Jump to content

Talk:List of Muppets

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 216.197.235.90 (talk) at 22:57, 4 June 2024 (→The Early Muppets: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

What about Rufus?

http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Rufus 184.36.174.140 (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Rufus is from the Land of the Tinkerdee pilot (which was similar to the Tales of the Tinkerdee pilot), I think he would be listed under "Muppets that debuted anywhere else." At least he and a similar dog named Muppy were able to make a Disney World Pet Care Center cameo in The Muppets at Walt Disney World. Rtkat3 (talk) 8:05, September 30 2012 (UTC)

Re-write

So I have revamped this list. I based it on other Muppet character lists that I've worked on. Of course, there is much work to be done, and many other characters to add, but I think it's a big improvement. Notice that I removed the original list's section of Sesame Street Muppets because there's already a list and placing them here would be redundant. This list now fulfills the need for a list of Muppet Show and post-MS Muppets. Christine (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the frequency of my name (embarassing), added the reason why I doubt some Muppets are frogs, and briefly made a mess of the HTML tags. But all seems to be well now. G. Haberkorn (31 December 2011)

Mr. Haberkorn, welcome to Wikipedia! It's so exciting for me, as a lowly Wikipedia editor and one of the few in this entire project dedicated to improving Muppet articles. (I'm responsible for bringing Sesame Street to featured article, an accomplishment I'm hugely proud of. I've also been in contact with Michael Davis, the author of Street Gang (book), the definitive book about SS history.) Thanks for your additions/clarifications, and for making a real contribution here. I appreciate your assistance with the wording of the paraphrase of your article in Kermit Culture; I'm by no means a professional writer, so I require lots of assistance. Christine (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More to add

there are more muppets to be added, instead of just "Other characters" we could addd introduced in the movies, because the article doesn't mentioned any characters from the movies like Robin the frog, walter, or those frogs that kermit meets at the end of "The Muppets Take Manhattan". I think their names are Gil, Lil, and Phil and are now apart of the muppet gang.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And we need to add the new characters from "The Muppets" like Walter and the Moopets. (BTW, just saw the movie this weekend, and it's very satisfying to this long-time Muppet fan and expert.) So yes, I agree that this list needs lots of work. You and anyone else are welcome to add to it, as long as your new entries are sourced well and follow the format of the rest of the list. I'll probably get back to it eventually; character lists tend to bore me, so I can only work on them for so long. Christine (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah i saw the movie twice already and look forward to adding to the list. Caringtype1 (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We should include even the Muppets who had appeared in commercials and anywhere else at some point. Rtkat3 (talk) 4:20, September 26 2012 (UTC)

This is not an endless list of not notable unsourced Muppets!!

Using "the Muppet show" as a source, isn't good enough. Anyone could make up a Muppet and say they were on the Muppet show. You need actual sources!! Also the Muppet has to be somewhat notable, appearing for two seconds in one movie or one episode, doesn't warrant a mention here. I'll be removing all incorrectly sourced Muppets. Only add back if you have a proper source.Caringtype1 (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caringtype1, we have to list those Muppets you removed somewhere as they are part of Jim Henson's Muppet franchise just like the characters from The Land of Gorch segment of Saturday Night Live which haven't been added yet. Even a person who contributed here had placed a transclude template to this page on The Muppet Show page. Rtkat3 (talk) 4:20, September 26 2012 (UTC)
We really don't need to include random one-off muppets that nobody has ever heard of. I'm all for adding "The Land of Gorch" but they need sources. Still more muppets need to be removed because they aren't notable and don't have actual sources. If you feel strongly about adding back some of them, please provide references. Caringtype1 (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have been using the references like someone did when it came to those who debuted in The Muppets Take Manhattan. Some of those characters you removed were used in commercials like the ones in La Choy, Mirinda, Wilkins Coffee, and others. Rtkat3 (talk) 5:22, September 26 2012 (UTC)

Please don't edit other people's talk page comments. Caringtype1 (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of muppets. Qualification for inclusion in this article is based on one criteria. They are a muppet. Obviously one must prove via a reference that they exist, but I believe this had been done for several of the muppets that have been removed and the real reason for them being removed is that their appearance is rare. While I completely agree listing every Muppet is making this article rediculously bloated, if we really only want only major characters in this list then this needs to be discussed and approved by concensus. If approved, we would need to rename the article appropriately. If we are aiming to continue to fulfil the role of this article and list every Muppet that has ever appeared, we need to find other ways of making the lists easier to follow, such as reducing the character descriptions or even splitting the article up. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muppets were removed if they didn't have an actual reference that prove they a characters within the franchise. Listing a million muppets with a reference like "Muppets from Space" isn't helpful at all.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it is valid as long as they do appear in Muppets from Space. Providing an actual episode number would've been more helpful of course. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would that include anyone that appeared in The Muppet Show, Jim Henson's Little Muppet Monsters, and Muppets Tonight where they would later appear in later projects? Rtkat3 (talk) 1:41, September 27 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Caringtype1. Actually, his description of the criteria for inclusion in this list is what I was shooting for when I took on this list and similar Muppet and Sesame Street character-lists about a year ago. There was even a policy of sorts that developed out of it [1]; okay, I created the policy, but there was no disagreement about it from the community. And then earlier this year, other editors began to add unsourced characters, and to be honest, I had neither the time or the energy to deal with it, and before I knew it, the situation had gotten out of hand. As the policy above states, just because you've seen a character in an episode or movie doesn't mean it should be added. The source needs to have all the information needed--the character name, the show or movie it appeared in, the name of its performer, and the years the performer performed it. I agree that it's not enough to state that the character was in, for example, The Muppet Show as the current version of this list does. If you cite a show, you need to reference the episode name and number, as I did in ref 53. Also notice that I put the ref after Sal Minella's description, and not after its performer Brian Henson; I also didn't include the years Henson performed Sal, since the information isn't in the episode. Again, that follows the set policy. I suggest that we return to that policy, which is followed in every other character list, including List of human Sesame Street characters, which is an FL. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I absolutely agree with everything the policy says and we should definitely use it for this page.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said below, I'm very concerned with the structure of muppet related articles as it is. I can't see it making sense to someone who was new to the subject and wanted to find out more. People will search "List of Muppets" and expect to find an indiscriminate list of Muppets. If that cannot be achieved, instead of adding hidden exceptions to what we mean by a list of Muppets, we should change the name of the article so there is no ambiguity about what the reader expects. I personally would've expected to see characters from Sesame Street and Fraggle Rock in this list. I'm told they're not because they are concidered a different branch of Muppets, but nothing in this or any other article explains why its concidered this way or who it was that concidered it. If I can't follow that, how is a person unfamiliar with the subject supposed to? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the Sesame Street Muppets aren't here is because there's already a list for them (List of Sesame Street Muppets) and if all Muppets were lumped together in one list, it'd be really long. Even if we were to put all character lists in one article, it'd be too long. So this list is really non-Sesame Street Muppets; if we were to create a new article, perhaps that would be the name of it. Another option is to create new lists out of this one, but the problem with that is that it would get too complicated, especially since for many non-SS Muppets (like Kermit, for example), they appear in many different series and movies. That's why the sections in this list are entitled "Muppets that debuted in ...". I wanted to add one more thing to this discussion, which I forgot about before: as the policy states, Wikipedia articles and lists about the Muppets are not Muppet Wiki, which is a marvelous source, but they're able to do things we can't, like list and describe every character ever created by Henson et.al, without relying on sources like we have to do here. On the other hand, the articles/lists here have the potential to be scholarly treatments of subjects related to Henson, Sesame Street, and the Muppets. That's one of my personal goals, which is why I've worked so hard for so many years on it. I'd love to, for example, get The Muppets and Jim Henson up to snuff; both are hot messes, in my opinion. That requires time and energy I don't have currently. It's on my to-do list, though, and I have most of the sources I'd need. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the reasons why they're not here, but their absence wouldn't be obvious to everyone. Perhaps a brief section with a brief description for Sesame Street and another for Fraggle Rock and anything else that has been missed, using the main article template? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that seems more like it is just a problem you are having. myself and everyone i know have know no problem comprehending this. Even the intended audience (small children) don't seem to have a problem understanding what is and isn't a Muppet. Caringtype1 (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to think outside the box as to how the articles would seem to other people, making constructive comments to help solve what I believe is a real problem. With respect, please don't comment unless you can participate constructively in a conversation without insulting people. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my intention to 'insult" you, but your argument doesn't make any sense. If people want a list a frazzles they would go to the fraggle page. If they want a list of muppets, they come here. If they want a list of sesame street characters, they go to List of Seasame Street Muppets. Why would people not understand that?Caringtype1 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My argument makes sense if you are willing to regard a Fraggle or puppet based Sesame Street resident as a Muppet, or are at least willing to except that some people who believe they are anyway. People will come to this list and look for Fraggles and Sesame Street characters. We cannot assume that upon finding that this information is missing, they will automatically think to look at the Fraggle Rock or Sesame Street articles to get the information they wanted. They will assume that if the information was on Wikipedia at all, they would've already found it here or at the very least some sort of indication as to where it was. They may (yes there are people uncultured enough) not even know Fraggle Rock or Sesame Street exist and, looking at list, they're not going to either. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, maybe you do have a point. Maybe we should include a sentence pointing people looking for fraggles, or SS characters in the right direction.Caringtype1 (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a lot of our problems here could be solved with rewriting the lead, and with stating in the lead that this list is different and separate from the Sesame Street and Fraggles lists. Perhaps a Fraggles list needs to be created; I see from Fraggle Rock, which is woefully inadequate as an article, has character lists already. We can also add the link to the "See also" section here. I'll see what I can do about it over the weekend. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a good idea. I think we should at least have good sourced sections of the ones that Caringtype1 removed which also included the "Muppets that debuted anywhere else" section and the "Muppets that debuted in commercials section." Rtkat3 (talk) 8:06, September 30 2012 (UTC)

"Muppets that debuted anywhere else" is pointless, and badly titled. There was a section called 'Other Characters', but an editor removed it. Most Muppet that debuted in commercials, and many of the movies never appeared again, and don't really need to be mentioned.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question did that because the characters that originally appeared in that section originally debuted in The Jim Henson Hour. Perhaps that's what the section should be if it is brought back with the ones that were previously removed due to them not being properly sourced. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:08, September 30 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

Fraggles

I am confused why we're going to great detail over minor characters from various series, yet none of the Fraggles are mentioned once. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the Fraggles are considered their own Muppet branch like the Sesame Street Muppets and the Muppets of Panwapa. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:43, September 27 2012 (UTC)
Looking at all muppet related articles as a whole, I don't believe the current structure would make sense to a reader unfamiliar with the topic. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that? They wouldn't understand the muppets and frazzles are two separate things, or that the reader wouldn't understand what a muppet is?Caringtype1 (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They wouldn't understand why we (Wikipedia) conciders them two seperate things, as they are not.~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are two COMPLETELY separate things! The only thing they have in common is their creator. (and that they are puppets) Fraggles are Fraggles, and Muppets are Muppets. Fraggles weren't on the Muppet Show, and muppets weren't on Fraggle Rock. They are different and that is that.Caringtype1 (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are muppets as indicated by the title caption of every episode. [2] ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

they are "fraggle Rock muppets' not Muppet Show show muppets. All the fraggles are listed right on the fraggle rock page, plain and simple. They don't need to be lincorrectly listed again here! Caringtype1 (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to respond to this in the previous section, but let's go ahead and discuss it here: What is a Muppet? Actually, it's a humorous question to me because this has been debated amongst adult Muppet fans (little ones, being smarter than most adults, simply don't care) for years and because it's kind of addressed in The Muppets (film). You know, that wonderful song "Man or Muppet". I doubt that we'll be able to answer the question, but we can at least develop a policy for these lists. According to Muppet Wiki [3], which I understand isn't a definitive source but something we should pay attention to, a Muppet is a character created for the productions of Jim Henson. This includes the Fraggles. I would bet that this definition is something that most Muppet experts would agree with. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that a Muppet is created by productions of Jim henson, certainly not all Jim henson production's characters are muppets. he did several movies that had nothing to do with the Muppet. Fraggle Rock is what i consider (I'm not sure if anyone agrees with me), an off-shoot of the Muppet Franchise. While they are technically muppets, they remain independent from Kermit, Miss Piggy, etc. I think to be a Muppet, one must have to be created by Jim Henson(or by his company, after his death), and one must be a puppet. There might be more than that, but those m=seem like the basic qualifications for being a "Muppet".Caringtype1 (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that is your own opinion and, while I respect that opinon, no concensus or external verifiable source has brought you to it. If Jim Henson or a representative of him had made that definition and you were citing it, then the current article is valid as it is. Obviously that hasn't happened and it needs to be accepted that everyone else has either come to the same conclusion, the opposite conclusion (as with Muppet Wiki), or hasn't really put any thought into it. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ironic thing is that Henson and his companies have never really defined the term. They just did the work, created the characters, and made loads of money and fun doing it. There certainly needs to be more research done about it, and none of us here have done that yet. I want to, and intend to sometime in the future. I've been involved in discussions over the years like "Are the characters in The Dark Crystal Muppets?" And my favorite is the debate about Yoda being a Muppet because Frank Oz performs him. (So does that mean that the CGI version of Yoda in the later movies is a Muppet too?) These are fun debates, things that I'm sure Henson is laughing over up in heaven. And my kids simply don't care. Give me a couple of years and I'll tell you what I come up with. For now, I think rewriting the lead as I state above will help the situation here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Zealand

I believe Lew Zealand is not notable on his own. Aside from the one fledgling source, everything else in the article seems like fancruft. It would be better if it were worked into List of Muppets#Muppets that debuted in The Muppet Show. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 08:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Zealand is one of the popular Muppets even to the fact that he started out as a Whatnot and the fact that he has appeared in a lot of Muppet projects. I prefer that his page be kept separate. Rtkat3 (talk) February 1 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Erpert, unless Lew's article is expanded with reliable sources. With all the information out there about all the Muppets, I'm sure it can be done. Actually, there's a need for this kind of thing for most Muppet-character articles, something that could be fun and definitely helpful. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral notification of discussion about is Big Bird a muppet

Please participate here: Talk:Hollywood_Walk_of_Fame#big_bird_is_not_a_Muppets_character.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about Nobody?

The character has been called Nobody by fans and Limbo, Line Face, or floating face by Jim Henson and others. I find it strange that he isn't mentioned at all and if i'm not being clear enough as to which Muppet i'm referring to here's a link http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Limbo hope this helps. 24.44.75.217 (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond i'm very bad at this wikipedia thing and might mess up the page. 24.44.75.217 (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I suggest that you register for an account. There are lots of benefits to doing so. I also suggest that you read the welcome notice on your talk page, which will lead you to important policies. One of these policies is Verifiability, which states that every claim in Wikipedia articles must be supported by reliable sources. Muppet Wiki, as great as it is, isn't a reliable source because like WP, it's user-generated, but unlike WP, isn't subject to the same kind of requirements for verifiability. If you can't find a reliable source, you shouldn't add the information. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


What if try to find another link? Will that be better? The character is real but it's just that his true name remains unsure. 24.44.75.217 (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal and article rehaul

Considering the scope of this proposal, I decided it was best to create a discussion before I went ahead and did it myself.

Firstly I propose that we rename this article to List of The Muppets characters and only include the Muppet characters owned by Disney, from the The Muppets franchise. Non-Disney Muppets, such as the Sesame Street and Fraggle Rock characters, already have their own separate character lists. This change will help readers distinguish between characters from all the different separately-owned franchises.

Secondly, I propose we substantially merge any tertiary and/or non-notable character article stubs into this one. For the longest of time, I've noticed that there are countless of stub articles about minor Muppet characters that either don't meet the requirements of WP:NOTE or are just not fully-fleshed out (ex: Bubba the Rat, Bubba the Rat, Pops, Steel Rabbit, etc). I think that these—and many others—can better serve their purpose here as part of a list, instead of their own standalone articles. Additionally, this article currently lists a multitude of extremely obscure and trivial characters, most of which are not even properly sourced, and thus be considered as original research. Therefore, I also propose that we change this article into one that lists all the primary, secondary and (possibly even) tertiary characters in The Muppets franchise. Main characters such as Kermit the Frog, Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, Gonzo, etc., will continue to have their own stand-alone articles with only a brief character summary (1-2 paragraphs) appearing on this article. As a result, we will get rid of the current historical order of introduction and incorporate a far more simpler, streamlined format. The following articles I have listed here, serve as appropriate examples of the type of format that I suggest we adopt: List of Parks and Recreation characters, List of Friends characters, List of The Big Bang Theory characters, etc.

I would definitely appreciate some input from other editors about this idea. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 18:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page and history of this list demonstrates that I've tried to impose reason to it, but with little success, mostly because other editors were bent on imposing their own structure. Instead of pressing it, I left things to develop on their own, mostly because I had neither the energy or time to press it. Plus, I decided to focus on other character lists, like the aforementioned List of Sesame Street Muppets, which is a FL. Originally, the Sesame Street Muppets and what you call the Disney Muppets were all put in one list. I was the one who separated them and then another editor changed this list to include what it is today--essentially a list of Disney Muppets.
One issue I have with your proposal is the name. The characters we're talking about including here are the Muppet characters that, for the most part, originated in The Muppet Show. Exceptions are Kermit and Rowlf, who were created for Sam and Friends. Then as the years went by, others were created in the movies and subsequent TV shows (including the upcoming one)--characters like Rizzo, Clifford, Walter, and Denise. This obviously complicates things greatly. However, most Muppet experts agree that all these characters should be grouped together, and kept separate from the Sesame Street and Fraggle Rock Muppets. I propose, then, that we keep the same distinction here and name this list "Muppet Show Muppets", as long as we explain in the lead what that means.
About individual character articles: I agree wholeheartedly that most Muppet character articles (from all three groups) suffer from the issues you name and need a lot of work. I thought that this would be a fun and worthwhile project for anyone to take on. I would like to myself, but haven't had either the motivation or time in the last year or so. That doesn't mean, though, that we shouldn't follow your suggestion about a simpler, streamlined format, an aspect of your proposal I wholeheartedly support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Jedi94. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the conversion to a list-of article for characters related to The Muppet Show to parallel and distinguish from the Sesame Street one. I disagree with "List of The Muppets characters" as the title, because it's only about the Muppets as associated with some programs (only the capitalizaton of the "The" distinguishes the selection-criterion being the program rather than the character type). Christine's proposal of "Muppet Show Muppets" is clearer (and when written as "Muppet Show Muppets" clarifies the parsing of that phrase). But if the origin is "The Muppet Show", I would like "The" included too. The concept is "Muppets from The Muppet Show-related franchises", but I agree that just saying TMS is concise and clear enough for an article-title. And also support the merger of minor-character stubs. DMacks (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. It seems that we have reached a strong consensus in favor of the proposal, thus I'm going to go ahead and start working on it, by renaming the article and merging the stubs first. As for the article's new name, I suppose the agreed-upon (and most suitable) title is List of The Muppet Show Muppets. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 19:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Love the work. Not sure about the title, as this ensemble has been together for far longer, and done far more things, than just The Muppet Show at this point. Indeed, I'd venture to guess that a majority of people interested in looking up this article may find the title really pedantic and redundant. That said, I can't think of anything better for a title at the moment that still makes a distinction between this troupe and the Sesame Street crew.
Secondly, I'm not sure about some of the redirects. Generally, it's obvious which characters deserve their own articles, and which are minor background characters, but something's aren't as obvious. I only became aware of this proposal (which really should have been given more than one day!!!! Really, WP:NODEADLINE, and all. Far too jumping the gun.) because of the redirect of Whatnot (Muppet), which I had on my watchlist. Thing is, while by definition, whatnots are extras and not notable characters, the coverage of a whatnot as an independent concept is lost. Considering the opening of the FAO Schwarz boutique was covered in the Today show, it's an independently notable concept, even if the characters whatnots play are by definition not notable.
And I'm going to really advise that nobody rushes through changes of independent articles unless the article really has no other sources besides the show. oknazevad (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fillowing up, looking at some of the choices of merger, I have to question the relegation of Clifford, who was the host of Muppets Tonight, to a minor character without his own article. If any merger article should be restored to stand alone status, it's that one. oknazevad (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't that particularly enamored with the current name but since it was the most-widely agreed upon one, I went along with it. I originally suggested List of The Muppets characters, as that felt more encompassing of the franchise as a whole (including films and other series) and mirrors the flagship article and navbox. It also sounds less redundant with the use of "characters" rather than the already-implied "Muppets". What do you think Oknazevad? ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 22:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's better. The biggest issue is that it doesn't make clear the scope of the article, but that's what the lead text is for. It's better than the current title, for certain. It's much less wordy and far less redundant. Also, the current title is totally incorrect in scope, and therefore inappropriate; the list is for the franchise as a whole, not just The Muppet Show series. Many of these characters, including major characters (Clifford, Walter and especially Pepe!) never appeared on The Muppet Show as they were created for later projects. However I can agree that the "List of The Muppets characters" isn't a great title. The italics (which wouldn't appear in the search box) indicate a single work (which one, the 2011 film or the upcoming TV series?), not a franchise (which isn't italicizes) and therefore aren't appropriate. "List of Muppets franchise characters" would be better, as it states we're talking about the franchise up front (not say Sesame Street characters) but doesn't inappropriately misstate the scope by including the title of only one series/film, like the other ideas. That's my 2¢. oknazevad (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, especially in regards to the possibility that the title might confuse readers as to whether or not the article is in relation to the 2011 film or the 2015 TV series. Format-wise, how about List of The Muppets (franchise) characters? ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 00:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No brackets. That's reserved for a disambiguator of the whole title, not an element of it, and looks terrible. And again, franchise names are not italicized. We don't need the "the", either. Maybe rephrase as "List of characters in The Muppets franchise". oknazevad (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely a far better phrasing that I'll support. Per MOS:THECAPS however, I strongly argue that the "the" should be capitalized, since The Muppets is the franchise's proper name. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 03:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the franchise suggestion above is that it doesn't include characters created before the recent movies--characters like Clifford. I was curious, so I looked at how Muppet Wiki handles this issue. I realize that Muppet Wiki is by no means authoritative, but I've always considered it a useful resource. Interestingly enough, it refers to characters not from Sesame Street, Fraggle Rock, and Bear in the Big Blue House simply as "Muppets." It defines them in this way: "Muppet characters who have appeared in the universe established by The Muppet Show and expanded to include movies, specials, spin-offs, books, and more." Personally, I agree with this simple definition and would support a return to "List of Muppets" as the list title, as long as we include the definition. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the Muppets franchise isn't limited to the recent movies at all, and definitely includes characters created before the recent movies. In fact, I'd call that a very peculiar interpretation. Honestly, I'm beginning to think that "List of Muppets" remains the best title because of brevity, just as long as the lead text explains the scope properly (as it does currently) so readers and editors know that Sesame Street characters (and Fraggles) belong elsewhere.
Oh, and Clifford's solo article should be restored; the character's prominence in the 90s was commented upon by outside sources, in part because the character was created by Jim Henson specifically to be a signature character for Kevin Clash. The article can definitely be expanded with some of that once we dig up the sources.oknazevad (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll settle for the "List of Muppets" title as well, and just have the prose in the lead paragraph carry the defining weight. I'll wait a couple days, however, before changing the title back, just if other editors want to share their opinion as well. As for restoring Clifford's solo article, Oknazevad, if you feel that strongly and believe that it can be greatly expanded from its previous size, then you have my supportive blessing. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 18:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latest

Hi Oknazevad, this note is in regard to your comment, "Most recent" as in "latest" as in standard American English. In short, it's the correct way to phrase it idiomatically, and not the sort of thing that would need a date.[4] My removal of this statement was not arbitrary: "Clifford's most recent appearance was a brief cameo in The Muppets' Wizard of Oz as the manager of the nightclub Poppyfields."[5] I didn't remove it because it was grammatically or idiomatically flawed, I removed it because it's an ephemeral statement. When someone reads that, they have no idea if that was written yesterday or ten years ago. Maybe there have been six more recent appearances since that was written? Should the reader make that assumption? One way to deal with this is to make use of {{as of}}, which as I'm sure you know allows us to date ephemeral statements. "As of November 2, 2015 the most recent appearance of Clifford was a brief cameo in The Muppets' Wizard of Oz." But this still raises the question, how do we know? It's original research. We're basically taking Jedi94's word for that. Which isn't to say that he doesn't know his Muppets, rather, that the statement is both ephemeral and extraordinarily difficult to verify. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not difficult to verify at all; it's just a matter of watching the actual productions. The list since Wizard of Oz Consists of 2 TV specials, 2 feature films, a handful of web videos and 6 episodes of a tv series (still in production). No Clifford in any of them. I don't think we need the "As of " tag, but it doesn't hurt. oknazevad (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verb tense

This entire article, starting at Main Characters, needs a major revision for a more flowing style and above all into present tense (e.g., replace "Beauregard also appeared in The Great Muppet Caper" with "Beauregard also appears in The Great Muppet Caper"), as per [6] and [7]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.32.162 (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Muppets. 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) 19:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford??

Where is Clifford? I clicked on the link for Clifford from the Wikipedia page for Muppets Tonight and there is no listing for him.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muppets_Tonight

First paragraph under the FORMAT section. 96.228.59.187 (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's listed under "additional characters". Which is junk. He's a significant character because of his position on Muppets Tonight, even if he hasn't been used in some time. I'm restoring a separate subsection for him. oknazevad (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Early Muppets

Scoop has no eyes, wearing glasses. Skip has beady eyes. Big V is really made in 1964 (or 1961!?). He (Big V) usually a human nose from The La Choy Chow Mein Presentation from December 30, 1965. When the the red La Choy Dragon was made from December 28, 1965. My version of Glow Worm (audio from Mike Douglas Show, B&W) and (audio from The Ed Sullivan Dhow, Color) Now a sneak peek of the Turkey Hollow Monsters, Snerf, Thudge, Snerk & Snork, Beautiful Day Monster, Proto-Grover, Sneegle and Mack! 216.197.235.90 (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Muppets&oldid=1227303602"