Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show

Edit request from Frantzedward.cha, 5 March 2011

{{edit protected}} Frantzedward.cha (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done No request made... Skier Dude (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Change to target page

Seeing as the subsection referenced in the redirect no longer exists, I suggest changing the redirect to instead point to List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes#Film. Comments? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll make the change in a week (May 11th-ish). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Updated today, as no response in over a week. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Leave it as its own article, there is some solid info with sources. --Khanassassin ☪ 12:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

An unnattributed copy/paste from another wiki, combined with press releases, trivial mentions, and self-published sources is not "solid info with sources". The redirect is appropriate per multiple prior discussions (and it has been a redirect for over a year) ... this thread was to discuss updating the redirect to a current target as the original one had been removed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Plot section

This article's Plot section is still far too long. Wikipedia standard is only 400-700 words. See WP:FILMPLOT --Jpcase (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It was also an unattributed copyvio. Even assuming additional sources can be found (the ones added so far are self-published, press releases, and trivial mentions), the plot section needs to be written "clean" (or at the very least, appropriately attributed to the original authors), not as a copy/paste which then gets modified. I strongly suggest attempting to create it in userspace, then going through WP:DRV if/when you feel it can overcome the issues from the prior AfDs. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I plan to do. The current is a copy, so if the page gets any visitors, there'll be a plot section. But I'll replace it as soon as possible (in the next few days). --Khanassassin ☪ 16:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

My image

The fair-use image I have of Eddy and his brother keeps getting taken off this article. It has been on Wikipedia for three months, and twice now it has been taken off the article, and every time it was taken off, I got in trouble because it was an orphaned iamge. I am not going to get in trouble becqause some jackass wants to keep taking off my fair-use iamge that has been on the site three months. Please don't let it get taken off again. Thank you. - Dpm12, 8:11 AM PST 17 January 2012.

The problem is that it is the ultimate spoiler -- Nobody wants to see how Eddy's brother looks like before seeing the movie. --Khanassassin ☪ 09:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop though, I keep getting in trouble. - Dpm12

You're not "getting in trouble" because your image is orphaned. No one's mad at you for uploading it. We just want to keep the page from getting reverted again and again, and to do that we're trying to build consensus over whether the image of Eddy's brother should stay in the article in the first place. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, according to WP:SPOILER, "Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers." Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Spoilers are on the article itself (the plot), and yes, I keep getting in trouble by Wikipedia because my image is orphaned. I've been nice, I'm asking, for the sake that I don't get kicked off here, stop! - Dpm12

If that's your concern, I can assure you that you won't get kicked off WP just for having an orphaned image. I've had plenty of issues with images I've uploaded in the past, but no one has ever threatened to kick me off for it. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 17:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Really, if you ask me, most people don't read plot sections, at least not before they watch the movie. In my case - I'd come to Wikipedia, the lede says the movie's about *bla bla bla* - cool - oh, let me see what critics thought about it (go to Reception), oh nice reviews, box office/ratings, cool, cool. Production section comes after a watch the film, and I really don't have a reason to read it after that, I know the plot if I saw the film... However, nobody's gonna go through the article without seeing the image of Eddy's Bro -- the ultimate spoiler. And, like Luigi said, orphaned images are not gonna get you banned - I've had plenty... They just get deleted after a while. --Khanassassin ☪ 17:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing returns

The problematic Reception material has returned, and after removal yesterday, has been restored with such minor edits of the text that it is still extremely close paraphrasing of the TV by the Numbers source. Since Khanassassin's edit summary with the restoration not only seems to think the problem has been resolved, but that this is somehow my fault—"you're really starting to go on my nerves, Moonsie"—I've reluctantly appended the "close paraphrasing" template to the Reception section: the bulk of the first paragraph remains in violation of Wikipedia rules. This will eventually attract the attention of someone who regularly deals with such problems, who will deal with it however they usually do so. Alternatively, Khanassassin could take the suggestion I made back on September 6 about getting GOCE assistance, or ruthlessly summarizing the sourced information. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed a close paraphrase. I urge editors considering adding it back to read the link.

Changing % to per cent and other similar trivial changes does not eliminate the copyright concern.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture 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/20121217220800/http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/ededdneddys1v1.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/ededdneddys1v1.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)