Talk:VeggieTales

Off-topic chat

Extended content

episodes What the world is this trashy episode list? Someone changed the episode list to say magic tree house titles instead of the veggietales episodes. I keep changeing it to make it correct, but then it just gets changed back to magic tree house. I really think that as a christian, it is offensive to take an article on a christian tv show and change it drastically for laughs. So, whatever idiots are changeing this article are no friends of mine. You don't mess with the wizard of video games. That's right. I don't give my real name. But for those who want me to have a name, call me by my video game name, Wizard. Nobody messes with the Wizard. Whoever changed this article should be thrown in jail. If it was up to me, I would throw the idiot in jail. Take that, nonchristian sucker! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.97.138 (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Relax. If you are going to react to every moron who puts nonsense on Wiki, you won't last long... Ckruschke (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke @Ckruschke : Last long what? Does that mean that the section poster will remain online or something? I'm confused by your reply. 68.224.119.202 (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Meaning: If you are going to over react to every anonymous editor who inserts nonsense into one of the pages, you'll get so frustrated that you'll eventually decide to give up Wiki. I revert 5-6 stupid insertion a day - and I many of the idiotic stuff is reverted by other editors before I even look at my watch list. You can't take people's stupidity personally... Ckruschke (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke You know what? I am the Wizard. And I will never give up on this wiki. So you don't be saying I won't. I never give up on things. And for your imformation, I have autism. So, if you think I'm not reading what — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.107.202 (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Buddy... I was simply trying to be helpful by suggesting that you relax and go with the flow rather than get upset by some random idiot who thinks it's fun to deface this Wiki page. I'm not saying, suggesting, or implying ANYTHING about you. Really. Take care - Ckruschke (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke Dude. I just don't like you guys saying that I, The Wizard, will give up on this wiki. I go around wikipedia making things more accurate. And it really ticks me off when somebody just keeps changing it back. Espeshily if the article is christian related. Thanks anyway though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.98.30 (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC) If you say so. Ckruschke (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke Hey guys. I, The Wizard, have stumbled upon another article that really bugs me. It turns out that, chitty chitty bang bang is both a book and a movie. The movie is based on the book. However, the movie has the main article for chitty chitty bang bang, while the novel's article is called chitty chitty bang bang (novel). I looked on the talk page to see why this was so, and discovered that it is because the movie is way more famous than the book. However, they didn't seem to want to do do this with the wizard of oz article, which bugs me. I don't know how to change the chitty article, so can you do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.97.228 (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC) I could try, but I also don't know how. 68.224.119.202 (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC) This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for... whatever that was. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

One article question....

Does anyone have any of the reasons why this link is dead? I replaced it in two references with the same link archived in the WayBack Machine Archive under the Fox News website. Have a look at the article's history page and you'll see what I mean. 68.224.119.202 (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

FoxNews probably moved the article or deleted it. Try searching for it on the FoxNews site. Ckruschke (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Why did they delete it? 68.224.119.202 (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually it looks like the article is completely gone as a search on FoxNews shows the article, but then when you click on it you get the same error. Lets leave the link in place for now, since FoxNews might just have it's archive down, and then we can come back in the future and edit or delete it in the future. In the meantime, I found one outlet that had the same article() and I've put it on the page alongside the FoxNews ref. Ckruschke (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

References

new comment here (edit request)

what up dudes somebody has locked this page so I cannot make an extremely urgent edit. Somebody doesn't know the difference between it's and its. Its a shame really. Case in point: "it's children's network" - this should be "its". We don't want people to think the writers of the VeggieTales wikipedia article are uneducated now, do we?2001:630:301:5242:E13E:36A1:800B:E9A7 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Roberticus talk 17:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Cast list renovations

I think we need to figure out how, globally, we wish to address the Cast section for VeggieTales content. Many articles, like Lyle the Kindly Viking, The Star of Christmas, and Robin Good and His Not-So-Merry Men contain these really bizarre in-universe cast sections with content like:

• Larry the Cucumber as Larry the Clown and Silk Hat Larry
• Bob the Tomato as Himself
• Archibald Asparagus as Himself

Then you get these really weird characters who have "names" that are descriptions:

• England Man with Light Brown Top Hat and Brown Coat as Himself
• Ma Carrot with Blue Hat and Blue Clothing as Herself
• England Man with Navy Top Hat and Navy Coat as Himself
• Unnamed England Girl as Herself
• London Carrot with White Pants and White Hat as Himself

To clarify what's happening here, there are a few main VeggieTales characters, I surmise, and they act out Bible-centric stories as different characters. So the character of Larry the Cucumber might act out a story as Larry the Clown, or whatever. Anyhow, it seems like a no-brainer that we should stop presenting the cast from in-universe and take a clue from A Snoodle's Tale and present the content like this instead:

The Strange Case of Dr. Jiggle and Mr. Sly

• Jim Poole voices:
  • Scooter Carrot as Butterbun
• Mike Nawrocki voices:
  • Larry the Cucumber as Poole
• Phil Vischer voices:
  • Jimmy Gourd as Dr.Jiggle / Mr.Sly

I checked the closing credits for Lyle the Kindly Viking. They do present credits in a style like this:

• Phil Vischer
  • Omelet (Jimmy)
  • Ophelia (Mr. Lunt)

This corresponds with the proposed improved format above. In this case, Phil Vischer voices the character of Jimmy, who is acting out a story as another character, Omelet.

Lastly, in looking in the credits for Kindly Viking, I don't see any of the "England Man with Light Brown Top Hat" stuff. I'm guessing these are unnamed characters who populate the backgrounds, who probably aren't voiced, whose names are probably entirely manufactured by fans, (note that England Man seems to exist almost entirely at Wikia) and who are almost certainly not noteworthy. One tangential issue is that these articles are heavily vandalized, and if we change the cast lists, they will almost certainly be changed back to the problematic versions. So I'd like to establish clear consensus now to help combat that. Appreciate any input, thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The example cast list looks good to me. I'm fairly sick of making edits clarifying that "Fred the Acorn Squash" is not a real person.

One of the frequent battlegrounds on these articles is attempts to change cast lists as credited to various other versions. If the credits read "J. Smith", we list it as "J. Smith", even if someone believes that their full name is "Jebadiah Smith" or if they have since changed their name through marriage or otherwise.

We also seem to get a lot of changes to dates without a source or explanation. I intend to revert those on sight and request blocks and page protection as needed.

We get lots of changes to who released the VHS and/or DVD and/or reissues. Browsing through several film articles on my watchlist, I don't see much in the way of "Jefferson Video released it on VHS on July 4, 1776. King's video released the DVD on June 21, 1788. Madison Productions released the remastered VHS on December 5, 1791. Congress Video included it in a special 11 DVD set on February 7, 1795..." This is likely to be especially problematic here because we don't really have sources, other than amazon.com and such.

We seem to get a lot of obsessive detail on FBI warning screens, title screens, changes to boxes, colors of videocassette cases, etc. Unless there are independent reliable sources discussing these details, editors with these "special interests" will need to find other outlets.

As an umbrella statement, I want sources for pretty much everything. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2015

The first sentence should mention that it is a tv show as well as a series of animated films. 173.79.18.20 (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The third para in the lead talks about the two television series. Since the television shows sprang off the videos and the videos continue, this is the proper location. Ckruschke (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Ckruschke

Not done: per Ckruschke's explanation. Please establish a consensus for this change before using {{edit semi-protected}}. Mz7 (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I'm proposing that VeggieTales in the House and VeggieTales in the City be merged here. They don't have sufficient RS to justify separate articles and having extensive plot synopses is just ridiculous for a kids' show. Famous _dog (c) 12:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Support: As a contributor to the above articles, I have found out that the series have very small or non-existent notability in reliable sources.--Carniolus (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: I agree about the sourcing, but these two programs should not be merged onto this page - it is the parent for all VeggieTales media. If you want to merge the two pages with eachother, that's one thing, but not onto the parent site. That's like moving Mulan onto the The Walt Disney Company page - which everyone would agree is not correct. Alternately, these two pages should be improved to include proper sourcing. Ckruschke (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke

Comment That's a really terrible argument. It's not remotely like what you suggest, which would be equivalent to merging the various VeggieTales articles into that for the parent company, Big Idea Entertainment (although frankly, there's a good case for doing that too). Mulan is a single film produced by Disney and notable in itself. Disney is an enormous corporation that produces all sorts of media and products, and therefore notable. VeggieTales is a not-particularly-notable cartoon and there are several not-particularly-notable versions of it. I think there is more than a case for merging these five (or more?) articles into one, but apparently nobody gives two hoots - possibly because this cartoon (as previously mentioned) isn't that notable. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 11:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Support: merge it into VeggieTales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.101.94.67 (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: It needs to be the same. It doesn't have to be bad, It is a right article. --2601:205:C101:1110:FD5C:3B2C:C2EB:F3EE (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC) — 2601:0205:c101:1110:fd5c:3b2c:c2eb:f3ee - Comcast Cable in Tracy, California (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Oppose Each of the three articles is large enough on it's own... and as time goes on, each article will probably get larger and be expanded. TantraYum (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose I do not think so --2601:205:C101:1110:E14E:3627:3FC7:9BE4 (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC) — 2601:0205:c101:1110:e14e:3627:3fc7:9be4 - Comcast Cable in Tracy, California (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Oppose It'd be like merging the subsequent Transformers iterations into The Transformers. Same for TMNT or MLP, or heck, even apter considering platform: not giving Voltron Legendary Defender or All Hail King Julien their own articles and forcing everything onto the parent series' page--Harmony944 (talk, Twitter) 18:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: a television series with 52 or more episodes running on a major international network (Netflix) is, in my view, notable, having reached the criteria outlined at WP:TVSERIES. That it's aimed at children rather than adults doesn't detract from its notability even though it will certainly have less appeal to adult readers of the page. Klbrain (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2017

[sic] should be removed from the quote "if NBC is so concerned about that four-letter-word God [sic]". L. Brent Bozell is using four-letter word to mean that God is a dirty word, not that it has four letters. [sic] does not appear in the Fox News story either; it's either a mistake or it violates WP:NPOV.74.215.210.150 (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't violate WP:NPOV because it isn't an expressed opinion - it's a clarification of a seeming error - which is not "NPOV".

That being said, my assumption was always that "sic" was in the quote. If it isn't, it shouldn't be there so I deleted it. I remember vaguely an IP editor trying to change the quote to "three-letter word". Maybe someone inserted "sic" in order to get that guy to stop. Who knows...

Ckruschke (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke

Sic is used to emphasise that something that may be a mistake (or sounds like a mistake) was actually said/written as quoted. It's use here is entirely appropriate. I'm reverting this edit. Famous_dog (c) 12:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Better to rewrite the sentence to avoid using this odd idiom at all. I've gone ahead and done this. --McGeddon (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not odd, and it's not an idiom either. However, I agree with your solution. Somebody obviously has their knickers in a twist over it, so best to avoid it. Famous_dog (c) 12:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Calling swearwords "four-letter words" is idiomatic. Using the term to refer to a word with three letters is potentially confusing to those unfamiliar with the idiom. --McGeddon (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Revising the section to get rid of the offending quote is a better solution than what I did. Ckruschke (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke

Target audience

Every once and a while, we get an editor who decides that a show that is clearly intended for young children is really for teens or teens and adults or everybody... basically that the show must be for people like them because they watch it.

They start removing categories, adding material from reddit or whatever and insisting that Arthur, Sid the Science Kid, Little Bill, VeggieTales, 3-2-1 Penguins!, etc. are really shows that adults pop on at 10 PM and watch because they want to brush up on early literacy concepts, dealing with basic emotions and simplified morality.

I find the sources that say unequivocally that the show is aimed at pre-schoolers, kids 4 to 8 or whatever. I add it to the article. The editor removes it and adds mealy-mouthed, unsourced/poorly sourced claims to the contrary. I pull more sources and flesh it out with the target audience, and the producers research into early childhood pedagogy. This continues until the other editor gets themselves blocked while material builds up in the article until we have an extensive section on every aspect of the show being designed to pull in the little kids (with small nods to the bored adults stuck watching it with the kids). Alternately, I add the target audience with reliable sources and the other editor accepts that the article will be based on verifiability and reliable sources.

We're heading down that road here. This show, a cartoon with singing vegetables teaching dumbed down morality, has producers offering preschool lesson plans based on the show. It's rated TV-Y. When it aired, it was part of preschool blocks when older kids are in school and many adults are working.

You can watch whatever you want (kids: get your parents' permission first!). You can enjoy things that aren't aimed at you. Maybe you're 12 and love "Murder She Wrote". Maybe you snack on communion wafers dipped in baby food. Whatever. Knock yourself out. If everyone is the same as everyone else, the world would be boring as hell. That said, a Wikipedia article about a kids' show should say it is intended for kids. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

So? The show aired on NBC's block Qubo (which airs on Saturdays, when everyone's available at home) from 2006 to 2009, and was rated TV-Y7. It's my opinion. Don't judge me. I'm 13 years old. Jteka9870 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not judging you. I'm not talking about you at all. I'm saying the show was made for preschoolers, as the sources show. Insisting that it is "for" everyone is simply saying anyone can watch it, which is true of everything and not at all encyclopedic. Preschool shows are created with preschoolers in mind. That's not a judgement, that's a fact. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note that sell-published sources, such as personal web pages, are not reliable sources and cannot be used as sources. Please see WP:SPS.

A claim that a preschool show became popular with "kids of all ages" (a marketing term), "preteens, teens, adults, seniors, etc." is an exceptional claim. There are very few things that are popular with "everyone": air, water, food, shelter, that kind of thing. Claiming that a television show, designed to teach basic morality to very young children, became popular with everyone is simply absurd and would require an exceptional source.

When reliable sources say a show is for preschool kids, we do not water that down to the broader "children", much as we would not change a television show to a "broadcast media" show. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Cancelled is lies

VeggieTales can't be cancelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.77.112.251 (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Can't is different from isn't. The "ending" section should be reviewed and its sources analyzed. If there's a problem with them, feel free to discuss that. Otherwise, sources that contradict those should be provided to stated what is written there is incorrect (see WP:V, WP:BALANCE and other policies and guidelines). Changing the article to suit your needs is not appropriate and doing so multiple times is called edit warring and can result in a block to editing for you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Where did you hear that VeggieTales was cancelled?50.43.26.34 (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the article recently? It's sourced in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

New episode in 2018

But VeggieTales is going to be a new episode in Fall 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.77.112.251 (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

A reliable source must be provided to support the claim. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Old URL

Lyrick Studios had a Veggie Tales page at http://web.archive.org/web/19981201201824/http://www.lyrickstudios.com/html/veggie.html though I see little content... WhisperToMe (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Lionsgate and NBCUniversal?

Why didn't Lionsgate team up with NBCUniversal when it bought DreamWorks? 2601:1C2:1400:4426:3C05:5C8A:57E6:3136 (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Did it buy it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Larry LightYear's edits

Once again, @Larry LightYear: has included primary sources, content that is not important or encyclopedic, bad headings, links to disambiguation pages rather than the supposed article, WP:OVERLINKs, and multiple MoS violations. I'm afraid that the editing is not getting better and it's all happening without explanation. Other than an administrative board, possibly WP:AN, are there any suggestions to fixing these problems? @SummerPhDv2.0: your input would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when an editor will not communicate, there is little that can be done, other than warn them until a block is needed and follow through from there.

I've placed a final warning on their talk page strongly "suggesting" they discuss the issues. Failing that, take it to the noticeboard. A short term block may get the job done. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Title change (long overdue) and making the original video series a separate article

I think that we should change the title of this article to "VeggieTales (franchise)". When this article first started, all that VeggieTales was is a video series. But now, it's more than that, with 2 Netflix series, and 1 upcoming TBN series. In addition, I think we should make the original video series into a separate article, because VeggieTales in the House, VeggieTales in the City, and The VeggieTales Show all have separate articles, and the original video series is treated like it IS the franchise, but that is not true. The franchise may have started with the original video series, but it has grown out of it, and has become a multi-show franchise. AdonisTheEditor (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

In principle I support a split - the current arrangement muddies the waters. I'm a little concerned that the "original series" article may be a little short, but that's not the worst thing in the world.

The major question is what to name everything. I'd propose making "VeggieTales" a disambiguation page, with something like VeggieTales (franchise) and VeggieTales (1993 video series), but I'm curious what others think. MarginalCost (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for supporting. I want to rename this article as soon as today, but it doesn't let me, because there is no Move tab on this article. Why is the Move tab not on this article? AdonisTheEditor (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The page has been fully protected against moves since 2009. I added an icon just now to display this fact, but when consensus is ultimately achieved here, we can easily ask an administrator to move it by using {{edit fully-protected}}, but they will probably want to see more time for discussion. In general, the default assumption is that discussions are open for 30 days to allow other editors to comment, though if robust consensus is achieved before that we can ask earlier. (Remember, there is no deadline.) In the meantime you can start working on a proposal for the split articles as a draft, following the guidelines at WP:SPLIT. I will put a tag on the page to attract more users here.

In particular, we should see if others have opinions on the titles. The key question is what we make the main VeggieTales page, and how we handle disambiguation. The options as I see them are:

1. Make VeggieTales a disambiguation page, have the franchise and original series at VeggieTales (franchise) and VeggieTales (1993 video series)
2. Make VeggieTales point to the franchise, with a hatnote linking to VeggieTales (1993 video series) and VeggieTales (disambiguation), which would list all the various shows
3. Make VeggieTales point to the franchise, with a hatnote linking to VeggieTales (1993 video series) alone, relying on inline links to the other shows (no dsiambig page would be created)
4. Make VeggieTales point to the franchise, with a hatnote linking to VeggieTales (disambiguation) alone
5. Make VeggieTales point to the original series, with a hatnote linking to VeggieTales (franchise) and VeggieTales (disambiguation), which would list all the various shows
6. Make VeggieTales point to the franchise, with a hatnote linking to VeggieTales (franchise) alone, relying on inline links to the other shows (no dsiambig page would be created)
7. Make VeggieTales point to the original series, with a hatnote linking to VeggieTales (disambiguation) alone

Again, I support #1, but these all should be considered for their implications on how readers navigate the pages. I'm also not married to the naming of the particular pages, and welcome any suggestions for improvement. MarginalCost (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I think #1 would be the best option. JATheEditor (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• I support some kind of split, article is very large.★Trekker (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• support page is terrible long. Ckruschke (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke
• Support split Joseph2302 (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It's been a year. It might be time for the split. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I agree. JATheEditor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

An anon just added another suggested split. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Side conversation

The article is frequented by multiple IPs and has a lot of traffic. I suggest that we should proceed with the suggested split now as there have been no voices of dissent. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Consensus is clear to split. Toa Nidhiki05 21:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that's good. Hopefully that will remove some of the IP edits where they think the video series was a television series... Thanks Walter! Ckruschke (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Changes

Hi. I just want to explain my edits and explain why they are an improvement.

• "while also educating families on" - this is too much of an opinion. Whether it succeeded on educating or not for Wikipedia to determine. It also doesn't make much sense when the show is defined as a children's show. Is it educating adults?
• "The lessons includes ... etc." If the sentence sets out to list a subset of what the lessons include, throwing in an "etc" at the end no longer makes it a subset, but a vague all inclusive list.
• "VeggieTales is an Emmy, Annie, Movieguide, Chicago Film Festival, Parents' Choice Award, World Animation Celebration Award, and GMA Dove Award nominated series" - Better to list what specific awards the show has been nominated for, than leave the reader puzzled what a "Annie" is.
• "Universal Studios is currently owning the rights" - ungrammatical and also it is best to avoid time relative expressions. The reader doesn't know when "currently" is because they don't know when this was written, and they don't know if it still applies.
• "History of VeggieTales" - we don't need to repeat the name of the series in headings. It's not going to be about the history of anything else.
• "VeggieTales show format" - as above.
• "with an unknown release date" - unknown by who? The Wikipedia editor who wrote this may not know, but that's not notable. Others may well do. We can just say the date is in the future.
• "To date, there have been" - to what date? The reader does not know when this was written.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

conflicting information regarding the video games.

This source mentions The Mystery of Veggie Island was released on September 15 not 3rd. Also it mentions the third game was released in November not October https://web.archive.org/web/20020305134828/http://www.hive4media.com:80/news/html/Product_article.cfm?article_id=2625 Timur9008 (talk) 5:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Then I would update the info and attach the source. Some of (a lot) of the edits on this page are unsourced by IP editors who just add info willy nilly. Ckruschke (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke

Sued by Barney the Dinosaur

How is this not in the article?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

What exactly would you like added? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll do some research and add what I find.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing split template

I've been working on splitting this article in my sandboxes and have found that a stand-alone article on the 1993 video series would be too small (User:JAYFAX/VeggieTales_(1993_video_series)). I don't agree with one of the arguments that splitting the article would make make it more structurally balanced (i.e. since there is a separate article for various series, therefore we need a separate article for the videos), the logical conclusion would be that we'd also need to create a separate article for the 2006 NBC series, which too would be inappropriately small. There would be little value in having this article just about the franchise.

What actually needs to happen is that this article needs to be cleaned up. The lead section is too long and does not summarise that VeggieTales is fundamentally a video and television series, that just-so happened to spawn a franchise of related media. Cutting the lead to a few paragraphs would solve half the problem here. The other half would be to structure the article in a way to give due notability to the video series, the subsequent television series, and television

I will remove the split template. The consensus here has basically expired, and I suppose I'm entitled to do that as the only person who has actually attempted and empirically assessed the value of a split. Cleaning up the lead is the priority here. JAYFAX (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The 1993 split is a good size. The consensus is still valid. Not sure what your empirical assessment is since I've seen smaller articles on video series and it makes sense. Get a new consensus to not split. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: My empirical assessment was that I did a split and observed it was not good. You say it's good though - I guess I'm kind of flattered, but still not totally encouraged. But alright. I will instead get round to cleaning up this article per what I deemed as a priority, and let some one else carry out the split, because I cannot in good faith do it myself. JAYFAX (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

My assessment aside, why not ping the participants above to look at your work to see what they think? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@AdonisTheEditor:, @*Treker:, @Ckruschke:, @Joseph2302: What do you think of [[User:JAYFAX/VeggieTales_(1993_video_series) as something to split out. The remaining article would roughly look like this, sans infobox and a section summarising the video series User:JAYFAX/VeggieTales. Anyone interested in forking it. JAYFAX (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a very strong opinion on this myself. I think a split could be done and could be good, but I'm not super famiiar with the series so I don't know how much I could help.★Trekker (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I have fought a split in years past because of the lack of OTHER content - the video series dominated the main Veggie Tales page and thus would gut the parent page if it was removed. Now that we have several television series, a split seems to make sense as the video series would join the separate pages for these other programs. As Walter Görlitz alludes to, the current page has a wealth of info that would simply be copied into the video series since it was the first Big Idea franchise. Considering there is also two separate list pages of the videos, you should have plenty of content to pull from to create a standalone page. Also, FWIW, I absolutely HATE the idea that the page would include the year "1993" in the title so I hope someone isn't considering this. If you simply call it the Veggie Tales Home Video Series or something like that, I think that that would be sufficient - don't include the start year. Ckruschke (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

If we were to do a split, I think that this would also be an opportunity to expand slightly on the history of Big Idea on this page. I know that these are two separate entities, but people generally don't understand this and we've had questions in the past (and a current one is above in Talk) about why this page doesn't speak to such things as the bankruptcy of the company and the departure of Phil Vischer, et al. So discussions of - say - the growth of Big Idea spawning the first movie and additional video releases per year and the bankruptcy of Big Idea affecting the releases of the Veggie videos and the overall marketing and sales of Veggie products would obviously be germane to the subject. Ckruschke (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Ckruschke

Outsold Every Other Kid's Property

Source for "in 1999 and 2000, at the height of its popularity, the videos outsold every other kids' property at the time."? I have tried to research this and have only found copies of this line at various locations with no actual source or number behind it. I would love to know more but also think that such a wild claim should come with a source attached. If anyone has any knowledge or information about this, I would love if it were added. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdftba (talk • contribs) 08:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Jdftba you might have found an example of citogenesis. wizzito | say hello! 10:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks like this was added by Iron Axel in 2019, citing this blog post. PotatoPirate later clarified that it was popular in 1999 and 2000 in this edit. Hope this helps you, and pinging the editors involved to see what they can add to this conversation. wizzito | say hello! 10:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I think there’s vandalism on this article.

The true crime mentions towards the top (along with bits like the unabomber veggie tales movie) are almost certainly vandalism, no? 172.222.225.26 (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The premiere date

So, why does it seem like people are insisting that December 21st is the premiere date for the series, when it was said by Phil Vischer that the first episode/video was finished on the 20th, the copies were shipped out on the 22nd, and received by people either on the 23rd or the 26th (depending on the mail)? Jteka9870 (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)