Forum:TC:The Muppet Show

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:The Muppet Show

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, kept. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Muppet Show (talk - history - links - logs)

As the article The Colbert Report is currently nominated for merging, I'm proposing to merge this article as well. It's the same kind of article as "The Colbert Report". There has been a Star Wars-related episode, but nothing else of relevance for our wiki. There's already something about the Muppet Show in our List of references to Star Wars in television, so merging this article would be a bit easier. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 18:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge everything that needs to be merged

  1. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 18:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. An article on the television program is just silly. Even Muppet Show Star Wars episode would be better. Just delete it. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. No thanks. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 21:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 21:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. Death! Chack Jadson (Talk) 23:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    Toprawa is right: if we have an individual article, it should be about the episode, not the entire television program. Havac 20:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 02:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  7. About time. --Imperialles 23:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep (And move to The Muppet Show: Episode 417)

  1. I'm happy to see this one kept. The List of references contains many that are just a Star Wars quotation or something minor. This is an appearance by the actual actors for Luke, C-3PO, and Chewie and so is much more significant. In my opinion it is notable enough to stay. --Eyrezer 21:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. As much as I find the subject silly, I strongly think that it should be kept. Not only does it inculde appearances of actual Star Wars actors, it is also recognized by official sources such as Insider and Starwars.com. And it is just too big to merge into a list. MauserComlink 21:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. Per Mauser. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 23:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. As above. Passes my criteria for notable parodies, what with including appearances from Hamill and Mayhew in person and in character. Possibly the first appearance of the Bespin outfit, for what it's worth as a costuming note. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. Per Mauser. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 00:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. As I stated in the aforementioned Colbert TC, we should be splitting these lists up instead of continuing to bloat them. We give notable fan works that have been self-produced by fans a page of their own; why should fan works made by entertainment professionals in the context of an existing production get any less? jSarek 09:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  7. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 20:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  8. Per my statement in the Colbert TC. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 03:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  9. LtNOWIS 00:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  10. That list is getting way too big already and isn't even close to complete. It'll soon reach the splitting point. Keep this outta there. —Xwing328(Talk) 03:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  11. - Esjs(Talk) 06:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  12. Well, now that we're changing what the votes are for. Havac 21:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  13. --Darth tom Imperial Emblem (Imperial Intelligence) 11:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  14. I don't even see the need to rename it, but I'll hop on the "keep" bandwagon even with that proviso Enochf 23:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  15. It might work either way whether it be the show or the episode but this is a cultural centerpoint in Star Wars fandom. To lump it together with the rest of the references would diminish its importance. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

  • FWIW, for me, the bigger issue here is that the article is about the program, and not the one specific episode that aired on a single date, which is really the only relevant thing we should be concerned about here. At the very least, this thing should be moved to a more relevant title focusing about the Star Wars-themed episode. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The official title of that episode appears to be "Episode 417", so I'm not sure what a better (and almost as likely to be searched for) title would be. Besides, if we keep an article on a particular episode of a TV program, we may as well mention less significant mentions in other episodes. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • The Muppet wiki even has the article at "Episode 417: Star Wars." I think it would be best to do something like that (maybe "The Muppet Show Episode 417: Star Wars" or something) and gear the article's wording to focus centrally on this specific episode where appropriate. Miscellaneous mentions of other episodes can have their own section. Not really a bad thing. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
        • How about The Muppet Show: Episode 417? - JMAS Hey, it's me! 01:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Either sounds reasonable. Do we want to add a third "refocus and move" option above, and defer discussion of how much detail to add on other SW/Muppets references to the talk page? —Silly Dan (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I am all for the rename. MauserComlink 04:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Rename to "The Muppet Show: Episode 417".- Esjs(Talk) 00:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I've added the rename as part of the option for Keep if you'd like to put you're vote in there Esjs. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 00:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Except some of us (at the very least, me) thinks the page ought to be the place all Muppet Show-related Star Wars references ought to go if kept, and thus should be kept at the existing title. jSarek 01:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
          • It'd be clearer if the option was just "keep in some form", so people won't vote "delete" when they actually mean "move." —Silly Dan (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Thank you. - Esjs(Talk) 06:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)