Talk:List of Ed, Edd n Eddy characters/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Refactoring

I am refactoring past discussions from the old archives to provide editing guidelines for new users. -- Elaich ^talk 17:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Things that will not stay here

(quoted from Archive 1)

I think that we should post specific guidelines about what will be reverted here on sight. Too many things crop up all too often. I guess we assume that newbies actually read the discussion page, right. ;)

1. One episode rule.

EEnE is famous for having it's history rewritten to engage a plot line in a single episode. Thus, things that happened in only one episode are not canon, and will not remain. Example: Rolf is German because he wore lederhosen in one episode; Rolf is Norwegian because he knows a Norwegian prankster in one episode; Ed is an accomplished flute player because he imitated the Pied Piper in one episode; Nazz used to be obese (a time shifting episode at that;) and so on and so on.

2. Jimmy's sexual orientation.

Jimmy is 8, or at best, 9. He is a child. There is no such thing as a homosexual child. This will be reverted on sight by many editors.

While Jimmy is certainly not homosexual (who the heck would think this?), the medical community has already ruled that most children who have some sort of GLBT-related sexual issue will unconsciously start to show it at around 4 or 5 years old. It is all too common that parents either refuse to accept it, or may simply not recognise it.

3. Superhuman strength.

Nearly all the characters have displayed superhuman strength. This is merely an overworked cartoon cliche' dating back to the beginning of cartoon time.

4. Fancruft.

Fancruft is a term used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgement of notability is lacking.

Fancruft in EEnE is common, and often assumes the format of rambling sentences added to the end of a section. It really is not relevant that "Ed did (such and such) in (this episode) and Eddy said (blah blah blah.) Please see "one episode rule" above."

4. What's under Edd's hat.

Many people here have used video game evidence to try and prove what is under Edd's hat. Video games are not relevant here. This is an article about the cartoon Ed, Edd n Eddy. No clue has ever been given in the cartoon about what is under Edd's hat, except that Ed and Eddy know what it is, and were awestruck over it.

If anybody else has more to add, please do. I tried to think of more. -- 67.117.25.182 04:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

People shouldn't add characters with no personality such as Eddy's Dad, and the football players in "Tight End Ed". They were mainly used as props to move the storyline along.

Eddy's dad acts like a typical dad, Ed's mom acts like a typical mom, the football players act like typical football players, the nurse acts like a typical nurse, and the teachers act like typical teachers. They have no personality at all, therefore, are not characters. It's merely hints to the audience that there are actually more people in the area than the 12 kids. To keep the 12 character rule intact, they are shown as silhouettes, shadows, off screen presence, or an arm reaching on screen.

Besides, giving them actual personality while having them interact with the characters would break the important 12 character rule in the show. Characters like Eddy's brother are okay (who has an actual personality), because he isn't actually in the cul-de-sac while interacting with the other characters with the show. Most mentioning of the parents are just one time jokes anyway. Put it simply, the only characters on the show are the 12 kids and Eddys brother, no more, no less. There will never be any more characters on the show either.

• • 5. Mentions of adult arms and Jonny as Ed's mom in his dream. -- 67.117.25.182 15:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

....Since when can you tell other people what to do? Who died and made you queen? No one! --Naruto134 00:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No one. These rules were reached from a consensus vote, not created by Wack'd. Dagron12345 23:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have to give DietLimeCola for listing 1-6. If you'll notice, I only worte the last one. But, yes, these were agreed on before the list was written here. --Wack'd ^{Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork!} 14:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would add that Jimmy's retainer is there in every show, so a one time explanation of how it happened is acceptable. Also, regarding games - the online games at cartoonnetwork.com also have nothing to do with the actual show, and are thus not canon. -- 71.138.27.12 14:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Anybody else that edits articles about cartoons (Spongebob Squarepants is a particular example), we have the same people adding cruft to their pages too. Maybe we could introduce these guidelines to a related wikiproject? --Philip Laurence 15:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that jimmy is 11.--118.92.58.121 (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

An 11 year old riding a tricycle? Yeah.... right.... -- Elaich ^talk 18:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy seems like a 6-7 year old--Jspyster1 (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Pages about single episodes, something that appeared only once (person or trait), do not meet Wikipedia's standards of notablility and will be deleted without discussion. -- Elaich ^talk 18:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this really necessary?

The point of a character list is usually to expand upon the topic when the main article is just not able to handle a general description of the characters. In this case, that should be very possible. Due to the fact that the show is just your average cartoon, the characters and their interactions can probably be summed up within two or three paragraphs. After that, anything else can be covered within other sections and the episode list. I'm just throwing this out there; I'm not going to follow up on it. TTN 18:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We gave the character bios a seperate page because the original EEnE page was getting excessivly long and confusing. We had to split a few things off. --Thank-you very-much. --Wack'd ^{Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork!} 19:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about if the section is written in the quality you would expect from a featured article. You may have felt that it was too long, but it probably just had too much junk. TTN 19:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking back, it was split in the same format that it has currently. I'm taking about two or three solid paragraphs to describe the characters and their interactions. TTN 19:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

They will NEVER leave it alone in that format. Having this page makes it easier to resist those who want separate pages for each character. Most TV shows have "list of characters" pages, so why should this one be different? -- Elaich ^talk 21:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If they won't leave them alone to the point where the redirects must be protected, so be it. That won't make much of a difference with a well written section about. Most lists of characters are just made out of habit. In general, they need to conform to our fiction guidelines, so a very large amount will need to be merged and redirected in the future. This one is no different unless it has a large amount of possible real world information (so much that it cannot fit in the main article). That isn't going to happen at this point. Again, I won't be trying to force this at all, so it will be up to you guys to decide if you want to do it. TTN 22:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would support it for one reason: the main page is semi-protected. If the 2 pages were merged, that would be the end of our problems with IPs adding cruft constantly. -- Elaich ^talk 14:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

How would that help? Are you not forgetting the massive amounts of cruft that was left on this page even before it broke off from the Ed, Edd n Eddy article? I agree, cruft needs to stop on this page. But braking this page of cut the amount of cruft in half, whereas on the main EEnE page we would get something new to revert five times a day. I say we should leave it here - it has helped signifigantly. --Thank-you very-much. --Wack'd ^{Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork!} 03:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Has it really? Now, rather than policing one page everyday, we end up policing two. The list of characters page has been way more a target for fancruft than when we had just one. Knowing what I know now about Wikipedia policies, I can be ruthless in deleting cruft and abuse. The goal is to preserve an encyclopedic environment, not worrying about who's feelings are hurt. You are civil because this is a civil environment, but being civil does not mean that you accept violations of policy. Every Wikipedia editor is required to abide by the policies and procedures of the site when they agreed to the EULA. Ignorance is no excuse, to steal a phrase. BTW, I like the Latka reference. :) - Elaich ^talk 04:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Eddy's brother

Seriously, this section has gotten way out of hand. There is more about Eddy's brother than any other character, most of it not notable. I'm beginning to feel a lot like TTN about this page - it is basically a fancruft trap and requires constant vigilance. The characters of this show are not so notable or so deep that they need all this press - they could be summed up in a few short, well written paragraphs. I am going to do some reading of Wikipedia's policies soon, and if I find what I think I will, I am going to merge this page. This IS an encyclopedia, not a fan site, blog, or personal stage for editors to ramble on about their favorite subject. If I merge, I will be well fortified with the backup I need as far as policy and procedure, and will be prepared to settle in for the duration. I am not clear on some of the policies and procedures regarding pages about fiction, but deep down, I "know" how it is supposed to be. This page is not encyclopedic, and will probably be impossible to convert. I think this was what Squirepants was trying to get across by tagging it as "in universe." It also is well known to cite no sources, as the only source available is to watch the cartoon and see for yourself. -- Elaich ^talk 02:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fake characters

"Encyclopedia Encyclopedia is a private detective who used to be a theatre-like taco salesman. He raley smiles nor goes by foot but goes by robot.
Coach Ace Coach Ace is the gym teacher at the Ed's school. He is stubborn.
Vice-Coach Horace Horace is Ace's assistant. He raley smiles and never talks due of being mute. His mouth is seen moving at the stampede."

---

I found this only a few moments ago. There should be no putting non-existiant or fanfiction characters on this page --UK Bakosi 23:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)(Formaly known as UBracter)

I, and others, have been fighting this kind of garbage since day one. It's nothing new. -- Elaich ^talk 15:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Nicknames

Can someone explain the rule regarding nicknames? Although said in a condescending manner, Eddy has referred to Ed as "monobrow", and Edd as "sockhead" more times than I can count throughout the series. Why were these two edits reverted? Vanessaezekowitz 02:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Go ask Eliach. Personally, I think it should be fine, and no strong reasoning has been given for the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wack'd (talk • contribs) 03:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are the nicknames notable? They add nothing to the character's bio, and Eddy is the only one who uses them. And, I might add, go ask DietLimeCola, Wack'd, since that was who posted this. I'm kind of tired of catching all the flack revolving around this page. Almost nothing about it is notable, so any serious Wikipedia editor should recognize this fact. How about this for strong reasoning - not notable. -- Elaich ^talk 04:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

They are notable because they draw attention features present in the two characters that might otherwise be disregarded. "Monobrow" draws attention to Ed's single eyebrow, just as "sockhead" draws attention to Double-D's stocking cap. The real question is, if this isn't acceptable, then what criteria should be used to determine if something is "notable"? Vanessaezekowitz 00:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does any attention need to be drawn to things that are perfectly obvious? The Wikipedia policy for character description requires a short paragraph of a few sentences. Adding all these minor details violates that policy and amounts to fancruft. As far as what is notable, read it for yourself. -- Elaich ^talk 00:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic; guess that's hard to convey over the internet. You know I have no problem with you, but I certainly think that what's notible and what's not depends on opinion. To some people, Ed, Edd n Eddy isn't notible. The fact is that there is a difference between the one-episode rule and all that jazz and the recurring things in the show that warrent notice. I don't want to start an edit war, here, but please explain how a few nicknames used in every episode by one of the main characters is not notible. --Thank-you very-much. --Wack'd ^{Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork!} 01:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well? I'm waiting. Tenk you veddy much. --Wack'd ^{Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork!} 11:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I think this page should be protected since there has been alot of vandalism underneath the characters names lately by people who have nothing better to do.- Jspyster1 10/02/07

At least semi-protection. Do it. -- Elaich ^talk 01:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 2 weeks. Enjoy the quiet. -- Elaich ^talk 02:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.- Jspyster1 10/07/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.88.165 (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Images

Wow, they are all over the place! As they are fairly large compared to the ammout of text, I think we are overdoing it here. Would it maybe be a better idea to find a pic with everybody on it (if that excists) and indicate who is who in the caption? Martijn Hoekstra 21:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried that once. People wouldn't leave it alone, then some bot deleted it, even it was tagged fair use. -- Elaich ^talk 17:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll have another go then, one of these days. Image copyright is always a tough one, and I'm not all that provicient in it, but I managed to supply fair use images before, that are still here Martijn Hoekstra 23:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't seem to find one. Anyone happen to have one ready somewhere? Martijn Hoekstra 20:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)