Talk:Scrappy-Doo

Scrappy's Parents

Did they ever reveal who Scrappy's parents are? If this is true and someone has a link to reliable sources that can prove it I suggest we add a box showing his relationship to Scooby. I also personally would like to know who is actual parents are, Thanks! Eatspie (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

His father was never revealed, but his mother was clearly shown in an entire short episode to be Scooby's sister Ruby (It's mentioned in the article). Ruby appeared later on, in A Pup Named Scooby, but was young then, of course, so nothing else about her grown up life and relationships was ever shown.Eric B (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The entry on Scooby claims that Skippy Doo was his father. Skippy was also one of Scoobys siblings so this would make Scrappy inbred. Which could explain a whole lot.84.64.229.66 (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Wasn't there a popular internet poll in the late '90s or early '00s where scrappy was voted the most annoying cartoon character of all time? Streamless 14:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think so. But I kind of like Scrappy. They should give him his own show (without Scooby and the Mystery, Inc. gang).

fair enough - but i think inclusion of the link to the poll would be encyclopedic and funny. Streamless 18:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Was Scrappy in the first live-action movie? -- Tough Little Ship 23:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I believe the character design was by Jack Kirby during a brief foray into animation in his later years. - Sparky

I have Scooby Doo and The Case of the Reluctant Werewolf on tape and Scrappy Doo does not appear in it.152.163.100.74 04:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Scrappy certainly appears as a major character in Scooby-Doo and the Reluctant Werewolf (in about 70% of the film). It is possible you have the wrong title, and are refering to some other Scooby episode or film. --FuriousFreddy 02:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Movie appearance

Eh, I just watched Scooby-Doo on ABC Family tonight, they gave Scrappy-Doo's name as Scrappy Cornelius Doo (spelled out that way in the closed captioning as well). --Geopgeop 05:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• The movie, though based on the series, is not considered canonical, so I'm going to remove the middle name. Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 01:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• The synopses of every episode/movie are not necessary and make the article too long to scroll through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.220.246 (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Toning down happened much earlier

It is not accurate to credit toned down Scrappy to the Superstars 10 movies. This happened years earlier in the New Scooby Mysteries Series. by that year Scrappy often paired up with Daphne and both were clearly altered, Scrappy not being as gung-ho and more logical and Daphne showing herself to be more strong-willed. This was obvious in hindsight to let Scooby and Shaggy go off and do their usual gags and have Daphne and Scrappy play off each other since the previous two series always had Shaggy and Scooby having to chase after and stop Scrappy.

Plus in 13 ghosts Scrappy is clearly still less hyper-active and more playing to a mix of Daphne and Flim Flam. By the time of the SUperstars 10, the trend of Scrappy being super brave going at every monster was pretty much non-existent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.163 (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Context needed on Cartoon Network bumper

This article unfairly promotes the idea of the Scrappy promo being against his character directly. This is blatantly ignoring the two other ptomos originating from this time. One staring Yogi Bear not being able to get into an office and Ugh giving Double D a tour. All three of these were all apart of Cartoon Network poking fun of itself for slowly showing more and more of their own characters and less of the original characters that made up most of their lineup in the 90s. Scrappy in that case could have been being made out to be disliked himself or instead one of many who were being forced out. This of course hilarious in hindsight when the Cartoon Cartoons had the same thing happened to them. This article should be more fair in it's wording. As of right now it promotes a conspiracy and ignores the context of that bumper. This will give people who did not live through the time a bias impression that the promo was specifically to lampoon Scrappy, which doesn't hold up with the context. As that would be in favor of the Scrappy being a representation rather than a target.

While unless you have some kind of proof to say specifically they did, which i see nothing other than then just saying it was. Without that all you have to go on is the context, which would mean you have no actual argument. How can two other similar commercials make Scrappy a target? No one is shouting Ugh the caveman and Yogi Bear suffered the same thing. If Scrappy's promo was a target, shouldn't they be in the exact same boat. This is a slippery slope that doesn't allow any fairness. I would expect more homework on this from an encylopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.163 (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Scrappy-Doo

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Scrappy-Doo's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BarberaAutoBio":

• From William Hanna: Barbera, Joseph (1994). My Life in "Toons": From Flatbush to Bedrock in Under a Century. Atlanta, GA: Turner Publishing. ISBN 1-57036-042-1. Archived from the original on December 15, 2019. Retrieved September 4, 2019.
• From The Flintstones: Barbera, Joseph (1994). My Life in "Toons": From Flatbush to Bedrock in Under a Century. Atlanta, GA: Turner Publishing. ISBN 1-57036-042-1.
• From Jonny Quest (TV series): Barbera, Joseph (1994). My Life in "Toons": From Flatbush to Bedrock in Under a Century. Atlanta, GA: Turner Publishing Company. p. 152. ISBN 1-57036-042-1.
• From The Smurfs (TV series): Barbera, Joseph (1994). My Life in 'Toons': From Flatbush to Bedrock in Under a Century. Atlanta: Turner Publishing. pp. 184–187. ISBN 1-57036-042-1.
• From Joseph Barbera: Barbera, Joseph (1994). My Life in "Toons": From Flatbush to Bedrock in Under a Century. Atlanta, GA: Turner Publishing. ISBN 1-57036-042-1. Archived from the original on December 15, 2019. Retrieved August 7, 2019.
• From List of works produced by Hanna-Barbera Productions: Barbera, Joseph (1994). My Life in "Toons": From Flatbush to Bedrock in Under a Century. Atlanta, GA: Turner Publishing. pp. 192–193. ISBN 1-57036-042-1.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Scrappy-Doo (live-action film) into Scrappy-Doo#Scooby-Doo Live Action Movie (2002)

Not notable enough for a standalone article; character already covered in the merger target DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge The original article is an orphan. It's an appearance of a supposedly "different character entirely" so it should be marked as such as well. TheCartoonEditor (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

John Heim/Jump The Shark site

This is really messy. Its a convoluted and unclear explanation which doesn't bring much to the article. At the end I was wondering if 1500 is a lot of not. How did it compare to other shows? Beyondheat (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Scrappy-Doo Wikipedia mystery

Saw this linked on Popbitch, so am posting it here as it might be of interest. The Scrappy-Doo Wikipedia mystery by Amelia Tait Ericoides (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I just encountered that essay via twitter and came here to post the link as well, Ericoides. Kind of fascinating to read the story behind the edits. Schazjmd (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Breakout articles

All the synopses of episodes really need to be moved to articles on the shows, not on this character. This is not the place for them. It looks like some of the shows in question have articles already (where a merge of some sort shouldn't be too tough) and others do not, so they should be created. I don't know enough about this stuff to tackle it myself, but I'm happy to help out someone if they want to take point on this. -R. fiend (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Or we could break out a history for Scrappy. Smcupcake19 (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

A vast amount of this information has recently (and appropriately) been removed from the article as lacking any appropriate sourcing. If any of it is salvageable for an episode list, it can always be retrieved from the article history. I have found that a lot of it was copied without attribution from Fandom, including typos and grammar problems. -- ferret (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. The volume and depth of content here would be inappropriate on more or less any page outside of a list (and even then, I sense most of it is unverifiable. That it’s being restored to this page feels really out of place and I don't understand the rationale. I didn't know it'd been cleaved out of Fandom, but it makes total sense now that I hear it. The content restorations, which I'm now seeing, are inappropriate. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 01:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

From what I can tell with a spot check, a some but not all of the episode descriptions added in 2020 are taken unattributed from Fandom where they date back to 2017-2018. -- ferret (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

No, they were not-these were my edits. I went through the episodes.71.84.97.108 (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Please don't edit logged out. I've already confirmed that several of the episode descriptions existed in Fandom as early as 2017-2018, and were only added here in 2020. Just like Wikipedia, Fandom has a page history anyone can review to see who added content and when. Additionally, many of the descriptions include the official copyrighted ones, which you were warned about in 2020 and still added. Those absolutely cannot be restored. Simply put in the end, this character page is not the place for this. Fandom is more suitable in general for this level of detail, or the list of episodes for each individual show. -- ferret (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I noticed some copyright revdel'd from last year, particular in relation to scoobysnax.free.fr. and other Scrappy fan sites. I've found several sentences from this site remain in the article (or rather, the recently removed content). Some other fan sites seem to list them as well so I suspect they are the official episode descriptions, expanded here. Does any of it require action or are isolated sentences worth months of revdeling? -- ferret (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I don't want to do rev-del that far back. — Diannaa (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Either way, it would seem this shouldn't be restored with scattered copyrighted episode descriptions in it. -- ferret (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ferret: - You have no idea how deeply I regret addressing this earlier, and being more focused on taking offense to the accusation then checking your site instead of taking your word. How on earth did you match my edits with a site that is in french? Smcupcake19 (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Years of experience in searching Google properly for copyvio fragments and sifting through mirrors that should be ignored. Despite being a french site, however, the episode descriptions were in English so came up in basic searches. Additionally, I simply started by checking what the original content that Diannaa removed was. As an admin, I can see the removed content, which allowed me to verify the source. -- ferret (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

My point being, they do not match beyond, to the best of what I can see, the basic premise of the episode. --Smcupcake19 (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought you were acknowledging and apologizing finally. I'm not going to engage you if you're still denying. As you removed most of the parts I found from your draft without me directly pointing them out, it's pretty clear you understood where they were. -- ferret (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Ferret, let me put it this way-I know things have been rather tumultuous between us, and I know that sometimes I have let slip some remarks of anger-and I do apologize for that. But I also do want to apologize for when I have let any speck of anger show. I don't hold anything against you personally, and I want to act accordingly. Let me put it this way. Before October 13th, I would take summaries of episodes if I found them because I hadn't yet learned of copyright from Diane. After on October 13th, she found them and removed them, I conceded and proceeded to rewrite those myself, to which the general consensus accepted. Believing the hiccup to be over and done with and acceptably my own, I moved on with the endeavor. If I missed any, then I was unaware of it and satisfied with my work. On June 14th, you stated "a lot of it" had been copied from fandom. Again, believing that the hiccup was over and indignant, I objected. I did my best to check the work to the best of my ability. In the work I checked, I found nothing, and I wish I had been more thorough. There was a lot to check, and the sites I checked with would only accept so many words for free. I sincerely wish I had persevered so that we might have resolved this sooner, but as it is, on June 16th, you stated,

"I've already confirmed that several of the episode descriptions existed in Fandom as early as 2017-2018".

With everything in mind, in the present moment, I'll say this. 3/154 is approximately 1.9% in decimal notation, and when I hear the word "several" generally a much larger number comes to mind. At the moment, as I hadn't found your 1.9% and was tired and admittedly rather incensed at the implications that you found "several" to be copied. I'm not sure what this means. Did you take my old, pre-Diane version and use that for your argument? And did you make sure that the matches weren't simply buzzwords like the name of the monster and the locations? Even if I assume this to give you the benefit of the doubt, on June 15th, the moment in which you cited a french site with no episode summaries as matching my summaries, you in whole said:

"I've found several sentences from this site remain in the article (or rather, the recently removed content). Some other fan sites seem to list them as well so I suspect they are the official episode descriptions, expanded here. Does any of it require action or are isolated sentences worth months of revdeling?"

What I didn't notice then, but do now, is that your statement has undergone an evolution of sorts: Now rather than several episodes, it was several sentences. Still high enough to insult me, but still, an evolution. Then, on June 21st, you recanted your previous statement even further. Now, rather then several sentences, your take was:

"It's not all of the content, or even a majority, but there's bits and pieces all over taken from official episode descriptions."

Now, still, despite my distress at the aspersions that had been laid on me, I had taken into mind what you had said and was actively trying to discover your meaning. I finally found the three in question, and openly presented them to you. However, even then I was displeased with your shifting statements on what I had supposedly done, so still I, on June 22nd, entreated to you:

"So, where is this site that I copied off of?"

In response, still on June 22nd, you said:

"The sites have already been posted in this discussion,"

These are the sites which you, Ferret, have previously posted this discussion: "scoobysnax.free.fr.", (June 15), this as I mentioned is a french website and doesn't include anything of my summaries beyond the aforementioned buzzwords, and Fandom. Now to me, it seemed that you were implying that I had copywritten a good deal of it, which is not what my own research is. There is a contradiction here.

In this same statement, you said,

"I found that you reinserted more after Diane warned and removed some from October."

I admit to being skeptical of this, since actually looking at the individual diffs would have revealed that, well, there was a "diff" so to speak. I I believe that you did not bother to closely inspect the differences between the diffs because a close inspection within the diffs would show a difference between the diffs. Eager to move to the next set of episodes, I reworked my work and resubmitted it. And then I moved on, eager to document the next part. and in the end, when Dianaa and he told me to not use it, I did concede. I'm sorry, but I believe the diffs reflect that. If you find other ones, give me the link. It's the only way.

Finally, to add insult to injury, you claimed "3+" as though that was more than 1.9% on the original research boards on July 5th.

As a whole, to the best of my understanding, Ferret, you have referred to 1.9% as several, you have unironically claimed that my work reasonably matches a website in an entirely different language, and the entire time whenever I have asked for details I have not gotten them. I'm giving you as much benefit of the doubt as I can at this moment, however, you can understand why I feel like you have cast aspersions upon me? You're more than welcome to give your side of the story. I want to resolve this peacefully, but I'm very afraid that it doesn't seem resolved at all on my end. And if I have missed anything, feel free to let me know. I don't hold a grudge against you personally, and I have faith that we can settle this. This matter is very important to me. Smcupcake19 (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This type of wall-of-text response isn't earning you any favor. There were copyright violations and unattributed Fandom copying in the text. Period. It doesn't matter HOW much, whether Diana missed it, whether you did it before or after Diana's warnings. scoobysnax.free.fr is the exact site that Diana pointed to in her copyright revdels, and it contains English episode descriptions despite being an otherwise French site. Whether my language usage shifts slightly between having to repeatedly reply to your WP:IDHT responses and outage is irrelevant. My position is unchanged. Several sentences taken from other sites were in the text, and several full paragraphs were unattributed from Fandom. And that's simply one of many arguments that have been stated against including your content. You need to stop beating the dead horse. This is tiresome, and I won't be responding again. If you continue behaviors as you have, I suspect you'll eventually be blocked entirely from editing. -- ferret (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended plot summaries

Smcupcake19, your last edit summary directed to me said "Check the talk page" - I see nothing here in the talk page to justify your plot summaries. You need to convince other editors - especially as you've been reverted at least once regarding this - that your contributions are valid and should stay. Please do that here, because at the moment I see no reason to include them and as such challenge their validity. It looks as though ImaginesTigers holds a similar viewpoint, so that's two editors who have concerns. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

ferret is expressing the same concerns above, too. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 10:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I've additionally highlighted copyvio issues. Either way, the plot of films and shows belong in the articles of those films and shows, not a character article. -- ferret (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Please explain to me why a page being too long would be a problem. Smcupcake19 (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You can refer to WP:CRUFT as a good starting place. Plenty of policies have been cited for the removal of the content. Please don't re-add it, especially when there are potentially copyright issues with the material. A group of editors are indicating that the material you've been gathering is out of place on this article; much of it poorly referenced (citations must be from reliable sources and verifiable). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll look. But this isn't over.Smcupcake19 (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article size. We have an entire guideline on article length. Experienced editors have already explained the issues to you. You may find editing on Fandom is a better endeavor. Not all content is suitable for Wikipedia. -- ferret (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

"An article longer than one or two pages when printed should be divided into sections to ease navigation (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Layout for guidance). For most long articles, division into sections is natural anyway. Readers of the mobile version of Wikipedia can be helped by ensuring that sections are not so long or so numerous as to impede navigation." Have I not done that? And I plan on adding citations, Amazon/TubiTV. And I believe Scrappy-Doo passes the pokemon test.--Smcupcake19 (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Interpretation of a policy doesn't matter when the material added to trigger the policy is itself invalid. You're adding poorly written, badly sourced potential copyvio. Until that issue itself is resolved there is no point speculating over the results and how the material will affect the article. At the moment there is a broad consensus not to include it, ergo the issue of article size is a moot point. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Theoretically speaking, if I cited everything (and I am fully willing to) would it pass muster? And under what grounds is it poorly written? Smcupcake19 (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

There should NOT be any copyright violations, since I wrote all of these myself-if you find any that were not by me, you feel free to remove them, but there should not be as I remember it. Those are my property and you can check the net for those summaries, but you won't find any of mine elsewhere, unless (which I have no problem with!) someone liked my work enough to copy/paste onto their own wiki, which again is not problematic in any respect, because it would be easy to see that this only happened after I wrote them, and because you are allowed to surrender your own property to the public! Since I wrote them, it's up to me to decide if I want Wikipedia to use them, and obviously, I do, since I wrote them with that very purpose in mind. If anything that was prewritten got in there, feel free to remove it, but "guilty until proven innocent" is a pretty poor standard to uphold. You yourself admitted you didn't want to check and assumed I lifted them. I do not think that I am the one at fault in that situation, and I don't appreciate being accused of copyright violations because you don't want to bother to be thorough. Also, these problems are only popping up very recently. I took the liberty of finding the source for the page with my summaries and fed it to a plagiarism checker, the results were exactly what I expected-wikipedia and sights like WikiZero (that Wikipedia "feeds"). I have no problem with people doing that. I want people to do that. But I did not copy off of people. I understand that you have a real-life and that it would be hard to do so, but that is not an acceptable reason to accuse me of something I didn't do. Nothing would make that acceptable. Nothing. I edited completely undisturbed when I added this-none of the other editors immediately resorted to mass deletion and I assume there was no consensus to do so-speaking of consensus, check the history and you'll find that there was no consensus in the abrupt removal of my content. If I am at fault for suddenly reinserting my content, then so is the person who randomly decided to remove it since I added it without any objection, then there should have been a consensus to remove it in the first place.Smcupcake19 (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

But you are guilty of copyright violations. You have been warned about it several times. I found that you reinserted more after Diane warned and removed some from October. It's your IP, not someone else. I've specifically reviewed the diffs where you added it, and I assure you, I'm well aware of how to search for copyright violation without getting tripped by Wikipedia mirror sites. It's not all of the content, or even a majority, but there's bits and pieces all over taken from official episode descriptions. Even if there was no immediate consensus to remove the content as inappropriate at the very beginning, one has since developed. This is not how articles on Wikipedia should be written, with massive amounts of plot crammed into a character page, no matter how many months it went unnoticed. It's far more than would be appropriate for most "List of xyz TV show episodes" even. -- ferret (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Aight, let's start off with the response to saturation, then copyright. I'm open to moving them to a subpage or fleshing out the full summaries for the TV appearances. So, where is this site that I copied off of?I did my best to keep my work original when I found out-which was quite early at the start of my endeavor. Yeah, there was a brief time when I found some summaries someone had done and tried to incorporate them in, but when I found out it was against the rules, I went back to handwritten summaries that were the same size but no violations. Smcupcake19 (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

You are not listening. Why would we want you to expand and flesh them out further? We're telling you they are excessive already, far too much detail. The sites have already been posted in this discussion, and you did not stop inserting them back in 2020, even if they aren't a majority of the content. -- ferret (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

You are saying that I inserted copyrighted summaries and reinserted them. But I didn't. After they were removed, I did not reinsert them. Instead, I wrote my own so that I would not have to break the rules by reinserting them. I focused on your accusations of copyright violations because they were a result of incomplete investigation on your part and undeserved on my part. Now, on to the main issue. What would be acceptable for Scrappy's character biography? Smcupcake19 (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any need to engage further at this time. My investigation was not incomplete nor undeserved. I reviewed the individual diffs where you added them as well as the fact they were still in the article when removed. I do not make such lightly. Do not restore the past content. -- ferret (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Just as a comment, you say above that "there was no consensus in the abrupt removal of my content" - there doesn't need to be. As the contributing editor it is up to you to justify the inclusion of any content and gain consensus from an established status quo to the new proposed version. This (amongst other things,) is something you have failed to do. To paraphrase ferret - you should not restore the past content. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I am Smcupcake's friend and therefore biased in this but I can't help but fail to see what the critical issue justifying removal is here? The page is long, yes, but the information is accurate, copyrighted material was corrected and resubmitted to be original work, and the page is clearly a labor of love. Furthermore, while not a technical arguement, her work on this page was lauded in an article that was posted a month or so ago, which generated a lot of traffic for Wikipedia, and the popular consensus (on twitter and tumblr among other places) was that this page was quirky and fascinating the way it was. Biased or not, I find the sudden dogpiling of one or two editors poor justification for trashing so much hard work. Spacebabe51 (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Restoration Appeal

If it pleases everybody, I would like to re-appeal for the restoration of these summaries. I have read through some policies at your behest, and I have found this:

Did I violate copyright?

You claimed that "several" of my summaries were copyright violations. I have only found 3 out of 183 animated stories that are from fandom which does not, in any world, sound like "several", nor does it warrant a removal en masse. Now that these have my attention, Of a few copyright issues and would happily write my own as I have done for many others. It certainly is not enough to qualify as "several" copyright violations as you put it. I intended to write about Scrappy, and I shall make sure to do that to completion.

Were My Edits Valid?

Now let's get to your first complaint-that my edits were unnecessary. But let's see what the rules themselves have to s

"Of course, as Wikipedia is a wiki, its materials can be said to reflect readers' priorities, since anyone may add more information about their preferred subjects and become an editor." -Wikipedia:Fancruft

Scrappy had a Wikipedia page, I wanted to help it grow. That was my priority. Now I won't deny that Wikipedia has other things to say about this, so I shall acknowledge them and continue to debate for my point.

Although, the issue of systemic bias is a real one, as is the issue of bias in the form of deletion of verifiable material on the vague grounds of it being "unencyclopedic." - Wikipedia:Fancruft

In one fell swoop it strikes against my case and yours. Now. Let's counter the main problem you have-

Were my edits original research?

The summaries, being the recounting of a piece of media focused on Scrappy, are not of my invention since I am summarizing the stories. I do my best to stay objective and did not want to start a discussion forum. Thus, I can only presume that the first is your option-original research. Am I guilty of original research? Well, by your own rules: The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. I believe I performed the latter to satisfaction. If I am wrong, then you may say so and I will fix it with the source of the page with the edits that I have saved. Are my sources reliable?

My sources are of the episodes themselves, which has caused some complaints I believe. Scrappy's story is embedded in the stories, and I believe in this context it's justifiable.

You claim that I have committed the misdemeanor of original research, but have I really? "material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research." What better source then the episodes themselves? And Wikipedia itself does not have entirely bad things to say about primary sources. These primary sources have advantages: they were written at the time, and so are free of the opinions and fictions imposed by later generations. They also have disadvantages: the proclamation might contain propaganda designed to pacify the conquered country, or omit politically inconvenient facts, or overstate the importance of other facts, or be designed to stroke the new ruler's ego. The diary will reflect the prejudices of its author, and its author might be unaware of relevant facts. The accounts of Scrappy's appearances are a good source of Scrappy's biography. And since they are the story itself that means it's not biased. I have done as is prescribed. If they need citations, I shall add it. If they need more work, I shall add it. Wikipedia does not recommend removing something en masse. Smcupcake19 (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. Spacebabe51 (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

What's appropriate for a fictional character biography is a brief summary style overview of who the character is and his defining traits. It is not an exhaustive list of everything that's ever happened to them. A summary for every episode that Scrappy Doo appears in is inappropriate for inclusion on this article. I highly recommend going to Fandom, where you can include everything you want to in exhaustive detail (that fans of the franchise will actually appreciate). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

"This does not go on forever: very long articles would cause problems and should be split." In fact, what I have seen wikipedia should not be cut. You, ImaginesTigers, didn't do that, did you? You cut it all out. If you had a problem with that, you should have fixed the problem or left a note. You immediately cut a very large amount of information on a wikipedia page, and after someone else put it back in, citing "removal of useful content", you put it back-the very thing that I have been accused of for trying to reverse what you did. I think if we're going to discuss what should or shouldn't be done on Wikipedia, everything about the case at hand should be reviewed.71.84.97.108 (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Please do not disruptively blank the talk page contents again. You have also been warned about editing logged out. Continued disruption will result in being blocked from editing. -- ferret (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. Would you please address the rest of my issues? Smcupcake19 (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing further to say. You're making the same arguments that have already been refuted in the end. I'm not going to endlessly repeat with you about the unattributed fandom copying (Well over 3) and copyvio issues where multiple (more than 3) official descriptions were still in. This is simply not appropriate content for Wikipedia and far too detailed. I'm not a hostage that has to reply each time you repeat your arguments and ask again for us to reply. -- ferret (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Smcupcake19 and @Spacebabe51, if you have a beef against Fandom or don't want to look at the ads, Mirahize will let you create your wiki, and you can describe fictional in minute detail to your heart's content. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 14:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• I was randomly selected[1] to respond to the (now removed) Request For Comments banner.
  Smcupcake19: Wikipedia policies, standards, and norms have been debated and developed over the last twenty years. For example when some editors were enthusiastic about D&D, they created detailed articles for all of the monsters and more... they were headed towards practically duplicating the entire content of various D&D manuals onto Wikipedia. The result was that most of those articles were deleted or merged or trimmed down. Another example was some editors enthusiastic about Pokemon. They created extremely detailed articles about every Pokemon. The result was that most of those articles were deleted or merged or trimmed down. We have also had editors who had an extreme enthusiasm regarding buses and bus routes, airlines and air routes, trains, etc etc etc. You would be amazed at the things people can be passionate about. Again the result was that excessively detailed information was trimmed down or fully deleted. The kind of content you are adding would likely be appropriate on some Wikia dedicated to the Scooby-doo-verse, but it is excessive for the general-encyclopedia Wikipedia. I haven't studied the content closely, but it appears to trip over multiple policies and guidelines. For example Wikipedia has a higher standard for acceptable sources. Blogs, fansites, and other self-published content are, in general, not acceptable as WP:Reliable sources. It appears you're trying to add lots of "true" information about Scrappy. That works over on Wika, but here's an important tip: Wikipedia does not contain Truth or Facts, we do not accept content because it's "true". Wikipedia is a summary of the significant things Reliable sources have written about a topic. We may use the primary source material for some basic info, but we are primarily interested in significant coverage in (reliable) books, magazines, academics, or news sources. Try to focus on what Reliable Sources have deemed significant.
  Also, it appears[2] you have invited one-or-more people to come support you here. Wikipedia processes often resemble a vote, but they are WP:Not a vote. Decisions are made based on our policies and guidelines, and WP:Consensus of editors. Please review our rules on WP:Meatpuppet and WP:Votestacking. We do not expect people to know all of the rules when they arrive, we just expect people to respect rules once they have been pointed out. Canvassed "votes" won't help, and avoid canvassing in the future. Alsee (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Very sorry about that. I'll argue on my own two feet from now on. The specifics are being argued out on the OR noticeboard, so, you're good! I was anxious because I wanted to keep the discussion alive. Smcupcake19 (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion elsewhere

Cross posting a discussion that was not listed here: Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Scrappy_Doo_Biography -- ferret (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Fiction details and DUE WEIGHT

Specific to Special:Diff/1032985592, boiled down: So what?

Where is the due weight? Why does this detail matter to understand the character? Why does the casual reader of a general encyclopedia care? The sourcing is irrelevant (and weak). A book about 500 Werewolf movies and a standard TV Guide edition (meaning it's routine coverage of whats on TV). The book is ultimately about the movie, not the character, and the TV Guide doesn't really count for anything beyond plot sourcing (Which the movie's article already has, excessively, 300+ words beyond MOS:FILM limitations). -- ferret (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The editor has repeatedly demonstrated that they don't understand the sort of information that's appropriate for Wikipedia. It might be time to consider escalation? So many editors have tried to explain it to them now, and it’s eating up so much time. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I've rolled back two edits. The first for the reasons ferret outlines above, and the second because it was sourced to a vanity press of no reputable standing. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 01:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

To reiterate, the plot details being added already exist on the film's page. As has been stated a few times, we don't reiterate the plot of every media appearance of the character here. We already denote which properties the character appears in. -- ferret (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, this is what the due weight page has to say about what:

"Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."

While I learned that vanity press is an inappropriate source, I don't see anything about due weight on here, since the objective plot points of Scrappy's involvement in reluctant werewolf are not a "Minority viewpoint"Smcupcake19 (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Also I could argue to a degree that your deletion is inappropriate-you didn't cite any proper reasoning. So is it now against the rules to contest other editor's decisions because it will create more work for other editors? That feels wrong. You have your opinion, and I have mine.Smcupcake19 (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

See also WP:VNOT and WP:NOT. Not everything belongs on Wikipedia, and even if it has a place on Wikipedia, it doesn't necessarily belong on every connected article. The place to detail the plot of the film is the film's article. -- ferret (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Very well. I'll keep it related to Scrappy only so that it's not a rehash of the plot. --Smcupcake19 (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

And how, pray tell, is Scrappy's hometown not important to his fictional biography? It was covered in a full episode, and has not been contradicted since. --Smcupcake19 (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

How IS it important? Does it come up often? Is it a critical plot device mentioned repeatedly? It's also already mentioned in Precursor section, so doesn't need repeating. As you've already been directed, please read MOS:TV#Character article structure, particular the Role in "SHOW NAME" section which says not to build biography sections of the nature you were creating. -- ferret (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

When creating an article on a single character of a television show, note that the section headers below are not mandatory, and various good and featured articles on fictional characters have different section headers (and placement) than one another. Find the structure that works best for the article in question; regardless of whether these headers are used, the information they present is important to establishing an article with real world context.

Like any article, the first paragraph should consist of basic information about the character: who created the character, where they first appeared, who portrayed the character (if applicable), a general overview of where the character has appeared (no specific episodes). The subsequent paragraphs should be filled with generalized information on the character itself: characteristics, influences in popular culture, and anything else that summarizes the character's importance. As an example of lead paragraphs:

So while I suppose there is a small bit of room to argue about the placement, the wholesale removal seems highly unjustified. Smcupcake19 (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

My sympathy for this editor has completely run dry. This is a total waste of editor time. A trip to ANI to request a topic ban from Scrappy-Doo is long overdue. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

They have been WP:PARTIALBLOCKed from the page, so there's really no need to sink even more time at ANI. You can just give your stance, and if there's no consensus, it simply won't be added to the article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

All I want is to talk. --Smcupcake19 (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Boomerang Reairings

I attempted to make an edit on Scrappy appearing in boomerang reruns, but was denied as apparently this is a primary source. Since I obtained these from the "shows that have been aired on boomerang" page, this probably should be looked into. I also think that there should be some kind of consensus since this is an entirely new and simple addition. --Smcupcake19 (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

This article isn't about when shows reaired, especially non-notable reairring on a channel dedicated to reairring older cartoons. At best, as I said in the revert, it could maybe be mentioned on the pages for the shows, but we're not going to list every time a show or movie that Scrappy appeared in has been aired. -- ferret (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

TVTropes

I’m not sure whether or not this is relevant but the website TVTropes.com includes a page titled The Scrappy (on popularly disliked characters) and characterises Scrappy Doo as the namesake of it. I’m not sure whether or not that fact is notable enough for us to put it in the main page or not. Thoughts? ~~ 198.200.115.29 (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

TVTropes is an unreliable source for Wikipedia, see WP:USERG. -- ferret (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)