Talk:Funday PawPet Show

Furry Mid‑importance

	Funday PawPet Show is within the scope of WikiProject Furry, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to furry fandom. For more information, visit the project page.FurryWikipedia:WikiProject FurryTemplate:WikiProject Furryfurry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 2 January 2008, see discussion.
Uphold last AfD, 6 February 2007, see discussion.
Keep, 29 January 2007, see discussion.
No consensus, 28 January 2005, see discussion.

Since I'm so pathetic...

How should I help improve this article, in particular? are there any pieces of information that I can help find or something? Suzumebachisecret (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welllll, the references don't look too bad. But you see all those little ^{[citation needed]} tags? Those signal the absence of a needed citation. You might as well look through to find refs where there's a ^{[citation needed]}, which appears as {{fact}} while you're in edit mode. To make ref'fing easier, go to "my preferences" (upper right corner), go to Tools, and enable "RefTools" under gadgets or something :) I c eUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 22:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laundry list cleanup

The list of characters is rather lengthy. Perhaps it should be truncated to incldue only the core characters, shortening the list to 10 or less. The entries on the resulting list should be wikilinked to their respective WikiFur page.

Furthermore, the retired and irregular character lists should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.242.19 (talk • contribs)

External links

I've removed the personal livejournal links per WP:EL. While I should not have removed the "offical" livejouranl of the Show (even if I still think it's iffy) the others are the journals of people involved in the Show. Since the article is about the show itself and these accounts can be accesed from the central live journal show anyway they are superfluous and inappropriate. NeoFreak 02:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try some reading comprehension. WP:EL says those links "should" not be used. WP:SPS says "Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as a primary source of information about the author or the material itself, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material". The links are valid primary sources. Nardman1 03:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the question of wether or not having related people's personal livejournal's linked is appropriate please see the clause Self-published material may be used as a primary source of information about the author or the material itself, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material, and so long as it is: about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject in WP:SPS. This is not a biographical article about Todd and who ever. It's an article about the "Funday PawPet Show". NeoFreak 03:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The concern in WP:SPS is about people pushing POV material they write about third parties. That's hardly the case here where the show's creators write about their creations. Nardman1 03:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a biographical article called Tod and Poink? No. Since this is not an article about Tod and Poink they are third parties and their personal live journal pages are self-promotion and inappropriate. NeoFreak 03:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize Tod and Poink are fictional characters, right? Nardman1 03:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I do realize that I'm an idiot though. While it's still excessive and they both still link off of the main journal I'm so morified that I'm going to just leave this alone now. NeoFreak 03:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

This is really badly sourced, and that makes me sad. Imma gonna try to do somethin' about that-K@ngi e ^meep! 05:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the unsourced stuff, that gives us a good to-do list to work with. I'm afraid that some of this stuff will have be sourced by referring to specific episode numbers, which will be a pain to do. The recurring show activities can be found in nearly every episode, including the current one. (With the exception of the match game, which doesn't happen very often nowadays.) More information might be found in blackfoot's timelines or on usenet.

Googling hasn't turned up a source for "the 'Net's first and only regularly scheduled four hour puppet show". This phrase seems to be a relic from the very first version of this article. [1] I myself can't think of an earlier example of an internet puppet show, but just the same, Wikipedia frowns on statements that can't be backed up. JohnWallaby 17:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that quote is quite a good one, but it lacks a source :(. I'd encourage numerous sources to be found, as writing an article that is derived from one source is generally frowned upon. But the recurring themes and activities etc. could very well be sourced from one source (even a primary source would be cool). I'm hoping to get some time off from IRL, which I'll spend finding some third party sources for this article-K@ngi e ^meep! 11:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memorable Shows

Hmm, this is a problem section. Is it possible to get a description of these shows from, say, the show's website? Some of these are really unencyclopedic, with lines like "you either love it or hate it" sneaking into a number of the show descriptions. Sounds a little too ORy to me. Any thoughts?-K@ngi e ^meep! 06:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak sources?

We don't really have many sources here that are cast-iron third-party verifiable. The Orlando Sentinel one is fine, though it would be even better if it weren't on the PawPet website. And the ones that refer to specific parts of the show that can be easily verified (eg the Art Jam requests) are okay too. But the rest still seems to be teetering on the edge of blog/fansite material. Yes, as mentioned above, self-published material is okay, but I don't think it looks good — especially from the point of view of assessing notability — when the sources are overwhelmingly self-published material. Oh, and this quote — "the 'Net's first and only regularly scheduled four hour puppet show" — really cannot stay indefinitely, even tagged as needing citation, if no source can be found for it. It's remained there a while now, probably too long. Loganberry (Talk) 01:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had to move this article down to the new class C, as this issue has not been addressed. GreenReaper (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Sentinel added a archive search tool, with which I found the original Pawpet article in question. 74.237.22.84 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Funday PawPet Show. 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/20071221080600/http://community.livejournal.com/pawpet/ to http://community.livejournal.com/pawpet/

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) 20:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Funday PawPet Show. 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:

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) 22:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]