Talk:The Ren & Stimpy Show

Archives
– July 15, 2006 July 15, 2006 – October 14, 2010 October 14, 2010 – August 21, 2013 August 21, 2013 – April 1, 2016

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Ren & Stimpy Show. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lyris-lite.net/rscuts.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

List Template Within Article Doesn't Link Properly

In the Episodes section of this article is a list that is copied from the List main article using the {{:}} template. While the Season links in the List main article functions correctly (Pilot, 1, 2, 3, etc), the list that appears here in the Episodes section of this article doesn't function. This is a technical issue that is beyond my expertise, and I wish to bring it to the attention of someone whom knows how to correct this issue.
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The summary chart doesn't really belong in this article. It only adds a bunch of dates and not much else. I think it should just be removed. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

AgreeI agree with your opinion, BrightRoundCircle (talk). Does anyone second this motion?
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Original run

There is previous consensus that the original run of the series is the Nickelodeon run which ended in 1995 with "A Scooter for Yaksmas". The first MTV run is regarded as a separate run. Before changing the dates, please discuss and reach consensus on the talk page. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Since there is no Wikipedia policy, guideline, or even a project page that defines what's an "original run" please defer to the existing consensus or create a new one through discussion. Bright☀ 17:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

What's with the See also?

Somebody put stuff in the See Also part of this article that should be on the article for the show's spinoff. Note I am not an admin.--2602:304:5DDA:ED9:E527:718E:EECB:27E (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

"Issues" issues

The "issues" section is a huge chart that's half-empty and appears WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It should be presented with context or removed; perhaps if the comics are notable they could be put in their own article. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I set the issues table to "collapsed" by default. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Most popular cable TV show in 1991-1992

"Ren & Stimpy, which in 1991-92 became the most popular US cable TV show ever" - Ben Thompson (March 20, 1994), "Farewell Bambi, hello Butt-head", The Independent.

Classicalfan626 why are you disputing this information? BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

What to do with the tense in the Nicktoons film revival

I've noticed that there might be some issues with past tense and future tense. Here's the current wording to the section so far:

“ Deadline Hollywood reported in early 2016 that Ren and Stimpy is scheduled to appear in an upcoming Nicktoons film. Later that year, Variety reported that Nickelodeon is in negotiations with Kricfalusi about a revival of the characters. In an April 2016 panel discussion, Bob Camp and Bill Wray announced that Kricfalusi is developing a Ren & Stimpy short that would screen along with the third SpongeBob SquarePants film. Camp and Wray stated that they were "not invited to that party" and wouldn't be working on it. However, Kricfalusi denied on Twitter that he's making such a cartoon. On March 20, 2017, Camp later confirmed that Paramount Pictures rejected a pitch for a Ren & Stimpy feature film and that it will not be rebooting the characters, primarily because of the negative reception of Adult Party Cartoon. ”

Since it already happened, I'm thinking that it would be reworded to something like this.

“ In early 2016, it was announced that Kricfalusi was in negotiations to revive Ren & Stimpy for a Nicktoons film. In an April 2016 panel discussion, Bob Camp and Bill Wray announced that Kricfalusi would be developing a short featuring the characters that would screen along with the third SpongeBob SquarePants film, but they said that they were "not invited to that party" and would not be working on it. However, Kricfalusi denied reports that he's making such a cartoon. Later, on March 20, 2017, Camp later confirmed that Paramount Pictures rejected a pitch for a Ren & Stimpy feature film and also that it would not be rebooting the characters, primarily because of the negative reception of Adult Party Cartoon. ”

I think it will solve some problems here, but we may need some input on what to do here. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I really hate the "it was announced", "on [date]", "it was said", all that passive voice is bad style, and MOS is pretty strongly worded against it. WP:SAY. Deadline Hollywood reported something in 2016, it doesn't mean it's the absolute truth. Everything in the section as it is currently worded is correct, according to the sources. Making it all a mess of "announced", "revealed", "confirmed" is detrimental to the style and the accuracy of the information. Bright☀ 13:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand where your concerns are coming from. I have no argument with WP:SAY (we could also use "stated", "described", "wrote", "commented", and "according to" in addition to "said"). After all, we are striving to create, expand, and improve all articles to the highest degree possible. Still, I had some concerns about contractions in that section (like "doesn't" should be "does not"), so that's been fixed up. Also, I'm a little concerned about the "Bob Camp and Bill Wray, who worked on the original show..." wording, since those names might be a little redundant when they are first mentioned in the article (i.e. full name should be mentioned once or twice). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Bright☀ 14:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Revert of multiple edits

The article was reverted to the 09:53, 2018 March 31 version, reverting several edits with the edit summary "Just because it's in a reliable source doesn't mean taking someone else's word as fact when it's contradicted by other sources." This edit is invalid for the following reasons:

1. The information is sourced and there are no other sources in the article that contradict it. I have edited the wording to reflect the source almost verbatim so the viewpoint is clearly and accurately attributed to Bob Camp. (WP:BIASED)
2. There are two intermediate fixes (1, 2) that remove uncited information that should not be restored without an inline reference to a reliable source. (WP:BURDEN)
3. There are two punctuation and readability fixes (1, 2) that should probably be kept, and in any case shouldn't be reverted for the wrong reason.

TheRealBoognish, points (2) and (3) should be obvious and the edits should not be reverted. Point (1) you're going to have to begrudgingly accept. Even if you don't trust Bob Camp, he is not making an outlandish statement here. He is an animator, he was involved in the creation and production of Ren & Stimpy, there's nothing unreasonable about what he says—that he pitched a Ren & Stimpy movie to Paramount and they rejected it because of Adult Party Cartoon. There's no reason to believe that Trent Parsley or ScreenGeek reported his words inaccurately. If you have a different reason to remove the material, please specify it. Bright☀ 06:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• There is no evidence supporting Camp's claims. TheRealBoognish (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

That may be so, but that is not a condition necessary for citing a reliable source, whether it's Bob Camp, Trent Parsley, or ScreenGeek. If you are questioning the reliable-source-ness of this combination, you need an indication that it is WP:QUESTIONABLE or the like. As I explained above, nothing in the statement Camp makes is outlandish and there's no immediate reason to doubt Trent Parsely or ScreenGeek, so unless you can show that this particular source is unreliable, the reason for your objection is invalid. You can raise other objections, for example POV objections, but they too might be invalid because other sources have reported rumors of a movie, which corroborates Camp's claim to some degree, indirectly. Bright☀ 10:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

This is correct. The source directly makes this statement. As long as the proper context is given (According to Bob Camp) then its a perfectly acceptable statement to have in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Production companies

@Sjones23: I suspect Idrinkapplejuicies456 was trying to fixed their mistake, but they improperly implemented their fix in the template, since the template does not have an "animation production" or "animation services" variable. I believe they mistakenly assumed "company" refers to all companies working on the show, not just the production companies. At any rate, the template documentation states: Note: sub-contractors hired to perform production work, e.g. animation houses, special effects studios, post-production facilities etc. should not be included here, as this may create confusion about the nation(s) of origin. Instead, use sourced prose in the article's Production section to explain these details. Bright☀ 09:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Banned from reruns indefinitely?

After those two women came forward against the original creator, I wonder if Nickelodeon has banned reruns of the show indefinitely?2600:6C50:7006:400:1541:C156:4D34:A295 (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No, as it's still being rerun, and in any case adding such a statement to the article would require a source. Bright☀ 13:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No objections, discussion open for over 30 days and no replies for two weeks. Unanimous consensus for merger. Bright☀ 08:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

---

It doesn't seem like any of the Ren & Stimpy video game articles really stand up on their own; the most I can find for any of them as far as third-party sources go is one or two reviews each, and it's doubtful there's any substantial development info around. The overhaul I'd just given the video game section on the main article sums up each entry about as thoroughly as they need to be within the bigger article's context, so I'd think redirecting the video game titles to that section would be in order. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

In principle, each videogame should have enough reliable sources to merit an article, but right now they're better off merged into one article. Support merge either into the main article or, preferably, Ren & Stimpy videogames. Bright☀ 18:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

How about List of Ren & Stimpy video games? Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. Bright☀ 20:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'd start with a section in the franchise article. Then build out summary style. czar 18:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Created by

People are trying to distance Ren & Stimpy from John K, and one way is to cite Bob Camp as a co-creator. There's one reference that names all Spumco co-founders as creators, so I guess we'll go with that, despite all other references attributing the creation to John K alone. Bright☀ 06:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

TV show's nationality

See Manual of Style for a television show's nationality. Bright☀ 05:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• The Ren and Stimpy Show Title Card.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ren & Stimpy Logo (1).png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Missing Citations

Did quite a bit of digging for the flagged missing citations in this article. The citations deal with old distribution deals (VHS) or details of cut scenes or episodes from later releases. There is significant discussion of the missing content in forums, blogs and like, so the data appears to be accurate, but I could locate no official sources that would be acceptable for wiki citation. Technutt (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)