Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Missing marathons

The article's broadcast history section could be expanded upon by adding info about these missing marathons:

I don't know if we should include every marathon regardless of importance, or only those for which we can find ratings info. Either way, I decided it was best to just make a list and leave it here for now. Paper Luigi T • C 03:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and add 'em. I had once spotted the Ed-Dependence Day marathon at the ToonZone forum as well, but had trouble finding it again ... lol. --Khanassassin ☪ 15:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)--Khanassassin ☪ 15:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd say any marathons that we can properly reference should be mentioned in the article, regardless of ratings information. I found this [1] for "National Ed Day", since we can't use YouTube as a source. ToonZone, as I've mentioned before, doesn't have much support from other editors, so I would suggest holding off on including "Eds All Day", unless something better turns up. That said, I'm open to having another discussion about this if either of you feel strongly about it. --Jpcase (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Episode articles

I'm happy to say that I've found some sources that'll enable me (better yet us) create some Ed, Edd n Eddy episode articles! :-) --Khanassassin ☪ 09:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The Ed-touchables / Nagged to Ed

Still in the works, contribution welcomed (I'm to talking to you guys, Paper Luigi and Jpcase ;)). :) --Khanassassin ☪ 20:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the late reply. I've been meaning to get back to this article for a while, but have had a lot of distractions. Hopefully I'll have the time to get involved now. I'm glad to hear that you've found some new sources, and creating articles on individual episodes is certainly an exciting idea. I do have some reservations though. The production section for The Ed-touchables / Nagged to Ed mostly just rehashes information from this article. I know that it's the pilot episode, but since it tells a stand-alone story, rather than actually setting up the series in any way, it seems unnecessary to go into much detail about the development of the series. As for the reception section, I assume that most of the reviews you've added were written upon the series' premiere, but even still, they may be more appropriately taken as reviews of the series, than of this episode in particular. I really don't know though, since you haven't posted links to them yet. I'll let you know what I think about this once I've seen the reviews for myself.
The bit about the negatives being dirty when they arrived back from Korea and needing to go through digital noise reduction is a good find though. If we decide not to keep this article (Not saying that I'm in favor of deleting it. Just saying that it's a possibility) then we should definitely move this information into the main article's production section. --Jpcase (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Find the rest of the reviews (besides AWN's) here and here. It counts as episode reviews, it does. Regarding the production section: I was advised to add that info when i first attempted to promote "The Ed-Touchables" to GA by a few reviewers who are pros at episode articles, and besides, the info was slightly shortened and was re-writeen rather than just copy-pasted. Too bad we'd have to pay for the full reviews, though ... --Khanassassin ☪ 15:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I don't have much experience with episode articles, so it would be good to get a few more opinions on this, but I really don't see how repeating the same production information from this article in The Ed-touchables / Nagged to Ed is actually going to be helpful to readers. If they want to know about the series' development, then they will look for it in this article. If they see a long production section in the other article, then they will expect it to contain information specific to that episode.
I completely agree that The Hollywood Reporter review and Brigg's review for AWN are of the episode, not the series. Those alone, I believe are enough to establish notability for the episode, so great job! Shumway and Wayne's review for AWN seems to be for the series as a whole though. It may still be relevant to mention that Brigg's review led to such a strong showing of support for the show from readers, that the magazine published a second, more positive review. However, I'm not sure that we should discuss the actual content of that review.
The two links that you posted above are both taking me to the Hollywood Reporter review. Where are the other three? --Jpcase (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right about the second AWN review. But still, I think we should keep at least the first line from that review to show that reception improved. Regarding the other reviews: Scroll down the page (second link) and you'll see them listed; it ain't hard. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 19:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and Jpcase, I think you should list yourself here. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 19:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Sure thing. I'm not seeing the other reviews though. Scrolling down the page, I'm only seeing titles like "Danny Antonucci", "Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy: three guys, one 'toon", and "Television production.(International)". Most of them are just other articles about the show by Hollywood Reporter. Where should I be looking? --Jpcase (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I linked the same thing twice! Sorry, here it is. It might open up an empty page; just search "Ed, Edd n Eddy" and it'll find a bunch of articles. --Khanassassin ☪ 19:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that link is just giving me an error message. I tried searching "Ed, Edd n Eddy", but none of the results matched the review titles. I also did a search for the specific titles, but it didn't give me any results. Do you have urls for the individual reviews?
For the second AWN review, I really don't think that any details about it need to be given, since it marks an improvement in the series' reception and not necessarily that of the episode. The only reason this review is relevant to the article is because it was written in response to Brigg's review, so it should be enough to just say that fans showed a lot of support for the show, prompting the magazine to give it a second look. Anything more than that, and I think we'd be getting off topic. --Jpcase (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
No I don't, it just lists them all at once, rather than making separate pages, thus no individual links. Have no idea why it isn't working for you ... I get what you're saying with the review thing, but at least saying that it was more positive should be included, so it won't leave the reader thinking "Did they trash the show again. If not, it's not that big of a deal, so I'm chill. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 20:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Back to the NewsLibrary site; Is this link any better? I search the site and Ed, Edd n Eddy articles and reviews pop out. The ones I used (exact) :: 4. "ED, EDD N EDDY' RECALLS THE DELIGHT OF EARLIER CARTOON ERA", 8. "Boys will be boys Cartoon Network's latest series features the misadventures of 3 awkward adolescents", 9. "'TOON DOESN'T TICKLE CARTOON NETWORK'S NEW SERIES IS FUNNIER ON PAPER". --Khanassassin ☪ 20:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Searching through that page is bringing them up. Thanks! And yes, we should certainly still clarify that the second AWN review was positive. --Jpcase (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm still hesitant about using these three reviews in the article, since the visible excerpts from them don't make any specific mention of the episode. However, given that The Ed-touchables / Nagged to Ed was the only episode that had actually aired at the time that the reviews were written, I'm willing to assume that they might say something about it. I may look into signing up for a monthly membership at some point though, so that I can see the reviews in their entirety. --Jpcase (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Know it all Ed

Here's a another one, the first episode of season two. --Khanassassin ☪ 12:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and Jpcase, I think you should list yourself here. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 12:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I actually added myself a few days ago. :) --Jpcase (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I didn't notice. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Season 2 DVD release

I just looked for the Season 2 DVD release on Amazon, so that I could add a url, but it isn't coming up in the results. I am however, seeing a release of the first two seasons together. Was the second season ever released on its own? --Jpcase (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000M4RG7O --Khanassassin ☪ 16:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Strange that it doesn't come up when I type it into the search bar. --Jpcase (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Edd or Double D?

It seems to me that we should use Double D as the standard when referring to Edd, since it's the name that he's most commonly known by. Of course, we would still give both names the first time that he is mentioned in any article, but once we've introduced the nickname, I think that we should continue using it. Does this sound okay? --Jpcase (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been considering this as well; so I say yes. --Khanassassin ☪ 17:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Great. I'll start making the switch. --Jpcase (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK

Ed, Edd n Eddy's The Ed-touchables / Nagged to Ed appeared as te main DYK on Sept. 8 (with a picture of Antonucci); a boost in views is expected. Know it all Ed might come soon too. --Khanassassin ☪ 08:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Today's featured list

List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes is set to appear on the front page's TFL on October 7! Well done, boys, are hard work keeps gettin' recognized! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 12:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Another DYK

Know It All Ed has now officially appeared as a DYK on Oct. 6; On tomorrow, Oct. 7, the episodes list will be a TFL: Two front page appearances in two days = increase in views. 3 DYKs, a TFA and a TFL. Cool, huh? :) Congrats, guys! --Khanassassin ☪ 10:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

There goes my Childhood

I loved this show, I remember when I was in fourth grade, I always came home after school to watch this (N0n3up (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC))

Can I edit the page please. 68.99.188.64 (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You need to create an account to edit this and other semi-protected pages. Your account will be autoconfirmed after it is at least four days old with at least 10 edits, and then you can edit this page. RudolfRed (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Kidscreen and other sources

After skimming through the references section, I noticed several potentially helpful online sources were snubbed (or nearly snubbed):

  • Businesswire[2]
  • CartoonNetwork.com's archive[3]
  • Kidscreen, a children's entertainment magazine with articles online[4]
  • PR Newswire[5]
  • The Free Library[6]
  • Time Warner's press releases[7]
  • Variety[8]

I hope these are of use. One more thing I'd like to mention is a service called LexisNexis, but it requires a subscription. Paper Luigi T • C 19:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Some questions about the information provided by the DVD releases

Do the DVD references say:

  • ...who it was that dared Antonucci to create a children's animated series?
  • ...what commercial Antonucci was working on when he first drew Ed, Edd and Eddy, and whether he actually used their character designs in the commercial?
  • ...that Antonucci actually came up with the names Ed, Edd, and Eddy while working on the commercial?

--Jpcase (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No. No they do not. Paper Luigi T • C 10:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for linking to that. Based on Antonucci's clarification that the drawings he did were of Ed, Edd, and Eddy as we "know them now", I think that its fair to assume that the didn't actually come up with their names until some time later. I'll rewrite that bit of the article to conform with this view, but let me know if you object. --Jpcase (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I actually just did another rewrite that I think works even better, and it doesn't make any assumptions one way or the other about when Antonucci came up with the names. I didn't notice any specifications being made in that interview though, of Antonucci spending months developing the show, of the one-page concept sheet being faxed in 1996, or of it being faxed to Nickelodean. Am I missing something or is this information supposed to be referenced with a different source? --Jpcase (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I just found this interview from the season 1 DVD [9] and assume that it's the same one as what's currently being used as reference 1 and reference 8. Strangely though, it's only two and a half minutes, whereas reference 8 doesn't end until 39 seconds into the four-minute mark. Is there a second part to this interview that isn't contained in the YouTube video? If not, since the video that I found seems to be from a DVD that was released in a Spanish speaking country (as evidenced by the text that appears on screen from 00:11 to 00:15), could there perhps be a different version of the interview out there that was released in other countries? Also, Antonucci says that Cartoon Network contacted him five minutes after he faxed the concept sheet, not twenty minutes after. Khanassassin, does the interview on your DVD say twenty minutes? Or have you seen any other sources that say twenty minutes? --Jpcase (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I was able to find the information about the concept sheet being faxed in 1996 in the "Three Guys, one 'toon" article by Linda Simensky, and added it as a reference accordingly. I'm still curious why this information was referenced with the season 2 DVD though. Was this just a simple mistake or was there some other reason? --Jpcase (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI: I just happened across this [10] webpage by someone named Kevin Lordi, who claims to be friends with two people who worked on the series and to have talked with Danny Antonucci on one occasion. Unfortunately, this doesn't make him an "established expert" and his website doesn't meet RS criteria, but he has some very interesting information on that page. Somehow, Lordi has gotten a hold of a commercial that Antonucci worked on several years back, called "The Adventures of Kung Shu". The webpage contains several screenshots from the commercial (which was for Kids Foot Locker), showing a stylistic similarity to Ed, Edd n Eddy. It's Lordi's belief that this was the commercial that Antonucci was working on when he first came up with the designs for Ed, Double D, and Eddy. A single screenshot is also contained at the bottom of the page for a second commercial that Antonucci worked on. I have no idea what this second commercial was for, but one of the characters was clearly an early inspiration for Eddy's design.

I don't believe that either commercial is available for viewing online, and I doubt that I'll be able to find any further information on them. It seemed like a good thing to mention though. Certainly, if we can ever find a quality source mentioning any of this, then we'll want to incorporate the info into the article. --Jpcase (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Purgatory Theory mentioned on major websites

Everyone knows the purgatory theory, right? While I doubt it's true, and so do many other people, but there are a couple of articles that actually mention the theory:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19882_6-insane-but-convincing-fan-theories-about-kids-cartoons_p2.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-sinister-theories-will-change-how-you-feel-about-childhood-cartoons-2012-5?op=1

And here's another Cracked article that is unrelated, but mentions Ed, Edd n Eddy. This could probably be added to the reception section.

http://www.cracked.com/funny-3621-cartoon-violence/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.88.51 (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to including this in the article. The "theory" is nothing more than a creepypasta, and it has no real-world ties with the series. Why not include fan theories on other cartoon articles? The EEnE theory is nothing compared to the Pokémon one, but that series' article doesn't mention it. Other cartoon articles I checked (e.g. Inspector Gadget, Rugrats, and SpongeBob SquarePants) didn't mention their respective theories either. The two sources? Not the best. The Reliable sources noticeboard has most recently dismissed Cracked.com as a RS. Business Insider, "a mixture of journalism and opinion" which "should be treated with caution", merely printed a quote taken from the theory. It makes no other commentary specific to EEnE, and the content appears to be pulled from this Reddit thread. In the time I've been on Wikipedia, I have consistently noticed fan-related material more often on low traffic pages or stubs than higher quality ones. That is why it's unusual for EEnE, a featured article, to have a little section all about a creepypasta. Paper Luigi T • C 21:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not opposed to the theory receiving a brief mention in this article, but an entire section (no matter how small) probably shouldn't be devoted to it. If we ever have enough information to build a "Legacy" section or a "Cultural impact" section, then perhaps the theory could be discussed there, as an example of how the show has lived on through the memory and involvement of its fans. For now though, it might be best to remove it. Regarding the reliability of Cracked, I actually feel that it's a decent source for pop-culture commentary, as I tried to show in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion that you linked to. While I'll admit that I might have been a little obstinate in that discussion, I do feel that it was closed prematurely. The closing editor and I continued to discuss the matter afterward, and while we never came to a definite conclusion, the closing editor did concede that Cracked might be more reliable than originally thought. If we decide that we want to keep the Purgatory theory or if we ever want to add it back later, then I'll open a new discussion about Cracked at the RS noticeboard. --Jpcase (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I've removed it for now. Maybe we will include it in a "Legacy"/"Cultural impact" section one day. Only time will tell. Paper Luigi T • C 06:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Black comedy

Is everyone okay with "Black comedy" being listed as one of the show's genres? I can see how it fits, and won't oppose keeping it if everyone else wants it here, but personally, I don't know that I would classify Ed, Edd n Eddy's bleak, somewhat dark humor as full-on black comedy. --Jpcase (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm opposed. I just don't see how it fits. Paper Luigi T • C 06:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Cel animation

I just removed the following unsourced sentence from the Production section:

"It is also notably one of the last United States cartoons to primarily animated using cels, as well as fellow Cartoon Network original series, Whatever Happened to... Robot Jones?, before being forced to switch to digital ink and paint animation by the fifth season."

The series' status as the last American cartoon to use cel animation is still mentioned in an earlier part of the paragraph, but are there any refs out there that discuss Whatever Happened to...Robot Jones? sharing in that distinction? Or any refs that discuss Ed, Edd n Eddy's switch to digital ink and paint by season five? --Jpcase (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

MiszaBot I

Would it be okay with everyone if we disabled the MiszaBot I? It's not a big deal if anyone wants to keep it, but it's not very hard to just archive things manually, and I'd like to make sure that discussions are kept on the main Talk page until we're really finished with them.

I'd also kind of like to split Archive 7 into a few separate archives; eighty-two topics across five-plus years is just too much to have in one place. --Jpcase (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and disable the bot. I prefer manually archiving topics for the same reason you mentioned. Split Archive 7 into as many pages as necessary. Paper Luigi T • C 06:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Disabled the bot so it wouldn't archive those threads again. Paper Luigi T • C 06:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Return it to "Double D"

Don't give me a stupid explanation, "Double Dee" is with a "D". --37.203.111.64 (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Not to necro-post, but in "Ed... Pass it on..." (S3E10), Kevin holds up a menu on which Edd's nickname, as applied to a meal, is spelled "Double Dee". 2600:6C5E:700B:100:7941:BDEB:DA8B:E101 (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

How should we solve the problems with the DVD referencing?

As I pointed out in one of the discussions above, some of the information contained in the "Production" section of this article has apparently been misreferenced. There are two problems:

  • The Behind the Eds feature [11] doesn't mention Antonucci spending months developing the show or faxing the one page concept sheet to Nickelodeon
  • The Interview with the Creator feature [12] says that Cartoon Network contacted him within five minutes, not twenty, and doesn't mention Nickelodeon contacting him at all. What's really strange, is that this interview is currently being used as reference 8 in the article, which doesn't end until the 4:39 mark - whereas the video in the link ends at the 2:31 mark.

The simplest way to get this figured out, would be for Khanassassin to explain where he originally saw the misreferenced information. I've already asked him about this a few times and haven't received a response. He wasn't very active on here at the time though, and I see that he's made several edits to E, E, n E articles in the past week. So Khan, if you see this, it would help a lot if you could join the discussion.

Right now, I can only think of two possible solutions. Either we remove the info - which would be a shame, since the bit about Nickelodeon is one of the most interesting trivia pieces that we have in the article - or we go back to using this [13] interview. As you may remember, we had been using this interview from Animation by Mistake for a while. Its quality was called into question during the GA review, but it was allowed to stay in a limited capacity, since the website had been maintained in collaboration with AKA. The reference's quality was called into question again during the FA review, and the interview was subsequently replaced without discussion. It might be worth looking into this again, since the interview would only have to be used for one or two sentences. Khan and Paper Luigi, if you two (or anyone else watching) think that it could be a good idea, I could contact the editor from the FA review who questioned the interview's reliability and see how he/she feels about reintroducing it as a reference. --Jpcase (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The fax info comes from the "Three boys, one toon" article (although that is only for Cartoon Network). And I haven't looked through the interviews right now but I know one has something about Danny faxing a concept sheet and getting a response 20 minutes later. I'll check a little later. --Khanassassin ☪ 14:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! :) --Jpcase (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
@Khanassassin: @Paper Luigi: Alright - no more kicking this problem down the road. Khan - I have no idea if you're around or not. It's my hope that you can participate in this discussion, but I'm not going to wait around. If you think that one of the DVD interviews mentions "20 minutes", then great! Please get back to me. Even that wouldn't fix the Nickelodeon problem though - the Animation by Mistake article will.
Kitt Topp, who maintained Animation by Mistake, had another website, called The Eddzone. I've come across two archived FAQ pages from the Eddzone, which should be able to help us. This page - [14] - states about AbM, "The site has received Danny's full approval, hey - he even chose the name", while this page - [15] - states that the website "was built with collaboration from Danny and many others at a.k.a." Taken together with the "maintained in collaboration" statement from AbM, I feel that we have a pretty strong case for reintroducing the website as a reference "in limited capacity." A little bit later today, I'm going to contact the editor who challenged the website during the FA review. If either of you see this, then please share your thoughts. --Jpcase (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I've brought the issue up with Nikkimaria - the editor who questioned the source during the FA review. We have a go-ahead to use Animation by Mistake as a reference for non-contentious information. :) --Jpcase (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Revert Question

Jpcase what do you mean my change doesn't make sense? Danotto94 (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@Danotto94: Sorry for not being more specific in my revert summary. The problem is that swapping the word "and" for "with" in that context actually alters the meaning of the sentence. To say that Nazz is "a stereotypical dumb blonde...with an unattainable love interest for the cul-de-sac kids" would imply that Nazz is the one who has a romantic interest in the other characters. However, it's actually the other characters who have a romantic interest in her. Thanks for asking. I hope this helps! :) --Jpcase (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

New reboot

I've been hearing something about new episodes coming out in 2016 by some animators out of college, is this something official or a fan work? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Where did you hear that? Paper Luigi T • C 20:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Can we please add?

Source: [1]

78.148.64.187 (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a confirmed hoax. See http://junkiemonkeys.com/ed-edd-n-eddy-movie-coming-to-cartoon-network/
Paper Luigi T • C 03:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Danny Antonucci (6 May 2016). "Ed Edd 'N' Eddy Are Officially Returning For A Brand New Movie". Movie Pilot. Archived from the original on 7 May 2016. Retrieved 7 May 2016.

Ed, Edd n Eddy on Teletoon

I know you were going to ask me that, believe it or not. Yes, I do know that Ed, Edd n Eddy is NOT REALLY a Teletoon original series just because it's Canadian. I do get that Cartoon Network is the main publisher of the series. I just wondered since it was made in Canada, wasn't it also broadcast in Canada? Yes. It aired on Teletoon, but we all know the Eds are not owned by Teletoon, they just imported it from Cartoon Network worldwide, kinda.

--SpaceGoofsGeekerBoy (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, yes. In canada, Ed, Edd n Eddy DID air on Teletoon in Canada. --2601:2C0:C280:21A0:BC1D:B5C4:34D9:1184 (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ed, Edd n Eddy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ed, Edd n Eddy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Double D in Ok Ko

In 2018 Double D appeared in Ok Ko Let’s Be Heroes. I think that should be added to the appearances in other media Ms8763 (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

The most amazing articles are edit-protected....

Current text: "The group of kids consist of: Jonny 2×4 (David Paul "Buck" Grove) is a loner whom his peers consider to be a nuisance, and spends most of his time with his imaginary friend, a wooden board named Plank; Jimmy (Keenan Christensen) is a weak, insecure, and innocent yet accident-prone child, who is most often seen spending his time with Sarah (Janyse Jaud), Ed's spoiled and ill-tempered younger sister; Rolf (Peter Kelamis) is an immigrant, who often participates in unconventional customs; Kevin (Kathleen Barr) is a cynical and sardonic jock who detests the Eds, particularly Eddy; Nazz (Tabitha St. Germain; Jenn Forgie; Erin Fitzgerald), usually seen with Kevin, is a stereotypical dumb blonde and an unattainable love interest for the cul-de-sac kids."

Should be changed to: "The group of kids consist of: Jonny 2×4 (David Paul "Buck" Grove), a loner whose peers consider him to be a nuisance, and who spends most of his time with his imaginary friend, a wooden board named Plank; Jimmy (Keenan Christensen), a weak, insecure, and innocent yet accident-prone child, who is most often seen spending his time with Sarah (Janyse Jaud), Ed's spoiled and ill-tempered younger sister; Rolf (Peter Kelamis), an immigrant, who often participates in unconventional customs; Kevin (Kathleen Barr), a cynical and sardonic jock who detests the Eds, particularly Eddy; and Nazz (Tabitha St. Germain; Jenn Forgie; Erin Fitzgerald), a stereotypical dumb blonde who is an unattainable love interest for the cul-de-sac kids and is usually seen with Kevin." (Note: Bolding is to point out changes and should not be included in the article.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.66.125 (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is it protected.

I want to fix Merchandise because there is a part that is missing lol Georgemoran101 (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It is protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. Due in part to its status as a Featured Article, protections have been put in place on this article because it is a particular target of vandalism. That being said, what would you like to add to the Merchandise section? — Paper Luigi T • C 02:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Another reason is because back when the show was still airing (hard to believe it's been 12 years since it ended), this article was subject to pervasive juvenile vandalism, with people putting rumors about when the movie was coming out and when the last episode would air pretty much every week, as well as fill the page with trivial information that was inaccurate at best and completely incomprehensible at worst. There's a reason there are ten whole pages of archived talk discussions on this article, I highly recommend checking them out. MightyArms (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
You're right about the vandalism issues in the past, MightyArms. Vandalism was more prevalent on this article during the period after season 5 and before the movie was released. I still don't know what OP was referencing when they said that there is "a part that is missing" from the merchandise section. — Paper Luigi T • C 01:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2021

Please replace the template

with

. 67.173.23.66 (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

"Edifiying The Ed-Ventures" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Edifiying The Ed-Ventures and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 14#Edifiying The Ed-Ventures until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Paper Luigi T • C 23:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"Mitchell Eisner" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mitchell Eisner and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 15#Mitchell Eisner until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Paper Luigi T • C 00:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

"The Walking Ed" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Walking Ed and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 15#The Walking Ed until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Paper Luigi T • C 00:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

"The Walking ED" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Walking ED and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 15#The Walking ED until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Paper Luigi T • C 00:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2022

I wish to edit Ed, Edd n Eddy so that I can fix any grammar or rearrange redirects such as Keenan Christenson. 2601:49:4001:69A0:84FA:8061:BDF4:A93A (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2022

Make it editable 2600:4040:7123:9F00:9C4:60EB:358C:C590 (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ed,_Edd_n_Eddy/Archive_10&oldid=1133211399"