Line 1: Line 1:
We did use [[The Case of the Missing Gordon]] as a rumor page, which was much the same thing (recategorized in Fandom once it was solved).
+
We did use [[The Case of the Missing Gordon]] as a rumor page (originally titled "Who played Gordon in the Sesame Street test pilot?"), which was much the same thing (recategorized in Fandom once it was solved).
   
But the only real issue seems to be what to call it as a live page, and since "Cracks" is used in the scripts, that seems fine .the only problem is that it's one of those that also tends to attract bad edits from cranks, as has happened before (and happened just today), so hopefully a real page will help, but we'll probably have to keep an eye on it.
+
But the only real issue seems to be what to call it as a live page, and since "Cracks" is used in the scripts, that seems fine (and it could just live in [[:Category:Sesame Street Animated Segments]]). The only problem is that it's one of those that also tends to attract bad edits from cranks, as has happened before (and happened just today), so hopefully a real page will help, but we'll probably have to keep an eye on it.
   
 
It could also still use some trimming (defining Lost Media Wiki seems unnecessary and there's a link to it) and some other passages could probably be simplified or need some grammar/punctuation fixes.
 
It could also still use some trimming (defining Lost Media Wiki seems unnecessary and there's a link to it) and some other passages could probably be simplified or need some grammar/punctuation fixes.

Latest revision as of 05:10, December 17, 2019

We did use The Case of the Missing Gordon as a rumor page (originally titled "Who played Gordon in the Sesame Street test pilot?"), which was much the same thing (recategorized in Fandom once it was solved).

But the only real issue seems to be what to call it as a live page, and since "Cracks" is used in the scripts, that seems fine (and it could just live in Category:Sesame Street Animated Segments). The only problem is that it's one of those that also tends to attract bad edits from cranks, as has happened before (and happened just today), so hopefully a real page will help, but we'll probably have to keep an eye on it.

It could also still use some trimming (defining Lost Media Wiki seems unnecessary and there's a link to it) and some other passages could probably be simplified or need some grammar/punctuation fixes.

For the "Who didn't do it" section, confirmed denials in interviews or correspondence seem fine but it's otherwise not worth bothering to note the large number of animators whose style or career histories show it wasn't. That could probably be condensed as well i.e. "Animators who confirmed the short is not their work include" names followed by a ref note for the correspondence and with whom, or else in parentheses.

Some other phrases could use some slight NPOVing ("cult infamy" for example; that it developed a cult following seems proven enough in the article, but infamy feels like overstating it). Note that as usual, this is only a concern in the original text (in quoted statements, POV is fine and I found the statements from Dorothy Moskowitz pretty amusing).

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.