comes up, as it did on Category talk:History, and the resulting input is useful. Other times, folks aren't even aware of the category, or once it's there, don't feel comfortable objecting to it. How would we set up such an assessment? Maybe as a semi-vote? I.e. list all the categories, and allow for comments under each, that is, whether someone liks the category/why they created it; dislikes, likes the idea but thinks it needs clearer organization, doesn't really care either way, etc., to get a general feel for wider consensus and whether "a lot of others" are interested in something, or how many have an active disinterest (if at least two people support a category, say, and nobody else really cares, then there's no harm in keeping it, for example, or something like that). Then if need be a more formal vote system could be carried out or something for those categories where it's mostly one person's opinion versus another, or something. In general, I think the new process will help everything in the long run, even if it takes a little time; should we propose a limit? That is, if someone posts on current events and gets no response or a single "Do it/don't do it" within, say three days (two might not be enough, and four seems like too many; plus any serious concerns harbored by anyone who missed the initial post can be added to the talkbox, but it might encourage more folks to actively pay attention to current events). I'm not sure if any of this makes sense, I'm just typing out loud here, so to speak, as it were, more or less approximately. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't have much time right now --- but I like that idea and was thinking of it earlier. Why don't we just put any Theme / Learning Concept categories anyone has questions about up for a vote? George B. (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be a series of discussions, rather than a mass vote. We don't need to rush this process; there's no urgency.

The first step, I think, is to move the stuff from Learning Concepts into Themes, and then delete Learning Concepts. I think having two categories is making things more confusing.

Once we do that, then we can go category by category, posting on the talk page for each category. I would suggest just going through alphabetically, a few at a time. Don't do them all at once, or we'll be flooded, and not able to really think about each individual case. We should take the time to look at each one individually.

So, for example, we'd post on Category talk:Adoption, Category talk:Alphabet and Category talk:America, with a message that we're checking in on what people think of this category, and whether it's worthwhile to have that as a Themes category. We allow people a little time to say why they think it's a useful category, or why it isn't. If you don't get any kind of negative response, then the category stays, and we move on to the next batch.

Right now, there's 52 categories in Themes, plus or minus, so it'll probably take a few weeks to go through all of them. That's fine, there's no rush on this. We don't need instant decisions as much as we need a good decision-making process. -- Danny (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds good to me. Regarding the whole commenting thing --- I have a bevy of comments stashed on Firefox's auto fill-in and generally just use / edit them as needed. George B. (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I just started a discussion on Category talk:Themes, so we can figure out what the guidelines are for what's a worthwhile Theme category... -- Danny (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Something Very Strange Going On

Whenever I try to visit the page for Starlog, I get taken to the page for Rubber Duckie. Is anyone else having this problem? It doesn't say that I'm being redirected or anything, it just takes me there --- but http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Starlog still appears in the address bar. Whoa --- and now I just tried to visit the actual page for Rubber Duckie and got a ton of junk code. George B. (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Both pages are working fine for me..still having the problem? --Cantus Rock 02:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. And I tried reloading, but it didn't help. Hang on --- I'm going to try loading them in IE and see if I get the same error. I'm using Firefox 2.0 right now. ... ... That's interesting. They both work just fine for me in IE, both logged in and logged out. Cantus, are you using IE or Firefox? I would hate to think that this is a problem with my Firefox cache, as I don't like to have to clear it. Edit... and now I'm able to load both pages again just fine in Firefox. Must have been a very weird, very temporary error. P.S. --- if I ever see it again, I will try to copy some of that junk code into here so you guys can have a look over it. George B. (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, my next question would've been about that code. I get weird loading errors on pages sometimes, but they usually clear up pretty quickly...must be gremlins or something. :) And just for future reference if needed I'm using Firefox 2.0 also. --Cantus Rock 03:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Next time it happens, email me the error codes and I can dig deeper. — Scott (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You got it. I'll hope it doesn't happen to me again, but if it does (which it probably will sooner or later, given that its happened to you guys before), I will send that e-mail. George B. (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Category creation/alteration: New guideline?

There have been a few instances lately where contributors have created or significantly altered categories without anybody else knowing about it. The Learning Concepts category is one example, where new categories are being created almost on a daily basis without anybody else's input. All of a sudden, we have a Chores category, and a Feelings category, and I'm not sure anybody necessarily wanted one.

There was also a huge change made in the Muppet Movies category this weekend, which was based on one contributor's individual decision, and has far-reaching ramifications on the wiki structure.

Now that the wiki is a year old and 12,000 articles wide, I think we're reaching a stage where we can't keep creating and changing categories like this. We need to be more careful, and more thoughtful. Category changes are too big to be done quickly or whimsically.

I propose that we make a new guideline: Anybody who wants to create or significantly change a category needs to post about it in Current events first, and there needs to be a discussion about the merits of that change. The entire group gets to participate in that discussion, and we need to come to some kind of consensus before the change is made. That will slow down the process, but I think in this case that's a good thing.

What do folks think about that?-- Danny (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Its not necessarily about anyone wanting the categories, but more about the logical use of such classifications. I don't recall an instance in which I've thought "I wish there was a way to more easily access all sketches pertaining to chores!" :)
I definitely support more Current Events discussion, even in other aspects of the wiki: sometime people change things with one intention that goes unrecognized by others and is reverted or further edited shortly thereafter. Open discussion in such situations could avoid inadvertant toe-crushing :) --Cantus Rock 04:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree on this policy. Last night, and just now checking the edit history, it's confusing. And sudden unannounced changes have happened in the past as well. I only recently discovered that Brad decided to turn Category:Creature Shop Characters into a redirect to Creatures and take out the subcategorized stuff, which isn't necessarily a big deal except it came as a surprise to me, it's something I would have liked to have had a say in, and things like that throw editors off guard. I was going to suggest an exception to the rule be categories about characters from a specific production, but scratch that. Since even bringing up those, while usually clear cut, might help deal with some of the tinyt categories. I know myself I've not yet had the time to flesh out MirrorMask Characters, with two entries, and even moreso things like Merlin Characters and Cats & Dogs Characters, with only one entry a piece. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I think Matt's point is well taken, too. We use edit summaries and discussion pages a lot, but Matt's comment is a good reminder that we need to use them as much as we can. Edit summaries help to signal your intent in making a change. If you're not sure why a regular contributor made a change, and there's nothing in the edit summary, then it's a good idea to post a question rather than simply revert. It helps to keep good communication going, and avoid toe-stepping. Sometimes we get lazy and rushed. It's better to post a question and wait a day; the change can usually wait. -- Danny (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Would we like to start some polls? I think I have a good feel for some of the particular categories that are causing concern. I could set some polling and we could all do voting on whether or not to keep those, as well as listing arguments for and against their inclusion. George B. (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
In general, discussions are better than polls. We try to work by consensus rather than majority rules. We can figure out the reasons for and against as we talk about them. I expect that after we talk about each case, we won't need to have a poll; the decision will come out of the discussion. -- Danny (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, shall we continue that discussion here then, or do we want to move it to the talk page for that section or pages for specific categories? George B. (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Problematic Case-Sensitive Search

I have noticed something about the search on the Wiki. It's case-sensitive by default and if your case is off, not only will it not take you directly to the article / category you wanted, it won't even show it in the search results sometimes. George B. (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole search feature is broken at the moment. Scott and I have been talking to the folks at Wikia about it a lot. They promise that a whole brand-new search feature will be launching in the next week or two. It can't get here soon enough for me; it really sucks that it's been broken for so long. -- Danny (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, guess we'll just hang tight then. It's not so bad as long as you know what you want out of it and it helps if you already have it in your browser's auto fill-in. George B. (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Vintage Sesame Street T-shirts

Around early September or October, we got a handful of vintage T-shirts. 2 of these were Sesame Street-related. One of these is a Spanish Cookie Monster shirt, the other an English Oscar shirt. I'm thinking of scanning these and putting them up with articles on the wiki. Does anybody think this is a good idea? --Alex (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

See Sesame Street T-shirts -- Brad D. (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link.--Alex (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Muppet Wiki --- Soon to be in a Major Magazine?

It could happen. I've recently started work on the entry for Starlog and Merrystar has also helped out some. Starlog has a section called Fanlog in each magazine that lists fan sites from around the web. They allow you to e-mail in submissions. I'm going to mail in Muppet Wiki. If anyone else wants to also, the address is allan.dart@starloggroup.com George B. (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Some here have probably worked out why I use the username I do --- if not --- if you've seen this film, you should be able to figure it out fairly quickly. Anyway, I did some work on the entries for this film and its characters, etc., a while back, but it's deserving of so much more. I'm going to try to spend some time and really get in some good info for this in the next week or so. It deserves it. George B. (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I can't wait to see what you do! I saw HHG when it came out, and I just rented it again a month ago -- it's one of my favorite books, and the movie is a fantastic version. It'll be great to see the Hitchhiker's pages grow. -- Danny (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Would it be all right if I added an entry for the soundtrack album and its songs? I own the album, so I can post all the details. George B. (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
That raises an issue in general, actually. To what extent should merchandise for productions which involved Jim Henson's Creature Shop to some extent, but not as the primary force, and not distributed by Henson Pictures, or otherwise involving considerable Henson involvement outside of subcontracting a few characters or effects, be tracked here? -- Andrew Leal (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, I don't know. I was hoping the fact that the soundtrack mostly contains music that is actually used in the film would be an argument in favor of its inclusion. George B. (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
And that's why I ask the question. Because if we do, then the soundtracks to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze, Babe, or The Producers should get the same treatment. I'm not arguing against it so much as trying to open discussion to how this would effect merchandise as a whole, since it's very much a grey area. The fact that the soundtrack contains music used in a film doesn't strengthen a connection already limited to animatronics in certain scenes. Plus, we'd need a seperate category for it anyway (either for Creature Shop Soundtracks, or for Hitchhiker's Guide merchandise if a decision is made to include the stuff en masse). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we could create a Creature Shop Merchandise category, and keep stuff like soundtracks in there. I wouldn't want to create separate pages for all the songs or anything, but I think it's relevant to have things like soundtracks and storybooks, especially if they include photos of the Creature Shop critters. -- Danny (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that sounds good to me. And then if there's anything particularly important about a particular track on the album, it could be mentioned on the albums' page, right? Such as the fact that "Journey of the Sorcerer" --- the "Hitchhiker's" theme was also heard in the radio and TV versions. Anyway, I'll create the page later, if someone else doesn't. George B. (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Something like Journey of the Sorceror should be a trivia note, yeah, either on the album page or directly on the movie page (which could use some expansion in that regard, in fact; outside of the film, there's a lot of connections between Muppet/Creature Shop productions and the radio incarnations). And I went ahead and created Category:Creature Shop Merchandise for the miscellaneous stuff. If at some point we get enough of a particular type or for a particular project, we can subdivide. Though it could take some time. We still don't have coverage of a lot of Creature Shop stuff which is fully Henson, like Farscape. At some point, any and all toy Rygels will no doubt demand attention. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've been thinking about this and something has been troubling me. We have the page for Hitchhiker's. We have the pages for the characters, for vehicles in the film, etc. And for other things where we have such guides, we have individual pages for the music, like Bear in the Big Blue House. So isn't kinda like we're saying --- "okay, the characters are good enough for individual pages, the vehicles, yeah okay, but the music... nah. We can just dump that on one page." Maybe it's just the fact that I kinda wanted to create those pages interfering, but that's the way I'm thinking right now. George B. (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, for one, Journey of the Sorceror wasn't composed for the film. And frankly we're stretching it for people and vehicles on the basis that they generally *interact* with the Creature elements like Vogons etc. While I love the "So Long and Thanks for All the Fish" song, I don't see a need for it to have its own page (if it were to be made an exception, I wouldn't be upset either, but). Bear in the Big Blue House is Muppet through and through. It has Muppet characters, it was produced by Jim Henson television, etc., every aspect of it is and always will be Muppet relevant. Hitchhikers outsourced the Vogons, whale, and a few other things to the Creature Shop (the animation on the Guide itself was sent to another house), but Henson had no creative participation in any other aspects of the film, especially soundtrack. If we were going to be ultra strict about it, we wouldn't even have Arthur Dent. A good parallel might be some of the limits we've placed on non-Muppet/street material on Sesame Street. All of that was commissioned for the series and thus relevant in a way, but individual pages are limited to songs (commissioned explicitly for the series and often by the same folks who composed for the Muppets) or recurring characters/celebrities. But we decided not to create pages for every Y is for Yak short and so on; they could be covered in the episode guides in general, but didn't need their own entries. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, a few things. Yes, Journey of the Sorcerer was not created for the film, but the version featured was made specifically for it. But even supposing I except the argument against that, putting it aside --- I agree "So Long and Thanks for All the Fish" not only was created for the film, but is highly relevant to the plot. And the film's opening intro is included on the soundtrack as well and most of the music on it, with the exception of the classic tracks (i.e. "Magic Moments") and the not-featured-in-film bonus songs ("Vote Beeblebrox," "Reasons to Be Miserable (His Name is Marvin)" were in the film. And about Arthur Dent --- yeah, if we're being ultra-strict, he shouldn't be there. Same thing would tend to go for Ford Prefect, Tricia "Trillian" MacMillan, etc. But how do we determine that? And where are these guidelines being recorded? When I create the page for the soundtrack (which I will be soon), what's to keep someone casually browsing from creating entries for the songs that doesn't know all these rules? Are we going to have a template or something saying, "This page is for informational purposes," etc., "please do not create track listings for individual songs." For that matter, what's to keep new who doesn't know all these rules from seeing the page for Between the Lions or something like that and saying "oh, that's cool. I'll create a page for The Tweenies" or "I'll create a page for Barney" (I don't know --- that has puppets in it, doesn't it?) For that matter, I've been wondering if maybe the name of Muppet Wiki doesn't really full describe the contents of the Wiki. But I can't think of any alternative that wouldn't end up souinding cumbersome and boring, so I haven't mentioned it until now. George B. (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
That's what categories are for, George. And why we removed the problematic Non-Henson category. Between the Lions is clearly and explicitly included because of the cross-over. If someone wanted to add Barney, they'd have to justify it (which they could actually, based on spoofs like Georgie and Blarney). And if someone wanted to create songs for any random movie, they'd have to have a place to put them. If they don't, it's an immediate flag to us, and we discuss where they would go, if it's relevant, etc., and the random person gets a lesson in how the Muppet Wiki operates, regardless of what's decided. Maybe this would help, George. Clearly you love this movie, and I don't fault you for that, but would you extend the same logic to similar films? I.e. a page for "The Flintstones Theme," based on its use in The Flintstones and The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas? Because Hitchhiker's can't be a special case. If its songs get their own space and category, then the same courtesy needs to be applied to all Creature Shop productions not wholly produced by Henson (the latter justifies Labyrinth and The Dark Crystal which, may I note, don't have pages for most of their songs yet). Muppet Wiki could alternatively be called "Henson" Wiki, and that's the limit placed on everything. The extent to which it directly correlates to Jim Henson, the Muppets, and related items, and that's been used to solve countless disputes or questions in the past. It's a continually expanding and growing definition, which is why these discussions are valuable. I don't think we need a template, whatever is decided, though if a clear distinction is arrived upon about how to handle the Creature Shop stuff which is just outsourcing, that could be added to any FAQ. Again, George, I'm not arguing against you, I'm just pointing out the fact that it's not so simple as assuming that everything connected to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy film or any other project of this sort must be Muppet Wiki relevant. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, a couple of things. The first thing --- if somebody wants to add something to the Wiki, they don't have to justify it. And I think that's my point. Somebody who doesn't quite understand who it works could come up with a detailed page and just add it, because it's a Wiki. And then it's removed and then they lost it because they didn't know. And the second point, I don't think is a fair argument. The theme for The Flintstones cannot be compared to something like "So Long and Thanks for All the Fish," or the opening intro or even "Magic Moments," which is featured in a scene in the film. I don't know --- it seems to me like we're cherry-picking --- you know --- well, "let's include this and this element of the film even though it's not reall Muppet stuff (i.e. Dent, Prefect,etc.) but let's leave this out. George B. (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm behind on papers, and trying not to come across as at all "heated" in this, since like I said, I love discussions on what defines the Wiki. But I disagree that someone shouldn't have to justify what they add, and we're dealing in hypotheticals anyway, since when that happens, it's actually generally nonsense pages like "Columbia Torch Lady" for things which don't even exist as opposed to a genuinely confused soul. If/when that happens, we can communicate and work it out; that's a whole 'nother issue, really, and having been an admin for more than 10 months, I feel I can safely say those situations crop up more often as hypotheticals than in actual editing (every time it has, like Law & Order, and discussion has ensued, a consensus has been found and "justficiation" included; and if we don't at least try to link things back to Henson and Muppets, we might as well be Wikipedia). And I think the second point is very much a fair argument. The Flinsttones uses the theme song for it's opening sequence, replicating the cartoon scene with Creature Shop dinos. We're not "cherry picking" so much as deciding based on interaction. George, you might want to look at Category talk:Sesame Street Animated Segments to see similar discussions. It seems to me while a compromise can and will be reached, we also can't just say that it's "cherry picking" not to include everything unless you are in fact willing to then include everything, the songs from Babe or the "Guten Tag Hop Clop" from The Producers (the scene did involve the animatronic pigeons, after all). Frankly, the vehicles struck me as a bit iffy at the time but they were in a context, Marvin the Paranoid Android and other Creature elements moved around in them, so hey. Arthur Dent is comporable to Bob. Some friends wonder why we include Bob or Gordon on a "Muppet Wiki," but their inclusion can be justified like Arthur's can. The songs is a whole barrel of fish. I feel like I need to say agin, I'm not trying to argue that it's wrong to include the songs so much as I'm trying to explain the ramifications beyond that one entry. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we could use a policy page: What Muppet Wiki Is and Is Not. — Scott (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think George is right that we're drawing a line in a particular place -- saying that characters are okay but songs aren't -- and the reason for that isn't immediately obvious. It's a judgement call, really, and one that's up for discussion. I don't think that Andrew and I can just flat out say "This is the way we do things on Muppet Wiki" and have everybody naturally fall in line behind that. It's incumbent on everyone here to discuss the decisions and come to a general agreement. People do have to "justify" the creation of new pages, just as people have to "justify" deleting pages, changing categories, or editing sentences. Most of the time, that justification is fairly obvious, and everybody accepts the change -- that's how we can go from minute to minute on the wiki without discussing every single contribution. But when the justification isn't obvious, then it's up for discussion.
So to get to this particular question: The core of the wiki is the Muppet characters, and everything else is here because of its relationship to those characters. The relationship is a little more tenuous when we're talking about movies that basically used the Creature Shop as an outsourced effects house. So we make judgement calls about what elements of those movies are interesting to our contributors and readers.
I think at the moment we say yes to characters and no to songs because characters are more interesting. You can write a whole article about Arthur Dent, but you'd be hard pressed to come up with much to say about "Viltvodle Street Music" or some of the other random tracks on the HHG soundtrack. If creating a page for every song means a couple dozen two-line articles with no pictures, no commentary and no real room for expansion, then no, I'd rather not have those articles. I think pretty much everything that there is to say about those songs could be said on a nice, detailed article about the soundtrack. All the information that George would want to include about "Journey of the Sorceror" etc could be on that soundtrack page, and it would be an interesting and worthwhile page.
Still, that's an opinion, and it's open for discussion. -- Danny (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
In any case --- maybe we might want to continue this discussion on a different page? It's getting a bit... unwieldly here. Oh, and about the justification thing, I'll defer to your judgment on that. It's just that it seems totally possible to me that somebody who doesn't know how things work could run a search for one of these programs that isn't Muppet but is strongly related and doesn't have an entry or a redirect. Since there's nothing on the page that they go to edit that tells them otherwise, they would create the article, which would then have to be deleted, or most of its content removed / moved. In any case, I would tend to agree that it's probably best we get this worked out sooner than later. I don't want to contribute stuff for the Hitchhiker's section that's just going to end up being removed later. George B. (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this should move to User talk:Agent0042... If anybody has more comments, let's bring the discussion over there. -- Danny (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Recaps

One of the things the site TV.com lets you do is recaps --- a detailed description of what happened in an episode. And since I was already doing a review for a "A Wagon of a Different Color" anyway, it wasn't too hard to convert it into a recap. So I've posted it here as well, and started a new category Category:Bear in the Big Blue House Recaps and a Recaps category to house that. Hope that's okay, and feel free to look over / edit my recap for phrasing / format or anything like that. George B. (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to combine that with the regular episode page. I don't see the point of having two different pages on the same episode. We currently have overlapping categories for Sesame Street Episodes and the Sesame Street Episode Guide, with the full episode guide pages categorized in both. I think you could do the same thing with Bear episodes... -- Danny (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure? The recap is rather large. Wouldn't it be jarring for somebody browsing through the guide to be going through the normal-style summaries and then come to something that's, like, huge? Oh, wait a second. I think I get what you're saying. You just meant that you have separate pages, but no separate category, right? Is that what you're getting at? And if so, could I have an example? George B. (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it would be jarring if it were right at the top -- it would obscure things like the plot summary and the song list. But I think it could be at the bottom, under all the other stuff, and it would work fine. I just moved the Episode 111 recap to the bottom of the episode page, and I think it looks good.
While I was doing that, I looked more closely at the actual recap, and I'm not sure about the quotes. It's not clear why you picked those particular lines to set apart from the rest of the text; many of them seem like ordinary lines. For example:
Bear: Ah, the attic. Hey, looks like Ojo, Pip and Pop cleaned up. How nice. Well, let's go find Luna. Come on.
Bear: That sounds like Tutter.
Those lines aren't particularly funny or interesting; they're just ordinary. You already include quotes within the text -- could you tighten up the whole thing by putting the "pull-out quotes" back into the text? I think it would read better. Also, then you could have just one space between each paragraph, bringing it into line with the wiki format. What do you think? -- Danny (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay --- the particular quotes that you mentioned --- "That sounds like Tutter." --- yeah, I suppose that one isn't particularly interesting. The one about the attic --- normally, yeah, that happens in every episode and wouldn't be interesting. But I was trying to highlight the fact that the kids had cleaned up the attic and Bear complimented them on it. In any case, as soon as I have a chance, I will implement the formatting changes you suggested, at least for the more minor quotes. There were a couple that I think were a bit more extensive that I kinda wanted to leave in. Particularly the one with Bear and Ojo where Ojo keeps going and going and Bear's all ready to go the market. George B. (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I just don't think it fits the format to have quotes like that. We try not to include pull-out quotes, because this is the kind of thing that happens -- people disagree about which quotes are interesting and which aren't. I just played with the page a little to show you what I mean. -- Danny (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that's what we'll go with, then. Works for me. I am going to try to reintegrate some of the quoted items into the recap itself though. George B. (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, that looks great! -- Danny (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think these "recap", or extended and details episode summary, should go at the top where the episode summary or synopsis goes – not awkwardly put at the bottom below everything. Right now it may seem odd as it is significantly longer than the other single-paragraph summaries we have, but sticking it at the bottom, under trivia and other footnote-ish things seems odd. I think, for the most part, many of our summaries and synopsis are lacking and need help. I mean Muppet Treasure Island's summary basically sets up the character roles and premise set-up the first half of act 1. The Muppet Movie synopsis goes into little specific details of events, characters and parts of the film. Having a longer summary I think is fine and I think this is a good move towards beefing up our episode guides to more than just lists and a bland over-view you might read in TV-guide or on the back of a video box. However these are a bit overly informative; paraphrasing almost every line of dialog and every scene and interaction seems like over-kill and anal-retentive. Some trimming and working of it into a good strong and meaty 4-7 paragraph episode summary would be great. Also having some pictures on the page would help balance out the page. I don't see the need for a category to group the strong episode summaries from weaker ones (maybe a list to help editors track which episodes need work). -- Brad D. (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with your concept in general, I still think it would be very odd to come across something at that length for somebody that's just browsing through the episode guide. But if it were trimmed to four to seven paragraphs like you said, that might work out. Of course, a lot of this depends on how much time people are wiling to spend on more extensive summaries like this. Considering that there are still so many things that don't even have summaries or other basic info, detailed recaps/summaries are something of a premium. George B. (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah it would be "odd" to have one really good episode article while the other 116 "Bear" episodes are still sub-par, but I think we should mold and keep the good ones to an ideal model and level of quality. We shouldn't hold back an articles potential just because its "brothers and sisters" won't immediately be complimentary. Other articles will follow the example and grow. Hindering good information from being organized into a logical form just to keep uniform with a neglectful area seems odd. One day having a big "meaty" episode page for every "Bear" episode would be great (same thing with having the detailed episode guides for more Sesame Street episodes), but not bulking up a page to an ideal format because not all of the episode pages will be immediately bulked up to match seems odd to me. We have a nice skeleton for each Bear episode, so I say let them grow now. Some may take longer to get fleshed out to the ideal size, but it will happen. -- Brad D. (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Basically, everything you see in the skeletons is what I post at TV.com. TV.com allows you to post both a basic synopsis, which shows up on the main episode page and a recap that is accessible only by clicking on a link. Eventually, I may consider creating more of those detailed recaps. But I still haven't seen oh --- maybe a quarter of the episodes and there are still tons of book, song, merchandise and who knows what other info I want to add first. George B. (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I did some reworking of it - trying to mirror somewhat of what Wikipedia does for their longer episode pages, mixed with the things of our own episode guide system and sections. Basically there is a brief leader text and summary, the table of contents, the detailed synopsis, songs list, video releases, and notes. It could your 1 or 2 screen shots to illustrate some of the key scenes and balance out the synopsis (but not that important). I'm still not sure if a category is necessary to pull these out (especially with only 1 episode currently and the hopes to one day to include all the episodes). But I don't feel that strong about it so I'll support whatever others want to do to highlight (or not highlight) episodes with longer synopsis. -- Brad D. (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I like the new version. I agree that we should create the best possible article; the rest of the articles will be at that level sooner or later. The revised synopsis is a more readable length now. The one thing I just changed is taking out the "This is the eleventh aired episode of BBH"... I think that info is already in the article title and the episode box, and it feels intrusive having it there above the leader paragraph.
In general, I like what's going on with this page; it's a nice example of wiki contributors working together to come up with the best article we can make. Bear would be proud. -- Danny (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fan-created names/ titles

Lately it seems like a lot of articles that had titles that were made-up by fans and eventually led fans to believe they were official have been changed to either more correct titles or titles that seem more correct. I wonder if it would be good to make a page, either as a list or a rumors page (if there's enough evidence that these are rumors and not facts) for the wiki. There are three webpages (or sections of webpages) that seemed to created made-up names that caught on with fans:

  1. The Muppet Show episode pages at Muppet Central: The sections on who each performer performed in the epsiodes often made up names for disambiguation purposes or to specify a specific character in a group of characters who were pretty much generic. Most chickens, pigs, "At the Dance" dancers, and other such characters were just listed by their character types (chicken, pig, dancer), while other aparantly nameless characters had special fan-created names to disambiguate them to distinguish who was performed by who (such as Birds from The Muppet Show: Sex and Violence being given names based on their catch phrases, or the dancer who shouted being called Shouting Lady), or even given other made-up disambiguation names (like the older Mary Louise being called Big Mary Louise for the purpose of the guide to disambiguate her from the other Mary Louise, who wasn't given any disambiguation names for the guide). Even with such made-up names, there are tiems where characters with names that were oficially mentioned at Henson.com (like Svengali, Green Heap, and Purple Heap) were not mentioned by name, as if the person in charge was not aware that these official names have been confirmed to the public at some point.
  2. The Muppet Show character guide at Kermitage: The person who compiled this list has admitted at Muppet Wiki that he later realised many of the mistakes he made after it was posted at the website. This page has quite a few wrong names, or made-up names for the purposes of including as many characters as possible in the guide (like referring to Scoff as "Blue Scoff" while the green look-alike was listed as "Green Scoff", or listing Trumpet Girl as "Trumpet Lady").
  3. Sesame Street Lyrics Archive: This is different from character lists. This page not only listed songs, but also sketches, and where titles are not known, titles were made-up. It was this page that referred to the Number Song Series as "The Baker", the Jazz cartoons as "The Jazzy Spies", and where Typewriter Guy was given the name that fans have referred to him as (though there isn't any known evidence if that guesswork is correct). Titles for songs have also been made-up, referring to "Do Op Hop" as "Hop", "Sound it Out" as "Farley Learns to Read" (I would have expected that song to incorrectly be listed as "That's What Reading's All About", and since that page listed track listings for Getting Ready to Read, which referred to it by it's official title, this mistake shouldn't have been made).

What does everyone think about starting such a page? --Minor muppetz 04:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we really need something like that, but why don't you start writing it as a Sandbox article and the community can decide whether or not it's useful on the wiki. — Scott (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll just have to think of a good title for such a sSandbox page. Does anybody have any suggestions? --Minor muppetz 14:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I kinda dig it; a list like that could be useful to people searching for a specific character they remember and run into a number of names. Untangling issues of confusion for fans is good. :)
If you're going to pull strictly from the major online Muppet resources, you could call it something like "Fan-made Character Names/Titles" or something like that. Might fit in Category:Muppet Fandom, actually.. --Cantus Rock 15:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's just it -- the wiki already takes care of that function. If you're looking for The Baker Films, it automatically redirects you to the correct article. I don't really see why we need to make a list of all those incorrect names. — Scott (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Muppetry

I know the term "puppetry" is commonly used in relation to puppets. But is "Muppetry" an acceptable phrase generally? I was wondering because I wanted to use it somewhere, but I didn't recall seeing it before and when I ran a search on it here at the Wiki, I only got two articles that contain it. George B. (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not really a word that's used. Can you give an example of how you would want to use it? Maybe we could give you another phrase to use. -- Danny (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was using it on another board in reference to describing the type of show that Bear in the Big Blue House is. "Show Type: Puppetry (or rather, Muppetry)" George B. (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
How about "Show Type: Puppetry (Muppets)"? -- Danny (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that works. I like that. That's what I'll use next time. George B. (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Earliest Known Appearance and First Appearance

I created some new templates -- we now have "First Appearance" along with "Earliest Known Appearance" for episode pages, and articles about inserts. I added some information to Muppet Wiki:Earliest Known Appearance that explains how to use First Appearance. That should be used very cautiously, and only when we're absolutely certain that we know the first appearance of an insert.

Check out Jazz Numbers to see both EKA and First in action. Does the distinction between those make sense? Does anybody have a comment or a question about it? -- Danny (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Impostors

Check this out (click the mp3 link under "Sound Clip"). 1992 was an interesting year in music.

I know there is the Category:Knockoff Merchandise, but that doesn't really work...and then I remembered this bootleg also. Should unlicensed merchandise be included eventually in its own category? I think if its clearly labeled as such, it could have great entertainment potential -- I defy you not to laugh at Bert's feathered hair and eyelash combination on that Sesamstrasse LP!

I'm going to see if this seller will let it go for a little cheaper than its current list once the auction has elapsed (assuming the breakbeat DJs don't snatch it before then) --Cantus Rock 09:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Earliest Known Appearance" box

I created another template, this time for articles about a single Sesame Street song or sketch. You use this box to record the Earliest Known Appearance of that insert. To add the box, just add {{ekabox|0003}} to the page, with the number being the episode number that you want to link to. The box should go under the song box and the picture, if there is one. You can see the box in action on Five People in My Family and Circles.

I'm just trying this out, so if anybody can improve it, please go ahead! -- Danny (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What should we do for single songs that were remade for multiple skits on Sesame Street? Should we find away to distinguish the earliest-known appearances of each individual version, and put a note that says which version it is, or are we just listing the earliest known appearance of a song period? --Minor muppetz 21:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
That's a good question. My first thought is that the EKA box would have the first appearance of the song at all, and then the EKA for the other versions would appear in the article text, like in the Stop! article. But that's open for other thoughts. -- Danny (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Grover Pages

There have been questions posed at Talk:Waiter Grover and Talk:Grover the Assistant about those titles, asking why it's "Waiter Grover" and not "Grover the Waiter". That's a good point, so I'm looking for some sources.

Are there any other sources? -- Danny (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that Marshal Grover was a name used on-screen, as an alternate identity simialr to Super Grover. Grover Knover would be an alternate stage name (perhaps similar to Grover Kent). I don't know if Farmer Grover would be an official title as opposed to using it to describe a character and it's job. --Minor muppetz 05:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Reused Puppets

I noticed now at least two characters on Bear in the Big Blue House whose puppets are used in other productions --- Jeremiah Tortoise and Big Old Bullfrog. Is there a list or anything like that where we're keeping track of that type of thing? George B. (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There's Same Puppet, Different Character, but only if the puppet was recycled as a specific named character. If it just became a utility puppet, that applies to too many to list, so we generally haven't tried to track that. So Big Old Bullfrog should be added to the list, but not Jeremiah for playing "Turtle #2" in Kermit's Swamp Years. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

filmographies

Just thought I'd mention here that I installed a new feature which allows you to show or hide the lengthy filmography lists on character pages. To see what I mean, take a look at Link Hogthrob's filmography section. You can either click on the number that appears in parentheses after a show to expand the list, or click show all and they will all expand. — Scott (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I just went through and added the code to a bunch of pages (simply by searching for filmography... there may be lots more I missed), but I should mention that if/when others use it to update existing lists, and in creating new ones, don't forget the closing DIV tag. So, the list starts with <div class="appear">, and ends with </div>... with asterisks in between to create the bulleted lists, two asterisks per line for those which will be indented/hidden. — Scott (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, also: it appears to not bother hiding indented lists of fewer than five, so don't be alarmed if it appears to not be working on those shorter ones. — Scott (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I like it, though it's not immediately obvious how to expand/collapse a sublist. Powers 15:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki