Talk:Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers: the NES game

I've changed the article Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers (which refers to the NES game) to redirect here, and have copied the contents of that article to Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers (game). I've also updated the link to that page in the Internal Links section at the bottom of this page. --Psyk0 20:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

VHS

Some episodes were released on VHS, but I don't remember when or which episodes. Hackwrench 22:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I found a list of Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers VHS titles. There are five in total. Take a look! If you have any question, ask above the titles.

Undercover Critters (September 28, 1989)

Crime Busters (September 28, 1989)

Double Trouble (September 28, 1989)

Danger Rangers (July 25, 1990)

Super Sleuths (July 25, 1990)

Signed by:

Skymac207 18:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode title meanings

Please do not remove additional information from Episode List. References to in-jokes in episode titles are necessary for people who have different cultural backgrounds. Wesha 12:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I wasn't the one who removed this information, but on reflection I'll grant that title meanings could be useful.
That being said, the table format currently being used tends to emphasize the title meanings at the expense of other information which could be added in the future, like episode summaries. I would argue that (as an example) an episode summary would be at least as important, if not more important, than the meanings of the episode titles. Please see List of South Park episodes or List of The Simpsons episodes, to give a couple examples of a table format which could provide this information. I'd personally suggest episode meanings be placed at the end of an episode plot summary, as a footnote of sorts. Skybunny 21:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely don't argue format change; it's complete removal that I don't believe is beneficial. Wesha 23:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oddity

Does it strike anyone else as odd that Monterey Jack (Rescue Rangers), Fat Cat (Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers), and Professor Norton Nimnul have their own pages but Gadget Hackwrench and Zipper the Fly don't? (Chip 'n Dale is a special case of course.) Powers 20:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm suprised some Gadget fanboy hasn't already created a page for her. -- VederJuda 10:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It's tempting to do so, but the risk of being labled a "Gadget fanboy" holds me back.  ;) Powers 13:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem is that there is no real need to have seperate pages for just some of the main characters, it should be all or nothing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.179.227.58 (talk • contribs) .

Damn fanart

Removed this: [[Image:Th_kiss.jpg|thumb|right|Fan fiction has developed Foxglove and Dale's relationship]] from the article, section ==Foxglove==. Could someone with a longer edit history than myself also please IFD the image. – ∅ (∅), 04:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was the image and that section removed?--Buc 18:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Because fan material is not proper for an encyclopedia. --InShaneee 14:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Foxglove is not fan material. She really did appear on the show.--82.6.169.187 18:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. Yes, she did appear in the show, but in one episode. She is a minor character, and does not deserve a mention. --InShaneee 14:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I would disagree. She did only appear in one episode, but apparently she's extraordinarily popular in the fandom. That deserves a mention. Powers 17:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, because the fandom itself isn't noteworthy. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. --InShaneee 17:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The fandom itself is of course noteworthy. An encyclopedia has to record the reaction of people to works of art, and at the level of Wikipedia, large patterns of fandom is indeed important. --Prosfilaes 18:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree to there being a fandom section, but it should be short, one or two of paragraphs, tops. And while Foxglove is a common character in the fandom, any significant info on Foxglove should be moved to her own article, not in the main Rescue Rangers article. And where would it stop? There's quite a bit of fan work devoted to Tammy and Lawhinie as well, shouldn't they get a mention? -- VederJuda 18:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
A mention, probably. And it's possible there's too much information on Foxglove. But every article has these problems -- what to include, what not to include. That there is some question about how far to go is not a reason to exclude everything. Powers 18:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Fandom is indeed noteworthy. I had thought this obvious enough to not bother mentioning. Plenty of precedent for coverage of other fandoms on Wikipedia. Powers 18:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
There's also plenty of precident that if a fandom can't prove itself 'noteworthy', it shouldn't be mentioned. Harry Potter gets a lot of stuff like this in his articles because there's dozens of newspaper photos and articles about hundreds of little kids dressing up and buying every piece of merchendice out there. There isn't anything that can be shown like that for Chip and Dale. --InShaneee 19:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
There's a lot more to an active fan community than just dressing up and merchandising. Even the Harry Potter fandom article lists fan fiction. Powers 23:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Because, as I said before, it can be proved that Harry Potter fanfiction is a phenominon. The New York Times has interviewed HP fanfiction writers. GIGS are written about him every month. This goes beyond the normal for fans, which is precisely what is going on with Chip and Dale fans; normal fan activity, which is not noteworthy. --InShaneee 21:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
You're comparing apples and oranges; Harry Potter is one of the best selling books of all time. I don't know that Harry Potter fandom is at all exceptional compared to the number of books sold. In fact, compared to Star Trek and Star Wars fans, Harry Potter fans seem positively sedate; it is just normal fan activity.--Prosfilaes 00:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
They're still a huge movement which (most importantly) is easy to find INDEPENDANTLY VERIFIABLE facts about. The only place you'll ever find information about Chip and Dale fans is on pages made by Chip and Dale fans. --InShaneee 00:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The Fallout computer game series page has a whole section dedicated to its fandom's tastes that gets left alone. Complete with links to the fandom's fora and fansites. Fallout has a cult following and isn't a major succes compared to Harry Potter. They are comparable to the Rescue Ranger fandom. Which, unlike Fallout fandom from what I observed, enjoys daily participation from diehards and newcomers alike. And its cartoon also saw more official development recently.
And I'm only wildly mentioning Fallout, there must be tons of other examples of fan communities that get their mentions and are allowed to link, unlike Rescue Ranger fandom. A fandom doesn't have to be phenomenal to get a mention on Wiki, like Harry Potter or Star Trek. While I don't support using Wiki for outrageuously nitpicking details on fandoms, I ask for some more tolerance for them. Both sides benefit from eachother, as a fact. --CD 00:08, 2 Juli 2006

Link Removal

I was recently sent a warning for being a spammer when I readded a link that had been deleted. A link to a Chip 'n' Dale site that (yes) I maintain had been added to Wikipedia by one of the visitors to my site and had remained in the Chip 'n' Dale Rescue Rangers external links section for months without incident (as well as in the regular Chip 'n' Dale article).

Today, however, one of the site's regular visitors sent me a message advising that the link had recently been removed (supposedly without a reason given). I looked at the article, noticed the link was gone, and readded it, assuming that it was removed by someone who was going around removing links just because (such as a vandal). This action got me a spam-warning because, presumably, being the author of the site in question, the fact that I readded the link constitutes it as spam or self promotion. Would it have been different if one the site's visitors had readded the link? Personally, I feel that the site was originally added with good cause - it has "meaningful, relevant content" that is not already cited in the article, and is directly related to the subject in question.

I understand that the Wikipedia guidelines state that a website which one personally owns or maintains should not be linked to due to neutrality concerns, but previously, the site *was* added by a neutral party before it was removed. If I cannot add the link myself, then the guidelines also state that "If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." -- So that's what I'm doing, mentioning it on the talk page, and letting everyone else decide if it's relevant or informative. I know that Wikipedia is not a mere collection of links, but if the link helps provide additional information beyond what can be found in the article alone, then shouldn't that be appropriate?

--Duckyass, 03/29/06, 1317

Greetings. I'd like to address you and welcome you to the encyclopedia...and I believe there may be a misunderstanding here which we can discuss. Several editors saw the link I removed, and there seems to be a consensus that it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, and have asked you not to re-add the link. However, while it is a warning, it is one easily grown beyond by taking positive steps toward Wikipedia.
Speaking to the link added in February 2006, I did attempt to remove this link immediately after it was first put in the article, in early February. The website was not very complete, and (with respect to Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers), was providing information like episode guides which, as the topic has been fleshed out, Wikipedia should have itself, and does now have.
I was recently sent a warning for being a spammer when I readded a link that had been deleted. A link to a Chip 'n' Dale site that (yes) I maintain had been added to Wikipedia by one of the visitors to my site and had remained in the Chip 'n' Dale Rescue Rangers external links section for months without incident (as well as in the regular Chip 'n' Dale article).
Again, I believe the notification is not to label you a 'spammer' as much as a suggestion to take a different course of action; the word 'spammer' wasn't even used in the suggestion. Unless your visitor knew your login and was logging in as you, I can attest to the fact that you yourself did add this link first, and did so here: [1]. I did remove this link on every page it was added on, and removed it on the grounds that the website did not provide information that Wikipedia should anyway; and, in fact, most links on the page on 6 February were 404 errors.
That said, the link was immediately added back by you, and I decided to let it go because I couldn't find an explicit policy about the matter (that day), and did not want a block because of the three revert rule (see WP:3RR). I state for the record that I was not happy with the link being there at that time, but left it for the time being.
Recently, I found another page which addressed the issue and did point to a policy: WP:EL, which provides a standard by which external links should be weighed. An episode guide and information about the show itself can and should be added to Wikipedia to make them the best articles they can be, and those seemed to be the major steering points of the website. At least three different users seem to agree that the link is not appropriate for the pages it is being put on, so I would like to suggest moving on from this -
...but if the link helps provide additional information beyond what can be found in the article alone, then shouldn't that be appropriate?
WP:EL actually addresses this, with the following: (Links to avoid): In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.
If I can make a counterproposal, why not add the encyclopaedic knowledge you do have to the articles that exist now, to make them better articles? You clearly have a vast knowledge of the program and episodes; why not add content to Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers and Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers episodes, to improve them? I imagine doing so can only improve the articles, and satisfy all parties involved. Content on Wikipedia is, ideally, about making the encyclopedia better, after all. Hope to see some contributions from you, Skybunny 20:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
In other words, the link in question should be a reference, not an external link? =) Powers 23:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Or better yet, simply add any relevant information from the website to the article. --InShaneee 00:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that what I said? =) Powers 03:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
In an attempt to stop the slow edit war going on on this page about external links, I've attempted a strict approach to the external links that are present. Can all editors involved agree with the three links remaining (two of which are common enough to have their own Wikipedia template, and the other being Disney's official page for this show)? Skybunny 18:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Most certainly. As policy, I would not be opposed to one informative fansite link either, but discussion here about what that should be would be prudent. --InShaneee 18:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Strongly agreed. The fan community for Rescue Rangers appears to be larger and more active (even now) than that of any other Disney Afternoon show. At least one fansite link should be included to help illustrate that. Powers 15:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Voice work

I've noticed a bit of an editing disagreement going on in the history page about whether or not Peter Cullen ever provided the voice of Monterey Jack in the series. Peter Cullen was, in fact, the original voice for Monterey - Jim Cummings took over the voice later on in the series, and the difference is very noticeable (especially to the trained ear who was used to Cullen's voice). I wanted to verify this information with a reliable source before I posted here, so I checked the facts with Corey Burton, the voice artist who provided the voice of Dale.

This is what he had to say:

Peter was in fact the original Monterey Jack. After the first batch of episodes there was a major shakeup on the production end of the show, when one of the "higher ups" at Disney TV Animation was displeased with the results from first-time writer/director Dev Ross - and was especially annoyed with Cullen's voice (featured so prominently, it must have really grated on a person already disappointed with the episodes). So, while still employed as various incidental characters, Peter was dismissed as the lead character, and it was handed over to Jim - who basically just did an imitation of what had been done before.

I hope this helps in resolving the matter. Duckyass 15:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It'd be nice to have a source for that quote. --InShaneee 16:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. As discussed at No Original Research, a personal interview is not a reliable source, no matter how impressive it might be that you have access to Corey Burton. =) What we need is a published cast list that shows Cullen as the voice of Monty. Powers 01:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a cast list at Ultimate Disney that credits Peter Cullen and Jim Cummings with the role of Monterey Jack: http://www.ultimatedisney.com/chipndalerescuerangers-volume1.html. It's actually fairly easy to tell, in a side by side comparison, that the earliest episodes were done by a different person (Peter Cullen). (I don't suppose sound clips from the first volume DVDs would help convince anyone?) Also, Tad Stones has mentioned in an interview how they weren't getting the level of comedy from Cullen, so they switched to Cummings. I have a link to the interview, but I suppose it wouldn't be considered a reliable source. --BeeBot 01:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that depends on who Tad Stones is and who published the interview. Sound clips would not be sufficient, although it would satisfy a bit of curiosity. The link you gave (Ulitmate Disney) is borderline. It looks authentic, but we don't know where that information came from. If it came from somewhere on the DVD, that'd probably be enough. Powers 18:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


I've found a press release distributed by Buena Vista Pictures Marketing for the animated film Pooh's Heffalump Movie that lists Peter Cullen as the voice of Eeyore. Under Peter Cullen's past voice credits is Monterey Jack.

Cullen is also the voice of Hägar in Hägar the Horrible and Optimus Prime on The Transformers. In addition, he is featured on Disney’s DuckTales and plays Monterey Jack on Chip ‘n’ Dale’s Rescue Rangers.

Sources: The original PDF with a disclaimer at the bottom showing who the press release was distributed by, and the year it was issued. Published on MovieWeb.com
Rich text format version of the same press release, from the Cinematic Intelligence Agency website.
HTML version on Incinemas.com.au --Duckyass 16:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm certainly convinced. Do a URL reference on the page next to Cullen's mention, and I think it's a lock. Skybunny 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks for the detective work, Duckyass. I'd still be interested in those sound clips. =) Also, you may want to submit the information to IMDb, which lists Cullen, but only as the voice of Meps. Powers 18:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The submission has been made to IMDb. :) Regarding the sound clips, I don't know if BeeBot will ever get around to it, so I threw some voice clips together in two separate sound files that compare Cullen's Monterey to Cummings' to satisfy any curiosity. ;) If my method of sharing this is somehow inappropriate, since they are hosted on my site (the recent subject of linking controversy), let me know and I'll find another means of sharing the clips. --Duckyass 18:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Fandom/Comtroversy section

The article used to have what seemed to me a very good and useful overall summary about this. I'm rather angry to find that it was removed and I'm yet to hear a good reason. In the meantime, I suggest that the section is restored. Harg 11:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like there to be more about the fandom in this article, however some people seem to disagree. I think the idea was that fandoms are by definition non-notable (so why does furry fandom have an article?) or something like that... User:InShaneee has made a few reverts after someone added fan-related material, perhaps they could tell you why it shouldn't be there. - ∅ (∅), 12:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Because furrys are easily verified as notable as a subculture per wikipedia guidelines; the RR fanbase is not. --InShaneee 17:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree; the RR fanbase is pretty well known and produces a large volume of fan works related to the series. There is some overlap between it and the furry fandom as well, a good reason not to do a google image search for Gadget. Even so, I think its notable enough to warrant a mention, as at least one article on Wikipedia has a link to one of the more notable fanworks (of Mice and Mayhem). Titanium Dragon 04:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a very old argument and, if you would, I very much would like to discuss it on any public forum of the Pedia if there's any. It seems to me that the minimalist approach is destroying valuable wikipedia content. I often visit pages I've found useful before only to find that half of the text had been removed. Does Wikipedia have expansion problems? It certainly claims the contrary. I find this approach ridiculous when every single Pokémon has its full-lenght page.

On notability. I disagree the popular opinion that if something is commercialized, that makes it de facto non-notable. If something is "not easily verified" I can't help but feel that the burden of proof for non-notability is on the person who wants to remove the part in question (there are such things as template messages, by the way).

As a member of the webcomic project I feel that at least "Of Mice and Mayhem" deserves to be mentioned. Harg 19:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree the fandom deserves a mention. However, there really hasn't been any third-party coverage of said fandom, nor of "Of Mice and Mayhem" in particular. Without that, there's nothing much we can do under Wikipedia's policies. Powers T 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what counts as "third party coverage", however The Comicbook Guy's had already reviewed OM&M and analysis on the RR fandom can be found here. (By the way, the deleted OM&M article is still avaliable at answers.com.) Harg 17:10, 07 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, good start! (I fixed your links; use single brackets for URLs, not double brackets.) Not sure how notable The Comicbook Guy is, and the analysis of the fandom is just an academic paper (not even a thesis, just an undergraduate paper, and with only a few scattered sources). But it's a good start. =) Powers T 13:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, how'd you find that stuff? That academic paper is very interesting, and explains a number of things I've noticed about the community (general consensus on couples, Christian undertones, ect.). Interesting. I wonder if anything else of the sort exists; it'd be nice to actually be able to talk about the fandom in the article, as the obsession with Foxglove, at least, probably deserves mention.
However, the estimate of 120 members might also indicate they aren't actually notable. I find that number slightly suspect, though; an examination of the first page of Google results yields 3 fan sites, and if you start looking around you find absolutely piles of them. It may be that there are more now, or it may simply be that those 120 people all have sites (which wouldn't surprise me). The Rescue Rangers also seem rather popular among the furry community - just remember, though, when looking into that that once you've seen something, you can't unsee it. :P Titanium Dragon 07:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, another example of how the "fandom" of any one given product gives themselves much more credit than they should, and believes themselves to be WAY more influential, or important than they really are. Fandoms are rarely ever noteworthy. And when they are, they are extremely self-important, deluded, and incredibly exaggerated. The job of "fans" of a product are to watch/listen to/enjoy said material and hand over money for said product. There's a reason that fanworks are considered to be un-noteworthy enough for the original producers to care of consider them. A very GOOD reason. I do have to say though that all of this drama about the matter is still pretty funny. Although, all joking aside the "Fandom" has absolutely no place on a Wikipedia article, whatsoever.

Theme

I was listening to a fan video on YouTube (blending this show's theme with stuff from Cats Don't Dance), which made me wonder if The Jets (the group that recorded the theme) ever recorded a full version as a single? WAVY 10 17:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Also found a music video by the band that was likely created to promote the show. Should I add the link? WAVY 10 19:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
No, You Tube links are NOT appropriate and those are copyright violations. Collectonian (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)