![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
As this article's main editor, this section has given me the most headaches.
Yesterday (2/13), Balloonman re-organized the images in this section. I would like to talk about this. My initial reaction was, "Ooo, I don't like it." Of course, that could be an emotional reaction, so I need the input of someone who's not as invested in this article. I've noticed, though, that most of the images in WP articles tend to be put on either the left or right, and not in the center or in a gallery as Balloonman has done. I haven't found any policy about that, but it seems to be common practice. Therefore, I vote to return the images to the right side of the article, as before. -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 05:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I would love to see another picture replace the wiggles stage... the stage is a nice picture when it is full size, but shrunk down to fit in an Wiki-article makes it too small. I won't delete it because I think we need more 2-3 more pictures anyways... Balloonman ( talk) 06:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
On 2/17, Balloonman, who has helped with this article second only to mineself, replaced the "NASA" picture with the correct one with the guys' logo on the correct side of their shirts. He also moved the image to a different section of the article. Man, what happened to not making any substantial changes without discussing it first?
Anyway, I'd like to talk about it now. I'd like to return this image to its original place like this. There are a couple of reasons for it. First, I believe that it introduces the topic of The Wiggles' origins, since it shows all four original members. Second, I personally think that it looks better there. Its current placement makes the end of the article looks too busy and makes the beginning of the article look too empty.
I agree with Balloon's evaluation that this article doesn't have enough images, but I think we've done the best with what's available. The ideal image for the end of the article, "Greg Page's retirement" would be an image of Greg. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a free one. I'll be on the look-out, though. Until then, discussion about this would be nice. -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 06:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I was unfortunately unable to address a few of the FAC comments before the nom was closed, so I'm pasting the rest here, for evidence that all concerns were addressed before the next nom: -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 00:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
So all objections thus far have been addressed. My intention is to submit this article for another copyedit, and then resubmit it in a couple of weeks. Thanks to all who assisted! -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 23:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of splitting the article into two. The Band/Tv Series are the same. I don't like the idea. Balloonman ( talk) 20:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Voting against the split. This current article contains very little information that is specific to the TV series only, so I'm not sure how a split would work. For example, the minor characters (Catpain Feathersword, etc.) exist in the TV series, AND in their home videos, AND in their concerts, so you wouldn't want to remove them from the main article. Furthermore, there isn't/wasn't just one TV series called "The Wiggles". In the episodes I've seen, some were titled "The Wiggles", others were called "Lights, Camera, Action, Wiggles!", and still others were titled "The Wiggles World" (I think). And many of the episodes consisted mainly of clips drawn from the home videos, so it all gets very intertwined. I think it makes more sense to discuss their various series in the main article. Vandelay ( talk) 15:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm also against a split, and have removed the template, as nobody here seems to support it. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 23:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I know that in 2006 the Wiggles received their 6th ARIA award (Australia's big music award) and that they received at least one in 2007... but I don't know how many they currently have. I think this would be a piece of information to include in the article someplace.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman ( talk • contribs)
I wonder if the solution, since there's all this "conflicting" info, is to simply say, "The Wiggles have won and been nominated for several ARIA awards, the most prestigious music award in Australia," with appropriate citing, of course. Opinions? -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 18:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
After thinking about it, and since there was no more discussion, I conflated the above references to the current version. I believe it satisfies the concerns of all interested parties. -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 00:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
So this article failed FAC again, for the third time. I wasn't able to address the most recent set of comments/feedback, so I will cut-and-paste them below and when I have time (I have some RL deadlines to meet this week), I'll address them.
I must say, getting this article to FA-status has been frustrating. I realize that as a writer, I have some weaknesses, as well as lack of experience. One of the things I love about WP is how much I've learned as an editor and about the editing process. I'm certain that the next article I tackle will be easier. My writing has improved, that's for certain.
However, I'm beginning to have some misgivings about the FAC process, especially how it relates to this particular article. From what I've seen of other FAs, even the ones that have been put on the main page, they haven't gone through nearly as much scrutiny as this one has: three peer reviews, a copyedit, a GAN, and now three FACs. I'm willing to admit that it can be explained in part by the weaknesses of this article, with my weaknesses and inexperience as an editor, and with the subject of this article.
I wonder, though, if there hasn't been some biases against this article, and perhaps that explains the tendency for reviewers to judge it more harshly than how other FAs about similar topics have been judged. First, the subject is non-American. Second, it focuses on children's music, not a highly respected genre in the music field. Finally, the main editor is a woman. Now, I don't want to accuse anyone of anything, but I think it's important enough to at least bring up here on this talk page.
At any rate, I will address the objections that I didn't have the time to address before the nomination was closed, and try again at a later time, after the dust settles. -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 05:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
But you didn't address the children's music issue. One of the major weaknesses of this article is the subject matter. No one's out there writing about the efficacy of The Wiggles' educational methods or doing any studies about them. Part of that, I believe, is because their audience is very young children, and children's music is not yet accepted by the mainstream of the music industry. In other words, the attitude is, "Why should the WP article about a children's music group become a FA? How is that notable?" As a result, this article may be suffering from a higher level of scrutiny than other articles of a similar topic.
Of course, that's nothing that I can prove, but I wanted to at least put it out there. I also hope this doesn't disable this article any further. -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 05:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Cut-and-paste by Figureskatingfan. -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 05:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I have concerns about comprehensiveness. There are also a few prose issues and many quotations that are not directly cited.
Karanacs ( talk) 14:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm now ready to address some of the issues raised in this article's last FAC. Before addressing them, I wanted to find more information that specifically addressed some these concerns (i.e., criticism and educational efficacy), so I went through everything this article cites and added information when appropriate. Notice that I created two new sections: Musical style and Reception. I wasn't able to find a great deal of information, since as I've stated before, this article's biggest weakness is its subject matter, and the fact that not much has been written about the influence of The Wiggles' music and some of the other demands of this article's reviewers.
I need some input: I placed the new sections at the end of the Characters section. Is this the most appropriate placement? I think it was, since the Characters section flow naturally from the History section. Please discuss, for if someone can adequately justify changing it, I will do so.-- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
On 5/19, Dihydrogen Monoxide made some edits to this article's lead. I have some problems with them, which I will list for you below:
That's all. My preference is to revert it back to the version before Di's, but I wanted consensus first. Figureskatingfan ( talk) 04:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yah, but Di, the policy you quote says that I don't own the article. Sure, I have a great deal invested in it, as all editors who commit themselves to a particular article do, but I think that I've always been open to the constructive input of others. I've followed every reasonable suggestion made during every milestone it's been through. So I have some emotional attachment to it, and I'm sure that's been obvious as we've gone through this process as well. At any rate, thanks for your help in that process (and for your revert) and keep your fingers crossed for FA! -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 13:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've corrected the reference to Murray Cook's pre-Wiggles group -- it was Finger Guns, not Bang Shang A Lang. Both groups feature Cook and Mark Mulligan, but BSL is their current band. Finger Guns played in the late 1980s. Dunks ( talk) 03:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Dunk, at first, I reverted your correction, but after thinking about it some, I corrected it even further. Murray was in both groups, so I changed the line to reflect it, and added a reference. Thanks for your input, since it ultimately led to the improvement of the article, but in the future, please make sure that you provide good sources for your edits and additions.
I noticed from your talk page that you're friends with Murray, which is way cool. I wonder, though, if there's a connection between the name of his old band and "the signature finger-wagging move", which looks an awful lot like a "finger gun". Do you know anything about that, and if you do, do you know of a reliable source about it? Just wondering. ;) -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 05:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick... it often takes longer (from FAC to main page). Congrats!--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
OMG! I wasn't even gonna nominate it for the mainpage until November, to honor the second anniversary of Greg's retirement. I can't even believe it! Whoo-hoo! -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 04:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
AWESOME! what does that meen? were on the main page is it? --
Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! (
talk)
18:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I got that.. LOL Oh well they were on the front page! The big red car pic was on the front page AWESOME! that is too cool!!! -- Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! ( talk) 15:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 16:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)==Little Wiggles?==
I don't know much about the Wiggles but have heard stuff from people with kids. Shouldn't the Little Wiggles be mentioned at least briefly? Are there no RS on them? They don't seem to be mentioned at all in the characters section or anywhere else from what I can tell. Nil Einne ( talk) 14:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Phillip Wilcher was a founding member of The Wiggles. When my children were little, The Wiggles first emerged, and Wilcher was prominent on their first CD - on the cover and composing the bulk of the material. Whatever happened afterwards - musical differences from all appearances - he was there at the start and any truthful account of their history should reflect this. 136.186.1.188 ( talk) 06:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
he's so Arogent.. he gives me the Creeps! --
Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! (
talk)
16:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
whatever... -- Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! ( talk) 14:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to add some Stuff to the Article about Sprout.. and I wish there was more Pics we could put in.. -- Jena ( talk) 12:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Re: images: I agree, actually. I'm thinking about writing them and asking for their release of photos. I don't think it's realistic to depend upon fans to get the pics we want. My family and I saw them in concert last Sat. (7/18) in Spokane, WA, but I got none of the pictures I wanted (i.e., all four doing the "signature finger-wagging move"). The meet-and-greet was fun, but it was unrealistic to try and get the photos and deal with the kids at the same time. Plus, Anthony had the flu, so he didn't participate (although he did perform, and was great). (See my blog for more: http://christinemeyer.blogspot.com/) -- Christine ( talk) 14:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Prohibit Onions, I think the Wilcher sentence improves the article.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
One of the biggest weaknesses of this article (and other Wiggles-related articles) has been the images. I think that in the last couple of days, I've been able to accomplish much to remedy this situation, thanks to the donation of some pictures taken at concerts over the summer. I'm much happier with the images currently on this article, but it's not perfect--not yet. Below is my Wiggles image wishlist. Please add to it if you think of others.
-- Christine ( talk) 18:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Since working on this article's images as described above, some additional frustrations occurred, mostly due to my ineptitude with images. It's my intention to address the issues that arose in the coming days. -- Christine ( talk) 05:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I have found yet another possible discrepancy in this article. There seems to have a been a number of them, and as I've been able to find them, I've corrected them. The most recent one has to do with Greg Page's role in The Wiggles. The newest source, an article from CNN [6], states that Greg was a roadie for The Cockroaches, that Anthony and Murray met at Macquarie while training to become teachers. It also seems to suggest that they were teachers, not Greg. The 2006 New York Times article [7] referenced in this article suggests that Greg was also a teacher, and that he met the other two at uni. That concerns me a bit, because to be frank, there has been many "facts" in the NYT article that have turned out to be plain wrong. I don't think the CNN article is clear enough to make any changes, though, and it may be incorrect about this as well. So if anyone finds any evidence regarding this issue, please bring it to our attention.
So the question that arises here, to summarize, is: Is Greg a teacher? Did he attend Macquarie to gain his early ed training? When exactly did he meet the other guys? Any help to clear up this discrepancy would be greatly appreciated. -- Christine ( talk) 06:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Performances artists generally have a section on their awards and nominations (or a link to an article with this information). Thus, I recently started such a section for the Wiggles and began with their 2007 APRA Award wins. I supplied two references for the material I added.
However the whole section was deleted/reverted with the following explanation (tranferred from my talkpage):
== [[The Wiggles]] ==
Hi, you might have noticed that I reverted your edit. I did it because the information was elsewhere in the article, and because the source you used isn't really appropriate. It's just the link to the APRA webpage, and says nothing about the actual award. The kicker part about it is, though, while I was in the middle of the revert, I literally had an edit conflict with an anonymous IP vandalizing the article again--and it was about poor Greg! Anyway, wanted to explain. -- Christine ( talk) 03:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
My edit was:
==Awards and nominations== ===APRA-AGSC Awards=== The annual [[APRA Awards|Screen Music Awards]] are presented by [[Australasian Performing Right Association]] (APRA) and Australian Guild of Screen Composers (AGSC) for television and film scores and soundtracks.<ref name="APRAScreen"/> {{Awards table}} |- |rowspan="2"| [[APRA Awards of 2007|2007]] || The Wiggles: [[Murray Cook]], [[Jeff Fatt]] , [[Anthony Field]], John Field, [[Greg Page (musician)|Greg Page]] || International Achievement Award<small><ref name="SMAWin2007"/></small> || {{won}} |- | Cook, Fatt, Anthony Field, John Field, Page || Most Performed Screen Composer - Overseas<small><ref name="SMAWin2007"/></small> || {{won}} {{end}}
With the following references added in the specific section:
<ref name="APRAScreen">{{cite web | url = http://www.apra-amcos.com.au/APRAAwards/ScreenAwards.aspx | title = Screen Awards | publisher = [[Australasian Performing Right Association]] (APRA) | accessdate = 28 April 2010 }}</ref> <ref name="SMAWin2007">{{cite web | url = http://www.apra-amcos.com.au/APRAAwards/ScreenAwards/History/2007Winners.aspx | title = 2007 Winners - Screen Music Awards | publisher = Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA) | accessdate = 2 May 2010 }}</ref>
Which is rendered as:
The annual Screen Music Awards are presented by Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA) and Australian Guild of Screen Composers (AGSC) for television and film scores and soundtracks. [1]
Year | Nominee / work | Award | Result |
---|---|---|---|
2007 | The Wiggles: Murray Cook, Jeff Fatt , Anthony Field, John Field, Greg Page | International Achievement Award [2] | Won |
Cook, Fatt, Anthony Field, John Field, Page | Most Performed Screen Composer - Overseas [2] | Won
|
Christine makes some claims in the statement above which I dispute:
It is my contention that APRA is the appropriate source for information on APRA awards. Just the same as ARIA being the appropriate source for ARIA awards. Until a separate page is created for all their Awards and nominations I believe the above information should be returned to the article. At some point in the future a separate List of awards and nominations received by The Wiggles page can be created with a link left in the main article.-- shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 06:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The reference to not touching children could probably do with a little clarification. Either that this rule was only enforced at the beginning of their careers, or it is only for official photo shoots. I was just watching Live Hot Potatoes with my daughter and at around the 20m 30s range, one of them is holding the shoulder of a boy in the audience. Not in any way does this look inappropriate, I just remembered reading this section yesterday, and thought it could do with re-writing/clarifying. No idea how to rewrite the sentence, or if people would consider this important enough to alter. -- AntiSceptic ( talk) 09:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a question is JB a character on the Wiggles. -- MikeySalinas17 ( talk) 21:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, JB is a character specific to the Wiggly Waffle. Whether JB will make it into future Wiggles videos is uncertain; JB was not featured in Let's Eat, even though that had the Wiggly Waffle day of the week skits. Perhaps someone can add JB's involvement in Wiggly Waffle? AngusWOOF ( talk) 21:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence is incorrect. It is not a "children's group," it is a group that entertains children. Nicmart ( talk) 16:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Everyone, I wanted to explain my edits yesterday but our electricity went out because of the major snow storm here before I could. I also made some other changes that had needed to happen for a while, which User: Mitch Ames graciously ce'ed for me. Notice that I changed the section heading; it parallels Van Halen, another group whose lead singer left and came back again. I've actually thought a lot about how we should handle this here. User:WLRoss made some edits that reflected some of the reporting in Aussie newspapers, which I reverted, and in the first potential WP:3RR in the history of this article, WLRoss reverted back. [8]
It's my opinion that some of the reporting used in the contested additions is gossip. I think that this article should be treated as a WP:BLP, and the information added by WLRoss should be removed because it violates many BLP policies. The Advertiser may be a major newspaper in Australia, but the other source WLRoss used, Facebook, certainly is not. Christine ( talk) 16:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Just an FYI update. There was a full page in the paper, this is part of it. Apparently Anthony Field is not a people person, it's all business. Very sad. The rest of the page was childrens reactions (basically the kids recognise the colours and are not interested in the people wearing them) and financial organisation. The Red, Blue and purple Wiggles own 30% each, Paul Field (manager and Anthony's brother) 5% and Mike Conway (managing director) 5%. All the characters are owned by the Wiggles and the people who play them are all "hired hands". Wayne ( talk) 01:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Everyone, I just reverted some edits regarding the reports about Greg's return being "temporary", for the same reason as the edits discussed above. I again refer to WP:BLP and WP:NOT#NEWS. I think we should hold off on including these statements until we're certain that they're true. When more sources substantiate them, or even better, Greg is re-replaced, we can add the information. Please discuss. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 19:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
As mentioned above ( #Greg's return), User:Figureskatingfan changed the section heading [ from "Return of Greg Page" to "Reunion with Page". I think "return" is a better word. "Reunion" implies (to me) that they "split up", which has negative connotations that don't apply here. Admittedly this is just a personal opinion, which is hard to put into words, so I'm not going to change the article on the strength of it. Others may care to opine on the matter. Mitch Ames ( talk) 04:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Our article currently says that Greg Page returned as the Yellow Wiggle, replacing Sam Moran (who had earlier replaced Page when he retired due to ill health). WLRoss's version (which was later removed, and is the subject of #Greg's return above) quoted Anthony Field saying that "Sam ... was a hired hand". I think we should probably explicitly (and neutrally) mention that:
Ie, he "returned" to his role as the Yellow Wiggle character, but not the co-owner of very profitable company.
Quoting The Weekend West: Stuart Washington (21–22 January 2012). "How Greg wiggled way back".
The Weekend West. West Australian Newspapers Ltd. p. 11.{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link), which appears to be a cutdown copy of
this article in the The Sydney Morning Herald
At its bluntest, Moran's departure provided an education in the difference between owner and worker ...
Moran was a worker.
... he left with contractual entitlements after earning a salary said to be $200,000 a year. He'll continue to collect song-writing royalties of between $60,000 and $100,000 a year.
...
By contrast, as a part-owner of the Wiggles, Page left with a payout believed to be about $20 million ...
Documents lodged with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission show he ceased to be an office holder in The Wiggles Pty Ltd in April 2008. He rejoins the group "exactly on the same level as Sam", according to [Anthony] Field.
"... there is a business side to this," Field said. "(Moran) was an employee. Greg is an employee. We are in debt - not to Greg, but to the bank. ...
"Sam's time came up and Greg was happy to go with what we're offering."
...
About his new arrangements - but not confirming whether he was simply returning as a salaried worker - Page would only say: "I go back in on a basis I'm happy with."
Any opinions on this? Suggestions as to wording? Do we have any other references that explicitly mention Page's status as co-owner and then employee? Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Possibly a separate section focussing on the business side of The Wiggles Pty Ltd" - including ownership and changes thereof - would be appropriate. Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I was checking the infobox and had a question on where the video and broadcasting distributor companies should go in the list? Label seemed too specific for KidsCo, but if not, you can undo that.
Disney (former) Sprout (current) KidsCo (current, international) HIT Entertainment (UK, US, former) Roadshow Entertainment (current) Koch Entertainment (current) Warner Brothers (current)
AngusWOOF ( talk) 14:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Ironic subject headline, especially with the events surrounding The Wiggles in the past couple of weeks, eh? One of the positives that have come out as a result of all the turmoil, though, at least in regards to this article, is that there's been a lot more information about them that simply hasn't been available up to this point. Yes, there's a lot of media coverage, but most of it is fluff or rehash of old stuff or gossip about whatever scandal is surrounding them at the time. In the last year, with their 20th anniversary, Greg's return, and the shake-up, the reporting has changed somewhat, to stories about The Wiggles' brand. (Plus, Anthony's book has a lot of information about the business aspect of the group.) Way back when this article became FA, a reviewer suggested that we add a section about the brand and business of The Wiggles, but I responded that there wasn't enough information even to warrant a section. I believe that has now changed; consequently, I'd like to add a "Brand" section, which would mean pulling existing content where it doesn't really fit at the current time and putting it there, as well as adding the new information gained in the past year. It's my intention to do that, after I finish writing notes from Anthony's book, which I'm doing at the current time. FAC has become more stringent since this article passed FA, and I'm not sure its current version would pass an FAR.
Another thing that I'm thinking about is the "Characters" section, and this is what I'd like some input about. At its FAC, a reviewer suggested that it be removed, or the content be placed in a forked article. With the new information and section I want to add, I'm no longer sure that the section fits into the article's tone any longer. What do folks think about creating a new article, The Wiggles characters? Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 16:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm almost done drafting the suggested section ( User:Figureskatingfan/Sesame Street sandbox--pay no attention to the title; it's just a handy dandy sandbox, har har), and have realized that it best fits in its own article, which will probably, as Angus suggests above, be entitled The Wiggles Pty Ltd. All I need to do is to write a lead, add some pictures, remove the content from here, and then submit it for DYK. Another few days, most likely. Woo hoo! Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 06:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so I looked at the source about Mott's [11], and it's at the end of a discussion about their, at that time, recent endorsements and deals. I don't see how Mott's is more important than any other product, so I don't see how it fits. You can disagree if you want, but make sure you support your argument. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 22:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
So I went ahead and created a new article because I realized that the content about the characters wouldn't easily be folded into this article. Two new Wiggles articles in one week! Must be a world's record! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 22:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I recently changed the capitalisation of many of the references, to match the sources. Christine (Figureskatingfan) reverted these changes. The reversion includes other edits which are not within the scope of this post. I've moved her reasons, and my disagreement with them, from my talk page where they were originally posted, to here. I'd appreciate some other editor's opinions on the matter. Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey Mitch, you might have noticed that I reverted your good faith edits to this article. I did it because as WP:CIT states, the type of citation styles used doesn't matter, as long as it's consistent. For this article, I used the templates at WP:CT; the titles are capitalised, regardless of the original source's use. All the major citation styles do that; they bypass the source's use for consistency sake. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 21:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
The article's still regularly vandalized by anonymous users. :( Should we get this semi-protected? AngusWOOF ( talk) 23:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
All of:
say that "It was reported that ... Page was given a $20 million payout" (or similar), all citing the same reference [12], which says
Page left with a payout believed to be about $20 million
I'm a little concerned that "it was reported ..." violates
WP:ALLEGED. If we believe the source, that he was paid "about $20 million", we should just say so ("It was reported that ... Page was given a payout of about $20 million"). If we doubt that veracity of the statement we should either not mention the amount at all, or state explicitly that there is doubt about the amount, and state why (possibly in a footnote).
Mitch Ames (
talk)
03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I propose that this edit, which inserts the members' first names, should be reverted, in accordance with WP:SURNAME. In fact there are numerous other uses of their first names that ought to be removed. There may be some exceptions - eg in the paragraph that includes "... The Wiggles, who were called by their first names when they performed, ...", and specifically when referring to their on-stage schticks - but generally there's no reason why SURNAME should not apply. Mitch Ames ( talk) 10:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Re: "They made careful decisions regarding their endorsements of toys and other products, and avoided over-extending their brand by only licensing products that correlated with their image."
Is there a source for this? So much product is or has been Wiggles branded that it's hard to take these "careful decisions" seriously. Children's nappies, children's toothpaste, children's spaghetti maybe correlated.. But how does Coles "down down" campaign fit with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.6.232 ( talk) 13:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Can anybody upload a picture of the current members to the info box, and move the current one down to one of the sections concerning Greg, Murray, and Jeff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rd9787 ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I thought Anthony had a white shirt in the "Big Red Car" video. Dcelano 24:13 December 3, 2013, (UTC)
Did any of you folks see the Wiggles' Propeller video clip last year in live shows and on the internet, including in Australia? I did when I was at the Tower of Philadelphia before the Wiggles show began. That's where it shows what the next generation of Wiggles would look like. In fact, it was seen before and after Surfer Jeff was released on DVD. And that's not all. It sounds like the song "Ooh, It's Captain Feathersword". Dcelano, 23:24, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
Which year did Paul Field became the Wiggles' manager? 1996, 1997 or 1998? Dcelano, 05:01, December 7, 2013 (UTC)
If somebody had the Wiggles Live special taped at Disneyland and then broadcasted in Australia, we could see what it would look like. Dcelano, 04:39, December 18, 2013, (UTC)
Regarding the photo of the poster, that only shows that they performed at Disneyland and how they were billed on the posters for their shows there: "Disney Channel presents The Wiggles Live at Disneyland", and were therefore sponsored or presented by Disney Channel (and Qantas Holidays). This article and especially this article shows that they planned to use it for a TV special, however, whether they actually broadcast that special in Australia is not confirmed. It is possible they just used video clips as promotional material. One would need to look up television guides themselves to see what their final product was. From what I have seen of the archive, there was no broadcast, but they did announce signing a major deal with Lyrick soon afterwards to distribute in the United States. - AngusWOOF ( talk) 19:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I heard that according to the Celebration programme book, the Wiggles made their first TV appearance about Red Nose Day. I think it was 1991 or 1998. Dcelano, 01:07, December 19, 2013, (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Wiggles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'll do my best on editing. 73.33.217.222 ( talk) 02:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Wiggles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Where's the padlock. Requesting the addition of {{pp-vandal}} 115.188.176.136 ( talk) 10:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
As this article's main editor, this section has given me the most headaches.
Yesterday (2/13), Balloonman re-organized the images in this section. I would like to talk about this. My initial reaction was, "Ooo, I don't like it." Of course, that could be an emotional reaction, so I need the input of someone who's not as invested in this article. I've noticed, though, that most of the images in WP articles tend to be put on either the left or right, and not in the center or in a gallery as Balloonman has done. I haven't found any policy about that, but it seems to be common practice. Therefore, I vote to return the images to the right side of the article, as before. -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 05:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I would love to see another picture replace the wiggles stage... the stage is a nice picture when it is full size, but shrunk down to fit in an Wiki-article makes it too small. I won't delete it because I think we need more 2-3 more pictures anyways... Balloonman ( talk) 06:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
On 2/17, Balloonman, who has helped with this article second only to mineself, replaced the "NASA" picture with the correct one with the guys' logo on the correct side of their shirts. He also moved the image to a different section of the article. Man, what happened to not making any substantial changes without discussing it first?
Anyway, I'd like to talk about it now. I'd like to return this image to its original place like this. There are a couple of reasons for it. First, I believe that it introduces the topic of The Wiggles' origins, since it shows all four original members. Second, I personally think that it looks better there. Its current placement makes the end of the article looks too busy and makes the beginning of the article look too empty.
I agree with Balloon's evaluation that this article doesn't have enough images, but I think we've done the best with what's available. The ideal image for the end of the article, "Greg Page's retirement" would be an image of Greg. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a free one. I'll be on the look-out, though. Until then, discussion about this would be nice. -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 06:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I was unfortunately unable to address a few of the FAC comments before the nom was closed, so I'm pasting the rest here, for evidence that all concerns were addressed before the next nom: -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 00:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
So all objections thus far have been addressed. My intention is to submit this article for another copyedit, and then resubmit it in a couple of weeks. Thanks to all who assisted! -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 23:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of splitting the article into two. The Band/Tv Series are the same. I don't like the idea. Balloonman ( talk) 20:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Voting against the split. This current article contains very little information that is specific to the TV series only, so I'm not sure how a split would work. For example, the minor characters (Catpain Feathersword, etc.) exist in the TV series, AND in their home videos, AND in their concerts, so you wouldn't want to remove them from the main article. Furthermore, there isn't/wasn't just one TV series called "The Wiggles". In the episodes I've seen, some were titled "The Wiggles", others were called "Lights, Camera, Action, Wiggles!", and still others were titled "The Wiggles World" (I think). And many of the episodes consisted mainly of clips drawn from the home videos, so it all gets very intertwined. I think it makes more sense to discuss their various series in the main article. Vandelay ( talk) 15:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm also against a split, and have removed the template, as nobody here seems to support it. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 23:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I know that in 2006 the Wiggles received their 6th ARIA award (Australia's big music award) and that they received at least one in 2007... but I don't know how many they currently have. I think this would be a piece of information to include in the article someplace.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman ( talk • contribs)
I wonder if the solution, since there's all this "conflicting" info, is to simply say, "The Wiggles have won and been nominated for several ARIA awards, the most prestigious music award in Australia," with appropriate citing, of course. Opinions? -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 18:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
After thinking about it, and since there was no more discussion, I conflated the above references to the current version. I believe it satisfies the concerns of all interested parties. -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 00:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
So this article failed FAC again, for the third time. I wasn't able to address the most recent set of comments/feedback, so I will cut-and-paste them below and when I have time (I have some RL deadlines to meet this week), I'll address them.
I must say, getting this article to FA-status has been frustrating. I realize that as a writer, I have some weaknesses, as well as lack of experience. One of the things I love about WP is how much I've learned as an editor and about the editing process. I'm certain that the next article I tackle will be easier. My writing has improved, that's for certain.
However, I'm beginning to have some misgivings about the FAC process, especially how it relates to this particular article. From what I've seen of other FAs, even the ones that have been put on the main page, they haven't gone through nearly as much scrutiny as this one has: three peer reviews, a copyedit, a GAN, and now three FACs. I'm willing to admit that it can be explained in part by the weaknesses of this article, with my weaknesses and inexperience as an editor, and with the subject of this article.
I wonder, though, if there hasn't been some biases against this article, and perhaps that explains the tendency for reviewers to judge it more harshly than how other FAs about similar topics have been judged. First, the subject is non-American. Second, it focuses on children's music, not a highly respected genre in the music field. Finally, the main editor is a woman. Now, I don't want to accuse anyone of anything, but I think it's important enough to at least bring up here on this talk page.
At any rate, I will address the objections that I didn't have the time to address before the nomination was closed, and try again at a later time, after the dust settles. -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 05:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
But you didn't address the children's music issue. One of the major weaknesses of this article is the subject matter. No one's out there writing about the efficacy of The Wiggles' educational methods or doing any studies about them. Part of that, I believe, is because their audience is very young children, and children's music is not yet accepted by the mainstream of the music industry. In other words, the attitude is, "Why should the WP article about a children's music group become a FA? How is that notable?" As a result, this article may be suffering from a higher level of scrutiny than other articles of a similar topic.
Of course, that's nothing that I can prove, but I wanted to at least put it out there. I also hope this doesn't disable this article any further. -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 05:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Cut-and-paste by Figureskatingfan. -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 05:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I have concerns about comprehensiveness. There are also a few prose issues and many quotations that are not directly cited.
Karanacs ( talk) 14:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm now ready to address some of the issues raised in this article's last FAC. Before addressing them, I wanted to find more information that specifically addressed some these concerns (i.e., criticism and educational efficacy), so I went through everything this article cites and added information when appropriate. Notice that I created two new sections: Musical style and Reception. I wasn't able to find a great deal of information, since as I've stated before, this article's biggest weakness is its subject matter, and the fact that not much has been written about the influence of The Wiggles' music and some of the other demands of this article's reviewers.
I need some input: I placed the new sections at the end of the Characters section. Is this the most appropriate placement? I think it was, since the Characters section flow naturally from the History section. Please discuss, for if someone can adequately justify changing it, I will do so.-- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
On 5/19, Dihydrogen Monoxide made some edits to this article's lead. I have some problems with them, which I will list for you below:
That's all. My preference is to revert it back to the version before Di's, but I wanted consensus first. Figureskatingfan ( talk) 04:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yah, but Di, the policy you quote says that I don't own the article. Sure, I have a great deal invested in it, as all editors who commit themselves to a particular article do, but I think that I've always been open to the constructive input of others. I've followed every reasonable suggestion made during every milestone it's been through. So I have some emotional attachment to it, and I'm sure that's been obvious as we've gone through this process as well. At any rate, thanks for your help in that process (and for your revert) and keep your fingers crossed for FA! -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 13:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've corrected the reference to Murray Cook's pre-Wiggles group -- it was Finger Guns, not Bang Shang A Lang. Both groups feature Cook and Mark Mulligan, but BSL is their current band. Finger Guns played in the late 1980s. Dunks ( talk) 03:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Dunk, at first, I reverted your correction, but after thinking about it some, I corrected it even further. Murray was in both groups, so I changed the line to reflect it, and added a reference. Thanks for your input, since it ultimately led to the improvement of the article, but in the future, please make sure that you provide good sources for your edits and additions.
I noticed from your talk page that you're friends with Murray, which is way cool. I wonder, though, if there's a connection between the name of his old band and "the signature finger-wagging move", which looks an awful lot like a "finger gun". Do you know anything about that, and if you do, do you know of a reliable source about it? Just wondering. ;) -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 05:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick... it often takes longer (from FAC to main page). Congrats!--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
OMG! I wasn't even gonna nominate it for the mainpage until November, to honor the second anniversary of Greg's retirement. I can't even believe it! Whoo-hoo! -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 04:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
AWESOME! what does that meen? were on the main page is it? --
Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! (
talk)
18:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I got that.. LOL Oh well they were on the front page! The big red car pic was on the front page AWESOME! that is too cool!!! -- Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! ( talk) 15:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 16:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)==Little Wiggles?==
I don't know much about the Wiggles but have heard stuff from people with kids. Shouldn't the Little Wiggles be mentioned at least briefly? Are there no RS on them? They don't seem to be mentioned at all in the characters section or anywhere else from what I can tell. Nil Einne ( talk) 14:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Phillip Wilcher was a founding member of The Wiggles. When my children were little, The Wiggles first emerged, and Wilcher was prominent on their first CD - on the cover and composing the bulk of the material. Whatever happened afterwards - musical differences from all appearances - he was there at the start and any truthful account of their history should reflect this. 136.186.1.188 ( talk) 06:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
he's so Arogent.. he gives me the Creeps! --
Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! (
talk)
16:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
whatever... -- Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! ( talk) 14:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to add some Stuff to the Article about Sprout.. and I wish there was more Pics we could put in.. -- Jena ( talk) 12:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Re: images: I agree, actually. I'm thinking about writing them and asking for their release of photos. I don't think it's realistic to depend upon fans to get the pics we want. My family and I saw them in concert last Sat. (7/18) in Spokane, WA, but I got none of the pictures I wanted (i.e., all four doing the "signature finger-wagging move"). The meet-and-greet was fun, but it was unrealistic to try and get the photos and deal with the kids at the same time. Plus, Anthony had the flu, so he didn't participate (although he did perform, and was great). (See my blog for more: http://christinemeyer.blogspot.com/) -- Christine ( talk) 14:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Prohibit Onions, I think the Wilcher sentence improves the article.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
One of the biggest weaknesses of this article (and other Wiggles-related articles) has been the images. I think that in the last couple of days, I've been able to accomplish much to remedy this situation, thanks to the donation of some pictures taken at concerts over the summer. I'm much happier with the images currently on this article, but it's not perfect--not yet. Below is my Wiggles image wishlist. Please add to it if you think of others.
-- Christine ( talk) 18:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Since working on this article's images as described above, some additional frustrations occurred, mostly due to my ineptitude with images. It's my intention to address the issues that arose in the coming days. -- Christine ( talk) 05:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I have found yet another possible discrepancy in this article. There seems to have a been a number of them, and as I've been able to find them, I've corrected them. The most recent one has to do with Greg Page's role in The Wiggles. The newest source, an article from CNN [6], states that Greg was a roadie for The Cockroaches, that Anthony and Murray met at Macquarie while training to become teachers. It also seems to suggest that they were teachers, not Greg. The 2006 New York Times article [7] referenced in this article suggests that Greg was also a teacher, and that he met the other two at uni. That concerns me a bit, because to be frank, there has been many "facts" in the NYT article that have turned out to be plain wrong. I don't think the CNN article is clear enough to make any changes, though, and it may be incorrect about this as well. So if anyone finds any evidence regarding this issue, please bring it to our attention.
So the question that arises here, to summarize, is: Is Greg a teacher? Did he attend Macquarie to gain his early ed training? When exactly did he meet the other guys? Any help to clear up this discrepancy would be greatly appreciated. -- Christine ( talk) 06:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Performances artists generally have a section on their awards and nominations (or a link to an article with this information). Thus, I recently started such a section for the Wiggles and began with their 2007 APRA Award wins. I supplied two references for the material I added.
However the whole section was deleted/reverted with the following explanation (tranferred from my talkpage):
== [[The Wiggles]] ==
Hi, you might have noticed that I reverted your edit. I did it because the information was elsewhere in the article, and because the source you used isn't really appropriate. It's just the link to the APRA webpage, and says nothing about the actual award. The kicker part about it is, though, while I was in the middle of the revert, I literally had an edit conflict with an anonymous IP vandalizing the article again--and it was about poor Greg! Anyway, wanted to explain. -- Christine ( talk) 03:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
My edit was:
==Awards and nominations== ===APRA-AGSC Awards=== The annual [[APRA Awards|Screen Music Awards]] are presented by [[Australasian Performing Right Association]] (APRA) and Australian Guild of Screen Composers (AGSC) for television and film scores and soundtracks.<ref name="APRAScreen"/> {{Awards table}} |- |rowspan="2"| [[APRA Awards of 2007|2007]] || The Wiggles: [[Murray Cook]], [[Jeff Fatt]] , [[Anthony Field]], John Field, [[Greg Page (musician)|Greg Page]] || International Achievement Award<small><ref name="SMAWin2007"/></small> || {{won}} |- | Cook, Fatt, Anthony Field, John Field, Page || Most Performed Screen Composer - Overseas<small><ref name="SMAWin2007"/></small> || {{won}} {{end}}
With the following references added in the specific section:
<ref name="APRAScreen">{{cite web | url = http://www.apra-amcos.com.au/APRAAwards/ScreenAwards.aspx | title = Screen Awards | publisher = [[Australasian Performing Right Association]] (APRA) | accessdate = 28 April 2010 }}</ref> <ref name="SMAWin2007">{{cite web | url = http://www.apra-amcos.com.au/APRAAwards/ScreenAwards/History/2007Winners.aspx | title = 2007 Winners - Screen Music Awards | publisher = Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA) | accessdate = 2 May 2010 }}</ref>
Which is rendered as:
The annual Screen Music Awards are presented by Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA) and Australian Guild of Screen Composers (AGSC) for television and film scores and soundtracks. [1]
Year | Nominee / work | Award | Result |
---|---|---|---|
2007 | The Wiggles: Murray Cook, Jeff Fatt , Anthony Field, John Field, Greg Page | International Achievement Award [2] | Won |
Cook, Fatt, Anthony Field, John Field, Page | Most Performed Screen Composer - Overseas [2] | Won
|
Christine makes some claims in the statement above which I dispute:
It is my contention that APRA is the appropriate source for information on APRA awards. Just the same as ARIA being the appropriate source for ARIA awards. Until a separate page is created for all their Awards and nominations I believe the above information should be returned to the article. At some point in the future a separate List of awards and nominations received by The Wiggles page can be created with a link left in the main article.-- shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 06:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The reference to not touching children could probably do with a little clarification. Either that this rule was only enforced at the beginning of their careers, or it is only for official photo shoots. I was just watching Live Hot Potatoes with my daughter and at around the 20m 30s range, one of them is holding the shoulder of a boy in the audience. Not in any way does this look inappropriate, I just remembered reading this section yesterday, and thought it could do with re-writing/clarifying. No idea how to rewrite the sentence, or if people would consider this important enough to alter. -- AntiSceptic ( talk) 09:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a question is JB a character on the Wiggles. -- MikeySalinas17 ( talk) 21:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, JB is a character specific to the Wiggly Waffle. Whether JB will make it into future Wiggles videos is uncertain; JB was not featured in Let's Eat, even though that had the Wiggly Waffle day of the week skits. Perhaps someone can add JB's involvement in Wiggly Waffle? AngusWOOF ( talk) 21:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence is incorrect. It is not a "children's group," it is a group that entertains children. Nicmart ( talk) 16:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Everyone, I wanted to explain my edits yesterday but our electricity went out because of the major snow storm here before I could. I also made some other changes that had needed to happen for a while, which User: Mitch Ames graciously ce'ed for me. Notice that I changed the section heading; it parallels Van Halen, another group whose lead singer left and came back again. I've actually thought a lot about how we should handle this here. User:WLRoss made some edits that reflected some of the reporting in Aussie newspapers, which I reverted, and in the first potential WP:3RR in the history of this article, WLRoss reverted back. [8]
It's my opinion that some of the reporting used in the contested additions is gossip. I think that this article should be treated as a WP:BLP, and the information added by WLRoss should be removed because it violates many BLP policies. The Advertiser may be a major newspaper in Australia, but the other source WLRoss used, Facebook, certainly is not. Christine ( talk) 16:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Just an FYI update. There was a full page in the paper, this is part of it. Apparently Anthony Field is not a people person, it's all business. Very sad. The rest of the page was childrens reactions (basically the kids recognise the colours and are not interested in the people wearing them) and financial organisation. The Red, Blue and purple Wiggles own 30% each, Paul Field (manager and Anthony's brother) 5% and Mike Conway (managing director) 5%. All the characters are owned by the Wiggles and the people who play them are all "hired hands". Wayne ( talk) 01:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Everyone, I just reverted some edits regarding the reports about Greg's return being "temporary", for the same reason as the edits discussed above. I again refer to WP:BLP and WP:NOT#NEWS. I think we should hold off on including these statements until we're certain that they're true. When more sources substantiate them, or even better, Greg is re-replaced, we can add the information. Please discuss. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 19:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
As mentioned above ( #Greg's return), User:Figureskatingfan changed the section heading [ from "Return of Greg Page" to "Reunion with Page". I think "return" is a better word. "Reunion" implies (to me) that they "split up", which has negative connotations that don't apply here. Admittedly this is just a personal opinion, which is hard to put into words, so I'm not going to change the article on the strength of it. Others may care to opine on the matter. Mitch Ames ( talk) 04:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Our article currently says that Greg Page returned as the Yellow Wiggle, replacing Sam Moran (who had earlier replaced Page when he retired due to ill health). WLRoss's version (which was later removed, and is the subject of #Greg's return above) quoted Anthony Field saying that "Sam ... was a hired hand". I think we should probably explicitly (and neutrally) mention that:
Ie, he "returned" to his role as the Yellow Wiggle character, but not the co-owner of very profitable company.
Quoting The Weekend West: Stuart Washington (21–22 January 2012). "How Greg wiggled way back".
The Weekend West. West Australian Newspapers Ltd. p. 11.{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link), which appears to be a cutdown copy of
this article in the The Sydney Morning Herald
At its bluntest, Moran's departure provided an education in the difference between owner and worker ...
Moran was a worker.
... he left with contractual entitlements after earning a salary said to be $200,000 a year. He'll continue to collect song-writing royalties of between $60,000 and $100,000 a year.
...
By contrast, as a part-owner of the Wiggles, Page left with a payout believed to be about $20 million ...
Documents lodged with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission show he ceased to be an office holder in The Wiggles Pty Ltd in April 2008. He rejoins the group "exactly on the same level as Sam", according to [Anthony] Field.
"... there is a business side to this," Field said. "(Moran) was an employee. Greg is an employee. We are in debt - not to Greg, but to the bank. ...
"Sam's time came up and Greg was happy to go with what we're offering."
...
About his new arrangements - but not confirming whether he was simply returning as a salaried worker - Page would only say: "I go back in on a basis I'm happy with."
Any opinions on this? Suggestions as to wording? Do we have any other references that explicitly mention Page's status as co-owner and then employee? Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Possibly a separate section focussing on the business side of The Wiggles Pty Ltd" - including ownership and changes thereof - would be appropriate. Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I was checking the infobox and had a question on where the video and broadcasting distributor companies should go in the list? Label seemed too specific for KidsCo, but if not, you can undo that.
Disney (former) Sprout (current) KidsCo (current, international) HIT Entertainment (UK, US, former) Roadshow Entertainment (current) Koch Entertainment (current) Warner Brothers (current)
AngusWOOF ( talk) 14:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Ironic subject headline, especially with the events surrounding The Wiggles in the past couple of weeks, eh? One of the positives that have come out as a result of all the turmoil, though, at least in regards to this article, is that there's been a lot more information about them that simply hasn't been available up to this point. Yes, there's a lot of media coverage, but most of it is fluff or rehash of old stuff or gossip about whatever scandal is surrounding them at the time. In the last year, with their 20th anniversary, Greg's return, and the shake-up, the reporting has changed somewhat, to stories about The Wiggles' brand. (Plus, Anthony's book has a lot of information about the business aspect of the group.) Way back when this article became FA, a reviewer suggested that we add a section about the brand and business of The Wiggles, but I responded that there wasn't enough information even to warrant a section. I believe that has now changed; consequently, I'd like to add a "Brand" section, which would mean pulling existing content where it doesn't really fit at the current time and putting it there, as well as adding the new information gained in the past year. It's my intention to do that, after I finish writing notes from Anthony's book, which I'm doing at the current time. FAC has become more stringent since this article passed FA, and I'm not sure its current version would pass an FAR.
Another thing that I'm thinking about is the "Characters" section, and this is what I'd like some input about. At its FAC, a reviewer suggested that it be removed, or the content be placed in a forked article. With the new information and section I want to add, I'm no longer sure that the section fits into the article's tone any longer. What do folks think about creating a new article, The Wiggles characters? Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 16:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm almost done drafting the suggested section ( User:Figureskatingfan/Sesame Street sandbox--pay no attention to the title; it's just a handy dandy sandbox, har har), and have realized that it best fits in its own article, which will probably, as Angus suggests above, be entitled The Wiggles Pty Ltd. All I need to do is to write a lead, add some pictures, remove the content from here, and then submit it for DYK. Another few days, most likely. Woo hoo! Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 06:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so I looked at the source about Mott's [11], and it's at the end of a discussion about their, at that time, recent endorsements and deals. I don't see how Mott's is more important than any other product, so I don't see how it fits. You can disagree if you want, but make sure you support your argument. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 22:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
So I went ahead and created a new article because I realized that the content about the characters wouldn't easily be folded into this article. Two new Wiggles articles in one week! Must be a world's record! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 22:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I recently changed the capitalisation of many of the references, to match the sources. Christine (Figureskatingfan) reverted these changes. The reversion includes other edits which are not within the scope of this post. I've moved her reasons, and my disagreement with them, from my talk page where they were originally posted, to here. I'd appreciate some other editor's opinions on the matter. Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey Mitch, you might have noticed that I reverted your good faith edits to this article. I did it because as WP:CIT states, the type of citation styles used doesn't matter, as long as it's consistent. For this article, I used the templates at WP:CT; the titles are capitalised, regardless of the original source's use. All the major citation styles do that; they bypass the source's use for consistency sake. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 21:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
The article's still regularly vandalized by anonymous users. :( Should we get this semi-protected? AngusWOOF ( talk) 23:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
All of:
say that "It was reported that ... Page was given a $20 million payout" (or similar), all citing the same reference [12], which says
Page left with a payout believed to be about $20 million
I'm a little concerned that "it was reported ..." violates
WP:ALLEGED. If we believe the source, that he was paid "about $20 million", we should just say so ("It was reported that ... Page was given a payout of about $20 million"). If we doubt that veracity of the statement we should either not mention the amount at all, or state explicitly that there is doubt about the amount, and state why (possibly in a footnote).
Mitch Ames (
talk)
03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I propose that this edit, which inserts the members' first names, should be reverted, in accordance with WP:SURNAME. In fact there are numerous other uses of their first names that ought to be removed. There may be some exceptions - eg in the paragraph that includes "... The Wiggles, who were called by their first names when they performed, ...", and specifically when referring to their on-stage schticks - but generally there's no reason why SURNAME should not apply. Mitch Ames ( talk) 10:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Re: "They made careful decisions regarding their endorsements of toys and other products, and avoided over-extending their brand by only licensing products that correlated with their image."
Is there a source for this? So much product is or has been Wiggles branded that it's hard to take these "careful decisions" seriously. Children's nappies, children's toothpaste, children's spaghetti maybe correlated.. But how does Coles "down down" campaign fit with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.6.232 ( talk) 13:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Can anybody upload a picture of the current members to the info box, and move the current one down to one of the sections concerning Greg, Murray, and Jeff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rd9787 ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I thought Anthony had a white shirt in the "Big Red Car" video. Dcelano 24:13 December 3, 2013, (UTC)
Did any of you folks see the Wiggles' Propeller video clip last year in live shows and on the internet, including in Australia? I did when I was at the Tower of Philadelphia before the Wiggles show began. That's where it shows what the next generation of Wiggles would look like. In fact, it was seen before and after Surfer Jeff was released on DVD. And that's not all. It sounds like the song "Ooh, It's Captain Feathersword". Dcelano, 23:24, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
Which year did Paul Field became the Wiggles' manager? 1996, 1997 or 1998? Dcelano, 05:01, December 7, 2013 (UTC)
If somebody had the Wiggles Live special taped at Disneyland and then broadcasted in Australia, we could see what it would look like. Dcelano, 04:39, December 18, 2013, (UTC)
Regarding the photo of the poster, that only shows that they performed at Disneyland and how they were billed on the posters for their shows there: "Disney Channel presents The Wiggles Live at Disneyland", and were therefore sponsored or presented by Disney Channel (and Qantas Holidays). This article and especially this article shows that they planned to use it for a TV special, however, whether they actually broadcast that special in Australia is not confirmed. It is possible they just used video clips as promotional material. One would need to look up television guides themselves to see what their final product was. From what I have seen of the archive, there was no broadcast, but they did announce signing a major deal with Lyrick soon afterwards to distribute in the United States. - AngusWOOF ( talk) 19:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I heard that according to the Celebration programme book, the Wiggles made their first TV appearance about Red Nose Day. I think it was 1991 or 1998. Dcelano, 01:07, December 19, 2013, (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Wiggles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'll do my best on editing. 73.33.217.222 ( talk) 02:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Wiggles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Where's the padlock. Requesting the addition of {{pp-vandal}} 115.188.176.136 ( talk) 10:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)