| Talk pages are no longer used.|
Please use the Forum for discussing article changes.
- Yeah, I was dubious about it myself (of course, some of the Sesame cover-albums we have may well be unlicensed, but that's a slightly different matter). If a source can be found for the Sesame Workshop statement, *maybe* it's worth covering, but I'm not all that certain. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 04:50, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
- It's also based on the volume of media coverage. A Google News search for "big bird" costume comes up with 23,000 results. "big bird" sexy (a search term I never expected to use) comes up with 12,300 results in Google News. Just a few hundred when you search for Yandy, including E!, Entertainment Weekly, and Fox Business Network. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:50, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
- Media coverage doesn't determine our merchandise guidelines, though, and I'm uncomfortable with setting a precedent for that. I'd like to hear from other admins, but the latter reasoning makes me uncomfortable; we're Muppet Wiki, yes, an encyclopedia, but every single Sesame Street-related flap does not need to be covered here, regardless of Google results (we never have and never will cover any incidents involving someone in an Elmo suit, usually a knock-off, misbehaving, for example), only when it fits with a Rumor page or something like the presidential debate comment which became truly widespread and involved official Muppet responses (the Sesame Workshop statement is the only reason this wasn't deleted outright, but even that isn't wholly unique). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 22:21, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the weird thing is that Disguise has been selling fully-licensed "sexy Big Bird" costumes since 2010... Check it out on our Sesame Street Disguise page. Maybe we could make the Yandy information a section on that page? Not necessarily with the full set of pics, but a couple to illustrate. -- Danny 01:11, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
- That would be more appropriate, as a sort of "see also" or disambig, than its own page. I'd feel more comfortable with that, and it wouldn't be problematic as far as categorization or listing on the timeline (I went ahead and removed the latter, since the passage seemed to be trying to note the controversy and we don't really do that on timelines). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 02:04, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, cool. I won't have time to play with it today, but I'll try over the weekend... -- Danny 17:45, October 26, 2012 (UTC)