Talk:Rastamouse

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

Youtube[edit]

I don't get why the youtube sentence is included. As I understand it the episode was taken down for copyright reasons, am I wrong (please post a link if I am)? That someone copies something copyrighted to youtube and it's later taken down is so very common that it, in itself, doesn't make it notable.Sjö (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Someone saying on his/her Youtube user page that a clip got X number of hits is not a reliable source. The link to S'Popular doesn't support the 100 000 + hits statement.
  2. Even if it did, copyrighted material is posted to Youtube all the time. Some of it is popular for a short time, some is not. This is an article about a tv series and the article does and should mention the popularity of the tv series, not Youtube clips.
  3. This article is definitely not the place to advertise that someone has illegaly uploaded a Youtube clip that for a short time became popular.Sjö (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis[edit]

I have reinstated and modified the refernce to cannabis. Whether people chose to regard it as "racist" or not, this is no worse than previous suggestions that The Magic Roundabout contains reference to magic mushrooms and LSD. Such urban myths are common, and it is a sign that one has inevitably and quickly grown around Ratsamouse is the very fact that The Guardian has covered it, albeit humorously. By any standards this is impeccable in source terms, and should not be deleted just because someone chooses to take offence to the fact that others have made such a connection. Remember thatWhikipedia is not censored. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

==== a reply by a contributor.

This is a racist comment & if Wikipedia really is UNCENSORED, then why is the Magic Roundabout page without any drug references. Similarly, we all know PRINCE HARRY OF WALES is not the biological son of Prince Charles but the page is not allowed to state the truth.

Sadly it's WHITE MAN talking BOLLOCKS, yet the Rasta community is fair game. And no, I'm not Black. One rule is OK as Guardian & White view. I will be trawling the net to add some balance from the Black community once any appears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.216.41 (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not racist to suggest Rastamouse smokes cannabis, any more than it would be racist to suggest a character called Muslimmouse would pray towards Mecca! Rasta does not refer to a particular race, it's a religion. A religion which includes at its core the sacremental use of cannabis! If the show were called Blackmouse or Jamaicamouse then you would have a point, but it's not and you don't, you're simply misinformed. Don't try take offence on behalf of a community you clearly know nothing about. Rubiscous (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
86.26.216.41, either identify exact what in my comment you regard as "racist," or withdraw that baseless accusation. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some Confusion[edit]

There's too much unclear crossover between references to the book and references to the animated TV series.

e.g.

The books are written in rhyme with a Caribbean accent

The Jamaican accent in the TV series is quite light and anglicised. It is not clear whether the same is true for the books. Can a book even be described as 'with a Caribbean accent?. I assume that only the dialogue of the book is so written, but someone who has read the books would have to confirm. Centrepull (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can. Of. Worms. Rubiscous (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

user Rubiscous & Episodes data[edit]

Have reverted to the original plain listing as broadcast. This user Rubiscous chooses to publish clear errors and will not allow anyone to even put a footnote in to explain there are errors in his data. This is a pointless exercise so have just removed all data that was being disputed as Wikipoedia is surely to show the reader a clear idea what is the right information. Pubishing errors in the vain idea they are the right things to publish as simply shown elsewhere is a thin line between anarchy & misinformation that is best AVOIDED.

If the user persists with his errors as fact it will be escalated as it's tiresome to deal with repeatedly. Madjewelvisor (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I clearly explained, no errors were being added. No claims were being made in the article regarding the canonical accuracy of the rastamouse.com list. The running order that appeared on the site was provided as-is, and contained no errors in this regard. Your personal thoughts and feelings over any hypothetical "correct" running order is entirely irrelevant if unsourced, your footnote was in violation of WP:SYNTH, as was your continuity section which prompted my creation of the table. Believe it or not my inclusion of the rastamouse.com episode running order was a concession to yourself, as I knew your section had to be deleted but I didn't want all your hard work to go to waste, so I made an attempt to present the data in a format that was compatible with Wikipedia policy. The default conclusion you have routinely jumped to is to assume bad faith, and to react by making personal attacks.
It has not escaped my notice that User:Rastamouse-ting and yourself are one and the same, it was immediately apparant but I perhaps naively decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and declined to report this violation of WP:EVADE, pending evidence of improved conduct. You have I admit reacted with less volatility than in your previous incarnation, this is to your credit, but the personal attacks for which you were blocked continue albeit in their less acerbic tone. I therefore have no choice but to highlight the WP:EVADE violation in the appropriate channels.
My suggestion to yourself would be to have a good read of the policies No Personal Attacks, Harassment and Assume Good Faith, if you can demonstrate sufficient understanding and willingness to cooperate then an administrator may remove the block on User:Rastamouse-ting upon appeal. (While you're at it you might wish to take a look at No Original Research as the edits that seem to annoy you the most have been to ensure compliance with this policy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubiscous (talk • contribs) 12:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in why you want to publish ERRORS. Reverted to previous correct & adequate section to stop having to deal with you again & again. Go find another subject... Madjewelvisor (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody post some diffs so we can more easily see what changes are in dispute? The descriptions here are vague and minimal. —C.Fred (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My removal of a section which asserted continuity errors by synthesising from airdate, the official website and Madjewelvisor's personal observations, converting the episode list into a table form adding official website order as a column: [[1]]
  • Madjewelvisor's addition of a footnote to the table containing personal observations: [[2]]
  • Removal [[3]], adding [[4]], removal [[5]], adding [[6]] of footnote.
  • Madjewelvisor attempts dispute resolution by removing the entire table and reverting to the old list: [[7]]
Rubiscous (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restarting discussion[edit]

I do not wish to publish errors, and am not doing so. I am merely relaying the episode list as it appears on the official site. If you feel that the list as shown on the official site contains errors then your issue is with them, not me. We certainly can't include your personal thoughts on the running order here as fact, as that would be original research. If however you were to inform whoever maintains the official site of your opinion that their list contains inaccuracies and could persuade them to make changes then we could report whatever list appears there in the article. Furthermore, get them to make a statement about the list's accuracy and we can report its accuracy as fact.
I have returned the episode list to table form, as I argued in the edit summary "Avoiding an argument between 2 editors is not reason enough to keep sourced information out of an article."
And finally, no I will not refrain from editing any article on your say so. Rubiscous (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the edit Rubiscous made today, and it looks like he did two things:
  1. He converted a prose list into a sortable table. This is a useful change; it makes the data more accessible.
  2. He added a column for "Rastamouse.com running order." This is consistent with the treatment given to other TV shows. However, for must other shows, a formal "production number" field is used for this data.
I do not think it is original research to interpret the order of the episodes in the Rastamouse.com list as relevant, even if the episodes are not numbered in their table. Also, it's presented as the secondary field, a kind of "oh-by-the-way" item that users can look at for additional information. In the absence of a policy-based reason to exclude it, I think it should stay. —C.Fred (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RASTAMOUSE & those tiresome errors by one tiresome user[edit]

others have fought these tiresome people, you see how few are looking at the page now in stats & let someone else deal with this nonsense. I like the others can't be bothered any longer. the facts aren't important as life itself, but on the SIMPSONS page or any other page this nonsense wouldn't be tolerated

make your own opinions on the user determined to make RM inaccurate & ask why Rastamouse is allowed to look incorrect & mislead the reader with obvious errors 86.26.78.48 (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a number of other shows on my watchlist where similar issues come up with future episodes, and the situation here is being handled the same way: unaired episodes are added to the list if they can be verified with reliable sources. There is a reliable source in place for the unaired episode, so the burden of proof is now on you* to provide other reliable sources that trump the current one if you want to change the article.
* For the record, that's you in the singular sense, addressed to the unregistered editor, since all evidence says the current user of that IP is the same person who has abused a number of accounts to edit the article previously. I'm willing to allow civil discussion of the article to take place, but I will not permit further edit warring on the article or personal attacks on this or any other talk page as a result of this issue. —C.Fred (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by the page, it makes no sense[edit]

I come to wikipedias to find information on this show, yet I find things are wrong and I do not understand the episodes as there is mistake in it, Missing Da Prez is not been on TV on BBC and one more is not making sense, did it be broadcast or not?

I find no shows on youtube and bbc i-player hardly has anything

please tidy this mess as my son wanted me to get him this program recorded onto PVR for him, but here I don't know what there is to get

signed gruberlurtz four tiles Gruberlurtz (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the table shows: "Missing Da Prez" has not aired on BBC. It is, however, listed on the Rastamouse Company's website as a produced episode. Unaired episodes are included in episode lists when there are reliable sources to attest to their existence—in this case, a mention at an official site is sufficient for verification. —C.Fred (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pardon my ignorance, but I thought encyclopedia supposed to give accurate information & be researched. this is chaos. I cannot trust this site to be accurate it appears. what is the point therefore in it? I go BBC site & make my own data then. wikipedia = not fit for purpose & not just on this page either signed gruberlurtz four tiles Gruberlurtz (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The data in the BBC airdates column is from the BBC site—again, that's a reliable source, even if it is primary. —C.Fred (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Music ?? -[edit]

I find it odd that there's almost no mention of the musical element in the article - the singles, the album.

82.16.19.50 (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J-Poppy Kitty -- False[edit]

I am planning on removing the section "J-Poppy Kitty" inasmuch as it seems to be entirely made up.

No such character appears in any episodes, and no reference to the character can be found anywhere except the Wikipedia entry (and other sites that simply pull in this entry).

If anyone has evidence that this section is anything other than a prank, please add that reference when you reinstate the section.

Otherwise, this prank entry should remain deleted. Mypnodroga (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rastamouse. 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: 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) 14:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rastamouse. 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: 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) 15:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rastamouse.[edit]

I've Put DHX Media For a Reason. Did DHX Media Co-Produced Rastamouse. Or Did Not. DavySuperMarioWorld (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rastamouse&oldid=1209973382"