Talk:The Powerpuff Girls/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The ratings and popularity section is back again.

That's right. There was never a consensus among the editors of this page to remove the sentences about the ratings of the show, they were only removed by one single user. I did'nt bother fighting back and put the sentences back that time, since i felt i had to many other, more important, tasks on my hands. But now that i have some free time for a while, i am going to set a few things straight here. And those few sentences concerning the popularity of the show i wrote several months ago WILL stay in the article. They are suported by three perfectly valid sources, which is more than you can say about similar statements about most shows (such as, for instance, the "Fairly Oddparents" article, which merely states that "Other than SpongeBob SquarePants, it was later Nickelodeon's most highly rated show." withuot any reference at all).

Now, if anyone has any complaints about this edit, then let us discuss it i a civil manner right here on this talk page. Rattis1 (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Go back to the debate archive and find out what the agreement was. The sites are not inaccurate at all because they promote fan-fiction. By adding this information back, you prove yourself to be a fan-fictioner, and not someone who wants to add facts to the encyclopedia. If you fail to prove that these sources are accurate, stay the fuck out of this. Marcus2 (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as i can see, the Peer Review states that the history section is "the article's strongest section, simply because it has so many sources."

And how the heck can you consider the sites referenced to as "fan-fiction"? Do you even know what that is? One of the articles referenced to is from friggin Time Warner's official site! If THAT's not a reliable resource when it comes to Cartoon Network shows, then litteraly NOTHING is. And the other two references are from the professinal animation organisation Animation World Network's "Animation Magazine", a printed journal of theirs.

And once again i must ask you Marcus, if it is true that the only reason you keep bitching about this article is cause you want to keep it NPOV, than why the hell dont you keep removing unsourced statements from wiki-articles about other shows (articles that i KNOW you do edit a lot, since it shows on your edit history). It's no secret anymore that you have a extreme negative bias against the PPG. So i think it's time for you to stop acting like some kind of spiteful obsessed lunatic and just leave this article to us who actually care about making it a good article. Rattis1 (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I know how to settle this, in my opinion or view, whatever you guys call it.

Yes, I think Rattis1 is right because I found out that the ratings had increased once again as I overheard from some American Kids that I don't know stated that the Powerpuff Girls are back once again with a new 30 Minute Special and a possible new season with 25 Episodes. I did not trust that however because if it is true, my country will have this 7th/New Season or 30 Minute Special which did not happened yet or at all to be exact.

Now that neutrals my opinion or view. If you want straight answers and the best ones, go and I mean go for Craig McCracken himself because he owns the Powerpuff Girls, not any of us. We Wikipedians are just here to give facts and good informations, not to have fans around disrupting threads like the Powerpuff Girls, being the most obvious for example.

That is what I can say. Want some answers? I repeat, ask Craig McCracken himself. Powerpuff Girls Forever! Heh, yeah right. That would go to the outside world, not Wikipedia. Adam Heart03 (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont mean to sound rude to you AdamHeart03, but the idea of trying to get a hold of McCracken himself and have him set things straight in the article does not sound very practical or even possible...

And to you Marcus, i just want to say that i just read the entire debate archive, and it is NEVER suggested by anyone but you that the mentions of the shows popularity should be deleted. And, as i said, it was in fact stated on the peer review that that part should definatly stay. Just go read it for yourself.

So just give it up and realise this: i will never, ever again let you delete it. And dont give me any of that "you WILL be banned from wikipedia"-crap. Im not the one breaking rules here, YOU are, so if this dispute is going to get anyone banned, its YOU. Rattis1 (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't mean like we go for the Great Guy himself to settle this. But you know what, you are very right after I read what you said. It is a bad idea but still, if there is no any other way to know whether the ratings are what you said. I'll just let the others take care of this issue, I don't want to get entirely involved like Night Leon, that fan fictioner. Good luck man, you're going to need it.

And to Marcus, I'm not going to stop you because I do not own Wikipedia. I'm just here to help give facts, informations and to make it a good article and so on. Not to be a pain in the neck to everyone. Adam Heart03 (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I was NOT the only one who deleted that statement, Rattis1, you IDIOT! Why do you make a mountain out of a molehill?! Because you are a mentally-ill freak, an idiot, and above all, a madman and a lunatic!! I have seen some other anonymous user IP complain about you also. You are fatally wrong and that's that. So stay the fuck out of this, you rat!!! If you think the agreement in the debate archive was that it should definitely stay, you are a mentally retarded man! If you are too stubborn to learn the truth from me, my mother, or anyone else, you will NEVER learn the truth! You apparently don't have the balls to learn the truth about the Powerpuff Girls and its popularity, and you trust the publicity and media: a shitty, unreliable magazine and some leftist Turner official site. Marcus2 (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And to Adam Heart03, you really don't know what you are talking about. PPG is out of style, no American kids like it anymore, and it jumped the shark at least five years ago. Kids now like SpongeBob, The Fairly OddParents, the Avatar, Scooby-Doo, Dora, Diego, etc. You must have been dreaming it up in your sleep, if you know what you are talking about. PPG is getting NO MORE seasons, and the reason is this: it is a fairly minor animated series: it was never very popular. Marcus2 (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Marcus, settle down. I know it's frustrating, and I agree 100% with you that it should stay off this site. Just try to relax. 70.101.160.105 (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

See that? Someone DOES agree with me. Marcus2 (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's reliably sourced then it can remain whatever personal views about it are. --neonwhite user page talk 03:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you too, Neon white. But this isn't reliably sourced, as far as I'm concerned, and Marcus is probably right. 70.101.160.105 (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

We have Time Warner and an industry journal, how is the not verifiable? --neonwhite user page talk 06:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The story is this: the magazine apparently promoted the show ("God bless Craig McCracken, god bless him very much..."), and the Time Warner site can't always be counted on just because it's a well-known, famous organization. As far as the ratings at that time go, hardly anything pops up besides Nickelodeon shows, and I assure you, no Cartoon Network programs. And furthermore, sources like these tend to exaggerate all of the time, and no one even thinks it's that big of a deal to sue them. It would be a waste of their time. 70.101.160.105 (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

None of that is anything but speculation and personal views, they have no relevance on whether a source is verifiable. We are looking at an industry journal. Journals are considered quite reliable according to WP:V. If there are figures that contradict those presented by the sources, then it would change things, otherwise, i can see no reason to assume they are exaggerated. --neonwhite user page talk 01:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This must be the biggest non-issue I've ever seen. Does this come down to something as simple as a references' factuality? If so then find some sources which are verifiable and truthful. If you can't (and I reckon you or anyone else won't be able to) then you take the next thing down which in this case are the current references because they're verifiable even if they might be factually incorrect. If that doesn't meet up with the requirement imposed by you, anonymous person and Marcus2, then screw it, the section can't work as there's nothing to prove what's being said is there? Junk the section, the shitty, unreliable magazine and some leftist Turner official site aren't trustworthy sources! But that's the thing though, I think these sources are as good as you may get in this scenario due to what it is and how old it is. If you want this fixed though, there's always WP:RSN but the bottom line is this as written at WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", remember that. --treelo _talk 23:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The 'magazine' is an industry journal linked as a resource by university libraries, that suggests it is reliable. --neonwhite user page talk 01:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I think I understand what you're saying. However, there may be writers for the magazine who are crazed fanatics of PPG or anything else, and will say anything to get people to buy a product. Therefore, the section shouldn't stay. 70.101.182.149 (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate a point I made but everyone seemingly ignored, if the words of an industry journal aren't in your opinion factual (which, again, is not a criteria set by Wikipedia for references) then you're welcome to find some alternate references if that is the crux of your argument against it. Can I ask, is what the section states detracting from the article in your opinion or is it that the references aren't factually accurate? --treelo _talk 18:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again Marcus2, I am not being on the Fan side or your side. I am just here to maintain things. The Powerpuff Girls are not popular in your view and it is a true fact to you. But in my view or fact, from what I know, Craig McCracken stopped the Powerpuff Girls because he did not want it to jump the shark due to new directors and so on spoiling everything, changing lots of things, upsetting the American kids which is why it is no longer popular to them and most of all, you. But since a lot say that a 30 Minute Special and a 7th Season is coming, I have no comments because I do not own the Powerpuff Girls, Craig McCracken does. And don't make him involve in this "Might-Be-Pointless-Again" arguement. Now if you please, don't throw your Anger on me, throw it on someone else because I hate wars and arguements, end of story, thank you very much. Adam Heart03 (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rattis1, neonwhite and treelo that these sources are reliable. I've seen nothing to indicate otherwise. Asserting that "there may be fanatics of PPG" who knowingly write factually wrong articles is rather unconvincing. Any sources for this assertion? No? Then we shouldn't consider such theories. --Huon (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If they have fact checkers they would not be able to publish it if it was false. I can see the arguement that it would be easy for a small publication to get away with exaggerating numbers but ultimately we have to go with wikipedia policy and that suggests it's likely to be a verifiable source. --neonwhite user page talk 18:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the bottom line here that a verifiable source is good enough to use and that factuality doesn't take precedent? WP:V is a policy, 70.101.182.149/Marcus2's opinion however is just that, opinion. I'd say the policies win over dissident from two out of five voices over factuality which doesn't even factor in that element as long as it's verifiable. This has been silly from the outset, someone thinks something isn't factual even though it doesn't matter and this ongoing editwar has been facilitated and kept alive by him solely. If anything should occur, the references and section should stay and Marcus2 should be prevented from his POV deciding if a section's references need to stay on this or any article. --treelo _talk 19:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, we have nothing that contradicts the figures and suggests they are not correct, it's highly unlikely that any editor here would be able to say so from personal knowledge, wikipedia does not claim to be factually accurate, it's designed to be a compendium of sourced text. --neonwhite user page talk 03:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There you go then, this isn't a true problem and if one, single person dislikes it then he's free to find a separate reference and add it, he does NOT get the right to delete a section because he disagrees with the factuality of references and I'd be lying if I ever considered Wikipedia as 100% factual as it just can't be. I feel the only thing that's actually impeding the development of this article is Marcus2 (and his sockpuppet IP) bringing up this and consistently giving invalid reasons as to why the references should be dismissed. From what I can tell, consensus was reached on this issue but he disagrees and dragged the remainder of the regular editors of the article into an editwar. He's the problem, not the references. --treelo _talk 15:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Who said that my IP is a sockpuppet of Marcus2? Not true. I've never even known anything about him until recently. And did you know that this world can be so crazy, that anything said against these figures can be repressed? You're driving away a perfectly worthwhile Wikipedian. 70.101.182.149 (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's great to hear my Senior Wikipedians, I have no comments. Do what you like and I'll learn from you Seniors. Adam Heart03 (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Marcus2 is much more of a senior Wikipedian than any of these two guys. His earliest edit dates back to April 1, 2004. Treelo began in 2005, and Neon white, 2006. 70.101.182.149 (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's put this aside into a "Debate Article 2," and let's move on, because frankly, I'm starting to get a little upset about this. 70.101.182.149 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What's upsetting you, Marcus? Please don't remove sourced material. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I will not revert this article any more, to prevent an overwhelming edit war, but I'm not Marcus. And if you're going to pun users like Marcus2, stay out of his way, let alone staying out of the main article. 70.101.182.149 (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense to Marcus2 at all, but I got to say just because he is more Senior doesn't mean he has the right or power whichever it is to just delete away things he find must be deleted by him but not by any other users. And man, you and I don't own Wikipedia, what more to say about Marcus2? Ah, whatever. He'll do what he likes and I'll just stay out of it.

But if the sources are resourceful, they must stay. In fact, just because for example the websites are just to let people buy the products doesn't mean they MUST buy the products so why delete the sources? Remember that we don't control the customers. If they chose not to buy, let them be. Instead, someone who I'm not going to stop at all just had to completely delete the resources and let it be. Wow, talking about this makes me want to have Casper and Mantha be a couple.

Anyways, to be honest, I am and I mean I AM NOT on anyone's side, I am always in between, learning from one another and to see whether or not I could make it better and not make it worse which I am not going to do so because it was like a "ZOO" at that time mostly especially obviously between Marcus2 and Night Leon. I just hope they won't do it again because it would just make things even worse than it either is now, soon or some time in the future. Adam Heart03 (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I honestly think that marcus2 should be forbidden to ever edit The Powerpuff Girls article again. And im not just saying that out of spite for him, but because i think that's the only way to protect the article from him and his disruptive edits. After having literaly spent years of removing or attempting to remove perfectly valid information, and also having stated openly how much he hates the show, i think its clear to everyone that the guy has a severe negative bias against the show and that his edits should be labeled as vandalism. For those of you have'nt read the summary of disruptive edits made by marcus that someone wrote over a year ago (and is saved in the "Archive 1"), i suggest you do (and remember, it only goes up to november 2006. And its not like he has stoped since). Just a few of the things he has done include removing the "awards" section again and again, despite it being sourced, and constantly removing statements that he considers "POV", despite the fact that no one else agree with him that it is (often, the things he claim are "POV" are exremely obvious things such as that the Powerpuff Girls are the heroes and that Mojo Jojo is a villain), and deleating every individual episode article, and showing NO respect whatsover for democratic decisions, instead just edit the article anyway he feels like. And ever so often, his stated reasons for these edits is simply that the article does not deserve, for instant, an awards section, because the show "IS SO UNPOPULAR!". He just claims that the show is not popular and was never popular to begin with, bu he can NEVER, EVER state where the got that piece of information (except occasionally stating "my mother told me so"). And if im not mistaken, is it not true that one can get banned from Wikipedia for being rude to other people? Cause if that's so, then nobody deserves to get banned more that marcus. I mean, for God sake, just look at the stuff he has said it this debate! "Thay the fuck out of this", "you idiot", "you mentally ill freak". Is that not bad enough!?

God, all the shit with this article drives me f*cking insane. And i know that there is really no point in trying to improve the article (such as, for example, write more "out-of-universe"-information, as the peer review states there should be) as long as marcus is allowed to edit it. Cause even though hes gone on one of his little vacations right now, he will delete all information that speaks against his personal view of the show ("its bad and unpopular") regardless of whether it is accurately sourced or not, when he gets back. So please, cant some administator just ban him already?81.231.172.124 (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Gah, i forgot to sign in before i wrote that. But anyway, that was me who wrote the rant above. Just so you know. Rattis1 (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rattis, you need to calm down too and not take word for word what Marcus said out of anger. I have heard virtually nothing but anger from both sides, and we have no need for anger. 70.101.182.149 (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Marcus. I haven't been hearing anger, heated debate maybe but no real anger besides Rattis' rant and pretty much everything Marcus has written to date. As before the true issue lies with Marcus as being a problematic editor and not with source reliability as that's just a smokescreen for Marcus' dislike of The Powerpuff Girls. The only other person who agrees with him is 70.101.X.X who I reckon to be a meatpuppet as they happen to have near enough the same opinion and clearly know their way around Wikipedia well enough to list this issue at WP:RS and use the exact same arguments Marcus did when removing them previously on the reasons why it's unreliable. I've decided due to it being such an issue on this article that progress cannot be made that I've created a suspected sockpuppet case on Marcus and the anonymous friends as it doesn't add up and if they're not the same person then there should be no issue. If anyone is in agreement then please pass on any evidence. --treelo _talk 15:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it turns out that 70.101.182.149 is really not marcus (in which case he must be a friend of marcus) and marcus is NOT banned because of being a puppetmaster, then we will just have to continue to put up with his edits to the article. I for one just dont have the nerves to keep arguing with him like this, since i now know that nothing will make him change his view that the show simply does not deserve an article with much info, and his belief that any source that suggest that people actually like the show is lying, and his habit of deleting any info he wants too without considering the opinions of others in the slightest.

Im no wiki-expert, but is it possible to prevent single editors from editing specific articles? Cause if it is, then i dare say this is a very valid case to do just that, to prevent marcus from ever touching the PPG article again. Or, as i said earlier, to just ban him altogether.

I realise that i must come of as rather hostile for continuing to suggest such actions against marcus. But its honestly not something i do just because i dislike marcus and want to get back at him, but because, as i have stated so many times already, i know that as long as he is allowed to edit this article he will continue to destroy it. There is just absolutely no way to reason with him. And, as far as i know, by just about all standards wikipedia has about dealing with problematic editors, he should rigthly be banned. Rattis1 (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, kinda. If the result is that the IP addresses and Marcus' account aren't related there's still a lot of proof that he's a disruptive force to the article and action could be taken in some way even though from what I know it's usually an all or nothing approach when it comes to actioning on someone who's making what are essentially POV edits on one article but editing well otherwise.

I'm not happy about having him banned regardless of what he's said here but if we are taking that road then it might be a case of us ignoring him (and the sockpuppets) and getting on with editing the article anyway with the agreement that the references stay for the basic reasoning that there's no others. I'd figure that given the period of time this has been going, we're just getting bogged down in needless debates and in a way playing into his hands by allowing it to occur as he gets us tangled in this web of bullshit and he gets a crappy article in return because we're focusing on minutiae instead of the whole article.

I see a simple and easy resolution to this: if he takes it out, warn him. It's no longer a case for discussion, we're way past that and he lost the consensus a long time ago. Shut up talking about it and just edit the damn thing. --treelo _talk 01:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Now that's what I was hoping some Seniors would say because if not, things would get worse as usual. Adam Heart03 (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I could support you but I chose not to. But then again, if anyone else agrees with you, then I have no comment but to support you then. Remember not to get your hopes too high because he'll be back one day, again and again and again. Adam Heart03 (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm NEUTRAL. But for this case you stated, I kind of have to agree. All 3 acted almost the same way. But to be on the safe side, I'll let the others handle this. I'm here just to control and settle things properly, not to cause trouble. Adam Heart03 (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess it was easier said than done. And Rattis, Marcus2 would just have another account unless he could not officially get into Wikipedia anymore if he is to be banned. For once, I have to be on the sources side. If not, this place will be more than a "ZOO". I made a point somewhere and I'll make it again with some more extra informations.

The Highest Rated Premiere: It is shown just to show that it is the highest rated premiere. To me, it is also "Who cares?" but someone just had to delete them immediately. Why not just leave it alone if you don't like it? What I mean is like do you think other people care if they saw that source? They would just see it and leave it alone. It's like whether it's there or not, eventually people will look into it and not look into it again because they already know. And it just had to be deleted. Remember that we don't control those people especially American kids. If they like the Powerpuff Girls, let them. If they don't like or don't give a damn at all, let them. Why do you even bother? I have a feeling that now I know why Marcus2 is getting on Rattis1 and Night Leon's nerves. He doesn't care what others think. He would just delete them whether the American kids chose to love the Powerpuff Girls or hate them and I have a strong point that Marcus2 has this problem. He doesn't care about any other people's feelings. And no offense but, he seems to be only thinking about himself. And I hope you, 70.101.182.149 are not that kind of person because that kind of person never thinks out of the box. Adam Heart03 (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference/in-universe tags

JSH-Alive put tags on the top of the page that it needs references and is written in universe style. I do not see the writing as being "in universe". Can s/he put some citation needed tags where he feels they should be, as well as pointing out examples of being written in an in-universe style? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Because this article cites sources a little. And see also Wikipedia:Peer review/The Powerpuff Girls/archive1.--JSH-alive ^(talk)_(cntrbtns)^{(mail me)} 09:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. It's not so much that the writing is "in-universe" it is just that the writing is about show content. We need more writing about non-content. "in-universe" to me has meant articles that are written as if fictional subjects were real. There is a lot of that in other articles about fiction, particularly comics, animation, and sci-fi metaverses. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Reliable sources noticeboard

This article is now present on the reliable sources noticeboard. Please share your thoughts if you desire. It seems that the edit war is getting way out of control. 70.101.182.149 (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Look who's talking. It has been way out of control since 2004 I bet because that's when Marcus2 joined Wikipedia, right? If we want the edit war to be stopped once and for all as well as having peace. Then there are only these things I had in mind which I am 100% sure that most of the other users want and I'm as usual, Neutral to it. It goes step by step.

1: Ban Marcus2 (Instant Peace) 2: Leave the Powerpuff Girls alone and FORGET about everything and I mean everything about the Powerpuff Girls. Just IGNORE the Powerpuff Girls as if they don't even exist to you. 3: Let the TRUE SENIORS of Wikipedia (((No offense but I myself strongly believed that Marcus2 was, is and never will be one of them due to him being a pain to everyone especially Rattis))) give sources and nothing but sources to the Powerpuff Girls.

Then when "if" that is done, there will never ever be anymore edit war about the Powerpuff Girls. You should lay off too because you and Marcus2 think the same way. Once again and I mean ONCE AGAIN if no one and I mean NO ONE especially Marcus2 believes me, I am on NO ONE'S SIDE. I am doing what is right for Wikipedia and obviously for the Powerpuff Girls article currently due to it being disrupted the most and mostly by (((No offense))) Marcus2. And furthermore, I for once, have to be one the sources side because for once, I strongly agreed with Rattis, Neon White and many other Seniors and Users. Adam Heart03 (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture of the girls.

Which depicts the girls best? This image...
...or this one?

The article really needs atleast ONE picture of the main characters. Isn't there anybody who can get one? Rattis1 (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Paper Luigi 04:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed. This is an obscure image that doesn't depict the girls quite accurately. This needs to be replaced, if anything. Marcus2 (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of "obscure" must be different from mine, I've put it back in as taking it out isn't the best way to register your dislike of something which only has a problem in your opinion. If you object to it then go ahead and find an image which depicts them better as the current image does depict the Powerpuff Girls even if you feel it isn't the best, if it's being "obscure" or not is an issue you will have to solve yourself but removing it doesn't help. treelo _radda 14:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Not sure what is obscure about the image. There is no mistake who the girls are; the image is clean and sharp, there are no visual artifacts which could obscure either the girls or the setting, the resolution is suitable that details are not lost in reducing the size and resolution of the image. The lab in the background is a big part of the show, as the entire opening sequence revolves around their creation. Yngvarr (c) 14:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

My image appears to be taken from an official release of some sort, while the other seems to be taken from a fansite. That's why I believe the image I uploaded is superior. Marcus2 (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

But does not include Utonium. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Does it need to include Utonium? The best logic I've been given is that it's more official (though of a much worse image quality with blown out colours and no better a depiction or "obscurity") which isn't good enough seeing as the FUR for Marcus' image explains how it came from the Malay Wikipedia which itself came from right here. Heck, if you're looking for clairty then surely this from the Thai Wikipedia tops even those two, right? Why not this (from the Turkish Wikipedia) if you're looking for something official? What I'm giving you here is that the first image is as good as any of the interwiki examples I've given you and there's no reason that the one which actually has a valid FUR shouldn't be used. If anything, I would not be surprised if the replacement image was uploaded in the first place by Marcus2 and just wants to have it back in the article just like with how he wanted the critical section out. treelo _radda 00:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally prefer Marcus' image. But regardless of which of the two pictures stays, the important thing is that there finally is a picture of the girls on the page.

Rattis1 (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: converted pics to plain links, copyrighted media's supposed to be used only when necessary to illustrate articles. —T-borg (T | C) 01:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still prefer the ...or this one?. Comparing the two side-by-side:

• ...or this one? along with my previous comments, it is clearer and has a full facial details of the girls, and the distinctive dresses are apparent.
• The other one, Which depicts the girls best? This image... has a blur to the whole image, it's not as visually clear. Blossom is partially obscured by the bedclothes; Bubbles is fully obscured by both the bedclothes and the hand; and none of them are wearing their generally distinctive clothing. And the facial expressions are not very complimentary.
• Since the show is named "The Powerpuff Girls", not "The Powerpuff Girls and Professor Utonium", but I don't necessarily care either way about him. Addendum: I just noticed that List of characters in The Powerpuff Girls has a fairly good image of Utonium. It should be mirrored-image, tho, so that the face points towards the text (or the image should be put on the left). See MOS:IMAGES about placement of images.

Yngvarr (c) 09:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Peer Review

Just intrigues me just how messy the article is if you look at it closely. Let's see what's up.

• No image of the girls but plenty of the villains, something seem wrong there to you?

• Just underneath the infobox for the show, for me the text flow inbetween there and the image below looks messy. Best remedy for that would be to shrink the voice actor list within the infobox to the main five.

• The Powerpuff Girls character article (sharing its' content with Demashita! Powerpuff Girls Z which it really shouldn't, more below) and the main Citizens of Townsville section could be spun off into one main character list for the show. Villains could have their own separate article also and the minor character list has got to go. The in-universe style comes from this section specifically, it needs to be moved.

• There's separate character articles for Professor Utonium, Mojo Jojo, The Gangreen Gang, The Rowdyruff Boys, Sedusa and Princess. Please someone justify their existence or they're going to be nominated either for deletion or merging.

• Where's the section about the popularity? If you're going to get it back in then some citable critique of it would be good to balance it out more.

• Setting section is heaving with links and is very excessive, cut them back.

• Too much talk of Demashita! Powerpuff Girls Z in this article and others, a simple header with a small paragraph explaining what it is and a main article linkout should do enough in this article only. Whomever maintains Demashita! should maintain their own lists and articles even if the shows are directly linked, they're not the same and shouldn't be associated as such.

• "References in other media" I'm concerned about. Sure, other shows do have these but each of them are {{trivia}} tagged and correctly so because I question just how much relevance a section which shouts "This one's for the real fans!" at me. Because others have them it doesn't justify their existence and I think that it clogs up the article with... well, trivia as it adds nothing.

• There's two concerns about sourcing and references which are correct but only the one which asks for more citations, the other one would only hold water if there weren't any at all.

Beyond that, it's alright but nowhere near good enough for GA status which this article given its' impact on culture during the mid 90's should have attained by now. Keep at it, you could do a whole lot better. --treelo _talk 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, concerning the "References in other media " section, I think the essay on relevance of content makes a good point, don't you think? —T-borg (T | C) 08:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It does but it's still irrelevant where and when a reference was made if it has no bearing on the article. --treelo _talk 14:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I gotta admit that it looks kind of messy. The Overview and History are okay. All the characters should be compressed into a single article section of "Characters" whether it is Minor or Major. The Settings are okay. The Opening and Ending Themes and Sequences are okay. The Episodes are okay. The Awards are okay. The DVD Releases are okay. The "References in other media" should be compressed into its own article section of the same name. The References, See Also and External Links are okay.

So the only problem in my view are the Characters and References in other media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Heart03 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems no one is making a move yet. It would not be easy for a Rookie like me compress the characters into a single category simply called "Characters" so it won't be as messy. Adam Heart03 (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

CDs

I removed some bit of info added by an anonymous user about CD specs that weren't in existence at the time of the reports' releases. If there's any good reasoning why it should be kept, please let me know. Marcus2 (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If the issue is with the cite then the information about the latter releases could go the other side of it, they do need some mention. Thinking about it, if there's enough merchandise with citable sources then it should have a section separate from history or at least a subsection. treelo _radda 00:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

More info about content and merchandise

I see that the info about what kind of humor the show contains has den deleted. I guess thats a valid edit, since none of it were sourced. But as the article is now, its a bit too short on that very important subject. Some mention of the shows particular brand of retro humor should be in it, but i personaly dont have the time to find a source and make that edit (plus my English skills is kind of lacking. Had this ben the Swedish wikipedia, it would have ben different...). Anyone feel compelled?

Oh and perhapes even more importantly, this article needs to seriously expanded on all the merchandise the series gave birth to. As it is now, it only have a few brief, very unspecific mentions of toys, T-shirt and a couple of other things. The PPG was a merchadise powerhouse for a time, and this fact should be made more clear in the article. In fact, as much as i like the show itself, i cant help but think that the most noticable thing about the PPG phenomena is actually its commercial succes. A short lived succes, yes, bit intense while it lasted. Rattis1 (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The birthday special

I wanted to add a description of that new episode, but for obvious reasons no references are available. Nobody has written much on that episode yet, though it did air in here, to be precise on November 29 at 17:15 CET on Cartoon Network Pan-Euro. I won't restore the small note on the title and plot in the article, but I'll leave some info here for consideration.

So far as I remember, the title was: "The Powerpuff Girls rule!", written and directed by Craig McCracken.

A "key to the world" is sent to the mayor of Townsville, of which news the Powerpuff Girls are horrified (as most certainly he is going to lose it). When he soon says he really has, every villain in Townsville wants to get hold of it. The girls try to fight the villains, but when that doesn't work out so well (there are too many of them), they decide to find the key themselves. They quickly realize it was in the mayor's desk all the time, and it is indeed there. However, the idea to rule over the world starts getting too tempting for each of them, and each has different ideas of what a good way to do it would be. Their fight over the key, which starts soon after this, results in a new jumble after which Mojo Jojo, who thought he had failed to take over the world, gets hold of it. In a strange twist, it turns out he wanted to create a peaceful world, which the Powerpuff Girls approve as well. However, he soon gets bored by the stillness of peace, and starts demolishing things again, which makes the girls put him back in jail.

The film had the old opening, albeit re-edited to widescreen, and the old closing song by BIS. The ending logo was that of Cartoon Network Studios (though I had hoped for the H-B star... oh, well) and, of course, it had the standard Cartoon Network logo with the "Cartoon Cartoon" music and rings expanding around it from the center.

Also, I just found this (the title I give above was on screen): http://www.tv.com/the-powerpuff-girls/the-key-of-the-world/episode/1225979/summary.html?tag=ep_guide;ep_title;11

I hope it airs soon in America as well. --Mégara (Мегъра) - D. G. Mavrov (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

So it was called "Key To The World", not "Powerpuff Girls Rule" (which sounds terrible). A lot of info there, might want to condense it down into one paragraph and add it to the episode list as a special instead of on the main article. treelo _radda 03:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was called The Powerpuff Girls rule!, so said Craig McCracken himself, see http://cmcc.deviantart.com/journal/21750684/ . It most certainly is not the best title ever, but so was it aired. It still puzzles me though, why was it premiered here? That almost never happens with any film on any channel... Well, I guess we had luck this time. --Mégara (Мегъра) - D. G. Mavrov (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comedy?

I see that there is some contention going on via edits on whether PPG counts as a comedy. I believe that it does. Thoughts? Luminifer (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that it's equally as much a comedy series as an action adventure and don't mind if anyone adds Comedy to the infobox as it is within that genre. Better to ask Marcus why he's removing it. treelo _radda

I think it SHOULDN'T. It isn't that funny. It may incorporate humor, but I think it's about as much a comedy series as Arthur. What would be more funny is poking fun at Jesus and the New Testament, for instance, using it in a Mad Libs. Marcus2 (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comedy is very subjective but you even if you don't find the gags to be humorous you can't say they're not trying to be made. Sure, it's not supposed to be all about the comedy but comparing it to a drybread series like Arthur is a bit much. As for the MadLibs, I'm missing a location. treelo _radda 14:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What other genres are there which would fit? Is it drama? Satire? Documentary? Personally, I'm not sure if I would even tag it other than "animated series"; the "action" and "adventure" are more fitting for something like Johnny Quest than the PPG. Would you consider Catch-22 war documentary? Yes, as mentioned, it's all subjective, but I don't think "comedy" is far off the base here. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Marcus, just as an added thing, if something is added and you disagree with it, why don't you follow WP:BRD? You might bring it to the talkpage for discussion but BRD doesn't mean bold, revert, discuss, revert as neccesary. You've been here too long to still be making unilateral decisions without consensus. treelo _radda 14:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, i think im just gonna go ahead make the move now. And did'nt we all agree a long time ago to just ignore marcus2's opinions in regard to this particular article? You know, on account of all the damage he has done to the article in the past and the rules he have broken? Either way, i personaly dont take his opinions into even the slightest consideration anymore. Any pretentions he has made of editing this article with constructive intentions in mind were proven bullshit a long, long time ago...Rattis1 (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, I know, even looked through the archives and it's surprising that he's had so many conflicts over very little to the point of him making odd arguments to support a view. Even with that, are you willing to get into a revertwar over if it should be considered a comedy or not? We've done this before with categories, images and sources and if you want to go to WP:AN and try and get him topicbanned (which is the most effective way outside a block to prevent these issues) then go ahead but I hold little confidence you'll get very far even with the archives acting as evidence. Point is this, consenus trumps opinion and in this case consensus was for adding comedy to the infobox so it was added, matter should end there for all parties even if someone feels it's the "wrong" decision. treelo _radda 02:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sympathize with a thug, Treelo? How dare you! The world is filled with so many stupid, politically-correct people, that there should be a toy called Spinning Jesus on the Cross! LMAO!!!! Marcus2 (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I sympathise with nobody and what in the heck does political correctness got to do with the issue at hand? treelo _radda 15:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well Treelo, since, as you say, trying to get him topicbanned probably wont work out anyway, i dont think im going to bother. As the situation is now, he isn't causing any major damage to the artcile anyway. He has even let the "Comedy"-edit remain in it, so far. So i dont think an edit war is going to break out anytime soon, atleast not between him and me. What im worried about however is what will happen when i or some other user eventually tries to write something about the praise the show has recieved from critics (which it certainly has, and sources to support that can easily be found) or put in more info about its merchandise. There is no way Marcus is going to let anything more into the article that might make the show look well liked or popular, so then we're going to have a major problem, and i have no idea how we are ever gonna be able to settle that arguement... Oh well, i probably wont get around to make a move like that untill atleast a couple of months from now. Ciao.Rattis1 (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

While I doubt it'll help, I just left a message to Marcus, warning him of incivility. Discussion with him hasn't helped in the past, so I'm basically going to start this as a process of getting admin attention to his behaviour. At this point, I think I'd suggest using templates ({{uw-npa}}, etc) on Marcus when he reacts in this manner. Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the 10th Anniversary logo necessary?

I mean, the quality is not very good, and it was just an advertisement. What's the point of having it? Immblueversion (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As proof there was even one? I have no idea what the people adding it have as their reason but it doesn't help the article. treelo _radda 22:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The logo was a bit shocking, The Power Puff Girls Movie, despite the fact that it was the movie poster, shows the girls. There are several poster quality images that show all the girls together and could easily replace the tv show poster. PpgReasearcher (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

DC Comics ?

Why is thier no mention of the DC comic series or of the exclusive charecters from that series? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.216.72 (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Roger L. Jackson

So, over the course of the last few months there's been a slow moving non-editwar editwar occurring as to whether or not Roger Jackson is worthy of infobox mention. The basis of the dispute seems to involve how as the voice of Mojo Jojo and others that he is notable enough to the series to be added on the infobox whilst others who remove it say... um, nothing, sadly telling others "you're wrong" or undoing the edit isn't really an explaination against. Because this is becoming the next big inane content dispute to happen to this article I'm putting it here to see what people have to say and build a consensus either for or against the inclusion. I feel Jackson does have a level of notability in the show as the protagonists' arch enemy as well as a good array of other characters which indicates he is a notable voice actor for the show as much as Tom Kenny who already has a credit as narrator and outside of that role has as much notability as Jackson has. What I think though matters not a damn if nobody else agrees so lets try and beat out a consensus without one voice overridding all others because they shout the loudest as has happened in the past. treelo _radda 16:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

His Mojo Jojo is certainly the show's most notable villain and well deserves to placed first in the list of villains among the List of characters in The Powerpuff Girls. However, unlike Tom Kenny's Narrator, who should get a special listing right after the three title characters since he narrates every episode, Jackson's Mojo, like his Butch, does not always appear. I say leave Jackson's name where it is. Glenn L (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Where the "Powerpuff" name came from?

I found zh:飛天小女警#名稱來源 has a nice description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.5.206.236 (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Would that be a Chinese version of Powder puff? Glenn L (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Mime

Shouldn't it be referenced that Mr. Mime here is a possible reference to Mr. Mime from Pokémon? 85.138.52.185 (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No. treelo _radda 12:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Since this topic is subject to so much vandalism, shouldn't it at least be protected from alteration from anonymous users so we don't have to do reverts and rollbacks so often? Glenn L (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's a concern you can always put in a request at WP:RFPP, it has gotten heavier of recent times but I figure it not to be enough to demand more than a few days of protection. Saying that though, I'm not an admin so I'd say ask for semi-protection and see what comes of it. treelo _radda 15:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Took a blind shot and requested for a semi=prot, see what that gets you but I wouldn't expect better than a week at best given it has never been semi-protected before (not that it hasn't been requested). treelo _radda 15:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A week is better than nothing. Thanks, it took effect almost immediately. Glenn L (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

Shouldn't this page mention the premier was from Space Ghost - Coast to Coast? McCracken won the competition to be the first such premier by posing in a swimsuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.85.24 (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Reception

All this section referenced to was some tabloidy site called "IGN", and the section was extremely short. And besides, the list puts the Powerpuff Girls ahead of the Jetsons and Underdog! How disgraceful! And where's the Fairly OddParents? That show should be way above PPG and one or two places under SpongeBob. The site's a whole load of BS. It's just like, contrary to popular historical belief, John Adams and Ronald Reagan were much better Presidents than FDR. I take it that IGN is a very biased site. I don't know what any of you guys think, but I don't think that some website that's full of crap should be used here in Wikipedia. Classicalfan2 (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Marcus, I restored it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Why? Please stay out of this article. Classicalfan2 (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it is topical and referenced material from a fairly large and notable source. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Edit request

Please change "She exhibits the ability to both understand foreign languages (Spanish, Japanese) and communicate with various animals (squirrels, cats, monsters), and her unique power is emitting supersonic waves with her voice"

to "Her unique power is to understand both foreign languages (Spanish, Japanese) and communicate with various animals (squirrels, cats, monsters)."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.1.190 (talk • contribs) 23 August 2012

Can you please provide a reason for this request? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't check back. The reason for the change is that the show has several instances all three girls emitting sonic screams, specifically the episodes "Nothing Special" and "All Chalked Up." Only Bubble's ability to speak different languages was shown to be uniquely hers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.1.190 (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Closing per Kuyabribri. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Please add to the opening paragraphs that a reboot of Powerpuff Girls is official, as per Genndy Tartakovsky's response on Reddit on the 27th of September 2012, here http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/10l1an/i_am_genndy_tartakovsky_the_director_of_hotel/ LordRayken (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Reddit is not a reliable source but seeing that there is proof that the statement is real then okay, just hope another reliable better source comes up to confirm it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Request to remove references to PowerPuff Girls Doujinshi

Under "manga and anime" after talking about the Powerpuff Girls Z anime it goes on to mention Bleedman's PowerPuff Girls Doujinshi. It mentions it as if it is an official comic but it is a fancomic and has no connection to any official Powerpuff Girls work. Seeing as Snafu comics already has its own page, it has no reason to be on this page.

Hingehead (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Hingehead

Edit request on 12 November 2012

Establish Link Zboogie604 (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

PPG Delta Express airplane

I found a press release from Turner covering the unveiling of a Delta airplane painted with the Powerpuff Girls on it.[1] However, I don't know where it would fit in the article. Should I include it in a new "Marketing" or "Promotions" section, or just leave it out? Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If it does get it's own section then it would stand out and just be for this one promotion. I would put a line under the "Reception" section about i, something like: The powerpuff girls was promoted by Delta and... How companies responded to the show can be seen as reception as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The Powerpuff Girls Reboot

It bothers me that we have a source from Reddit by all means an unreliable source and having Genndy Tartakovsky going there and saying that a reboot is underway. I have found no reliable sources in any media sources picking this up other than fourms debating it and calling it a rumor. Should we keep this bit included in the lead when we have a questionable source and this being nothing more than a rumor? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional sources

Just a couple things I found that I thought I'd leave here. I'll probably add these in later if no one else does.

• Prime Time Animation: Television Animation and American Culture - Mentions the role of gender in PPG and how the show wasn't affected by sexism. Also talks about specific episodes, the PPG magazine (Powerzine), and other various merchandise.
• The Powerpuff Girls: Who, What, Where, How, Why... Who Cares? (Part 2, Part 3, Part 4) - 10th anniversary documentary narrated by Tom Kenny. I've already added info from the first part. Might also be useful on Craig McCracken.

Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 21:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Buttercup personality

I think her personality is LEMONS instead of SPICE. She has no sense of humour, i think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.17.135 (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

HB Swirling Star on Powerpuff Girls!?

At end of the Powerpuff Girls after the credits the HB Swirling Star logo appears but this show wasn't made by Hanna Barbera so does it sounds like a editing mistake? yet same flaw was happend with SpongeBob as well where Klasky Cuspo Robot logo appeared instead of United Plankton Pictures. 109.174.115.63 (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible reboot rumor

I just wanted to say here that I have heard rumors online that the Powerpuff Girls is going to be re-booted as a series. If this does happen then most likely a new article would be made. If the reboot for a new series is not done however then the single reboot episode I feel should remain a special mentioned in the original series article. I would normally just go on like its no big deal (WP:CRYSTAL) but with rumors come IP edits so I wanted to set the record straight here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Bob Longino Reference

Currently as it stands this is the only deadlink in the article (Dead since September 22, 2012), the source is from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is there a way to recover the link or find another source? I have tried the wayback machine w/o much luck. The addition is a more major part of the article with his review. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Found it on the mobile site and fixed it. Here's a WebCite just in case. I located it by googling the quote. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 05:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

SVG image

Hello all. I changed to the JPG image(File:Powerpuff girls characters.jpg) on this page to SVG(File:Powerpuff girls characters.svg). It got reverted with the comment that it looked fanmade. I have to disagree. I think that even at high resolution most people would have to look very hard to spot a difference. The image is currectly quite small so at this resolution it's even harder to spot a difference. I think considering the previous argument and the fact that SVG scales and looks better than JPG we should use the SVG version. Same goes for for the images at List of The Powerpuff Girls characters Facedome (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The image of the characters are non-free, and thus must follow our non-free content criteria. One aspect is that we must keep non-free images at low resolution. As an SVG is effectively infinite resolution, this may not be used at all within WP. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The Powerpuff Girls: Dance Pantsed article

Aside from what is already on this page (combined the reviews) I do not feel that the entire staff is notable and the article does not qualify for a article. WP:NOPAGE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

In addition the staff members are widely unsourced information. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

sp speical

should be "special" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.88.72 (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Another Wikipedian insists on having this article at a higher importance than it needs to be for certain projects; see this edit: [2] I object to this because this show was a fad. A fad is a show or other material good or such that was very popular for a very brief period, as is the case with The Powerpuff Girls show. The show seems to have been very popular, mostly in the year 2000, but not so much after that. The feature film based on the series, released in 2002, did poorly, thus supporting the fact that this was a fad. Fads deserve to be of lesser importance than those things that have more lasting power, such as shows like SpongeBob SquarePants and Scooby-Doo. Classicalfan626 (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Premature RFC - The RfC is premature as no significant discussion has yet taken place on the matter. We don't start with an RfC, we start with talk page discussions. Each WikiProject has criteria in the form of an importance scale to help editors assign importance. None of this was ever discussed, as far as I can tell. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Assessment#Importance scale and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon Network/Assessment#Importance scale. If you want to get input from the various WikiProjects, you can notify them (in a neutral manner) that there is a discussion occurring here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Mention of this issue has been made, via myself, to here and here. Feel free to comment if you'd like. Classicalfan626 (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Ratings

"The series consistently scored the highest rating each week for the network across a wide range of demographics—from young children to adults." I dispute this statement, as I believe there were quite a few shows airing on Cartoon Network that were more popular (and highly-rated) than The Powerpuff Girls in its heyday, such as The Jetsons, the Looney Tunes, The Flintstones, and especially Scooby-Doo (that's a definite for me). Such an incredulous claim should be either checked for verification at the original source, probably the Nielsen ratings; or, if there is no hardcore evidence for such a claim, I suggest it should be removed. Any comments? Classicalfan626 (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The Powerpuff Girls ran from 1998 to 2005 though which is a different time period. The text you quoted doesn't say "Of all time" or anything like that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. I'm saying Powerpuff Girls was not the number one show on Cartoon Network at the time it aired, and that there were other shows that were more popular during its airtime, especially Scooby-Doo. Classicalfan626 (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have sources to back up this claim or is it just from your WP:POV? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither, for now. I do however question the source that was used to back up this incredulous statement. I have seen no clear evidence to suggest that Powerpuff Girls was ever more popular than shows like Scooby-Doo. Classicalfan626 (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Is the source in question Entertainment Weekly? This seems like a pretty reliable source to me: [3]. Here is a source that calls it one of CN's most successful in terms of revenue: [4]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Looney Tunes was acquired by CN from Warner Brothers in 2000. [5] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, can we at least revise the sentence to say that this show was at one time the highest-rated original series on Cartoon Network? Classicalfan626 (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes sure =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't work this article since I don't have this DVD. I would like to work on it, but my real life issues keep me out of it. JJ98 (Talk) 16:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Its okay, I have the DVDs here and am a fan of the show but there isn't really much that can be had from the DVDs other than primary information from the bonus features which unless you have the DVD cant be viewed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Confusing changes that don't strengthen the article

In this edit Classicalfan626 changed |company= content that was already hungry for references to new information that was not supported by references. The weak edit summary "this is better" doesn't explain the source or the rationale for the change, and the added embedded note "Do Not add Hanna-Barbera without a reliable source confirming this, otherwise it is considered questionable information" is toothless since NONE of the content is adequately sourced. I reverted that content in this edit. That reversion was reverted by Knowledgekid87 in this edit, but the summary "Find the source then and link it" is, again, pointless. Multiple editors are claiming that certain information belongs in the |company= parameter, yet it was unsourced before, it's unsourced now, and there has been a burden shift onto me to source what, exactly? I'm blanking the parameter until one of these two eager editors can adequately source any of the content that belongs here. And if this is a simple misunderstanding, I recommend that these other editors use coherent edit summaries since people who are not intimately familiar with this project can't be expected to understand these vague edit summaries and unsourced changes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, Classicalfan626 changed the content back to this:

Cartoon Network Studios (1998–2005) <!-- Do Not add Hanna-Barbera without a reliable source confirming this, otherwise it is considered questionable information-->

With the hidden comment asking editors not to add Hannah Barbara without a reliable source, how it was before pretty much. I don't think anyone is questioning if this show was done by CN or not. The CN references are supported in the article's body, Hannah Barbara is not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As the one who originally added the CN tags I accidently added one for Cartoon Network. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You are right, I am wrong. My apologies. Thanks for the explanation. I yield. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb No need to be sorry, these things happen, happy editing =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

On how long the show was a ratings success...

"During its run, the series consistently scored the highest rating for an original series each week for the network across a wide range of demographics—from young children to adults." I disagree with the choice of the word "run" for this particular sentence. I recall having a little dispute with another Wikipedian regarding this choice earlier. The sentence does not specify when during its run the show was a ratings success. In the beginning, I used the word "heyday", which I think is a better choice, since it was only a ratings success for a portion of its airing history between 1998 and 2005, not in every single year of it. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform individuals, not to deceive them. The other Wikipedian thought "heyday" was not an appropriate word, of which I utterly disagree (this is not Simple English Wikipedia). In this case, of course, the show's heyday lasted from late 1999 or early 2000 to sometime in 2001. This is only part of the show's run, obviously. Any thoughts, comments, etc.? Classicalfan626 (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

What about "At the peak of its popularity..."? I don't have a preference, although I do lean away from "during its run", which isn't the best word choice (no disrespect to Knowledgekid87) because obviously we're talking about the success of the series during its run. But, if we're talking about a specific slice of time between late 1999-early 2000, we need to explicitly state that, and add sources to support that this was the series' "heyday" or its peak of popularity. If we can't do that, then an alternative would be to state that the series consistently received the top ratings between X-date and Y-date (and then source that accordingly). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"During its run" is using a more neutral tone here as it implies sometime during the show's run. I understand you are trying to pinpoint when the "series consistently scored the highest rating for an original series each week for the network across a wide range of demographics—from young children to adults" the problem is that we don't have a source for that. So when you say "heyday" you imply that the show was popular at one point but then was not at another point so then the question is pressed even more on the okay when (?) bit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

If we can't specify (and source) when during the run the series achieved these high points, then we might as well not state it at all as unsourced it would just be fluff. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the phrase to "during it's run" we have a reliable source showing the popularity of the show but as has been said no source on when this "heyday" was. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious: What the hell makes the source(s) reliable? The source Entertainment Weekly is particularly in question since it does not back its claims up with other, primary sources. To me, it just looks like IMDb, which is in some, if not, many ways an unreliable source. So should we accept the magazine's claims as dogma because of its name or how it is regarded by "accredited" academia? How ridiculous that would be! Classicalfan626 (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

We have two different independent sources saying the same thing, if you dispute Entertainment Weekly as a reliable source then take it to the WP:RSN. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional sources: [6], [7]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2015

Please change the link destination for the hyperlink BIS, as it goes to the wrong band, it should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bis_(band) Paperclipmammoth (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 01:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

2014 special and 2016 reboot

Should we consider the 2014 special as a pilot for the 2016 series? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 05:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Howdy! Why would it be up to us? If the producers call it a pilot, then we should call it a pilot. If they don't say anything about it, then it would be WP:OR for us to manufacture the description "pilot". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Cyph, also in my opinion seeing that this is a GA quality article it would be better to eventually split off the reboot into it's own article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I decline. (I thought the 2016 show was going to be animated like the 2014 special.) JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 03:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Powerpuff Girls/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

1 image, 11 citations, almost close to GA status. Lead needs expansion based on the peer review. JJ98 (Talk) 09:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I have downgraded to C class because there are referencing problems and needs a source per WP:V. JJ98 (Talk) 03:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 20:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

New article up

Okay I see the new article The Powerpuff Girls (2016 TV series) is up and running. I would add any and all reboot info there as this article focuses on coverage regarding the original series. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2015

2001:1388:107:6861:D2F:4B41:1F4C:93F6 (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Powerpuff Girls original 1998 series/2016 reboot anxiety attack just keeps getting worse!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You know, throughout this year, I've tried with all my might not to think about the The Powerpuff Girls being replaced with the The Powerpuff Girls (2016 TV series) but throughout the months I've ran into a bunch of pictures from the reboot and here they are.

These pictures I've listed are proof that once the new Powerpuff Girls series airs sometime next year Cartoon Network is already caring more about the 2016 Powerpuff Girls more than their 1998 counterparts in the Powerpuff Girls original 1998 series that aired from 1998 to 2005, and that, and everything related to the original series. And Cartoon Network and everyone else will take the original for granted, and pretend that it doesn't exist anymore- erase the original PPG series from Cartoon Network's history, as well as the original PPG website on cartoonnetwork.com because of the reboot. Meaning that the new Powerpuff Girls 2016 reboot along with its new stuff depicted in these pictures will drive the Powerpuff Girls 1998 original series and everything related to it (including all the original series storybooks, coloring and activity books, toys, video games, chart-topping soundtrack albums, the The Powerpuff Girls Movie and 2003 Christmas Movie comics form DC Comics and IDW Publishing and all the commercials from the original series' run as well as the bumpers from the original series, as well as the PPG original series merchandise and commercials from all over the world- even the Powerpuff Girls 10th anniversary complete series DVD collection AND the 2014 CGI Dance Pansted special, even the fanart based on the Powerpuff girls orignal series) into extinction forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboogie604 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound uncaring here, but what does this have to do with improving this article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I never meant to post this topic here. I was jsut so stressed out at what I saw on the Internet this afternoon. If I posted this message anywhere else on the Internet many PPG fans will think I'm crazy. Above all this possibly very little to do with improving this article. Why do you ask? contribs) 22:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboogie604 (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Home video releases

Moved from the main page

Seven VHS tapes and four DVDs containing various episodes of the series were released in North America between 2000 and 2001. The holiday special, "'Twas the Fight Before Christmas", was also released on VHS and DVD in 2003. The complete first, second, and third seasons were released on DVD between 2007 and 2009 in Australia. Though North America only saw a season one DVD release, the complete series DVD set was later released in the region in 2009 to commemorate the series' tenth anniversary. A new compilation DVD titled "The Powerpuff Girls and Friends" was released in 2014.

I am fine with this section being in the article, but please make sure it is sourced first before adding the content as this is a GA class article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Powerpuff Girls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://spikeandmike.com/sitepages/press.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.cnn.com/2002-07-30/entertainment/cartoon.characters.list_1_ren-and-stimpy-tv-guide-space-ghost?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Article name

This article should be renamed to The Powerpuff GIrls (1998 TV series) if this is about the original series whose then-new episodes aired between 1998 and 2005, and of course there's a re-launch that first aired in 2016. --FrancineFan3883 (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Merchandise and media

Alright, here's my point:

• Why the anime series premiered in 2006 has priority over the film released in 2002?
• Why there's no mention of DC's publication of PPG?
• The article needs to distinguish non-canon/unofficial/fan-created works from canon/official works.

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 05:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the discussion here, to answer your questions:

• The sub-headers in the Merchandise and media section are sorted A to Z, nothing is taking priority over other things.
• If you want to include DC's publication under Parodies and comics then go ahead and add it.
• This is tricky because who gets to define what an "official work" is? I am sure you have seen companies advertise "This is the official hospital of x" in the end it is all promotion. We have to adhere to a neutral point of view for works outside the main scope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, how about we start with: anything created by a fan needs to be cut immediately and burned with fire? Surely there is no dispute that fan creations have no place here. Right? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree for the most part per WP:GNG. The only fan made mention is a Doujinshi created in 2004, but it was award winning which makes it notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Winning an award neither guarantees notability, nor does it guarantee inclusion at Wikipedia. Virtually anything can win some kind of award. If someone did a painting of the PowerPuff Girls and it won First Place at the Iowa State Fair art exhibit, would that warrant inclusion? We should not lose sight of our academic goals. Promoting what could very likely be a copyright violation may not be in accord with those goals. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Well it did win at the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards, but seeing the awards aren't major I wouldn't object to its removal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Alright. I fixed some wordings and respected alphabetical order, but didn't touch otherwise. Whether to remove PPGD or not is up to you. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 11:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I have undone your edit as there is a difference between anime/manga and comics, you are talking about western media verses eastern media. "Fan creations" as per above is not a good title as it is inviting for fans of the show to add their own content. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's what I want to add and fix, at least:

• The PPG comics as published by DC Comics.
• Mimi Yoon, the artist of the variant cover in question, did not (and does not) work for Cartoon Network.
• Splitting of some bits about official comics off the "Parodies and comics" section, and removing a bit about PPGD from this article.

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on The Powerpuff Girls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0%2C20812%2C667918%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webpronews.com/cartoon-network-brings-back-the-classics-with-cartoon-planet-2012-03
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208154058/http://www.idwpublishing.com/news/article/2507/ to http://www.idwpublishing.com/news/article/2507/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ccawards.com/2005_ceremony.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.cnn.com/2002-07-30/entertainment/cartoon.characters.list_1_ren-and-stimpy-tv-guide-space-ghost?_s=PM%3ASHOWBIZ
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117802665?refCatId=14

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Powerpuff Girls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080310222309/http://www.roughdraftstudios.com/press/press_20040115.html to http://www.roughdraftstudios.com/press/press_20040115.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6OY2199eH?url=http://annieawards.org/32nd-annie-awards to http://annieawards.org/32nd-annie-awards

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Powerpuff Girls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116094053/http://mo.accessatlanta.com/movies/content/shared/movies/reviews/P/thepowerpuffgirlsmovie.html to http://mo.accessatlanta.com/movies/content/shared/movies/reviews/P/thepowerpuffgirlsmovie.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116101146/http://www.cartoonnetworkasia.com/minisite/ppgz/characters.php to http://www.cartoonnetworkasia.com/minisite/ppgz/characters.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Powerpuff Girls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/60ON43vEf?url=http://www.ccawards.com/2005_ceremony.htm to http://www.ccawards.com/2005_ceremony.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

UK Dub

Removed from the article

The show began airing in Britain in 1999 on the UK Cartoon Network channel with the original U.S. voiceovers. In 2000, it later aired on free for air television in the UK on Channel 5 as part of their children's block Milkshake!. However the show itself was redubbed with new voices by giving several of the characters as well as the narrator British accents rather than the usual American ones. However some of the characters such as Mojo Jojo, Fuzzy Lumpkins, Professor Utonium, Big Billy and Grubber retained their original U.S. voices (with Roger L. Jackson, Jim Cummings, Tom Kane and Jeff Bennett doing the voices in the UK dub as well). The UK voice cast featured Maria Darling, Emma Tate and Jo Wyatt voicing Blossom, Bubbles and Buttercup and Rob Rackstraw, Jimmy Hibbert, Kate Harbour, Teresa Gallagher (who would later provide voices for Cartoon Network's other animated series created for the network The Amazing World of Gumball several years later) and David Holt redubbing several characters including several villains such as the Amoeba Boys, two of the Ganggreen Gang, Him and the Rowdyruff Boys. Simon Greenall also provided the narration for the UK dub. The dub then later got complaints from fans of the show who weren't pleased of how different the voices were compared to the original U.S. version, thus the UK dub was then dropped, axed and taken off the air. Despite the UK dub being removed, the original U.S. version continued airing on Cartoon Network whilst the U.S. dub of "Knock It Off" was broadcast on Channel 5. The UK dub was also wiped from Channel 5's media archives making it rare and hard to find. Even though it was unknown if the UK dub was released on VHS, it was rumored that the video game series also had a UK dub, but it was unknown if it was found or ever existed, although a sound clip of the dub can be seen and viewed on the official website of Jo Wyatt (the UK voice of Buttercup) as part of her demo reel.

Please provide some kind of sourcing for the information you the editor want to include. The source you provide needs to be reliable, non user edited, and by a vetted person (See WP:RS). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The Powerpuff Girls (franchise) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Powerpuff Girls (franchise). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Sales

Thinking over it, this info dates back to 2014 which is before the reboot:

The Powerpuff Girls is one of Cartoon Network's top-grossing brands, having generated $2.5 billion in retail sales as of 2014.

I'm just wondering if there is a better place to put this info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Forget about it, there is no hard evidence that The Powerpuff Girls sold that much in merchandise prior to 2014. This is just another example of media over-hype/exaggeration. Besides, I believe I read the figure is closer to $500 million. Classicalfan626 (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Classicalfan626 By no means is this media over-hype/exaggeration. This belongs in the Toys subsection&section. Ben 10 sold $6 billion worth of toys.Timur9008 (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The Powerpuff Girls peaked in popularity around the year 2000, in which $350 million worth of merchandise was sold. And the show was not very popular for that long. So it seems unlikely that $2.5 billion is the real figure. And I don't care how much Ben 10 sold in merchandise. You really don't know what you're talking about. Classicalfan626 (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, such a claim as this I think will need a lot more than merely one propagated official line. Perhaps a breakdown of sales per year or something like that from a completely different source will suffice. That statement appears just like the claims that President Trump is unpopular is propagated through various polling organizations which are all linked with the Democratic Party. Most mainstream Democrats are socialists, and all polls that make the President appear unpopular are accordingly skewed far left. Classicalfan626 (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

If you're referring to this[8] this states that the brand made $350 million in 2000. That's retail sales for one year, not lifetime retail sales&merch sales. So no, the $2.5 billion figure is accurate. Besides, The Hollywood Reporter mentions the same thing. [9].Timur9008 (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

How can you say with any authority that the $2.5 billion figure is accurate when you can't confirm it with anything other than what is written in a variety of 2014 press releases, which are propagating that same statement, rephrased numerous times? I need more proof. So unless I'm proven wrong by a completely different source, independent of the original 2014 press release, my statement still stands: You really don't know what you're talking about. The Powerpuff Girls never became more popular after 2000, and that show was a fad that was only very popular for a very brief period. So, the figure stands as unlikely to me. Classicalfan626 (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

San Francisco Chronicle mentions [10] the brand made more than $1 billion in retail sales by 2002. Can that be used as a source instead? Timur9008 (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

About the "Fan works" section

Is it relevant to have the Fan works section? It only covers that fan-produced comic, and to me that feels like some sort of promotion. Why not then mention the millions of other fan-made webcomics? It also feels too selective, not to mention that fan works aren't encyclopedic information. Why not have an "Other fictions" section like in the Spanish Wikipedia? one that would cover the appearances the Powerpuff Girls made in other media, such as how Ace made it into the band Gorillaz and the MAD crossover with 2 Broke Girls.

Also, these "Other media" sections are now fragmented. That doesn't help the article have a solid structure. --JBOOK17 (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed the section as it fails WP:N and placed the media sections in alphabetical order. There are also a-lot of other fixes that needed to be made including removal of un-sourced information. Aside from the CGI special and reboot the article should look much the same as when it was nominated for GA. Feel free to check the notability of the other various media mentions... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)