Talk:The Muppets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Vandalism

This page has been vandalized. There is something about Big Bird on the bottom of the page and I cant see how to remove it. When I try to edit the page, it doesn't appear. Can someone with more expriance on wikipedia please fix this? (Animedude 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC))

Fixed. DMacks 20:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muppets Should be capitalized

I'm pretty sure Muppet should be capitalized, and more strongly associated with Jim Henson. In fact, I suspect the general definition of a Muppet is a Jim Henson Productions puppet, which goes beyond the Kermit-like puppets. --The Cunctator

[edit] Dark Crystal

The Dark Crystal (both the box and the wikipedia article) considers it to have an "all muppet cast" I'm wondering what the basis for the claim that various things are not considered muppets. --Antwerp42


They are not really, I mean they are Muppets but not really classical Muppets. They are more fantasy Henson Characters. I am going to check and see if there is already an artical for the Dark Crystal. If there is not one i don't see why someone that knows and has seen the film can create one. Phillip Friedrich 22:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: I just checked and there is already an artical for the Dark Crystal

[edit] Muppets to Muppet

Why was this moved from "Muppets" to "Muppet"? "Muppets" not "Muppet"; that was name of Henson's act, wasn't it? Hm, upon checking I see both forms have been used (Eg "Great Muppet Caper"), though I remember the act always being introduced on Ed Sullivan as "The Muppets". -- Infrogmation

The TV Show was The Muppet Show - http://us.imdb.com/Title?0074028

[edit] Disney owns the Muppets?

Does Disney really own the Muppets? And if not, why are they categorized as "Disney characters"? Jwrosenzweig 17:21, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It does now. --Paul A 08:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
They're not part of the Disney "canon". Disney owns Touchtone; that would mean Frances Mayes of Under the Tuscan Sun is a Disney character. -- user:zanimum

[edit] Debut?

When did the Muppets first debut? The book Live From New York seems to imply that they first appeared during the first season of Saturday Night Live (a connection that is not currently mentioned in the article), but does not explicitly state that this was their first appearance. --LostLeviathan 03:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Rowlf was the first Muppet to appear nationally, appearing in The Jimmy Dean Show in the mid-1960s. -- user:zanimum
Actually, the Muppets' first national exposure was in 1956 on Tonight! (which would become The Tonight Show later on). However, they first showed up on TV in 1954 on Washington DC's NBC affiliate, WRC-TV. Rowlf appeared on The Jimmy Dean Show regularly between 1963-66. scarecroe 00:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars References

I've removed the reference to Yoda as a popular Muppet, and the reference to The Empire Strikes Back in the list of Jim Henson Creature Shop films. While Henson had some input in the design of the Star Wars creatures, he or his companies were not directly involved in their creation. George Lucas confirms this in the "A Galaxy Far Far Away" documentary (regarding Yoda), and the Creature Shop does not appear in the credits of any Star Wars film. Westical 06:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you draw a distinction between Yoda being "a Muppet" (which he certainly is) and Yoda being "one of the Muppets" (which is is not)?

Perhaps he's not technically a muppet, but in Empire, he has only one functioning hand, and he sure sounds a lot like Grover. Did Frank Oz do his voice? -- Cladist

You can confirm your suspicion about the voice on the Yoda page. DMacks 15:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] meta-muppets

Someone should write about the fictional “plotline” of the Muppet team, and how several of the movies and both TV shows are really about the Muppet “actors” rather than actually showing their performance. I think Treasure Island and Christmas Carol are the only ones where the Muppets are “in character” for the whole thing. -Arctic.gnome 02:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sesame Street

I noticed that there are few references to Sesame Street muppets. I'm particularly interested in whether the new SS "muppets" are Henson creations.

[edit] Muppetcityforum

I just reverted, and have done so several times in the past, to remove a link to muppetcityforum. It is a bulletin board site with fewer than 100 members, according to the front page. I removed it per WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. While I feel it is a clear cut case, I will bring it up here since the site is added back so regularly. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 02:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The Muppet City Forum may have less then 100 members but we have just started. You have another forum on the Links for less then 50 members?????

Thanks,

I've been to muppet city before. it deserves to stay so just leave it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.58.31.86 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure which link you refer to? Such a link should be removed... The one you just removed has more than 7500 members, according to their website. I am certainly open to discussing removing it as well. How does the Muppet City Forum add to the encyclopedic quality of the article? --TeaDrinker 02:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Muppet City Forum is a clean and good Muppet Forum. We talk about Jim Henson's Muppets Fraggle Rock Sesame Street and other Henson productions. Some Muppet Forums are not even about Muppets just personal issues. Muppet City Forum has a picture gallery and a Muppet Biography section which tells you about certain Muppets and it is growing bigger and bigger. Muppet City Forum is a great Muppet forum and i am very proud of it. Some Muppet Forums have been going for years and Muppet City has only been going for a few months it adds to the Muppet artical because people if they like Muppets or if they have never heard about them learn about them on the Muppet City Forum. Muppet City Forum should be able to have a link in the Muppets Artical. I do not see a good reason 100 members, We have just started and we keep growing. We have been running for a short time and already have 25 members 20 of those members post and post good topics and bios about the Muppets.

rock on muppet city!

Any you have every right to be proud of the site; removing it from the article is not to malign the site, only to say it is not encyclopedic. Keep in mind there are hundreds of people wanting to add their site to wikipedia every day. To keep every one of them would be to lose the content of Wikipedia, and wind up being no more than collections of links. To prevent this, there are policies in place, such as Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. I will say I am hesitant to add any fan site or forum to an article. I wish you the best of luck, but I don't agree that your site, fun though it appears to be, should be in the article. --TeaDrinker 02:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I should add, I have not reverted it in deferance to the three revert rule, but would not object if someone else wishes to. --TeaDrinker 02:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for adding the Muppet City Forum to the Links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.18.100.204 (talk • contribs) .

Please note that I have removed it. I have nothing against the site, but it certainly does not belong in a wikipedia article. I request we continue this discussion here without adding the link back until we can reach consensus. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

WHY?!?, IT's FINE THE WAY IT WAS!,i don't understand you people at Wikipedia. You keep a gay artical about Bert and Ernie but you have to take of a perfectly fine Link off?, You don't make any sense WHAT SO EVER. Most of the things that i have added have been kept but you take one link off?, Alright i can play to, I will take the Disney Link of because i do not like Disney and it has no business being there because it has a Y in it.

Please don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point. See WP:POINT. --TeaDrinker 23:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, You give me ONE GOOD REASON OTHER THEN THE STUPID REASON OF IT DOES NOT BELONG.

In reference to the Disney link, it does seem to be encyclopedic, since they are the owners of the muppets. The link to the forum is not, in my view, encyclopedic. It is not one of a handful of sites in the internet which can provide key information not found elsewhere. But I ask, what reason do you have to include it? What can a researcher find in the muppet city forum that is not easily found on google or on one of the existing links? I appreciate you discussing it here, and am happy to continue to do so. Remember we should all be looking at the same goal, what makes a better encyclopedia. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 23:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason that i think Muppet City should be added to the links because you can not find all of the Muppet Pictures on Google that you can on the Muppet City Forum. Muppet City has a Muppet Biography so they can learn about the Muppets. We are also setting up a Muppet Action Figure Guide so people can see a picture with the name and other useful information about the Muppet Action Figures. We also have a great Forum.

muppet central nor the muppet newsflash has information that can't be found on yahoo or google so they are going to be taken off too

If there are specific pages on these sites that might be considered encyclopedic that contain contain info not already present in Wikipedia, links to those specific items might be appropriate here. DMacks 01:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to why Muppet Central and Tough Pigs should not be in the links. Both sites are large, well-esthablished repositories of information on the subject of the Muppets. Many of the articles in the sites are the product of original research or are original interviews done specifically for the respective sites, not just general information collected via a Google search (Google can find almost anything, anyway, including Wikipedia articles). They contain much more detailed and encyclopedic information (and would be much more valuable to a researcher) than the official sites. I fail to see why they should not be included. I do see the point about MuppetCity, as it is still a relatively new site and is a forum with a relatively small number of users (note that the MC and TP links are to their sites, not their forums).

I'm adding the Muppet City Forum into different pages that are biographys. Phillip Friedrich 04:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed it again per the above discussion. —scarecroe 05:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to talk about; we follow the guidelines of the WP:EL artical Phillip Friedrich 05:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that it has been removed yet again. This is childish along with foolish. I would like to point out that other articals have links to fan websites and fan forums. It is importent to me that the Muppet City Forum gets added to The Muppets page. If no one replys to this by tomorrow i will be added it back and leaving a foot note to not remove the link. It's not because we do not have members we have lots of members along with active ones also. Our forum is basically our website but you can comment on things, i do not see why the other links are not on there also i mean if one fan site is on there another should be also. Regarding the past edits; I could add a lot more of useful information to The Muppets artical. If the website follows within the guidelines of Wikipedia i do not see a useful and resourceful reason why it cannot be added. Phillip Friedrich 05:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In the past (as you can see above) we've discussed which if any/many fan-sites to include. WP:EL tells us "If there are many fansites for the topic covered by the article, then providing a link to one major fansite (and marking the link as such) may be appropriate." which is also included in WP:NOT as "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such." So first, is Muppet City Forum the major one? Second, WP is a consensus of editors, and the discussions seemed to have led to "we can't agree on the major, everyone's got a favorite, so we'll have none to avoid becoming a dumping ground." WP:EL says what can be included, it doesn't demand that such a link must be included. As a final note, if there is something that is not up to quality standards, that isn't justification to include other substandard things, nor is the presence of one thing a free license to add endless "me-too" things. DMacks 06:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
How about we allow 5 Muppet Fan Sites. -- 71.208.165.235 16:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly what DMacks said. The muppetcity is far from a major website, it's just a couple of fans talking about their favorite episode of The Muppet Show. Hardly encyclopedic. I presume they are so persistent in adding a link so that their traffic will increase. That's not what Wikipedia is for, nor is it a dumping ground for someone's personal collection of bookmarks -- otherwise, I've got a few dozen Muppet wensites that I could add. —scarecroe 16:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Muppet City Forum is a big website and we have lots of members and no we do not just talk about our favorite episode of the Muppet Show. Our information for our biographys no pun intended but it is more correct then the Muppet Wikia. DMacks, I have a suggestion how about we allow five Muppet fansites and then put them from A - Z that way it is fair. What do you think? And Scarecroe, I am not here to fight with some petty reason of traffic purposes. We just would like to have our link so people can see more correct information about the Muppets along with information. -- Phillip Friedrich 16:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there are enough external links as is. Muppetcity is hardly relevant to an encyclopedia -- supposed "more correct" biographical information notwithstanding. Also, if you have questions about the Muppet Wiki, I invite you to start a discussion over there. I'm an administrator and would be happy to have a discussion with you about what is "more correct." You'll be glad to know that information is not added to Muppet Wiki without a verifiable source. —scarecroe 16:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Same for Muppet City. -- 71.208.165.235 16:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude, it's fan forum. The very idea of "verifiable information" in that context is an oxymoron. I'm trying not to argue, but I think it's clear from the evidence that fan discussions titled "The I Am Bored Game," "Muppets Wheel Of Fortune" and "What would a Muppet Do?" are completely irrelevant as being linked to from an encyclopedia. I'll let others reading this discussion judge whether those are "more correct" biographies of Muppet/Henson people or not. —scarecroe 17:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to fight with you. They will not allow Muppet Fansites on the Main Muppet page but they will allow them on the others so i will just stick to doing that. And i am not afraid of you and you are not going to hurt my feelings over some silly pun which does not have a bit of truth. Phillip Friedrich 18:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

These links should not be added to the Muppet character pages (or any pages on Wikipedia) because they break many of the guidelines Wikipedia has established for external links. Here are just a few of the ones the Muppetcity Forum links break:
  • Avoid links to "a page which only provides information already in the article, or which does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Featured article."
What does that forum post have that isn't in (or couldn't be in the article)?
  • Avoid links to "a page that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research."
I've noticed many errors in the "facts" of these forum posts. There are in fact things that are wrong in what they are saying...(not to mention the spelling/syntax errors which doesn't help build credibility).
  • Avoid links to "a page that you own or maintain..."
If the links are so great someone not affiliated with the site should add them...post a suggestion on the talk page and let a non-party add them.
  • Avoid "Links to blogs, social networking sites, or discussion forums"
These are discussion forum posts. There is no reason a link to them should even be considered valid or useful.
These links don't further the articles or help the pages. If a reader who knows nothing about Fozzie Bear came to the page what would the Muppetcity link provide that Wikipedia can't? BradFraggle 03:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The articals have much better pictures and such. The information cannot be found on Wikipedia that we have, I'm adding them and thats final. Now, have a good day. Phillip Friedrich 04:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously we aren't seeing eye-to-eye here and no consensus has been reached so just going ahead doing it "your way" while we're still discussing it (especially being that you're the only one that feels this way) is not the way to go here. Let's not have an edit-war, let talk about this. Read the Wikipedia guidelines for external lines...there are several guidelines that these links don't align with. Why should your forum post about Bobo the Bear be added to the Bobo article? What added value does it bring? And how does it comply with Wikipedia's standards? BradFraggle 04:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Muppet Collector, that's not how Wikipedia works. WP is based on consensus among editors, not proof by repetition. An important question in my mind why you're spending so much time adding links to this external source instead of adding the material from it into the Wikipedia articles. If the material itself is indeed relevant, verifiable, and encyclopediac it seems perfectly suited to be included here. This isn't the first time this has been suggested to you. Conversely, if the material is not up to snuff, then it doesn't even deserve an ext-link here. DMacks 04:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Muppets and their performers

I added Template:Cleanup-list on the grounds that this section is indiscriminate as defined by WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. —scarecroe 15:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO it's only indiscriminate in that it declares its scope as "some". However, a comprehensive list of the histories of each character's performer(s) would not be indiscriminate (clear and rational scope, not unlimited) and would also be a worthwhile piece of encyclopediac content. Do we need a List of Muppets page? It could be like List of Sesame Street characters. Or even could expand the scope of that page to include The Muppet Show, with a column indicating in which series the character appeared. DMacks 15:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the space could be more constructively used rather than linking to 30+ characters that each have their own page. Looking at the list, I'd imagine that it started out simple, but information kept getting tacked on to the point where it's messy. For example, if there's to be such a list, there's no reason for Scooter to have a whole additional list of performers after his name. For one, that could be covered on his article. For another, Scooter only really ever had one performer until Richard Hunt's death, after which point he's never been steadily assigned to anyone. That's one example, some such similar observation could be made of each item on the list.
I would propose a short list of notable characters, perhaps with a few notes, and then a link to Category:Muppet characters for the rest. —scarecroe 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Muppets_54b4.html"