User talk

Hi, George!

My name's Ken, and I've been on Muppet Wiki for almost 2 years. I see that you're a big Bear in the Big Blue House fan. I'm trying to piece together information about the CD's and tapes. I'd really appreciate it if you could help me out with some questions I have. Thanks! -- Ken (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Crew pages

Hey, George -- Can you hold up on creating any more crew pages? We'd talked before about discussing things on Current events before creating any new categories, and your "Camera Operators" category definitely qualifies for discussion. -- Danny (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed, I'm already on it, thanks... George B. (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Million Dollar Questions

Hi again, George! I haven't read the book, but can you be more specific on the Who Wants to be a Millionaire? elements from Elmo's Breakfast Bingo? Since if it's just the "million dollar question" quote, that's not a reference. The phrase has been in common usage for years, and can be traced back to The 64 Million Dollar Question from 1955, the first "big money" TV game show (reduction to a mere million can be blamed on inflation, no doubt). Apart from that query, though, great work expanding the entry. Books in general can always benefit from fleshing out (one of the four weakest categories in general, just above writers, directors, and Creature Shop voice actors). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid there really isn't anything else I can add there. I guess it was a rather weak reference, and I had a vague feeling it might be, so I accept your edit. And thanks! I've been trying to work on the books lately because I work at a library and so it's easy for me to get a hold of them. To be honest, I'm not really much of an Elmo fan, although to may great, great surprise, the little critter is actually growing on me a bit. George B. (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi, George! Just a head's up. While I appreciate your filling in with welcome messages, just so you know, we have a recurring vandal right now, who you left a welcome message for. Guillermo and I keep blocking him and he keeps coming back in under different IPs. His motif is to randomly change category tags, performers, add characters from 90s series to cast lists for 70s productions, and other utterly random nonsensical and provably wrong changes (but it's nonsense which comes from re-arranging existing material, which makes it even more important to revert, since casual browsers wouldn't necessarily notice). It's work trying to undo all his mess by ourselves, so FYI, if you see an anonymous I editing rafts of pages at once, including The Muppet Movie, Shakey Sanchez or other obscure characters (a favorite target. So in case you should see this guy again, leave a note on my or Guillermo's talk page, and if you have time, try to revert some of his work until we get there. He typically winds up doing 10 to 20 pages worth of damage before we catch up to him (and it's hard work fixing it on AOL vacation dial-up, believe me!) -- Andrew Leal (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You got it! I had a feeling it might be something like that, but I was having a hard time figuring out if what he was doing was actual vandalism. And since nobody else was on at the time, I thought I'd just post him a welcome message. Thanks for letting me know about the problem. George B. (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's always frustrating when these folks don't know when to quit. Fortunately Danny and Scott are back now, but even so, it's always easier to deal with these things when everyone can pitch in when they can (since there's more of us and one of whom, and hopefully he'll wear out quicker). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


Just an FYI: We don't do "Notable Quotes" on the wiki. We tried to include quotes at first, but we found that figuring out which quotes were notable and which weren't was entirely subjective. Nobody could agree on which quotes were funny, so now we try to only include quotes when they're part of the article itself. I'm sure you can find exceptions to this rule all over the place, but it's still a guideline for the wiki. -- Danny (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep that in mind when creating articles, thanks! George B. (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! -- Danny (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Muppet Mentions Defined

Hey, George! I'd kept meaning to discuss this with you (and I thought I'd brought it up re Starlog, but it seems to be missing from here). Category:Muppet Mentions is for fictional productions that reference the Muppets, films, TV shows, comics, satirical works, novels, etc. References is only for things which the Muppets themselves reference. So the latter didn't apply to Disney Adventures, unless you can pinpoint some allusion somewhere. And the things you added to Minor Muppet Mentions are more along the lines of what we've been doing in Book Appearances. Except they're really too brief for even that. A one paragraph or two page mention of Sesame Street isn't all that noteworthy, since if we added the media books and magazines which did that, it would be an endless list. If it's a chapter, or in a stand alone essay, or multiple *significant* discussions, that would work. You might be better off salting away such quotes to use in an actual article at some point, discussing Sesame Street inserts, or somewhere else. -- 03:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep that in mind. The Disney Adventures thing was really a copy-over from another article that I used as a template. I had a feeling some of the categories might not fit at the time, but I felt it was a near-cert that they would eventually, so I thought it might be okay to use it as a pre-emptive. George B. (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
George, while I appreciate your enthusiasm, you might want to scale back the magazine stuff. Again, Entertainment Weekly is not a Muppet Mention. Right now, it's not even much of anything. This is open to discussion, but this is how we've been handling all these categories. Minor Muppet Mentions is for throw-away allusions to the Muppets in films, TV, etc., since it helps track how the Muppets and related elements have been depicted, spoofed, or otherwise treated in pop culture, as a common reference point. Individual Mentions pages are for things like Buffy the Vampire Slayer or The Simpsons which do so on a recurring basis. A letter to Entertainment Weekly about liking the Muppets really doesn't do that, and who knows how many magazines or books have had one line mentions of Sesame Street or Muppets? Here's an example of an effective magazine article, TIME. They've done cover stories, and countless primary articles as well as shorter pieces over the years. You might want to hold off on creating more magazine pages until you're sure you've accummulated enough actual articles, interviews, photo spreads, etc. Also, I noticed you added a red-link to The Salmon of Doubt. What connection is in there, outside of Cerf writing the preface? -- 20:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Danny --- I don't think you fully understand the way that I edit. I don't get this. Is there any harm in having an Entertainment Weekly article? Sure, it's on life-support right now, but I don't doubt that there are plenty of issues that have lots of good content. I suppose we could relegate to sandbox or a notes page or something, but as long as its an article, doesn't that encourage other people who do have good info to expand it? Anyway --- I work at a library, so when I have a chance, I just grab some magazines that strike my fancy. Which means there's every chance I could have some seriously detailed info to add, possibly within the next day or two. And about The Salmon of Doubt --- there isn't. That was me being scatterbrained, which is apt to happen from time-to-time. Oh --- and I saw that TIME article. It's nice, but it's only ever been edited once --- and that was when it was created. Whereas with something like the Starlog article, I've already added info more than once and others have as well. George B. (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
That was Andrew, actually, but I'll respond. I think the thing that we want you to understand is the difference between what's significant and interesting enough to add it to the wiki and what isn't. Some things may be true, but they're not interesting enough to be relevant. -- Danny (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
And I guess the thing I'm getting at, at least with the magazines, is that just because there isn't something that isn't significant yet doesn't mean that won't be soon. I.E. Entertainment Weekly --- it's had over 900 issues. Surely a fair few of those feature the Muppets pretty significantly. George B. (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
That's true. When you find one, you should create the page. -- Danny (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Characters for Creature Shop Films

Once again, I find myself struggling with whether or not to add an entry. I was thinking of adding a character entry or two for Dr. Dolittle (film) but I wasn't sure if it was okay. They would, of course, be basic entries, giving a brief summary of the character, their performer (in a performer box) and their role in the film. George B. (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, George -- I'm moving this to your user page because I want to respond more directly to you. I think this is a worthwhile question, and I'm glad you asked it, but right now I think we should concentrate on getting the other stuff straightened out first. It seems like you're all over the place right now, in a big rush to do ten different things. I think we should get the Themes/Learning Concepts settled for now, and then we can get into other questions. You've also got the Rubber Duckie thing and the Disney Adventures article, and then there's always the old standby of building up those Bear episodes. Is it okay to put off the Dr. Dolittle stuff for a little while? -- Danny (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I suppose I could. I wasn't really planning to launch a massive Dr. Dolittle project for the time-being, though, only one or two articles, really. I had kinda wanted to do Rodney (the guinea pig) because I own guinea pigs and his character (and the performer that voices him) cracks me up. George B. (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand that. But there's plenty of time, the wiki will always be here. -- Danny (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 :) It sure will be. All right, I'll put this on the backburner for future submission / discussion later. George B. (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Creation frustration

I'm moving the Hitchhiker's conversation over here, because I've realized that it's about more than just those song pages. In the last few days, you've asked about two projects that you wanted to work on -- the Bear recaps, and the HHG songs -- and in both cases, you were told that your ideas of how to do those projects wouldn't fit on the wiki. You're an enthusiastic, active contributor, and it's discouraging when you don't feel appreciated for the work that you put into the wiki.

Working on a wiki is a totally new experience for all of us. One of the things that's really strange about it is that you have to give up control over your work. You can work really hard on something, only to find that it gets edited, or deleted, or changed beyond all recognition. That's a frustrating experience, and it happens to every single contributor. You don't have the kind of control over your work that you would if you were making a website all by yourself.

But it's not all about giving things up. In exchange, you get a team of people who are able to expand and build on your work. You can start working on a new idea, then go away for a day -- and come back to find that other people have added to it, and turned it into something bigger and richer than you'd imagined. You trade having complete control for the opportunity to work as a team.

How are you feeling about that? Are you frustrated about not being able to do things the way that you want? -- Danny (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's see. FIrst issue --- the Bear recaps. That's all right with me. I already have someplace I post that anyway, so I don't mind it being edited and stuff to work with the format here. The other part --- the Hitchhiker's items --- a bit more problematic. I liked your idea of a What Muppet Wiki is Not page. I also think we need to get set up, as soon as possible, some guideline pages on what is and isn't being included in those sections. George B. (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree -- that's one of those projects, like the style guide, that everybody says we should work on, but it's kind of dull, so we put it off. Basically, if somebody gets the ball rolling, then other people will jump in and help. Do you want to get it started? -- Danny (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I was actually already thinking of doing so. Probably later this evening --- I only have a moment right now.
P.S. --- The more cynical-minded would say that something like a Wiki would never work because of the lack of any tangible reward system for doing something, or punishment system for not doing something. Those that actually use Wikis know better. On the other hand, when it comes to some of that "grunt work" stuff... :) George B. (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, there's pleasure in just showing off -- that's what's been driving innovation and creativity for all of human history. As for the grunt work, I've found that if somebody just starts and does a half-baked job, then pretty soon other people jump in to fix it... -- Danny (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep. In any case, I've been brainstorming up some ideas and I will have that posted later this evening. George B. (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Cool. I started it off on [[Muppet Wiki:What Muppet Wiki is]] -- maybe you could post your ideas on the talk page there? -- Danny (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. P.S. --- I'm happy to have enough comments now to have merited a User Talk Archive. George B. (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


Hey, George. I'm glad you set up the Learning Concepts category, but I'm not sure how I feel about mixing articles in "Learning Concepts." It's a useful way to subcategorize themes, but even on occasions where shapes or colors, or letters and numbers, are taught together, it seems more productive to just double categorize them than to lump them in in general. Especially since, by that logic, Sesame Street and Bear in the Big Blue House as a whole could go in there, which isn't exactly the point. Does that make sense? -- Andrew Leal (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it sort of makes sense. It just seemed like a logical step, since those items specifically set out to teach multiple items within those concept categories. But I can see where you're going with that. George B. (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I just created a Category:Shapes category. It just seems to me that it's easier to multi-categorize then get into a potentially messy area with things which very broadly cover different learning concepts. I'd actually sort of thought about this awhile back, but never got around to it. So thanks for kickstarting it! -- Andrew Leal (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)