Talk:List of Rocky and Bullwinkle episodes

Fair use rationale for Image:Rocky bullwinkle tracks.jpg

Image:Rocky bullwinkle tracks.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Where's "The Mark of Zero" (and other things)?

Where is the story arc entitled "The Mark of Zero," a Zorro spoof described in that article? Don't say that it is a figment of someone's imagination, and/or someone's distorted memory of the Duck Dodgers episode "The Mark of Xero," because I've seen it myself, when the series was rerun on cable's Nickelodeon c. 1990, including episodes that hadn't been seen in years, such as the supposedly legally suppressed "Kirward Derby" arc, as TV personality Durward Kirby sued. When I went to check the spelling of that titular headgear, I found that this arc isn't listed either. It is mentioned in Kirby's article, with the apparently incorrect statement that he was convinced not to sue—it is a fact that the serial was not seen for many years and Kirby's legal action was the reported reason. Since this listing is put forth as being in the original broadcast order, season by season, any instance of removal from post-network rerun packages—which, given the fact that both of the above mentioned stories were seen on Nick, would have been less than total anyway—is no excuse. There is one other oddity, concerning "Mooslyvania." In repeats, it runs not four but six episodes, and the first two seem to be the opening installments of a completely different serial utilizing the same basic geographical gag. Episode Three plays as an opening episode, and it places the title island in a completely different location from the first two! At this late date, I don't remember which location goes with which part of the serial, but one puts it somewhere off the US Pacific coast, while the other has it between the US and Canada—obviously, in one of the Great Lakes, but as I recall this wasn't stated outright—with each country insisting it is territory of the other. It seems that a serial was started, scrapped after two episodes were completed, another was made using the same basic concept, and the unused pair of segments grafted onto the front of it for the rerun package. Obviously this last is my speculation, so I'm not suggesting it go into the article (but it is a fact that there is a six-part version of "Moosylvania," unless, just maybe, my memory is slightly failing me and those two segments were stuck onto a two-part arc, though I don't find that plausible, as there are no two-parters listed at all, and why would they have made just one?). Anyway, my basic point here is that this listing is significantly incomplete and that situation needs to be dealt with. Ted Watson (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I just took another look at the list and noticed that there are two "Moosylvania" serials, the latter, ...Saved, has no titles for two episodes, specifically the second and third out of four. This is no doubt not a coincidence to the above, but just what are the facts? Ted Watson (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The most exhaustive listing of the episodes I have found was in "The Moose that Roared", which is the source for this listing. It was prepared with the complete assistance of Jay Ward's family and the current incarnation of his production company. I consider your unsubstantiated statement that it "is significantly incomplete and that situation needs to be dealt with" to be suspect at best...an authorized reference volume outweighs your recollection of a re-re-re-re-rebroadcast thirty-plus years after the original airdates. A very quick search reveals (for instance) that The Kirwood Derby appears in the "Missouri Mish Mash" arc, and the Mark of Zero is a gag in "Mucho Loma (Much Mud)". Please do some research before ranting about how unacceptibly incomplete an article might be. Also remember that some story arcs were significantly edited when released on VHS, and the same may have held true for some recent broadcasts. With all due respect, you went totally overboard in your first post and didn't improve in the follow-up...totally overboard: "that situation needs to be dealt with", "no excuse", "just what are the facts?" Find some confirmation of all of this and I'll gladly edit the article. PurpleChez (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that these "re...broadcasts thirty-plus years after the original airdates" means it hasn't been very long since these viewings occured. Had I been claiming memories of the original broadcasts, then "thirty-plus years after" would have been a valid criticism. Furthermore, other Wikiarticles (Zorro and Durward Kirby) do not indicate these to have been parts of serials, and "Mark of Zero" is clearly referred to as a serial in and of itself in the former. So complain about those, too. I will categorically deny that it was nothing more than "a gag," but maintain that it was the main plot of a serial, whatever its title. And I note that you haven't touched on the "Moosylvania" situation at all. Ted Watson (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but my inclination is to go with the exhaustive reference volume prepared in cooperation with Jay Ward Productions as well as Ward's family, rather than anybody's "recollections," including my own. "Moose that Roared" is explicit that x-number of episodes were created, and then lists every last one. If you can find an authoritative ouside reference (outside of Wikipedia) that confirms all of these "supressed" episodes I would be happy to add them. Actually, neither of the Wikipedia pages you mention specify the name of a Rocky & Bullwinkle episode or story arc. The Zorro page simply states "There is a serial on the animated cartoon series The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show that features a mysterious character called 'The Mark of Zero'" (emphasis mine, but it is clearly the character, not the episode, which is being labeled "Mark of Zero"), and the Kirby article says "Kirby's name was spoofed in the animated TV series The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show as a man's derby hat, called the 'Kirward Derby,' having special powers..." (It is the hat, not the episode, that is "called the Kirward Derby".) These articles simply mention a connection to the Rocky and Bullwinkle show--no specifics. You imply that the Kirward Derby actually isn't part of the Missouri Mish Mash arc, although a quick review of those episode titles reveals numerous references to hats and, specifically, bowlers (quite similar to derbies, no?). As for "the 'Moosesylvania' situation"--I didn't mind that you questioned the completeness of the article--that's what Wikipedia is all about--but from the first post the tone suggests that the supposed omission is part of some conscious act of disinformation. I believe I have authoritative sources, but if you can find others I'd be thrilled to add the "secret" details. PurpleChez (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

...[T]he tone suggests that the supposed omission is part of some conscious act of disinformation. Judging from my past history, if that were anywhere remotely in the vicinity of a reasonable interpretation, there would have been a half dozen administrators telling me to "assume good faith." If *I* were to make your assertion to somebody, ditto. The one thing we can be certain of in movie/TV research is that any published reference work, no matter who wrote it (or at least got the byline) and no matter who it has direct quotations from, is going to make at least one (and usually more than that) atrocious error that screening the work under discussion will reveal. Even Tex Avery: King of Cartoons, whose author, Joe Adamson, takes most other works to task for such in his introduction (or preface or whatever he called it), contains several of its own. Hence, an attitude such as yours is to the detriment of the encyclopedia. Ted Watson (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes--even legitimate resources may be less than perfect. But that hardly justifies ignoring or discounting an authorized reference volume and other sources in favor of your recollections of an 18-years-ago television broadcast. Even the Wikipedia pages that you insisted made reference to "missing" Rocky and Bullwinkle episdoes actually did nothing of the sort. Here are several links placing the Kirward Derby within the Missouri Mish Mash story line: Toonzone, Toontracker, [http://www.amazon.com/review/R1ZS57X6QZT3BB Amazon.com], and TV.com. Those are just the first four links. And these link the Mark of Zero to the Mucho Loma/Much Mud arc: [http://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Rocky-Bullwinkle-Much-Mud/dp/B000A6JDZW Amazon], TV.com, and Become. All of this in addition Keith Scott's book. Again, find a legitimate, verifiable source that shows otherwise and I'd be thrilled to add the mysterious missing episodes to the article. (And a preference for verifiable resource materials over a personal recollection of an 18-year-old Nickelodeon broadcast is a detriment to the encyclopedia??? Well...guilty as charged.) PurpleChez (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the problem seems to grow out of the expectation that the Kirward Derby must be in a story arc specifically titled "The Kirward Derby," and that "The Mark of Zero" must be in an arc titled "The Mark of Zero." Please consider the very first Rocky and Bullwinkle story arc, Jet Fuel Formula. At 40 segments it is by far the longest R&B story arc, and it includes any number of characters, settings, items, and gags which are not reflected by the title "Jet Fuel Formula" or any of the segment titles. The R&B titles are often intentionally vague and non-sequitor, and many seem to be first and foremost a platform for really, really bad puns. They rarely, if ever, provide an accurate listing of everything that takes place within that episode or story arc. PurpleChez (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Even the website for Bullwinkle Studios (the current incarnation of Jay Ward Productions) describes the Kirward Derby as being a part of Missouri Mish Mash. Read the synopsis of the Season 3 DVD set. PurpleChez (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed an oversight on my part that in my previous posting I failed to concede that "Missouri Mish Mash" contains the Derby. I saw the episode title reference to "bowlers" and realized right then you had a point, but somehow utterly failed to say so. My most humble apologies there. Total screw-up on my part there and I do sincerely apologize, but only for that.

...a preference for verifiable research materials over a personal recollection...is a detriment to the encyclopedia?

Just how are they "verifiable"? The word means that they can be confirmed, and I have no idea how that's possible other than by viewing the production under discussion, so, yes, insisting absolutely on a print media—and therefore second hand, that is, a generation removed—source instead of someone's first-hand knowledge-via-screening of the actual work does indeed work against the encyclopedia being the best it can be.

The R&B titles are often intentionally vague and non-sequitor, and many seem to be first and foremost a platform for really, really bad puns.

Absolutely true, but this applies only to the on-screen "Next time" episode titles, not to the overall story arc titles, which are not on-screen and were not significantly subject to anyconsideration other than being informative to the people making the shows and keeping records of them. So one would expect those to be somewhat more helpful than they appear to be, if "Mucha Loma" is indeed the official title for the "Mark of Zero" story (and again, it was the central plot premise, not merely "a gag" [emphasis mine] as you said), as appears to be the case.

The Wikipedia pages you insisted made reference to "missing" Rocky and Bullwinkle episodes actually did nothing of the sort.

The implication of your phrasing is that I claimed those pages indicated those episodes to be missing. What I did was cite them as evidence of the existence of two storylines that I could not find here. Admittedly, one and probably both actually are present. So let's consider the dispute over those two settled, may we?

Finally, I will brook no argument that the beginning of one "Moosylvania" serial was tacked on to the front of the entirety of another, with the fictional country placed at two entirely different locations on the globe, as I previously described. You mentioned "the exhaustive reference volume prepared in cooperation with Jay Ward Productions as well as Ward's family..." then much later, "Keith Scott's book." Is this the same, and is that author any relation to Bill Scott. In any event, does it say anything about this "Moosylvania" grafting? Ted Watson (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bill Scott ==> Keith Scott? I don't know. I'd started wondering about that myself. The last time I typed the name (for Keith) it made me think of Bill. It's not an uncommon name, but not SO common that it doesn't make you think. PurpleChez 4/26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, nothing is said about this in an introduction, preface, or whatever, or in a capsule bio of the author as are found in some books (but only some, of course). Oh, well. Any thoughts at all on "Moosylvania"? Ted Watson (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

None. It's been way too long since I've seen some of the stories. This all reminds me of something: I have extremely clear and specific memories of hanging out with my friend, Boyd, and his then-girlfriend, in the living room of their place on Douglas Street in Pittsburgh, after Saturday Night Live finished up, watching Duckman, on a regular basis. The beanbag chairs, the TV in the old wardrobe-cum-entertainment center. All of it. The only problem is that I moved back to Harrisburg in September of 1993, and according to Wikipedia (and every other source I've found) Duckman didn't come on the air until 1994. I KNOW I was watching it with Boyd. Of course I still see him even after moving from Pittsburgh, but I wouldn't have been hanging out at his place watching TV every late Saturday night. Have I totally discounted my recollections. No. I don't doubt all of the sources that say 1994, but I still secretly believe that I'll find some mention somewhere that Pittsburgh was a test market or something like that. Never give up. PurpleChez (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you have put forward this experience of yours as an example of "the memory cheats" (in the words of the late BBC producer John Nathan-Turner, but it doesn't work here. You are comparing a general memory of a not-particularly-distinctive regular occurrence on your part to a specific memory of a single, isolated and unusual (unique in my experience, actually) event on my part. They just don't compare. The "Moosylvania" thing starting over as a different but generally related story with the third episode caught me by surprise at the time it happened (and I as I said in my second posting here, the fact that the Wiki listings for one of the two serials about that country has two of its episodes' titles unknown is asking way too much of coincidence). You could simply be confusing whatever series you watched with those friends at that time with the experience of watching Duckman under similar conditions with somebody else later. No such potential exists for my experience, as (again) it is absolutely unique. Furthermore, the lack of any documentation expressly supporting/corroborrating/confirming what I (believe I) saw does not in any way, shape or form constitute documentation in direct contradiction of it, which is what your memory is up against. On the other hand, as the IMDb gives Duckman a debut date of March 5, 1994, I actually agree with you. I tried it out, and watched a few episodes before I decided I didn't like it and stopped, but in mid-March 1994 I moved from my longtime home in Colorado back to my native Texas. The first few weeks of that month were occupied with preparations for the relocation, and starting a brand new series wouldn't have happened. In January 2005 I moved from Dallas to the small town where I still live. All those years in Big D I simply did not have cable at all (rabbit ears and a UHF loop brought in quite a few channels, and in a city that size more than just mainstream hit movies were available as video rentals for other small-screen entertainment, so low-level sports fan that I am, I missed the sports channels more than anything else). It is therefore impossible for me to have watched Duckman (a USA Network offering) on a trial basis upon its premiere as I did if it didn't debut until the IMDb says (BTW, the cable origin doesn't leave regional test-marketing much plausibility, but you don't need that theory anymore, anyway). Ted Watson (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You took that WAY too seriously. I intended the comment to say that I appreciated where you were coming from, even if I didn't agree with the specifics. I definitely didn't intend for an analysis of the empirical differences between the two memories. There's no confusion on my part...there was a duck (family man, private dick), a two-headed child, a farting grandmother, a pig with Joe Friday's voice. It was Duckman. And whether or not its valid (or "unique") it's as "real" to me as your Moosesylvania recollection is to you. You didn't need to debunk the "test market" theory...I was kidding. PurpleChez (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I did indeed think you were completely serious there. You write with a great "poker face." However, as it sounded (to me, anyway, even if that wasn't the intent) like you had essentially accepted that your memory was inaccurate, you completely failed to communicate appreciating where I was coming from. To make my point clearer, my extreme surprise at the sight of the hybridized serials is as much a part of what I remember of this as is simply viewing the shows themselves. Hence, it should not be dismissed just because no reference work says anything about it. Who would have believed that fellow who, in the early 1970s (in Pittsburgh, I think, too) claimed to have seen a substantially different version of The Prisoner episode "The Chimes of Big Ben" if he hadn't happened to be making audio recordings of the entire series (in that pre-home video era), and thereby had proof (not to all the differences he described, as some were strictly visual, but enough that the rest had to be given credence)? Nobody, that's who, but he was right. Ted Watson (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all familiar with The Prisoner (even though I've always thought it sounded really cool), but that's wild. What was the origin of the "unknown" alternate version? 168.24.1.102 (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is not really clear. It's said to be a prerelease cut, and indeed the titular (and crucial) sound effect was not (yet) dubbed into this print. I used to think that it existed because "Chimes" was the pilot (there is interior evidence to that effect, but I won't go into it here). However, the fact that the official premiere episode, "Arrival," has a completely analogous alternate version (same different-from-standard titles sequences, including theme music and very different visual finale to the end credits). Somewhere in the northeast US in the early 70s, another fan made audio recordings of the whole run for himself and got this, and upon hearing about "Chimes" he took his tape to the same organization, Six of One: The Prisoner Appreciation Society. A print of "Chimes" was found about to be junked by a Canadian TV station c. 1980. I know nothing about when the other "Arrival" was found, but in its case it was apparently in a video format. Both have been included in at least one Prisoner DVD box set. To my knowledge (and I am most certainly open to correction here), to this day nothing has been found in ITC production records to suggest these things were made! Ted Watson (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BoxTopRobbery.JPG

The image Image:BoxTopRobbery.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Upsidaisium.png
• Image:RockyBullwinkleGidneyCloyd.JPG

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Episode title references

We need a way to explain some of the episode title references that we don't have an appropriate article to Wikilink to. Examples:

• He's Too Fat for Me/Too Fat Polka in "Jet Fuel Formula"
• Next Time, Take the Drain In "Rue Brittania"

And those are just two that had red links. I've stretched a few to follow the lead of Brighten the Coroner Where You Are/Homer Rodeheaver by linking some songs to their respective writers, and "All the Drips at Sea" to Walter Winchell, who popularized "All the ships at sea." There is no relevant article for the one song above, nor for the popular expression. Additionally, there is one red-linked title that I didn't get the reference, and an internet engine search yielded no plausible result: Three on an Island in "Jet Fuel Formula." Maybe that one shouldn't be linked at all. I haven't even taken a look at the ones with no link at all, or checked the ones with working links. --Tbrittreid (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Where did all the titles go???

Most of these "titles" (and, as the intro says, whether they were actually intended as titles is up for discussion) were in the Rocky and Bullwinkle signature format "Title A or Title B." Almost all of these had two "titles." If the links were ambiguous (and most were, I acknowledge, based on puns, and therefore the link and the aricle it directed you to weren't identical), they should have been changed into plain text...not removed! PurpleChez (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I will restore the full, "double" titles. I dig the concerns about ambiguous links, so I will not replace them as links, just as text. But I would really like to think of some way to include references to the titles, names, etc., that are being punned in so many of the titles, as many are obscure or just plain off the wall--and that's such a big part of the Rocky and Bullwinkle humor. Please offer any suggestions. PurpleChez (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What about this... I was thinking about a chart or table where one column would have the "titles" while another would have the references being punned on...but then I thought that that could get overwhelming...too much stuff in one place. Then I thought...several years ago I created articles on each Rocky and Bullwinkle story arc. How would it be if the "titles" for each story arc were moved to their own sections in the appropriate individual article. You could then add more about the references, puns, jokes, etc., without making something that was ungainly and overwhelming. Just a thought.... PurpleChez (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Upsidaisium -- I've been adding a few alternate titles to 'Upsidaisium' episodes. Will add more when time permits, unless there is a reason not to. BTW, currently editing 'Upsidaisium', your contributions welcome! For now, just compiling basic "facts" on talk page. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Added more, completed most Upsidaisium alt. titles (missing pts. 26, 30, 31, 35 ); and italicized or. The "missing" titles are because they are not on YouTube! [grrrr!] ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Or

There needs to be a consensus regarding how we dis-join the twin titles with "or". Without some sort of delineation, it just looks like one long title with an "or" in the middle. I italicized or in the list for 'Upsidaisium', which looks okay and is simple; but I believe (not sure) the proper way is this: Title One, or: Title Two (italics, comma, "or", colon, italics). We need to be consistent, and not re-editing others' stuff every time somebody thinks one way is better than another. I definitely believe it should be done using "or" to reflect the narrative, instead of using a 'slash', 'double-dash', or whatever. Comments? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I edited all the “or”s to the italicised style. So they’re at least consistent for now, until we feel like there’s a consensus on a better way. Greenleaf547 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Kirw**d

In at least one segment of Missouri Mish Mash, the Derby's name is shown with the spelling Kirward. I haven't seen it on screen as Kirwood (yet). —Tamfang (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

happy, happy

I'm so psyched to see that someone re-installed some of the links to some of the puns in these titles. I created this page and originally had as many such links as I could discover. They were later removed by someone because he thought they were confusing. As it seems that some have been restored without complaint I may do the rest.... Purple Chez 6/27/14 (I'm having trouble logging in, but that's me....)