Talk:Meerkat Manor/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Daisy

Yo

Everybody i know that there is some confusion about Daisy, but she is just a name for females that are preganet. If Mango is preganet, such as Season 3, they will say it's Daisy.

Her storyline is like Carlos.

24.26.199.123 02:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In season 1 and 2, Daisy was Super Furry Animal. She died before season 3 was filmed, while she was in the Starsky. Because AP didn't want more heartbreak, they "reused" Daisy, so now its gonna be a struggle to find who Daisy is in every episode like Carlos. Cruise meerkat 03:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does list of meerkats have American names?

In the rest of Whiskers family list, Len and Squiggy are featured. These were the American names for pups known as Ren and Stumpy in Britain. Given that Meerkat Manor is a British series based on a British research project, shouldn't the main names be the British ones in line with WP:ENGVAR? I plan on changing it unless there's a convincing reason not to. --Notorious Biggles 17:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Corrected. AnmaFinotera 17:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Kinkajou

Is she alive or dead? I just watched, "Farewell My Lovely" and it says shes going to be in the next episode, but under the Starsky Section, it says she died of TB in early 2007. So, I'm Confused. ~Zoge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.121.118 (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

She died after the end of the season. Season 3 seems to cover through to late 2006-early 2007. It does not go as far as the end of the Starskys, however. AnmaFinotera 03:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It does go to the end of the Starsky. Mozart dies in S3, Mozart was the last living member of the Starsky. Cruise meerkat 23:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good to know they will be showing and not doing the replacement thing :) AnmaFinotera 00:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Youssarian in Season 3

The article lists Youssarian as having returned to the group as of "Farewell My Lovely", but I can find no evidence of this - at least not in the US version of the show. Can someone clarify his status? 68.111.138.254 05:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...I haven't seen the episode, myself, but if it didn't happen in that episode it certainly doesn't belong there. I've removed it for now. AnmaFinotera 06:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

your right he does not return in farewell my lovely...and also where is the proof of shakespeare dying in winter of 06/07 i've read that the kalahari is apart of the southern hemishpere making their winter just happening(jun-sep) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.87 (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare's death was confirmed by the KMP, however you are write in that does need sourcing. If someone has the source for that, feel free to say so, else I'll try to find it this evening when I have time. AnmaFinotera 13:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

i cant find the proof on the kmp website but i did find proof through an excerpt of tim cluttons book of midsummer being dec-jan meaning winter would be mid-year so there couldnt be a winter of 06/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.58 (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking that up. I've changed it to winter 2006. AnmaFinotera 00:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

could you find a source.....during the sept. 28th live chat with i believe an executive producer of the show when asked if the fate of shakespeare was ever known he replied no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.58 (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost all the articles discussing Flower's death also mention Shakespeare's being dead, but not when or how. Flower's obituary mentions Shakespeare's being loss in the winter, but again not how. It seems a consensus that he is dead, but his body has never been found. I will update the article to reflect this. AnmaFinotera 03:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Redo of Featured Meerkats Section

I've mostly finished a reworking of the featured meerkats section and would like to get some constructive feedback from other editors before I implement it in the main article. It can be found at User:AnmaFinotera/WIP3. A few things I should note about this reworking:

• I've removed all minor meerkats (i.e. those who are only mentioned in one or two episodes, those who have no real significance in the show, and the plethora of pups that died shortly after birth or are just part of the mob; I did include Axle and Maybelline in the Whiskers section as Maybelline seems likely to break the Whiskers clan into two and Axle for the unusualness of his being adopted by the Whiskers. In the future, I propose that only meerkats of particular importance be included in the family sections, i.e. dominant females/males and those involved in rare or unusual events (i.e. adoption, acting outside of status, etc).
• I removed the Gattaca group as they seemed pretty insignificant, not even warranting a mention by name in a single episode summary over 3 seasons nor having any members mentioned in the featured list
• I reworked the whole list to a table format to try and tightening things up, and to make it a little easier to see the quick basic info about the group
• Extraneous commentary has also been removed...even the prominent meerkats don't need every thing they do mentioned, particular stuff word for word bites from the episode summaries

Again, please leave your constructive feedback, suggestions, etc here about this redo. AnmaFinotera 05:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

How about creating a seperate page titled "Meerkats of Meerkat Manor" (or something like that). Other TV shows and movies have such auxillery lists (ie. Star Wars, Stargate, Resident Evil). Use this new page to talk about all the meerkats mentioned in the show. Use the main page to talk about the important members of each group. I think it's important for the main page to be as concise as possible, but I also think all the meerkats and meerkat groups should be addressed.

So, for the Whiskers, the main page should include: Flower, Zaphod, Yousarrian, Mitch, Shakespeare, Rocket Dog, Maybelline, Daisy, possibly Sophie.

For the Lazuli: Cazanna, Big Si, and JD

Zappa: Lola, Punk, Frank, Houdini

Commandos: Hannibal, Nikita, possibly Ozzy

Starsky: Carlos, Mozart, Kinkaju, possibly De La Soul TheUnknown285 13:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Having a separate page is something primarily done for fiction shows, not documentaries. Having a separate page was discussed in the archives, I believe, and rejected. All of the meerkats do not need to be addressed. A pup that was born and died in a single episode is not notable and does not need to be mentioned. Wikipedia is not a catch all for every last tidbit of information, nor is it a fansite (where such unimportant info might be found). AnmaFinotera 13:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the tone in your last sentence is uncalled for. You asked for suggestions. I gave you suggestions. Don't bite off my head for it.

To address the rest of your post: Meerkat Manor is a docu-drama, completely with "storylines" and "characters" built over the course of the series. That's not to say it's fiction (although there are some departures from the truth taken such as different clans playing the Commandos and the Zappas).

Second, there are actually few principal meerkats. Sure, there might be a few featured in the credits, but even they can have sporadic roles. Instead, there are meerkats who might play a pivotal role in an episode or two. For example, Blossom may not have played a big role in the grand scheme of things, but she was important for a few episodes. Ozzy may not have been too important but he is notable for being the only adult meerkat confirmed to have died in a battle with other meerkats (others are presumed to have died). TheUnknown285 23:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you felt I was trying to bite your head off or being unfriendly. This article has had a lot of problems with fandom trying to make it a fan article rather than an encyclopedic article and huge issues over spoilers, particularly with the younger fans. I did not mean to use a harsh tone, I was just trying to clarify why the all of the meerkats are not included and why the article was pared down so as not to list every single meerkat on the show. In its previous format, the article did attempt to list them all, and the list was at almost 100 meerkats and growing with every litter born! The way those meerkats reproduce, can you imagine how much larger the article would have been after season 4?

Usually, a documentary would not have such an area at all. For the purposes of the article and in an attempt to adapt to its unusual nature and the "dramatic" effects, the article has the featured section but it is was created with the idea that we stick with just the principle meerkats. The principles here are the dominant females and males, those who get collared by the KMP, and those who are unique in some way that is unique in Meerkat society as a whole (such as Axel being adopted, Daisy being evicted by a subordinate, etc). This is, in some way, an emulation of the way most TV show articles work, where minor characters, even recurring guests, are not given lengthy mention with in the article, only mentions within the episode summaries. Those are quite sufficient for mentioning whatever exploits Blossom had that made her important for an episode or two or Ozzy having died in a battle. For further understanding of why this is so, since you are a newer user (I think?), you may want to read up on What Wikipedia is Not and the notability guidelines (which is what I was alluding to in my earlier remarks).

If you feel some other meerkat is a principle enough player, by those guidelines, to be included, by all means bring it up for discussion and provide the evidence of why they should be included. AnmaFinotera 00:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I'll read what you've linked and comment later. TheUnknown285 17:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of information

I believe it's correct to state that all episodes of Meerkat Manor have been broadcast. although not perhaps in every country. I've reverted a removal of information that was performed on the grounds that the relevant information had not been aired. Please fix if my belief is incorrect and the episodes have not aired anywhere. --Tony Sidaway 01:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you were right. I reverted again, at first, then looked it up and discovered that despite starting airing the episodes after the US, the UK has aired the last two episodes already. *scratching head* on how they did that. So I reverted my revert, then cleaned up the new additions. Thanks for prompting me to check :-) AnmaFinotera 01:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Meerkat Manor began airing in the UK some time in late August or early September, but the difference is that they showed the episodes in quick succession, perhaps on consecutive weekdays, so that the series was all done and dusted by late September. The UK broadcasting schedules should perhaps be mentioned in the lead because it would save a lot of bother like this if everybody understood where the information is coming from. I believe the series is of UK origin (the on-site production company is British, at least) so it probably makes sense to cue the reader of the article, who of course may only know the schedules in his own country, that series three has already been broadcast in its entirety in the UK. --Tony Sidaway 04:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be mentioned that the UK shows episodes faster (and yep, it is considered a UK show). Will add that to the article AnmaFinotera 04:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

uk's season started on sept 10th and lasted 13 weekdays —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.53 (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Season 3 was 13 episodes in all three countries, however the UK seems to show two new episodes each week while the US and Canada are only showing one. The final episode of the season in the UK showed this past Monday. AnmaFinotera 05:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure the entire season aired in the UK in September. Comments in the history of this talk page seem to be consistent with this--there was a comment about four weeks ago about the fact that episode 9, Farewell My Lovely, had been shown in the UK on 21st, which is a date consistent with Animal Planet showing the series in the UK one episode per weeknight, starting on 10th, with 15th and 16th being weekend days. --Tony Sidaway 06:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Didn't even catch that. And wow...talk about airing fast! AnmaFinotera 06:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

yea 13 weekdays they had a new episode mon-friday starting sept. 10th and ending sept. 26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.44 (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Other characters

I believe that other "minor" characters should be included in the Featured meerkat families section as they also have some impact on the families. Take a look at revision here: [1]. I also feel that it is necessary to develop a system of which define notable members from other members (minor) as earlier post was base entirely on the Wikipedia editor decision. Illegal Operation 03:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the existing discussion, if you feel a specific meerkat has actually had some notable impact on the show as per the notability requirements, by all mean, give actual evidence as to how they are notable. If we simply said "well, they all have some impact" can you imagine how insanely huge most TV show pages would be? Do you see any other TV show listing every single minor little character that only showed up in a single episode or two or maybe for just two minutes? No. Just because the meerkat was given a name by AP does NOT make it notable or worth mentioning in the featured meerkats section.

A good quality TV article lists only the major and important characters that contributed significantly to the story line. Otherwise, mention of them is limited to the episode summaries. It is not simply my decision, it is appropriate per the Wikipedia guidelines, including the ones I pointed to above (WP:IINFO and WP:N for starts). I'd also suggest show fans read up on WP:NPOV. I'm not a raving fan of the show, don't even really watch it. That enables me to look at this article from a neutral point of view, and my primary concern is not that the fans are happy they have another fan page about meerkats (another thing Wikipedia is not for, but that this be a high quality article that provides appropriately notable, encyclopedic information about this particular show.

For those who insist the show is more fiction than not fiction, please note the TV style guidelines regarding fictional characters, which also emphasis that every single character every named in the show does not deserve mention in the article. AnmaFinotera 03:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is a better idea to list all of the members of the group that are actually alive and is currently in the group. Members that died, members that move away from a group, and members not belonging to a group should not be listed. Illegal Operation 14:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, TV shows do usually list folks that have died if they were important. Flower was the star for almost 3 seasons and was notable enough that her death was covered by multiple major news outlets. Shakespeare was also important enough that his death/disappearance is mentioned in many articles about the show. If a member changes groups, they should be moved to the new group (hence Mozart and others of Flower's children being listed with the groups they are with or died with). The article must include information about the major "stories" of each season, which also includes listing those groups that were important over a season that may now be gone. Also, there are no meerkats that don't belong to any group, such meerkats would be dead very quickly in the Kalahari. AnmaFinotera 15:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Flower

Yo

This is what really happened to Flower:

"Eventually, Flower appeared at the entrance, rocking from side to side. Her head and jaw were swollen and one eye was half shut. She stumbled to one side of the burrow and lay, breathing heavily. She had aborted during the night and there was some blood on her rear. Zaphod came across and groomed her briefly. As the sun mounted, the rest of Flower's family stopped sunning and started to feed. They were uneasy and called regularly. Eventually, Rocket Dog, led them off to the south and one by one they followed her. Flower tried to follow but fell and crawled back to the burrow entrance, where she lay in the shadow. As Zaphod left, he marked Flower on the head."

I got the book and it said this.

24.26.199.123 01:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying the book says Flower died from a miscarriage? Can you provide the page numbers with this information on it? AnmaFinotera 01:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Flower died from the effects of the snake bite, read the book and stop deleting FACTS !!! What do you want this page to be , FACT or FICTION ?????—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Ichi (talk • contribs) 19:06, 27 October 2007

Please sign your posts using four ~. The article is about facts, hence it saying she died of a snake bite. I reworded the sentence to make that clearer since it seems you feel it wasn't clear enough. AnmaFinotera 01:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry........

No, she was preganet when she was bitten, and miscarried the following night. My friend is currently borrowing the book, so cannot give you numbers.

24.26.199.123 01:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...then whose pups are Animal Planet calling hers? And please stop removing Maybelline from the article. AnmaFinotera 01:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yo

The clips you see of Liz/Bella is really Axle.

I was adding her to Main members.

24.26.199.123 01:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read the above discussion about that first. Right now, a redo of that section is under discussion, but until it is implemented, it was decided she would stay under the regular characters until we see she ends up at the end of the season. AnmaFinotera 01:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yo

Thanks for explaining. Really sad about Flower. Just glad they never showed it on MM. The reason they made up a fake pup is to try to help the pain of Flower's death.

24.26.199.123 02:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Could be. It seems like the more popular MM gets, the more inclined AP is to start changing the facts of their lives.

Did Maybelline give birth in a recent episode or is that something from the book after happens after the end of Season 3? AnmaFinotera 02:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yo

I'm trying to figure that out. Their was really 3 females preganet when Flower died. I'll try to find names.

Monkulus is Maybelline's real name. She has her own group called Aztecs.

24.26.199.123 02:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

8 actually !!

I'm guessing that is something that happens at the end of Season 3, so for now it needs to be left out until we see how AP will handle it (if Season 4 will bring in the Aztecs or give them another name). AnmaFinotera 02:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yo

12/27/2006-Eight whiskers females are pregnant, including Flower.

1/25/2007-Flower is bitten by a snake and dies. Flo gives birth follwed by Petra, Ella, and Hawkeye during the next week. He lists the 8 pups that are listed in the KMP report and says their parentage is not yet certain.

1/28/2007-Rocket Dog becomes dominant female of the Whiskers.

Flo is Rose(MM), Petra is Petra(MM), Ella is Mango(MM) and Hawkeye is Rocky(MM).

Sorry i just guessed 3, so i called by friend and she said 8.

24.26.199.123 02:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yo

I got to go. Leave any questions you have for me and i'll answer them tomorrow.

24.26.199.123 02:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So guessing the pups are probably one of the other females. For the book, though, a full citation would be needed before including the circumstances of Flower's death as a note in the article. For now, it will need to stay out. As a whole, the article primarily looks at the information from the show and what AP claims, with info from the KMP project as supplementary to provide updates on some meerkats that MM doesn't update. In either case, it must be properly sourced as per WP:V AnmaFinotera 02:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yo

Just had to say that now i think that Monkulus(Maybelline) was one of the females preganet. I'll research tomorrow.

24.26.199.123 02:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yo

Daisy, Rocket Dog, Maybelline, Rose, Petra, Mango, Rocky, and Flower were the females preganet.

I belive that most of the females lost their litter.

24.26.199.123 15:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Daisy was one of those females, because the *real* Daisy was evicted, founded the Starsky, and then died before season 3. Cruise meerkat 17:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That false... The females were: Mango(The Daisy is season 3) Finn (Petra), Flo(Rose), Monkulus(Maybeline), Rocket Dog, Flower, and Rocky... I know becuz Daisy is Kinkajou, Mango is Daisy and Kinkajou is really Sophie... Confusion fixed- Mango_kat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.54 (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The real Daisy died years ago. Animal Planet seem to use the name now for any female Meerkat. Unfortunately, female Meerkats rarely live longer than 3 years old (unless dominant), so the name will have to 'die' soon.

Differences between UK and US Episodes

Tony, I reverted your change here. While in theory, it shouldn't be necessary to be so detailed, I put in the amount of detail I did to try and address the regular back and forth over names because fans in the US don't realize that the names were changed from the UK versions (which the article uses). It is my hope that by having them here, we will not have to have the UK/US versions listed every single time the article mentions any of the episodes in question. I also think it should be noted that the changes seem to have only started in the third season, which may be important later for critical reviews or the like.

I used "Impact on society" because that's what the style guide listed, but your rename works better. Agreed on the combo of film & book. I started to do it when I added it, but wasn't sure which would be better. AnmaFinotera 02:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Vivian=Commandoes

I know I've already established this, but some people *cough*Collectonian =P*cough* need proof, here's your proof: http://friends.kalahari-meerkats.com/index.php?id=vivian-friends Cruise meerkat 00:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you (though http://friends.kalahari-meerkats.com/index.php?id=commandos-friends also would be good as it specifically mentions the mob scenes being Vivian).  :) Now to figure out the best way to put it in the article... AnmaFinotera 00:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There. For now, I've put it in the Commandoes description area with the cite. AnmaFinotera 00:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the Zappas are actually the Young Ones (http://friends.kalahari-meerkats.com/index.php?id=youngones-friends). It's possibly, however, that the episode dealing with the dual overthrows of Lola and Frank are actually shots of the Zappa as the description of the Zappa mentions a Punk overthrowing a Lola (http://friends.kalahari-meerkats.com/index.php?id=meerkat-groups0#c343) while no such mention of the overthrow of a female in the Young Ones is mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUnknown285 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Article updated. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 17:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The Zappa are The Zappa !!! (http://friends.kalahari-meerkats.com/index.php?id=meerkat-groups0#c342) They just used The Zappa name for filming. Probably sounded better than Young Ones. AXEL, who The Whiskers adopted, was given the code VYM137 meaning he was born a Young One and not a Zappa as stated in Meerkat Manor. Mr.Ichi 23:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As the note on the Zappa group and citation state, for footage of the Zappa uses both footage from the Zappa (particularly Punk, et al), as well as The Young Ones. The show states Axel was a Zappa pup, however I have added a note though due to the use of footage of both, it is highly possible (and even probably) that Axel is actually from the Young Ones. I have added a note to that affect, with a reference. AnmaFinotera 00:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are The Commandoes being shown as having only 11 members instead of the true number?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.190.83 (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated Stage Names Guide

I have the book now and can tell you stage namesd fully:

• Youssarian - Yossarian
• Kinkajou - Kinkaju
• Sparky - Armanita Ditch
• Maybelline - Monkulus
• Rocky - Hawkeye
• Sophie - Tina Sparkle
• Rose - Flo
• Parsley - Finn
• Mango - Ella
• Chutney - Billy
• Athena - Bananas
• Shelley - Cheetara
• Milley - Wileykat
• Einstein - Logan
• McMurphy - Maladoy
• Dudley - Machu Picchu
• Clive - Ningaloo
• Achilles - Miles
• Attila - Baker
• Pepper - Alonzo Mourning
• Nutmeg - Orinoco
• Bing - Panthro
• Buster - Busta
• Carlos - JD
• Magnus - JD
• Big Si - Basil
• Nikita - Rhian
• Hannibal - Jim Bob
• Axle - Axel(a Young Ones member, not Zappa)
• Squeak - Thundercat
• Tosca - Badiel
• Blossom - Sundance
• Marypat - Popkat
• Whoopi - De la Soul
• Colombus - Kim
• Basil - Never existed! o_O
• Len/Ren - Unnamed
• Squiggy/Stumpy - Unnamed

And Pancake's pups are not Gin and Tonic, those are Yossarian and Cazanna's pups. Pancake's real name is Pancake and her number was VLF092, and HP and Young, two Lazuli females, are mothered by VLF092, who is Pancake. Pancake is not Aretha or a younger female, Pancake is Pancake. Or was, I should say. She is no longer listed as alive. Cruise meerkat 23:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So the book specifically gives a full list of meerkats that have been renamed in the show? What page is the list on? AnmaFinotera 01:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is Sparky ?? This another American name like Whoopi ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.190.83 (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sparky is Armanita Ditch. This is from one of the researchers, although the researchers ask their info is not made public. Collectonian, no, in fact, the only one cleared up is Badiel-Tosca. From the information in the book matched with the info on the show, and also, for Squeak, I matched approxamite birthdate. Cruise meerkat 21:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Then this list can not be used for the article as that most definitely falls under the original research area. Unless the book specifically notes "X meerkat was called Y on the show" or something similar, even if your matches may be correct, it is NOT a stated or verifiable fact. It is only your own theory.

If the researcher has asked that the info on Sparky (or the whole list) not be made public, why did you post it here in exact opposite of their request? AnmaFinotera 22:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well, this is just an accurate stage name list, don't list it in the article if you don't want to. Axel is not mentioned by name but I think his birthdate is mentioned, or at least somewhere around it. The researchers don't like a lot of their info being given away, but people have info that I associate they must have gathered from the researchers, and they're the ones who told me about the research policy, and they post stuff like this all the time. Cruise meerkat 22:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You can not claim that it is accurate unless it comes from a valid source, not your own research, or not someone you "associate" with you may or may not have gotten the list from the researchers. You shouldn't believe everything someone posts just because they said it is so. It seems highly dubious to me that a research group would not want their research published...that is generally the whole point of doing the research. AnmaFinotera 01:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I will ask if I can give you the email address and ask her for yourself...She's the webmaster of the FKMP site...And its correct because its proven in what the meerkats' actions were...If its stated that Armanita Ditch got split with the Whiskers smaller group in the time period the Whiskers split in S1, then its 100% reasonable to say that Armanita is Sparky... Cruise meerkat 00:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If they have the information and its accurate, they should publish it on the site and that would solve the whole issue. Unless they do that, it may be 100% reasonable to say that Monkulus is Maybelline, but without a source that says that specifically, it still seems to go against the no original research policies of Wikipedia. Specifically this section

"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. 'Original research' is a claim for which no reliable source can be found. Producing a reliable published source that advances the same claim taken in context is the only way to disprove an assertion that a claim constitutes original research. If there is a source, but the source or claim is disputed, that is not original research but rather of a question of reliable sourcing or undue weight. However, using information from references out-of-context or to forward claims not directly supported by the sources is original research."

When some people already don't like KMP info being included in the article at all, despite it being verifiable, because they complain its spoilers, they may challenge the reasonable deduction. As such, if we simply said, okay, KMP's description of Monkulus matches AP's description of Rocket Dog perfectly, that's whose who, it could be challenged and without the "X meerkat equals Y on AP" published, it would seem to be removable as OR. I am, however, talking the issue to a discussion area for policy and the like to get some further clarification and guidance on the issue. If it comes back that, in the case where KMP and AP's descriptions make it very clear that X meerkat is Y can be used, the article will be updated appropriately. Until then, only verifiable ties will be included with the one exception of Aretha (due to the ridiculousness of saying a dead meerkat is head of a group). AnmaFinotera 01:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As the most recent information on the Lazuli featured on Meerkat Manor is Cazanna is the DF, it should stay that way. Besides, JD isn't the dominant male, he died, and wasn't even in the Lazuli when he died. He was in the Starsky(he was Carlos). And besides, THIS IS NOT FOR USE IN THE ARTICLE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO! I've been saying that! I put this up here because people want to know, its true information but its original research but you don't have to put it in the article! Besides, isn't all information "original research"? Think about it(xD). Cruise meerkat 03:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is not for use in the article, it doesn't belong here per WP:TALK. This is not a place for you to store away information, it is to discuss the improvement of the article. Since it is not for use in the article and does not apply, please remove it. AnmaFinotera 03:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

-sigh- Ok I forgot what I was gonna say but tomorrow I will come back and (if I actually remember it) post it. Cruise meerkat 03:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm....I still forget. Ok, let's just go with this: I can tell you the FKMP site will be updated after season 3 with more info, a stage name list, I don't know. I can ask for one to be put up though. Cruise meerkat 16:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If the results of the discussion are that KMP doesn't belong at all, it won't matter. None of it will be included in the article anymore. If you feel KMP information adds to the article, I'd suggest going over and saying so in the discussion on the policy boards, cause right now I'm the only one who supports it. AnmaFinotera 16:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

KMP and Spoilers

As noted above, I have brought up the issue of whether the KMP only info belongs in the Meerkat Manor article at all with some neutral editors in the policy boards. Depending on the consensus, all KMP only info will be removed from the article with only the show, Animal Planet sites, and AP press releases being usable for any info about the show events and characters. I have also asked for input on the whole spoiler tag debate. AnmaFinotera 07:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Axle's spelling

http://animal.discovery.com/fansites/meerkat/meet/whiskers.html Its Axle. Cruise meerkat 03:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again I remind you, Meerkat Manor is a UK show so we use the UK spellings, which in this case is Axel. AnmaFinotera 03:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention of "Axel" or "Axle" on the Animal Planet UK site(with "Axle" at least on the US site), so there really is no proof its spelled different in the UK. Cruise meerkat 16:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the AP UK site is out of date, however other articles about the UK spell it as Axel, so that is what we will use until AP UK says otherwise. AnmaFinotera 16:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, FKMP site shows it as Axel too. :O)

Edits - KMP versus MM

Until the discussion on the policy board is done, can we please just not change anything in the article, content wise? We can't keep going back and forth on these issues of whether to include this but not Y and we can't pick and choose how to use a source or not. Cruise, in your edits today you removed a bunch of stuff as not being in MM, yet then turned around and changed the number of Flower's pups because "MM was lying." It has to be one or the other. Either outside information is usable for ANY of the meerkats, including noting Cazanna's death, or it is not. The consensus on the board seems to be leaning towards removing all outside references regarding the meerkats on the show, which includes accepting whatever numbers AP gives, AP's version of events, and removing all group counts as only the Whiskers one did not come from KMP. Feel free to go weigh in over there.

For now, I've undid your change to Axel's name per the note above (UK show, UK spellings) and put back the count of 70 for Flower's pups. Please leave the count in place until the issue of whether KMP (and likely the book) can be used as sources to enhance info about the meerkats, or if the article must only include what AP says. AnmaFinotera 04:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

this needs to stop(has spoilers)

i got spoilers for flowers death, from wikipedia, about 6 months before the episode aired, and i also found out about mozart from this article. we need a spoiler warning. i am tired of being a good wikipedian and removing speculation randomly added in by vandals, only for it to be a real spoiler. we need top either remove the spoilers or put a spoiler tag up. and dont say there arent spoilers! the producer of the show, as well as everyone else, considers it to be a soap opera. the wikipedia page on spoilers says that though generally shouldnt be added to non-fiction articles, there can be excpetions. sometimes you have to ignore all rules. im going to leave wikipedia if everytime i read this article i get a spoiler for something that is going to happen next season.67.185.53.60 00:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, if you do not want spoilers, you should not read this article (or any article for any TV series or movie found on Wikipedia because they ALL contain spoilers). Many of the "spoilers" come from the AP show page or the KMP project page. The issue has been beaten to death and it was general agreed upon by experienced editors that per WP:Spoiler, this show should not have one. Your bringing it up over and over is not going to change that. It is not a soap opera, it is a documentary told with a dramatic flair. If the show were a fictional piece or a soap opera, Flower probably wouldn't be dead, she'd have just been replaced with another meerkat that looked close enough, ditto Shakespeare and all the others that have died. Little pups wouldn't get killed by their aunts, females wouldn't get evicted to die of starvation, etc. It is the real life of the meerkats and the fact is, they do die and suddenly.

As for random speculation, you will not find any in this article. I monitor this article like a bull dog and quickly remove any vandalism and any random speculation, POV issues, etc. AnmaFinotera 00:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how you would say that it has been agreed upon by 'experienced editors' (who are you to judge who is experienced and who isn't?) that there shouldn't be spoiler warnings. Go back and read "Spoilers. Once and for all". There are plenty of intelligent arguments for having spoiler warnings on this page.Stevielist 03:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been at this argument now for almost two months. I have read the thread, in full, along with all the others. The primary arguments for spoiler warnings comes from fans who mostly just say "OMG, you spoiled me" and the like. I haven't seen any good, intelligent arguments that counter the neutral viewed arguments against having spoiler warnings. Meerkat Manor is not a fictional show. Putting a spoiler warning on events that happened months ago would be kinda like putting a spoiler warning up on an election results page. I find it odd that fans seem so rabid about spoilers not being on the Wikipedia article, but don't seem to mind those same spoilers being on the official Meerkat Manor sites. Wikipedia doesn't cater to the US readers, it caters to all readers. If the episodes aired in the UK, the contents are no longer considered a spoiler, it is a UK show!

As for judging who is an experienced editor is and who isn't. That is extremely easy thing to do. I should have expanded that, however, to say experienced editors and those who are not emotionally vested in the topic, and I've yet to see one person calling for spoiler tags who isn't. AnmaFinotera 03:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Comparing Meerkat Manor to an election. Very interesting. Stevielist 04:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then I shall compare it to something similar. Go to any reality TV show (one of the genre's Meerkat Manor falls under) and I promise you that you will see the results of the nights voting or eliminations the night the episode airs. I have personally gone over to several shows after watching the new episode myself and already found the results aired. NONE of those shows have spoiler warnings for people on the West Coast who haven't seen those episodes yet. Non-fiction shows don't get them (and they are HEAVILY discouraged in fiction show pages). AnmaFinotera 04:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying that Meerkat Manor is a reality show is like saying that Kenny G is a jazz musician. Yes, people do refer to it as such because it is unscripted, but there are no similarities beteen MM and any other reality show. Putting MM in the same category with American Idol, Survivor and the like is absurd. Would you admit that Meerkat Manor is a very unique show, and wouldn't fit in any one category easily. Although it is a nature documentary, it does have a story line unlike any other nature show in the world.Stevielist 18:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Meerkat Manor unusual, yes, but that doesn't make it a fictional show that requires spoilers. And actual, there are other nature programs that have story lines. Meerkat Manor's uniqueness comes from its extended length. There have been several nature movies done in a similar style, documentaries with a dramatic narration. Its primarily categorization, however, is officially a documentary, not a drama, not a fiction show. AnmaFinotera 18:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you perhaps agree that Meerkat Manor along with these other programs to which you refer (which are shorter, so don't get into the depth of character that Meerkat Manor does) deserve their own genre? Would you agree that this group of shows is different enough from 'American Idol' as well as from National Geographics 'Wild Chronicals' so that they really shouldn't be grouped together. Perhaps if you agree that these shows are sufficiently different to merit a diferent genre, then they would also be subject to a different set of Wikipedia policies.Stevielist 01:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't. In the end, Meerkat Manor is still primarily a documentary. A different format, but still a documentary AND non-fiction. I would not agree they are different from National Geographic or the like (FYI, one of those nature movies I referred to was a National Geographic special). No, Meerkat Manor is not special or different enough to get its own set of Wikipedia policies and no, it is still not getting a spoiler tag. AnmaFinotera 02:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If a spoiler tag would make people happy, is free to implement, and could easily be ignored by people who don't care, then what would it hurt? Is not having the spoiler on the page really that important? Chaotic42 23:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Kinks, Mozi and Whoopy???

Kinks cutnt have died. Or did she have TB in th den? Or who knows the true formation? Its says: oh diedm of TB oh died of pradtion oh died of coldness WHATS WRITE??? Whoopy plz. Mozi is dead... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.25 (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

~translates~ Yes, they are all dead. Mozart was killed by a predator, most likely a jackal. Kinkajou contracted TB and died, either from the disease or possibly starvation. De la Soul/Whoopi also died, either from disease or starvation (her exact cause is unknown).

As for what's right. That's what's right. Unfortunately, people like to come mess with the article and change stuff, so it has to be fixed. Also, AP sometimes changes the cause of death to be less (or more) dramatic, so people change the reality with the AP version. AnmaFinotera 02:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... Probably Hannibal/Jim Bob/Aragorn... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.32 (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What about Jim Bobannibal? (He isn't Aragorn) Cruise meerkat 01:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong artical for him...- PS ITS MANGO_KAT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.24 (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Big Sy's Death

There needs to be a better reference to Big Sy being euthanized than the one previously provided (http://animal.discovery.com/fansites/meerkat/flower/transcript.html). That transcript does not say that Big Sy was euthanized. If there is no citation that someone can provide for this, it will be deleted later on by someone else who is looking for verification that this is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.64.246 (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The citation is for the reason he was put down, not to verify that he was put down. They said at the start of Season 2 that he got TB and was put down. I've modified the sentence to make it easier to see what the cite is for, and added a cite for the episode. AnmaFinotera 22:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Aztecs

Hola,

shouldn't the Aztecs be like the Starsky, and have their own section only featuring Monkalline(Maybelline). ITS MONKULUS NOT MONKALINE!

Gracias!72.178.145.56 18:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

At the moment no. They have only appeared in one episode thus far and we can not be sure they will still be around at the start of season 4 or be truly notable. From the info on the KMP site so far, indicators point towards the group failing and either rejoining the Whiskers or possibly dying out. Either way, until we see if the group will be around in the next season and if AP will include them in the show, they do not need their own section or to be mentioned beyond the notes on Maybelline under the Whiskers section. AnmaFinotera 19:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Where are these clues that they will rejoin Whiskers or die out? Whiskers-Aztecs encounters are the most numerous of all KMP mob encounters. The Aztecs are a permanent splinter and are still alive as proves the KMP site... Cruise meerkat 01:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

They are still alive, but the KMP site notes that all the Whiskers males have already left the group, reducing the group from 15 to 7, of which only 3 are adults. We saw what happened when the Starsky was reduced to three females with no dominant males. The encounters with the Whiskers are to be expected considering the Aztecs don't have much territory that is just theirs. The encounters, however, means nothing. There have been no new pups or matings since the group formed in March, only one death or disappearance. Irregardless, they should not have their own group section in the article until Season 4 starts. Even if they do survive, if AP decides not to include them on the show in Season 4, the group can't be considered notable or worth mentioning beyond the quick note about them in the Whiskers section. We probably won't know what AP decides until August of next year when season 4 airs, as filming is probably just now concluding. AnmaFinotera 01:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you mean starting, not conculding, because filming for season 3 ending in April and filming starts around this time... Cruise meerkat 23:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. What happens when I reply at 2 am ;) AnmaFinotera 23:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dun worry I say the weirdest stuff too. ^^ Cruise meerkat 23:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

reason for posts being edited out??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.88 (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

As per the edit summary, they were completely irrelevant to the article, as they were just chat type comments. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, or questions directly related to the article. If you wish to chat about the show, it should be done on your user talk pages or off Wikipedia. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Season 4

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but does anyone know when season 4 will start? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SUB-orez (talk • contribs) 18:54, 6 November 2007

Exact date? No, but it should be somewhere around late August or September in 2008 if the show follows the usual pattern. AnmaFinotera 01:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It just started filming - there's no way to know for sure yet. Cruise meerkat 23:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Overall Accuracy

Dear Collectonian

I want to congratulate you on a surprisingly accurate Wikipedia entry for Meerkat Manor. I AM the Creator and Series Editor of the series so naturally there are one or two things I feel I have to correct. Most notably the repeated references to Animal Planet as if they are somehow creatively involved. I must stress this is an Oxford Scientific Films production. I alone stood in the Kalahari and chose the Whiskers as the group we would follow. No "researchers" and certainly no-one from "Animal Planet" was involved in that decision. Your suggestion that it was otherwise is, I see, from a quote however that quote is innaccurate and should therefore in my opinion be removed from Wikipedia. I also want to place firmly on record that it was the brilliant Mark Wild of Animal Planet INTERNATIONAL based in London who recognised the potential of the idea and commissioned the series. He remains the only Animal Planet executive to have editorial input.

Animal Planet US purchased Meerkat Manor AFTER the international success of series one. Mick Kaczorowski edits it for content (there's less sex in the US version), revoices it with Sean Astin and reduces the running time to allow for increased commercial breaks. He has also renamed some of the meerkats for the American audience I believe.

We are currently in post-production on series four and it has all the makings of another brilliant season.

Thanks for taking on board my comments.

Suricat 17:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi and thanks :) I can remove the quote as inaccurate, though it would be helpful if you can point me to a published source that clarifies that it was you who selected the Whiskers so that it can be more accurate. I'd really love to include the information on Mark Wild, since unfortunately Animal Planet International has no site itself to speak of that I could find and most articles are only on the US version so most information comes from Mick Kaczorowski (hence it not being in before). It would be great if you could point me to a source for that (press release), however I'll add it to the article later today since I don't think it will be challenged.

And yes, AP US has renamed several meerkats and episodes. Most changes we've only been able to note when a UK editor and a US editor get into a minor edit war over which is accurate until its fixed to include both. I'll add in the editing for content and reduced running time to the differences section later today as well. AnmaFinotera 18:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are the creator and series editor...Sorry I'm really suspicious...But I just don't believe you are the series creator and editor. Cruise meerkat 23:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the researchers(Tim Clutton-Brock) pointed Caroline Hawkins and AP to the Whiskers...It proves this in the book Tim Clutton-Brock wrote...You seem to think we here are not as smart as you are but if you are lying I'll find a way to outwit you.(I'm a smary kid ain't I? xP) Cruise meerkat 23:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

aswell as i am suspicious on who you are.......this is an oxford scientific films show well because thats who caroline hawkins works for you can even see that on the oxford scientific films website but i do not believe one person alone stood out there studied the groups and picked the whiskers out as i think the researchers may have had a hand in pointing towards the whiskers...especially where on the new faq section on the fkmp it says they were picked because they were the most successful group at the time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.25 (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

ahem I strongly suggest that both you of stop and take a moment to review the WP:Civility policy. Since Suricat has stated she is Caroline Hawkins, it means her editting of this article is severely limited and subject to immediate undoing and primarily limited to making suggestions/discussions on the talk page. It also means that any claims she makes must be taken with a grain of salt and nothing she states will be added/changed to the article without first being checked. I've already let her know this, politely, on her talk page by pointing her to the relevant policies after reverting her edits. As per the assume good faith policy, without strong evidence to the contrary, we should assume good faith and that she is who she says she is.

You might note that nothing she has said so far has been added without it already either being confirmable from a third party, neutral source, or something that is already known to be true (like American AP editing the show). She has also complied with the notes I left, for the most part, and has not violated the conflict of interest policy so far. AnmaFinotera 00:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As an update, I contacted Southern Star (Oxford Scientific Films parent company) and Anna Croft, the Production Manager, has confirmed that Suricat is who she says she is. WP:COI will still apply, of course, so that any changes/edits Suricat would normally make herself would need to instead be posted to the talk page for viewing (and potential posting) by another editor to avoid any problems with conflicts of interest or NPOV. AnmaFinotera 19:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just visited the site again after a month or so away and am amazed at how much it is improved. You did a great revamp, got rid of plotspoilers and character cast fansite stuff, removed irrelevant stuff! Good work wikikats! :) Bine maya (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

a meerkat manor researcher posted on here!? I'M NOT WORTHY! thank you for the feedback, by the way. that helps us know what to improve! thanks for looking at wikipedia. hope you are doing well(the meerkats too!), the pink panther The Pink Panther (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment

I've reassessed this article for WP:TV as requested here. Since I last looked at it the referencing appears much improved. Congratulations on your work on the article.

I have rated this article as B class because it is a fairly comprehensive treatment of the subject. The list of meerkat's featured in the program may not be strictly encyclopaedic. It certainly dominates the article and placing it so prominently may cause the reader unfamiliar with the show to give up on the article. I'd consider moving this content to a separate list article and keeping a short summary of only the most prominently featured animals in the main article. Calling the filming methods innovative in a header is somewhat POV - is there a source that calls the techniques innovative. Some of the phrasing in the article is awkward and it could use a copy edit.

I have rated it as mid importance because of the awards recognition and longevity of the show. The article on Meerkat Manor has medium importanct to WP:TV as a whole because it is just one article about one TV show which is not established to be hugely influential by the article.

These categories are subjective and may be reviewed by any member of WP:TV who feels confident to do so. Please note that a more formal assessment by other editors is required to achieve good article or featured article status. I used criteria from the television wikiproject guidelines here, article about TV series guidelines here and the assessment guidelines here.--Opark 77 14:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As per the suggestions from the article assessment, the list of meerkats has been moved to a separate article, with the main article having an overall summary of the groups. In creating the separate list, I used the character lists of several FA TV show articles as a guide, which indicated it should just have a basic intro stating its a list and mentioning anything important about the sorting/ordering. Please note the article does have a hidden comment to guide editors in working on the article regarding established format and the need to keep the page focused on the most notable meerkats (not naming all 50-100 or so ever seen on the show so far).

I also renamed the header that was not quite in keeping with the NPOV policies to be more neutral. There is a hidden section in the main article as well to discuss the over all theme or episode format to be an intro/summary for the episode list and to be unhidden when its written ;) For now, the list of episodes is already linked in the infobox so it isn't critical to have just the Episodes header with nothing but a link and it looked odd. Here's looking forward to the continual growth and improvement of the Meerkat Manor articles :) AnmaFinotera 07:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

subtitles on meerkat manor

Hello everyone, My question is : does anyone knows in what languages the subtitles are on the dvds? I cannot find this information and it is very important to me in order to make a present. Thank you very much for the time taken. Wishing to all of you a very pleasant day! Ludmila —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.243.82.34 (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Region 1 DVD sets only have English Close-Captioning. It has no subtitles in alternative languages. Be careful if you decide to buy. Hard as it may be to believe, there are actually bootleg sets out there *shakes head* AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

what language are you looking for? i checked dvds on sale in germany and seems like there are no subtitles. Bine maya (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Link with recent info

just found this transcript, thought it may be useful to people editing this entry. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/10/16/DI2007101601709.html (feel free to hide or delete this comment if not needed.) Bine maya (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've incorporated it into the article.AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Season 5

Will their ever be a seoson 5? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.37.80 (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No one can really answer that when season 4 hasn't even aired yet. :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Incorporate This..?

"as neither Animal Planet nor the Kalahari Meerkat Project have released any lists or guides to document the renamings."

FKMP has released something, but its only available to Friends of the Kalahari Meerkat Project members(which costs money) and cannot be shared, so I guess that point is kinda off. Anyway, its up to Collectonian if she wants to add it in and how(wow it sounds like you rule this article, lol). Cruise meerkat (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a web site that shows specifically that such a list is available for purchase? If so, then it can be mentioned. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

http://friends.kalahari-meerkats.com/index.php?id=mm_background That should be the helpful-est. Cruise meerkat (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Added. Too bad they are only making it available for people who pay though :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There are many contests going on. I won an Elveera family tree. ^^. But I didn't win a full membership <_< Cruise meerkat (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Products

There is a stuffed meerkat on discovery. Should that be on the products section.Roving male 074 (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, from what I saw on Discovery's site, it is not specifically a Meerkat Manor product and one they had before the show launch. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. They also have shirts with meerkats from the show. how about that.Roving male 074 (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I took a look but those are also just generic meerkat shirts rather than for Meerkat Manor. The only Meerkat Manor specific merchandise seems to be the DVDs and the inidvidual episode downloads. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think that the movie should be mentioned under the merchandise section? The word 'merchandise' refers to manufactured products that you can buy from a vendor (t shirts, stuffed animals, games, etc.). I don't see a movie as falling under this category. Stevielist (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In wikipedia, merchandise can refer to movies, books, etc per the television series MOS. There have been no objections to it in the current FA review. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Scartol

Per your request, here are some thoughts on the article. Let me start by saying: Nice job. It's clear that the editors involved have put in some solid work to make this a quality article. I think it's getting close to FA quality, but I do have some concerns which go beyond typos and punctuation.

The biggest of these is organization. If you haven't yet read WPTV's guide to writing articles about TV shows, please do. I feel that it's best to start with some background about where the idea came from, then discuss how it took shape, then focus on plot and characters, then the show's cultural impact, then criticism, then other assorted topics.

Thus, I'd recommend that the article be reorganized so that the TOC looks like this:

1 Production details

1.2 Differences between UK and US episodes*

2 The meerkats

2.1 Differences between Meerkat Manor and the real meerkats**

3 Reception

3.1 Impact on the genre

4 Criticism

5 Merchandise

6 References

7 External links

* I would change this to "National variations".

** I would change this to "Creative license" or "Changes in representation".

I think this will be more intuitive for the reader. The other large-scale suggestion I have is to add more pictures. The article meerkat alone has three images; surely one could be used to break up these blocks of text? (Perhaps there's a worry that people will think that one of the meerkats in those pictures is on the show, but this can be easily avoided with proper use of captions.) Are there any images of narrators or people involved with the show which could be used?

Okay, then. Here are some questions I had while I was copyediting.

• The lead should provide a "nutshell" version of the information in the article. If you haven't yet, please read WP:LEAD. Try to structure your lead to generally reflect the information in the article itself.

• It seems odd to suddenly discuss the relative airdates of the third season. What about the first two?

• Phrases like "picked up" and "run of episodes" aren't very encyclopedic. Try to use less casual terms, like "acquired" and "sequence".

• I wonder if "the Whiskers family" should be in quotation marks or not. People more familiar with the show than myself should make this decision.

• If possible, please explain where the name "the Whiskers family" came from.

• Is "the Commandoes" spelled correctly, according to the show's promotional materials? From what I understand, usually the word is "commandos".

• Where was Mozart evicted from?

• The constant inter-sentence citations are pretty distracting. I'd put all your citations at the end of sentences, unless they support a very contentious point.

• Don't all the meerkats "struggle desperately to survive through the series"? I can't imagine life is easy for any of them.

This is all I have time for today. I hope to provide more feedback and copyedits tomorrow. – Scartol • Tok 02:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I used the MOS to do the organization, but it may have changed since then (and I agree that some reorganization seems like a good idea). The airdates were in the lead because of issues with people in the US complaining about info from "unaired" episodes being given, when they had already aired in the UK. Not needed now though. Whiskers family is the official name, in real life and in the show (it is the official research name like all of the group names, though AP sometimes changes who is in that group :P). Commandoes is the correct spelling as it is the name used by the research group and in the original UK version. The show uses all of the UK spellings and references per the guidelines on using British spellings in shows from the UK. Mozart was evicted from the Whiskers family. Working on the rest, but wanted to answer the quick ones :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

On the pictures, I've been looking for some. Friends of the Meerkat Manor project has some, but they explicitly do not allow use on other sites. Animal Planet released some in their press kit, but they have no descriptions so even if used, we couldn't give accurate headings. Still searching though, and agree on the need for more. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay...let's see, I fixed the references, and I reworded some of the unclear bits to hopefully make them clearer. I did the MOS changes and expanded the Changes in representation section to first give context to how the individual meerkats are named (I couldn't find any info on how the group names are chosen). I've also added two pictures and rewrote the lead (hopefully its an improvement). I look forward to your additional feedback on these changes and I thank you, once again, for your help :-) AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Nice job with the reorganization and rewritten lead. They look much better. Some more comments:

• For future reference: Spell out all numbers less than ten. See Wikipedia:MOS#Numbers. Also, when using quotation marks: Unless you're quoting a sentence, put the punctuation after the final quotation mark. See Wikipedia:MOS#Quotation_marks.

• Any way to explain why Ren and Stumpy's names were changed? And/or the episode? (And what from and what to?)

• I was going to add (named for the British television show) after "The Young Ones", but then I wonder if perhaps it's named for the song or film? Is this information available?

• Similarly, the show's Zappa group is mostly shown with footage from a group called the "The Young Ones"; however, the actual story and dominant group are from the real Zappa Group. This sentence is unclear – is the footage of the dominant group from the real Zappa? Or just their story? (If the latter, maybe we can use "dominant group characteristics" or some such.)

• Is the on-demand video available online? Is it free, or is a fee required?

• General reference: "pushing the envelope" is less professional than "expanding the boundaries". I've made the switch in "Impact on the genre".

• We should have a citation for the "Some fans have criticized the show" claim. (Never mind. I missed the NYT piece. Sorry. – Scartol • Tok 18:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC))

• Do we really need a link to each region's website? (Especially when they're all nearly identical?)

That's all I have to offer – good luck with this article and of course please let me know if you have other questions. – Scartol • Tok 18:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't found any citable reason for why the US version changed Ren and Stumpy's name (though my guess is to avoid issues with Ren and Stimpy), but its first seen in episode 3.5 when they two are introduced. Alas, the US version seems to like to pretend the original doesn't exist half the time in talking about the show. The KMP FAQ does explicitly say where some meerkat names came from, but I haven't been able to find any information on where most group names came from. However, while working on my reply, I did find this tidbit from the KMP site: "The name of Young Ones comes from a British student sitcom in the 1980ies with the same name." :)

The Zappa group on the show uses footage from the Young Ones group but the dominate couple seen in the show is the dominate couple from the real Zappa group. I reworded it to try to clear that up a bit. The video on demand is free, but all of the episodes are also available for pay from iTunes. I just took a look, though, and it looks like the full episodes themselves are no longer available.

Hmm...I debated the regional sites too. The main reason I included them is because of the regional schedule differences, but I could see cutting it down to just the three versions where the narrator changes (UK, US, and Australia).

Thanks again for your help. It really is reading way better! AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Show's importance?

While the article is well written, I fail to understand why the subject deserves such a lengthy article. Mentioning every titbit about a television show does not make the show important. This article needs to establish for the reader why Meerkat Manor deserves such a lengthy article and why every titbit about the show should be included in the article. Why is Meerkat Manor notable? The reader wants to know and the reason(s) should be mentioned in the first several sentences. The article doesn't give the reader a clue. Hope this helps! Well written article! Congratulations! MoviesOnDemand (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has been throughly reviewed by experienced editors, peer reviewed, and copy edited by an expert. It has also undergone through examination as part of its featured article candidacy. Every "tidbit" about the show is not mention. Believe me, there is a ton of useless "trivia" that has not been added or that was removed during the initial clean up of the article. The relevant encyclopedic areas are covered, as noted by the MOS, including a an appropriately written introduction, details on how the series was produced, an discussion of the meerkats starring with a link off to the the appropriate list, how the series was received and how it has impacted the documentary genre and the research of the animals, and criticisms leveled against the show. The introduction establishes multiple reasons the series is notable that are further detailed in the article, including its having won multiple awards including two Emmys, being ground breaking in the documentary genre, being the highest rated series in its time for Animal Planet, and being worth broadcasting in more than 160 countries. It is a properly formed, well covered article on a television series that establishes notability far more than many other television articles. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think the article is well written and well organized but I fail to see why it deserves such "in-depthness". After all, it's just a show about stupid meerkats. For example, while it may be the highest rated show on Animal Planet, the reader may conclude that all other programs on Animal Planet are so woefully abysmal that Meerkat Manor wins by default. See what I mean? The popularity of any TV show has nothing to say about importance, quality, etc. It only says that couch potatoes found nothing else to watch in the time slot. A lot of technical details in an article doesn't impart to the reader why a show is worthy of inclusion at Wiki or why reading the article is worth anyone's time. IMO, the problem is choosing a topic/subject that is "important" to begin with. A television show about Meerkats is just not important and doesn't deserve a lengthy exhaustive article. It's obvious to me that someone has put a lot of time into the article but I'm asking myself "Why?"

IMO the screenshot of the mother meerkat is "disturbing". I'm not sure what is going on in the shot and I would think some casual passersby might also find it so. It looks like a gaping orifice, or something dead. Perhaps the shot could be replaced with another shot of something less "disturbing". Thanks! Hope this helps! Good article! MoviesOnDemand (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the researchers who have been studying those "stupid" meerkats for 15 years do not agree. You seemed to be biased against the show and that's your right. However, that doesn't mean that the article is any less notable that that of any other television show. 4 million viewers disagree, which for a channel like Animal Planet, is a very large number of viewers. I could say the same about articles like Stargate or other any of the reality shows. Just "stupid" people doing dumb things to win money. The article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements and shows it quite well, even if you do not understand or fail to see that because you are biased against the show. And why do you care what other editors choose to spend their time on? Some of us like to work on television articles, other work on sports, others history, etc etc. People are free to work on whatever they like. If you honestly believe the series fails the notability requirement, feel free to nominate it for deletion, just don't be surprised by a vote of speedy keep and some snide remarks.

As for the image, Wikipedia is not censored. While you might find it "disturbing" for some unknown reason, the shot is an excellent depiction of the burrow shots the film crew have captured that have allowed the researchers to see what is happening in the burrows for the first time, so no, it doesn't need to be replaced. And no, your comments aren't helping at all and seemed to be a pointed attack by someone who may or may not be trying to hide their real identity under a new account. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not biased against the show. But I am wondering why so much time and effort has been invested in this article. I think someone on the team might say something about the research. Why are these people harassing those poor animals anyways? Why is the research important to humankind? One needn't go into pages and pages about the research (I don't need to know the name of every research assistant and caterer on the project, for example) but I do think someone should write a clear, concise paragraph or two on why these poor animals are being harassed. How are these animals helping humankind? I think this article needs to tell us.

While I appreciate your suggestion that I nominate the article for speedy delete, I won't do that. Someone(s) has spent a good deal of time on it, and nominating it for deletion would be a cruel act. I do think someone (not me) should address something more than the simple technical details (like dates, Meerkat names, number of episodes per season, etc.). The reader should be told why harassing these poor animals is important for the betterment of humankind. MoviesOnDemand (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The animals are not being harassed, nor are they "poor" animals. Their lives are being filmed and people are learning more about meerkat society. Their lives are not being altered, and as the article is not about the research but the Meerkat Manor series, discussion of the research purposes doesn't belong here. It is discussed some in the KMP article, which is the article about the research project itself. What does the better of humankind have to do with any television series? Your reasoning makes absolutely no sense and you are showing bias against the series in the way you talk about it. First it was "a show about stupid meerkats" and now its "how is it bettering mankind".

I didn't recommend nominating the article for speedy delete (doesn't apply to television series), but AfD which is where discussions of television series articles go. Hard work has nothing to do with nominating the article for deletion. Other articles that people have spent days, weeks, even months working on can and will get deleted if they do not meet Wikipedia's notability and verifiability requirements. It isn't a "cruel" act, it is part of Wikipedia. I wouldn't care, myself, if you nominated it because I know without a shred of doubt that the article would not be deleted, but the nomination quickly closed and the nominator would probably get laughed at.

Anyway, I think it best I stop bothering to answer you, as you appear to have no real purpose here but to be aggravating. I strongly suspect you are just being doing all this to be pointy and because you are involved in the WP:EPISODE issue under another name. If I continue trying to talk with you I'll just end up violating the civility policy. AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. These animals are being harassed. Anyway, I think someone should say something about the research project and why a television series like this one has been created. Only a concise paragraph or two about the research project and its goals is necessary. The reader needs to understand why Meerkat Manor is notable, and it is notable because of the research project. It is not notable because 4 million viewers are tuning in. So what? Who cares how many people watch it? The reader needs to understand that these animals are being harassed and tormented for their own good (or the good of humankind), rather than being tormented and harassed for the amusement of humans. Bullfights are cruel and staged for no other pupose than the amusement of depraved humans. Is this the point of Meerkat Manor? Amusement for depraved humans who get their jollies prying into the sex lives and brutal daeths of animals? Someone needs to explain the point of this show to lift the article above a mere recitation of humdrum facts and figures.

Some paragraphs are difficult to read, difficult to look at because of all the footnotey stuff. The "Reception" section was epecially difficult to read. I think the section would be easier to read as a bulleted list rather than a prose paragraph. Awards are a laundry list anyway and hardly need to be couched in prose. MoviesOnDemand (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion, and it does not meet with Wikipedia guidelines or policies. As I said before, this article has already undergone extensive review by experienced editors and experts in areas related to copyedit and prose. They disagree with your opinion. A paragraph on the research is unneeded because the show does NOT focus on the research, but on the meerkats. The animals are not being harassed or tormented in any way and there is absolutely no proof or verifiable source to back up such a statement. That is your own very odd viewpoint. It is an encyclopedic article, its point is verifiable content, not personal opinion and essays. AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've been threatened with being blocked from Wikipedia for taking an honest interest in improving an article and have been accused of being a vandal because I did a wee bit of honest editing that I believed improved an article. It is obvious that some "own" certain articles at Wikipedia. MoviesOnDemand (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You were told in advance that such an edit was neither necessary nor appropriate. You were told multiple times above that the article meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines and has very recently been reviewed by experienced editors and experts who know what a Wikipedia article should be like and experts in the area of copyediting (which includes dealing with issues with prose). The current format is agreed to by consensus, you don't get to decide you don't like it and go against the Wikipedia MOS and the agreement of other editors to change it. Despite all this, you just decided you were gonna change it to what you preferred rather than what is proper. When your edit was reverted, you kept trying to redo it. At that point, your edit went from being a good-faith effort to being vandalism. No one owns articles, but we do protect them from people trying to mess them up because they either don't know, understand, or don't care/agree to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I tried to assume good faith with your appearance, despite your first edit being to tag an article for plot which most new editors wouldn't even know about. I sent you a welcome message with lots of helpful links to help you learn how to be a good contributer. If you want to be a good contributer and be helpful, then recognize that your edit, while initially appreciated, was not a good edit and was reverted. Pay head to the warning "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." That includes having your edit reverted as not desirable. Don't keep trying to redo it when the existing text better meets Wikipedia's manual of style for an article and you've already been told before not to.

You also slandered the show and the research project here in this talk page (which was removed), without providing a shred of evidence to back up your claims. That is extremely inappropriate and violates Wikipedia policies. We don't go around maligning living people (or active organizations) without verifiable, reliable sources and then we present the information in a neutral format that shows both sides of the issue. AnmaFinotera (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TRIVIA says (in bold): "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts." Therefore I believe (and every editor I've worked with agrees with this guideline) that the discussion of awards should be left as a prose paragraph. This has become a standard style preference on Wikipedia. – Scartol • Tok 02:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiki means trivia and miscellaneous facts, not awards and nominations. I'm not sure Meerkat Manor's awards and nominations (in an article about Meerkat Manor) could be called "trivia or miscellaneous facts." If they're "trivia and miscellaneous facts" as bulleted items than they're "trivia and miscellaneous facts" as prose. Trivia is trivia, no matter what guise it wears.

The section would work better for the eyes in a subsection titled "Nominations and awards" and the info bulleted. As I mentioned previously, the section as prose is difficult to read. It has a jiggety-jaggety look to it, a cartload of footnotes that create odd spacing between the lines, and blue and black print all over the place against a glaringly white backgound. The section is a pain on the eyes. Some attention should be directed to how the article "looks" on page as well as how "pain-free" the article is. The reader coming to the article who only wants info on the show's awards would have a difficult finding the info in this article as it stands. Awards and nominations should have its own subsection. MoviesOnDemand (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus disagrees with you. It had its own subsection, it was agreed it was too short (as list or as prose) to stand alone unless/until the show wins more awards. Consensus disagrees with your preference for a list. The article is good as is. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The Nominations and awards subsection also mentions the Omni Awards and the New York Festival Galas Awards. If this article is going to receive a coveted Feature Article Gold Star, shouldn't the two have wikilinks for the readers' convenience/interest? MoviesOnDemand (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from your message, there are no articles for those awards, hence there being no wikilinks. If there were pages for either, they would be properly wikilinked. A featured article should not have red links. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There's also one mentioned for a Jackson Hole Wildlife Award (I believe). As a reader, I'm left wondering, what is the Jackson Hole Wildlife Award? What are the Omni Awards? As the author of "Meerkat Manor", you (or one of your teammates) should "article" these awards before nominating "Meerkat Manor" for a Gold Star. You've left the reader in a bit of a pickle here regarding the Awards. You've mentioned the awards, the reader wants to know what these awards are, yet the reader cannot find out at Wiki. MoviesOnDemand (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't help that articles haven't been created for those awards yet. If/when the articles are created, they will be wikified. It is not a requirement that every award mentioned in an article be wikified to an article to be a featured article, nor is it a requirement that every possible related article exist before an article can be an FAC or an FA. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

While is may not be a requirement it seems to me to be an obligation if the article is going to be nominated for a Gold Star. Take a look at today's featured article regarding our discussion. There are others in MM: Oxford Scientific Films, Caroline Hawkins, etc. etc. etc. All these should be "articled" BEFORE "Meerkat Manor" is nominated for a Gold Star. You should/could include a map pinpointing the exact location where the series was filmed. Radio collar is mentioned in "Production details". You need to link this or explain exactly what a radio collar is for the reader. MoviesOnDemand (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A map is not necessary. Television series articles do not need a map of the location, and the only map of the meerkat groups available is copyrighted by KMP which has already explicitly stated that no images from their site may be used here, including the map. Caroline Hawkins does not meet the WP:BIO requirements to have her own article, so no, she doesn't need to have one. Nor is anyone required to create all the missing articles before this one can be nominated as a featured article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You need a map of the general area (which I believe is in Africa) pinpointing that River Reserve. Readers would want to know where the River Reserve is. Further down you mention "soap-opera-like narration" and "romanticization". Explain what you mean here. I'm totally mystified. What is "soap opera-like narration"? Is it in the dictionary? You have an obligation to create these articles. By not creating the articles, you are leaving readers clueless and jeopardizing Wikipedia's credibility. MoviesOnDemand (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Caroline Hawkins may be notable, thus Wikiworthy. From WP:BIO ... I've highlighted the pertinent points...

Creative professionals Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

• The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
• The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
• The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
• The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries. MoviesOnDemand (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

She does not meet the notability requirements and no information is available about her except that she is the creator and producer of Meerkat Manor.' We must be able to provide verifiable information about her, and more than just "well, she is the producer for Meerkat Manor to establish her as notable. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Too bad. With no info available, then a bio cannot be written, even if, as a creative professional, she's marginally notable. (See above) Nonetheless, there is still much work to do on the article before nominating it for a Gold Star. Have you read the article for the TV show Lost? Or The Simpsons. Have you modelled this article on a Gold Star article? MoviesOnDemand (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Section break for easier discussion

MoviesOnDemand said, "After all, it's just a show about stupid meerkats.... The popularity of any TV show has nothing to say about importance, quality, etc. It only says that couch potatoes found nothing else to watch in the time slot."

I disagree with all of that. I am a huge fan of Meerkat Manor. I have followed the characters, their lives, their good times, their bad times, their struggles to find food, their births, their deahts, their rivalries, their battles, and their overthrows to replace old leaders with new ones. I have seen many animal documentaries over my lifetime, and this is the best of all them. Meerkat Manor is far better than any "reality show" or "soap opera." Unlike those shows, this one really is real. Characters on this show die, for real. Characters that I grew to know and care about died. I have placed aconsiderable emotional investment in this program. Meerkat Manor is a wondeful show, and it deserves an article this long. In fact, I liked the article better when it was even longer, before so many cuts had been made to it.

Grundle2600 (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd ignore those remarks all together. He was an abusive sockpuppet with a grudge trying to derail the FAC for the article. :( I am curious, though, as to what you feel was cut out? Some inappropriate and unnecessary stuff was removed, but most of the information is still available, now well sourced, albeit the episodes and meerkat info are in their own articles now. The article has also been greatly expanded to include a lot of information that was never here, like the production information and reaction sections. Was there something in particular you feel is now missing? AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The article used to have a list of every meerkat in the Whiskers group. I know there's a separate article for that now, and that's fine. However, the current version of that separate article only lists some of them. I miss the complete list that used to be in this older version. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Unfortunately, that fuller list is not appropriate for inclusion (either here or in the separate list). Many of the minor meerkats listed there were never even named in the episodes, so the names are either OR or completely made up. Those who only appeared in a single episode really don't need to be mentioned here. The rest are really very minor and only appeared in one or two episodes, and have no sourable information beyond "was seen in episode X" or "another of Flower's many pups", which, again, wouldn't add a great deal of value to the list of meerkats or the article. The list mentions all of the major meerkats from the series, with extensive sourcing. While I understand it may not meet the desires of fans, it does follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies, which discourage the inclusion of minor characters from series information and "character" lists. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are good points. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Archives

Where are the archives for this talk page? -- AvatarMN (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The talk header at the top has links to them. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The what? <combs all that boring fine print that I've read so many times that I've trained my eyes to skip over> Oh. There it is. Pretty damned hard to find, when every other talk page I've ever seen has an easy-to-spot box. -- AvatarMN (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, its a relatively new thing. On pages with a talk header, the archive boxes are being removed. Those without a talk header get an archive box. Makes it smaller and more compact, but does take getting used to. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins

I originally did not think the film would support its own article, however, with the behind the scenes info and early reviews, I think it might be able to be a standalone article that can be taken to GA or FA level for inclusion in the Meerkat Manor featured topic. As such, I've started an article for it on my user space but before I launch it, I'd like to get some other views as to whether it meets the film notability requirements and should be a standalone. Here is the work in progress: User:AnmaFinotera/WIP3. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Your article is great.

My concern is with the film itself.

When I first heard about the film I assumed it would use footage from several years ago. But when I watched it, I very soon realized it was brand new footage with different meerkats. I was hugely disappointed.

When Flower died in the series episode "Journey's End," the narrator said something like, "From humble beginnings, she created one of the largest close knit families on the manor." However, in the movie, at the time that Flower became the dominant female, the Whiskers group was already very large. So the movie is wrong about that.

Also, I think I once read somewhere that when Flower was born, she wasn't even a member of the Whiskers. Is that true, or is my memory off on this?

Grundle2600 (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) I'm gonna try to get it expanded out some more before I launch it. Yeah, I was a bit disappointed in the "meerkat actors" as well. I'm not sure on the factual accuracy of the movie, as I haven't gotten a hold of the book or had a chance to watch all the making of stuff, but considering it was US made, I'd suspect liberties were taken (like the rather over the top "sign of God" opening). It was made "based on" the research notes. For Flower being born a Whiskers, though, she was per the book and KMP as well. That part was correct. She was born to Holly and Argon, the dominant couple of the group. I noticed some other discrepancies in the movie and series too, one of which I noted in the meerkat list (the series said Yousarrian was once Flower's mate, while the film said it was always Zaphod).-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, and for the correction about which group Flower was born in. The other differences that you mentioned are also interesting. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)