Talk:Stephanie (LazyTown)/Archive 1

Cult following

Please regulate discussion regarding LazyTown and Stephanie's Internet phenomenon and cult following status to this section of the LazyTown talk page. D4g0thur 04:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "pedophile" and "cult following" assertion is inappropriate here unless a reliable source does an article about it. Hint: YTMND is not a reliable source. A message to this effect is already in place on the main LazyTown article. Kat, Queen of Typos 18:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there are a large number of pedophiles that focus on her...- 22:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.152.200‎ (talk • contribs)

Again, according to Wikipedia policy, unless a reliable source writes an article about pedophiles focusing on Stephanie/Julianna, it is inappropriate in the article. Kat, Queen of Typos 00:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kat; "pretty sure" is not good enough basis for a "fact" in a Wikipedia article. It should be removed. HamatoKameko 01:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there were some credible source showing that she is an object of obsession, it is completely unrelated to an article about her, and certainly does nothing to improve the page. Following the logic of adding this here, should there be a "cultural" addition to the article of any celebrity that has had photoshopped images of themselves made into porn, or similar? I would think not. Thanatopoeia 19:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube, one of the world's most viewed sites, has a massive number of videos uploaded of her. Nearly every video posted about "Lazytown" only discuss HER. Many of the posts involve her sexualization/age. And other sites are similar with many members devoting joke-pics to her character. it is VERY easy to find animated .gifs of her on the net. For net-saavy pop-culture fans, her fame is common knowledge. (sorry if I dont know how to identify myself here, but Wiki is one of the worst sites for easy user-interfaces). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.232.92 (talk • contribs)

I think that people really are pedophiles when they post comments on her on you tube SHE IS MEANT TO BE 8 YEARS OLD people COME ON isnt it wrong to sexualize an 8 YEAR OLD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.245.219 (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do they make the 16 year old actress look 8 ?

For example, doesn't she have breasts ? StuRat 22:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia talk pages are really about improvements to the article, not a general forum for discussion. However, in answer to your question: perhaps she is a late bloomer, or they use other tricks. Who knows. I've noticed in the newer episodes that she is looking a bit too old for the role. Kat, Queen of Typos 04:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree this is off topic, it might make more sense to you knowing that the first season was filmed while she was 13. D4g0thur 02:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that in the Icelandic original (Latibaer), all the children, including Stephanie, were played by adults. HamatoKameko 01:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Carrie Fisher in A New Hope? Lucas didn't want her, um, to be distracting and took steps towards that end.AlanD 12:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Phenomenon

Please regulate discussion regarding LazyTown and Stephanie's Internet phenomenon and cult following status to this section of the LazyTown talk page. D4g0thur 04:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section on Stephanie being an Internet phenomenon to the article. It could do with some expansion if anyone who is an active member of the ytmnd, 4chan or youtube communities and knows a bit more about the subject. I noticed that someone said ytmnd is not a reliable source; however, I'm sure we can agree that using the number of results from a search on it is reliable enough. If you disagree, discuss it here. Thanks. D4g0thur 03:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4chan and YouTube are not considered reliable sources either. They are fan communities and are not citable as fact. If and when a reliable news source writes a story about what a phenomenon she is, then it will be acceptable to place in the story. This is not my personal objection - this is Wikipedia policy. Please read up on reliable sources at the above link. In regards to a search, that would be considered original research, which Wikipedia also has a policy against. Kat, Queen of Typos 04:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to quote policy here: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Wikipedia:Reliable sources "Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles...Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. ... Material from bulletin boards and forum sites, Usenet, wikis, blogs and comments associated with blog entries should not normally be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence... Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Popular_culture_and_fiction Kat, Queen of Typos 05:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not exclude content just because no-one has written a book on it. As per WP:IAR amd WP:UCS, when a rule prevents the improvement of Wikipedia it should be ignored. In my opinion, this seems to be the case in this situation, where this well-known (on the internet) fact would be excluded for no better reason than the lack of a credible publication on the subject. For this reason, I am reverting the article back to my edit to include the internet phenomenon. D4g0thur 09:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, lets see, maybe a better policy will help "In popular culture" articles, this outlines that trivia should not be in an article, however, far from removing it, the trivia should be integrated, as per practical steps for handling trivia. If this fails, please refer the article for mediation, which may help solve disputes. But don't forget that other rules apply, and "trivia" content is not exempt from our rules and style guidelines. I'm sure all of you can come to a civil agreement. If not... maybe you should all of you may wish to consider the policies of do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, and don't be a dick. - Imperator Honorius 15:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing a bit of looking around in an attempt to make everybody happy and have found this site [1] claiming that "Since the show became popular in America and the UK it has picked up something of a cult following amongst the... ‘geek community’." - although it doesn't support that LazyTown and Stephanie are big on any specific site, it does support its cult following and internet phenomenon status. So even if we can't agree on the validity of results from ytmnd and youtube searches, we can at least agree that the section warrants inclusion. D4g0thur 15:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To keep this discussion all in one place, please continue it only on the main Lazytown talk page Talk:LazyTown where I have posted a request for comments. Kat, Queen of Typos 17:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. D4g0thur 03:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that YouTube and ytmnd are not reliable sources for 'internet phenomenons' is odd, to say the least. These sites are perhaps the PRIME sources, along with 4chan, for net phenoms. Any "reliable" source would be making their decision based on the prevalence of footage of Lazytown on these very sites. Lazytown is an internet phenomenon because they are on the very hub of netculture, but to cite the largest sources of net pop-culture isnt reliable? That is curcular logic at it's very best. What better indication than looking at fan communities? Fan comminity sites are PRECISELY what produce internet cultural phenomenons. Go to the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.232.92 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. Using the Wikipedia pendants' own logic, the "Numa Numa" dance and "All Your Base Are Belong To Us" were not internet phenomena because they were launched and spread by such things as YouTube. The pendants here should realize that very few academicians write about internet phenomena and only after they've been established by the fans who began them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanqui9 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean pedant - a pendant is a necklace. Reliable sources are not only written by academia... there are plenty of entertainment sites that could write about it.

Besides which, I think the discussion has played out... I am happy with the "popularity outside target age group" section on the main LazyTown article, which this article points to. Kat, Queen of Typos 14:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't reliable because they don't like it...this is how wikipedia is run. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.152.200 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 24 June 2007.

Hardly! I've heard of Youtube but 4chan and YTwhatever are new to me, I hadn't heard of them until I read about them here.AlanD 12:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. So since you've never heard about 4chan (a major site in the anime/manga world) and YTMND (a major shockwave/animation sharing site and source of most recent internet phenomena) they dont count? I think you rather proved the point of the poster you just responded to, dont you think? On your logic, the country of Finland does not count because I've hardly ever heard of them, read none of their literature, nor watched their television (or, to paraphrase your terms, FinlaWhatever). Do you suppose the Fins out there will agree with me that, because *I* have had little experience with them, they don't count? They really need to start teaching analytic logic again in schools... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanqui9 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, and it is definitely agreed on Wikipedia that you personally not having heard of something doesn't make it non-notable (see WP:IDONTKNOWIT) making AlanD's comment rather irrelevant. The main argument against citing YTMND and 4chan, however, is that they are considered "unreliable sources". I, personally, contest this, but some other participants in this debate insist that it is the case. D4g0thur 09:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4Chan, 400th most popular site according to alexia [2] It has clout.24.193.147.254 14:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Times article

At first blush, it looks like this article, or at least the section that is quoted, is about Magnus and Sportacus, not Stephanie. Does it belong here or should it be moved to the proper article?--Ispy1981 19:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should be moved. The general episode cost should be in Lazytown, and the "searching for a Sportacus" should be either in a LazyTown Live section of the LazyTown article, or maaaaaaaybe in the Sportacus article or Magnus article. Kat, Queen of Typos 04:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be moved to the LazyTown article; but it claims "LazyTown is shown in 109 countries" in contradiction to the 103 in our article, although that is referenced to one dead source and an older YouTube video (From 2006 sometime) where this Times article is from July 14, 2007. I've used Times article as a reference for how many countries LazyTown airs in, but I don't know where in the article to put this extract. D4g0thur 05:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be moved to the LazyTown article, most likely to the section on the live show.--Ispy1981 15:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Stephanie 1.jpg

Image:Stephanie 1.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Stephanie 1.jpg

Image:Stephanie 1.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cult following

Please regulate discussion regarding LazyTown and Stephanie's Internet phenomenon and cult following status to this section of the LazyTown talk page. D4g0thur 04:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article

May want some of this later. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie's Outfits

Stephanie has a lot of outfits other than her pink dress:

Ballerina Outfit - LazyTown's New Superhero,
Baseball Outfit - Sleepless in LazyTown; Record's Day,
Birthday Outfit - Happy Brush Day,
Clown Outfit - The LazyTown Circus,
Fat Clown Suit - LazyTown's New Superhero,
Dancing Suit - Dancing Duel,
Apron - Hero for a Day; My Treehouse; Haunted Castle,
Garden Outfit - Dr. Rottenstein; Sports Candy Festival; The Lazy Genie,
Gypsy Outfit - The LazyTown Circus,
Sweatshirt - Cry Dinosaur; The Laziest Town; Sports Candy Festival; Dancing Duel; Sportacus on the Move; LazyTown Goes Digital; Dancing Dreams,
Hat - The Laziest Town,
Musketeer Outfit - Prince Stingy,
Nightgown - Sleepless in LazyTown; Happy Brush Day; LazyTown's New Superhero; Dancing Duel; Sportacus on the Move,
Pirate Outfit - Rottenbeard,
Rock-n-Roll Outfit - Rockin' Robbie,
Pajamas - Birthday Surprise; Lazy Rockets,
School Jacket - School Scam,
Scouting Outfit - Lazy Scouts,
Secret Agent - Secret Agent Zero,
Snowy Outfit - LazyTown's Surprise Santa,
Vest and Scarf - The LazyTown Snow Monster,
Soccer Outfit - Soccer Sucker; Play Day,
Superhero Outfit - LazyTown's New Superhero,
Tiger - Play Day,
Chef Outfit - Swiped Sweets; Miss Roberta,
Cowgirl - Play Day,
Track Suit - Friends Forever; School Scam; Birthday Surprise,
Tights - Energy Book; Lazy Town Goes Digital, Like a robot
Race Suit - Lazy Rockets,
Dancing Dress - Dancing Dreams,
Repair Suit - Lazy Rockets,
Princess Dress - Once Upon A Time,
Little Red Riding Hood Outfit - Once Upon A Time.

Unless Wikipedia suddenly decides to dump the whole idea of being an encyclopedia, I cannot imagine why we would want any of this "later". - 02:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

im sorry, dont you believe its possible that the fictional character described here could one day be elected president of the (real) universe, thus making all information about her notable? such a cynic...:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]