TALK PAGES ARE NO LONGER USED
To discuss article changes, please use:
We're starting to delete pages for actors who appeared in the 1999 Alice in Wonderland movie -- Creature Shop only did digital effects. We have a section on this page with pics of all the characters of that movie. Should we delete it from the page, just keep the Creature Shop characters, or what? -- Danny (talk) 06:32, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
- I just took out most of that section. Since the combined page served to compare different portrayals, even the live actors surrounded by creatures, it mostly works... as long as there's an actual point of comparison (i.e. the assorted Alices and Hatters, Muppet Duchess vs. the actress, etc.) That random section at the end didn't do that, so I removed them. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:31, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Table vs. Gallery
I looked at this yesterday but didn't have a chance to comment and didn't realize it would move out of the Sandbox so quickly. This is a great job on the aggregation, but I'm just wondering if people prefer table or gallery format for something like this. I like gallery when it's purely a listing (discographies, etc.), but I prefer table when there is something to say about each item (Alice, White Rabbit, and March Hare, specifically...although we can probably add more for the other characters as well). This way, your eye doesn't have to look in two different places to link the information. I just didn't want to start changing this over before bringing it up.-- Peter (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Brad started it in the Sandbox, but it looked pretty much non-Sandbox-y when I looked at it, so I moved it to the main namespace. I think if we're replacing The White Rabbit (Alice in Wonderland), The White Rabbit (Muppet Show), The Dormouse (Alice in Wonderland), The Dormouse (Dreamchild), The Mad Hatter, The March Hare (Muppet Show), The March Hare (Dreamchild), and The March Hare (Alice in Wonderland) then it makes sense to do the table format because we have enough to say about them to fill up the table cells. But if this is just a collection of the characters that's going to exist on the wiki alongside those pages, I don't see a need to duplicate the info. —Scott (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I started this in the sandbox to just collect information on all the various potrayals of the characters. I didn't format it as a table or anything, just because I was quickly collecting information and didn't want to have to play with all the formatting and messy wiki code to do that. I'm not sure how we want to format and sort all this information, but (as I see it) there are several options:
- We could list all the Wonderland character on one single page - like what has been started here (and we could switch to a table format if that's what people perfer). I just wonder if such a page will become way too long, overwhelming, and messy (especially with the telefilm, which has a ton of characters that don't appear in any of the other adaptations). We haven't done a single character list for any other production - we don't have a single article for all the A Christmas Carol characters nor a single page for Sid the Science Kid characters. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but I think it might become too big. And if we have this single list page with all the character information would we still need all the individual character articles such as "The March Hare (Muppet Show) or The Dormouse (Dreamchild)? (why track the same information in two places?)
- I think it might be simpler to just create a single page for each character -- for example create a "Cheshire Cat" article that covers all the various potrayals of that character (from Dr. Teeth to Cookie to Whoopi); create a single "Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum" article; merge The March Hare (Muppet Show), The March Hare (Dreamchild), The March Hare (Alice in Wonderland) and all the other potrayals into a single "The March Hare" article; expand The Mad Hatter to cover the over incarnations; merge all the doormouse articles into one page; create a Mockturtle article that covers the potrayal in both Dreamchild and the 1999 telefilm; and so on...
- I think with Literary Characters we don't need individual articles for each potrayal -- and I think it's more interesting when all the various incarnations and potrayals are together - whether it's The White Rabbit, The Queen of Hearts, Humpty Dumpty, Bob Cratchit, Jack and Jill, Long John Silver, or the Tortoise & the Hare.
- I was going to make the same recommendation as Brad: a single page per character. We could do a general blurb on the character followed by a table on its various portrayals.
- So, we'd consolidate all of the Alices, the Mad Hatters, March Hares, Dormouses (Dormice?), etc. But what about characters like the Queen of Hearts or Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, where no original Muppet or Creature portrayed the role? We don't currently have a policy of creating pages for roles Muppets played unless they were in a feature film (i.e. Bob Cratchit or the Scarecrow), and we don't create pages for human characters in non-Henson films that the Creature Shop did effects for. Basically, we don't have a category structure for that in place, so we either don't create those pages or come up with a way to categorize them. -- Peter (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think for characters where no original Muppet or Creature portrayed the role we can create articles as long as there is a notable list of Muppet or Creature connections/potrayals/references. So an article on Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum could work (as the pair was potrayed by Statler & Waldorf, and Bert & Ernie, and appeared in a Creature Shop film potrayed by humans). But a page on the White Knight (a single human-only potrayal of any Muppet/Creature connection) would not work really. We kept the Arthur Dent article (a human character in a Creature Shop film) because there were additional Muppet/Henson references to the character. I think the Queen of Hearts works the same way - potrayed by a human in a Creature Shop film (not notable enough in itself for a page), but also referenced by Piggy and Oscar in their potrayals (now notable enough). -- Brad D. (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- We could categorize them as references (or as characters & references, as is done with Arthur Dent) -- and/or maybe it would be better to create a "Literary Characters" category for all of the pre-existing characters that have been adapted from books, nursery rhymes, fables and fairy tales that we have on the wiki -- and leave the references category for just the main books and authors. -- Brad D. (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think the idea of a Literary Characters category is definitely an interesting possibility. My only concern about putting someone like the Queen of Hearts under Characters in our current structure is that there is no good subcategory for them. Arthur Dent fits well under Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Characters, but we don't have (and in my opinion shouldn't create) an Alice in Wonderland Characters category. -- Peter (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that if there is a category that the article fits in then we should put the article in it, but if there is not one to match every potrayal then we should not create one just for it -- so, for example, The Mad Matter could be categorized as a Dreamchild character and a Creature (for the Dreamchild potrayal); as an Alice in Wonderland character (for Martin Short's telefilm version); and we could put it in a "Literary Character" category (or "Literary References") for all the minor references and other potrayals (such as Gonzo and Grover). However The March Hare would be a Creature, Muppet, Dreamchild, Alice in Wonderland, Muppet Show and Litereary Character/Reference (as the Muppet Show potrayal was an original puppet/character). -- Brad D. (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)