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").
Well, I wouldn't want this to go any further, but he and I are Facebook friends, and I sent him a message asking if it was him, complete with a link to the clip. So far, though, he doesn't appear to have seen the message?
Hey GonzoMan, your picture looks fine. I slightly refined it and cropped out the white space. On the page, I sized it down to our standard 300px thumbnail size. I suggest using the Style Guide for future reference. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks for your help!
Well, it really depends on which editor you use (Visual or Source), but generally they both should give you the option to add and resize the image (again, preferably to a 300px thumbnail). I use the Source editor which I find much easier in adding and resizing. You can change your editor in My Preferences under the Editing section.
Hi, Garrett. Re your latest additions here, *please* cite your sources. If you're still forgetting, see Muppet Wiki:Citations#Sources for the basic code, and for Facebook or e-mail communication, say with whom, use your first initial and last name, and the date. It really is vital.
Oh, right. I had learned the facts I added onto that page ages ago, and no one had said anything then. I was simply restating them on that particular page just because other details of that type were being added. I'm in a bit of a rush, so I can't cite them just yet (as I have to remind myself of how it's done) but I'll get to it sometime today, I promise. And I'll try not to forget from now on.
Again, this is the format: <ref>[Facebook/E-mail/Written] communication from Blank to Blank. Date.</ref>. At the bottom, if it's not already there, add a Sources heading and <references /> so the tags don't break. That's it. When it's a print source, same thing as far as code but using the format on the sources page above; YouTube interview, include the link.
We don't always catch when someone adds something without a source until we look more closely and think "Wait, where did this come from?" If nobody says anything at the time, it means nobody noticed at the time, and the number of pages we have makes it easy for stuff to slip through the cracks. That's why we're trying so hard to remind people to source statements and claims as they find it.
Thanks, Garrett! Get to it whenever you have time, and if you have any tech problems, just let me or another admin know.
"At the bottom, if it's not already there, add a Sources heading and <references/> so the tags don't break."
The warning message even tells you: "Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found "
So just add a Sources heading at the bottom, and that references tag. I'm glad you asked. How Now Brown and the Moo Wave already had a sources section and the tag, so that's why it worked without any additional code.