This is an archive of past discussions about The Muppets. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Land of Gorch until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Cirt (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism
This page has been vandalized. There is something about Big Bird on the bottom of the page and I cant see how to remove it. When I try to edit the page, it doesn't appear. Can someone with more expriance on wikipedia please fix this? (Animedude20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC))
This text at the start is suspect: "a Muppet beeep boo boooooppppppcompany's workshop." I am not expert enough on Wiki to check past versions... someone should see what's up... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.106.116 (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Muppets Should be capitalized
I'm pretty sure Muppet should be capitalized, and more strongly associated with Jim Henson. In fact, I suspect the general definition of a Muppet is a Jim Henson Productions puppet, which goes beyond the Kermit-like puppets. --The Cunctator
Missed "The Ghost of Faffner Hall"
Hi! Just putting this here so it can be easily noticed by those who edit the Muppets wikipedia pages:
You've missed one Henson Muppet television show. "The Ghost of Faffner Hall" was a shortlived musical series on HBO in 1989 and ran for only 13 episodes. It had musical guests such as James Taylor and Joni Mitchell (and Joni's the only reason I remember this show). I typed it into the search engine here and nothing appeared. You might want to add it. - tangcameo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangcameo (talk • contribs) 21:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Dark Crystal
The Dark Crystal (both the box and the wikipedia article) considers it to have an "all muppet cast" I'm wondering what the basis for the claim that various things are not considered muppets.
--Antwerp42
They are not really, I mean they are Muppets but not really classical Muppets. They are more fantasy Henson Characters. I am going to check and see if there is already an artical for the Dark Crystal. If there is not one i don't see why someone that knows and has seen the film can create one.
Phillip Friedrich22:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
EDIT: I just checked and there is already an artical for the Dark Crystal
Why was this moved from "Muppets" to "Muppet"? "Muppets" not "Muppet"; that was name of Henson's act, wasn't it? Hm, upon checking I see both forms have been used (Eg "Great Muppet Caper"), though I remember the act always being introduced on Ed Sullivan as "The Muppets". -- Infrogmation
They're not part of the Disney "canon". Disney owns Touchtone; that would mean Frances Mayes of Under the Tuscan Sun is a Disney character. -- user:zanimum
Debut?
When did the Muppets first debut? The book Live From New York seems to imply that they first appeared during the first season of Saturday Night Live (a connection that is not currently mentioned in the article), but does not explicitly state that this was their first appearance. --LostLeviathan03:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the Muppets' first national exposure was in 1956 on Tonight! (which would become The Tonight Show later on). However, they first showed up on TV in 1954 on Washington DC's NBC affiliate, WRC-TV. Rowlf appeared on The Jimmy Dean Show regularly between 1963-66. scarecroe00:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
A clue on Jeopardy! today stated that the Muppets débuted in 1954. But the article doesn't mention that; shouldn't there be a section explicitly covering origins and early history? --Mathew5000 (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Jim Henson has a bunch of information about early Muppets (both characters we still know today and others of this form). Seems like there's a lot of overlap of ideas between Henson and the muppet characters history, and I have no idea where it would best be covered comprehensively. I might think The Muppets, since others worked on them too. Feel free to create a "History" section here and move content from there to here and crosslink. DMacks (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Star Wars References
I've removed the reference to Yoda as a popular Muppet, and the reference to The Empire Strikes Back in the list of Jim Henson Creature Shop films. While Henson had some input in the design of the Star Wars creatures, he or his companies were not directly involved in their creation. George Lucas confirms this in the "A Galaxy Far Far Away" documentary (regarding Yoda), and the Creature Shop does not appear in the credits of any Star Wars film. Westical06:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Can you draw a distinction between Yoda being "a Muppet" (which he certainly is) and Yoda being "one of the Muppets" (which is is not)?
Thou this 1 of the reason why starwars empire strikes back was loved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.100.237 (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps he's not technically a muppet, but in Empire, he has only one functioning hand, and he sure sounds a lot like Grover. Did Frank Oz do his voice? -- Cladist
Someone should write about the fictional “plotline” of the Muppet team, and how several of the movies and both TV shows are really about the Muppet “actors” rather than actually showing their performance. I think Treasure Island and Christmas Carol are the only ones where the Muppets are “in character” for the whole thing. -Arctic.gnome02:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Sesame Street
I noticed that there are few references to Sesame Street muppets. I'm particularly interested in whether the new SS "muppets" are Henson creations.
Muppetcityforum
I just reverted, and have done so several times in the past, to remove a link to muppetcityforum. It is a bulletin board site with fewer than 100 members, according to the front page. I removed it per WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. While I feel it is a clear cut case, I will bring it up here since the site is added back so regularly. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker02:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The Muppet City Forum may have less then 100 members but we have just started. You have another forum on the Links for less then 50 members?????
Thanks,
I've been to muppet city before. it deserves to stay so just leave it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.58.31.86 (talk • contribs) .
I'm not sure which link you refer to? Such a link should be removed... The one you just removed has more than 7500 members, according to their website. I am certainly open to discussing removing it as well. How does the Muppet City Forum add to the encyclopedic quality of the article? --TeaDrinker02:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Muppet City Forum is a clean and good Muppet Forum. We talk about Jim Henson's Muppets Fraggle Rock Sesame Street and other Henson productions. Some Muppet Forums are not even about Muppets just personal issues. Muppet City Forum has a picture gallery and a Muppet Biography section which tells you about certain Muppets and it is growing bigger and bigger. Muppet City Forum is a great Muppet forum and i am very proud of it. Some Muppet Forums have been going for years and Muppet City has only been going for a few months it adds to the Muppet artical because people if they like Muppets or if they have never heard about them learn about them on the Muppet City Forum. Muppet City Forum should be able to have a link in the Muppets Artical. I do not see a good reason 100 members, We have just started and we keep growing. We have been running for a short time and already have 25 members 20 of those members post and post good topics and bios about the Muppets.
rock on muppet city!
And you have every right to be proud of the site; removing it from the article is not to malign the site, only to say it is not encyclopedic. Keep in mind there are hundreds of people wanting to add their site to wikipedia every day. To keep every one of them would be to lose the content of Wikipedia, and wind up being no more than collections of links. To prevent this, there are policies in place, such as Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. I will say I am hesitant to add any fan site or forum to an article. I wish you the best of luck, but I don't agree that your site, fun though it appears to be, should be in the article. --TeaDrinker02:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for adding the Muppet City Forum to the Links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.18.100.204 (talk • contribs) .
Please note that I have removed it. I have nothing against the site, but it certainly does not belong in a wikipedia article. I request we continue this discussion here without adding the link back until we can reach consensus. Thanks, --TeaDrinker20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
WHY?!?, IT's FINE THE WAY IT WAS!,i don't understand you people at Wikipedia. You keep a gay artical about Bert and Ernie but you have to take of a perfectly fine Link off?, You don't make any sense WHAT SO EVER. Most of the things that i have added have been kept but you take one link off?, Alright i can play to, I will take the Disney Link of because i do not like Disney and it has no business being there because it has a Y in it.
Alright, You give me ONE GOOD REASON OTHER THEN THE STUPID REASON OF IT DOES NOT BELONG.
In reference to the Disney link, it does seem to be encyclopedic, since they are the owners of the muppets. The link to the forum is not, in my view, encyclopedic. It is not one of a handful of sites in the internet which can provide key information not found elsewhere. But I ask, what reason do you have to include it? What can a researcher find in the muppet city forum that is not easily found on google or on one of the existing links? I appreciate you discussing it here, and am happy to continue to do so. Remember we should all be looking at the same goal, what makes a better encyclopedia. Thanks, --TeaDrinker23:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason that i think Muppet City should be added to the links because you can not find all of the Muppet Pictures on Google that you can on the Muppet City Forum. Muppet City has a Muppet Biography so they can learn about the Muppets. We are also setting up a Muppet Action Figure Guide so people can see a picture with the name and other useful information about the Muppet Action Figures. We also have a great Forum.
muppet central nor the muppet newsflash has information that can't be found on yahoo or google so they are going to be taken off too
If there are specific pages on these sites that might be considered encyclopedic that contain contain info not already present in Wikipedia, links to those specific items might be appropriate here. DMacks01:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm puzzled as to why Muppet Central and Tough Pigs should not be in the links. Both sites are large, well-esthablished repositories of information on the subject of the Muppets. Many of the articles in the sites are the product of original research or are original interviews done specifically for the respective sites, not just general information collected via a Google search (Google can find almost anything, anyway, including Wikipedia articles). They contain much more detailed and encyclopedic information (and would be much more valuable to a researcher) than the official sites. I fail to see why they should not be included. I do see the point about MuppetCity, as it is still a relatively new site and is a forum with a relatively small number of users (note that the MC and TP links are to their sites, not their forums).
I see that it has been removed yet again. This is childish along with foolish. I would like to point out that other articals have links to fan websites and fan forums. It is importent to me that the Muppet City Forum gets added to The Muppets page. If no one replys to this by tomorrow i will be added it back and leaving a foot note to not remove the link. It's not because we do not have members we have lots of members along with active ones also. Our forum is basically our website but you can comment on things, i do not see why the other links are not on there also i mean if one fan site is on there another should be also. Regarding the past edits; I could add a lot more of useful information to The Muppets artical. If the website follows within the guidelines of Wikipedia i do not see a useful and resourceful reason why it cannot be added.
Phillip Friedrich05:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
In the past (as you can see above) we've discussed which if any/many fan-sites to include. WP:EL tells us "If there are many fansites for the topic covered by the article, then providing a link to one major fansite (and marking the link as such) may be appropriate." which is also included in WP:NOT as "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such." So first, is Muppet City Forum the major one? Second, WP is a consensus of editors, and the discussions seemed to have led to "we can't agree on the major, everyone's got a favorite, so we'll have none to avoid becoming a dumping ground." WP:EL says what can be included, it doesn't demand that such a link must be included. As a final note, if there is something that is not up to quality standards, that isn't justification to include other substandard things, nor is the presence of one thing a free license to add endless "me-too" things. DMacks06:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly what DMacks said. The muppetcity is far from a major website, it's just a couple of fans talking about their favorite episode of The Muppet Show. Hardly encyclopedic. I presume they are so persistent in adding a link so that their traffic will increase. That's not what Wikipedia is for, nor is it a dumping ground for someone's personal collection of bookmarks -- otherwise, I've got a few dozen Muppet wensites that I could add. —scarecroe16:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The Muppet City Forum is a big website and we have lots of members and no we do not just talk about our favorite episode of the Muppet Show. Our information for our biographys no pun intended but it is more correct then the Muppet Wikia. DMacks, I have a suggestion how about we allow five Muppet fansites and then put them from A - Z that way it is fair. What do you think? And Scarecroe, I am not here to fight with some petty reason of traffic purposes. We just would like to have our link so people can see more correct information about the Muppets along with information. -- Phillip Friedrich16:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I think there are enough external links as is. Muppetcity is hardly relevant to an encyclopedia -- supposed "more correct" biographical information notwithstanding. Also, if you have questions about the Muppet Wiki, I invite you to start a discussion over there. I'm an administrator and would be happy to have a discussion with you about what is "more correct." You'll be glad to know that information is not added to Muppet Wiki without a verifiable source. —scarecroe16:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Dude, it's fan forum. The very idea of "verifiable information" in that context is an oxymoron. I'm trying not to argue, but I think it's clear from the evidence that fan discussions titled "The I Am Bored Game," "Muppets Wheel Of Fortune" and "What would a Muppet Do?" are completely irrelevant as being linked to from an encyclopedia. I'll let others reading this discussion judge whether those are "more correct" biographies of Muppet/Henson people or not. —scarecroe17:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to fight with you. They will not allow Muppet Fansites on the Main Muppet page but they will allow them on the others so i will just stick to doing that. And i am not afraid of you and you are not going to hurt my feelings over some silly pun which does not have a bit of truth.
Phillip Friedrich18:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
These links should not be added to the Muppet character pages (or any pages on Wikipedia) because they break many of the guidelines Wikipedia has established for external links. Here are just a few of the ones the Muppetcity Forum links break:
Avoid links to "a page which only provides information already in the article, or which does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Featured article."
What does that forum post have that isn't in (or couldn't be in the article)?
Avoid links to "a page that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research."
I've noticed many errors in the "facts" of these forum posts. There are in fact things that are wrong in what they are saying...(not to mention the spelling/syntax errors which doesn't help build credibility).
Avoid links to "a page that you own or maintain..."
If the links are so great someone not affiliated with the site should add them...post a suggestion on the talk page and let a non-party add them.
Avoid "Links to blogs, social networking sites, or discussion forums"
These are discussion forum posts. There is no reason a link to them should even be considered valid or useful.
These links don't further the articles or help the pages. If a reader who knows nothing about Fozzie Bear came to the page what would the Muppetcity link provide that Wikipedia can't? BradFraggle03:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The articals have much better pictures and such. The information cannot be found on Wikipedia that we have, I'm adding them and thats final. Now, have a good day.
Phillip Friedrich04:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Obviously we aren't seeing eye-to-eye here and no consensus has been reached so just going ahead doing it "your way" while we're still discussing it (especially being that you're the only one that feels this way) is not the way to go here. Let's not have an edit-war, let talk about this. Read the Wikipedia guidelines for external lines...there are several guidelines that these links don't align with. Why should your forum post about Bobo the Bear be added to the Bobo article? What added value does it bring? And how does it comply with Wikipedia's standards? BradFraggle04:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Muppet Collector, that's not how Wikipedia works. WP is based on consensus among editors, not proof by repetition. An important question in my mind why you're spending so much time adding links to this external source instead of adding the material from it into the Wikipedia articles. If the material itself is indeed relevant, verifiable, and encyclopediac it seems perfectly suited to be included here. This isn't the first time this has been suggested to you. Conversely, if the material is not up to snuff, then it doesn't even deserve an ext-link here. DMacks04:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
"give me ONE GOOD REASON OTHER THEN THE STUPID REASON OF IT DOES NOT BELONG." Lol, what a nob. That was a good reason. Anyway 5 years later and that fan site (hosted on a free forum host portal /facepalm) is now long gone and closed down. Reinforcement to demonstrate one reason as to why random forums shouldn't be added to Wikipedia. -anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.3.46.114 (talk • contribs)
IMO it's only indiscriminate in that it declares its scope as "some". However, a comprehensive list of the histories of each character's performer(s) would not be indiscriminate (clear and rational scope, not unlimited) and would also be a worthwhile piece of encyclopediac content. Do we need a List of Muppets page? It could be like List of Sesame Street characters. Or even could expand the scope of that page to include The Muppet Show, with a column indicating in which series the character appeared. DMacks15:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the space could be more constructively used rather than linking to 30+ characters that each have their own page. Looking at the list, I'd imagine that it started out simple, but information kept getting tacked on to the point where it's messy. For example, if there's to be such a list, there's no reason for Scooter to have a whole additional list of performers after his name. For one, that could be covered on his article. For another, Scooter only really ever had one performer until Richard Hunt's death, after which point he's never been steadily assigned to anyone. That's one example, some such similar observation could be made of each item on the list.
All/most the google hits for "Wacky Stax" seem to be derived from this article. Is this real? What the heck is a "Wacky Stax" and why are there no other hits for them if it's really a known toy? --24.118.60.10402:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Jim Henson's Muppets.png
Image:Jim Henson's Muppets.png 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 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.BetacommandBot07:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Cultural references
Having watched this page for a while, folks love to add their favorite TV show as having referenced the Muppets at some point. These have been justifiably consolidated by other users. Someone recently added Family Guy and the Simpsons again, so to deter a list of hundreds of references, I changed the bulleted entries to one with a link to the References category at Muppet Wiki for a comprehensive list. —scarecroe16:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, I've consolidated the Trivia section per the TRIVIA template that was added to the page. I've also removed the Performers section per the CONFUSING template, and replaced it with a link to the Muppet characters category. Anything that needs to be said about performer history should be said on the individual pages. —scarecroe16:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
why aren't these sites allowed in the links? i read the above discussion all the way threw and i can't follow wht was desided or what the final ruleing was. why arn't mppet central or the muppet new sflash allowed in the links section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.80.172 (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion does not come to that conclusion exactly. I'm not typing it all out again, when the consensus is archived just a scroll away. —scarecroe04:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
well i read it all and i don't see what makes muppetcentral or muppetnewsflash any differnt from muppetwiki - why is that one allowed but not the others? that issue is not addressed in the discussion a bove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.80.172 (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
As requested by 24.61.175.118 (talk·contribs), I'm bringing a discussion of the recent edits to the references list to the talk page. Here are the changes in dispute:
Alphabetize the "prominent resources" list. This is probably a good way in general to keep lists of auxiliary external links a bit tidier (OTOH, for the primary external links, such as www.muppets.com and www.henson.com, order of importance is probably better than alphabetical order).
Remove the link to the Jim Henson Legacy website. As the earlier edit summary indicated, this website has a lot to do with Jim Henson (where there is already an EL to that site) and not much to do with the Muppets. As such, there is no need to keep that link in this article. See the guideline for external links normally to be avoided, item 14, for more information on why this link isn't necessary here.
Concur with Dachannien. Without any reason for any particular order, ABC is indeed a reasonable way to organize things (in agreement with a note in WP:MOSLINKS: "If there is a dispute on the position of an embedded link, consider organizing alphabetically."). However, the main site related to the page does indeed deserve more prominance vs secondary or less-related sites. Finally, a site that is not substantially related to the page at all doesn't belong here (especially since we do have a page that sounds very on-topic for the site in question). DMacks10:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Animal
I understand that Animal is a member of the band, but I think he should be listed individually. This is simply because his popularity goes way beyond that of any of the other band members, and is easily on par with some of the other more popular muppets like Gonzo, Beaker and Rowlf. I'm also a little surprised that he does not have his own article, like a lot of the others do. I don't know, just my two cents. (203.162.35.78 (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC))
What is and is not a Muppet reference, self and other article contradictions
There is a comment in the section "Muppet Characters" about precisely which Jim Henson characters are and are not Muppets. These definitions really need to be sourced. Most notably, there is a direct contradiction between this article and the article Dark Crystal as to whether or not those characters are Muppets. Additionally, part of the introduction refers to Sesame Street and Fraggle Rock as "the above-mentioned non-"Muppet"-brand characters," but the "Muppet Characters" section refers to these as Muppets. I think this is a pretty major issue in the article, since it really goes to the heart of the question of what a Muppet is. Ezrafan (talk) 05:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Disney Channel and The Muppets
I read on the Muppet Wiki that on Disney Channel, on July 19th a special will be airing staring the Muppets and Disney stars including, Kermit the Frog, Miss Piggy, Gonzo, Fozzie Bear, The Snowths, The Electric Mayhem, Miley Cyrus, Ashley Tisdale, Dylan and Cole Sprouse, Phill Lewis, The Jonas Brothers, and The Cheetah Girls. So shouldn't that be added on the Television section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.129.253 (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Special or Regular Series (Studio DC)?
I'm not 100% whether or not Studio DC is supposed to be a special or a possible series, as the adverts I have seen on Disney Channel seem to imply series. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
"Overtime"
Overtime (Over Time is another spelling) is a CGI animated short of 2005 by Oury Atlan, Thibaut Berland and Damien Ferrié about the Muppets and their creator. I think it should be noted here. Alone Coder (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree whole heartively, we need something posted about the Youtube videos, their almost as good as the old Muppet Show skits. Question is, what needs to be done make it doable for Wikipedia's standards. -- Colt9033 (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This bothersome, no one has listed the original Youtube videos made from 2010. It looks like they ceased production since then. I may collect information on them, but does anyone know how they should be reference/referred too? -- Colt9033 (talk) 11:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I would think that the best way to do it is to create either an embedded or new list, with links to the individual clips. A better way is to find sources about them and link them here. It's appropriate to use YouTube as a source, if you're referring to individual clips. Now, that would be fun research because you'd have to view the clips. Ah, WP research can be so onerous sometimes! ;) Christine (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Muppets and Winx Club?
Who keeps writing "The Muppet Winx Club"? The Muppets have nothing to do with the Winx Club! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeruAlonso (talk • contribs)
The old Muppets logo (with Jim Henson's signature at the top) is that of when The Muppets were still pre-dominantly controlled by the Jim Henson Company. That was branded as Jim Henson's The Muppets. Although the new logo is the same as the 2011 film's logo, it is also the new logo for the Disney owned brand: Disney's The Muppets. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't mean to cause any problems when I uploaded the new logo, I just thought the "Jim Henson's" was outdated. I also uploaded the intermediary logo used for merchandise after the purchase (right), if that is an acceptable compromise. It doesn't say Henson or Disney. It's PD text so it doesn't need to be used to stay uploaded. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja04:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
That logo looks fine too. Unfortunately, the logo that you placed and the one that I added have been removed. It was decided to be left blank. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I thought all we had was the movie logo. I haven't seen any evidence that the movie logo is in use as a general Muppets logo, so I'd be fine with the older logo shown on the right here. PowersT20:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
You're right, I assumed it was the new logo after seeing it on merchandise, but when I checked all of the merchandise was movie-related. I've added this logo (to the right) to the page. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja11:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I've uploaded 2011 logo since that logo has been used in various media marketing and merchandise that is unrelated to the 2011 film.
Hmm, tricky. Some of the recent Christmas Carol releases have the logo on the cover, and others have no Muppet logo. As for GMA, I suspect they encountered a similar problem to what we're seeing. Even Muppets.com is focused entirely on the movie at the moment. PowersT03:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I suppose things will get even more interesting as the next Muppet movie enters production in January. As for the logo, the recent vector one that was uploaded is fine. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Muppets at Museum of American History.jpg Nominated for Deletion
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Under the list of shows, can we make a distinction between shows that that muppets have been on (Saturday Night Live, WWE Raw) and Muppet shows (The Muppet Show, Muppet Babies, Muppets Tonight)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.32.60.162 (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I added a banner for unreliable sources to the article. It cites the Muppets Wiki, an IMDB trivia section, and a ultimatedisney.com homepage that doesn't seem to have any information about the claim it's cited for. I don't think these conform to Wikipedia's policies (e.g. WP:USERGENERATED). I'm going to be doing a little work on the sources. —Mu Mind (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Mu Mind, you would be correct; there are many unreliable sources in this article. There is much about this article that could be improved. I'd like to do it, but it requires a great deal of research and I either don't have access to all of the important sources or I don't have the time because I'm working on other articles. Forgive my Oscar-the-grouchness--I'm usually not one for drive-by banners, but if you're gonna work on it, I suppose it's okay. If you need any help with sources or with copyediting/writing, let me know. If you're serious about improving this article, for example, I recommend the following books:
Of Mice and Men and Jim Henson: The Works: the Art, the Magic, the Imagination, both by Christopher Finch.
Kermit Culture, a great book about the philosophy of The Muppets
This section mentions all Jim Henson productions. I don't know why this is in the article about the Muppets. Only series with THE MUPPETS should be included in this section. And as suggested before, the section should note difference between shows starring the mupperts(the muppet show, muppets tonight) and shows where they guest starred(saturday night live)Caringtype1 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The lede paragraph should summarized Muppets from 1961 to present. Mention the creator, many shows films and guest appearances and that Disney now owns the rights.
I've expanded the lead with enough information to provide a template for any further expansion and revision. I've also tagged the article for this issue. However, the creation of a background section should also taken under consideration to further elaborate The Muppets' history with Jim Henson and then with Disney. Then have the lead summarize the article's contents, which it doesn't effectively do as of now. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how important it is to have all that detail in the lead, when most of it isn't even mentioned in the body of the article. I think there should be a History section, or something that sum everything up, and the Revival subsection would go under there too, because it really has nothing to do with the characters.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment - Why do this need a RfC? It seems to have a pretty basic consensus that it should include a lead paragraph described by Nitpyck. Eduemoni↑talk↓15:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
This has been discussed very briefly, but why does this article make a distinction between a "muppet" (type of puppet created by Jim Henson and his crew) and the "Muppets" (group of characters who star in the Muppet franchise)? If this article is specifically about the franchise, why is there no article about muppets in general which includes characters not in the Muppet franchise, such as those from Fraggle Rock, Sesame Street and Dark Crystal? It seems to be an incredibly petty distinction to say that Big Bird, Cookie monster and the Count are not Muppets, but are muppets.
Also, the article is inconsistent with this franchise focus as it begins with Sam and Friends. There are no Muppets on that program. Kermit is a lizard who eventually became Kermit the Frog, so it isn't even the same character. The article List of Muppets includes all muppets from the muppet universe, not just the Muppet franchise. The article also mentions appearances in commercials and late night talk shows. These appearances included several muppets who are not in the franchise, yet this is included as an early appearance of Muppets. What justification is there in this article to distinguish between the two?
DFS, you've actually hit upon a controversial topic. The Wikipedia community hasn't come to consensus about it, which is reflected in many Muppet-themed articles. My specialty here is Sesame Street articles, so my life is easy because the characters are clearly defined as Muppets. Elsewhere, like with this article, the definition of "Muppet" is less clear and we haven't figured out how to deal with it. This is what needs to happen: one editor needs to do some research, bring his/her findings here, and then lead the discussion to consensus. As you can imagine, this potentially is a huge undertaking. When I'm feeling ambitious, I think that I should be that person, considering my vast experience working on SS articles, but then the thought of it overwhelms me. Of course, I had similar feelings about improving the SS articles, and there's substantially more sources about it than about Henson and his creative activities, and about the businesses he built around them. Anything's possible, I suppose. Of course, this isn't something I want to take on at the current time. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
* *
Are muppet-like puppets in completely unrelated shows, such as "Lutkomendija" from Vojvodina/Yugoslavia from several decades ago, also considered muppets? Both by design and by belonging or not belonging to the same universe. The big camel is in the same category as Snuffleopagus or Big Bird, and the rat is in the Kermit category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.148.72.184 (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Done Inconsistencies such as those have all been addressed and fixed. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
