Jump to content

Talk:Rugrats

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DoubleDee0614 (talk | contribs) at 10:18, 3 September 2008 (→This article sucks.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article should stay clear of unnecessary information or subjects. 53180 22:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)53180[reply]

somebody fix the typos poor spelling and grammar

I cleaned it up a little. I'm here for the words 20:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

The criticism section sites no sources or refrences and features biased opinions where facts should be. For example "Taffy (voiced by Amanda Bynes) was universaly dislike by all fans" unless someone can actually prove this and the other information listed as a majority of fans opinions I suggest we remove this section.Eatspie (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Could someone tell me who Taffy is? That's the only character I don't know in The Rugrats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.128.144 (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the criticism section of the article should be removed. Maybe we should have a vote on it? TheProf | Talk 00:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't watched the recent episodes so I am unsure who Taffy is, but a lot of the opinions expressed in the article as "universal among fans" I disagree with and I'm sure there are many others that feel the same way. I suggest we either immediately remove the "criticism" section until further notice or have a vote to decide whether or not it should stay. Remember Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and only feature facts, not biased opinions that might not even be true. Eatspie (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Criticism" section of the article also compares Spongebob Squarepants and Rugrats and gives a biased opinion on which one the edior felt is better without citing any sources or refrences. Unless someone disagrees, can give a reason why this section of the article is relevant and should stay, and can cite reliable sources or refrences that reveal these opinions as universal among fans I will remove this section of the article. Eatspie (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly have my backing. TheProf | Talk 10:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article sucks.

I mean, where's all the information? This is one of the most well-known cartoon shows of all time and we get an article that mostly links to other articles? Dear Lord. Mikeguy 08:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who should care? The show has long since jumped the shark. 70.101.160.105 22:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who should care? Anyone who cares about this show and/or articles on Wikipedia. Also, the fact that in your opinion the show jumped the shark is completely irrelevant to its article on Wikipedia. TheProf07 (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just in that persons opinion that the show jumped the shark. In truth, EVERYONE knows the show jumped the shark. We all know who the objects of destruction are so let's just come right out now and say it, Dil and Kimi.
The two charecters had MUCH potential in their introductions, and they fulfilled that potential, unfortunately, to their fullest as right when they were introduced to the show they...
they just didn't fit in. First Dil, changing the show from, "a baby's life and perspective with fun imagination", to, "Toilet jokes and bathroom 'humor'." I'm sixteen years old, have been closely watching the old cel animation proccesses on the Rugrats, and know what I'm talking about. I don't expect this to effect anyone impaticular.
I'm just asking: Try to have a little more understanding for us. We've all spotted the changes and basically don't like them, but know there is almost no way to take them back. That's very uncomforting to have to live with for the rest of your life. Maybe you may not look at this show the same way other "Rugrats" fans do, but just don't be suprised if you here someone complain again.
ThegreatWakkorati (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you add the information yourself instead of complaining about it? Great articles don't just appear in thin air, you have to write them. Eatspie 19:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this show is anywhere near "one of the most well-known cartoon shows of all time." I mean, there are plenty of shows that are/were more well-known than "Rugrats". At least we can say that this show is one of the most well-known Nickelodeon shows of all time. Marcus2 (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Also, the fact that in your opinion the show jumped the shark is completely irrelevant to its article on Wikipedia."
Whose opinion? It's not his opinion that "Rugrats" jumped the shark; it is fact. Having said that, Rugrats did jump the shark. In analogy to this, Pope John Paul II did die in 2005. This is fact. Therefore, you can't have an "opinion" saying that he did not. Marcus2 (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being a little late, but does anyone know WHEN the show jumped the shark? --DoubleDee0614 (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellation date

I have corrected the error stating that this show ended in 2006. The direct-to-DVD releases are not part of the final season, which ended in 2004. 70.101.160.105 00:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did all the info go?

I remember reading this page a while back and getting filled with nostalgia because of all of the things the article described. What happened to the descriptions about the show and the production and everything? Why did it have to get purged?

Aparently, it was shortened because the show is cancelled. Wich is ridiculous, of course, cancellation doesnt mean it isnt culturally significant. - Redmess 12:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so if a show is cancelled, they delete the info? that's retarded 24.192.136.238 (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can still read that by going to Page History, ya know. Sabre Knight (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but ordinary civilians browsing Wikipedia and desiring to be filled with nostalgia about a cartoon they grew up with aren't smart enough to go to page history. This is an important article and it ought to be fixed. But whatever. Agelseb (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dil and Kimi

Will someone please stop adding mention of them in the Premise paragraph?! Their introductions are mentioned in a later paragraph. 70.101.160.105 12:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added both these characters and Susie Carmichael back into the premise. All three are major characters in the show and need mention in the premise. As for being mentioned in a later paragraph. Arn't they all!? I rest my case:) -- TheProf07 (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re-added them again. The Doctor Who article doesnt just include characters from the first series. So nither should the Rugrats article. Thank you TheProf | Talk 11:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A source that could be used: Jerry Beck's Not Just Cartoons: Nicktoons!

I found a book in the bookstore called Not Just Cartoons: Nicktoons! by Jerry Beck. I'm not going to buy it and join the project, but I will ask the other members to get the book so that they can add real world information about various fictional characters.

This makes the creation of separate articles for *many* fictional characters feasible. Having information about the development of the character will make the articles satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Page on the up and up

I have added some text in the portion of criticisms that contributed to the neutrality of the page and it seems that these have been even further elaborated and corrected. This page is starting to be filled with more worthwhile information and less opinions. I think that the popularity section is by far the worst portion of the entire article. This section would be best benefited if someone would include come actual number of popularity and more pertinent information than what is currently present. --Amurray8 (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

End date

This show ended in 2004, not 2005 or 2006. Will somebody please stop changing this date. The 2004 date is correct. 70.101.182.149 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storyboard Jam

Anyone have a link to the source? (Steve Ressel's LiveJournal) VTNC (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here's a link: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by VTNC (talk • contribs) 18:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

End Dates and Begin Dates

What was the exact day for the end date in 1994 and the begin date in 1997? --WeezleBeezle (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures.

Okay, I just found a pic with all the mainstream babies in it. (Tommy, Chuckie, Phil, Lil, Kimi, Dil, Angelica, and Susie)

But I'm not allowed to upload yet.

http://kara.allthingsd.com/files/2007/10/300px-rugrats.JPG

Wii24 (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That same image was in the infobox before, then someone removed it. Should it be uploaded again? Paper Luigi Talk Contributions 01:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rugrats&oldid=236000025"