Muppet Wiki

Muppet Wiki:Current Events Archive 20 (May-June 2007)

Talk0
27,354pages on
this wiki

Archive of Muppet Wiki:Current Events.

Quoting and bolding song titles

Sorry to bring this up again, but I'm kind of stuck. Back in April, Danny told me that when you're bolding a song title, the quotes go inside the bold marks, so it would look like this: "Rubber Duckie". Yesterday, Scott told me that they don't, so it would look like this: "Rubber Duckie". I just wanted to make sure that we all did it the same way, because I'm checking song titles as I'm getting to them, and I'm seeing it both ways, and sometimes not at all. It would also be nice if we put this in the style guide, so if any new people do this, they'll do it the same way. So I'm going to hold off on that for a while, until everybody sees this. Thanks! -- Ken (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this up Ken! The quotes are not part of the song title, so they are not bolded. That's how Peter, Wendy, Andrew and I have been doing it. —Scott (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll agree with that. I'm sorry that I steered you wrong, Ken. -- Danny (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
That's okay; I only did a few until I noticed that Scott was undoing them. I'm turning my attention to song titles and composer credits for a while, unless something comes up, like the 45's and 8-tracks that Wendy's been finding! Thanks! -- Ken (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


Blümchen on Sesamstrasse?

This was mentioned on Muppet Central forums, but supposedly Blümchen was on Sesamstrasse. Was she? Here's a list that has it mentioned. It's supposed "a technofied version of Sesamstrasse's theme song "Der, Die, Das"." -- Zanimum 18:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was ever on Sesamstrasse; it was just Jasmin Wagner's music video: Sesam Jam (Der, Die, Das). —Scott (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Correction: apparently the video was used as the finale of an anniversary special: Am Anfang War Das A: 25 Jahre Sesamstrasse. —Scott (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Calling all cassette holders

I've kind of hit a plateau with the Sesame record stuff. Now I'm looking at cassettes that were put out by CTW, as well as the ones by Golden and Sight & Sound. I don't have a lot of information on them, and it's tough to find info about them on the web. So if anybody has Sesame cassettes, please let me know, and I'll collect whatever information you have.

I hope it's okay to put this here. If not, go ahead and put it where it should be. But I just wanted everybody to see this, even if you don't normally go into the music sections. Thanks! -- Ken (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What sort of information? If you're looking for general release information, the Toronto Public Library still has multiple cassettes. If you limit the search to cassettes, they have 62 titles left in the system, ranging from The Sesame Street Alphabet Album (1971) to Elmo Saves Christmas (1998). Come to think of it, we don't have a SSAA in the database. -- Zanimum 15:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that's one of the reissue titles for The Muppet Alphabet Album, and all the reissued versions that we know of so far are mentioned there. By the way, Nick, it's nice to meet you! I don't think I've talked to you before! Thanks a lot for the library link! Do you live in Canada? I've already found some numbers that I might need, and I might try other library systems just to see what's out there. Thanks again! -- Ken (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
[Creating a redirect for the alternate title...] I've actually been here from pretty much the start, it's just that I pop in and out. Yes, I'm from the Toronto area, and my Toronto library card's come in handy, letting me discover Sesame English. -- Zanimum 18:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Disambig

Henrik created this as a disambig page, and I think that's useful, but it also creates a link problem, since this other Ray is a one-shot, and so every link to "Ray" on the Wiki is to the sun. We've been using both methods for disambigs, i.e. the character name or "Name (disambig)," but in this case, or others where a name is associated with a recurring character versus a one-shot, I'd like to suggest that "Name (disambiguation)" is preferable, since the recurring character is the one most users would be looking for or linking to (if there's more than two with the same name, as with Vicki, then that works better). I'd like to just move this to "Ray (disambiguation)" and restore the Sun, rather than try to fix all the individual links (plus "Ray (Big Blue House)" isn't quite how we've been doing disambig titles anyway). Thoughts? -- Andrew Leal (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good thought. We should have a Current events conversation about how to handle disambigs in these kinds of cases. -- Danny (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Discussion is definitely a good idea ,as we now use disambig pages more heavily than we did at first. Also, I just realized that the way Henrik did it also effectively loses the history of the original Ray page. So yeah, I'm definitely going to undo. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
We've had this discussion before about Dorothy (although it must not have been on that talk page), where we decided that prominent characters got the page proper while one shots got disambiguated. That's what led to the creation of Template:otheruses. —Scott (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
What about Sam, say? While Sam (Sam and Friends) works, he's both the earliest Sam, a major character (even if most of his appearances are now lost) and one of only two for whom that's his whole name. I know Sam the Eagle is often referred to as just Sam, but in being consistent with Dorothy, it seems to make sense to move to "Sam (disambiguation)." It would feel like disambiguating Earl as "Earl (Puppetman)" because of Earl Sinclair (instead, right now we have Earl (disambiguation). Same deal with The Announcer, which I noticed several pages still link to, meaning the Muppet Show Announcer, not the bird announcer who was in a handful of Muppets Tonight episodes or a cow. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I'd go with that. —Scott (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. I feel bad for Sam the Eagle, but oh well. -- Danny (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused. Is there really a need for changing that around on Sam, though? Right now, nothing of note is linking to the disambiguation page, and it's just as likely (if not moreso) that someone would link to Sam thinking it was going to Sam the Eagle as opposed to Sam (Sam and Friends). It's different on Earl, where I would say that most people looking for Earl would be looking for Earl Sinclair instead of Earl from Puppetman, since the former was a series that lasted for several seasons and is now on DVD and the latter is, well, not. -- Peter (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
More people may look for Earl Sinclair, sure, but that's not sufficient reason to make Earl link only to him or to a disambig only. Most would remember his full name and if not, it can be found easily through a search. Same with Sam. We may link to Sam the Eagle more, but we generall do it as "Sam the Eagle." "Sam (Sam and Friends)" just seems a little silly, and if anyone's uncertain on the Sams or Earls, there's the disambiguation pages (which perhaps can be linked to somewhere more accessibly). Sam the Eagle's full name isn't Sam, and I personally think that's a pretty poor reason to make Sam the sole disambig rather than [{Sam (disambiguation)]]. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
For me, the question of disambiguation has two parts. The first revolves around the user experience. I imagine that if somebody is looking for something on the Wiki, they either type it into the URL or use the search box in the left nav. So if I search for Earl, thinking I'm going to get to the Dinosaurs character, it doesn't even give me a list of pages that have the word "Earl" in them - it just leads me to the page for the Puppetman character. It then takes two additional clicks to get where I'm going - one to get to the disambiguation page and another to get to the Earl Sinclair page. If Earl is a disambiguation page, however, it only takes one additional click to get where you're going. Sure, the people looking for the Puppetman character are now one click away instead of zero clicks, but I think that is a better sacrifice in terms of user experience. Also, sincec next to no one is going to randomly search for or type in Earl (disambiguation) - the parenthetical only serves to create more distance between the page you mistakenly land on and the page you are actually looking for.
The second issue is reducing misdirected links. No one is going to accidentally code Earl (disambiguation), but someone might accidentally code Earl when they mean Earl Sinclair. If a user clicks on that link before we've had a chance to correct it, it makes more sense to me to have that link go to a disambiguation page than to a completely irrelevant page. So, if I'm doing a Dinosaurs page and have a link for Earl that goes to the Puppetman character, I then have to click on the Disambiguation link and then the Earl Sinclair link (three clicks!), whereas if the same incorrect link on the Dinosaurs page goes directly to the Disambiguation page, I can link from there to Earl Sinclair (two clicks).
I feel that a one-link-away rule is best, with two-clicks-away-max for mistakenly coded links. In general, having pages titled ARTICLE NAME (disambiguation) really does nothing more than create more distance between what someone wants to find and what they are looking for. Even for a case like Dorothy, where the majority of the searches will be for the goldfish character, a quick glance at "What Links Here" shows several links that direct there that are meant for other Dorothies. By making Dorothy a disambiguation page, we're essentially eliminating incorrect links. And isn't that what disambiguation pages are for in the first place? -- Peter (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
First, you're confusing the "Go" and "Search" boxes (I've done that myself). The search box takes you to a bunch of Earls and article titles (like episodes) with Earl in them (unfortunately it doesn't work for Sam until we get that new search system back in, because of the three letter problem). If a link links to the wrong thing, just as when Michael types "Carlos" and means "Carlo," I'd rather correct them. We can't entirely predict what people will click, and until a decision was made to make Sam a disambig, after about six months of existence, it was the sole page for the character; if other characters have *identical* names, and are just as common, then [Name] is fine, but I don't think it should be the default for every dang time. Sam isn't that huge an issue on the whole, so I can let it go, but I entirely disagree with your premise. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, you're right about the Go button. I've been hitting enter on my keyboard, which defaults to Go instead of Search, which I think is weird, but that's an issue for another time. Back to Disambiguation, though - I'll concede that it might not be best for the name should to be the default for the disambiguation page every single time. However, if we decide against that, then we have to be subjective. And I don't think that there is a good case for making Sam from Sam and Friends the default Sam, when Sam the Eagle is the most prominent Muppet character with that first name. Yes, the Sam (from Sam and Friends) is the only character whose name is just Sam. But, by the same measure, I wouldn't recommend that Jack from "A, You're Adorable" be the default Jack, just because he's the only one just named Jack. I guess what it comes down to is that I personally don't think that putting parentheticals next to article names compromises their integrity. In my opinion, making the end user experience a little clearer is more important. -- Peter (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe Sam is a bad example. I think Ray is a stronger case. The most obvious case is Kermit, which thankfully does not lead to Kermit (disambiguation). I think Peter makes a good point about Sam, though. The Eagle is more prominent. -- Danny (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! I hadn't even thought of Kermit, but yeah - having Kermit as the disambiguation page instead of a redirect to Kermit the Frog would be terrible. So, I've been converted on why we need the ARTICLE NAME (disambiguation) format - do you guys think we should look at Category:Disambiguation and start discussing on that category talk page which pages we think should convert to that format? -- Peter (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I brought up Sam and the Announcer. I'm still not entirely convinced that the current state is all that helpful, but it's more of a personal annoyance with "Sam (Sam and Friends)," so I'm willing to let that go if consensus is against it (though honestly, if a disambig link is on the top, would an extra click really hurt anybody or cause emotional distress? And the Jack thing isn't a very good example since it was a one-shot and his name is a throwaway, unlike Sam). But I stick to my guns on the Announcer. Right now 8 articles, plus the prefixed list and this discussion, all direct to the disambig page but are talking about The Muppet Show announcer. Especially given the fact that the other two there are a one-shot cow and the bird who was seen in about five episodes of Muppets Tonight (though heard in a lot more), I think "The Announcer (disambig)" makes perfect sense and is a lot harder to argue with. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with combining both the Muppet Show and Muppets Tonight Announcers into one page, discussing both characters. -- Danny (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
That could work. They have the same performer and same voice tone, after all. The only difference is the physical puppet used for the rare on-camera appearance. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I could get behind either solution. -- Peter (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming Sesame Street Episode Airdates

I just thought I'd provide a periodic update for June and July:

Season 37

Season 36

Season 35

It looks like seasons 35 and 36 are being phased out from rotation in anticipation of season 38 as we speak. --Andrew T. 20:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Co-Production Box Template

What are people's thoughts on a information box for international co-productions. Something similar to the TV show box we have, but it would also highlight what country a show comes from and what it is an international variation of. I put one together template:coproduction, but it could still use some tweaking and input. I tried it out on Galli Galli Sim Sim and Die Fraggles to see how it works. Thoughts? Comments? Ideas? -- Brad D. (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I somehow missed this back in February. I think it looks great. Can anyone think of anything to add before we start using it everywhere? —Scott (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I confess, I've been a bit hesitant about this. It's nice, but for one thing, right now, most of the things in the box are unknown and may remain so for awhile, i.e. seasons, first/last episode, sometimes even network. And then there's several cases, like Barrio Sesamo or Rechov Sumsum, where the show underwnt different non-consecutive incarnations, or Sesame Park, where the article covers both the years when the show was called Sesame Park and the earlier, long and gradual transition from slightly edited US shows to adding Canadian Muppets, etc. All of which certainly belongs in the same article, but in a box, could misleadingly imply a direct continuity, or else be trickier to place(there would need to be a slot for alternate titles, really). And if it only applies to co-productions, do we leave it off of the dubbed Open Sesame shows? It's a nice template, and I don't mind it on the two articles it's already on. But for myself, I'm very leery about using this on a larger scale, at least not without seeing how to address these variables, or the fact that in many cases it may simply restate the show's title and country and nothing else. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I think even a more prominate restating of the title and country would be helpful. Often times I click on a foreign Sesame production just to see what country it's from and my eye has to search for a minute to find it. The box adds some familiarity and consistancy.
The variables you speak of can be made dynamic. For those shows we don't know how many season there are, that field can be left blank. I can also add a dynamic variable for alternate names. Before I dig in, can you think of anything else that might be useful to add? —Scott (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not sure how you'd address non-consecutive runs, like the above. Frankly, I don't like the idea, and think the box is clutter, but if it helps others, I guess we should go for it (and in all cases I know of, Scott, the country is, or should be, in the first sentence). The other thing is, as I mentioned, the co-production specific phrasing. Again, just leave it off on the dubs? -- Andrew Leal (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sesame animation pics

I just found a source for some really nice Sesame animation pictures that we can use. Check it out here. I hope folks can find a place for some of them! -- Danny (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of, were these from advertisements? -- Zanimum 15:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Image server update today

The tech folks at Wikia are working on upgrading the image server today and tomorrow, which may create minor inconveniences for us while the upgrade is happening. Here's an e-mail that was posted to the main Wikia mailing list:

Folks,
We're going to roll out some changes to our image server. We have a new web caching service that will speed up page load time and we'd like to deploy this ASAP.
The downside is that there will be a slight delay in updating images for the next day or two. You may see up to two hours in delay between when an existing image is changed and when you can view it.
We are hoping to have this reduced to a few minutes quickly. We hope you enjoy the results!
Matthew

So we may see some glitches for the next couple days. Just a heads-up for everyone. -- Danny (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent Problems

I have occassionally had some problems recently, and wonder if this has happened to other users. Sometimes, when I edit a page, every time I press "save" it just goes to "Preview", and happens no matter how many times I press "save". And sometimes (and this has happened less frequently), when I log on, after being on the page that says that I have logged in when I go to another page I am no longer logged in. Does anybody else have this problem, and now what the problem is? --Minor muppetz 14:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I have alot of those lately. From what I can tell from Wikia, then it's a problem on all sites and they are looking into it. Henrik 15:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales still loves us

Laurence from WikiFur sent me a link to another Jimmy Wales talk, this time from a recent keynote in Australia. Listen to part 3 -- around 2:12, he starts talking about Muppet Wiki, for about two and a half minutes. We're his favorites. -- Danny (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ta-da! We're awesome. Any way of telling when the seminar was given? That site is trying to hide it. —Scott (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. All I know is what the site says. One clue is that he says we have 14,000 articles, which just happened this month. -- Danny (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Us and Itzhak Perlman! Actually he says "close to 14,000" which would be mid-late april. -- Wendy (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course, he's wrong when he says the Wikipedia article on Perlman doesn't mention Sesame Street. =) Powers 16:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys. Jimmy Wales gives the Muppet Wiki even more love --LordTBT Talk! 08:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's awesome, thanks! Apparently, the Wired blog thinks that Muppet Wiki has 117,000 articles... I wonder where they got that? I know Jimmy didn't say that... He always gets it right. -- Danny (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

external link search

I wanted to point out that we've got a new feature in our Special Pages collection: Special:Linksearch. This will come in particularly handy in tracking YouTube links. This has been a concern of ours for a while now considering the fact that one can never determine the shelf-life of some YouTube videos. Often they're taken down for copyright infringement, or the user decided not to share them anymore. Which means we're often left with a lot of useless, dead links. To search the database for external links pointing to youtube, just enter *.youtube.com in the search field. I'm sure we'll find other uses for this feature as well. —Scott (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Visually...strange.

4128e

News flash! In Sesame Street episode 4128, Elmo eats the WVPBS logo!

I occasionally airbrush the logos out of screenshots if it's simple to do so, but I honestly rarely bother.--Andrew T. 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Labyrinth Event

Ludo jim di

Ludo, Jim and Diana

Do anyone know what this picture is from? It features Ludo, Jim Henson and Princess Diana. -- Brad D. (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the London premiere of Labyrinth? -- Ken (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Sometimes I feel like the only one using edit summaries. I realize it can get tedious when making a lot of similar changes, or when the reason for the change appears obvious, but they really do help other editors to understand things. Could I ask for a little more diligence when it comes to edit summaries? Powers 14:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we get lazy a lot and don't use summaries. I think it's especially important if you're reverting somebody else's changes. Making a revert without explaining why can easily be seen as insulting to the person who made the changes. -- Danny (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

14,000 articles!

As of tonight, we've hit 14,000 pages on Muppet Wiki. Congratulations -- and thank you -- to all of our fantastic contributors. We're so awesome. -- Danny (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yay! -- Ken (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Cool! And on a related note, we're only 77 characters away from having 2,000 Muppets! -- Brad D. (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
No way! I didn't realize that. That's insane. -- Danny (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Amazing stuff, great work! -- Sannse 07:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Muppet Wiki article on front page of Wikipedia

For interest's sake, I'll let everyone know I copied "Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce" to Wikipedia, with "This article is based on one from Muppet Wiki, another GFDL-based reference. Modifications have been made since." noted along the bottom. Someone noticed the article, and decided to highlight it in the "Did You Know That" section of the English Wikipedia's front page. It didn't help it make the top 1000 pages, but interesting nevertheless. -- Zanimum 13:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's great! Although it's sad for poor Snuffy and Alice, having their family drama aired in public like that. -- Danny (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
But if it was never broadcast, maybe it never really happened. -- Ken (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Muppetwiki google-ticker-ad Muppetwiki google-ticker-ad2

Muppetwiki google-sidebar-ad

In spite of our discussion on the pirates given screen time in our sidebar, Google ads hold other mysteries. This ticker ad appeared in my Gmail window today. There'd been some discussion about just such an ad previously on the Wikia mailing list, but what's so odd about it is that no one knows who submitted it. So far as we know, it wasn't anyone at Wikia, and none of us who administer the site. Just another little oddity that I was compelled to share here. —Scott (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah -- I guess we should say thank you to whoever is posting these ads. We appreciate it, whoever you are! -- Danny (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with Gmail. Are these ads that show up in people's e-mail inboxes? Or are they ads that appear on other websites? I was just wondering where else they're showing up. -- Ken (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Gmail has a newsreader ticker that can be enabled for topics you choose to show up above your inbox. Every ten of them or so are sponsored links just like when you do a Google search. —Scott (talk) 03:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
They've also been showing up as sidebar ads next to email discussions that match the relevant topic, such as this one. These are two distinct, separately placed ads... I wonder who put up the cash for them. —Scott (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki