Jump to content

Talk:At the Movies (Rugrats)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 17:34, 9 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "GA" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Television}}, {{WikiProject Animation}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Good articleAt the Movies (Rugrats) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 14, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 31, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Rugrats episode "At the Movies" introduced the character of Reptar, who became a heavily recurring character throughout the series and the basis of countless merchandising tie-ins?

Comment

[edit]

Is it me or do the Care Bears in the comparison picture seem a little "too" caring? AlexHOUSE (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What do you mean? The Flash {talk} 02:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right here. Note the Bear in the driver's seat, apparently receiving a free tune-up. AlexHOUSE (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are referring to, but as noted in the template above, this isn't for general discussion on the article itself, only on further improving its content. The Flash {talk} 16:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I'm not engaging in "general discussion," I'm saying it might improve the article to replace the picture with one that doesn't have quite as much sexual imagery--as funny as it is. If you think it's alright, though, I don't have a problem with it.

AlexHOUSE (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I understand; the image was the best I could find, but I'll see if I can get a better one. The Flash {talk} 20:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No sweat. I would have attempted to find one but I am definitely not skilled in the art of image-uploading, or using the Commons, or any of that.AlexHOUSE (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:At the Movies (Rugrats)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Not sure where this fits, so I will put it here- I think the title should be At the Movies (Rugrats episode) instead- I accept it can go both ways. Do we have any MOS guidance on this?

The title meets WP:MOSTV naming style guidelines; adding "episode" is only used when the title is something like "Mr. Burns (The Simpsons episode)" to differentiate between the two existing subjects. The Flash {talk} 21:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sounds fine. J Milburn (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Minor notes below
    B. MoS compliance:
    Ditto
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    What is Point of Purchase, and why is it reliable?
I found the article on a website featuring multiple publications from throughout the country. If I'm not mistaken, it's some kind of print media or other form of publication. The Flash {talk} 03:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. C. No original research:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    "The episode received a generally positive response." is based off one review. Do we have no other reviews at all?
Unfortunately, that's all there is. Remember, this is an episode of a kids cartoon that aired in 1991. The Flash {talk} 03:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that, but I would say that that means we are not in a position to make the statement. J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, done. The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 21:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. Focused:
    You seem to really get off the point when discussing Reptar... I get the impression this stuff should be in an article on Reptar, not on this episode. The issue regarding the award nomination is also a little misleading- that nomination was for the video, not the episode, and that is not made as clear as it could be.
I tried chopping it down a bit, so tell me if it's fine now. How would you like me to adjust the nomination? The Flash {talk} 03:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff on Reptar is better. I would be inclined to say the video award does not belong in the lead. I would also say that the line "In 2000, it and the other selected episodes featured in Rugrats: Return of Reptar was nominated for Video Software Dealers Association's Home Entertainment Award for "Outstanding Marketing Campaign for a Major Direct-to-Video Release."" (which actually doesn'ty make sense) Should be changed to "In 2000, Rugrats: Return of Reptar, on which the episode featured, was nominated for Video Software Dealers Association's Home Entertainment Award for "Outstanding Marketing Campaign for a Major Direct-to-Video Release." or something similar. The current wording makes it sound like it is the episodes winning the award, rather than the video. J Milburn (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, done. The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 19:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Note above about the reviews.
  2. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  3. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    The lead image is excellent and has a solid rationale. I am less certain the other is necessary- the parody can be mentioned in text, and is hardly an integral part of the episode- I'm not sure it needs to be illustrated by two non-free images.
Still, I believe it helps give a visual reference to something that is possibly unvisable by certain readers who have never seen neither the episode nor Care Bears. The Flash {talk} 03:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but does that point really need to be made? The issue is more a point of interest than central to the episode. I'm really not convinced the images meet non-free content criterion 8. J Milburn (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, replaced it with a free-use image. The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 19:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  2. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On hold. There are a few things that need to be dealt with here. I have mixed feelings about this article- a lot of the discussion seems to be a little off-topic.


  • Link character names to character lists?
  • "Reptar! He" Full stop after "!"?
  • "who getting popcorn" Who is?
  • "including "Reptar 2010" and" A redlink or a link to an episode list would be good.
  • "as well as marked the first time" Tense doesn't seem to be quite right here.
  • "Official Reptar cereal"- could be rephrased.
  • ""Slumber Party."" Link?
  • valentines is a dablink, and would more correctly be Valentine's
  • Is there not a category for Rugrats episodes? Or one for Rugrats generally?
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on At the Movies (Rugrats). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on At the Movies (Rugrats). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on At the Movies (Rugrats). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:At_the_Movies_(Rugrats)&oldid=1205441404"