To discuss article changes, please use:


If you see comments on this page, they remain for archive purposes.



I must have missed a discussion about this. Why are we redirecting all the characters here? —Scott (talk) 22:24, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

The same reason we merged the characters for S.U.D.S., Late Night Buffet, Pajanimals, Telling Stories with Tomie dePaola, Sid the Science Kid, The Skrumps, Puppet Up!, Construction Site, and others into the main page. Why spread out the information over a bunch of little pages? The individual pages were nothing more than a copy-paste of the press kit bios (plus a performer box, a picture and category tags). -- Brad D. (talk) 22:34, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
But, these are Muppets. —Scott (talk) 22:53, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
So are the Telling Stories with Tomie dePaola characters. -- Brad D. (talk) 23:09, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be a lot clearer and less confusing if we had a discussion on each, as well as weighing how the actual articles differ in content from each other, rather than deciding "it was done for this so we need to do it for that" (a common problem on Wikipedia). Personally, I consider performer boxes, picturesd, and category tags to be useful, especially when dealing with characters who appeared more than once. I'm not necessarily against the merge, mind, but looking at it, this and dePaola (which may have benefited from discussion first as well) aren't quite comparable. dePaola has one to two sentences for most characters, with the Goat being the only one that was detailed (and with a significant outside life). Panwapa is now an unreadable mess, to be frank. If we're going to do this for instances where the description is more than one sentence and performer info is known, a table would work better and be far more readable. If the merge is going to stay, it's going to need work. Also, looking through the history shows that Construction Site never had subpages; all the info was always on the one page, it's just that character redlinks were later removed. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 23:37, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty much against merging actual Muppets in when there is information on the page beyond "Athena was an owl in Panwapa." A press kit bio is not "no real information", and I think the characters deserve their pages. But if people really think it isn't I'll be happy to work on expanding them in this case.
I was noticing the dePaola thing earlier today too and whichever one I clicked to see what Danny was up to had a performer box and two paragraphs (and no, I don't remember if it was the goat). At the least, the redirects should be categorized so somebody looking through the Muppet category could still find the characters (I was planning to go do this tonight), but I agree that each show should be discussed and not just blindly done. -- Wendy (talk) 00:07, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
I restored the Panwapa characters. If we want to discuss Telling Stories, we should do so at Talk:Telling Stories with Tomie dePaola. —Scott (talk) 16:42, October 8, 2009 (UTC)


The articles claims that Panwapa would be released on home video, but Amazon turns up nothing. I presume this was just a presumptative guess by Sesame Workshop, that fell through when this series' launch didn't get any real fanfare from the media. Is it safe to delete that sentence? -- Zanimum 14:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sesame Workshop's page for Panwapa (which now focuses mainly on the interactive website experience and the positive response from teachers) simply says it is available as a free video-on-demand as well as online so I've changed the text accordingly. -- Wendy (talk) 01:53, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
It was released on video. I have the DVD sitting in its case on my shelf. However it was not a commercial release sold in stores - but rather a free resource video sent out through educators, supporters, caregivers, and other such organizations. -- Brad D. (talk) 02:17, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

Does Panwapa Belong?


Do articles about Panwapa really belong on the Muppet Wiki? From what I understand, the show is produced by Sesame Workshop, but so is Dragon Tales, and we don't have an article for that.

Our measuring stick for new productions has been: is it directly related to the Disney-owned Muppet Show characters, Sesame Street or an international production thereof, or produced directly by Henson. Panwapa isn't any of those. It might eventually fit into the TV Appearances category like Between the Lions and The Electric Company. But even then, the character pages wouldn't belong, since they're not technically Muppets (except maybe a mention on Bug's page that he has been recycled into Bill the Bug). -- Peter (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you checked the thing, Peter, or read the articles? The puppets were all designed and built by Jim Henson's Muppet Workshop, who get credit accordingly, and if you check the credit list here, the performers are all identified as playing "The Muppets of Panwapa." So it's hardly in the same rank as Dragon Tales. Actually, I just checked, Danny had taken out the "Muppet" part. In light of your confusion, I'd say that needs to go back in. Basically, it's no different than Big Bag, produced by Sesame Workshop but with the performers, designers, and general production assistance of Henson (which the sale to Disney does not prohibit, since they're new Muppets and it's non-profit; ultimately, it's not unlike the way Jim Henson's Creature Shop is often used as an effects or puppet building house for projects which originate outside of the Jim Henson Company). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, that clears that up. Tally ho, carry on. -- Peter (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)