Talk: Policies and Guidelines

Template:Talk

When to use complete dates

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? -- Brad D. (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... -- Danny (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). -- Brad D. (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? -- Danny (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Video vs. Online

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? -- Ken (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"? -- Danny (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. -- Andrew Leal (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? -- Danny (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. -- Ken (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree; I definitely want to keep the note about the online availability. -- Danny (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. -- Wendy (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)

Merchandise naming conventions

I added a section on merchandise naming conventions. I've been working on this system for a bunch of months now, but not really explained it, and I know it's been kind of mysterious -- especially because I haven't actually gone through and fixed everything, so it's still a bit of a mish-mash.

Anyway -- this is open for conversation or questions or whatever. -- Danny (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

What about links to outside lyric sites? Some of the Bear in the Big Blue House CD's have them, but I haven't seen them on any other albums. -- Ken (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not an issue. Links to outside content, barring the usual suspects and limitations (commercial websites, YouTube, etc.) aren't a problem. The policy is that we don't allow lyric transcriptions here. Most of the Bear in the Big Blue House links are left over from User:Agent0042, who loved the show and its lyrics, and mostly linked to pages he'd created to house such things. Nobody else really cared about it, and I personally don't think it's necessarily worth tying a lyric site link to every song. But it wouldn't hurt if it's particularly notable or the site well done, or in cases like "I Want a Monster to Be My Friend" where lyrical content is relevant, and so on. Basically, though, it's just something only one user really wanted to do, which is why it's only evident in that one area. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)