Talk:Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers (TV series)/Archive 1

Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers: the NES game

I've changed the article Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers (which refers to the NES game) to redirect here, and have copied the contents of that article to Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers (game). I've also updated the link to that page in the Internal Links section at the bottom of this page. --Psyk0 20:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

VHS

Some episodes were released on VHS, but I don't remember when or which episodes. Hackwrench 22:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I found a list of Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers VHS titles. There are five in total. Take a look! If you have any question, ask above the titles.

Undercover Critters (September 28, 1989)

Crime Busters (September 28, 1989)

Double Trouble (September 28, 1989)

Danger Rangers (July 25, 1990)

Super Sleuths (July 25, 1990)

Signed by:

Skymac207 18:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode title meanings

Please do not remove additional information from Episode List. References to in-jokes in episode titles are necessary for people who have different cultural backgrounds. Wesha 12:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I wasn't the one who removed this information, but on reflection I'll grant that title meanings could be useful.

That being said, the table format currently being used tends to emphasize the title meanings at the expense of other information which could be added in the future, like episode summaries. I would argue that (as an example) an episode summary would be at least as important, if not more important, than the meanings of the episode titles. Please see List of South Park episodes or List of The Simpsons episodes, to give a couple examples of a table format which could provide this information. I'd personally suggest episode meanings be placed at the end of an episode plot summary, as a footnote of sorts. Skybunny 21:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely don't argue format change; it's complete removal that I don't believe is beneficial. Wesha 23:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oddity

Does it strike anyone else as odd that Monterey Jack (Rescue Rangers), Fat Cat (Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers), and Professor Norton Nimnul have their own pages but Gadget Hackwrench and Zipper the Fly don't? (Chip 'n Dale is a special case of course.) Powers 20:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm suprised some Gadget fanboy hasn't already created a page for her. -- VederJuda 10:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's tempting to do so, but the risk of being labled a "Gadget fanboy" holds me back.  ;) Powers 13:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that there is no real need to have seperate pages for just some of the main characters, it should be all or nothing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.179.227.58 (talk • contribs) .

fanart

Removed this: [[Image:Th_kiss.jpg|thumb|right|Fan fiction has developed Foxglove and Dale's relationship]] from the article, section ==Foxglove==. Could someone with a longer edit history than myself also please IFD the image. – ∅ (∅), 04:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was the image and that section removed?--Buc 18:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Because fan material is not proper for an encyclopedia. --InShaneee 14:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Foxglove is not fan material. She really did appear on the show.--82.6.169.187 18:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. Yes, she did appear in the show, but in one episode. She is a minor character, and does not deserve a mention. --InShaneee 14:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree. She did only appear in one episode, but apparently she's extraordinarily popular in the fandom. That deserves a mention. Powers 17:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, because the fandom itself isn't noteworthy. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. --InShaneee 17:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The fandom itself is of course noteworthy. An encyclopedia has to record the reaction of people to works of art, and at the level of Wikipedia, large patterns of fandom is indeed important. --Prosfilaes 18:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree to there being a fandom section, but it should be short, one or two of paragraphs, tops. And while Foxglove is a common character in the fandom, any significant info on Foxglove should be moved to her own article, not in the main Rescue Rangers article. And where would it stop? There's quite a bit of fan work devoted to Tammy and Lawhinie as well, shouldn't they get a mention? -- VederJuda 18:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A mention, probably. And it's possible there's too much information on Foxglove. But every article has these problems -- what to include, what not to include. That there is some question about how far to go is not a reason to exclude everything. Powers 18:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Fandom is indeed noteworthy. I had thought this obvious enough to not bother mentioning. Plenty of precedent for coverage of other fandoms on Wikipedia. Powers 18:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There's also plenty of precident that if a fandom can't prove itself 'noteworthy', it shouldn't be mentioned. Harry Potter gets a lot of stuff like this in his articles because there's dozens of newspaper photos and articles about hundreds of little kids dressing up and buying every piece of merchendice out there. There isn't anything that can be shown like that for Chip and Dale. --InShaneee 19:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot more to an active fan community than just dressing up and merchandising. Even the Harry Potter fandom article lists fan fiction. Powers 23:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Because, as I said before, it can be proved that Harry Potter fanfiction is a phenominon. The New York Times has interviewed HP fanfiction writers. GIGS are written about him every month. This goes beyond the normal for fans, which is precisely what is going on with Chip and Dale fans; normal fan activity, which is not noteworthy. --InShaneee 21:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You're comparing apples and oranges; Harry Potter is one of the best selling books of all time. I don't know that Harry Potter fandom is at all exceptional compared to the number of books sold. In fact, compared to Star Trek and Star Wars fans, Harry Potter fans seem positively sedate; it is just normal fan activity.--Prosfilaes 00:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

They're still a huge movement which (most importantly) is easy to find INDEPENDANTLY VERIFIABLE facts about. The only place you'll ever find information about Chip and Dale fans is on pages made by Chip and Dale fans. --InShaneee 00:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The Fallout computer game series page has a whole section dedicated to its fandom's tastes that gets left alone. Complete with links to the fandom's fora and fansites. Fallout has a cult following and isn't a major succes compared to Harry Potter. They are comparable to the Rescue Ranger fandom. Which, unlike Fallout fandom from what I observed, enjoys daily participation from diehards and newcomers alike. And its cartoon also saw more official development recently.

And I'm only wildly mentioning Fallout, there must be tons of other examples of fan communities that get their mentions and are allowed to link, unlike Rescue Ranger fandom. A fandom doesn't have to be phenomenal to get a mention on Wiki, like Harry Potter or Star Trek. While I don't support using Wiki for outrageuously nitpicking details on fandoms, I ask for some more tolerance for them. Both sides benefit from eachother, as a fact. --CD 00:08, 2 Juli 2006

Link Removal

I was recently sent a warning for being a spammer when I readded a link that had been deleted. A link to a Chip 'n' Dale site that (yes) I maintain had been added to Wikipedia by one of the visitors to my site and had remained in the Chip 'n' Dale Rescue Rangers external links section for months without incident (as well as in the regular Chip 'n' Dale article).

Today, however, one of the site's regular visitors sent me a message advising that the link had recently been removed (supposedly without a reason given). I looked at the article, noticed the link was gone, and readded it, assuming that it was removed by someone who was going around removing links just because (such as a vandal). This action got me a spam-warning because, presumably, being the author of the site in question, the fact that I readded the link constitutes it as spam or self promotion. Would it have been different if one the site's visitors had readded the link? Personally, I feel that the site was originally added with good cause - it has "meaningful, relevant content" that is not already cited in the article, and is directly related to the subject in question.

I understand that the Wikipedia guidelines state that a website which one personally owns or maintains should not be linked to due to neutrality concerns, but previously, the site *was* added by a neutral party before it was removed. If I cannot add the link myself, then the guidelines also state that "If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." -- So that's what I'm doing, mentioning it on the talk page, and letting everyone else decide if it's relevant or informative. I know that Wikipedia is not a mere collection of links, but if the link helps provide additional information beyond what can be found in the article alone, then shouldn't that be appropriate?

--Duckyass, 03/29/06, 1317

Greetings. I'd like to address you and welcome you to the encyclopedia...and I believe there may be a misunderstanding here which we can discuss. Several editors saw the link I removed, and there seems to be a consensus that it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, and have asked you not to re-add the link. However, while it is a warning, it is one easily grown beyond by taking positive steps toward Wikipedia.

Speaking to the link added in February 2006, I did attempt to remove this link immediately after it was first put in the article, in early February. The website was not very complete, and (with respect to Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers), was providing information like episode guides which, as the topic has been fleshed out, Wikipedia should have itself, and does now have.

I was recently sent a warning for being a spammer when I readded a link that had been deleted. A link to a Chip 'n' Dale site that (yes) I maintain had been added to Wikipedia by one of the visitors to my site and had remained in the Chip 'n' Dale Rescue Rangers external links section for months without incident (as well as in the regular Chip 'n' Dale article).

Again, I believe the notification is not to label you a 'spammer' as much as a suggestion to take a different course of action; the word 'spammer' wasn't even used in the suggestion. Unless your visitor knew your login and was logging in as you, I can attest to the fact that you yourself did add this link first, and did so here: [1]. I did remove this link on every page it was added on, and removed it on the grounds that the website did not provide information that Wikipedia should anyway; and, in fact, most links on the page on 6 February were 404 errors.

That said, the link was immediately added back by you, and I decided to let it go because I couldn't find an explicit policy about the matter (that day), and did not want a block because of the three revert rule (see WP:3RR). I state for the record that I was not happy with the link being there at that time, but left it for the time being.

Recently, I found another page which addressed the issue and did point to a policy: WP:EL, which provides a standard by which external links should be weighed. An episode guide and information about the show itself can and should be added to Wikipedia to make them the best articles they can be, and those seemed to be the major steering points of the website. At least three different users seem to agree that the link is not appropriate for the pages it is being put on, so I would like to suggest moving on from this -

...but if the link helps provide additional information beyond what can be found in the article alone, then shouldn't that be appropriate?

WP:EL actually addresses this, with the following: (Links to avoid): In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.

If I can make a counterproposal, why not add the encyclopaedic knowledge you do have to the articles that exist now, to make them better articles? You clearly have a vast knowledge of the program and episodes; why not add content to Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers and Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers episodes, to improve them? I imagine doing so can only improve the articles, and satisfy all parties involved. Content on Wikipedia is, ideally, about making the encyclopedia better, after all. Hope to see some contributions from you, Skybunny 20:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In other words, the link in question should be a reference, not an external link? =) Powers 23:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Or better yet, simply add any relevant information from the website to the article. --InShaneee 00:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what I said? =) Powers 03:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In an attempt to stop the slow edit war going on on this page about external links, I've attempted a strict approach to the external links that are present. Can all editors involved agree with the three links remaining (two of which are common enough to have their own Wikipedia template, and the other being Disney's official page for this show)? Skybunny 18:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Most certainly. As policy, I would not be opposed to one informative fansite link either, but discussion here about what that should be would be prudent. --InShaneee 18:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. The fan community for Rescue Rangers appears to be larger and more active (even now) than that of any other Disney Afternoon show. At least one fansite link should be included to help illustrate that. Powers 15:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Voice work

I've noticed a bit of an editing disagreement going on in the history page about whether or not Peter Cullen ever provided the voice of Monterey Jack in the series. Peter Cullen was, in fact, the original voice for Monterey - Jim Cummings took over the voice later on in the series, and the difference is very noticeable (especially to the trained ear who was used to Cullen's voice). I wanted to verify this information with a reliable source before I posted here, so I checked the facts with Corey Burton, the voice artist who provided the voice of Dale.

This is what he had to say:

Peter was in fact the original Monterey Jack. After the first batch of episodes there was a major shakeup on the production end of the show, when one of the "higher ups" at Disney TV Animation was displeased with the results from first-time writer/director Dev Ross - and was especially annoyed with Cullen's voice (featured so prominently, it must have really grated on a person already disappointed with the episodes). So, while still employed as various incidental characters, Peter was dismissed as the lead character, and it was handed over to Jim - who basically just did an imitation of what had been done before.

I hope this helps in resolving the matter. Duckyass 15:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It'd be nice to have a source for that quote. --InShaneee 16:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. As discussed at No Original Research, a personal interview is not a reliable source, no matter how impressive it might be that you have access to Corey Burton. =) What we need is a published cast list that shows Cullen as the voice of Monty. Powers 01:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a cast list at Ultimate Disney that credits Peter Cullen and Jim Cummings with the role of Monterey Jack: http://www.ultimatedisney.com/chipndalerescuerangers-volume1.html. It's actually fairly easy to tell, in a side by side comparison, that the earliest episodes were done by a different person (Peter Cullen). (I don't suppose sound clips from the first volume DVDs would help convince anyone?) Also, Tad Stones has mentioned in an interview how they weren't getting the level of comedy from Cullen, so they switched to Cummings. I have a link to the interview, but I suppose it wouldn't be considered a reliable source. --BeeBot 01:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that depends on who Tad Stones is and who published the interview. Sound clips would not be sufficient, although it would satisfy a bit of curiosity. The link you gave (Ulitmate Disney) is borderline. It looks authentic, but we don't know where that information came from. If it came from somewhere on the DVD, that'd probably be enough. Powers 18:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've found a press release distributed by Buena Vista Pictures Marketing for the animated film Pooh's Heffalump Movie that lists Peter Cullen as the voice of Eeyore. Under Peter Cullen's past voice credits is Monterey Jack.

Cullen is also the voice of Hägar in Hägar the Horrible and Optimus Prime on The Transformers. In addition, he is featured on Disney’s DuckTales and plays Monterey Jack on Chip ‘n’ Dale’s Rescue Rangers.

Sources: The original PDF with a disclaimer at the bottom showing who the press release was distributed by, and the year it was issued. Published on MovieWeb.com
Rich text format version of the same press release, from the Cinematic Intelligence Agency website.
HTML version on Incinemas.com.au --Duckyass 16:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm certainly convinced. Do a URL reference on the page next to Cullen's mention, and I think it's a lock. Skybunny 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for the detective work, Duckyass. I'd still be interested in those sound clips. =) Also, you may want to submit the information to IMDb, which lists Cullen, but only as the voice of Meps. Powers 18:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The submission has been made to IMDb. :) Regarding the sound clips, I don't know if BeeBot will ever get around to it, so I threw some voice clips together in two separate sound files that compare Cullen's Monterey to Cummings' to satisfy any curiosity. ;) If my method of sharing this is somehow inappropriate, since they are hosted on my site (the recent subject of linking controversy), let me know and I'll find another means of sharing the clips. --Duckyass 18:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Fandom/Comtroversy section

The article used to have what seemed to me a very good and useful overall summary about this. I'm rather angry to find that it was removed and I'm yet to hear a good reason. In the meantime, I suggest that the section is restored. Harg 11:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like there to be more about the fandom in this article, however some people seem to disagree. I think the idea was that fandoms are by definition non-notable (so why does furry fandom have an article?) or something like that... User:InShaneee has made a few reverts after someone added fan-related material, perhaps they could tell you why it shouldn't be there. - ∅ (∅), 12:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Because furrys are easily verified as notable as a subculture per wikipedia guidelines; the RR fanbase is not. --InShaneee 17:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; the RR fanbase is pretty well known and produces a large volume of fan works related to the series. There is some overlap between it and the furry fandom as well, a good reason not to do a google image search for Gadget. Even so, I think its notable enough to warrant a mention, as at least one article on Wikipedia has a link to one of the more notable fanworks (of Mice and Mayhem). Titanium Dragon 04:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a very old argument and, if you would, I very much would like to discuss it on any public forum of the Pedia if there's any. It seems to me that the minimalist approach is destroying valuable wikipedia content. I often visit pages I've found useful before only to find that half of the text had been removed. Does Wikipedia have expansion problems? It certainly claims the contrary. I find this approach ridiculous when every single Pokémon has its full-lenght page.

On notability. I disagree the popular opinion that if something is commercialized, that makes it de facto non-notable. If something is "not easily verified" I can't help but feel that the burden of proof for non-notability is on the person who wants to remove the part in question (there are such things as template messages, by the way).

As a member of the webcomic project I feel that at least "Of Mice and Mayhem" deserves to be mentioned. Harg 19:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree the fandom deserves a mention. However, there really hasn't been any third-party coverage of said fandom, nor of "Of Mice and Mayhem" in particular. Without that, there's nothing much we can do under Wikipedia's policies. Powers ^T 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what counts as "third party coverage", however The Comicbook Guy's had already reviewed OM&M and analysis on the RR fandom can be found here. (By the way, the deleted OM&M article is still avaliable at answers.com.) Harg 17:10, 07 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, good start! (I fixed your links; use single brackets for URLs, not double brackets.) Not sure how notable The Comicbook Guy is, and the analysis of the fandom is just an academic paper (not even a thesis, just an undergraduate paper, and with only a few scattered sources). But it's a good start. =) Powers ^T 13:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, how'd you find that stuff? That academic paper is very interesting, and explains a number of things I've noticed about the community (general consensus on couples, Christian undertones, ect.). Interesting. I wonder if anything else of the sort exists; it'd be nice to actually be able to talk about the fandom in the article, as the obsession with Foxglove, at least, probably deserves mention.

However, the estimate of 120 members might also indicate they aren't actually notable. I find that number slightly suspect, though; an examination of the first page of Google results yields 3 fan sites, and if you start looking around you find absolutely piles of them. It may be that there are more now, or it may simply be that those 120 people all have sites (which wouldn't surprise me). The Rescue Rangers also seem rather popular among the furry community - just remember, though, when looking into that that once you've seen something, you can't unsee it. :P Titanium Dragon 07:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, another example of how the "fandom" of any one given product gives themselves much more credit than they should, and believes themselves to be WAY more influential, or important than they really are. Fandoms are rarely ever noteworthy. And when they are, they are extremely self-important, deluded, and incredibly exaggerated. The job of "fans" of a product are to watch/listen to/enjoy said material and hand over money for said product. There's a reason that fanworks are considered to be un-noteworthy enough for the original producers to care of consider them. A very GOOD reason. I do have to say though that all of this drama about the matter is still pretty funny. Although, all joking aside the "Fandom" has absolutely no place on a Wikipedia article, whatsoever.

Theme

I was listening to a fan video on YouTube (blending this show's theme with stuff from Cats Don't Dance), which made me wonder if The Jets (the group that recorded the theme) ever recorded a full version as a single? WAVY 10 17:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Also found a music video by the band that was likely created to promote the show. Should I add the link? WAVY 10 19:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, You Tube links are NOT appropriate and those are copyright violations. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fanfic

Half this article appears to be devoted to Characters That Are Popular With Fanfic Writers. It seems to me that this is not very encyclopaedic. — Paul A 02:33 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

—Paul A 01:11 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Merge of Character Articles

It has been proposed that the individual character articles (except Chip N Dale) be merged into this article. This would be in keeping with the MOS and with Wikipedia guidelines (particularly WP:FICT. Except Chip N Dale, the show characters are mostly limited to this series and do not need individual articles. The individual articles are mostly plot regurgitation and are unlikely to survive an AfD. So I suggest we be proactive and get the merge done and this article nicely cleaned up rather than losing all of the character articles completely. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be good idea to merge these articles because some people don't alow a lot of images on one article. I would be best if people leave the templete on there as well.--Stco23 (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: the merges have been completed. There was actually little in the character articles not already mentioned here. I've also added some citations where I could remember which episode something was mentioned in. The list of episodes article has been significantly cleaned up to bring it up to the TV MOS as well. AnmaFinotera (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to AnmaFinotera's deletion sweep, but as far as Rat Capone is concerned and as the article creator, I will settle for merger into the main Chip 'N Dale Rescue Rangers article. He appeared twice (possibly thrice) which makes him notable enough for a mention. (His gang, Fat Cat's gang, and Nimnul are the only villans who have appeared more than once, if "To the Rescue" is counted as a single continuous story and not 5 episodes.) I've de-prodded Rat Capone so that it can be left alone or merged. However, I still maintain that the deletionists are sucking all the fun and usefulness out of Wikipedia. Wl219 (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

After further debate, I've removed Rat Capone from merge and AfDed it. He only appeared twice, which does not make him notable. He is just a minor villain and was never even mentioned in the main article. Throwing around inappropriate labels with an insulting tone really does not aid in the discussion. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

After further debate with who? Certainly not anyone here who cares about CnDRR, and certainly not with me on my talk page, and certainly not at Talk:Rat Capone. Just because he's not on the main article doesn't mean he can't be, which is precisely what a merge would do. And don't tell me you're not a deletionist, you say as much when you say you oppose trivia sections on your user page. Wl219 (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Further debate as in "I thought about it further." It is a fairly common turn of phrase. Saying I oppose trivia sections does not mean I'm a deletitionist. Wikipedia is NOT a trivia haven or a place for such sections. Its called enforcing the guidelines and policies behind Wikipedia to improve the encyclopedia. If you want to throw labels around, though, fine. However, while doing so, make sure you remember WP:Civility. You might also want to read up on WP:OWN and WP:EFFORT and WP:FICTION. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Split of video games

This is very inconsistent with the site in general and should be split or remade healivy. The merge was very poorly executed (not even an infobox) and needs an overhaul and considering probable future developements one might aswell restore the game specific pages in a proper fashion. (Djungelurban (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

The merge was done in a fashion consistent with other video game listings in other show articles. If you have suggestions for formatting changes, feel free to make them, however the game articles should NOT be restored - they were unnotable stubs that could not have survived an AfD. The articles should only be restored if they can be properly filled out and made into real articles. Otherwise, listing them here is quite sufficient. The infoboxes were left off because there is so little information on the games that I think it would leave big blank spots, and I haven't seen it used in other articles which include video game information, but I'd certainly be willing to entertain the idea if it can be done in a way that doesn't detract from the article.AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for the gaming articles. Most of the cartoon shows I know have their video games listed as seperate. Look at Duck Tales. And you have to remember you merge these two (really distinct) items and you looks categories, because Chip n' Dale is no longer listed in the Nintendo Entertainment System games cat, which it should be. This merge is very shoddy and should be restored back to how it was. Look at the NES Rambo game, for God's sake. It has its own page -- Chip n' Dale should definetely as well. Berenlazarus (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The games are not notable enough to have their own articles and do not need them. They are fine where they are. The redirects can (and have) been fixed to include the appropriate categories so the games still appear in the list. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

This article is very largely useless, after the huge removal of information it has undergone. No one who wants any in depth information about the Rescue Rangers will find the page remotely useful...it's link section needs to be restored and it's character articles reinstated. RangerReady23 (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)RangerReady23

Wikipedia is not a place for fan site spam and the characters are do not meet the notability requirements for having their own character articles. They added no actual information, just plot. Wikipedia is also not a TV show guide or in-depth site. For minute, inane details, I'm sure there are Disney oriented wikia and plenty of fansites out there. Wikipedia is about verifiable, encyclopedic coverage. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed some Disney oriented wikia where one can find information... but these wikia are unknown to the general public. I know about the existence of a well-written Rescue Rangers wiki and I suggest putting a link to this wiki for those visitors who want more information. --Alain Narinx (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As per the external link guideline, though, "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." is a link to be avoided. A list of wikis that meet the criteria can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case, if fandom-related material is so unimportant, not noteworthy, and considered anything but encyclopedic, and if fans are nothing more than supposed to be milked for money by having them consume music, movies, TV shows, and the like and not allowed to give any unwanted feedback, then please go ahead and delete articles such as Trekkie, Category:Star Wars fandom (Category!), Harry Potter fandom and Harry Potter Fan Zone specifically, Doctor Who fandom, and fandom in general, not to mention fan fiction, fanzines, fan convention, Buffyverse, etc. And while you're at this (and I'm addressing to all those who cut this article down to a mere skeleton), I recommend deleting all the articles about TV show characters such as The Simpsons characters and the several Doctor Who instances for consistency and fairness sake.

I'm asking myself why Whedonesque.com deserves an entire article while the forum Acorn Café and the graphic novel Of Mice and Mayhem (which is known and famous far beyond the Ranger fandom) don't even deserve being linked to, and why there's one article for every single Pokémon plus an assortment of categories while information about Foxglove can neither be found on nor accessed from Wikipedia. The one-shot character Foxglove, by the way, is more popular than Professor Norton Nimnul, she is more popular than Zipper who appears in all 65 episodes and is an actual Rescue Ranger, she has got her own fan website, and I dare say that few of the 493 Pokémon have got more fans than she has.

This is one reason why, as RangerReady23 already pointed out, the article about Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers is largely useless as it is. It is not much more than a placeholder with the purpose of having an article about a show that is not labeled a stub. It doesn't contain any really valuable information, anything someone interested in CDRR and finding this article might be looking for; it doesn't even link to any external information whatsoever. Only one external link was granted it, and this link is defunct. Some say that Wikipedia is open for information, and it is often expected to welcome new information. Others say that if something is not appropriate for adding to an article, it shall be linked to. Those who are trying the least to expand what information about CDRR Wikipedia can provide their readers with in any of these two ways are insulted as spammers or even vandals, and their contributions are removed permanently.

I seriously wonder why it's specifically Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers whose articles get chopped down to merely above stub size and deleted again and again while other articles about, for instance, animated TV shows do not get this treatment. Besides, what was the point in deleting each and every link on the CDRR page with the exception of one single, even defunct (!) Disney link, while other similar articles are allowed to keep links to a dozen fan sites? And what would Star Trek, Harry Potter, or especially Kim Possible be without the fans and their going beyond mere consuming?

Sorry, but all this had to be said. --85.179.198.72 (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. There is a major difference. Those other articles have verifiable content that focuses on their real world notability. Wikipedia is not a series guide (again), nor is it a place for fans to throw whatever they want up or just to provide the full plot of a series (which violates copyright laws). This is an encyclopedia, not a catch all. We have policies and guidelines and they are being followed. CDRR does need more content, particularly regarding production and reception. It is on my to do list to work on, however the content it needs is not so easily found in reliable on-line sources as with more current shows do to the age of the show. The article isn't a stub, its a start with more on the way, and despite the complaints no real content was ever lost. The characters and video game articles were merged here. The production section was expanded with citations. The article has been improved as far as being a Wikipedia article goes (which doesn't always mesh with what fans want an article to be). Just because there are other bad articles is no excuse for this one. Other articles having fansites mean they have slipped under the radar. There are millions, if not billions of Wikipedia articles. People throw up all kinds of stuff. Some gets caught and removed or cleaned as needed, some doesn't. Many character articles are being deleted daily, as are episode articles. Unless real world notability can be established, they don't belong and there are whole groups of people working their way through them all.

As for the fan articles above, they have notability and your arguments really are apples and oranges. Conventions, reports in reliable sources, etc. dedicated to the series. Trekkies is a societal icon and obviously notable. Your arguments are really comparing apples and oranges and have little, if anything, to do with this article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I just ask you how 'real world notability' is defined, as precisely as possible? It can't be a simple case of whether or not a specific person has ever heard of it before, that's too arbitrary... 196.21.126.135 (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Real world notability means it has received significant coverage/discussion in reliable sources, including major magazines, newspapers, news shows, and major neutral, notable websites. For a more detailed explanation, see WP:N and WP:FICT. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Difficult criteria to satisfy in this case, since any page by a fan could be argued to not be independant (and such pages form the majority of google's returns on the subject, especially if one argues that everyone who expresses a positive opinion of the show is a fan). Fanhistory.com is not on the Interwiki list. However, fan works (or, at least, one specific fan work - the only one I looked for independant reviews of) has been reviewed on [Comixpedia] (which is on the interwiki list) and [The Comic Book Guy]. If this is insufficient to call it notable, I could look further... 196.21.126.135 (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fan works, in general, are never linked to because the often violate copyright laws. Wikipedia has strict rules about copyright violations and linking to illegal material. "Of Mice and Mayhem" may be a great fan comic and have a few reviews from some websites, however the artist admits in the comic itself that he is violating the Disney copyrights. As such, it would never qualify for an article or a link unless Disney were to actually give him retroactive permission to use the work (which would then give it instant notability). AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

An excellent point; I was trying to use the reviews to argue for the notability not of "Of Mice and Mayhem", but rather of the fandom as a whole. I apologise if that was unclear. 196.21.126.135 (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. For fandom to be notable, there would actually have to be articles discussing fandom itself rather than evidence of fandom. Almost every show out there has fans, some very dedicated ones, but the question is are they notable. I don't think such notability can be established for CDDR fans. There are no conventions held dedicated to the series or characters, no major articles discussing the fans, no catch phrases have entered the dictionary because of fans (like Trekkie), etc. At best, in the reception section it would be noted that the show still has a small, but dedicated following (if a source could be found as just looking and seeing the CDDR sites and stating it would, unfortunately, fall under the OR clause). I know it can be fustrating. As a fan of various shows, I also sometimes struggle with wanting to put in "what I know" versus what is appropriate, but maintaining neutrality is a core requirement to being a good Wikipedian editor.

As a side note, I'm getting to bed late tonight cause I've gotten caught up reading "Of Mice and Mayhem" :P It really is to bad the writer didn't attempt to get permission because he has amazing graphic talents and has written a very well done piece. I always feel a little sad when I read great fan fiction or fan comics, because they have such amazing talent but it won't get seen by more than a handful of fans. :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Would a sociology paper count? (Probably not, since the writer was, at the time, a fan of the show; which is why I hadn't mentioned it earlier). There has, incidentally, been at least one convention - small, admittedly, and not exactly widely advertised - and I understand there is to be another in the not too distant future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.21.126.135 (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, self published papers are not considered a reliable source. If information about the convention could be found, that would certainly be worth mentioning in this article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the only evidence of the convention that I can find is the Cafe thread discussing it (organisation and there used to be photos but they seem to have vanished). (And I can't seem to find it now, but wasn't there something about internet forums (or should that be fora?) not being desirable places to link to? Hence no link here...) 196.21.126.135 (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, no links to forums. Too bad though, that would be interesting information. I looked for the show in a couple of cartoon/Disney books at the library today, but alas, it got no coverage in any of them. :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

CDRR toon disney link

I'm not entirely sure where this should be put - as a reference? An external link? - but the Toon Disney page for Rescue Rangers is here... 196.21.126.135 (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That link was in the article as an External Link, but some people felt it should be removed because it isn't updated anymore. I've added it back however. AnmaFinotera (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Voices of Monterey Jack

I'm curious as to why the credit for Peter Cullen as the original voice of Monterey Jack continues to disappear from this article. It was agreed upon a year or so ago on this talk page that sufficient sources had been provided to verify this as fact, and the matter was settled. Why is this suddenly an issue again? Is it because the discussion has disappeared from the talk page? If this needs to be verified again, I can provide several links to several different sources that credit Peter Cullen as one of the voice actors to contribute his voice to the character of Monterey Jack, including an official press kit released by Buena Vista (a source which was at one point linked to in the article). How many times is this going to have to be reverified?

These are some of the sources I managed to scrounge up again. You may take your pick as to which you consider the most reliable (including a Wikipedia article on Cullen)

Buena Vista's Official Press Kit for Pooh's Heffalump Movie which credits Cullen as the voice of Monterey Jack:

http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/2748/notes.pdf

About the Cast (Transformers) from Movieweb, which also lists Monterey Jack among Cullen's vocal work

http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/3311/notes.pdf

Additional articles which continue to include Monterey Jack when mentioning his past vocal credits:
http://www.visualhollywood.com/movies/transformers/cast.php#CULLEN

http://seattlepi.com/movietimes/moviepn.asp?movieID=46946

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/chipndalerescuerangers-volume1.html

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0191520/

http://www.cinemarx.ro/persoane/Peter-Cullen-52131.html?actor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Cullen

http:// www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Peter-Cullen

http://tripatlas.com/Peter%20Cullen

http://www.radiovideoactive.com/interviews.html

http://movies.ispy-blogs.com/movies/interview-with-the-vioce-of-optimus-prime/

Duckyass (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of those are either dead links, non-reliable sources, or Wiki mirrors. For now, however, I've adjusted the article to note both voices, as the Disney Encyclopedia entry is also a reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sped-up voices?

Re: this edit. I checked the original source and Grant does indeed state that the recordings of MacNeille and Burton are sped up for Chip and Dale respectively. But, I think two points must be considered here: first, that the tempo of the recordings is secondary to the desired effect of raising the pitch, and so perhaps need not be mentioned; second, that Grant's encyclopedia is chock-full of personal interpretations, and it would not surprise me in the least to find out that he simply assumed that the pitch-raising was accomplished by simply speeding up the recordings. Powers ^T 17:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a reliable source, however, so unless another reliable source says otherwise, it should be considered WP:Verifiable (which may or may not always be accurate). I think it is relevant, though, as it is part of the production information. What about the other Disney encycs? Do they say the same? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In other languages..

That might not improve the article in any way but i didn't spot anything about their international image anywhere on the page. It is strange that their names were changed in many languages to "Knabbel 'n' Babbel" "Tic and Tok" or "Chip and Chap" as well as many others variants. I wonder what is the reason behind those name changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.58.145.47 (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Disney characters generally have different names in different countries, since the principle audience is children and Disney wants to make the characters' names easier to pronounce. Same is true for most classic Disney characters like Donald, Goofy, Mickey etc. --TheHande (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Japanese voice-actor names

Are the Japanese voice-actor names somehow relevant to the general context of the article? Why list only the Japanese voice-actors? Why not the German, French, Finnish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Mandarin-Chinese, Hungarian, Polish, Russian, Arabic and Spanish actors as well? The Finnish wikipedia at least seems to list the casts for the Finnish dubs of Disney shows, does the English wikipedia really need to also contain this information? --TheHande (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Dub voices are relevant either. And why just the Japanese voices? What significance did they have to the English version of the show? Also the series has been redubed in Japan recently so if you're listing the Japanese voices should you list both Japanese voice actors? 98.92.201.24 (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Definitely should be removed, though that info would be appropriate on the seiyus' individual wiki entries. Evan1975 (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It should stay on the Japanese Wikipedia article. 99.229.41.79 (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)