Talk:Strawberry Shortcake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removal of Ginger Snaps Ethnicity[edit]

I have removed the following section of the article as it is poorly written and doesn't seem to have any basis apart from a rumour at an elementary school. and a local newspaper article.


Is Ginger Snap Bengali? Recently, a rumour spread in Lane Elementary School (located in Alexandria, Virginia) that Ginger Snap was a Bengali or Indian girl. Also, the claim may be false since a ginger snap is originally a European cookie.

An article written in the Alexandria Herald (a new little-known newspaper in Alexandria) stated that Ginger Snap is, in fact, from some Islamic country. But the claim could be true: even though she doesn't wear traditional Bengali clothes, she could qualify. But she's definitely not Hispanic or Caucasian. Recently an unknown Wikipedia user posted that Ginger Snap was "hispanic" [sic], but it's not valid, probably.

Even if Ginger Snap is Islamic, there's no guarantee.

If you want my two cents on this topic, I consider Ginger Snap Italian. In the new TV show her catch-phrase is "Oh, Macaroonio", which to me, sounds rather Italian.RAM 02:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As seen on a French website, official clipart features Ginger Snap in traditional Native American garb. Thus, it is safe to assume she is Native American. I fail to see how this was ever relevant, however. Clearly, Ginger Snap, Orange Blossom and Angel Cake represent three different ethnicities in Strawberry's closest circle of pals. Anyone can see that without the specific ethnicities being identified. There might as well have been a debate as to whether or not Lemon Meringue is albino. ~ Sour Grapes 10:19, 28 October 2008


Feel free to re-write the section in encyclopediaec terms if/when you have found more basis for this section, but overall it doesn't seem necessary. --Rachel Cakes 04:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Watch out for corporate plant![edit]

Watch out! There's someone constantly trying to remove information from this article. I suspect it's a "plant" from American Greetings, trying to cover up their mess-up with Penny Arcade. - Stormwatch 14:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

There is no “plant”. There is only people trying to keep your type of amusement away from children. It would seem to me that you can make your own page on this site to give your opinion about what you think is right and wrong. Adults have possibly sat down with their daughter, niece, or granddaughter to show them some of the cartoons they watched as a child. What would you like them to find.—This unsigned comment was added by 70.37.128.30 (talkcontribs) 2006 March 20 11:30 UTC.

It's quite clear that you are a corporate plant. What else am I to take from the fact that you edited the discussion section to remove the signature that was added to your comment by a moderator?! And what about the fact that almost all of your countributions to Wikipedia were the removal of this specific piece of information from this specific article? Of course, you could also be just an annoying prudish troll... - Stormwatch 02:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
All right, what do you think about it now? - Stormwatch 20:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Mixing fact and fiction[edit]

This excerpt is a bad sign:

She was first released in 1980, then relaunched in 1991 and 2002. In Strawberryland, nobody EVER dies or even gets sick. Locks are illegal, there are no thieves, everything is free, and you get Christmas presents whether you're naughty or nice. Also, it's illegal to punish.

It mixes the actual history of the toy and facts about its fictional world. They should be separated sections. - Stormwatch 20:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like somebody just made it up. KinseyLOL 20:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's ridiculous. A character on this series can get sick --- prime example --- Honey Pie Pony --- "Get Well Adventure." Of course nobody is going to be shown dying on the show --- it's a children's-targeted television series, only rarely do characters on such shows die. "It's illegal to punish" --- patent nonsense. Obviously, a system of laws has never been explored on the show. Agent0042 04:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that comment; it's crapshoot to make a TV show for toddlers that depict death and murder; it would be like Grand Theft Auto with Strawberry Shortcake getting "Wasted" after a few shots of AK-47 ammo at her. And the "Locks are illegal, there are no thieves, everything is free, and you get Christmas presents whether you're naughty or nice" lines sounded like as if Strawberryland allows warez groups and other boys doing illegal stuff to thrive in there. Sorry for the AK-47 lines, but I think the excerpt is just plain biased and unencyclopedic. Blake Gripling 10:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Aging Character[edit]

It should also be noted that Strawberry Shortcake and her friends do age. Which is rare of animated characters. With each reintroduction she appears a little bit older. The original series depicted Strawberry and her friends about between 6 and 7 years old. As the series was relaunched she was always seemed older and taller. At the end of the original series Strawberry and company is observed having a mystical growth spur and her hair growing longer while dancing. This was never explain and was shown at the very end of an episode. She gave up the cute 1800s style dress for more modern style she now wears and appears to be about 9 or 10 in age. Pixarian

I think the observation backfired: I noticed Baby Strawberry Shortcake books at a bookstore the other day.RAM 15:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Do Some Research! That "mystical growth spurt" that was "never explained" came courtesy The Berry Princess. Earlier in the 1985 special "Strawberry Shortcake Meets The Berrykins", Miss Shortcake had lamented (via a catchy musical number!) that her hair wasn't long enough to wear different "proper" or "wild" hairstyles. The Berry Princess knew of this (somehow?), and as a Thank You for the kids' help with The Berrykin kidnapping, granted Strawberry's secret wish. This tied in perfectly to the 1985 line of Kenner's Strawberry Shortcake "Berrykin" Dolls, all of whom had beautiful long, lustrous hair. What may seem in retrospect (and out of context) to be a strange, unexplained phenomena, was in reality a brilliant marketing gimmick! Those yearly specials in the '80s were nothing but glorified commercials anyway. Not that there's anything wrong with that! :^)

I do, however, agree with Pixarian's general observation, that Strawberry Shortcake HAS matured over the course of her variegated history. When the THQ toys debuted in the late '80s, there was a vague sense of nostalgia connected with the dolls wearing "modern" clothing, but also coming with a replica of their old-fashioned "Kenner-style" outfits, with the pantaloons and such. BanDai's new millennium version of Strawberry and her crowd seemed more or less the same, age-wise, as the classic representation, but then, take a look at the new PlayMates Dolls! They are represented as much taller, probably closer to pre-teen-aged girls! I guess that Strawberry Shortcake just wants to look like who she wants to be, when She grows up! (*Groan!*) User: Berry Prince

Alright. 219.93.44.71 10:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally think their ages remain the same, but the difference on clothing and drawing style gives a bit of an illusion of age. Just my 2 cents.

The human characters are mini-adults --- they run their own affairs with no parents, and sustain themselves. The only exception is Apple Dumplin', who even in the very first episode of the series is stated to be one year old, but is able to walk and talk, and later in the series is seen forming complex opinions on matters that should not be comprehensible to the brain of a one-year-old. Agent0042 04:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I dunno, Shortcake and her friends may be implied as ageless characters like Spongebob or James Bond, and since they're living in a fantasy world, some practically impossible events are possible there. Blake Gripling 10:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In both the '80s specials and the current series, the characters do age. Methinks they age like everyone does in the real world, though the children are exceptionally mature as Agent pointed out. It has also been theorized that children in Strawberryland grow quickly, thanks to Apple Dumplin's growth spurt. ~ Sour Grapes 10:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Chart[edit]

I have recently added a friend chart to clean up a few sections. Note that this is made up of only the original characters. If a seperate chart would like to be added of the relaunched characters, feel free to do so. User:blankname1993 8:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Great Job[edit]

This article is really coming along nicely. Thank you everyone who is contributing. Also, perhaps making expansion articles on the main characters would be a good idea

People keep chopping off the best parts[edit]

This edit [1] by user Kyereh Mireku [2] removed the "History" section -- which happens to be the single most informative and relevant part of the article! - Stormwatch 23:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Reaction to the Penny Arcade parody[edit]

It did cause a certain online ruckus at the time... check here [3], here [4], here [5], here [6], or just google around. - Stormwatch 00:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, you should present those links as references to the claim. Remove the neutrality disputed tag, and then reference them using the ref tag. RAM 02:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Btw, I just thought of something. I was messing around youtube when I found out about a show called "Robot Chicken" the other day (no, it is not airing here), and apparently they did a Strawberry Shortcake parody as well in which Strawberry Shortcake and Blueberry Muffin were cussing about the car radio (Both characters were using pretty strong words like Bitch). Was there any lawsuit from AG to the creators of the show? I didn't hear anything about it, although I didn't google it either. RAM 02:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Baby Needs-A-Name-- Or DOES She?[edit]

I've noticed that someone has re-inserted the name "Lullaberry Pie" into the "Friends" list, alongside the title "Baby Needs-A-Name". Can someone provide a factual basis for this name?

I recall that the "Blow-Kiss" Baby Needs-A-Name Doll produced by Kenner in 1984 came with Paper ID Bracelets, from which the Doll's owner could choose a proper name for the Doll. I further recall that "Lullaberry" (but NOT "Pie") was one of those possible names (I believe "Candy Kiss" was another).

Can someone cite a Book or Story that established an actual link of this name to the character? If so, I'll shut up, but 'til then, I think that "Baby Needs-A-Name" is all the "name" this character "needs" by way of reference. Thanks! User: Berry Prince206.58.228.174 09:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

American Greetings vs Penny Arcade[edit]

Hi Ramchyld,

I notice that you reverted my edits of 16/05 with the summary "reverting vandalism - last vandal deleted references and put in a citation needed tag. Please do not induce extra work to editors, thank you." Please remember WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL - legitimate edits do not constitute vandalism.

My concern is that we are not permitted to use blogs as references per WP:Verifiability, which is violated in the section regarding the legal threats posed to the creators of Penny Arcade by American Greetings. It's not permissible to claim that a statement is true because several random people have claimed such online in opinion blogs.

Your point of not inducing extra work for editors (regarding the citation needed tag) is a good one. I wouldn't have put the tag on the sentence in question if I hadn't tried to verify that "this brief altercation is likely to have caused damage to American Greetings far beyond what the removed piece could have done by itself." I was unable to find any objective source whatsoever that demonstrated that AG was damaged in any tangible way by the incident, but I could easily be overlooking something. Please let me know if there's a reference for this!

I don't do edit warring, so let's talk this out here to find a solution. It's especially important on issues like this one where a lawsuit-happy company is involved. We have to be certain that we are only making statements that are absolutely verifiable and don't have the slightest hint of original research. :) DanielC/T+ 09:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and comments from any other editors are welcome and requested as well! DanielC/T+ 09:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth, it's been slashdotted. Isn't that enough proof as is? Although your point about AG was damaged is good too - there's no record of AG's reputation getting damaged apart from a few hate posts made to said blogs. Maybe we can find an alternative to the sentence, although the sentence said "likely", so it's not 100% certain that AG's rep was damaged in the controversy. As for blogs, I thought anything that is posted on the web that is verifiable including blogs makes for valid references? Because PA did responded to the removal statement with a comic implying that AG people were Nazis, which most likely meant that AG made a new enemy - and oh, there was a campaign going around encouraging people to put the offending comic on their sites and such as a retort to show AG their rage, and as I recall it quite a number of people did. RAM 04:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Huck and Pupcake[edit]

The article says that Pupcake, the white and blue dog in the show, now belongs to Shortcake. However, after watching Meet Strawberry Shortcake on a Game Boy Advance, there's a scene that when Shortcake, Custard and Pupcake were strolling in the forest, the dog eventually was able to track and meet his old master, so Huck still has ownership of the dog; this might suggest that Pupcake may have been "lost" or something... Blake Gripling (talk)

Well, that would probably be an interesting thing to note - maybe they threw that in as some kind of in-joke to the older viewers? But then again, Huck has got Shoofly now. Also, it's worth noting that the first few episodes have some contradictions in them. For example, in "Meet Strawberry Shortcake", it was shown that Strawberry already had Pupcake when she met Huck, but in "Here Comes Pupcake", when Pupcake was introduced, she already known Huck and the rest of the gang. Also, for some reason she already knows Rainbow Sherbet in the DVD "Seaberry Beach Party", but Rainbow was only introduced a few DVDs later, in "Dress Up Days". Granted tho, some TV stations attempted to fix the issue by rearranging the episode orders and airing Seaberry Beach Party episodes after the Dress Up Days episodes (Disney Channel Asia and TV9 Malaysia did this- not sure about the other stations worldwide).RAM 04:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is an important conceit that is used in the current run of Strawberry Shortcake Video releases, which makes (most of) these issues of poor continuity completely negligible-- Strawberry's "Remembering Book"! Reminded of a topic ("sports" or "pets" or whatever!), Strawberry grabs this book and flips open to a page that prompts the retelling of a past adventure! It doesn't matter that they may be told out of order. And as You have cited, some of them most definitely ARE! The "introduction" story of Blueberry Muffin, for instance, ALSO came well after her first appearance in a story. I merely assume that all of this stuff has already happened from the viewpoint of "Narrator Strawberry", but she's just not letting on all that she happens to know! I am still eagerly awaiting a "Meet Peppermint Fizz" story, which COULD still happen at any time, given SS's "pick-and-choose" method of storytelling! :^) 206.58.228.172 19:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, no such thing was ever on the VideoCDs released locally- The VideoCDs jumps straight into the story just like the TV version. Haven't gone through the DVDs yet. I don't intend to open them, just collect them :). And Disney Channel Asia airs the first two stories as a two parter i.e. Meet Strawberry Shortcake Part I, and then Part II the next day. (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Poster[edit]

I'm getting a little weary of that poster where she takes a bath. It needs to be replaced with a more representative one (preferrably one from the 80's version of the franchise). I would "berry" much appreciate it. Brittany Ka 22:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I second this. ~ Sour Grapes 10:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Really Stupid Game[edit]

okay, i dont see how the strawberry shortcake game for the atari 2600 earned her positive criticism. all you did was choose an outfit, and she did a little dance with some music. heck, it's worse than the e.t. game for atari 2600! now, i know that video games of that time weren't that great, but still?? PONG was more exciting than that by a longshot! Kikiluvscheese 05:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please realise that This is not a disscussion forum Storm05 14:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it...[edit]

You guys made an article about the SSC villains, but didn't made another one for the protagonists... OK, I'll make one... Blake Gripling 09:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Article[edit]

Most of this article is lacking proper references to reliable sources or is unsourced completely. Also some text in some sections in the article appear to be original research and thus need to be removed. Storm05 13:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know it, research is research. What differences are there?RAM 06:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
reserch is research is not a valid argument, if its unsourced or cannot be verified by reliable sources then that info must go per wikipedia policy. Storm05 12:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Not if RAMChYLD has anything to say about it. As he/she told you, there are plenty of references. Brittany Ka 13:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
And none of those references are reliable. Storm05 16:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually the only thing that is referenced in the article are the controversey section, everything else is unsourced.Storm05 16:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so you want references on the videos? I could put in a link to an Amazon search result, but I'm not sure if it would be permanent. Besides, that picture I put up next to the video list (yes, I actually imported the DVDs from Amazon and buy the VideoCDs locally) are visual proof that the DVDs and VideoCDs exist. RAM 05:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

James Street[edit]

Voice actor James Street passed away recently. Since he doesn't have an article of his own, does it deserve a mention here? Benmento 21:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Condolences to the friends and relatives of Mr. Street. I'm a fan of Huck, and I felt sorry at him when I learned that the James had an untimely death. He really deserves an article... Blake Gripling 00:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A Little Positive Skepticism...[edit]

Hello! I am wondering if there has been published (on the web or elsewhere) some factual basis for the three most recent names added to the "modern" list of Strawberry Shortcake's friends: Plum Pudding (note spellin'), Watermelon Kiss, and Banana Candy. While no one could be happier to see more friends join Strawberry's crowd (both re-introductions AND all-new original characters), I find myself wondering if THESE new additions are valid. A "Watermelon Kiss", I have learned, is a beverage made with Strawberry Liqeur. It seems at best unlikely that American Greetings (the people who find the word "Tart" unacceptable!) would use the name of an alcoholic drink (no matter how mild!) to designate a new Strawberry Shortcake friend! If I am wrong, please let me know, so I can shut my pie-hole, but are these three characters actually valid, or perhaps an insidious bit of subtle vandalization? I would really love to know either way, I have been unable to locate any pertinent data on them elsewhere, other than Plum Puddin's variegated "vintage" history. Thanks very much in advance for any help you can provide! 206.58.228.207 19:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not heard anything about the three either, but daren't touch it in case it turns out to be correct after all (what happened with "Let's Dance"- I removed the entry early this year because I can't be certain if the info is correct - heck, Berry Blossom Festival wasn't even out yet - but then suddenly it is). In any case, the only new character I have confirmed that they're going to introduce is "Apricot", evident in the sneak peeks on the official website. RAM 08:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I Was Wrong!! The three afore-mentioned new girls are all identified on the "Let's Dance" DVD. Please pardon my over-zealous editing fingers!

Officially shutting my pie-hole... Thanks! 206.58.228.211 16:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed the first line to point to a disambiguation page[edit]

I have created a disambiguation page for the term Strawberry Shortcake and pointed the link to the page. The reason being two-fold: firstly, I realized that the vandalism regarding the sex act is actually true (it was brought up at a forum I was at). Secondly, there might be more uses for the term Strawberry Shortcake than we're aware of (maybe a little known pop band by that name exists?). Feel free to revert if you feel this argument is invalid.RAM (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism: The TV Show and the Movie[edit]

Hey all, this section seems, well, unsourced. And kind of irrelevant, if you ask me. I'm not a SSC expert, so I've left it in for now, but thought somebody might want to take a second look. Thanks! Rkaufman13 (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually most of the information on that section comes from various reviews on the DVDs from Amazon and other sites. I believe that the contributors' POV are also taken into consideration (i.e. I didn't like the idea of AG reintroducing the villains, but it seems that another contributor did).RAM (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:K-strawberry234.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:K-strawberry234.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already added a fair-use rationale on the image, so there's no need for a deletion request... Blake Gripling (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

long[edit]

The article is kind of long -- like about twice as long as the usual 32k trigger. Can the animation section be split into a different page, or something? ~ MD Otley (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That was in my to-do list. I will do that when I have the time. And perhaps while at it, split the music CD and games sections out too. RAM (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, halfway through it. I think I'll integrate the fillies page into the list of characters as "other fillies" (can't tie down ambrosia to the characters, although she can be said to belong to Strawberry since Strawberry took great pains to save her in the book "Berry Princess". I'll think about moving the soundtrack back into the animated series page since the music are from said series. And the video games, well, I'll think about it last. RAM (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
A navigation box for all Shortcake-related media would also do, too... Blake Gripling (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Done deal :) RAM (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about creator and originator[edit]

--Wer2chosen (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC) I see numerous articles online that list an artist Barb Sargeant as the creator of Strawberry Shortcake.

http://ohiomag.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=586CA122EB394032BD4AA3B686FF03D9&nm=Events&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=0D549927D9364573812B50822D4B2BD4&tier=4&id=E14E8323E7AC4D3593CD07AF1FD1C553

"We always referred to him as the dean of the art staff at American Greetings ... He walked around in a white lab coat," says Barbara Sargent, who started at the company as an 18 year-old --? fresh out of high school --? and later went on to achieve fame as the creator of Strawberry Shortcake. "[I] had no professional experience, and probably less of an education than most of the artists. [Laessig] was so giving. A lot of artists would be real secretive about their techniques and don't like sharing like he did. But he was so interested in young people and did whatever he could do to inspire us. ... Bob Laessig was like this little light, showing us the way."

http://www.roberthlaessig.com/autobiography.php

It appears she won a case against American Greetings, so she was an employee.

132. See, e.g., Sargent v. Am. Greetings Corp., 588 F. Supp. 912, 918 (N.D. Ohio 1984). "A work which makes non-trivial contributions to an existing one may be copyrighted as a derivative work and yet, because it retains the "same aesthetic appeal" as the original, render the holder liable for infringement of the original copyright." Id.

If this is valid, then you may put it into the history section. Remember to add the references tho. RAM (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is another online source referencing Barb Sargent as the creator. http://galleryone.com/BIO4.html#sarg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.218.219.21 (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

This is largely OR, completely unsourced, excessively detailed and frequently violates WP:NPOV. I think the only sensible move is to delete it entirely, but thought I'd raise the issue here first to see if anyone's actively planning to fix it. Gusworld (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)