Hi, Garrett, a reminder again: the best way to address edits is on walls, not in edit summary comments which often come off as unnecessary. For the record, here, the point of the adjective is that the man *is* the straight man, in comedy terms (with the elephant the comedian). Not essential so I'm fine with the removal, but you have a tendency to leave "why is this here/why didn't you see this" comments on a regular basis which often verge into personal comments on contributors or personal gripes (as here). Basically, edit summaries are not editorials. Please try to avoid this, per previous concerns about cooperation and productive behavior noted below. Thanks!
I don't mean for my edit summaries to come off that way, Andrew. I haven't forgotten about the last time this got brought up, and I've since then been careful not be too arrogant with them (note how I'm no longer beginning with "uh..") I really never expected anyone to take real note of what I wrote in my summaries. It's just sort of in my blood to write the way I talk. And while we're on the subject, while I now see where the 'straight' came from, I still don't think its' necessary. Why not just say the man directing the elephant? Makes more sense to me.
It's all clear to me now. Even so, I think that adjective would make more sense if the other character in the sketch was a man as well. Then it would be more necessary to tell who voiced who. But I'm not going to persist about it. I've said my bit. If you guys think it should be that way, I'll go along with it.
Hi Garrett. In reference to this edit, the information is sourced from reliable documents, per the source note. If you find a particular note questionable, even if it's sourced, it's more productive to discuss it with others on the Forum rather than just removing it from the page (with the source). Thanks.
Garrett, the waiter designation here comes from the actual script for the segment. Again, do not remove or change information that is sourced unless you have credible proof to counter it; as with your edit here to "La Charreada". It is not productive or in the collaborative spirit of the Wiki to change something based on what you assume or think is correct, and it is much more helpful to start a discussion on the Forum to at least make your point with others. I asked you to do this in the first message but you did not respond, so please take the time to do so now so I know you've seen this and understand. Thanks.
Well, perhaps it was a little impulsive, Jon, but according to my observations with this wiki, we try to be as accurate as we can, even if it means putting our own observations before the written word. We know there's plenty of errata in a handful of Sesame Street books. Maybe I didn't read your message fully because I was distracted by Guillermo's response. Now, I'm not fully convinced that those sounds that come on at the point he gave in "They Can't Take That Away..." are even voices at all, but I decided to settle. Regarding "You Gotta Have M", I don't know how the Pumpkin man in the restaurant scene qualifies as a waiter. He's sitting at the table, holding a menu, and with dinner right there in front of him. Sure seems like a customer to me. And as for my removing Noel MacNeal from the list of Mariachi performers, did you even read my explanation? I had sent the link to Noel on Facebook sometime ago and asked him if he was in it, and he said no. You couldn't ask for a more credible source than that. On that note, I will try to be careful not to be so fast to make edits on facts provided by this "trusted source". If it means starting a forum, I guess that's the best first step.
The scripts were mentioned to you twice, Garrett. By Shane and by Jon. They say "Waiter." He's standing holding a menu, not sitting (the script says "The waiter, with a moustache, is standing by the table.")
Also, Jon used the MacNeal change *as* an example of "credible proof to counter it," that that makes sense. Your continuing to argue that a phrase other than what scripts list be used based on your perception is not. So your arguing in this case makes things less accurate, especially reverting an admin who in the previous summary said the source was a script.
Observations don't trump the written word when the written word specifies the character role and comes from an actual production document (both of which Shane said in his summary, not some outside Sesame Street book. Edit warring with admins (which began when you undid Shane's edit despite his explanation of the source and terminology) is never good, and just makes it seem like you don't want to cooperate or follow guidelines (or else just aren't reading summaries and messages on your wall carefully, in which case that's what you need to fix). Please keep that in mind.
I would never deliberately ignore Wiki policies, Andrew. As I said above, I was just being impulsive. And yes, my mistake regarding what was meant with the reference to my Noel MacNeal edit. I misinterpreted what I read. Sorry about that, Jon. And like I said, henceforth, I won't be so quick to delete sourced statements. I don't know the identity of this trusted source, but I guess that's all the more reason why I shouldn't second guess it just like that.
The trusted source is scripts and production documents we can't share or be more specific about. That's why we've been telling you it's script or "reliable documents." Go back to the thread discussing that, linked to from all of our citations of the trusted source, where in the very first message Scott says "an anonymous (and credible) benefactor contributed a cache of documents to the wiki" (and more have recently been acquired).
If this was coming from second hand books or articles, we would state so and wouldn't be calling it "trusted sources." Since admins have been besieged with begging notes as is, we can't specify where they came from (some of us don't know anyway) and can't actually paste them.
It comes off as more than impulsive when admins have explained the source for the change and you undo anyway, and looking through you've done this kind of edit warring before in the past. So please be very careful, and anytime your edit summary is "I don't think so," that's a sign you're focusing on what you think and need to either ask a question or just accept the specified source. I'm spelling this all out to you as clearly as possible because we're becoming concerned about past edits and discussions which on several occasions (especially when you add "Um" in a summary) come off as argumentative or at best grudgingly cooperative. So please take this seriously. Your correspondence and research have been helpful, but you need to work on collaborating with others.
Hi, Garrett, thanks for wanting to fill out the guests on the Sesame season pages, but could you pause at least in one area? I think you missed my edit summary for season 17. Some of the names you're adding were silent extras (of whom there's more who show up in lists, but they had no other credits to make a page for). It feels a bit odd to include them with the celebrities or featured guest actors (speaking doctors, visitors, etc.). As I said in my summary, please start a discussion on that first so we can decide how to handle (possibly a parenthetical section akin to uncredited performers; technically, except for one season, all guests are uncredited, but it applies moreso to background players). Thanks!
Hey, Andrew. No I didn't see that edit of yours from yesterday, but it seems reasonable when all is said and done. I guess it would be arbitrary to have mere extras listed among the guests for a specific season. Though, it also makes you wonder if they even belong in the "Sesame Street Guest Stars" category to begin with. I wasn't sure just how much there was to those background appearances, not having seen the episodes myself. I just decided yesterday to add to the guest sections of the seasons because of all the new ones that have been added here in the recent months. It seemed an easier way to keep track of them than just browse the whole list. I did 'A' yesterday and 'B' today. And speaking of which, the final B guest, Kerry Butler, is said to have appeared in the fiftieth season, but from what I saw on the episode's page, it seemed as if she was just an extra then. Should I leave her off of the 'season 50' page?
Guest Stars is defined as anyone who appeared on the show in a non-cast capacity, not just the Category:Celebrities (and for that matter Category:The Muppets (2015) Guest Stars includes those billed as such and those with "Featuring" or "Co-starring" credit, which sometimes seemed to depend on the whim of whoever did the end credits, and the various Movies Actors categories include bit players and verified extras). The lists of Sesame guest stars put out by the Workshop have always been just the celebrities though (expanding to include less famous actors in prominent guest roles when IDed makes sense, extras not so much). Phrases like extras, background players, or non-speaking are your indication that it wasn't anything larger. As for Kerry Butler, if you mean Episode 4511 from season 45 (can't find an example from Season 50), then it was basically combined with Joey Mazzarino as a behind the scenes people cameo (which have often included relatives, spouses, etc), and we're not including those on the season pages.
Like I said, if you're still wondering about how to track it or the guest star category, feel free to start a thread. We have more material and identifications now than we've had before, so both new names and more appearances for actors we thought only visited once or twice have surfaced, and at times not everyone has been on the same page as to where people should go.
Yeah, that is what I meant regarding Kerry Butler. My mistake. Well, I'll certainly keep all that in mind. And of course, you're free to delete any name I add that doesn't seem to qualify in your bool.
Aleal wrote: As I said in my summary, please start a discussion on that first so we can decide how to handle (possibly a parenthetical section akin to uncredited performers; technically, except for one season, all guests are uncredited, but it applies moreso to background players). Thanks!
Not to go off-topic, but which season credited the guests?
Probably because they were just a few seconds, removed in repeats, and now might be difficult to pin down to pages (and then, it would really be just a note "This week, we'll meet" so and so," and it wasn't used every week either). And anything else on that topic would be better off discussed in a forum thread, or if you could find the info and want to sandbox to it, feel free.
Hey Garrett, I moved The Royal Jester to Sandbox:The Royal Jester where you can work on it some more. I don't know if there was an editor bug or if you just forgot how to preview an article before saving it, but it needs some work. If you're having trouble, feel free to reach out here or on the forum.
Thanks for telling me about this. But the thing is, I guess I still haven't fully gotten used to the new look of the editing pages. Plus, I didn't think it really mattered, since once a page is created, it's for all users to edit. I figured my choppy page would just be improved by whoever chose to tidy it up.
To change editors, go to the editing section in preferences. Change to either classic rich-text or source (I use source myself). It won't add extra markup or placeholder templates we don't actually use.
If you're having trouble adding categories manually (it's long been policy not to create a page without a category, unless it's a "Where does this go?" issue needing discussion), click to disable category module at the bottom of the same page.
You know, it was so long ago that I submitted that info. I had actually forgotten that I was the one who did it. I know I read it somewhere, but as to the specific source, I can't say as I rightly remember. It might have been the "Sesame Street Unpaved" book.
Hi, Garrett. Feel free to adjust Mr. Hooper but please don't alter the phrasing to suggest that Lesser's statement was explicitly about the pilots. It isn't. I have the text right here.
You're definitely encouraged to adjust discussing his role, but Lesser's statement was made in 1975 and clearly isn't discussing the pilots. So long as you don't integrate that statement into discussion of the pilot (your change keeps implying that's what the quote is about), go ahead and fix.
Sorry. Somehow I failed to notice there was a source attached to the quote. All the same, he had totally lost his rough edge once the actual show got started. I'll just have to figure out how to insert that into the article.
Hi, Garrett. I think I've mentioned it on your wall before (I know I have in summaries, this is an old established policy), but connections is only for people who directly worked with the Muppets, Sesame Street, or otherwise have a connection. That's why people like Dustin Hoffman or Walter Matthau are in Category:Celebrity References only. Category:Celebrities, as the category says, is only for those who worked directly in some way (acting, writing, posed for a pic) in a relevant project (Sesame, Muppet movie, Henson short film, etc.)
Robin Williams worked directly with the Muppets and wasn't just name referenced.
I don't recall this being brought up before, Andrew, but just to editorialize, I think that's a slightly arbitrary detail. Of course, I haven't checked every connection on every page, but I'm not sure this policy of yours has been totally followed. That opinion aside, might I remind you that Hoffman did play lead in "Mr. Magourium's Wonder Empourium", which a lot of the Muppet crew was involved with, not to mention the fact that Kermit the Frog did indeed make an appearance in that movie. Anyway, that's what I was basing my adding him in on.
I see I hadn't mentioned it on your wall before, but yes, it has been followed (and it's not just mine; other admins agreed and enforced it, because otherwise, counting Ronald Reagan or Humphrey Bogart in connection lists may be fun but it's cheating; originally, and still on some pages, the lists even stipulate they're for *actual* connections, people who directly interacted or contributed in some way with the Muppets, not everyone who has a page). So that's not arbitrary at all, just a clear distinction, and again, also how the categories work. It's also discussed and was adopted on the old talk page for Category:Celebrities, which isn't as accessible now. I could also link to several old user pages where this was explained to others.
If you want to argue that the Dustin Hoffman page should be redefined as a celebrity based on a Kermit cameo (Hoffman was not in that scene), feel free to start a forum page. But it won't change a policy that existed for years. Feel free to check the edit summaries for proof (for this example alone, here; also here, all over, by all admins and many non admin users since at least 2008, and I suspect before but it would take combing further back than I have time to check; tons of scattered discussions too, for example here, again on old talk pages).
If there's evidence that this is a different version or it was done twice, it should be noted on the page. Right now, the Listen My Brother page has only that known airing and claims it's the same as the DVD. What have you found that sources it as later? If it is an error, then we need to fix it everywhere, but right now it's not clear to me what the issue is from your short edit summaries.
We do have an archive listing for Episode 0266, second season, same song, so that could be it, if you can clarify exactly what in the clip dates it as post-first season.
I was just about to undo my edit and create a forum on the matter myself, Andrew, when I saw your notification. I actually did look at the LMB page and saw that they did the song twice, which makes more sense now, though why they would do the same song two seasons in a row I find rather puzzling. But I had been meaning to bring this up for quite a while. There are two pieces of proof in the clip available on DVD that it couldn't be from season 1, as the Wiki seems to imply. First, the band is performing on the stairway just above the garage, which didn't exist during the first season. And second, as the song is ending, the camera pans over to Oscar, who wonders aloud what is going on. And he is not orange, but green. So I know the clip on the DVD definitely wasn't from season 1, especially since I've seen a handful of episodes from that season which came after the one we have listed as the first appearance for the counting song, and in those, he's still orange. So there you have it. Two unshakable pieces of proof that SW's labeling this as a season two clip was not incorrect. Even if it was performed previously, we shouldn't have it indicated on the Old School page, as that wasn't the right version. Note how I did the same with "Rubber Duckie" and changed the EKA to the one for that specific version.
Aha! Green Oscar is definitely the best piece of evidence. That makes Episode 0266 a *likely* candidate (the fact that our ekas for the song are all based on archival material makes it tough to be absolutely certain, though).
Good catch, but I would encourage you to either make it clearer in your edit next time, or when it's more complicated (as in this case), start a thread just to explain (I know it can feel like an adjustment from talk pages, but in a lot of ways it's easier, and we did that all the time when citing evidence). Thanks and keep up the good work.
Yeah, that's fair. There was too much to put in the summary, and I just didn't think about the forum at the time. It's a wonder to me no one else took note of those details before I did. So, are we going to remove 0026 from the Old School page?
Definitely proved incorrect, so it can stay out. We'll need to figure out what to do on some of the other pages. The main issue right now is probably on Episode 0266 (is it the first version or the remake), but we'll likely have to leave it for now.
A specific note on the Listen My Brother page might be worthwhile (right now, as worded, the page did lead one to assume the DVD clip was of the first version; I'll see if I can tackle it later, with something simple like "as indicated by the presence of green Oscar").