Talk:3-2-1 Penguins!

Category tags

User:Tregowith and User:Mr. Lefty reverted to remove apparently valid and accurate Category tags. Would either care to explain why? Mdotley 21:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

20 Brand New Episodes

Twenty Brand New episodes announced on Entertainment Rights web site here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.110.246.219 (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Added references and external links

I added several third-party references and external links that I believe satisfy the issues with the previous page. The series is currently airing on several networks and continues to chart in the Christian video market, which justifies its notability. -- Wdomburg 03:15, 7 Sep 2009 (UTC).

Rockhopper

"The traditional space pod"? How much tradition is behind these things? 72.95.171.24 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

the galeezil/gileezle/...

how is it spelled? I count three diferent ways just within this article. Lexicografía (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion (and WP:SILENCE) was to merge The Cheating Scales of Bullamanka here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

---

I am proposing that the article on the The Cheating Scales of Bullamanka episode of this series be merged here, per WP:MERGE criteria #4 'Context' and #3 'Text'. That article contains almost no sourced content, and could easily be accommodated as a single paragraph or bullet-point here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsourced additions

[Moved from User talk:Hrafn ]

Would it be possible for you to NOT blank work that I've put in to 3-2-1 Penguins simply because you are looking for 1 source (which I've now added)? The typical road to take is to insert a source request into the text rather than DEL someone's 2000 character insertion. I see no reason to work against eachother on this page. Working off the model of the VeggieTales page, I'm simply trying to make the Penguins page more than just a lifeless stub - which I'm sure you are as well. Thanks Ckruschke (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

1. Discussion of articles belongs on article talk.
2. No. The "typical road to take is to" revert unsourced or poorly sourced additions.
3. VeggieTales is hardly a good model, as it is a very poorly sourced article, which appears to be almost completely lacking in WP:SECONDARY sourcing (what sourcing is there appears to be mostly to Big Idea press releases).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sir - trying to not make this a you vs. me issue for everyone to read, which is why I put it on your page, as this is NOT an issue about the page - it an issue about opinions. I have now sourced with credible, independent, non-commercial links - the only ones I could find after an extensive Google search - all new content that I have added to this page - which therefore makes this whole thing a moot point.

However, I would like to point out that by doing this sourcing, on every single 3-2-1 Penguins episode, I have now gone WAY above and beyond what can be seen on every television show episode list that I have ever read on Wikipedia. Of course I realize that the VeggieTales page is not the "perfect" example, and yes I know that you always have to start somewhere in order to improve Wikipedia as a whole, but if you were to perform your mass sourcing critera and mass deletion solution to all the American episodic television programs, 90% of the page material would disappear - needlessly. Sourcing is good, but I'm having trouble understanding the purpose when in the 3-2-1 Penguins episode list - All - I am doing is a verbatum info dump of the outline of the show - with nothing that is controversial or debatable and needing sourcing. Yes, if I was saying something like "The show furthers the Freudian complex of Jason and his relationship with his Grandmother", obviously that would be either an opinion or psychological review of the show or a character from the show - both of which would need sourcing as the statement would either be controversial or insulting or both. While sourcing is always good, I would really challenge you to go to the really top line, super duper Wikipedia pages and show me that every single line is sourced. It just isn't necessary.

And taking up your second point, reverting SHOULD only be the typical road when nonsense or malicious edits are inserted. Everything else should be helped along with a {{citation}} tag or a helpful note to that editor about how to improve the insertion or - GASP - the insertion of a link or grammatical fix by another editor (such as you or me) - thus fulfilling the original role of a newspaper editor. If a newspaper editor would go on a search and destroy mission of every one of his/her writers works, as you suggest, they wouldn't be in that job for very long because the public would have no newspaper to read. This issue reflects the current problem with Wikipedia and the dramatic drop in the number of overall editors - too many established editors are black and white about edits which only to serves to further the view of new or non-Wikipedians that Wiki is the domain of elites who want to keep other people (and their substandard edits) out. Instead, we should be working together to improve pages and add viable/necessary/interesting content.

Thoughts? Or maybe we just have to agree to disagree. Either way, as I've rightly stated above, the original point of contention is now moot. Ckruschke (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

(i) That it is a widely accepted practice to revert unsourced or poorly sourced additions is documented by dozens of reverts every day on even the tiny fraction of Wikipedia articles that happen to be on my watchlist -- and probably many thousands of articles each day on the totality of Wikipedia. (ii) Such practice is really the only practical way of enforcing WP:Verifiability, as otherwise the torrential influx of unsourced material would be too great to police in any effective manner. (iii) This lack of sourcing tends to make such 'Episode lists' highly unreliable and error-prone (and often notoriously so). (iv) If you are doing "a verbatum info dump of the outline of the show", then it should have been no particular imposition for you to state where you're dumping it from. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No argument there - I also watch 100's of pages and see only a fraction of reverts a day - most of deleting sophomoric crap. However, as I suggest, I try and "aid" constructive edits with either an insertion of a source found from my own - quick - Google search or a short collaboration with the editor as again I see no need in doing mass DEL's when the information can be salvaged. As far as "where I dumped it from", I agree that its no particular imposition and I've already done that on this page. Ckruschke (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Unencyclopaedic style and content

Could those wishing to add material to this article please read WP:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction and WP:What Wikipedia is Not. After the WP:LEDE, the article consists of nothing but in-universe character and plot summaries. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:IINFO & baseless accusations of "WP:Lawyering"

Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary. For more information regarding plot summaries, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries. Similarly, articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents.

— WP:IINFO

In response to this complaint, I would point out that this article is almost nothing but "summary-only descriptions" of these videos -- i.e. plot summaries and character summaries. It contains little or no "discussi[ion of] the reception and significance of" them. It is most certainly NOT "WP:Lawyering" to point out this blindingly obvious fact.

Ckruschke: "honestly, I grow tired of" this shitty little piece of WP:FANCRUFT. If you want it discussed, it will be here (article talk is specifically for discussing articles). Material added to articles must be sourced, in order to demonstrate that it is WP:Verifiable. But this is not enough, as WP:IINFO explicitly states: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." It then goes on (as quoted above) to explicitly exclude bare summaries such as this article as appropriate content for this encyclopaedia. As for rewriting it myself, as far as I can tell there is no substantial WP:SECONDARY coverage of this topic. Without engaging in WP:Original research, I therefore cannot create material on its "reception and significance" for which there are no sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever... If you want to make this public, than so be it.

I've had enough of the rules you quote and twist to serve your obstructionism (which has been definitely proven by your silence on the Calvary Chapel page), so this page is all yours as I've had enough of your nonsense. I fully expect all content here to cease because it either A) doesn't fit your strict guidelines of proper writing or B) every single word isn't unsourced. Enjoy! Ckruschke (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

More unsubstantiated accusations. I have not "twisted" WP:IINFO. If you want to claim otherwise, then please explain how the cited policy does not mean that an article that is almost-purely a set of plot/character summaries is unacceptable and that discussion of reception and significance is required. If you've "had enough" of the plain meaning of core Wikipedia policy, then you're welcome to go elsewhere. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Any user can simply look at the history of this page to corroborate my "unsubstantiated accusations". As for me, I'm going to leave you to your drama. Thankfully most of the rest of Wiki isn't like you or I would go elsewhere! Ckruschke (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Shorter Ckruschke: 'I don't have anything specific to back up my accusations with, so I'll simply cite the entire article history and run away'. Thank you for violating WP:NPA, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. This thread was not about "drama" but about WP:IINFO -- a policy you seem determined to avoid addressing at all costs. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 3-2-1 Penguins!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310113745/http://www.movieguide.org/reviews/movie/3-2-1-penguins-the-cheating-scales-of-bullamanka.html to http://www.movieguide.org/reviews/movie/3-2-1-penguins-the-cheating-scales-of-bullamanka.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Stub

Blasted episode listing on this page. Someone needs to clean up those episode descriptions- several are too dramatic and advertisement-esque for a Wikipedia article (in my opinion), many are just plain missing, and all that among other parts of the article that really need help. I'd do it myself but I'm short on time ATM, so can we please classify this page as a stub for now? Thanks 2600:1702:1810:C270:3069:2B48:BBCA:72C5 (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I'm sure we are all busy, which is why the page looks like it does. I don't think it qualifies as a stub and that wouldn't solve the issues you raise anyway. Ckruschke (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Ckruschke

Fair point. No, noting a stub doesn't fix the issues, but it lets editors know easily that contribution is welcome and if a guy knows anything they should help. #MyIPAddressChangesEveryTimeIEditOrPost 2600:1702:1810:C270:48E0:4C88:5A68:3D6D (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)