From Muppet Wiki

Contents 1 S.U.D.S. 2 Sesame Street Season 7 Cast Photo 3 Old School 4 Archive

S.U.D.S.

Hey Brad -- What do you think about putting the S.U.D.S character info on the main S.U.D.S page, rather than broken out on separate character pages, like we did with Pajanimals and The Skrumps? Henson web series tend to have a pretty short run. I think we could make one really great page, rather than seven little pages. -- Danny (talk) 22:51, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in them. I do agree the S.U.D.S. article could use some work - but I don't think dropping the character pages is the way to acheive that. We have lots of individual character pages for characters from projects with weak main articles. Is it a matter of not wanting to give S.U.D.S. as much detailed coverage as we give other Muppet series, or is this simply because the current character pages are just too stubby?

We dropped and merged the individual HDPS character pages (Sid the Science Kid, The Skrumps, etc) because we thought the digital characters were too far from the worlds of the tangible Muppets/Creatures. However I thought it was decided that the relationship of the Henson Company puppet shows was fine - as they were Muppets in all but legal name. You even said at one point during those discussions that "Pajanimals is just as close as Mopatop's Shop or The Animal Show, and should get full coverage. So I think these are fine -- Pajanimals, Tinseltown, S.U.D.S. and all." So is S.U.D.S. not entitled to individual character pages like Animal Jam, Secret Life of Toys or Telling Stories with Tomie dePaola are permitted?

Now we merged the Pajanimals character pages because (at the time) they were all stubs (one sentence that just said so-and-so was a character from Pajanaimals, plus a picture, and a performer box). We have pages for Tinseltown characters, Late Night Buffet characters, Puppetman characters, Tinkerdee characters, From the Balcony characters, and also individual commercial characters -- they all had pretty short runs too.

Is this suggested merge a matter of simply wanting to create stronger articles (having one really strong article rather than spreading information over 3 or 4 mild articles)? If that is the case, then I think we should also look at all the areas we could merge to strenghten as well (such as merging Sir Linit and Linit Fabric Finish or The Cloverland Dairy Cow and Cloverland Dairy; even the stubby Thomas, Tessie, Tina and Timmy may be better covered merged under The Twiddlebugs; and Song of the Cloud Forest and the individual Song of the Cloud Forest characters could be combined to make a stronger single article; and I would say the articles in Time Piece characters, The Cube characters, Sam and Friends characters, Telling Stories with Tomie dePaola characters and others could bennifit just as much from being merged with their main production).

Again, I don't see the harm in keeping the individual character pages. Yes, the S.U.D.S. article should be strengthen (and as more episodes are released, I'm sure there will be more info and interest to improve it). But I don't think we should drop the character pages just to help bulk up that page - the indivudal pages are in line for how we've organized other Muppet characters and help for linking performer/designer information and for linking on pages such as Impersonations of Animals, Cross-dressing characters and Recycled Puppets. And when more episodes of S.U.D.S. are released, I'm sure there will be much more character info for these pages too. -- Brad D. (talk) 05:03, October 4, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, now that you mention it, I think some of those other shows could probably benefit from merging those character articles too. It's just silly to spread information over several pages that could be comfortably housed on one page. It's not a good experience for readers to have to click through six different articles just to find the information that we could have put on one page. I think the Pajanimals example is a perfect one -- instead of splitting the character information into four tiny, dull pages, we have one fantastic page with all the information that you need.

I think most of the examples that you're citing would also be good candidates for merges. I didn't even realize we had a Late Night Buffet characters category; that should definitely go on one page. The show didn't even happen, and the character pages are tiny.

In general, for a new production, I think it's better to put everything on one page until the information grows to a point where it warrants splitting out to separate pages. The "harm" is in making readers hunt around for information that should be in one place; it's our job to organize that information for them. -- Danny (talk) 06:38, October 4, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I really do agree with the principle that it's silly to spread information over several pages that could be comfortably housed on one page. However I've never been clear on what the standard or threshold is for an interesting stand-alone article - as we have many stubs out there that are considered okay. I didn't see a problem with the S.U.D.S. character pages I created, as they were more detailed and built-up then many of the one-shot Muppet, Fraggle and Sesame character articles we have. But I do agree that we should be creating articles - not pages to simply build/fill categories and create lists.

However there are many pages that are just a little more than "so-and-so is a character from insert-show-title" (plus a picture, performer box and categories tags). I think it's poor form when more than 80% of the knowledge found on an article is sumed up in the performer box and category tags). I just want to make sure that we are being fair about this - and not just "picking" on the new shows or project that we might not personally like as much as others. There are many articles that I think could bennifit from merging things as well, such as:

• Seinfeld Babies and Baby Jerry, George, Elaine, and Kramer
• The Twiddlebugs and Thomas, Tessie, Tina and Timmy Twiddlebug

• The Wonderful World of T-Shirts and T-Shirt Salesman, Kermit the Gorf, Kermit the Forg, Kermit the Grof and Harry
• Many commercials and their characters
• Song of the Cloud Forest and its characters
• And even non-character pages - such as some of the Muppet Babies songs and their respective episodes

However, at what point do we allow Skreet, Apollo or Delbert Kastle get to break-off into their own stand alone artiles? What's the standard there? I know a lot has changed over the years in our philosophy and approach as to what gets an article and what doesn't. But how big does the section on the character have to be before it should be broken into it's own article? I don't want to go on a merging spree and start ticking people off and making a mess - but I think some improvements should be done (not just on S.U.D.S., but across the board). Mabe bring this up on Current Events or taking it case-by-case would be best. But I just want to be clear on what the standards are for a stand alone articles (so I don't make a mistake in the future, as I felt the S.U.D.S. pages were in line with many acceptible pages out there.) -- Brad D. (talk) 01:21, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you on all of those character examples. The standards have definitely changed -- when we first started, we used to create a page for every puppet that had a name. We're slowly pulling back from that.

In July, I merged The Three Ds onto one page -- we had separate pages for Dorothy, Dinah and Max, plus a page for the group. We also merged all of the "Kermit's Tales" characters onto one page. Just today, I merged "Dancing Cat" and "Dancing Cookie" into "C Drives Me Crazy". So we're not just picking on the new shows! :)

We've talked a lot about which projects get "full coverage" and which don't. The major question is always: How much is there to say about them? Obviously, Sesame Street is an essentially everlasting source of material -- they're still making new stuff, and there's an enormous history of episodes, songs and merchandise. Those categories will always expand; we'll never finish them. For another example -- Mopatop's Shop is more limited, since the show only lasted a few years... but there were enough different characters, songs, books and toys to justify a bunch of pages and categories.

By that standard, new projects have to show that there's enough to write about before we "invest" in creating categories for them. Tinseltown and Late Night Buffet never got beyond the pilot stage, so there's a limited amount you can say about them. The articles that we have right now could be expanded a bit with more details, but they won't ever get beyond what could comfortably fit on one page. I think it's possible that S.U.D.S. will go the same way -- the preview on YouTube was posted almost two months ago, and Film.com doesn't say anything about it. So I think with brand new stuff, it's best to keep everything on one page until we see it grow beyond that. -- Danny (talk) 01:47, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Sesame Street Season 7 Cast Photo

Hi Brad: Do you have a higher resolution picture of the Season 7 cast? Also, do you know why the file is named Sesame 1973? Thanks.— Tom (talk) 14:49, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a higher res version of the pic. And I don't know why it's titled '73.-- Brad D. (talk) 05:03, October 4, 2009 (UTC)

Old School

Before you start moving pages around, can you look at Talk:Old School, Vol. 1. —Scott (talk) 03:03, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

Archive

• Muppet Wiki Talk Archives