Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cartoon Network/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Fred Fredburger

We all need to keep a close eye on it. I nominated all the character pages for all the Billy and Mandy characters for merge with the List of Billy and Mandy characters page, except for Billy, Mandy, Grim, and Irwin. User:Black Rhino Ranger keeps removing the suggestion for merge tag because he wants to keep the page. His reason is because "Because I want to give Fred fredburger his own article back. Sob sob". Is there a way to get an admin to stop him from removing it and adding cruft to it? (He keeps adding stuff like "List of Foods that Fred Fredburger likes to eat". I've explained to him the situation and it keeps getting removed. Suggestions? DietLimeCola 06:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Best policy with dealing with over-zealous editors is to leave them the usual warning templates on their talkpage going up the levels until you can bring in a admin to ban them. I'd suggest using {{subst:uw-own1}}, {{subst:uw-delete1}} and {{subst:uw-vand2}}. I doubt you can issue warnings retrospectively though if you feel that you can hunt through their non-constructive edits and give warnings for those specifically then do so. It's not totally necessary to do that though, just helps if an admin needs to check if they are just being pointless or not. There's not enough warnings on their talkpage to warrant an AIV and will be watching the article closely just to see if I need to issue a warning also. --treelo _talk 17:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit.

Seeing as this page has turned into "Did I do right?" central for less-than-bold editors (told you, didn't I?) over being the discussion area for the actual maintaining of the project I figured I'll wade in as the designated area I did want to use won't be used and as such put up for speedy deletion. Anyway, cut a lot from List of characters from My Gym Partner's a Monkey, mainly way minor one-shot or recurring but non-speaking background characters. Even though I did this for the benefit of this frequently edited article, I anticipate either a revert or it to refill after a while with more garbage from multiple one sentence IP editors. --treelo _talk 01:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice work, well, I guess we'll see how long it lasts. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 09:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"I'm not editing that!"

I should be maintaining these specific articles (and probably a few others) but sadly irate animé fans, revert-happy sole editors and the general illiterate and misinformed make me feel like I shouldn't bother due to a status quo being employed by its' single recurring editor where it doesn't matter how long your lists get, opinionated parts are via weasel terminology or how your bad spelling and grammar affects you when trying to sound smart. Pff. --treelo _talk 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

When having a conflict with someone, remind them of the rules of Wikipedia. Most of them never read them or probably even considered that there were any rules. Most of the time if they find out what they are doing is wrong, they'll stop. If they keep doing it, then it's time to call an admin in. DietLimeCola 00:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Have done that and given it's only one editor specifically who edits out of a couple of IP editors and one person who I know personally has a history of being a jackass elsewhere makes it much more likely that I'll ignore the articles in question. Maybe I just tire of editing things that'll just get undone or ignored, do you see how many templates one of those articles gained? Forget it, I need the co=operation of a much more thorough and dare I say, more seasoned editor to cut out the crap and kiddybanter and have the articles without bias, trivia masquerading as importance or never-ending lists of programming. Actually, given the length of the section within Cartoon Network (Worldwide) (which is nearly word for word the meaningful content for the main article it links to) I'd reckon it shouldn't even have an article. --treelo _talk 15:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Attention!

I feel like delegating so here's the scoop.

• We need a taskforce to get about, assess and classify our articles correctly, I do go on about this but it's needed if we're to use what this project has to use to it's fullest extent.
• New recruitment drive as what we got right now is pretty shabby though really one would be useless given how few good editors for any CN articles exist, a few do namely NoseNuggets and DamnCartoonGuy, both of which would be good to get them attached at least and I reckon there's a few others so have a root about in page histories and see if you can find someone who's contributions are mostly for CN articles and ask them.
• Use and update the to-do list as it really does need using properly and helps target areas.
• Get any templates or infobox layouts that are used by our pages and get them categorised within Category:Cartoon Network templates.

If we can get this working, we might see a better running project come a months time. --treelo _talk 15:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I doubt we will. Each time I suggest anything that we should do besides do the obvious I get stonewalled and lose faith in our ability to do little besides just clean up cruft. It's impossible to raise morale, nobody ever says anything but for once I'd like others to give a damn. --treelo _talk 00:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading the comments, I'm just not replying to them, so I give a damn. Sorry if I didn't make it obvious. DietLimeCola 21:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You haven't but seeing as that's two people in as many weeks we've lost, we probably should be talking seeing as it's kinda needed right now. --treelo _talk 10:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to say this, but I'm leaving the project. It's not that I don't like it or Cartoon Network anymore, just I'm too much of a loner aparently. I'll still help out with whatever I can. Well, good luck. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 08:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I'm sure. --treelo _talk 10:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Monthly inspection June

I see that now T-borg has left. I also see this talk page has gotten vandalism. Plus I'm the last person to edit. I thought this would be a better group by June dietlimecola. Ah well good luck. Driveus

BTW welcome Esskater11 and Penguin49 hope you enjoy it here. Treelo do not remove them. Driveus

Would I? Even so, I'm sure that I could if they have little to no input on the articles. Doubt progress would have been any different under your tenure but I'll agree, it's no way near enough. There's means, just not enough people out there. --treelo _talk 12:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, Hard to believe WP:Disney and WP:Nick have that many users. Driveus

Not really no, it's totally logical why they do and at least have a wider and skewed more towards an older fanbase. One's a huge sprawling subject with various areas of expertise that people as passionate about, the other has a greater and wider legacy of things to input on. We don't have enough because most of our good editors are not informed well enough (watch only certain shows), don't care to join or are IP editors who don't sign up and probably should. That and proactivity, it's always proactivity. --treelo _talk 00:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. I can especially understand Disney with more users. Why is it that everytime someone edits this page there's at least 2-4 replys on it and then no one edits anymore until my Monthly Inspection or if a user decides to leave. Driveus

I learned a while ago if you do try and motivate or indeed mention anything to do with the general project, you rarely get anything out of it so I stay quiet unless someone else has anything to say. Inactivity breeds inactivity, not the best position it could be in but I'm putting it down to my own perceptions that there's too few dedicated folk out there and too many with a lack of interest or intelligence. Finding those few dedicated types means crap if they find a semi-active project with little organisation or activity. It all comes down to me in the end I know but theres two active project members! That's it, two. How can anything move ahead against a sea of fanboyism and members who edit fine but have little interest in helping out? Two of the best didn't even want anything to do with it, what does that say? There's not enough interest or dedication and that is all, we should get used to it. --treelo _talk 12:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thats how it works. Your right general talk of the project is kinda not needed. Issues on articles is what we need. Man you were right there is a lack of interest in this project. Driveus

I replied underneath, come follow. --treelo _talk 01:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Active dispute

There's an active content dispute about the Powerpuff Girls article, could you look it over and provide help with resolving it? Thanks. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 18:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The State of the Project

The project is dying somewhat and I'll be damned if it becomes inactive through apathy and nothing else. Not like no edits occur on CN articles, several do every day but there's no overall taskforces identifying weak spots, crummy recurring editing mistakes and generally rewriting articles from the top down if necessary to bring the quality of articles up. I didn't take being co-ordinator through a power vacuum or anything else, I took it because the vast majority of the articles are complete crap and dammit, what's wrong with wanting even one good article at least on a subject you give a damn about because you know it well enough to be passionate and right about it? I feel I've done a great deal for the project in getting the groundwork for a well-functioning project going but never have I felt much of it mattered. Nobody cares for assessments, to-do lists, peer reviews or project taskforces. Heck, nobody cares for many articles because of the odd way I've noticed just how many CN shows polarise viewers to only one show instead of many. That stinks to me, it's killing our project due to possibly something as simple as having a CN project being too vague or wide an interest. People will jump at the chance to help handle KND, FHIF or GABM articles under their own project but ask them to do it under a CN banner and people will back away a bit because of what it implies, editing articles on shows they don't know squat about. It isn't that though, do your area of knowledge but do it well, that's all I want and I expect that's all the other editors connected to the project want too.

It's not just issues on articles, issues on articles can be kept to the talkpages of said articles for now (or to the talkpage I wanted for just that purpose). Talk of the project just to make it work until it can run near autonomously is needed more, right here, right now. Sure, it's all about the articles but the project is the thread that should run through them all, keeping them in good shape, making sure consensus on edit disputes are made, checking and citing information and generally being the guardian of the articles. Right now, it's the Wild West out there as any edit goes irregardless of if it's true, notable or even grammatically correct, I aim to change that. What I want is at least five good, bold editors who can act as near administrators to our articles and keep the peace on their patch of turf because that's exactly what I feel the project should be, the QA for its' articles, if we fail, the articles fail also. Might be hard finding them but I know there's some out there who can do it with time and dedication. I have plans and will outline them if anyone wishes to hear them, I may have said I don't do this due to lack of interest but even one person talking it through with me and others can make the difference. --treelo _talk 01:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added myself to the membership of this project. If you look at my edit history, I've been trying to clean up the Camp Lazlo articles, among other CN articles. Unfortunately, some of these look to be in need of a top-down rewrite (i.e., the episodes table format is inconsistent from season to season; the episode summaries are simply too wordy). Yngvarr 22:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, I'm moving on from the MGPAM articles as they just are painful to maintain and will let someone else cut the rot out. Camp Lazlo articles have always been a concern and your contribs are good enough that I'll try and co-ordinate edits with you so they work out seeing as I'm gaining more knowledge on other shows and feel I could rewrite some of the more inconsistent articles. --treelo _talk 17:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Monthly Inspection July

So far theres no major problems that I see, since no ones reported any (Except for T-borg on a PPG problem). I also see we've got a new member, Yngvarr welcome aboard. But as far as i see ths project may be organised but still unrecognised. Driveus

I agree with that notion, still the perisistent edit war that's going on at one of the character list pages which is of minor concern but one with no end seeing as nobody of authority sees it as anything more than a content dispute. What can we do to make others aware that we exist? --treelo _talk 14:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. Anyone have any plans they would like to share? Driveus

Scratch it for now, issue is sorted for that specific article for 2 weeks but I'm gunning for a 3 strike rule to make it permanent. --treelo _talk 10:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully my idea isn't too lofty, but I'm not sure. Maybe we could try to get one of the articles into a higher classification. Not a single article is above B level, which is not a bad thing, but if we can get something to pass GA nomination, that should give some exposure. Would have to start on a relatively stable page, one that's not often a target of fancruft or stuff. Yngvarr 18:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If you read "The State of the Project" up above and one other wordy rant back in the archives, you'll see it's not too lofty as realistically, that's our intent. I'd like to see a GA of our own but this goes back to the focus of our efforts concentrated between 3 people which isn't the best condition for a project of our size to be in. If we do manage to get the GA for one of the articles it does mean killing a few figurative babies but it'll be worth it. If I was up to going around every article we look over or could look over and classifying them (I'm questioning the inclusion of adult swim shows though, too disparate) I'd find most to be at either Stub or Start quality which is almost expected as few people cannot float around checking every article and countering the editors who feel they own it outright. I mean, I'm the only person who can maintain the vastly stupid CN UK article but won't because there's only one other person handling it regularly and they own it by default and counter my ideas continuously (read: reverts anything I do). If you want, you could assess for yourself the article quality and possibly draw up a shortlist of sorts for possible GA quality pages. May mean having to add the template in some cases but it'll help with my personal goal of having all our articles classified. Sooo yeah, our first GA article would be great. --treelo _talk 10:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Participants sub-section

May I suggest that the Participants subsection on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon Network be changed so that instead of asking for [[User:Username]] to use the user template {{user|Username}}? This will allow Talk and Contribs to show up next to the name. Yea, sometimes I'm nosy :P Yngvarr 15:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, sounds more logical and helps check on members to make sure they're actually worthwhile to us. Not like anyone actually pays attention to the conditions I'd like for people to use but what can I do? --treelo _talk 16:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Montly Inspection August

By the look of this talk page I see only one more section has been made since the last inspection. Plus I see that theres been two more archives added. Also on while on youtube I noticed some videos have been removed because Cartoon Network put a copyright claim on the site. Similar to the Viacom lawsuit. Do any of you suppose that could become a problem soon here? To my knowledge there have been no official press releases on the matter. Driveus —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:09, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

I also noticed that youtube now only has episode clips, rather than full episodes. I do recall seeing an article regarding the copyright issues on Youtube. The closest I could fine is [1], and the dates would coincide. Yngvarr 10:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea...

Don't know if it'd be impractical given the stupid, stupid nature of my severely outdated and incomplete assessment sub-project but do you think it'd be a practical idea to push some of our better articles forward for peer review? Help to clean up our B-class articles. I've put forward Dexter's Laboratory and The Powerpuff Girls being the much older and popular of the shows we handle but are there any others which could benefit? --treelo _talk 16:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Any of the older, out of production, shows should also be good for submitting, if only because they tend to be more "stable". Quite a few of the older original shows are still aired. Cow & Chicken, Johnny Bravo. While not necessarily a cartoon, The Cartoon Cartoon Show is significant. Maybe pushing a peer review on troublesome articles like MPGAM would actually be good, and make a visible impression to those anon editors who want to fill things up with nonsense... Yngvarr 16:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, consider putting them forward because I want to see how these first two go before adding more personally. You're free to put forward any of the pre-98 shows due to their stability and also I'd like to be able to class them correctly. --treelo _talk 17:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've submitted Cow & Chicken for now: Wikipedia:Peer review/Cow & Chicken/archive1 Yngvarr 00:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Monthly Inspection September

Hello all. How did the Peer Review idea work out? And how is this project doing. I hope this project isn't inactive. Driveus —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Suppose, the Peer Review for the test articles went well, most citing that we need more references which is hard to source on older shows. Still want to implement the ideas fully but the custodians of the articles don't seem interested in improving the articles and keeping them as their cruft-filled information repository. The project... hard to say, ask Yngvarr. I'll say this though, a lot of our fair-use images are being listed to be deleted so that needs action now. --treelo _talk 13:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As Treelo says, the peer reviews went/are doing Ok. Some feedback, some has been incorporated. Ditto on the comment on the references. The project isn't really dead, but right now, it seems that it's just me and Treelo as the most active. I know Treelo's been dealing with the images issue, which cropped up out of nowhere a couple of weeks ago, among other things. I've been trying to work out some disputes on the Lazlo pages (one page is in full protect, another is in semi-, and yet another will be going into semi fairly shorty). For once, the MGPAM, the usual problem child, is a less of a problem than normal (I guess they all focused on Lazlo now :-/ ) Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we go ahead with getting more of our articles reviewed or just leave it given the somewhat muted feedback from both the general community and the article editors? I found out that we can do our own internal reviews as a project and award Good Articles within our own system of what qualifies as one, that might be a better way to go for some of the articles we don't like/want/can't handle like many of the FHIF articles. Who knows what that'd yield but I think it's worth considering in the future seeing as the project actually has a lot more power than we currently assume, just not enough manpower to push it further than a few shows. --treelo _talk 20:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just checking up on some of the Wikipedia:Project specific stuff; are you referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ in regards to GA spec? Not doubting you, just want to have refs handy in case of a challenge.

The "manpower" statement... We have a few quiescent members, we might be able to urge them to a higher level of involvement. Night Leon is a good example, as he's show interest in the Power Puff Girls (and yes, I'm aware of the issues, but I think he's actually a good candidate because he's willing to acknowledge, and willing to adhere to WP policies).

I'm actually afraid to look too deeply into FHIM or B&M. I have a few arts tagged in my watchlist, and do what I can, when I can, but the sheer morass-quality of these is a little daunting, and the prospect of trying to face-off, if needed, isn't enticing at the moment :-/ Sorry to be blunt, but the history of these show a larger fan base of the same type... Yngvarr (t) (c) 01:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's right, I was basing it off that but there's zero help with it beyond the help page explaining what qualifies as GA which I guess we can use and wing it from there if you want to do it. I'd like to push a few of those who are part of the project like Night Leon to become more involved within their specific areas and the project as a whole also, what to urge them with though? Do you have any idea what our carrot to dangle in front of them could be?

I agree, those articles are very unnerving to even attempt to edit for small basic syntax errors but we cannot ignore flagship shows because these people are nuts! Not certain what you're being blunt with because "same type"? Same type of what? Rabid fan? Revert-happy editor with ownership issues? I'd like to make progress on them but like you, who needs a editwar over small cruft issues on a huger scale than either Lazlo or Gym Partner can offer? Can't ignore them forever though no matter how daunting it'll be, I figure it'd be better to get them on our side than to confront them suddenly by way of huge sweeping edits they weren't expecting. This diff link shows how, whilst totally right to do so, we shouldn't be doing it. Sure, we know Cheese is not all his fans make him out to be but statements like "What do you see in this disgusting creature" pretty much makes you a hot target for an undo. --treelo _talk 20:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Camp Lazlo issue

It's a given that a number of the articles on CN shows are a mess, and I'll just mention the two smaller ones which are usually targets of problems: Lazlo and MGPAM. The others can be looked at later, but I think we're all in agreement on that state of those other shows. Also, with Jimmy's Head debuting, we'll want to keep an eye on that, but so far, that seems to be reasonable.

With the various disputes going on, I looked around at some other cartoon arts to try to get an idea of what's "good" in terms of basic layout, acceptability, and that kind of stuff. I looked at The Angry Beavers, Aaahh!!! Real Monsters, Pelswick and Rocko's Modern Life. Forget that they're all Nicktoons, but they're "established mature" shows. They're no longer on the air, but they still have a fanbase. Their runs were of similar lengths to the CN shows, and are targeted at the same general demographic.

I did look briefly at bigger shows, like The Simpsons, but it's unreasonable to compare. It's almost into 20 seasons, and is targeted at a seriously different demographic. The Rugrats was another consideration, but their length of run (over 10 seasons) allowed a longer period of character development.

There's another reason: continuity. It should hopefully be fairly obvious that MGPAM and Lazlo are not wholly continuous. The Simpsons and the Rugrats are fairly continuous. That's a big point in character development.

Squirrel Boy is something we've worked on together, but that can still be used as a reference point. It's not loud in terms of the fan base, and disputes are easily resolved. But the layout is also fairly acceptable.

Many of these shows consisting of two articles:

• the main show page, which lists details about the shows, and brief character descriptions. Notable achievements like awards, voice actors and the appropriate link (and if no art exists, just a sentence or two).
  • If these shows maintain a character list on the main page, only the major players have images. Minor characters, even those who provide speaking roles, are generally not given undue weight.
• Most also maintain an episode list, which is simply that: a list. The template {{Episode list}} is ideal for usage (that's why it was created!), because it's short and to the point. These shows are 30 minutes, with one or two episodes per 30 minute show. You really can't justify a separate article for each episode, unless it's a movie-type episode (60 minutes like Where's Lazlo), or an otherwise "special" episode outside the normal scope of the show.

An interesting sidenote is that even a long-running show like the Rugrats maintains an extremely sparse synopsis for episodes. They do have separate character pages, but as I said above, the running time for this show, and the spinoffs, allow for greater character development.

If a major revamp of Lazlo and MGPAM were to be pushed forward, we'd need to develop them outside of the existing articles. That would mean creating "development" pages in our user namespace. That way we can get a reasonable facsimile of what is acceptable without having to contend with conflicting editors from rabid fans. We could just copy-paste or use the WP Move feature to move the arts into the main namespace (that's if it's possible to move from User: to main). We'd need to establish consensus amongst ourselves with what we see as non-crufty articles, which also adhere as closely as possible to WP standards and policies. I think we're pretty much in agreement in terms of that, but I just need to mention that as a mere formality.

We'd still have to contend with the rabid fanbase, and still comply with the ongoing policies (3RR being the one I am worried about), so I'm not sure what we can do. Of course, if an editor were to be obviously disregarding 3RR, it should be a matter of just reporting to the 3RR noticeboard. But that is a whole different issue... Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What are we looking to do? Total reform across some of our articles? I'd say so because once we get something down which is accurate enough to not need too much editing then it's pretty easy to tend to from then on. The main articles need some form of flow which they lack currently, my idealised layout would be for a brief intro, overview of the series, history if we can find one, voice roles, awards, reflist and then a "see also" section to finish off. I think supplanting the character list article say by transclusion or just adding it straight in and redirecting the list is the best way to go if we're just looking to follow in how others handle characters in their shows. Alright, I think if we're doing this then we should use one central sandbox article for each show so any edits can be discussed in one place rather than two separate versions being developed. Moves between namespaces are completely possible so that issue is not a huge one.

As for consensus on what makes a non-crufty and informative article to the casual reader, I'd say it's just necessary to mention it on the basis that if someone calls us out on what we're doing at least we can say a consensus has been reached and documented. The 3RR issue might come up (and has done in the past) but by and large, most editors won't mind and you'll only get one crazy looking to re-establish their own status quo for the article so more an issue we'll have to handle when and/or if it comes up. treelo _talk

I wouldn't say "total reform", but I it seems to me that we're in agreement with the state of things, one way or another, and doing minor edits to try to improve doesn't seem to be working. I still have my (possibly idealistic) ideas of getting something GA or maybe even FA.

Just some food for thought right now, altho I do like the idea of transclusion, that hadn't occurred to me before. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have some idealistic ideas of attaining GA or FA also. Basically, rewrite off-site (in this case, at the prototype article sandbox within one of our userspaces) and add it in when totally complete, maybe even get someone more knowledgeable to give it the once over before primetime. We have ideas, I've had ideas for a good long time also, just a case of working these ideas and making them happen. Think we need to use our near-broken assessment system that hasn't been used correctly in some time? I do go on about it a lot but it's there to help us target bad articles and improve them. Also, gives us the right to have a GA actually marked up in our assessment for others to see. Just looking out for what's best with the project.

Now might be a good time to use the todo list, get up what we really need to work on because it's a bit crummy if you're looking to have a great project if the tools supplied to you are barely used. --treelo _talk 15:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I started some workup on Lazlo, which you can find at User:Yngvarr/Working. Still needs more work, tho, feel free. I can hear the screaming now... Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with it to my satisfaction, and I see you did some work too. Now we'll figure out what the next step is. By the way, the User:PPG2007 who was creating much strife has been indef blocked. Don't know how or why, but their userpage is on my watch list and noticed it this morning. That's a partial relief. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Gets a bit crufty and I'm not certain about the thumbnails but it's better than what exists now so next step? Good to see that character gone, turns out they were a sockpuppet from the FHIF articles. --treelo _talk 14:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Any specifics on cruft? I've been looking it over, and feel that we should take out the "voice by...", and create a "Cast" subsection, and bullet the voice actors with their various characters. I'm working on one last problematic user, it's the one who's been adding Wilbert to the talk page. Turns out he's adding Wilbert to unrelated arts. Sent a report over to 3RR, and the admin thinks it's a disruptive user, based on the admins assessment of the editors contribs, but the admin wants to hold back a little bit. Other than that, edit what you think should be de-crufted, and we'll see if we can get a disinterested opinion, and then just submit a "move" request. The other arts: chars, minor chars, and locations, will be sent to AfD, and the template as well. The episodes page is good, and will remain linked, but if things get (what I consider) reasonable, there won't been much need for a template. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Episode lists must remain as there's little other places I can think to put a lengthy list article. Cruft-wise, I don't like some wording which doesn't seem to add much to the article. Within my mindset of the person who visited this whilst linktunneling or researching, most of that is nice but breaking the fourth wall examples are crufty as I'm not concerned as to when it happened, just that it did. Also, the info about the voice actors, great and all but again it's not fitting in the article and only seems worth mentioning on the actor's article. Thing is, there's other things which read in-universe and some which read as if you're already aware of the events. I'll make the edits (mostly commenting out parts) to cleanup before getting our disinterested party to do a peer review. Move requests won't be entirely necessary as they can be moved like any other article, just make sure the reasons why are clear. Those others, I feel the main char list won't pass AFD nor will the template, I've tried! Also, you'll be wanting to put the game article forward also as the info there can be put into the main article. Other than that, all seems good. --treelo _talk 19:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So we are doing this, right? --treelo _talk 21:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I just got annoyed and wanted a few days downtime. I'm sure you saw that someone tried to fork out the Lazlo characters into "Bean" and "Squirrel" scouts. I suspect that it was PPG2007, so I filed a sock on them. Other than that, I think the last thing to figure out is the images thing. Not sure what to do there, where to place them and that kinda stuff Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, should have put a notice someplace. I did not notice that forking, haven't been on as much as I liked to but nice you did. Images, I think I can get a group cap of the main scouts to clear up the problem. Got something, is it alright to you? --treelo _talk 22:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! Gonna do the deed soon.Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Might wanna put a hold on that move, have we had anyone else besides us see it yet? Don't get to moving it and putting other articles up for AfD until we get that third opinion. --treelo _talk 11:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting Abit More Active Myself

Hello everyone. I guess I've got nothing to do at youtube anymore so I decided to come back here and maybe keep an eye on some articles. I've made some Cartoon Network related edits in the past few days (mostly reverts). I might not be one of those dedicated editors Treelo expects/wants but I thought I'd do something other than just make meaningless inspections. Plus I want to lay down the law on some who vandalise pages with junk. Hope this decision is okay with you lot. Driveus 10:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, the inspections were alright and kept the talkpage alive but better to have you around as and when we need you. As for my expectation/want for dedicated editors, we got plenty which barely fit near-active, never mind dedicated so work with what you got I suppose. --treelo _talk 11:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of Jimmy's Head content

So the cruft has creeped back in, odd I know. Because I'm not certain about if I should just get rid of it again, I decided that maybe I should figure a way to put it back in because it'll just reappear anyway and it is a guideline to do so. Onto what I think should be done on each part.

In the film, Robin and Craig were Asian-Americans, their last names were Yoshida, and were played by Eunice Cho and Micah Karns. In this show, they are African-Americans, they last names are Wheeler, and are played by Tinashe Kachingwe and Jon Kent Etheridge.

Eh, not irrelevant as it is true and could be different for character dynamic maybe but I might want a reference for it and also shouldn't it be in the main char list?

According to the episode, "Sleepover," The first names of Jimmy's parents are revealed. His mom's first name is Louisa, and his dad's first name is Ken.

Don't care, put it in the char bios instead if you must mention it.

In the film, Golly Gopher was voiced by Paul Reubens. In this show, he is voiced by Carlos Alazraqui.

Great but this isn't the film and the change hasn't affected Golly as a character one bit. Kill it.

The cartoon characters are drawn differently, but are still animated using Adobe Flash.

Opinion, not fact.

Dominic Janes has a deeper voice than it was in the movie, but reprised his role either way.

That near matters but it's not even worth putting in the bio it's that dumb a thing to mention.

Dolly Gopher now has visible underwear similar to Minnie Mouse's.

So this matters... how? At least last time this odd piece of info was in there, it had some reasoning as to why mention it.

Tux was toothless in the film. In this show, he has a set of teeth.

... Ugh, yet again it's a minor difference most people wouldn't know or care about.

Prickles has a tie on in some episodes. Prickles had not once smiled in the film. In this show, in the episode "Friends," he smiled only one time.

Prickles has fans it seems, rabid idiot fans to boot. Big deal though, he's so minor as to practically not exist right now.

In the film, the "Yeah!" boy said only "Yeah!." In this show, in the "Talent Show" episode, it was the first time he said something other than "Yeah!." The preview for this show was shown during Cartoon Network's premeire of Shrek on July 20. At the end of the preview, the "Yeah!" boy said his trademark catchphrase, "Yeah!."

Meh, so what? Again with the "in this show" as if they appear in some other show, what is that? I digress though, it's useless info that could be in the bio but this character like 4 others in the list fails notability like noticing trash in the background is green one shot and red the next which brings us onto goofs...

Factual Errors/Plot Holes: After Dolly says "Well, at least I still have my dress", the pudding Tux threw at her, instead of putting a stain on her dress, it ripped the skirt of her dress off. The dress is not supposed to rip, even if pudding got on it. Continuity: In the episode "Sleepover," before the bottom of Dolly's dress was gone, her underwear was frilly briefs. However, after the skirt of her dress was gone 3 seconds later, her underwear is clearly boxer shorts.

Now, whilst they're true and both come from the exact same episode (and most likely the only one this person has seen thankfully) the first is just plain out and out dumbassery which I'm going to remove anyway, the second is correct but irrelevant. I usually like goof/continuity errors to be mentioned but only in films, not shows.

More than just being a rant your input is actually needed on this because I'd like some help with the edits to cut the crap out of this show's articles. --treelo _talk 23:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much the entire subsection should be wiped. The only things I think are of mild interest is the changes to the actors. But there are plenty of precedents for a pilot (or pilot movie) to have different actors than the series. Context is important: this article deals with the series, so the series actors should be noted. The actors for the movie can be noted on the movie's article. Yngvarr (t) (c) 02:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It is done! The rest was guff so that got shot of anyway. Keep an eye on List of Out of Jimmy's Head characters, it's badly written and seems to mostly mention elements from Re-Animated which might be considered the series pilot but it was a TV movie and the series was pretty definite before the airing of the movie, it's fair to assume the pilot was unnecessary. To me, the film only exists to get the backstory for the show going so any reference isn't really within the series continuity even though it's directly derived. Also, just me or is that title wrong? Surely should be List of characters from Out of Jimmy's Head given precedent in MGPAM and Lazlo, no? --treelo _talk 02:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, late reply! I'm not really sure about the name of title page, but at the same time, I don't really have an opinion on it! You're right, precedent exists, and some mode of standardization is good. I'm sure that it won't be a controversial change if you decide to move it to the new name.

By the way, what happened with the Camp Lazlo stuff? I see you requested a move, and then blanked it, but the summary wasn't really clear.

Oh, also! To get even further off the subject, Monday October 8, during the Scooby Doo marathon, there will apparently be a sneak preview of Chowder. I'm sure you already have this on your watchlist, but in case you don't, I suspect we'll see some activity soon. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, moved the list and shame you have no opinion, I don't much either but it's new, it's small and as such should be easier to get right now than have to deal with it when/if it reaches FHIF sizes of cruftiness. Having seen a few episodes I'd rather it be right than let it go to crap like so many other shows because I "had no opinion". I did request a move for the working version of Camp Lazlo but put it into non-controversial because it seemed much like it would be non-controversial. At least if anything does go ahead, I'd accept a history merge so it's still there awaiting action as it's actually seen attention now where it didn't before. Add something to the discussion there as it involves your namespace and clearly I can't explain why well enough!

I'll be keeping an eye on Chowder today too as it's in my watchlist and will need my attention. --treelo _talk 19:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)