Talk:The Wiggles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star The Wiggles is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This article, or a prior version of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors on 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC). The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Characters section images

As this article's main editor, this section has given me the most headaches.

Yesterday (2/13), Balloonman re-organized the images in this section. I would like to talk about this. My initial reaction was, "Ooo, I don't like it." Of course, that could be an emotional reaction, so I need the input of someone who's not as invested in this article. I've noticed, though, that most of the images in WP articles tend to be put on either the left or right, and not in the center or in a gallery as Balloonman has done. I haven't found any policy about that, but it seems to be common practice. Therefore, I vote to return the images to the right side of the article, as before. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I really didn't like the old format... four pictures in such a small area made it look very cluttered and sloppy---especially when the pictures extend past the relevant section. I've always hated the way it looks. Thus, I decided to try something that I've seen elsewhere that I think does work. My main quibble right now is that I think there needs to be a few more pictures in the article ABOVE the characters section.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
See, and I liked it. Maybe a solution is to put half the images on the right, and half on the left. I'll try it when I have time later on today. I'll also see what additional photos I can find on my image source, from Jeff's fan page on MySpace, also later. Happy V-Day, sweetie! ;) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Man, I'd cuss but this is a family organisation and it's Valentine's Day! ;)
As the history shows, I tried several experimentations, and nothing worked to solve our problem. I even played around with changing the size of the images, but I didn't want to make them too small, ya know. I think keeping the gallery with slightly smaller sizes works. Of course, that's just my impression. Someone else can try, as long as it looks attractive. Arrrgh, as the good Capt. would say! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The wiggles stage

I would love to see another picture replace the wiggles stage... the stage is a nice picture when it is full size, but shrunk down to fit in an Wiki-article makes it too small. I won't delete it because I think we need more 2-3 more pictures anyways...Balloonman (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before (on the FAN page, I think), the guys really need to come close enough to my town to warrant going to one of their concerts so that I can get some of the images we need myself! This article has always suffered from a lack of adequate free images. The few that we have at this point are due to some generous souls who have donated them. I think we should keep the concert image because although it's small, it demonstrates one of the most important aspects of The Wiggles--their stage shows and concerts. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "NASA" image

On 2/17, Balloonman, who has helped with this article second only to mineself, replaced the "NASA" picture with the correct one with the guys' logo on the correct side of their shirts. He also moved the image to a different section of the article. Man, what happened to not making any substantial changes without discussing it first?

Anyway, I'd like to talk about it now. I'd like to return this image to its original place like this. There are a couple of reasons for it. First, I believe that it introduces the topic of The Wiggles' origins, since it shows all four original members. Second, I personally think that it looks better there. Its current placement makes the end of the article looks too busy and makes the beginning of the article look too empty.

I agree with Balloon's evaluation that this article doesn't have enough images, but I think we've done the best with what's available. The ideal image for the end of the article, "Greg Page's retirement" would be an image of Greg. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a free one. I'll be on the look-out, though. Until then, discussion about this would be nice. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The location of the image doesn't matter to me... but the reversed image should be deleted. It is innacurate.Balloonman (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then I'll move it back. Oh, and thanks for archiving this talk page; it needed it! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remaining FAC feedback

I was unfortunately unable to address a few of the FAC comments before the nom was closed, so I'm pasting the rest here, for evidence that all concerns were addressed before the next nom: --Figureskatingfan (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A "Leeanne Ashley" is mentioned as the choreographer; a "Leanne Ashley" is mentioned as having acted as Dorothy; a "Leanne Halloran" is mentioned at the end as the choreographer.
Both women have been choreographers, and I corrected the typo. I can see how it can be confusing, though, so I deleted the reference to Halloran as being a choreographer, since she served in that role in one Wiggles video.
  • The wiggly dancers are referred to variously as (verbatim): "The Wiggly Dancers", the Wiggly Dancers, and "the "Wiggly dancers".
I made an executive decision, and it's "dancers." --Figureskatingfan (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Some of the references need parameter work. For example, ABC News is improperly italicized because it was set as a 'work' parameter; the same is true of references including the Australian Film Commission, ABC TV Online, MSNBC, Tv.com, and MTV.com. 'Publisher' or 'author' would be a more appropriate parameter, and would result in the proper display format.
Done; I also tried to ensure the refs were, as much as possible, reliable. It's my intention, before I resubmit this article for FAC again, to go through each ref and ensure they're still working and accessible.
  • I'd suggest fleshing out the intro to the Characters section by reinforcing that the main 4 characters are known by their first names; I think this is important since the bulk of the article refers to them by their last names.
I agree with this suggestion. As a result, I think what I've come up with a good solution. Earlier, in the "Early Career" section, I made an addition that while performing, The Wiggles are addressed by their first names. Perhaps that makes the "Characters" section clearer.
  • Regarding the first oppose vote above, where an editor wants to see an article for the tv series: yes, that would be lovely, but I do not see that as a valid reason for opposing since this FAC is not overly laden with tv series-specific content. I can't see opposing because you don't like some of the categories on the article. Maralia (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I suspect that the person who made this suggestion has an agenda, since his/her project is to have a WP article on every Aussie TV show produced. Sorry, but I have no personal investment in this agenda/project.

So all objections thus far have been addressed. My intention is to submit this article for another copyedit, and then resubmit it in a couple of weeks. Thanks to all who assisted! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting article

I don't like the idea of splitting the article into two. The Band/Tv Series are the same. I don't like the idea.Balloonman (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already gone on the record regarding this issue, in the second FAC nom, so I agree and don't think it should be split either. However, I think that in the most recent peer review, Ruhrfisch has a point that there needs to be additional information about both The Wiggles' six TV series and their music. I'm working on that, as per WP:Summary style. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Voting against the split. This current article contains very little information that is specific to the TV series only, so I'm not sure how a split would work. For example, the minor characters (Catpain Feathersword, etc.) exist in the TV series, AND in their home videos, AND in their concerts, so you wouldn't want to remove them from the main article. Furthermore, there isn't/wasn't just one TV series called "The Wiggles". In the episodes I've seen, some were titled "The Wiggles", others were called "Lights, Camera, Action, Wiggles!", and still others were titled "The Wiggles World" (I think). And many of the episodes consisted mainly of clips drawn from the home videos, so it all gets very intertwined. I think it makes more sense to discuss their various series in the main article. Vandelay (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of splitting the article either. It should be kept as is. The Wiggles band, TV show and arena shows seem to be all the same thing.Dincher (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm also against a split, and have removed the template, as nobody here seems to support it. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ARIA Awards

I know that in 2006 the Wiggles received their 6th ARIA award (Australia's big music award) and that they received at least one in 2007... but I don't know how many they currently have. I think this would be a piece of information to include in the article someplace.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs)

Here's a link - they've won 4 (their latest was in 2005, it says) and have been nominated for another 6. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
But then, this says they won Best Childrens Album for Racing To The Rainbow, so perhaps the ARIA site is sometimes slow on the update (first time I've seen that happen...) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly the reason self-published websites aren't considered reliable. For now, until we find an updated, reliable source, I think we should keep it as is. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...I thought ARIA's webiste would be considered reliable. I've always used it/seen it as such. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I think self published websites aren't reliable in so far as they relate to claims about themselves. In other words, if the page said that it was the most prestigious musical award in Australia, then no, that is not reliable. But when it is reporting facts such as the number of awards presented, that is generally a different story. I would have thought it would be reliable as well as it is in regards to it's own awards.

I wonder if the solution, since there's all this "conflicting" info, is to simply say, "The Wiggles have won and been nominated for several ARIA awards, the most prestigious music award in Australia," with appropriate citing, of course. Opinions? --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine. Personally I would go with an accumulation of the ARIA info via all the links provided, but I don't mind this easier. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about it, and since there was no more discussion, I conflated the above references to the current version. I believe it satisfies the concerns of all interested parties. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC process

So this article failed FAC again, for the third time. I wasn't able to address the most recent set of comments/feedback, so I will cut-and-paste them below and when I have time (I have some RL deadlines to meet this week), I'll address them.

I must say, getting this article to FA-status has been frustrating. I realize that as a writer, I have some weaknesses, as well as lack of experience. One of the things I love about WP is how much I've learned as an editor and about the editing process. I'm certain that the next article I tackle will be easier. My writing has improved, that's for certain.

However, I'm beginning to have some misgivings about the FAC process, especially how it relates to this particular article. From what I've seen of other FAs, even the ones that have been put on the main page, they haven't gone through nearly as much scrutiny as this one has: three peer reviews, a copyedit, a GAN, and now three FACs. I'm willing to admit that it can be explained in part by the weaknesses of this article, with my weaknesses and inexperience as an editor, and with the subject of this article.

I wonder, though, if there hasn't been some biases against this article, and perhaps that explains the tendency for reviewers to judge it more harshly than how other FAs about similar topics have been judged. First, the subject is non-American. Second, it focuses on children's music, not a highly respected genre in the music field. Finally, the main editor is a woman. Now, I don't want to accuse anyone of anything, but I think it's important enough to at least bring up here on this talk page.

At any rate, I will address the objections that I didn't have the time to address before the nomination was closed, and try again at a later time, after the dust settles. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tony and myself are both Australian... Roger is an Englishman. I've suported stacks of artilces by females - eg Awadewit (talk · contribs). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm also Australian. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

But you didn't address the children's music issue. One of the major weaknesses of this article is the subject matter. No one's out there writing about the efficacy of The Wiggles' educational methods or doing any studies about them. Part of that, I believe, is because their audience is very young children, and children's music is not yet accepted by the mainstream of the music industry. In other words, the attitude is, "Why should the WP article about a children's music group become a FA? How is that notable?" As a result, this article may be suffering from a higher level of scrutiny than other articles of a similar topic.

Of course, that's nothing that I can prove, but I wanted to at least put it out there. I also hope this doesn't disable this article any further. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC notes to be addressed

Cut-and-paste by Figureskatingfan. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Fair-use justification: I find it inadequate. If there's an educational function (as required), it's unclear in the main text. What is it about the settings that makes them suitable for children? What did they do to the original Cockroaches songs, musically and in terms of the lyrics? And how is the educational function of the Wiggles's songs achieved. More details, analysis, required. I don't see that the sources have this information. TONY (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're talking about the audio samples. I added more information to them; perhaps that's adequate. I've also added more information about the educational function of the group's music and performances, at least what I was able to source. The sources out there don't go into any more detail than what's described in this article. I'd love to be able to find a sample of The Cockroaches songs that were changed, but they're just simply not out there that I could find. (And believe me, I did an extensive search.) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I have concerns about comprehensiveness. There are also a few prose issues and many quotations that are not directly cited.

  • Question on the timeline: Was the first self-titled album created before the stuff that happened in the second paragraph of the Origins section? I found it a little odd that it mentioned the "self-titled album" but took another paragraph to explain where the name came from.
I restructured that section, so hopefully this issue has been addressed satisfactorily.
  • I thought "songwriting" was one word.
Nope. In Aussie spelling, it's two.
  • Need a citation for the quote here "Their songs combined "fun with educational messages" that were accessible to parents and children." (even if the next sentence cite covers it, just in case someone inserts another fact in the middle)
Point here is mute, since I deleted this phrase to address the overusage of quotes.
  • I may be interpreting this incorrectly, but this appears to be a bit of a contradiction in these 2 sentences "The Wiggles were musicians, "a rock band, pure and simple".[1] They were not tied to one style or genre of music"
Again, mute point now; I deleted the "rock band" reference and expanded the second point. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Go through the article and watch for unnecessary repetition within sentences and paragraphs. (Ex: "Cook, as a guitarist, was conscious that he was probably the first guitarist children would see" two "guitarist" refs?) (Ex 2 :They have been awarded with several music industry awards in Australia")
Done, but it could use some additional eyes.
  • "The Wiggles wrote new music each year since their inception; three albums worth of original children's music, drawing upon several genres of music and types of instruments, were written during marathon song writing sessions for a month each summer and were based on simple concepts familiar to young children" - Does this mean the wrote three albums total or that they wrote three albums a year each year since 1991?
Changed; it's now clearer, I believe.
  • This is a pretty broad claim "Fatt reported that children with autism "respond to [The] Wiggles and nothing else"." - I think that this might need to be more specific.
How's this: According to Fatt, many parents of these children have reported that The Wiggles' music has "enhanced their lives",[15] and that children with autism "respond to [The] Wiggles and nothing else".[15]
  • Need citation for the quotation here "For a few years during the late 90s, while "riding an enormous wave of success in America and the UK", The Wiggles travelled in two planes and on two buses so that if disaster occurred, "at least half of them would survive and carry on". After "
  • Need citation for quotes: "Their "strong connection" with the US was "forged in the shell-shocked weeks after the terrorist attacks on New York in 2001," when The Wiggles travelled to America to perform despite the "stated risks".
Fixed.
  • Need a cite for the quotes: "n "one of the highlights of their 15 years of being together", The Wiggles were awarded honorary doctorate degrees from the Australian Catholic University in recognition of "their outstanding contribution to early child development" in 2006. "
Fixed.
  • This sentence makes it sound like the kids would want them to disband "The Wiggles "struggled" over their decision to replace Page, but they decided not to disband because they thought that was what their young audience would want."
Okay, I changed the wording to satisfy this objection.
  • The tone of this is off a bit - it reads like an ad from the Wiggles "Dorothy is a "rososaurus", a "yellow-spotted green dinosaur with surprisingly scary teeth".[34] She lives in a beautiful pink and purple house with her own Rosy Orchestra and a rose garden in her backyard. She loves to eat roses and dance the ballet.[34] She enjoys serving guests rose-derived treats such as "rosy tea".
Okay, perhaps there needs to be a discussion about this section. Do you recommend that we completely remove it, or that we move it to another article? I'd accept moving it, since these characters (including their portrayers) are important to The Wiggles. In writing/editing/expanding this section, I used some of the Character articles as a model (i.e.,Kermit the Frog), although unlike these articles, I strictly included only source-able information. For example, in an early version of this article, there was a line about "The Wiggles death curse", which refered to the fact that two of the people who played a minor character had died. There is nothing to substantiate this, so it was deleted. (Also see this discussion.) The earlier versions of this section also suffered from WP:OR, as do other similar articles (i.e., Kermit). I made a conscious decision and effort to avoid that in this article, so the descriptions are shorter than in previous versions. If anyone has a better idea as to how to handle this issue, please share. Also, remember that these are children's characters, so I don't see why we can't get a little whimsical here, WP as an encyclopedia notwithstanding.
  • Need a citation for the quotes: "Ferrie described Dorothy as "a dinosaur superstar ... very open, friendly, and warm. She is like a mother figure even though she is only meant to be five, and kids really respond to her ... She is calm and mothering but friendly as well. She's young and still playful but has got a motherly feeling to her".
Also fixed.
  • Need a cite for quotes "Ferrie insisted that Dorothy "is number one after the boys including Captain Feathersword, in terms of who kids say they love".
Ahem, see above.
  • This ref does not have a publisher listed: Bourgeau, Michel. "Play your guitar with Murray" (DOC). Retrieved on 2007-08-06.
Okay.
  • Overall in the article there is an overemphasis on quotes.
I went through the article and tried to decrease this emphasis by changing many quotes to prose. Hope it's adequate.
  • There is no section about critical response. Have there been no reviews of their music? Have there been any controversies about the group?
As I describe in the below section, I created a new section, "Reception", in the hopes that it satisfies this objection. I think that I've included as many reviews and criticism as possible. For example, John Fogerty's comments about them, the problems with Greg's retirement, and this year's "ticketing scandal". What do you do when one of the article subject's goals is to stay as squeaky-clean as they can, and for the most part, do a really good job? Sorry, The Wiggles aren't Jamie-Lynn Spears. They're boring (not that there's anything wrong with that!), but much cuter. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What I did

I'm now ready to address some of the issues raised in this article's last FAC. Before addressing them, I wanted to find more information that specifically addressed some these concerns (i.e., criticism and educational efficacy), so I went through everything this article cites and added information when appropriate. Notice that I created two new sections: Musical style and Reception. I wasn't able to find a great deal of information, since as I've stated before, this article's biggest weakness is its subject matter, and the fact that not much has been written about the influence of The Wiggles' music and some of the other demands of this article's reviewers.

I need some input: I placed the new sections at the end of the Characters section. Is this the most appropriate placement? I think it was, since the Characters section flow naturally from the History section. Please discuss, for if someone can adequately justify changing it, I will do so.--Figureskatingfan (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New lead

On 5/19, Dihydrogen Monoxide made some edits to this article's lead. I have some problems with them, which I will list for you below:

I like the first part of that sentence. Perhaps it's solely a style preference, but I don't think that the slash (--) is good usage. In addition, the content expressed in the second part of the sentence was originally placed at the end of the lead for timeline purposes; that's why the sentence states, "The original members were..." So I support putting it at the end as I have done.
  • "The Wiggles' popularity has seen them referred to as..."
Don't like phrasing of this at all. How about the original phrasing ("The group has achieved worldwide success..."); "has seen" and "popularity" are peacock terms. "Worldwide success" is peacock, too, but not as much, IMO.
  • "...their albums, videos, television series, and concerts have achieved success worldwide."
Similar issue as above, or continuing it. The albums et al haven't achieved success; the guys have.
  • "They have received tens of multi-platinum certifications and have sold over 17 million DVDs, and four million CDs."
What's wrong with the list of their specific sells? "Tens of" makes little sense. I'm okay with the "have sold over" phrase, but my version is tighter, IMO.
  • "Field and Fatt were members of the Australian pop band The Cockroaches in the 1980s, while Cook played guitar in several bands. The trio met at Macquarie University, where they were studying to become pre-school teachers."
This is just plain wrong. (Well, Murray did play the guitar...) The timeline goes: Anthony and Jeff were in the Cockroaches; Murray was in several bands; Anthony, Murray, and Greg met at university, and so on. The current version makes no mention of Greg. It needs to be changed.

That's all. My preference is to revert it back to the version before Di's, but I wanted consensus first. Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...thanks for the feedback. Long of the short; I've reverted myself...it is "your" article, and I understand your issues. Sometimes it's hard when you aren't as familiar with the subject to do a good lead. Good luck at FAC. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yah, but Di, the policy you quote says that I don't own the article. Sure, I have a great deal invested in it, as all editors who commit themselves to a particular article do, but I think that I've always been open to the constructive input of others. I've followed every reasonable suggestion made during every milestone it's been through. So I have some emotional attachment to it, and I'm sure that's been obvious as we've gone through this process as well. At any rate, thanks for your help in that process (and for your revert) and keep your fingers crossed for FA! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)