User:MuppetArchives/Current Events 31 (Jan-June 2009)

Archive of Current events.

News section
Should I delete Latest News once its at least two months old? We have some. Webkinz Mania 00:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, good point. I wish we had something new to put in there! :) -- Danny (talk ) 02:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Holidays or new appearances or hits? Webkinz Mania 22:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, we now have some new stuff -- the comic book, and some new DVDs... -- Danny (talk ) 22:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dinosaur Train show coming soon could be an article. Revert me Danny if you don't like my edit. Webkinz Mania 23:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Dinosaur Train is a good idea... We should try to make it a habit to put stuff into the news section any time we create an In Development article, or add something to Template:Upcoming. Ellis, thanks for making changes; feel free to keep going! It's helpful to have more people keeping an eye on this stuff. -- Danny (talk ) 23:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should have jobs here. Like Main Page Editor. Sysops can edit if they want. The only problem is that we need to balance the pictures with the news. Webkinz Mania 22:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We used to have the main page more job-based -- I was the person who updated the "Today on Muppet Wiki" bit, some other folks were doing the picture -- but the system kind of broke down during times when the person who was in charge wasn't available. I think it actually works great the way it is -- people can add and change stuff as they find news that they want to add. -- Danny (talk ) 22:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah but we should balance the pictures. It could look a lot neater. Webkinz Mania 22:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the pictures and text move around depending on how wide a person's browser is. For my current browser size, the pictures look balanced with the text -- but if I make my browser narrower, the text is longer than the pictures, and if I make it really wide, the pictures are longer than the text. Try moving your browser around and you'll see what I mean. -- Danny (talk ) 23:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

New edit window
Hi guys -- If you've hit the edit button, then you've probably noticed that the edit window has changed! This is actually an improvement that I helped to design -- the idea is to get the save button up above the "fold", so it's always there on the page and you don't need to scroll down to hit save. This new design should make the save button more visible, and hopefully help new contributors understand what to do once they've hit the edit button.

Preview is also different -- if you hit preview, the bar floats with you, so you can scroll through the page, make sure that your edit works, and then hit save -- without having to scroll all the way down to the bottom, past the edit window.

So I hope this works well for everybody -- it's brand-new, so if you have any problems, let me know! -- Danny (talk ) 18:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a problem. If you click the Save page that isn't highlighted green, it will just reload the page and show the preview.

UPDATE: Look below Danny's next talk. Webkinz Mania 23:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't understand... Can you say more about what you mean? There's a Save page button and a preview button on the green bar, and then a button that says "Show changes" underneath that... Maybe you're clicking the Show changes button? -- Danny (talk ) 01:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Sorry. I thought it said Save page. Webkinz Mania 22:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

When to use complete dates

 * discussion history

Danny and I were talking about when to use complete dates for Muppet merchandise, and we both seemed to agree that (unlike a TV show or movie) Muppet books, CD's, toys, etc. just kind of come out in stores whenever, rather than be released everywhere on the same day. However, I noticed that newer books like Street Gang have complete dates listed. How do people feel about this? -- Ken (talk ) 07:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, pretty much every new DVD, book, and CD has a specific official release date from the publisher/distributor. This isn't always true for toys or collectibles (which are often a stock-em when you get-em policy). The official release date for Street Gang was December 26, 2008 (there are press releases, publisher listings, and other official sources to back it up) – now there were some stores who put it out early (there are reports of people getting it pre-christmas), some put it out late (some places still haven't gotten it in), and some places wouldn't sell it until midnight on the 26th (no matter how hard you begged).
 * Now with a big high-profile releases, such as the final Harry Potter book, or The Dark Knight DVD, the publishers and distributors get real strict about keeping the date (and they will police it and fine/sue any place that release it early). And pretty much every store wants to stock it and sell it and everyone wants to have out as soon as possible on that day - they make a big deal out of it and the release date really is universal across the board. However when Pepe the King Prawn releases a book, no one really cares that much about enforcing the release date (the publisher don't have the money to police it... and if a store puts it out when their shipment comes in it won't really hurt sales or cause riots cause its out 2 days early... so really, who cares?). A low-profile book like that may sneak onto shelves in a shop in Boston a few days before the date, and there'll be a store in Denver who doesn't put it on the shelf until a week or two later; however the release date (which can be sourced back to the publisher/distributor) is a specific day.
 * I've lined up at midnight to buy DVDs or books, but I've also gotten titles days (sometimes weeks) before the official date too. I saw Muppets in Space in theatres 2 days before the official release date. I've had storekeepers tell me they can't put that Muppet DVD or Sesame book out until a specific day even though they have it in stock, while others have it on the shelves a few days before they should (it just depends on the retailer). Sometimes there is little fanfare around what retailers consider a "childrens" releases, and many stores won't even stock the latest Sesame or Fraggle titles until a few weeks after the official release dates (causing fans to hunt around for the new titles).
 * Now, for the wiki's sake, I would say we should track the date for upcoming "in development" releases (it can be sourced, usually to press releases or publishers statements) and can give people the idea if this will be happing at the beginning of the month or the end of the month -- now, sure someone may have been able to find Elmo Loves You! on shelves at their local Wal-Mart last week (December 2008), but officially the release date for the DVD (according to Genius Produts) isn't until Tuesday (1/6/09). And there might be some people who won't be able to find it at their local stores until sometime next month, when the store does their February Valentines Day promotions (and hey my local DVD retail has yet to stock the Muppet Show season 3, so in some places things are never released). But there is an official date, even if your local Wal-Mart puts something out early.
 * Now looking at items that have been released, I don't really care about the specific to-the-day release date. It's a specific piece of data which is kind of trivial. I don't care if Columbia Tri-Star officially set to release "The Muppets Take Manhattan" on DVD on November 29, 2001. Really, does it matter? And, as we know, some stores may have had it out in some stores on the 26th, or even the 22nd; while other places may not have gotten it onto shelves until the 30th. However if we have the "official" date whether it was followed by all retailers or not, what's the harm in listing in? I don't see listing "November 2001" as incomplete, nor do I feel we need to track down the specific day to complete things. But if we have a the officially announced/sourced release date from the distributor (and not just a date that one random retailer, like Amazon or Wal-Mart, started selling it)... why not? -- <font color="Blue">Brad D. (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 09:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you make a good point about stuff in development vs stuff that's already been released. I agree that for something in development, it makes sense to have a date on it, so that people know when it's supposed to come out. I'd like to source those dates when we can, so that we know whether a specific date comes from the publisher or from Amazon.


 * But I agree with you that specific dates once it's released are pretty pointless. So does that mean we take the dates off when an article moves from "In Development" to the actual category? That would be the convenient time to do it... -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 19:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think its useful on the in development stuff (if it's sourced). But once something is released is seems somewhat trivial and pointless to track. Especially since many times our only source for such information is just a place like Amazon (or some other retailer), and we've seen that sometimes they flawed in matching the "official" release dates (especially with older products, or non-major-party releases, or items with multiple editions or releases).
 * However, if we have good sources (official press releases, DVD trailers, etc) that give a specific date and its somewhat relevantly worked into the article somehow, I don't see us needing to forbid the mentioning of a specific date in regards to a product release; but I don't see the point in tracking the day just to more fully fill in the DVD/album/book info boxes or add more data to some other lists (like the Sesame discography or videography). But I wouldn't want to see the point passing a blanket "law" that says: in the eyes of the wiki, released items don't have a specific release days -- but I don't really see the point in tracking it in the info boxes, lists, etc. (especially since for many older items, or low-profile releases it may be pretty much impossible to ever find the true day).
 * Now for example, with Street Gang we have an official press release, the official book website and the publisher's listings that says the book's (and audiobook's) official release date was December 26, 2008. Now some stores started selling it on the 23rd, and some store didn't get it in stock until the 29th or January 1st, and some still don't have it on their shelves. But we mention (and source) the date in the text of our article, and I don't see the point in cutting that out. However with the book Abby Cadabby's Rhyme Time we don't have the specific day listed, there aren't many sources out there on that release (the closest I could get was with Amazon who lists July 15, 2007, but who knows the accuracy of that in regards to the official release date, and honestly who cares if it was the 15 or the 20th).
 * I guess what I'm saying is, for upcoming releases we should track (and source) as much as possible. For already released items there's no point in tracking the specific day in the info boxes, discographies/videographies, "other releases" listings, or just for the sake of having the day in there. However a full date can be mentioned if it's worked into the article and is well-sourced (with official statements; not random retail listings like Amazon or B&N or Wal-Mart). -- <font color="Blue">Brad D. (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 17:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, you and I totally agree -- In Development articles should have (sourced) dates, articles on released items shouldn't.

So for Street Gang, I'm not sure I see why that should be a huge exception. I'm glad we had the specific date leading up to the release, but I'm not sure we need it now. We actually weren't linking to a press release or the publisher's listing -- up until a minute ago when I edited it, the page linked to Amazon as the source for December 26th.

I think it makes more sense to have a standard that everyone can understand and use -- In Development articles have dates, and we take the dates off when the project is released and moves out of the Development category. I understand why you'd want to make an exception for Street Gang -- it's a fantastic book, and important for us -- but so is Jim Henson: The Works. We only have 1993 listed on The Works, which is fine. A few years from now, the difference between December 26th, 2008 and June 11th, 2008 will be meaningless. So why make an exception? -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I just used Street Gang as an example as I knew it was a product article with an officially sourced exact date on it. My point is, although the exact day is not nessesary information on such pages - if the data is included as part of a well-written and well-sourced article's main text, I don't wee the point in "outlawing" the inclusion of a full date on the product's page. Now just having a full date for the sake of having it, or tacking it in there because we found a date on Amazon or some press release is pointless. I agree that the exta numbers just becomes added clutter in the info box and are trival bits of data to track on a product list or catalog; but I think the inclusion of a full date in the text of a well-written (and sourced) article cold be fine; and I would hate to see us form a policy that overtime makes us blindly forbid any inclusion of a fuller date in regards to when a product was released. -- <font color="Blue">Brad D. (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 18:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Video vs. Online

 * discussion history

Scott and I had been talking here about whether to call the availability of a clip on sesamestreet.org a "Video release" or an "Online release". Any thoughts on it? -- <font color="Blue">Ken (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 02:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Online release" is a clunky phrase, but I'd like to keep a separation between video/DVD releases and a clip being available on a website. Those are really different things.


 * Maybe the "release" word is confusing -- possibly "Video releases" and "Available online"? -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 02:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think I like that. Otherwise, it is confusing and conflating rather distinctly different things. The internet isn't really a video format or a place for releasing videos specifically. It's online availability, when you get down to it, and with Sesame Workshop uploading the same material to multiple websites (sesamestreet.org, itunes, Hulu, YouTube, and so on) in a way that's not at all comparable to individual VHS or DVD titles, the distinction really is useful to maintain. I think "Online availability" is the best phrasing, though we may want to bring up whether we want to list multiple sites if they all have the same clip, or just go with Sesamestreet.org. -- <font color="Blue">Andrew Leal (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 02:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if it's really just something that we're using for Sesamestreet.org, then maybe having a heading isn't the right way to go. Maybe just include it as a sentence in the article, or make a little box for it or something? -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 23:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, sometimes I wonder if we should even list online availability, since that could change at any time. Audio and video releases will always exist, even if they're out of print, and noting those titles is very useful to collectors to find what they're looking for.  But I understand if other people want to track a song or clip's online availability.  And as a side note, we already use "online" as an option in the sketch release box on pages like Ernie and Bert Sketches: Apartment, so I think to be consistent, we should also make a matching heading on stuff like the song pages.  So part of me likes keeping track of online availability; it's just a matter of what to call it. -- <font color="Blue">Ken  (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 03:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree; I definitely want to keep the note about the online availability. -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 06:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If we're only tracking sesamestreet.org, I think a little box, in the style of our wikipedia box, would be great. -- <font color="Blue">Wendy  (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 01:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My preference would be just to have a "Releases" header and list them all under that. Otherwise, we end up with three headers which I think is unnecessary. See for example, Healthy Food. —Scott ( talk ) 16:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a "Releases" header would be confusing -- if you combined all those into one list on "Healthy Food", then you wouldn't know whether Monster Hits! was a video or an album. (At least, not without a click.) I think it's relevant to split up albums and videos... -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 19:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What if we still sort by type (album, home video, Internet) but use just one "Releases" heading to keep things neater (see Take a Rest as an example)? -- <font color="Blue">Brad D.  (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 19:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, on a somewhat related question, with "Online" releases, are we just tracking Sesamestreet.org videos? Or are we also including the now-defunct Sesame Street Video Player, the official Sesame Street Hulu channel, and the official Sesame Street YouTube channel too? -- <font color="Blue">Brad D. (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 19:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See Letter B for how this would work. —Scott ( talk ) 19:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay... I'm sorry, I misunderstood. You're right, that looks great. I'll go with that. -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 20:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, both of those are slightly different. Which one are we going with? -- <font color="Blue">Ken  (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 03:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between Take a Rest and Letter B? They look the same to me. Maybe I'm missing something... -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 07:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * When I looked at them the other night, one of them had a heading of "Releases", and then subheadings of "Audio Releases", etc. in smaller type, but they're the same now. -- <font color="Blue">Ken (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 03:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)