Forums: Index > Article Content > Characters at alternate ages
Participation in the Muppet Wiki Forums requires a full understanding of the Rules and Etiquette.
See: Sandbox:Characters at alternate ages
Characters at alternate ages was started as a replacement format for Aged Characters. The main idea would be to visally track all the various depictions of characters outside their "default" age (flashbacks, flashforwards, fantasies, babyfication, etc). It's grown and now has more examples than the non-sandbox article.
A few questions or tweaks that may need to be worked out to get this out of the sandbox...
- (A) Skeeter. Unlike the other Muppet Babies, she doesn't have an adult "default" age, so really it's only her Muppet Kids adolescent appearance and her Muppet Show Comic Book adult appearance that are truly "alternate" ages for her. Perhaps she's best left as a "see also" that directs to her character page which covers all her various iterations and appearances.
- (B) What is the threshold for getting a separate "Alternate Ages" page? Currently we have Kermit (8 variants), Gonzo (8 variants), Piggy (6 variants), Fozzie (6 variants), Animal (5 variants), Rowlf (4 variants), and Scooter (4 variants) that have their own pages. We also have two pages that mix alternate ages with alternate identites -- Bean Bunny (3 alternate ages out of 11 variants) and Statler & Waldorf (4 younger versions out of 13 variants). Some are just 3-4 different "baby" appearances plus a Muppet Kids depiction with little additional info (Rowlf and Scooter are the weakest standalones, and only have one baby version more than Bunsen and Beaker). I would say 5-6 variations (with some added info beyond just the images) would be a good general threshold.
- (C) Is the whole page worth splitting up at all? Is it worth splitting Muppets from Humans? Or The Muppet from Sesame Street from Fraggles? I think it works well as a single page. The Sesame Street Human Cast section could perhaps live on its own, but it also fits and works in a "catch all" article too.
Thoughts? -- BradFraggle (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- As to A, Skeeter should just be a redirect if at all since it all duplicates from her page, the photo puppet picture is her as a storybook character also on that page, etc. Nothing new to add or track. Point C, Sesame Street humans would make the most sense as a split (I know even admins haven't always been able to find the sandbox section for them or thought it was already it's own page). For the others, Scrooge has the most actual screentime in younger variations (and his page could bear some expansion in general), but the gravestone's inclusion just feels unnecessary (and the young adult Scrooge is the same actor, just slightly different hair or eyebrow applications at most, so all of that could be simplified). Likewise Gary's collage can go on Gary (The Muppets). It's not a distraction the way it would be on Gordon and the like. Checking, the young Tex Richman is already on that page (same image), so the comparison pic isn't necessary to my mind. I don't think there's anything wrong with handling this kind of stuff on a character page only when it's easier to organize that way or there's simply plenty of space for it.
- The fact that alternate age pages exist actually suggests that a lot of this might not be needed at all. I'm not sure merging in Rowlf and Scooter into a general age page would help anything, if that's what's being proposed. But if the proposition is to merge with Rowlf the Dog's Alternate Identities and Scooter's Alternate Identities, I could *maybe* see that. The reason Statler and Waldorf's Alternate Identities and Ages is combined is because you started it that way and then renamed Bean Bunny. That was 2006, though, way back when Muppet Wiki wasn't a full year old and we hadn't really finalized our communication/discussion processes, we were all doing more spur of the moment rather than explaining what and why, and page/category patterns hadn't fully settled yet. Big Bird looks like he could support a standalone, and likewise Elmo and Count von Count. Individual splits when applicable might be easiest to find, though testing suggests anchored redirects to the character should work fairly well. Given all the "see also-ing," it might work better to have those with standalone pages listed first, or else last. I'm not sure on most of that yet.
- Also, any sandbox attempts to replace an existing page have their own technical problems, which is why in the future those really should be brought up when or before the sandbox is started. The page can't just be moved out of sandbox by relabeling, so history will be destroyed in the process. If the content is pasted into the existing older page, the sandbox history is lost. The existing page will then have to be moved and links fixed. Plus other housekeeping issues. So this is a lot less straightforward as a process and really should be avoided entirely, as opposed to just a brief test to try something and then doing it on the actual article page and asking "What do you think?" and then revising on those lines or a gradual buildup of the existing page, and then suggesting a rename if that's an issue. If the page were to be split up, while still a lot of work, that *might* ease some of the issues, but that would require further breakdowns/specific proposals first and might not work for everything. -- Andrew
18:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- I do agree with a lot of what you're saying. This page was started over a year ago and sat and developed in the sandbox without much discussion way longer than it probably should have. And other pages related to this topic formed when the wiki was still young and haven't been expanded or evaluated much since.
- I do think splitting the Sesame Street Humans (and even re-organizing into sections by character) and simply adding it as a "see also" would make sense given the sheer number and the uniquness of them.
- However I'm not super keen with thinly scattering a lot of the one-off or minor pieces of information out across a whole buch of different pages. The idea of this page (and the original Aged Characters list) was to give an index of all the times characters have been aged up or down. I'd hate to lose that simply because a piece of information exists elsewhere on the wiki - the purpose of this page is to help readers find all the times characters have been re-aged.
- If we have enough examples and information to make a good stand-alone article on "Elmo's Alternate Ages" (with details and information on all the various depictions and iterations), I say we go for it and add a link to that page rather than redundantly list all his different baby appearances in two places. But I'm also not sure a stand alone page on "Oscar's Alternate Ages" that basically recreates what a single row of a gallery can do (with no expanded information) is really worthwhile. Spreading all this info out over more smaller pages doesn't seem as benifical as having just one big meaty page and hub on the topic. Creating a separate "Busen Honeydew's alternate ages" page wouldn't hold much added value right now; and hiding "Baby Snuffy" or "Young Tex Richman" away as footnotes on their individual character pages defeats the whole purpose of even having this list; unless we add them as "see also"... but what's the point if the "see also" note is just as long as the footnote we're directing them to see. It takes as much effort/space to just include "The World's Youngest Fraggle" on the list here than it takes to add "For the younger version of The World's Oldest Fraggle see: 'The World's Oldest Fraggle'."
- Looking at Rowlf, for example, having him listed on this page doesn't lose any information from a stand alone page and makes it much easier to browse alongside all the other "alternate ages" out there (whereas Kermit, who has many more examples and notes, works as a stand alone page).
Gallery
Table
- However, overall, I think all the "Alternate Ages" pages could use some clean up or re-evaluation. The "character variants" category and lists have evovled since we first concocted them. For example, it feels odd given how the wiki has grown to still include the "normal" adult version on the lists of alternate ages. And the pages created as "Alternate Identities and Ages" were done so mainly because we didn't have enough examples to justify two separate pages, but we wanted to include all the puppet variants somewhere, such as "Old Bean" or "Young Waldorf", but they weren't technically alternate "identies" so we just adjusted the titles. Perhaps those alternate ages live better on a list like this one and change their pages just to "Alternate Identities" to cover the various roles and alter-egos they've play. Or perhaps we go the other way and make a page covering, say, all the Fozzie variants-- both his alternate identities/personas/roles and his alternate ages. Either way, finding all the characters that have been "babyfied" shouldn't been a big scavenger hunt. -- BradFraggle (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Brad, note I said maybe about splitting, "I'm not sure on most of that yet," and lots of other qualifiers, and that specific proposals and discussion would be needed. You're making a lot of arguments about things I didn't say. As for the ones I did say though, Tex Richman already has Young Tex Richman right there, to note a deleted scene. That's not hiding in any way. Brad, could you maybe break this out more clearly instead of just adding more hypothetical page names and examples not raised in the preceding messages? I'm really not sure what you're actually trying to say in your latest message, apart from perhaps wanting to merge a lot more as with Rowlf. Your first message was a lot easier for me to follow. -- Andrew 22:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Brad, note I said maybe about splitting, "I'm not sure on most of that yet," and lots of other qualifiers, and that specific proposals and discussion would be needed. You're making a lot of arguments about things I didn't say. As for the ones I did say though, Tex Richman already has Young Tex Richman right there, to note a deleted scene. That's not hiding in any way. Brad, could you maybe break this out more clearly instead of just adding more hypothetical page names and examples not raised in the preceding messages? I'm really not sure what you're actually trying to say in your latest message, apart from perhaps wanting to merge a lot more as with Rowlf. Your first message was a lot easier for me to follow. -- Andrew
- Sorry if I came across overly argumentative. Perhaps I missinterpreted what you were saying.
- When you said "I don't think there's anything wrong with handling this kind of stuff on a character page only," it felt to me like you were saying "we don't need to include characters on this this list if their alternate ages are noted somewhere else on the wiki." I agree that the nitty-gritty details of their alternate ages/appearances can be expanded upon elsewhere (either on their character page or on a stand-alone alternate ages page), however the existence of the character having alternate appearances should be noted on the master list (even if just as a "see wherever for young/old whomever"). If we leave "young Tex" to only be noted on the character page, and I'm looking for examples of characters who have been aged up or down so I pull up this list, how would I know to check Tex Richman's page?
- We wouldn't exclude Fozzie Bear driving his uncle's Studebaker in The Muppet Movie from the list of Driving Muppets simply because it's handled on the individual character/vehicle/movie page already. So I don't know why we'de exclude Gary appearing at an alternate age from the list of characters who appear at alternate ages simply because it's already noted on his character page. -- BradFraggle (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Brad, I meant re the humans specifically, thus that point. Gary's still would work better and be easier to note all the actor stuff on his page, yes (and my point on see also was that they're actually getting in the way of the gallery format, so to *possibly* handle them in a list if workable, not to move more there). That three non-Sesame humans feel like weak links just to include a collage and unlike Muppets etc. not what most readers would look for, and it would improve the human articles to actually focus on adding that relevant stuff there (you omitted my full sentence, "when it's easier to organize that way or there's simply plenty of space for it." In other words, case by case.) Maybe it would be better to just go back to your first post and let others respond. I think this is getting into a weird tangent and one of your common debate tendencies, "if this then we should stop doing that" on unrelated topics. -- Andrew 17:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Brad, I meant re the humans specifically, thus that point. Gary's still would work better and be easier to note all the actor stuff on his page, yes (and my point on see also was that they're actually getting in the way of the gallery format, so to *possibly* handle them in a list if workable, not to move more there). That three non-Sesame humans feel like weak links just to include a collage and unlike Muppets etc. not what most readers would look for, and it would improve the human articles to actually focus on adding that relevant stuff there (you omitted my full sentence, "when it's easier to organize that way or there's simply plenty of space for it." In other words, case by case.) Maybe it would be better to just go back to your first post and let others respond. I think this is getting into a weird tangent and one of your common debate tendencies, "if this then we should stop doing that" on unrelated topics. -- Andrew
- Ah, I didn't understand that you were only referring to the three human ones. Yeah, they're certainly not as essential nor a hill worth dying on here -- if they're just a bulletpoint list with all the details/galleries on the individual character pages, that works just as well (I thought you were proposing taking any/all minor/weaker entries off the page completely in favor of individual character pages). I'm only pushing on ideas to try to better understand the logic/rules being proposed and so things are consistent, equitable and well-defined moving forward. I appologize if my hypothetical syllogisms come across as argumentative or debating; I may play devil's advocate to determine the bounds or validity of something, but I'm not intending to do it to be combative or the opposition to collaborating. I'll work on my communication here; and I'll step back to let others weigh in on how to best integrate and organze this stuff outside the sandbox. -- BradFraggle (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
