There's been some decent coverage recently in sections of the internet about the previously lost Sesame Street animated short "Cracks" (from Episode 0818), from its notoriety among viewers and the difficulty in finding it and identifying who made it. Should there be a page about it? It gained enough attention that there was a Slate article and an entire episode of a podcast dedicated to its discovery.
The only way we could really cover it would maybe be a rumor page, since there's no real title (or even Sesame Street used title) and no info beyond saying that a lot of people remember and are curious about it (which wouldn't make for much of an article). We don't create solo pages for one-shot non-song animated pieces, unless Jim Henson and/or his crew directed it (Number Twelve Rocks, Number Three Ball Film) or there was a crossover cameo (The Noble Ostrich because of Big Bird). The Slate article and most other coverage focus more on people's reactions and emotions about it, which also isn't the sort of thing Muppet Wiki usually covers unless it has an actual impact (i.e. complaints leading to a segment being pulled).
ETA: Scott wrote while I was typing my response. If reliable/confirmed info on the filmmakers is found, our usual approach is to create a page for them and cover relevant shorts there.
We could probably structure it like The Case of the Missing Gordon (since solved), or in this case simply "Who made the 'Cracks' insert?" We could link to the podcast and articles but also limit or avoid the "This scared me!" fan stuff, and update when/if/as anything new surfaces.
Okay, I'm thinking a rumor page isn't quite the way to go with this anymore.
"Who made this thing?" isn't something being wildly debated back and forth like Does "Muppet" mean "Marionette and puppet"? or false information put out there that needs to be corrected like Did Miss Piggy appear on Sesame Street? This is moreso just unknown information and the little information about who made it that is out there isn't all that "rumor"-ish (citing the forum discussion within the article doesn't seem right to me).
I like the information presented, though. I feel like this can work on its own just given the reputation surrounding the bit.
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).
Aleal wrote: 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.
Well, I know the question of making an article for the short itself was why this was written as a Rumors/Fandom page (and why there hasn't been an article for it previously), but looking at it now I think there's enough information about its cult following to justify "Cracks" just having its own page.
Nice job, Edward! I added a couple more screenshots to help fill it out visually.
I checked the scripts again to see if I could find an earlier appearance, but no dice. Starting in season 12, the scripts cite first appearances for films, but unfortunately there doesn't appear to have been a use of Cracks after that to confirm a first appearance.