Talk:The Robinson family (Sesame Street)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Robinson family (Sesame Street) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The Robinson family (Sesame Street) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 28, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
September 12, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 26, 2006.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Sesame Street's street scenes were centred around the fictional African-American Robinson family in early seasons, before the Muppets took on an increased role?

Current status: Former good article nominee

Casting

This section includes the following incomprehensible passage:

Gordon was the first character with spoken lines in the show, as a result of difficulty in finding someone to fill the figure.

Out of context, this looks confusing. It is even more confusing within the context of the sentences that come before and after it. I don't remember this section being so confusing a few months ago. What happened? 165.225.38.84 (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old comments

Was Miles ever in any SS books? -- Zanimum 19:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four focuses

He instead would teach the characters lessons in the Children Television Workshop's three main focuses, as would any character: Symbolic Representation, Cognitive Processes, Physical Environment, and the Social Environment- surely thats 4 focuses?

Yes, I've corrected it. -- Zanimum 17:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA nomination

This article failed good article nomination, because of the following reason:

Prose and writing needs improvement:
- The structure of this article is confusing for a common reader to understand the article. The Characters and production history section should not be combined as one section. My suggestion is to split "History" and "Characters" into 2 sections. Afterwards, editors can focus on production history in the History article. Also when I read that section, I am confused with which one is a character name and which one is actor name. I have never watched this series before, therefore it is good for editors to inform clearly to readers, who do not have knowledge of the subject.
- Avoid to use his/her if it is unclear to whom the editor wants to point at. For example, if the editor has written "known better as Moynihan report", it better to write "Moynihan report", rather than "his report".
- Prose can be improved to have better encyclopedic statements, rather than narrative story.
It is not enough with only 1 image. Also that the only image shown has limited use, because of copyright statement.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for the editors' work for this article. — Indon (reply) — 15:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Robinson Family → The Robinson family (Neighbours) — Seems silly to my mind to have two articles that probably ought to have the same base title differentiated by the case of the words. Suggest move as above, and perhaps redirect The Robinson Family to The Robinson family, which can serve as a disambig page? 89.243.171.208 (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. WP:NC(P) recommends "adding a parenthetical (bracketed) disambiguator to the page name: for instance when both spellings are often or easily confused." Such is the case here where only the "f" in family currently separates the two. — AjaxSmack 00:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~. So long as there are only two articles that need distinguishing, it doesn't much matter how we do it. A disambiguation page is unnecessary because there are only two, and they can be linked to each other via hatnotes. Powers ^T 12:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Support per 86.155.123.221's argument. Powers ^T 13:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could we expand the remit of the (proposed) disambig page to include things like The Swiss Family Robinson, or would that be a step too far? Also, I've seen Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but just because there are only two items in the proposed disambig page does not invalidate it, see for instance Daniel Fitzgerald 89.243.171.208 (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support move. A disambiguation page of two entries is totally appropriate if neither of them is primary topic. See the disambiguation guideline: "if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used". Jafeluv (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support move. As it stands, the capital F in The Robinson Family is incorrect, and in contravention of the MOS. The proposed move would fix this. 86.155.123.221 (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.