Talk:Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers

Comment

This article is very largely useless, after the huge removal of information it has undergone. No one who wants any in depth information about the Rescue Rangers will find the page remotely useful...it's link section needs to be restored and it's character articles reinstated. RangerReady23 (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)RangerReady23

Wikipedia is not a place for fan site spam and the characters are do not meet the notability requirements for having their own character articles. They added no actual information, just plot. Wikipedia is also not a TV show guide or in-depth site. For minute, inane details, I'm sure there are Disney oriented wikia and plenty of fansites out there. Wikipedia is about verifiable, encyclopedic coverage. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed some Disney oriented wikia where one can find information... but these wikia are unknown to the general public. I know about the existence of a well-written Rescue Rangers wiki and I suggest putting a link to this wiki for those visitors who want more information. --Alain Narinx (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As per the external link guideline, though, "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." is a link to be avoided. A list of wikis that meet the criteria can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case, if fandom-related material is so unimportant, not noteworthy, and considered anything but encyclopedic, and if fans are nothing more than supposed to be milked for money by having them consume music, movies, TV shows, and the like and not allowed to give any unwanted feedback, then please go ahead and delete articles such as Trekkie, Category:Star Wars fandom (Category!), Harry Potter fandom and Harry Potter Fan Zone specifically, Doctor Who fandom, and fandom in general, not to mention fan fiction, fanzines, fan convention, Buffyverse, etc. And while you're at this (and I'm addressing to all those who cut this article down to a mere skeleton), I recommend deleting all the articles about TV show characters such as The Simpsons characters and the several Doctor Who instances for consistency and fairness sake.

I'm asking myself why Whedonesque.com deserves an entire article while the forum Acorn Café and the graphic novel Of Mice and Mayhem (which is known and famous far beyond the Ranger fandom) don't even deserve being linked to, and why there's one article for every single Pokémon plus an assortment of categories while information about Foxglove can neither be found on nor accessed from Wikipedia. The one-shot character Foxglove, by the way, is more popular than Professor Norton Nimnul, she is more popular than Zipper who appears in all 65 episodes and is an actual Rescue Ranger, she has got her own fan website, and I dare say that few of the 493 Pokémon have got more fans than she has.

This is one reason why, as RangerReady23 already pointed out, the article about Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers is largely useless as it is. It is not much more than a placeholder with the purpose of having an article about a show that is not labeled a stub. It doesn't contain any really valuable information, anything someone interested in CDRR and finding this article might be looking for; it doesn't even link to any external information whatsoever. Only one external link was granted it, and this link is defunct. Some say that Wikipedia is open for information, and it is often expected to welcome new information. Others say that if something is not appropriate for adding to an article, it shall be linked to. Those who are trying the least to expand what information about CDRR Wikipedia can provide their readers with in any of these two ways are insulted as spammers or even vandals, and their contributions are removed permanently.

I seriously wonder why it's specifically Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers whose articles get chopped down to merely above stub size and deleted again and again while other articles about, for instance, animated TV shows do not get this treatment. Besides, what was the point in deleting each and every link on the CDRR page with the exception of one single, even defunct (!) Disney link, while other similar articles are allowed to keep links to a dozen fan sites? And what would Star Trek, Harry Potter, or especially Kim Possible be without the fans and their going beyond mere consuming?

Sorry, but all this had to be said. --85.179.198.72 (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. There is a major difference. Those other articles have verifiable content that focuses on their real world notability. Wikipedia is not a series guide (again), nor is it a place for fans to throw whatever they want up or just to provide the full plot of a series (which violates copyright laws). This is an encyclopedia, not a catch all. We have policies and guidelines and they are being followed. CDRR does need more content, particularly regarding production and reception. It is on my to do list to work on, however the content it needs is not so easily found in reliable on-line sources as with more current shows do to the age of the show. The article isn't a stub, its a start with more on the way, and despite the complaints no real content was ever lost. The characters and video game articles were merged here. The production section was expanded with citations. The article has been improved as far as being a Wikipedia article goes (which doesn't always mesh with what fans want an article to be). Just because there are other bad articles is no excuse for this one. Other articles having fansites mean they have slipped under the radar. There are millions, if not billions of Wikipedia articles. People throw up all kinds of stuff. Some gets caught and removed or cleaned as needed, some doesn't. Many character articles are being deleted daily, as are episode articles. Unless real world notability can be established, they don't belong and there are whole groups of people working their way through them all.

As for the fan articles above, they have notability and your arguments really are apples and oranges. Conventions, reports in reliable sources, etc. dedicated to the series. Trekkies is a societal icon and obviously notable. Your arguments are really comparing apples and oranges and have little, if anything, to do with this article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I just ask you how 'real world notability' is defined, as precisely as possible? It can't be a simple case of whether or not a specific person has ever heard of it before, that's too arbitrary... 196.21.126.135 (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Real world notability means it has received significant coverage/discussion in reliable sources, including major magazines, newspapers, news shows, and major neutral, notable websites. For a more detailed explanation, see WP:N and WP:FICT. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Difficult criteria to satisfy in this case, since any page by a fan could be argued to not be independant (and such pages form the majority of google's returns on the subject, especially if one argues that everyone who expresses a positive opinion of the show is a fan). Fanhistory.com is not on the Interwiki list. However, fan works (or, at least, one specific fan work - the only one I looked for independant reviews of) has been reviewed on [Comixpedia] (which is on the interwiki list) and [The Comic Book Guy]. If this is insufficient to call it notable, I could look further... 196.21.126.135 (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fan works, in general, are never linked to because the often violate copyright laws. Wikipedia has strict rules about copyright violations and linking to illegal material. "Of Mice and Mayhem" may be a great fan comic and have a few reviews from some websites, however the artist admits in the comic itself that he is violating the Disney copyrights. As such, it would never qualify for an article or a link unless Disney were to actually give him retroactive permission to use the work (which would then give it instant notability). AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

An excellent point; I was trying to use the reviews to argue for the notability not of "Of Mice and Mayhem", but rather of the fandom as a whole. I apologise if that was unclear. 196.21.126.135 (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. For fandom to be notable, there would actually have to be articles discussing fandom itself rather than evidence of fandom. Almost every show out there has fans, some very dedicated ones, but the question is are they notable. I don't think such notability can be established for CDDR fans. There are no conventions held dedicated to the series or characters, no major articles discussing the fans, no catch phrases have entered the dictionary because of fans (like Trekkie), etc. At best, in the reception section it would be noted that the show still has a small, but dedicated following (if a source could be found as just looking and seeing the CDDR sites and stating it would, unfortunately, fall under the OR clause). I know it can be fustrating. As a fan of various shows, I also sometimes struggle with wanting to put in "what I know" versus what is appropriate, but maintaining neutrality is a core requirement to being a good Wikipedian editor.

As a side note, I'm getting to bed late tonight cause I've gotten caught up reading "Of Mice and Mayhem" :P It really is to bad the writer didn't attempt to get permission because he has amazing graphic talents and has written a very well done piece. I always feel a little sad when I read great fan fiction or fan comics, because they have such amazing talent but it won't get seen by more than a handful of fans. :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Would a sociology paper count? (Probably not, since the writer was, at the time, a fan of the show; which is why I hadn't mentioned it earlier). There has, incidentally, been at least one convention - small, admittedly, and not exactly widely advertised - and I understand there is to be another in the not too distant future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.21.126.135 (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, self published papers are not considered a reliable source. If information about the convention could be found, that would certainly be worth mentioning in this article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the only evidence of the convention that I can find is the Cafe thread discussing it (organisation and there used to be photos but they seem to have vanished). (And I can't seem to find it now, but wasn't there something about internet forums (or should that be fora?) not being desirable places to link to? Hence no link here...) 196.21.126.135 (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, no links to forums. Too bad though, that would be interesting information. I looked for the show in a couple of cartoon/Disney books at the library today, but alas, it got no coverage in any of them. :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

CDRR toon disney link

I'm not entirely sure where this should be put - as a reference? An external link? - but the Toon Disney page for Rescue Rangers is here... 196.21.126.135 (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That link was in the article as an External Link, but some people felt it should be removed because it isn't updated anymore. I've added it back however. AnmaFinotera (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Voices of Monterey Jack

I'm curious as to why the credit for Peter Cullen as the original voice of Monterey Jack continues to disappear from this article. It was agreed upon a year or so ago on this talk page that sufficient sources had been provided to verify this as fact, and the matter was settled. Why is this suddenly an issue again? Is it because the discussion has disappeared from the talk page? If this needs to be verified again, I can provide several links to several different sources that credit Peter Cullen as one of the voice actors to contribute his voice to the character of Monterey Jack, including an official press kit released by Buena Vista (a source which was at one point linked to in the article). How many times is this going to have to be reverified?

These are some of the sources I managed to scrounge up again. You may take your pick as to which you consider the most reliable (including a Wikipedia article on Cullen)

Buena Vista's Official Press Kit for Pooh's Heffalump Movie which credits Cullen as the voice of Monterey Jack:
http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/2748/notes.pdf

About the Cast (Transformers) from Movieweb, which also lists Monterey Jack among Cullen's vocal work
http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/3311/notes.pdf

Additional articles which continue to include Monterey Jack when mentioning his past vocal credits:
http://www.visualhollywood.com/movies/transformers/cast.php#CULLEN
http://seattlepi.com/movietimes/moviepn.asp?movieID=46946
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/chipndalerescuerangers-volume1.html
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0191520/
http://www.cinemarx.ro/persoane/Peter-Cullen-52131.html?actor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Cullen
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Peter-Cullen
http://tripatlas.com/Peter%20Cullen
http://www.radiovideoactive.com/interviews.html
http://movies.ispy-blogs.com/movies/interview-with-the-vioce-of-optimus-prime/

Duckyass (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of those are either dead links, non-reliable sources, or Wiki mirrors. For now, however, I've adjusted the article to note both voices, as the Disney Encyclopedia entry is also a reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sped-up voices?

Re: this edit. I checked the original source and Grant does indeed state that the recordings of MacNeille and Burton are sped up for Chip and Dale respectively. But, I think two points must be considered here: first, that the tempo of the recordings is secondary to the desired effect of raising the pitch, and so perhaps need not be mentioned; second, that Grant's encyclopedia is chock-full of personal interpretations, and it would not surprise me in the least to find out that he simply assumed that the pitch-raising was accomplished by simply speeding up the recordings. Powers ^T 17:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a reliable source, however, so unless another reliable source says otherwise, it should be considered WP:Verifiable (which may or may not always be accurate). I think it is relevant, though, as it is part of the production information. What about the other Disney encycs? Do they say the same? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In other languages..

That might not improve the article in any way but i didn't spot anything about their international image anywhere on the page. It is strange that their names were changed in many languages to "Knabbel 'n' Babbel" "Tic and Tok" or "Chip and Chap" as well as many others variants. I wonder what is the reason behind those name changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.58.145.47 (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)