Talk:List of My Gym Partner's a Monkey characters/Archive 1

Archive 1

Actor

No one mentioned Coach Gills voice actor. Can someone fix that?

I added Rick Platypus's voice actor (Gilbert Gottfried) Jsager75 02:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This list seems a little premature, since My Gym Partner's a Monkey itself is just a stub. Why not put this content there? dbtfz^talk 04:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hey

Hey, about the merging of articles I'm happy to have the list here as it was a case of duplication over it just being redundant in both places. To help this page out, do you think it'd be good to have voice artists for characters named? --treelo _talk 17:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Who keeps redirecting Principal Pixiefrog's articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.138.202 (talk • contribs)

Why?

Why is someone creating these redundant articles about the characters when there's still enough room for the info? (I've read these articles and they aren't even written as well as the info in this article). Also, the info is duplicated from this article. Squirepants101 15:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What the...

Who giving names to characters who's names weren't revealed?67.175.138.202 18:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Alpha

Maybe we should sort out the other stundents in alphabetical order67.175.138.202 00:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"homosexual interests"???

Genderplay is an obvious theme in many comedic worlds, from Aristophanes through Shakespeare to Uncle Milty and beyond, and it certainly shows up in many cartoon settings, including this one - but this is not at all the same as implied homosexuality of the characters. The gender-crossings that happen here are obviously played as jokes, not as windows to hidden aspects of character personality. The humor here comes from the acting-out of incongruous gender-roles (such as Jake becoming a "mother figure" - which automatically casts Adam into an "absentee father" role - during the class raise-a-baby-bird project), but if the implication was that they revealed something real about the characters, they wouldn't be incongruous (and therefore wouldn't be funny). I have no objection to reading such signs if they're clearly there, but these clearly aren't! The references to sexuality here should really be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hierophany (talk • contribs) 03:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC). (Oops... forgot to sign: Hierophany 03:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

Then do so! Pacific Coast Highway ^{{The internet • runs on Rainbows!}} 03:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't just do it because I've noticed that this kind of thing often turns into an "edit war" unless it's discussed first. If I come back in a week and there's no argument, I'll go ahead and remove it. :) Hierophany 04:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Since there was no outcry, I just made the edit. Hierophany 08:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The Monkey dos not evin know there is suth a thing as strate.Anubiz 12:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Self-linking

Jacob "Jake" P. Spidermonkey's name is a link, but that link just leads to "List of characters from My Gym Partner's a Monkey" again. What's with that?

Yeah, that needs to be removed Jsager75 12:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Dobie Broadway, Jr.

Is it just me or is Dobie Broadway, Jr. similar to Michael Jackson? Because I was watching the episode and noticed that he mentioned a few things about his life that seemed similar to Michael Jackson like when Dobie said that he hasnt landed a hit single in 10 years and Dobie's estate is called Forever Land while Michael's is called Neverland. Xer 14:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

I cleaned up the page fixing over a dozen typos, grammatical errors, and broken links. Jsager75 02:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Reason for huge edits (and proceeding edit war)

Most of this article was taken out because much of it is meaningless to many, even those who watch it. Given an entry which reads "Unnamed Elk: A male Elk", I think a lot of the edits made by mainly IP editors are unnecessary and I'll take it upon myself to remove anything that is fancruft-based or explains minutiae only the most fastidious fan could care about. Someone (one of the more active nonsense IP editors) keeps repeatedly adding in whole articles from prior edits, please don't do this. --treelo _talk 13:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Relevant Characters

I just came to this specific talk page to voice my opinion that the character listing should at -least- stick to characters who have had actual lines. I am glad that it has been edited to reflect this and I hope it stays that way.

Lots42 01:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Main Article for Ingrid Giraffe

Whatever happened to the main article for Ingrid Giraffe? I know there was but it now just a red link which it doesn't exist.202.69.172.122 11:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been deleted three times in the past, popped up again and because there was no justification for it it got deleted once more through WP:AFD --treelo _talk 00:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This ends now.

I am sick and tired of coming to this page and seeing a long list of character who have only appeared once and/or are silent. These characters do not deserve mention in an encyclopedia article. I want everyone here to stop treating this article like a fan page and more like an encyclopedia article. First of all, read WP:Cruft. Secondly, I'm going to lay down a few rules here. Theres rules have worked great on other Cartoon Network articles, so I will start enforcing them on this article.

Characters who have only appeared once will not be mentioned. It will take a minimum of three times for a speaking appearance by the character to have mention in this article. Characters who appear in the background and are silent, will not have mention in here, even if they appeared in every episode. These characters are simply props, used to fill the scenes so it emulates a school. Remember, this is NOT a fan page, this is an encyclopedia article. DietLimeCola 15:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To make it more persuasive perhaps, I guess it would be necessary to add the POV tag on top of the article's page. 202.69.172.122 22:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Would be but it's not exactly an altered POV on the subject, it's just an indiscriminate list. Better plan would be to list the rules as a hidden comment, helps those who don't pay attention to templates or talkpages. --treelo _talk 00:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, characters can not have under their biography "In one episode, he did this" if it doesn't relate to the rest of the series. DietLimeCola 17:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Freezing

Okay, how do we get some sort of freeze going on here? Obviously someone is terrifically interested in listing every single solitary character that ever appeared on the show while others, including me, only want relevant ones.

Lots42 16:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

By "freeze" I'm guessing you mean a soft lock to prevent further edits unless an editor is registered. One could be arranged but most edits come from IP editors so it might seem like an effort to prevent them from editing. It's more a case of taking our concern to the admins who handle locks and seeing what happens. --treelo _talk 16:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Took it to AfP and as such now has a full lock for 3 days which means nobody can edit it, figured that it'd be seen as an attempt to block out the IP editors which make up the bulk of the editors attached and it was. Bit heavy-handed with the 3 day full lock but I see it as a cooldown period rather than a reprimand. It'll start again I reckon once the lock is lifted and blocks against someone who'll find a new IP to use won't work so nice try I suppose. --treelo _talk 00:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And here we go again. Not only are all the minor characters back, the grammar quality has dipped far, far below accpetable levels. Sigh. Lots42 23:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite?

This article, due to constant vandalism pushing the article copy back to an edit made in April, is slowly getting worse in terms of readability. There's no clear classification occurring between characters, much of what is written about them is too short or too specific and with the use of images becoming more unlikely given recent deletions along with notability being an issue is making me think that a complete rewrite is more practical than fighting bad edits one at a time. I'd like to see if a consensus can be made on this issue. --treelo _talk 16:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor Characters Continue to disappear!

The Minor Charatcers like Kaku Tiger and Wardell Wombat won't stop dissipating! as Vandals destroy the Minor Characters part of the area. while true fans keep the Minor Characters rebuilt.

Oh, come on! Minor characters will be deleted if they don't talk or appeared in a single episode never to be referred to again. "True" fans can maintain their own list of non-citable minors in their own article if the need for these non-characters makes itself known. Until then, it remains cut and if you're really that dedicated to this, you and the other "true fans" come register instead of hiding behind your IP addresses. --treelo _talk 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus?

At first, the only consensus I recalled was to not add characters that only have a few appearances and speaking parts. I was just providing more information about certain characters just like other contributors. It is quite surprising that someone disapproved and has reverted them.FoxLad 00:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding information such as the color of their clothes doesn't really add any information to the article at hand. As you noted in your original text, the clothing changes. OR here, but that kind of detail is probably in the animators free-will. If the information directly pertains to the characters "character" (for lack of a better phrase), that might be a different issue (for example, if it imbued the character with special traits).

If you disagree with my revert, you can always add it back, or revert back to your original edit. I won't revert you. Yngvarr 00:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess you have point with regards to what should be in the article. Well unless someone could provide pictures to those characters that don't have any, it perhaps would be neccessary to write what the characters looked like. This could be good for those who never seen the show. FoxLad 07:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Not seeing it myself, the clothes do not make a character and if people haven't seen it yet then shouldn't the species alone be enough to allow them to identify them correctly? Keep references to what characters wear out, we're not giving a exhaustive profile of them. Also, mentioning every event that has happened to date to any character is redundant and basically cruft padding. --treelo _talk 16:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the basic policies of Wikipedia supersedes consensus, and should always be taken into consideration. A lot of content in this particular article doesn't adhere with some of these basic policies. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is a good place to start.

Also, this page is (again) currently under semi-protection. A recent spat of IP edits have left this article in a major state of disarray, resulting in an edit war between named editors and IP editors; some of which are suspected sock puppets, and one confirmed sock-puppet who has been banned and his contributions are also being contested. Admins don't lightly protect pages, since it goes against the philosophy of WP, but the edit history for this page apparently showed ample evidence of problems.

When I come here and see poorly written content, there are two options - fix it, or revert it. Reverting has potential problems, namely 3RR. Fixing it is not always an option, since some of the content is not necessary. I don't personally care what the context of the article is, it should still be written and presented in a professional manner, which should take grammar, spelling, and context in consideration. I don't care that the article is written for a cartoon, that does not mean that the article should be written in a childish manner.

Well, I think I've ranted long enough, but I still have significant doubts about this article in it's entirety. Yngvarr 14:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Very much agreed on that. This article has always been an issue, as have many other CN articles as you can confirm yourself (I'm not even going to attempt going near the whole KND thing). Semi-lock is permanent from what I can tell and the only thing is a rewrite, just trying to go over the cracks won't help if there's a gaping hole beneath. The issue with juvenile input is largely from random IP editors though the occasional signed up member also present, I think you're more likely to get it given the subject matter even though it shouldn't be dumbed down to some extent because of that.

I have no idea where changes need to be made, haven't read it in full for quite some time but I reckon that as I added some time ago, it needs a complete rewrite. Most of the issues such as revert wars and inappropriate content are minimal now so a complete offline rewrite with it being adapted and placed online soon after would be good with some of the content being copied over to the parent article. For now, cleanup of the references would be best just so most of the 'in "Episode", <add event here>." stuff can be removed. --treelo _talk 12:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Damaged images

It appears though the images of Adam Lyon and Jake Spidermonkey used in the article are damaged. I think they need to be fixed or replaced. 124.107.20.130 02:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yaahh, Adam, Jake and Pixiefrog need to be fixed! 68.5.28.194 04:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

they were never damaged

Please sign with 4 tildes ~ please! And if you had looked, they were quite damaged. 68.5.28.194 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Dickie Sugarjumper

Isn't he a sugar glider? The article says he is a fictional rodent. Sugar gliders are a real animal (a marsupial, not a rodent) from Australia and I believe his school uniform is based on the school uniform worn by Angus Young (The guitarist for ACDC, an Australian band).

Nope, not a sugarglider, he doesn't bear much resemblance to one and it has been said within the show that sugarjumpers don't exist. The AC/DC thing might be true but would count as original research so shrug your shoulders about that. treelo _talk 00:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)