Talk:LazyTown/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Cult Internet Following - YTMND - 4Chan - YouTube

This show actually has a pretty big internet cult following, which can be shown on sites like YTMND, and as such I think that should be noted.--24.44.170.194 06:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Just about anything can get a cult following on YTMND. The thing thrives on cult followings. Appearing on YTMND really isn't an indication of anything. Whether it really has a cult following on the Internet as a whole is doubtful, but even then it would need to be huge to merit mention here. (O RLY? YA RLY.) 82.92.119.11 22:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
go to [1] and do a search for "lazy town". i was thinking the same thing. Joeyramoney 02:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with deviantart. Are these results atypical compared to other TV shows? 82.92.119.11 12:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
not remotely. there are several lt fanclubs even. Joeyramoney 23:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
What I meant was: is this any different from other TV shows? I'd imagine just about any show has a presence on the Internet today. I'm not sure how we'd determine LT has a "cult following". 82.92.119.11 18:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
what imeant was- yes, and it has perplexed me for ages. Joeyramoney 00:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems to have a following on Live Journal too, as well as the popular gif with Stephanie going "Fuck yeah!" (captioned, not actually said) taken from the cakesong.
On an added note, searching for "LazyTown" on YouTube.com produces alot of results. Obviously preschoolers don't have the ability to upload TV rips. I think an edit regarding the adult/internet following of LazyTown is due.
Lots of Stephanie posts on 4chan's /b/ board. They (we) go crazy when someone starts a Steph thread. Though this probably is more related to the "Steph is loli" post above.

To those who keep listing Stephanie's YTMND appearances: Please review WP:WEB, and note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents mentions that the notability of internet memes is widely disputed. Furthermore, a reliable source would have to write an article about Stephanie being on YTMND, as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Kat, Queen of Typos 21:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Stephanie has some memes that have appeared on 4chan. Exploitable and "Is this loli?" come to mind. There's also the "Fuck yeah" animated gif, among others. Could this be mentioned in conjunction with YTMND? 59.154.26.124 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As it already states twice on this page, YTMND is not a reliable source as per Wikipedia's policies. Memes are also probably not appropriate unless an outside, reliable source does an article on them. Kat, Queen of Typos 16:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we please keep 4chan/YTMND/internet in one section rather than three.192.133.12.101 20:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a comment to similar effect on the Talk:Stephanie (LazyTown) that, as per WP:IAR and WP:UCS, we shouldn't exclude content on LazyTown's cult following from the article solely due to a lack of credible publications on it. I, for one, wouldn't know about LazyTown if not for its Internet popularity and I feel that it would be contrary to the mission of Wikipedia to exclude the show's cult following. D4g0thur 09:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
(The following is a copy of the comment I posted on Talk:Stephanie (LazyTown) as I considered at least part of it to be relevant to this article also)
I have been doing a bit of looking around in an attempt to make everybody happy and have found this site [2] claiming that "Since the show became popular in America and the UK it has picked up something of a cult following amongst the... ‘geek community’." - although it doesn't support that LazyTown and Stephanie are big on any specific site, it does support its cult following and internet phenomenon status. So even if we can't agree on the validity of results from ytmnd and youtube searches, we can at least agree that the section warrants inclusion. D4g0thur 16:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that the reason that LazyTown has such an internet following has less to do with the show and more to do with all the pedophiles on YTMND and 4chan. 160.36.233.242 13:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Enough with the pedophiles. Those are not going into the article! Kat, Queen of Typos 19:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Please keep comments regarding LazyTown's Internet phenomenon status under the Request for Comments section where this is being discussed. I have moved your comment (74.15.232.92) to that section. D4g0thur 04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do not list one-off characters

Do not list one-off characters if they are not notable guest stars and do not affect the plot of the series; affecting only the plot of one episode is not reason to be listed. Please see [this Village Pump discussion]. Kat, Queen of Typos 16:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merchandising/References

Hey, I found a really good thesis that seems to (professionally) document quite a bit of the merchandising history for LazyTown and even goes into some detail about the origins of LazyTown. It reads kind of dry since it's really an analysis of intellectual property laws, but it seems like a really valuable resources. Any wiki-experts want to tell me if this is a valid resource for a reference? I was looking for a source that talks about the sale of LazyTown brand fruits in Iceland (something I definitely remember reading about on-line and certainly worth mentioning) and this appears to do it:

http://www.handels.gu.se/epc/archive/00005104/01/200637.pdf

Anyway, if someone determines this is a reliable source, I'll help integrate some of the content into the article. Skip straight to the case study. :) Mikeliveshere 10:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

PS. It seems like some of the references that are currently included are dead links, so we should probably work on fixing some of that. I'll do what I can to help work on this article! :) Mikeliveshere 10:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

--- If anyone wants to find the magazine, or use an image of a cover or anything then copies are available at: http://tots.titanmagazines.com/

[edit] Stephanie's Age vs Julianna's Age

Okay, we know that Stephanie is 8 and Julianna is really 15. Julianna's birthday is on her page. IMO, the fact that the actress is older than the character she's playing does not really belong in this article - many, many actors and actresses play characters that are a different age than their own. Kat, Queen of Typos 00:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The phrasing when referring to Stephanie should be "She" not "The character". It's common knowledge to anyone who knows the show or Julianna that she is twice the age (almost) of the character.

Ispy1981 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, it's just people are driving me crazy adding "she's really 15." I'll change it back. Kat, Queen of Typos 00:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Icelandic Play Versions

We need more info and screenshots of them. This Youtube Playlist has a large number of clips from the original live-action Icelandic versions. I feel that since these came about LONG before the modern TV show, they deserve to be included with detailed information. Coolgamer 00:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Transmission Language

What is the original language of transmssion of Lazytown in Iceland? Several actors & puppeteers are english language natives, yet Iceland obvously has Icelandic as its native language. Is it transmitted in English with subtitles or dubbed into Icelandic for the home population? I know many of the Scandinavian countries have a very high ratio of the population who speak excellent English, but as a children's show I wondered how this was treated.

If anyone knows, it might be worth adding to the main article. Groovycathers 07:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I was about to ask this same thing. I have also seen this show dubbed into different english accents, I have seen an american and a british. Does anyone know which language/accent are the original voices of the actors? Mloren 08:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It is dubbed into Icelandic. The actors who play Sportacus and Robbie Rotten both provide dubs in Icelandic. Ziggy's voice actor also knows Icelandic. The rest of the characters are dubbed into Icelandic by other voice actors. Xizer 07:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] puppets

I swear those puppets were used by some french people before.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.155.123 (talk • contribs)

The puppets for the series were created by Wit Puppets, specifically for this series. They were not used by anyone prior to the show. HamatoKameko 01:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comments

Many editors are add to the article the issue that Stephanie (the character) is a phenomenon on YTMND and other sites. (This is also added to Stephanie (LazyTown) article.) Other editors revert this because there are no reliable sources (as per WP policy) doing articles about the phenomenon. Some have argued that anything can gather a following on YTMND, while others argue that inclusion of the information is important.

My personal opinion is that I don't see how the YTMND information improves the article at all. I am not the only editor who has reverted this information, although other editors may have given up on it because it is constantly readded. Kat, Queen of Typos 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree; my opinion is that Wikipedia should be as informative as possible and, therefore, this article should have a section on LazyTown's Internet phenomenon/cult status. Although policy states that information should have reliable sources, policy also states that when this gets in the way of improving the encyclopaedia, it should be ignored. Insofar as the content being against WP:VER, the policy states that "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source". No-one who has ever done a search for LazyTown on Youtube or YTMND (or visited /gif/ on 4chan a few times - something I would advise against ;) ) would challenge the assertion that it has a cult following. D4g0thur 03:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
My point is, anything can gain a "cult following" on YTMND, but we can wait for third-party comments. Kat, Queen of Typos 00:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I should summarise my point too... In short: LazyTown's cult following across YTMND, 4chan and YouTube (Note: not just YTMND) is large enough to validate a section on it. D4g0thur 02:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying that YouTube and ytmnd are not reliable sources for 'internet phenomenons' is odd, to say the least. These sites are perhaps the PRIME sources, along with 4chan, for net phenoms. Any "reliable" source would be making their decision based on the prevalence of footage of Lazytown on these very sites. Lazytown is an internet phenomenon because they are on the very hub of netculture, but to cite the largest sources of net pop-culture isnt reliable? That is curcular logic at it's very best. What better indication than looking at fan communities? Fan comminity sites are PRECISELY what produce internet cultural phenomenons. Go to the source. To accept so-called "reliable" sources would cut-off quite a few articles that can be considered common knowledge to people who spend a good amount of time on the net. There is a difference in documentaion processes between the the real world and this one; even between wetware and hardware. It seems Wiki has not kept up to speed, which is surprising as it was spawned in the web.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.232.92 (talk • contribs)

I personally don't see the point in waiting for someone to create a webpage that says "Yes, you may have suspected and not truely known, but people really like to create perverted videos of Stephanie." Websites like YTMND and YouTube create internet phenomena. Bloggers that comment on those phenomena do not. While I agree that no one states explicitly "Hey guys I'm a pedo and Stephanie is really hot, just watch her carry this fencepost around," anyone over the age of 13 with half a brain can see that she's being sexualized. And why can't you just use the pages/videos themselves as the sources? JBHughes 15:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"And why can't you just use the pages/videos themselves as the sources?" - That, my friend, is the crux of the matter; some editors feel this is acceptable and others feel that it constitutes original research. So, the primary purpose of this RfC is for community input as to whether or not doing so is WP:OR. I take it you believe using the pages/videos is acceptable. D4g0thur 17:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Sources are not limited to text. I've seen many pages on this site that cite television broadcasts and what have you. "The websites YouTube and YTMND have posted video of Stephanie doing things, which when taken out of context, seem perverse." Link to the site/video. I'm not so sure that the "no original research" thing really flies here. Granted one cannot say that these videos are a sign of lolita syndrome or something similar without being an expert in abnormal sexual psychology, but you do not need a degree to prove that such sites do in fact exist.JBHughes 22:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Do I deny these sites exist? No. Do I think the phenomenon is widespread enough to warrant major attention from a news site, or even inclusion in an encyclopedic article? No. Kat, Queen of Typos 23:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The existence of these sites is evidence of LazyTown's Internet phenomenon status, so it the argument cannot be that it is not an Internet phenomenon. Hence, what we are debating is whether something being an Internet phenomenon is notable or not. I say it is notable that a children's show has a large cult following (with people well above its target audience) on the Internet. D4g0thur 09:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The existence of these sites is not evidence of LazyTown's "Internet phenomenon status", insofar as on Wikipedia evidence == reliable sources. You as the editor are drawing the conclusion that because instances of LazyTown are frequent on sites such as YouTube and YTMND, that confers "phenomenon status" upon it. Now, based on what you believe, you may do research to see if there are any reliable bodies or publications of research on this to back up your beliefs. Until then, it is original research based on personal interpretation of available factoids.

Think of it this way, as the article stands now it effectively says: "Because several popular internet sites have x-number of referential content based on LazyTown, User:D4g0thur believes this makes it an internet phenomenon." However, what an article needs to say is: "This publication and this cultural study determined that because of the high proliferation of LazyTown referential content on sites such as YouTube and YTMND, it constitutes an internet phenomenon."

JBHughes (talk · contribs) argues that other articles use primary sources, so that shouldn't prohibit their usage here. However, primary sources may only be used as sources for facts, not interpretations of those facts. Yes, you may cite a YouTube search to say that x-number of LazyTown-related videos exist; but not to say what, if anything, that number means. By themselves, primary sources are only for undisputed fact citing, not for any interpretations. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Rules against interpreting facts do not apply to instances where those facts are blindingly obvious. If, as in this case, any reasonable person could draw the stated conclusion given these primary sources, there is no good reason not to include the section. D4g0thur 06:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't find any exception to policy for the "blindingly obvious"? Further, where is the criteria that 0.0005% of YouTube's videos being on the same relative topic constitutes a "blingingly obvious" "internet phenomenon"? The policy against original research is, however, "blindingly clear": "An edit counts as original research if it [...] introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; [or] introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, I agree with those that argue against the use of these sites to prove any internet phenomenon. I don't think ANY serious encyclopedia would include "information" from sites such as 4chan or YTMND. I've never seen anything from 4chan, but from word of mouth, it doesn't necessarily contain material that would be considered encyclopedic. I HAVE seen YTMND and, by and large,no...just no... If we are arguing that there is an internet phenomenon going on with the show and the fact that it has reached a fan base older than its target audience, which I'm sure can be found through printed material, argue it with sites devoted specifically to the show and its actors. Examples: the IMDB page of LazyTown, which is visited by people from teens to 40-year-olds, or (link redacted because spam filter is causing an error when editing this page RainbowOfLight Talk 02:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC) )World of Julianna, which was started by a 29-year-old woman, who serves as administrator of the site with a guy who is less than a week younger than Julianna herself. On the YouTube issue, anything can become a phenomenon on YouTube. It's about quantity, not quality. I can make 1000 videos of myself doing random things, post them on YouTube and become an internet celebrity. Does that merit inclusion in Wikipedia if no one stands up and takes notice? There are people who have become celebrities because of the internet phenomenon, but the difference is that no news organization, no magazine, not even Nickelodeon themselves has stood up to take notice of the so-called "LazyTown internet phenomenon".

Someone in this thread asked if we had to wait for someone to write about a LazyTown internet phenomenon before it's included in the article. YES! Otherwise, it is speculation and interpretation. I have been responsible for removing a YouTube fan video from Julianna's page and, I'm sorry, I can't see this as anything but an argument for the YTMNDers and 4chan-ers to broadcast their "fanimutations" outside their little corner of the internet world.--Ispy1981 21:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK it seems obvious that no-one is going to allow the use of YTMND or YouTube as references; however, after looking at what Ispy1981 said, I don't think that actually matters anymore. I saw that (link redacted because spam filter is causing an error when editing this page RainbowOfLight Talk 02:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC) ) World of Julianna has an 18+ forum and, I read no small number of user comments on its IMDb entry which suggested it has an audience outside of its target. I have to go out now, but when I come back home I will fix the references and change the section to better reflect these. D4g0thur 03:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. I have removed the "Internet Phenomenon" section from the Stephanie article, replacing it with a new section entitled "Popularity outside of target age group" which links back to this section which I added to the LazyTown article. The section says that LazyTown has received some popularity amongst older audiences and cites the two sources mentioned above as well as another relevant source. I tried to make sure it is not in any way POV or OR so, hopefully, there will be no problems with it. D4g0thur 05:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popularity outside of target age group

This section needs better sourcing. IMDB usercomments are not reliable sources for anything. The fact that a fan site has a 18+ section isn't exactly solid sourcing for the statement "In particular, Stephanie and, thus, Julianna Rose Mauriello, have received popularity amongst older audiences" either.--Isotope23 talk 16:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be offline for a bit, until this afternoon, but I wanted to get this in before. I think this section should go, unless there are articles which specifically state that there is a popular demographic amongst "older people". You could check the Nielsen ratings, but I'm afraid those might be skewed by the fact that parents are watching this show with there kids. A check of the history of Nielsen ratings for teenagers watching the show could provide proof, if such a check could be done. I've come up short, article-wise, as most articles cite the target demographic.--Sethacus 17:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to pull the section pending better sourcing. Actually, even a nielsen rating cite showing a demographic of adults could be incorporated and would be better than the current cites; the section would just need to be worded so it isn't saying more than the sources allow it to reasonably claim.--Isotope23 talk 17:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Kat, Queen of Typos 21:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm agreed on this, as well. As I said here, if Nielsens could be found for the ranges of, say 13 and up, I think that would be sufficient enough to warrant re-inclusion. However, in the event that that happens, I'd like to suggest the section be reworded, so that it focuses on the show, not Julianna. I've been running that sentence over in my mind, and there's still something vaguely about that statement that hints at the pedophilic (or now ephebophilic) following she's received. I've been a fan of hers (fairly well-known, somewhat tolerated) for going on two years, and I'm not stupid enough to deny that following. I've seen quite a bit of bizarre behavior, ranging from obscene YTMND posts to out-and-out stalking of her, both on and offline, by known pedophiles and convicted sex offenders. However, I don't feel that is encyclopedic and, therefore, the statement about her having an older following is not needed.--Sethacus 01:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been very active over the last month or two so didn't notice this... if someone could elaborate on this "Nielsen rating" and tell me where to find it, I'd be happy to look there for sources. Lack of sources has been a major problem for this whole issue for quite a while, maybe the "Nielsen rating" could help remedy that. D4g0thur 03:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ROBBY ROTTEN AS A PIRATE.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ROBBY ROTTEN AS A PIRATE.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. GentlemanGhost 20:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] £500,000 or $1,000,000

The filming section says "£500,000" and the next section detailing the live show says when describing the tv show "Each 25-minute episode costs £500,000, making it probably the most expensive children’s television in the world."[5]" I realize one is in british pounds and the other dollars is there a conversion for this. Is this contradictory? Is the amount needed in the live show section with similar yet different info in the section above? ideas? --Xiahou 01:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

At the current rate of conversion, 1 British pound is worth a little more than 2 US Dollars, so, while those figures may not be exact (I doubt each episode costs EXACTLY a million US), they are pretty accurate.--Sethacus 15:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LazyTown Live!

By this point, there has been a musical play in Argentina (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache: Pf8SBmEY0wMJ:www.mazcue.com.ar/lazy-town-en-argentina-teatro-o), and will be/is a UK show [3]. I see no information on this currently, other than an external link for TicketMaster. If someone could update this article with information on these shows (as I have none myself, other than the fact that they exist), I would be much obliged. 76.235.65.92 02:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The article has a whole section on the live show already. Kat, Queen of Typos 02:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Live Show section

I think the article would be improved with some actual information about the live show, rather than just a media blurb. Kat, Queen of Typos 04:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of eps

Due to recent edits regarding the number of episodes aired, I checked out the sourcing in the article. It seems two of the links are outdated (48 instead of,now, 53 episodes) and a third being a deadlink (which I will remove). With the show ongoing, and with a highly probable third season, wouldn't it behoove us to have a reliable,updated source for this?--Sethacus 17:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] can anyone confirm?

"(In other countries, the cast is changed - for example, Stephanie is played by a puppet.)[citation needed] "

is this actually true? You'd think the countries where Stephanie is a puppet would at least be mentioned if it were. 71.228.132.242 10:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  • That bit was added by one of the articles extremely good faith editors. Perhaps she has a source.--Sethacus 14:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't make the edit, but I have seen screenshots where Stephanie is a puppet. Sorry, but I don't know where the screenshots were from. RainbowOfLight Talk 14:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought you had. Ha, my mistake. I do remember seeing a puppet Stephanie on Guðmundur Þór Kárason's site. Whether or not it's used in other countries, IDK. To my knowledge, they use the original filmed version (i.e. with Julianna) in most, if not all markets, with different, dubbed voices, naturally.--Sethacus 17:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)