Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cartoon Network/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Banana Splits revival

Noticed recently that Warner Bros. are planning to resurrect The Banana Splits from their 60's grave. It has decent sourcing and most sources indicate there'll be quite a few shorts created (most say at least 130) and a whole bunch of other merchandise will be attached to it. All good and meets quite a few inclusion guidelines nicely but the issue for me is that it's not much more than filler much like Wedgies are so given the upcoming debut on September 2 do we add this info to the main Banana Splits article or do we start a new article? treelo _radda 20:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

zomg, one banana two banana three banana four, four bananas make a bunch and so do many more.

Ok, you've made my day. Only if the re-did HR Pufnstuf (with all the trippy overtones) could I say they couldn't have chosen a better show. Oh fond childhood memories. You better stop me now before I keep going.

I'd add a section to the existing Banana Splits article for now. When the show gets more established, and if sources are available to support it, we can consider spinning it out. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

HR Pufnstuf is dead as disco, get used to it. I managed to get a hold of a press release which should be added as the section explaining this exists but it needs a bit of a workup as it's fairly poor right now and out of date also. Does it fall under WP:TOON's area or not? Just wondering if to tag it or not. treelo _radda 21:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would fall into WP:TOON, even tho it's an H-B production. I'm just basing that on the age of the original. If a new article is created, then we could easily tag it, but I don't really think it's necessary for a separate article at the moment. Who knows, the thing might be the next biggest ratings buster, which would be nice. Do you know how other projects deal with things like this? It looks like no other project has "claimed" it? From a brief overview of the history, there doesn't seem to be too many regulars who maintain it, so we might be able to usurp it without getting in anyone elses way. Yea, I'm using ownership verbiage, but you know what I mean.

Sigmund? Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The age feels irrelevant as we're actually somehow inheriting the back catalogue of all H-B productions, bar one or two at some point or another have been aired on Boomerang or Cartoon Network but not actually acknowledging it much besides the occasional edit to the Hanna-Barbera article. We shouldn't but we do due to a handful of shows made in the 90's, there you go. Anyway, WP:TV has a claim but not WP:US-TOON as you'd imagine so we might be able to muscle in. How the rest deal with it is unknown to me, I'd imagine they'd have equally vague catchment rationales so basically it's down to what we figure should be listed and as long as nobody objects it should be fine. If we somehow get the second coming of Fleegle, Drooper, Bingo and the elephant one then we'll spin it out and see how things go. When I say the revival section was weak, I wasn't lying about it, please clean it up and maybe do something about the "DISCOGRAPHY" section which actually happens to be most of the spin off article. treelo _radda 21:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooof, that Discography section is painful. I'll see what I can do, and after some glancing around, this might be a little slower than expected. The article as a whole needs to be address in various places. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Tag it and bag it, deal with what you can. It's our baby now. treelo _radda

Well, that's going to take more than the standard fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants attitude which I usually roll with. I need to ponder. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Doth thou has a probleme with my English, bumpkin? I did mention it'll take a while to handle so I tagged it so you don't get waylaid and have some idea of the problems it has other than what I mentioned here. It will clearly take a few days, sourcing and clarification seems to be the biggest issue here so box it if you need a while to work. Any other 60's H-B shows we should be looking at? Don't ask me, I have never watched The Banana Splits (which reminds me, it's mistitled) or many other shows from that era so it's slightly new to me in a 30 year old sorta way. treelo _radda 22:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent)There's a lot, I'll see if I can dig up some and make a list somewhere. I feel old :( Between Hammer's apparent unknowledge of the Ramones and hearing about this Banana Splits thing, now I'm into going into a nostalgic phase (listening to the Misfits right now). I was born in the era of Chrome Dome (you'll probably need to look that up), which might give you an idea. Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh. mid-60s.. I see, I'm fairly certain Chowder knows who The Ramones are, why wouldn't he? OK, he is a few years younger than I but still... You keep making up that list, if you can do a good job at it then it'll be a great way to expand our empire and make some converts. treelo _radda 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And again...

I've finally decided on a few things that a bot might need to go through or someone suitably ready to do some crap with AWB in a somewhat automated manner.

1. WP:MOSNUM has finally concluded that dates and years in articles should not be linked. This is a wider wiki issue which'll probably be dealt with by a bot but it's one I think should have been around for some time seeing as dates and years shouldn't be linked on the plain basis it adds no context and yep, even "X in television" links are useless.
2. I have decided that WP:FLAG is an issue and whilst I did try a while back to make all links like {{USA}} into United States, most of that has been undone either by myself or, oddly enough, by Ubracter. As such, maybe a compromise is needed and WP:VG has it. Being a monolithic project by way of the many fairly large child subjects and userbase, it has a lot to teach to entertainment related projects like ours which a few projects dealing in the purely academic subjects which are even larger than WP:VGcannot help with being completely separate things, in short we're stealing {{vgrelease}} and repurposing it to fit some shows which have been released in various countries but not on Cartoon Network, nothing worse than a whole bunch of flags in an infobox. Not the be-all and end-all of production location and release date templating but it's close.
3. We do need a MOS. Yeah, we're small fish with less than 200 articles in total (WP:TOON/A says 153, it's around 20 short of that when excluding redirects) but we're also a friggin' mess when it comes to article quality which I'm still pissed at even 17 months on from taking over the reigns of this stagecoach with no wheels and a mule with which to pull it. At the moment, all I have is the three core articles to any given show if the content justifies it, char list stipulations and the rest... who knows. Something to do with lack of workforce still, would be happy if we had some old hand who knew about running wikiprojects and a good knowledge of MOS who'd assist with writing up a CNMOS.

All in all, I got the ol' "This fuckin' project is dead" bug again and would like to get rid of it. treelo _radda 23:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

AWB is so flippen confusing. Every time I run it, I look at it for twelve and a half minutes, and close it. Can it run monobook scripts? I agree with your comments (and your frustration). By the way, who's the mule? Yngvarr (t) (c) 01:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

AWB is one of the easier standalone tools, only thing more simple to use is Huggle and therein lies the evil of such power. It cannot run monobook scripts but that misses the point of AWB in a way. Anyway, you only read (or chose to address) the first paragraph and the middle of the third point, good stuff yeah. I am the mule. treelo _radda 12:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What else can I say? We've been down this road before, we can identify what needs/should be done, but when it's two against the world (and yes, I do contribute :P ), it gets tiring. We have open discussions, not just here, but elsewhere (Banana Splits, most recently), where the rest of the wikiworld gives us a big "I don't care what you do", and then when we get down to it, it's like "omg why did you do that, revert". We need more people. We have people who are active (Hello, McFly, knock knock), but don't really participate in these kind of important (IMO) discussions, and it would be a big help if they did. Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Away with you Huey!! Anyway, aside from getting me caught in BTTF references, you are right and I know that we are but two people running a project seemingly for shits and giggles seeing as the creator and his right hand man fucked off elsewhere. We did try a recruitment drive but found that everyone who actually contributes something approaching helpful is already signed up so looks like we're gonna have to work with what we have, nobody likes the backoffice crap but it only truly becomes worth something when 20 or so people get behind a project fully and get organised. We don't even have 10 people who give a damn enough to get involved with discussions but like before, nobody wants to do this through a perception this is too complex or outside their area. Even the people who kicked this off were letting it freewheel in fear of learning something hard before I stepped in.

This sort of thing makes me wonder if you can have a project with two people then I remember how TUGS somehow has a project too and that's a series which only got to 13 episodes and is barely remembered in its home country as it was complete shite yet has a nice little bunch of crufty satellite articles and lists. Fair enough, the people in charge couldn't find their stomach with their hands but they have a project and that's what matters. Here's an idea, we should invite people to take part in a discussion with the project's future... alright, ask those who are known to frequent our articles and if they don't care then we need to find out why and somehow get them doing stuff for the project. Sigh. treelo _radda 00:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so here's what we're gonna do. First, explicitly address your above points.

1. WP:MOSNUM is a good thing. I saw you started to delink a few articles, and if the linked dates are added, we'll just de-link them again. It's also a project (as in en.wiki) guideline, and just like policies, there's no fundamental reason to be exempt.
2. WP:FLAG is a little more dicey. Last I looked (several months ago), there was some disagreement about using flags in this manner. Has that changed, is there an agreement? I'm all for getting rid of flags myself.
3. WP:CNMOSNUM. Yea, I like the idea. I'll start to hack and wheeze on something later today. I'm stuck on a philthy laptop today, with a horrid keyboard, so I'm having typing malfunctions.

Since TOON project members will hopefully have this on their watchlist, "silence means consent", and disagreements can be discarded. Sorry if I sound like a dick, but trying to get other voices involved, who don't want to participate, you cut your losses and go with what you have. Unfortunately, sometimes I run out of steam, as you've seen, so there you have it.

And one of these days I'll slip a pop culture ref past you that you won't get! Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I went "eee" when I read about us doing something!

1. I'm using Lightmouse's delinking script to do it (which you have, use it) and using "Delink all dates to mdy", "Delink non-full dates", "Delink common terms" and "Delink year-in-X dates" if I can see any. Some do overlap with the functions of others but it cleans up everything. Doesn't work for me in FF 2.0.0.16 so use Opera (ugh) but YMMV.
2. I know WP:FLAG (now MOS:FLAG) is an issue last I checked also but I'd like to take a project level decision on how we handle it. I'm still uncertain about what the Wikiworld feels so even though it seems implied we shouldn't have them, let's just say "we don't use flags, that's it" so we cut through the ambiguity of it.
3. You do mean WP:TOON/MOS right? We don't need a MOSNUM but if you're ready to write up the start of a MOS then I'll come in later, just tell me when you're ready.
4. That is a point, if you won't argue against something (and it's highly unlikely they'll have this on their watchlists, the slackers) then you're agreeing with it through inaction so don't complain when we implement something you dislike. Highly dickish if I say so but then if you signed up to this then you should know that we will be making decisions on some big stuff and your opinion will be ignored if you don't voice it. I do run out of steam but it sometimes just ends up being an issue of not having enough people to care about the chunks you don't care much about or keeping the stuff you do want going going. Weird though, you'd think we're slightly like the military guys at high school getting new recruits only to find most of the guys signing up are going "Yeah, sign me up! We get to shoot stuff, right?" which misses the point a little. Also, because it's just us to, it's become something where people feel they cannot get involved because we will not allow them.. there's always ignorance, don't forget that.

Personally, I reckon the only other guys we have to help are Paper Luigi and Chowder, most everyone else is either inactive and a few edit elsewhere so yeah, try and reign in these guys because it feels realy unlikely we'll be getting anything better than that. Curse the Nick Wikiproject, they're doing very well for themselves. Also, you may never slip a cultural reference past me ever, this I swear! treelo _radda 11:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Going "eee"? I'd like to see Paper Luigi get a bit more policy-oriented. He added a couple of refs to fan forums, not POV-pushing like that other guy, but still. Not enough for me to mention it yet (and I don't want him to feel like I'm bashing on him), and that'll probably come with time anyways. Oh, and I just tried the mouses delinking script in FF3, seems to work. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Going "eee". PL is currently a bit rough around the edges but he's been here for all of two months, still a greenhorn by most standards so I'd mention it but as a "hey, you did this and you shouldn't really" sort of way which'd allow him to recognise a screwup and not do it again. He seems a good kid though otherwise, think we should mention to him that we're talking about him ANI style? treelo _radda 14:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. Altho right now, I thinking I might start enjoying this overt cabalistic type of discussion. The cabal exists, it's under your nose! Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ohh, that's good, very good! A cabal with two members throwing cultural references (two of which you've yet to have gotten from me) at each other, talking smack about others in the group is still a cabal. treelo _radda 15:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am utterly distracted today, having difficulties focusing, so if there are refs there, I'm sorry I don't catch them at the moment. And the United States Army has an army of one, we can surely have a cabal of two. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Couldn't help that. Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, break!

(undent) User:Yngvarr/sandbox. It's a start. There's a lot more, but I wanted to sandbox it until some semblance of order rises. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I gotcha semblance of order right here... treelo _radda 22:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, I think I'm done myself. Far as I can see, it's just a matter of spit-n-polish. I'd let it ferment in the sandbox for a bit before moving (copy-paste) it into project space, in case anyone else wants to shine it up also. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, it seems fairly done. A few once overs and a shuffle of stuff about and I think we'll be looking at a nice MOS. Nice of PL to pop in and add something, fine it was useless and removed but we gotta talk to him more and get him doing something instead of floating around like a ghost and doing weird transparent edits with little meaning. treelo _radda 11:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, why didn't anyone tell me the discussion was here? :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 11:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody expects... oh, I used that one already. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What, you don't have this watched? Tsk. treelo _radda 11:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's Numberwang! Oh wait, wrong Britishism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 11:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(←)Stay away from my Britishisms! treelo _radda 11:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Something for you to muse on, children. We are nearly done but are missing stuff regarding HB toons and channels which includes sister channels, international variants (no schedules or show lists) and programming slots. There's also a few bits of VG stuff still around, be a dear and clean that mess up. treelo _radda 12:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Which brings up something else. Should this working-MOS include that we should not have programming sections in the channel articles? All these international variants have programming sections, and they're all contentious (look at the history for them). They're simply not verifiable, to say nothing of WP:NOT. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd think so, yeah, did mention that up yonder. treelo _radda 13:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This will be going into project space shortly. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

'parently. This might just be me but shouldn't we just rename Guidelines to MOS in the template and redirect WP:TOON/G to the right place? treelo _radda 21:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't made many edits recently. My old PC broke, and I just got a new one today. Paper Luigi ^{Talk • Contributions} 03:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Cartoon Network

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Cartoon Network and the Hanna Barbera stuff

So, the Template:Cartoon Network contains the phrase relating to Cartoon Network. Referring to an above discussion about starting to maintain the Hanna-Barbera stuff, which is happening, albeit a bit slowly. I'm thinking we should modify the verbiage of this template to something like relating to Cartoon Network, as well as other Hanna-Barbera production. Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

How many folk deal with the H-B stuff? I'd be happy with rephrasing it to include H-B specifically but it's got to be worth it and also means tagging every single stinkin' show out there so it makes sense as right now it's not exactly clear we also cover H-B things besides a handful of tags on images and articles. Hm, I feel a small rewrite of TOONMOS coming to accommodate these 40 year old series... treelo _radda 20:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's just an idea from that previous conversation up above. Other than high-profile shows like the Flintstones and the Jetsons, I'm not really sure what the maintenance of others look like. I did run into one, The Roman Holidays, which had fairly low traffic, so I started poking it with a dead stick (or something like that), and tagged it in the meanwhile. Which is why I remembered to bring it up. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the high profile shows I'm concerned about, they're generally covered by American Animation and TV but not by us. That's got me wondering, would the editors want association with the newer stuff? Might as well have a separate H-B project to cover those but if they haven't got one yet I guess they won't actually care. Hm, We wil have to make an all-new navbox template for H-B shows yknow. treelo _radda 21:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hate to barge in on this conversation but, for as long as I could remember this project was set up to cover all shows produced by Cartoon Network. Namely, Cartoon Cartoons and shows made at Cartoon Network Studios. It was never designed to cover Hanna-Barbera Cartoons, the only relation(s) being some CNS programs (which fall under our scope) were made by HB and CNS is/was a subsidiary of HB. I realise I'm just repeating things you two already know, but a new project might not be so bad. Might not be a major plus either, I'd say keep the idea in mind until there comes a point H-B related articles don't fall under any scope for any project. Driveus (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I know what you designed it for but because it catches the CC shows it also in some way gets the earlier H-B stuff too and whatever you designed it for doesn't mean it cannot adapt to include closely related subjects. I feel that covering the H-B shows also instead of a new project is that getting it off the ground would be hard with no knowledge of the input in these articles in terms of a project. I figure that if we look after the H-B articles as well because we do actually do that anyway but in no official sense we'll be able to gauge how popular the idea of a H-B specific project is. If it's popular then we'll split it off but otherwise it'll be under our jurisdiction as the TV and AA projects won't be going anywhere soon and the shows get lost easily under such large projects. treelo _radda 11:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The Cartoon Network article as an article for the brand.

I made a layout of an article to treat Cartoon Network as a generic brand. It is located at User:JSH-alive/Sandbox/CN main article and will include brand history, global expansions and related brands (like Toonami and Boomerang). When the work completed, it will be located at "Cartoon Network" and, of course, the current Cartoon Network disambiguation page will be relocated at "Cartoon Network (disambiguation)‎".

I will do my best for the layout. However, I need your help with the content. Therefore, you can improve the sandbox by adding content and gathering sources. -- JSH-alive ^(talk)_(cntrbtns)^{(mail me)} 15:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's going to need a worldwide view of the brand if you're taking it in that direction which means a lot of content sourcing. Right now, it'll amount to little more than a reword of the US article with some short sections. I'm sure given enough time and focus it could be good but I'd say to at least get each section a basic writeup and then move it to articlespace so more eyes can get at it. treelo _radda 15:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

India and Pakistan

I suggested a merger between Cartoon Network (Pakistan) and Cartoon Network (India) few months ago and a Pakistani user called Adyniz sent me an e-mail.

Hi

I am ady from Pakistan
I would like to say something about the articles of Cartoon Network Pakistan and Cartoon Network India that they are merged (according to some persons).
In my point of view it is not true because they have similarities because they are quite similar in real (but not totally).Few programs of both channels are also matching and there are lot's of other common things in these both channels.But we cannot say that both channels are totally same and there articles (on wiki) are also merging because if we are creating two articles of two different things with some similarities so we cannot say that they are merging or both articles are same.
So my appeal that no any change should be brought like removing the article from Wikipedia or something like that because we the Pakistanis have also the right to create the article on wiki about our home channel whether it may have some similarities but it is not our fault.

I hope u will understand that what i am trying to say.

— User:Adyniz

I can understand what Adyniz is going to say. Then, what should I do with CN Brazil carrying CN LatAm with Portuguese audio and some local programming? -- JSH-alive ^(talk)_(cntrbtns)^{(mail me)} 15:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting attention at List of Total Drama Island characters.

To give the article a fair shake, I'm asking for any experienced editors, preferably those who are aware of this show, monitor this list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

New task force: Adult Swim

I've created a task force for the Adult Swim block, and I was wondering if anyone may be interested in Adult Swim, feel free to participate. And if you could also help me build it up (not very good at the technical stuff and all), that'd be great too. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Great, been wanting an AS task force for some time now! I'll help you out in being able to deal with the tech parts but content-wise, not knowledgable enough to actually help there but I can give pointers. treelo _radda 01:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, basics are down but it's by no means live just yet. Once Yngvarr gets back from his break on Monday he'll be able to offer some help also, maybe Ten Pound might if he's upto dealing with things like this but eitherway I'll be working on it over the weekend until then so ask any questions you like. treelo _radda 01:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As the project scope currently notes that it does NOT cover AS, this should probably have been discussed before hand, but either way, presumably the project scope will be modified or the taskforce of one removed. As a separate issue, New Age Retro Hippie has declared that the Adult Swim task force will also include anime, something which is specifically not included in the CN project scope, and he tagged dozens of anime articles with the CN project tag. These have all been reverted (twice), and New Age Retro Hippie then removed the "no anime" clause added by Treelo from the AS task force page. This has been reverted as it is in keeping with the CN scope, so additional views on whether the AS task force should include anime are now need at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cartoon Network/Adult Swim#Adult Swim. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Centralized discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cartoon Network/Adult Swim‎. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cartoon Network Distributions Template?

I was wondering should there be a new template for future Cartoon Network shows that are like The Secret Saturdays. Shows that are produced by other companies but then distributed, NOT produced, distributed, by Cartoon Network, which is a cable television network, not a production company. NOT to be confused with Cartoon Network Studios, which is an animation production company. Shows like the Secret Saturdays which is only produced by Porchlight Entertainment, but distributed by Cartoon Network. Since there will be more shows like this, I was wondering should there be a template for Cartoon Network Distributions? Starting with The Secret Saturdays. Also, why is The Secret Saturdays in the Cartoon Network Studios Originals section anyway? It wasn't produced by Cartoon Network Studios, its by Porchlight Entertainment. Other shows that are similar would be Ed, Edd, Eddy (produced by AKA Cartoon), Kids Next Door ( produced by Curious Pictures).Those Cartoon Cartoons aren't CN Studios orginals like Billy & Mandy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamborghini man (talk • contribs) 03:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting but I don't see how your setup doesn't introduce more grey area in something where it's actually at a point which is the least vague available. Because a show is produced outside of Cartoon Network doesn't preclude the classification of it being original to Cartoon Network, if it's intended to introduce another navbox-based template then it sounds like a pointless definition fracture. The bottom line is this, the split between the co-prods and original productions is one of rights and whatever Cartoon Network considers original, if Cartoon Network own the predominant rights beyond that of broadcast then it's an original series. They're not a distribution company and the animation studio is not a seperate entity. It might seem unclear or disagreeable to you but your idea seems more flawed than what stands now. treelo _radda 03:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose the proposal. Cartoon Network Studio is intrinsic to Cartoon Network. CNS does not produce material for sale to non-CN networks; CNS produces material for CN. There is no "distribution" channel involved. Shows may elect to use CNS as their production house, or have their shows produced independently, but those are still 100% properties of Cartoon Network and not distributed or licensed. There are some gray areas, which I won't touch on at all, unless someone else brings them up, but lets not make an already confusing issue more confusing with adding a third and unnecessary template. Secret Saturdays, as an explicit example, is exclusive to Cartoon Network, produced wholly for their "distribution". Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I get it now. Sorry for the disruption earlier. Lamborghini man 10:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"Cartoon Network Co-Produced Originals" under Cartoon Network Orginal Series section

I was thinking about this and I think it would be perfect to have this under the Cartoon Network Original Series section. This area would be for Cartoon Network Original shows like The Secret Saturdays, Hi Hi Puffy Ami Yumi, and Out of Jimmy's Head; Cartoon Network Orginals that are co-produced with other companies. These three shows are both co-productions and Cartoon network Originals. So why not have an area for Cartoon Network Co-Produced Originals? There will most likely be future Cartoon Network originals like this and they will be perfect for this section. The current Cartoon Network Co-Productions section can be for those other shows that are co-produced with Cartoon Network but aren't Cartoon Network Originals, like George of the Jungle and Star Wars, and Storm Hawks, and Robot Boy.

Also, since Transformers Animated is co-produced with Hasbro Entertainment, I think that show may be perfect under this area too.

Heres what it would look like. I just thought since some CN originals are co-productions, they should have there own area. Sounds good to anybody else? BTW, nothings been changed. Just a preview. Lamborghini man 04:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:55, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

What to put forward for ACID?

Seems WP:ACID has returned into activity and though I have no idea of just how well it works I think it's worth taking a punt and see if we can improve an article somewhat. Question is, which article would best benefit from the attention of outsiders? I put it to you then to suggest an article for fixing. treelo _radda 22:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack. That article frightens me anymore. Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not like your grammar does, all that articles requires is some good copyediting and pruning which I'm sure you or I could do easily. No, we need something a little more longstanding when it comes to problems and I don't mean terrible articles as a whole, I mean articles we have issues sourcing content for or good copyediting. I was thinking more along the lines of classic Cartoon Network shows like The Powerpuff Girls or similar, something that people have seen and love and will be more likely to do something for than a newer show they don't recognise. treelo _radda 01:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Cut the crap and get on with it: deletionism, cruft and keeparoosies

Whilst reading WP:ANI I read a small throwaway suggestion that sounds interesting to me:

“ What is it about South Park that attracts such contentious editing? Maybe we should outsource the drama. Transwiki all South Park material other than one basic article to the fan wiki at "southpark.wikia.com", and let Wikia monetize the fancruft. --John Nagle (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC) ”

We don't get much in the way of crazy ass sockfarms but some of the edits we get are contentious and prone to minor drahmaz so why not reduce the amount of space we give to a series to one article? Simple, we're here to build an encyclopaedia which covers the sort of crap no paper one will and be part landfill, part information repository where info is either fictious or unprovable thus driving down Wikipedia's already stellar rep for being correct. Whilst it's totally noble to figure everything should be here and nothing would ever be removed there does come a point when stuff becomes way too bulky or plain unusable in any state to keep it so let Wikia deal with the fanfap we don't want to touch. Ah, such joy it'd be to down everything to one simple article with correct sourcing and no fucking guesswork and bullshit we don't need but alas examples have been seen and precedent says that we have to keep a fan universe supported with stuff like episode lists and character bios better suited for fansites. I mean, I tolerate the lists under duress, I think they're by and large useless also and could be on a Wikia or fansite but I can't get them deleted, merged or redirected as "information will be lost".

Where am I going with this? Oh yeah, do we need anything more than the most basic details regarding a series? I'm not saying strip them down to stub or start level à la Squirrel Boy but keep the info we have to a non-exhaustive limit of "decent". No char bios, no episode guide (that's why you've got TV.com), just what the show is, who was involved and how it was recieved by the critics. Too slim or maybe we need more stuff so an article can be more and tell more than anyone would need to know and just about enough for the fantard. Tell me so I can do nothing regarding this. treelo _radda 20:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No argument. I'd like to point to Camp Lazlo as what I see as a good structure. Maybe not GA or FA, but I really think it's not far off. The core show is fairly well written and sourced; the characters lists are down to their basic core concepts, none of this "it was revealed", and there are no "recurring characters" who recur once. The episodes can probably still be polished, but *meh* for that at the moment, since the show has finished.

So, have you any candidates for something to start with? Only thing I'd recommend is to sandbox it, as in the past, with enough visible discussion, so that if blammo, we drop in a new structure, we don't get into edit wars. Silence means consent, and if people don't feel like participating in a discussion, it means that they have no reason to disagree.

Anyways. I think I'd like to keep character bios, again using Lazlo's list as a good framework. The episodes should be kept to a bare minimum of date aired. Not before airing, no TBA and no dates in the future. I think we've all seen last minute scheduling changes. A pretty drastic example would be Whatever Happened to Robot Jones? Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

My cuts too sharp to want things down to one article? Hm, we should choose a fairly out of the way series which has finished so we don't get throngs of people re-entering the garbage constantly... I have no idea what to suggest for the first sandbox to start from, Squirrel Boy seems the most obvious as nobody touches it. treelo _radda 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to keep a basic characters bio. There's no real character development in many of these non-contagious show, other than perhaps a new character reappearing/reinforcing a previous appearance. Squirrel Boy is a good start; with only 26 episodes airing, I think that might be possible to get into a single article. The characters are already there, and could probably be tightened up even more. The only concern I have about Squirrel Boy is the outstanding issue of references.

Do you have some sort of "ideal stub" in mind, other than what is already detailed at the TOON/MOS? Hmmm, that might not be a bad thing. Ponderponderponder. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

For someone who loves the English language, your grasp sometimes seems a bit loose. Anyway, Squirrel Boy on recollection was very slim on sources for much of it and it never even aired here so you can imagine that reactions towards it were pretty muted even if unfairly if you ask me. The basic stub concept is at TOONMOS and if we must have bios then we must but episodes need a lot of space and we split off Squirrel Boy into three articles before because it was over congested. In comparison to other shows it'd seem positively slim if it was all one article but then much like Robot Jones the series was cut off early on and forgotten by a lot of people so that kind of small fry aspect will affect how much you can write. Even with that I don't see why Squirrel Boy can't be our model home article even if it was a series few liked. treelo _radda 22:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)