Talk:Iggy Arbuckle

Template:Television needs response section

An official site?

Does an official Iggy Arbuckle website exist? I've never seen one, but if there is, a link to it should be provided in the "External Links" section; it also might help with some reference-needs. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Second season

Sorry to upset fans of the show, but as the series is not currently production, a second season is unlikely.

It certainly won't make it to air by April 2008, as if it went into production today, it would take a year before the episodes were fully animated and ready for broadcast. 172.163.75.95 (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Then that must be what they meant when they said "...if Season two does happen, it'll be around April". They must have meant that it would begin production then. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessment from TV Project

This article has been assessed as a start class article. The layout needs a lot of work and does not comply with the general Wikipedia MOS nor the TV series MOS. The lead section does not meet the requirements at WP:LEAD, there is no response/reaction section at all, and several sections are stub sections (most notably the production section, which needs expansion). The referencing system is inconsistent and needs to be standardized. The image in the infobox is too large and the setting section is unnecessary. The setting section itself should be in prose format and only focus on the most relevant places. I've left tags related to some of these concerns on the article. Collectonian (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A response section is going to be difficult to produce.

If the only kind of citations allowed are reliable, third-party documentations. Or if it has to focus on how the critics have received the show. The only sources I can think of are discussion threads for fans, or the Internet Movie Database. I frequently search Google high and low for information on the show in every aspect, and this is the best I've ever been able to find. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it has to use reliable, third party sources, no fan boards or IMDB ratings. You are correct that it may be difficult to add one for this particular show. Does Canada have anything like the Nielsen Ratings that might have the viewership for the series? Or the UK for the showing on Jetix there? Any professional reviewers do a review of the series? Collectonian (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

They might, and they might also, and then again they might. I've never actually heard of the Nielsen Ratings before, and I haven't found anything as of yet on what the United Kingdom officially thinks of it, or any professionals, anywhere, who have said anything. Maybe I'm searching under the wrong headings, though... be right back! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, didn't work. Only a few search collections were featured (meaning only about fifty or sixty links were found in the search), and while nearly all of them had all or most of the key words, nearly none of them had anything at all to do with Iggy Arbuckle. Even moreso, not a single one of them said anything about the show's reception with the critics, not a single one. You'd think the show escaped the professional critic's gaze altogether! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

May need to try some off-line searching, or look in some news databases. Collectonian (talk) 09:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps something to include in the Production section

One thing I've always wanted to include was information on how the voice actors of the show were selected, and what followed after that. Collectonian, do you agree that this should at least be looked into? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if sourceable information can be found, that is exactly the sort of information that should be included :) Collectonian (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Should this be included?

[1] That this show is to be featured among the shows here? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mooseknuckle

Stardust8212 and Wilhelmina_Will, please stop reverting the wikilink for Mooseknuckle. This is a fairly common term that, distasteful though you may find it, is obviously the source of the name for the town in Iggy Arbuckle. The reason for it being so obvious is due to the fact that Moose do not, in fact, have knuckles, and the term has been in use since at least 1998, if not earlier. I personally recall hearing my brother in law using the term in relation to imaginary wrestling moves, such as the mooseknuckle drop and the camel toe clutch. (I found the latter particularly amusing, as there is a wrestling move known as the camel clutch.) Regardless of all that, as well, a google search for it brings up 92,600 results pertaining to the word. I defy you to find a definition for the word outside of its regular usage that the town in Iggy Arbuckle could refer to. I remind you that the show aired in 2007, that the term existed before 2007, and that it is not uncommon for cartoon shows to have humour that the target audience might not understand; Rocky and Bullwinkle had an entirely different level of humour going on apart from the kid's storylines, the Simpsons has many tiers of humour as well (in one episode Bart comments on how he's going to play a video game and "toss the virtual salad"). Even Animaniacs has engaged in this humour ("Let's search for prints." "Found him" *holding up Prince* "No no, I mean fingerprints!" *Looking at Prince* "I don't think so.").

Finally I would like to point out that the page exists on wikipedia already, and the onus is not on me to prove this was the intent of the writers, rather, as you are claiming this is not the source of the name, the onus is on you to find an alternate definition for the word. If you want to create a disambiguation page for Mooseknuckle, feel free, but the town should direct to the wikilink. 206.75.32.142 (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You can not claim that the term Mooseknuckle is the "obvious source" for the name of the town. Without a valid, reliable source noting that the creator's intended it to have that specific meaning, and not that they just made up some nonsense word without realizing it had some other meaning. Also, you are wrong. The onus is on you to prove the disputed claim with a valid, reliable source, not for others to find an alternative definition as there is no claim it has a definition at all. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I can claim that the term Mooseknuckle is the obvious source for the name of the town, as there is no other definition for the word. The only source needed is the google search I have provided. Is there an interview wherein the interviewer asks a writer if they deliberately named the town mooseknuckle in favour of the common term? Possibly. Do I really care enough to dig around for it? No, not really. the fact is, it is common sense, something that is not so common on wikipedia for some reason. And unlike everyone else who seems to think that common sense means "whatever I believe", I actually mean it is common sense. It is completely unrealistic to believe that, when such a term has existed years before the series hit the air, that the writers were completely ignorant of such a term, and simply meant it as a reference to Moose Jaw sask. As I said before, it cannot simply be a coincidence that they chose Mooseknuckle instead of, say, Moosefemur, or Moosetoe (a perfect solution in my mind, as it combines cameltoe and mooseknuckle), or even Moosechicken, as it is humourous and contains a k sound in it as well. I'm not saying it's not a reference to Moose Jaw, but can't it be both?

Finally, I would like to point out that, regardless of all the comments that came before this, I am simply linking to an existing wikipedia page, without even modifying the term. The page is already there. Should you continue to ignore this fact, all the rest of these commonly obvious links should be removed as well, as they too are unsources. Do you have a source that the show takes place in a national park? Are you sure Jiggers is a beaver? what is the source? etc etc etc. Please use some common sense. If you feel that Mooseknuckle does not refer to the common term, that's fine, as I suggested before change the redirect of Mooseknuckle to a disambig. page that has noth definitions. But stop reverting the wikilink, there is no justification for that.

206.75.32.142 (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Collectonian, it is not obvious that they chose this word for it's meaning as opposed to simply being a comepletely made up term. I for one have never heard the term (and unwittingly clicked it while at work to verify that there had not really been an article created on a non-notable location) and was surprised to see where I was redirected to. It is not impossible to believe the creators did not know the meaning of the word, it is also possible that they knew the meaning perfectly well and chose it anyway, what we need if we are going to include their supposed influence is proof that it really was their influence. From WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (emphasis original) This information has clearly been challenged by at least three users, WP:V also states "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed". As a seperate item, which I've seen enforced but never actually seen a policy on, leading me to believe it's more of an unspoken guideline, the way the link was inserted was a bit like a "surprise link", leading readers to think they will read more about the location when they are actually being linked to an unrelated article. While I think people tend to be a little too picky about what they consider a "surprise link" I think in this case it was inappropriate. Stardust8212 17:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

it was not a surprise link, it was simply a link. I made the link months ago and nobody seemed to care, it was taken out during a recent unrelated edit, I simply restored the link. Please also keep in mind that wikipedia is not censored, so that justification is right out the window.

In addition, per your own comment, there are many links that are lacking reliable sources. As we are completely ignoring common sense, perhaps they should all be removed as well?

206.75.32.142 (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody noticed back then, or it would have been removed sooner. Nobody is saying that it is a defamatory word to say. There are no unsourced statements in the article. Leave it off. I called the Warner sister "Dottie" and lived to tell the tale! (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you guessing that nobody noticed back then? Do you have a source? 206.75.32.142 (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If I had a source, I would have no qualms with saying that Mooseknuckle was inspired by this term. And stop linking the word; if you wanted to provide a link, I would suggest saying in a new sentence "The town's name was inspired by the term "Mooseknuckle", referring to camel toes." I called the Warner sister "Dottie" and lived to tell the tale! (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, obviously I am outnumbered here, that does not make me wrong, but that does mean we need to stop edit warring. Can someone request arbitration, or moderation, or whatever it is on wikipedia? My suggestions have not been unreasonable, I am not trolling, we simply have a disagreement here, and you people aren't exactly being reasonable about it.

What do you mean unreasonable? Nobody said you were wrong, we're saying that there is no proof of whether your claim is true or not. I personally believe you, but per the policies, we cannot allow this to be mentioned without a reliable source. It isn't us speaking, it's the Wikipedian law speaking. Nobody was edit warring; edit warring is when you continuously revert each other with no communication on a discussion board, and we've been discussing this quite thoroughly. Also, we acknowledge you are not a troll; in fact, you've been very polite and reasonable over this. I called the Warner sister "Dottie" and lived to tell the tale! (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And I am telling you that linking to an existing wikipedia page does not require a source. If it does, then we need sources to show that Kookamunga is a {{national park]], that Jiggers ia in fact a beaver, that Mount Kaboom is in fact a volcano, etc etc etc. do you see? As far as the troll comment goes, implying that I'm throwing out surprise links is not exactly a jump from that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.32.142 (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. If one is a beaver, they are a beaver. That's a given and its in the series. Ditto being a volcano. You don't need a source to say someone is human either. There is a big difference. However, making the implicit or explicit claim that the town is named for a slang term DOES require a source. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Am I making that claim or simply linking to the existing page as you are? There is no difference. 206.75.32.142 (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is, and yes by linking to the existing page you ARE making the implicit claim that the town is named for it. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Then, again.,by linking to national park you are making an implicit claim that Kookamunga is a national park without offering a source. Likewise when you like to the beaver page in regards to Jiggers. et cetera. Please provide sources or these links will have to be removed. 206.75.32.142 (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Jiggers is a beaver. That doesn't need a source, it is in the series. Kookamunga being a national park is explicitly stated in the series. Again, you are deliberately being obtuse and it is not helpful to the discussion at all. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel that way, but it is the exact same thing as you are doing with the link I provided. There is no source to support it, it is removed. I see all these wikilinks without sources, and I am asking you to back up your own argument in relation to the rest of the article. As your removing my link was not considered vandalism, simply cleaning the article up, I suppose the door swings both ways. Stop being stubbon and please understand what it is I am saying, there is no source to show it is in the series. and if one wikilink needs a source, it is reasonable to conclude that they all do. 206.75.32.142 (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't reasonable and I'm done arguing with you. THREE experienced editors have told you that you are wrong. You want to keep pretending you don't see the difference, that's up to you. Suffice to say, without a source, the link stays out. If you turn around and vandalize the article by removing the other wikilinks, you will reported to be blocked. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain how it is vandalism in comparison with what has taken place with the link to Mooseknuckle? I do not understand the difference. Why do they not require sources? Seems to be that you're arguing that some wikilinks require sourcing but others do not. Please explain how this is so.

Links to things which are obviously true are permitted. Links about subjects which are not obviously true need a reference. Jiggers is obviously a beaver, as he is consistently referred to as a beaver by the other characters, and himself. Mooseknuckle is not the obvious source of the name of the town. It is likely, but it is not obvious. It needs a source. I called the Warner sister "Dottie" and lived to tell the tale! (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, but that is the very basis of my argument here. "obvious" is relative. "common sense" is relative. They may be referred to as beavers, or as national parks, or as vlocanoes within the show, but there is no source to back it up. It seems that the entire basis of this seems to be on consensus, which changes from moment to moment. maybe tomorrow there will be 16 editors who all believe that mooseknuckle is clearly, obviously the origin of the name for the town. Simply because the majority seem to think it's not necessarily obvious does not make it factual. I only linked to an existing wikilink. Were I to have created the page specifically for this purpose that would be another thing entirely, but I did not. If one wikilink needs a source, then all should since, as already discussed, there is nothing that is absolutely obvious.

I think, since nobody else is willing to follow the suggestions I have made, nor have they requested arbitation like I suggested (I am fairly new to wikipedia and don't know how to do this) that I will follow my own course of suggested and change the redirect of Mooseknuckle to a disambiguation page. Then there should be no reason to question the link. Agreed? 206.75.32.142 (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly advise against that. It will be reverted by those who watch disambig pages as being invalid and inappropriate. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

problem solved

You clearly are determined to keep your point up, regardless of violating the Wikipedian rules. I recommend that you leave here, create your own website about Iggy Arbuckle, and there you can say what you like about the show. I called the Warner sister "Dottie" and lived to tell the tale! (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm being very careful to follow wikipedia's rules, because I'm not one of them. There is a strong belief that the town of Mooseknuckle and the term Mooseknuckle are different entities and unrelated, I am trying to find a fair compromise and make everybody happy. the disambig refers to the town of mooseknuckle, there is no reason to remove the link, at all. 206.75.32.142 (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You know what would make everyone happy? If you found a reliable source to back up your statement. Contact Teletoon, or Blueprint Entertainment, or Guy Vasilovich, and ask them about it. If you had done that in the first place, this discussion would've been unnecessary. I called the Warner sister "Dottie" and lived to tell the tale! (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't have mattered. Letters and emails are considered original research and are not valid sources. What I would have to have done is find an interview with someone who made that statement, and I have been trying to do that; I have found nothing. This is a reasonable compromise; Also, despite Collectonian's belief, linking the disambig. page is not the same as reverting. I have not reverted 4 times in one day, I reverted 3 times, and linked to a different page after than. There is a very very fine difference ;) 206.75.32.142 (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay then; the first season is out on DVD. Why not go buy it, and check what the extras say; something about it might be mentioned. I called the Warner sister "Dottie" and lived to tell the tale! (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well let me ask you: Assuming the disambiguation page for Mooseknuckle is not changed, is there any justification to removing a link to said page? Maybe I'm not getting it, but if the disambig stays, there's really no argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.32.142 (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Go right ahead. I'm way past tired of this discussion; I'm trying to create an article here, and I cannot keep needing to come back and forth over this. I called the Warner sister "Dottie" and lived to tell the tale! (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

An admin already reverted his attempt to take over the redirect page. He's also been blocked for 24 hours for the 3RR violation. Enjoy the break, I know I will :) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how frequently people type in Mooseknuckle hoping to find information about this show. There may be a reasonable argument to be made for disambiguation there. Either way, the existence of that disambiguation page would not be a reason to create a link to it from this page. Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. --Onorem♠Dil 19:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think, at best, a redirect note on the Cameltoe page would be sufficient, noting that Mooseknuckle redirects there, and that for the town in Iggy Arbuckle, come here. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but...

Collectonian, can you explain what you meant by being pointy? why did you revert my edit? I removed the link to beaver in an attempt to clean up the article. There are no links to any other animals, such as pig, catfish, et cetera, it's in line with the rest of the article. It seems, based on your reasoning, that I'm trying to make a point; I'm not, I'm simply trying to make some minor edits in an attempt to work on the article. I've left the mooseknuckle thing be until I can find something to source the relation, this is completely unrelated. Frankly I'm not that invested in the change I made, but when it's so minor and it is justified, it really is frustrating to see you revert it so heavy handed. I cannot help but think you're jumping to conclusions about me and not assuming good faith. Am I wrong? Or is there some personal vendetta should I make any change to this article? What's up? 16:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't justified, and you noted above you felt it should be removed because your Mooseknuckle link wasn't allowed. The proper correct would have been to do what I did and wikify the other animal species. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that excessive linking? You also linked town and lake, why stop there? acorn and pie would probably need to be linked as well. where exactly does one draw the line? 206.75.32.142 (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition, as I said, I was trying to clean up the article, not revisit an old grudge or anything. Apparently you feel differently, but please remember to Assume good faith. Thanks! 206.75.32.142 (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't excessive overlinking to link to animal species, though it would be more helpful if the series had given specific ones. Its done in a current FAC that has animal based characters. Not everyone would be familiar with all animal species. Town and lake are more borderline. The line is drawn where the MoS indicates and using your own judgement and consensus. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand FAC or MoS (although now I'm suddenly thinking you may mean Manual of Style) 206.75.32.142 (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)