Talk:Meerkat Manor

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* Collectonian (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.Collectonian (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 Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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 :( Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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 :) Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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 :-) Collectonian (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! Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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. Collectonian (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think the Awards section should be bulleted. The way it stands now, the section has a jiggety jaggety pattern that is difficult to read. I see blue print and black print, I see little numbers all over the place, I see up and down. It's difficult to read. It's a laundry list anyways and would work as a bulleted list.

Fixing radio collars on wild animals and coloring some wild animals with dyes is abuse. Poking a camera down their burrows to snoop on their sex lives is abuse. Letting an animal die painfully after being bitten by a snake when you have the power to end its suffering and you choose not to, is animal abuse. It is your opinion that it is not, it is my opinion that it is.

While the show is not specifically focused on the research, it apparently is the show's reason for being. The show wouldn't exist without the research project. You need to mention the research project in more than one sentence. A paragraph preceding the "Production details" would be appropriate.

IMO, there is much that could be done to make this article more attractive. The Merchandise section could be heavily edited for conciseness. Author, title, publisher, date, and ISBN is all that's really needed. It's not Wiki's job to "sell" books with sections that read like publishers' blurbs. The book pic isn't necessary either.

This article could be nicely edited for conciseness. The article is too wordy, and not engaging. A third of the article could be neatly edited, tweaked and tightened and some of the article could be placed in bulleted lists. Hope this helps! Just trying to share thoughts!

MoviesOnDemand (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)