Talk:Chowder (TV series)/Archive 2

Suggestions

I have a few suggestions for this article. Perhaps some of them should be implemented.

• As mentioned in the GA review, move the quote from the intro somewhere else. The intro should summarize the article, not mention facts that aren't otherwise in it.
• Nobody's complained about it, so I assume that it's okay to use Greenblatt's blog as a source.
• I'm not sure about the use of the word "fart" in a Wikipedia article. Should Kimchi be described as a flatus? (Thank you, MythBusters, for teaching me that word!)
• Overall, just a little more copy editing to tighten up the prose.

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points there, I don't actually know why the quote is still within the intro but given a rewrite of the first section I'm sure we could work it in somehow into the main body. Nobody has objected to the use of Greenblatt's blog yet and we reckon it's a perfectly decent primary source as it can be relied on for facts unlikely to be mentioned anywhere else such as a explanation of what Chowder's (and Panini's) mixture of species are instead of what could have been considered a running gag. As for Kimchi being called a flatus, he was for quite a while and seemingly someone changed it for whatever reason. I'd give it a second go-over for copyediting but there's a few points I personally cannot rewrite so I'll leave it to someone more capable. Thanks for the input, was considering sending it off for reassessment but just needed a poke to get to it. treelo _talk 16:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, it was described as flatus several times, and IP's keep changing it. I'm not in the mood to get into 3RR or a block over it, but feel free to change it. Yngvarr (c) 16:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that to say you do have moods when you want to get into a 3RR violation? Anyway, seeing as the description adequately explains what Kimchi is without getting into specifics on if he's a fart of some sort (which I doubt) I've just removed the part in brackets instead. treelo _talk 16:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Ok, big thing coming up here, regarding Greenblatt's blog as a source. One of the main reasons that blogs are generally not acceptable is that they are not attributed to a real person; they're mostly anonymous. In Greenblatt's case, he's made full disclosure who he is, and as the creator of the show, he is a primary, and a reliable, source. I'm pretty sure most of the attribution to Greenblatt has been posts made by Greenblatt himself, and never using the blog comments as a source.

Another issue about "primary versus secondary" sources is in regards to critical examination of a topic. Now, let's just face it, this is not a treatise on the reasons for global warming, where it is necessary to consider critical reactions from a neutral standpoint. It's a cartoon who's sole-source of in-universe information will come from the person who created that universe. Consider Tolkien. He created the entire legendarium, and he remains the source. While there are critical examinations of the legendarium, nobody will challenge "Bilbo is a Hobbit", and using Tolkien himself as the primary source of that information.

There is a critical reception section to this particular article, where you'll find five third-party reviews, two of them not entirely favorable. We've had IP's who've attempted to push POV by removing the unfavorable reviews. In this case, yes, secondary sources are important, because it's a critical examination of the subject matter. Yngvarr (c) 17:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty good assessment of how we use Greenblatt's blog as a primary source there and I'm guessing something to clarify and possibly cite if someone challenges the sourcing. treelo _talk 19:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a bit of copy editing, and it's good to know that using Greenblatt's blog is acceptable since I wasn't sure. I still think that we need more non-primary sources, however, and the intro could stand to be a little longer. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(radda)About the citations for the episode list... um, what can we use? Never had to get citations for episodes before and I doubt self-reference to the episodes themselves would work. treelo _talk 02:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We could do like Chowder does and ask Gazpacho. No, seriously, I don't know. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So, we need to add citations for episodes but have nowhere to cite from and don't know what would be good sources if we did... hm, that's a toughie. I figure we might not need the tag for citations because it's fairly unlikely in my mind we could find a reliable source for these, what dya think? treelo _talk 02:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There's an episode list on the Cartoon Network page for Chowder. For simple title and quick summary information, there isn't a problem with using that as a reference.
Kww (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but it only covers upto episode six which is less than half of the total episodes so far. treelo _talk 03:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

From my observations, the Cartoon Network website is very unreliable, and not in a WP:RS sense. They have 14 episodes listed for Camp Lazlo, 26 for My Gym Partner's a Monkey and 13 for Squirrel Boy, just to name a few. Yngvarr (c) 13:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

Are we allowed to quote that much from reviews? And even if we are, is doing so good for the article? To the last question, I say 'No'. Lots42 (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The section originally only had a bullet to the actual reviews. I sent this up for peer review, and the section was questioned. I grabbed what appears to be the most salient text and quoted them here. I'm not a copyright lawyer, but a small portion of the original text was quoted, and is properly attributed, which I feel is suitable under fair use. As for your second question, feel free to work it up how you see fit. Someone tagged it as needing expansion, so apparently you're not the only one to take issue with that section, but myself, I've no clear ideas what can be done. I feel the reviews are important, as my comments above regarding critical reaction explain. Yngvarr (c) 09:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Episodes

OK I'm the one who puts down all the new episodes like 5 weeks before they air. And I always do the episodes a different way... just look at the last 4. Could someone tell me how to do it like the rest are? If you understand what I'm saying, thanks! Papasmurf0810 (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Word to the wise, don't unless you can source these episodes so far into the future. The code is easy to understand but if you're having diffculty adding it correctly then leave it and as long as it's sourced or more imminent that next week I'll fix it, OK? treelo _radda 14:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just to add to that: there have been many, many times where future episodes have been scheduled, and pulled at the last minute. The history of the article should actually show what happens when you're trying to outguess an entity that is random, look around January or February -ish if you want to see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yngvarr (talk • contribs)

Removal of a source?

Somewhere along the line, a source to [1] was removed. This now invalidates the entire Setting section. This is an interview which just happened to be posted in a forum, it wasn't a forum chat, and this info isn't available anywhere else. Yngvarr (c) 00:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• My bad, I removed it since it was a forum post. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

For this, I'll use the footnote at WP:SPS these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. And WP:IAR for the substitution of the word forum for blog, since the ref only directly referenced the actual material, not the comments. And then I'll add that Newsarama is considered notable enough to rate a Wikipedia entry, and lists the particular author of this interview, Steve Fritz (which links incorrectly) as a professional journalist Yngvarr (c) 00:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Character names and food references

Is it necessary to link, or otherwise provide reference for the characters having names of food? There is text within the article, Within the universe of Chowder, characters and locations are named after various foods. And I'd like to cite WP:OVERLINK, Only make links that are relevant to the context.. I'm not sure that linking the food named Chowder to the character name of Chowder is relevant to the context. Yngvarr (c) 14:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not everybody may know what the food references are. I didn't know what Mung Daal and Kimchi were until I looked them up. Don't alays expect everybody to know everything, or to spend time searching on their own. I also put the references at the end of the character descriptions. I wouldn't link the character names directly, as that would be confusing. Andyross (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is to do with some form of intellectual elitism or lazy browsers, just that linking to the food items wouldn't add anything that wasn't mentioned earlier in the article. Might seem logical to have these links to you but it's a bit irrelevant to the context as it's not discussing the food items the links go to. Also, adding "(character name) is named after the food (food)" adds nothing of real use, it's something to be helpful but another to "baby" the readers. treelo _radda 16:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

These references were added and deleted at least three times. I figured it was time to discuss this. Yngvarr (c) 16:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A parody?

This may sound silly to you all. But if you remember that character called Eek The Cat, this may raise questions on wether or not Chowder may be based on him. If you enter the names of those characters on a search engine, you might find that the two have some connections. 4.68.248.65 (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see that there are two problems with your assertion: for one, there's nothing from Greenblatt about this, and unless you can find something that gives backing, I'd say that is just supposition. And since Greenblatt is pretty communicative on his blog, you might want to post to him and see if he can give you some information. I might agree that there is a slight visual resemblance between the two, but that brings up my second point: just because something is similar to another does not always mean it is a parody or homage. Yngvarr (c) 17:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we need an expert on these matters

We now have a subsection for humour in the show along with an expansion request. OK, think we could explain chunks of what makes up the humour of Chowder (slightly surrealistic with a bit of whimsy) but not all of it as much of what could be said about Chowder you might not be able to source reliably. We also need to expand the reviews section to more than quotes. Fine again but in what way can you expand from quotes and links when it comes to critical response? I'm looking at you, purple kid. treelo _radda 13:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• By expanding the review section, I mean, proseify it a little. Something like "The show reecieved mixed reviews from critics. While source A said blah blah blah, source B said blah blah blah. Several critics, however, have praised the show for blah blah blah..." something like that. And for the humor section, I think that's probably going to be stubby for a while. Srsly, look at how Pinky and the Brain is formatted. That's what we should be shooting for. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

An embedded list then, figured it'd be that. The humour I still think is an issue and whilst aiming for something which is a great deal more respected and written about is a very worthwhile target (which we won't hit, apples to oranges and a lot of that section is worthless) we still have that little issue of it not being covered in a great enough detail to source a lot of the elements of humour it uses. We can just cite episodes sure but I'd rather get a secondary source. Maybe I'm just being a little itchy to do something and needed to know what to do with parts as I'm not a prose writing rock monster. treelo _radda 17:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We need a Mung Daal indeed. Some of the reviews make mention of the humor, so that's a start. Like I said before, this cartoon's still in its first season (ish), so GA is probably a long ways away. The otters are kinda overwhelmed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Lucky those otters aren't my goto guys, I think Yng will work on some of this as I'm a klutz when it comes to writing and the otters have been going for some time and need a lie down. treelo _radda 18:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I will see what I can do to prosify these. Yngvarr (c) 19:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I've done some flogging and beating (or is it I who was flogged and beaten?), and this is what I've come up with. I've sandboxed it, since it's a pretty radical re-write. Comments, suggestions, free coffee? Yngvarr (c) 10:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No coffee for you! Slightly butchered Seinfeld references aside, it looks good even with the undue weight given towards Liu's favourable review. Even it out with more of the negative criticisms from other reviews and we might be onto something. Maybe even dig up a few more, I imagine there must be more than five reviews out there. As a digression, it's odd that a reliable source like Animation Insider does not have an article, something for later maybe, eh? treelo _radda 11:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice start, Yng. That's pretty much what we're shooting for, even if it does need some tightening. More reviews would be nice too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Done some more work, please review it again. Having a hard time finding any additional reviews from places that would satisfy WP:RS; check the history, there are two which I temporarily added then removed (under ES of going to remove the two for now): one was a website gear towards parents, which had both editorial and user reviews; the other was some odd place named "firefox news", but I can't tell what it is, sounded good, but looked like it might be some sort of blog aggregator or something...

If there's no major concerns, I can paste this into the live article, and it can be tweaked up from there. Yngvarr (c) 23:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good enough to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Ok, so one thing leads to another. The humor section is tagged for expansion, but it's unclear (to me) how to expand that, without falling into trivial minutia (redundant), supposition, etc. For instance, in the Burple Nurples episode, Mung and Chowder climb Mount Fondoom, which to me, is a clear reference to Mount Doom, and the entire episode of Brain Grub was metaphysical. Where and how can we develop humor analysis without falling into WP:OR? Greenblatt would be a primary source, and he's even mentioned that one of the episodes is an homage to an anime.

Some of the previously added cultural references were stretching it, a few discussed here on this page: the number 42 is obviously a ref to THGTTG (sarcasm intended), and Chowder himself being a parody of Eek the cat? I mention those two, since they've been refuted, but someone else may easily refute my Mount Doom conclusion, at which I would simply need to bow out. Yngvarr (c) 22:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Again, use the reviews. They make mention of all the puke/toilet humor, which is surely a big part of the show. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it really toilet humour? Hm, think it's not dead on that, just slightly above that as it's not that heavily influenced by it. I feel like pestering Carl into giving up more info for us here, just to see what he'd say. For whatever reason people nearly always fall into two very specific camps, those who love Wikipedia and what it does and those who distrust it entirely. Anyway, just something to put out there, might want to add that he's put in a cameo of himself into the Shnitzel Quits episode which recently aired (I'm still waiting to watch Brain Grub). treelo _radda 00:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see that ep too. The self insert into Shnitzel Quits was pretty funny tho. (Oh, and I guess there is toilet humor; I've heard Chowder say things about pooing a few times, and so forth. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose but I don't think it's the sort of comedy which drives the show, just something you'd expect from a kid with a fartcloud as a pet. treelo _radda 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive the talk page

I think it might be time to set up an auto archiver, anyone else? I'm not handy with the bots. Yngvarr (c) 00:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends if we're going to use this regularly as a developmental conversation area (which few other talkpages are used as, odd). I'll add one to run every 30 days. treelo _radda 00:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, set up for every 30 days as a first try, see how things go with it. treelo _radda 00:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Seemed like a good idea, since for some otter reason, we're getting a lot more activity lately. Thanks. Yngvarr (c) 00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Otter, I see what you did there. treelo _radda 01:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Character species?

Resolved

 – Chowder is a bear/rabbit/cat thing, so is Panini. Without citations from Carl's blog we'd just be guessing at their species and Panini has never been a cat. Alright? Good! treelo _radda 22:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

From his appearance Chowder resembles a raccoon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.118.208 (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no mention of species, and it's a fantasy cartoon. Until there's an official mention of species, that description is basically original research. Yngvarr 10:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Greenblatt just posted an official answer to what species Chowder (and the rest) are: [2]. Yngvarr 11:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Only explains Chowder kinda or at least gives reason to what species he (and Panini I guess) is derived from, not truly an explanation of any sort. I reckon that it's worth mentioning within notes but can't be used as an absolute fact within their bios. --treelo _talk 18:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I kinda disagree with not using it as fact. Despite no actual species name, a species is given.--UBracter (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, they did mention that Chowder is a bear/cat/rabbit in "Puckerberry Overlords". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, also mentioned it again (but without the bear part) in "At Your Service" but if not for the reference (which I changed my opinion on a few days after I said we shouldn't use it and now agree with it being a fact) I'd have seen it as a minor recurring joke and not really proof of his species at all which actually isn't mentioned by name but instead what species he's made up of. Also means we wouldn't know what species Panini was either, could say they were the same species by way of their ears and teeth being similar but that'd be OR. treelo _talk 16:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the link provided above [3], says that chowder and panini are both of the same species... Max³⁸ —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, all too aware even at the time of typing... Hm, this an ongoing one where a stale issue just never dies, archiving this little problem seems the best thing... treelo _radda 22:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

what about the shows god-like character who lives in the clouds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.219.151 (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What of him? treelo _radda 00:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Chowder looks like a cat, and in the episode "Broken Part" (which I am currently watching), the statue guy tells him that he looks like a "cat thingy".--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, we've got it straight for Greenblatt's blog, so let's not overcomplicate it. He's a bear/cat/bunny/thingy, and so is Panini. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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.

A semiprot? So soon?

That is weird, I figured that to be fairly normal levels of spurious crap and OR for a popular series article like this but seeing as somehow we had a huge blowout over the course of 24 hours, getting upto 63 (for me) edits and even after all the reverting and junk we actually lost data probably indicates an issue I'm not seeing. Good call Chowder, expect things to get real quiet though. What really strikes me as odd is that it got nearly a month of protection, usually you get a few days, then weeks and maybe some months after 5 or so semi-prot attempts. treelo _radda 23:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't mind, it'll keep it quiet, and I was starting to get concerned about RR's for myself. I think I disagree, tho, but won't argue. I suspect most of the noise is coming from the fact that CN is airing a Chowder marathon (and it's a recycled marathon, I've had the TV on in the background all day, and notice they're at least into the second rotation). I guess the otters have pull with the admins, regarding the length of time. Make sure to keep him happy, so he sticks around. Yngvarr (c) 23:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hee hee. Everybody likes otters, they're so cute and playful. And apparently someone likes cat/bear/bunny things too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a good call and for whatever reason, I'm taking the month prot as a good example of the show's popularity and maybe yet can get that much coveted FA-class. treelo _radda 23:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If only more good article writers cared enough to help us... I'm trying, but it took me forever to do just the two GAs I've contributed to. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, they will come. If they don't then at least it'll get there eventually, I don't mind waiting a year or so for GA status. treelo _radda 00:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Section split

What worries me is that this article appears to be OWNED by a few people. ANYBODY else doing ANY editing gets whacked with a sledgehammer. Andyross (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's exactly it. We're just doing this because we don't want anyone else touching our precious article goddammit. Sadly, it's not ownership when you have some who are watching the article keenly and removing anything which is original research or purely fictional, that's just keeping the article clean. If you're not still feeling a bit offput about how your last edit hasn't stuck around, you can come on over and contribute along with us as you can't be accusing anyone of owning the article then, can you? We want more editors, not less or for it to stay exactly how it is. treelo _radda 13:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Um yea, what Treelo said. Look at the history and the additions and removals. Let's see, you have a blatantly false claim of Emmy-winning for starters. And the odd claims of characters doing things which just never happened (Panini). Then there is the wholly in-universe material with no citable sources; and you can see the discussions on citing sources in the thread just above this one. Without putting words into their mouths, admins don't lightly prot an article. Every time I've req'ed for a prot, the reviewing admin audits the history and makes a determination. Many of the edits have suitable edit summaries which explain why. As you say, anyone can edit the article, but that also means anyone can discuss the article, but I don't see any real discussion on the kind of material which has been added this past 24 hours, and I don't see anyone much else discussing the improvement of the articles. Feel free to discuss improvements. There are a few IP's who've opened up discussion, and you can also see that here, and no, not every single edit is being reverted and not every idea is being sledge hammered. Yngvarr (c) 13:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What I see are people who's FIRST act is to whack something with an UNDO. Instead, they should STOP, take a DEEP breath, THINK: "What was this person trying to add, and how can I integrate it into the article in a way that fits 'The Rules.'" Wikipedia is about working together. You are better off trying to help or improve other peoples suggestions instead of just dismissing them. Outright vandalism is one thing, but many undo's are for minor issues. (example: the information about Schnitzels girlfriend could have been moved to his character description.) If the same incorrect or duplicate information is added by multiple people, figure out why. Maybe some other information needs to be moved or made more clear so people know it's already there. Also realize that in the real world, people may not read an entire article, but only a section that interests them. You can be technical and say "that's not my problem", but a very short sentence or some way of linking to an earlier part or another article is what makes an electronic, constantly configurable, encyclopedia so great. To be honest, I haven't seen this level of insanity except for celebrities and other controversial people. Andyross (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We do think "Hmm, how could this work better?" but a lot of what gets added is not suitable to keep as it's either something that never gets referred to again or something which they felt happened but actually didn't. You say people only read a section that interests them, that kinda links in with the issue about the same thing repeatedly being added as if they read the article, they'd find it already has been mentioned. I don't know who or what's insane to you, us or the influx of anons we got (CN had a series marathon yesterday) but eitherway, leaving in a lot of the stuff that gets added to this article everyday would leave a godawful mess of cruft, lies and original research. You can clean that up if you like but we'd rather do it as we go given prior experience that just leaving an article to rot or somehow shoehorning that chunk of cruft in someone added someplace so nobody feels left out usually leads to a mess of an article someone else has to fix later down the line, when we see a good edit then we leave it in but we're not going to be the guys to be fixing the mess these guys by and large introduce. treelo _radda 14:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There comes a point of critical mass. The example you used is Shnitzel's girlfriend. This is a plot device used for a single episode. At the moment, this is the only episode which this is used. Shall we add each observation? Because there were the observations that the sniffleball game was played with snotballs. Then the fact that Panini calls Chowder num-nums. Then we can add Chowder's nickname for his belly. And let's not forget Mungs mustache. Or when Kimchi became a parent. How about the observation that Mung is Scottish because he wears something that resembles a kilt?

I'm not sure if I made my point. Those were all just a few examples of items which have been added at some point in time. When do you reach critical mass? Yngvarr (c) 14:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I give up. I don't know what the F is going on with Wikipedia trying to handle multiple people posting to the discussion page, but TWO attempts at replies have disappeared. Goodbye. Andyross (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Then try again, you have a question waiting to a debate you started and I'd prefer if you actually had some follow-through when it comes to your convictions. treelo _radda 14:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)\

(I went back in my browser history and I think I found the edit window to save the text)... Another minor issue: If you want something cited or verified, use the {{citation needed}} tag if you don't want to find it yourself. If you want to be REALLY nice, and it was posted by a logged-in user, you can post on their talk page about just what you are looking for. Give it a few days, and if they don't fix it, then delete it. Generally, immediate deletion should be limited per the Contraindications section of Template:Fact. Searching through the history to see what was undone before can be helpful, if it wasn't for the fact that this article has gone wild and there are multiple pages per day of stuff. Also, being relatively 'new', it's changing so much so often that there is bound to be alot of fluff for awhile until it can be trimmed down. Dump the outright garbage quickly, but for questionable material, tag it, discuss it, then edit as needed. As mentioned earlier, the marathon did cause a bit of a storm. It may have been better off riding it out and fixing it later. It may even help to just copy/paste the edit screen text to a file on your computer to use as another backup and reference. Andyross (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate to keep adding, but also: Given the viewer age target, many posts may be by young viewers, so initial entries may not be all that professional looking or sounding. It's up to us adults to clean it up, but try to be nice about it. Andyross (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Bit late but here anyway, know where you're coming from a lot better now so thanks for the clarification. Citations and verifications are hard to come by for in-universe issues and we have dealt with things which we couldn't source like that in the past but none of what has came up in the last few days or so has been something we can retroactively assess without it being a nice exercise in delaying the inevitable. The age of the contributor shouldn't matter and I don't care what age the editor is, if it's a bad contrib then I'll take it out. I understand how we should leave everything in besides that which is blatantly incorrect and look if we can get sources for the claims but it just means instead of undoing we're just adding {{fact}} after every edit and having to remove it further down the line. I think we do a good job and what happened yesterday and around two days or so in the leadup shows there was an issue which required a semi-prot. Not because we were doing a bad job but because nothing of value was being added, happens a lot as much of what goes into this sort of article from anons is worthless as cruft and letting it slide just lumps the issue of cutting huge chunks of fanboi prattle out of the article just to make it relevant off onto some other poor schmo later on. It's happened before, I'm sick of it happening to otherwise good articles and don't want it to occur again. treelo _radda 16:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm also sick of good info being removed from the article. We need to collabrate, to make this article a Featured Article. Okay? --The source of the cosmos... 14:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured they say, was only aiming for Good. Anyway, good info is most times anything but (no sourcing and usually a one time event, even original research at times) and I'm not going to tag all sorts of one-shot shit with {{fact}} so people don't feel hurt about their never-to-be-sourced "good info" being removed. Collaboration only works when everyone is adding things which are true and actually notable, Shnitzel's "girlfriend" is one of these bits of one time crap we could do without. treelo _radda 14:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Ok, for anything either featured or good, there are requirements. I've linked them, feel free. I've also submitted this to GA review, which failed. Feel free to relist it, but I'm pretty sure it won't pass. Everything needs to be cited, and needs to have reliable sources. In-universe sources may be acceptable as a primary source, but any article which relies solely on primary sources will not pass. If you want to make the article good in terms of Wikipedia:What is a good article?, rather than good, please pour thru the policies and guidelines. I'm not beating you on the head, but much of the trivia and irrelevant information won't get it there. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)