Talk:Muppet

talk show

What's the source for this entry? User:AKR619 didn't provide the name of the talk show. —Scott (talk) 04:27, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

sources

Would probably need to add sources Bigshowbower 05:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There's sources for all this stuff on Muppet Wiki -- check out the Doctor Who page there. That's where this information was taken from. -- Danny<staff /> (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Aside from this article's all out copying from the Muppet wiki it's context within the Doctor Who universe is questionable. There are two references according to this article one is a 'Tutter doll' that appears in a flashback in The Runaway Bride, it's a very minor reference (which is interesting on the Muppet wiki as it's their focus, but here it's not all that relevant), the second is a reference to the Cookie Monster from Winner Takes All if this needs to be mentioned it can be on the Winner Takes All article, it's also a reference to the Cookie Monster rather than to Muppets in general.

The 'Doctor Who contributors who have contributed with the Muppets', it's a list, I'm not sure really what information it gives to our site.

The trivia elements could (if sourced) be included on the individual actors' article pages. --Tangerineduel 13:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't nuke the entry, I'd just edit out the extraneous elements. and provide a link to the Muppet Wiki article, obviously. --Stardizzy2 14:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Doctor also mentions in "Tooth and Claw" that he loves The Muppet Movie. At the beginning of the episode, he tells Rose: "1979, hell of a year! China invades Vietnam... The Muppet Movie -- love that film! -- Margaret Thatcher, uggghhh... Skylab falls to Earth -- with a little help from me, nearly took off my thumb. And I like my thumb, I need my thumb. I'm very attached to my thumb." -- Danny<staff /> (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I second deletion; I contemplated tagging it for deletion myself. The most of these things can go on story or character pages. (And I grew up with the Muppets. I love the Muppets.)

Lisa: "Dad, what's a Muppet?"

Homer: "Well, it's not quite a puppet, and it's not quite a mop, so to answer your question, I don't know."

Monkey with a Gun 16:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

well, we have articles on The Lion King, Britney Spears and sundry other small references. why don't I just whittle down the less relevant content and you can decide if this deserves deletion. --Stardizzy2 17:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna say that the deletion proposal failed, since we've now firmly established in T:DEL that "brevity is not a reason for deletion". The Muppets are a part of the DWU, by virtue of Tooth and Claw alone. I suppose the difficulty of this article is like any of these franchise articles. Finding the line between discussing the information known in the DWU, and that outside it, is very difficult. This is why we now have Star Trek and Star Trek (franchise), for instance.

I suppose, therefore, there's a question still of how much information this article requires. But the existence of a Muppet in the DWU is established by the line in Tooth and Claw and it should stay.

To at least partially assuage user:Tangerineduel's concerns, the list of people connected to the Muppets that used to be on the bottom of the page has now been converted to a category and then reincluded through dpl. Thus, it can be removed from this article if necessary, but we still have the information in a convenient form on a category page.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 17:40: Thu 19 Jan 2012 

I believe this has largely been resolved? But we might want to clean up the BTS a bit more still. Najawin ☎ 00:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Bear in the Big Blue House

Is that show actually a Muppet show? I haven't watched it and don't know that much about the franchise, but it just seems to have production connections. (Also there's a lot of conjecture there, whether it's even worth saying "Donna Noble had a toy of a character on her desk" is unclear) Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 01:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting! I did watch the show as a kid, but had no idea of its Muppet-connections. this reddit post reply describes him as a muppet (lowercase 'm') as opposed to a Muppet. Seems a bit of a fannish thing though. The show is covered on the Muppet wiki though, and is owned by The Muppet Studio, which formed after the show's cancellation. I would say: "not a Muppet". But really, the only place Donna's toy should get a mention is on the toy's page itself. Danochy ☎ 06:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Well depending on the outcome of Forum:Loosening T:NO RW, maybe not.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

08:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Cookie Monster

To address @Najawin's edit summary about the removal of information about the Cookie Monster, first of all I feel my previous edit to his page asserting he was a puppet was perhaps a little too preferential to one of the possibilities that Winner Takes All ^[+]Loading...["Winner Takes All (novel)"] puts on the table. (Although my personal reading is that Nine is having Rose on, I'm not sure this is explicit enough for the Wiki.)

Secondly, if this page didn't already exist, we'd then be allowed to create a {{conjecture}}'d page using the info from WTA; it doesn't make sense then to remove this information if a source later names the Muppets. IIRC this is precedent, but I can't remember where this was previously discussed.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

10:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. By any characterization of what "muppet" means, Muppets and puppets are distinct groups. Either if it refers to the discrete group "The Muppets" (of which CM is not a part) or the type of puppet in question, marionette + puppet (which CM is, but, well, T:NO RW). This information straight up doesn't belong on this page, it violates policy. Najawin ☎ 18:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree on this one. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 19:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

No no? Across the Internet and by mere merit of a shared universe with TMS, CM is a Muppet; as we have a source directly addressing his species without naming it, that would be grounds to have a conjecture'd page. We've precedent for this and it isn't a T:NO RW breach.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

21:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

This is obviously mistaken. Suppose we had pages for individual dates in month+day+year format. And suppose some story brought up the topic of Marco Polo Albert Einstein's birthday, while mentioning the possibility of it being a specific date in 1252 March 14, 1875. It would be improper to create a page for both that date, as well as for "March 14, 1879" on the basis that it's Albert Einstein's birthday under a conjecture tag, when no such date was mentioned. If you want to create a "Cookie Monster's Species" page, that's fine. But to conjecturally call it "Muppet" is improper when the very source cited disputes this idea. Najawin ☎ 21:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The source cited disputes he's a puppet. Not a Muppet.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

22:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

But there is no source for him being a Muppet. (And disputing him being a puppet is, in-universe, functionally the same thing. Diegetically, the Muppets are actually dogs and frogs and pigs and chickens, as is repeatedly outlined in TMS.) Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 22:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The source heavily infers that Muppets are extraterrestrial. Yes, it gets Muppet lore incorrect, but it's what it reads as, IMHO.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

22:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Aquana's response is the same as my own. Bringing up someone's supposed, mistaken, birthday, even with skepticism, would not be grounds to suggest that a new page for their correct birthday should be created on a conjectural basis. A generic "so and so's birthday" page would be kosher. But the specific date would not. (And the source disputes the idea insofar as it raises another possibility but does not raise the possibility you're stating here.) Najawin ☎ 23:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)