Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Some Changes I Made

I made a few changes to the "Overview" section that I will explain here. I removed the line saying, "Subtle hints throughout the series pointed to where the cartoon took place" as all that the sentence goes on to say is that the name of the town where the characters live is "Peach Creek". This tells us nothing about the actual location of the show. I also felt that it was important to note some of the changes that the show underwent at the start of the fifth season, such as the end of summer and the occasional appearance of shadows or arms of other people. I do have one question about the information I posted. I wrote that it was Ed's mom whose arm is seen in one episode, but I'm not sure if it was actually her or if it was Ed's aunt. It has been a long time since I have seen this episode so I do not remember whether it was ever specified. If anyone knows whose arm it was that was shown in that episode, please let me know.--Jpcase (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That episode had Ed's mom's arm. Ubuntude (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Citations

This page is listed as needing additional citations, however there are no [citation needed] tags on the page. Someone should either tag the information that needs references or else the page should not be listed as needing additional citations.--Jpcase (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No Given Timeline?

The article currently states that, "There is no given timeline for the show." What does it mean by this? Does it mean that the show never clarifies what year it takes place in? I'm pretty sure that most cartoons don't take place during any specific year, so I'm not sure that this sentence is very relevant. I do remember the article previously including a quote by Danny Antonucci explaining that the show doesn't take place during any specific time period, however for some reason that quote is no longer a part of this page. If this was a legitimate quote, then I believe that it should be put back into the article as it clarifies and gives greater significance to the sentence in question. Otherwise I believe that this sentence should probably be deleted.--Jpcase (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Permission to use quote

I included a quote from the "animationbymistake" interview with Danny Antonucci, only to realize that the information on that page is copyrighted and permission is required to reproduce content from it. That being said, I am under the impression that simply including a brief quote is allowed without seeking special permission. Is this correct or do I need to remove the quote?--Jpcase (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm editing on Wikipedia a long time, and, no, as long as it's clear those are Antonucci's words, there is no need to worry. --Khanassassin ☪ 15:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The purgatory theory

this is yet another made up story about old cartoons (this time, ed edd n eddy), but it should be mentioned somewhere, here's a link....--SGP (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless this theory has been mentioned in an official news source, it has no place on Wikipedia.--Jpcase (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

TV.com rating

I am not sure if the show's rating on TV.com is relevant enough for inclusion in this article. Should it be kept or deleted?--Jpcase (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not an average critic score, it's user scores, which are not usually recommended - or used at all, so - No. If it was a average critic score like on Metacritic, then yes. I will add some viewer-popularity info in the reception section soon, so no need to worry. --Khanassassin ☪ 15:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 March 2012

Lost Episode:There are 2 possible "Lost episodes"one is titled 'MayFire' in this episode the eds learn that a fire has started downtown and is heading twords them the eds attempt to go to a saftey shelter 10 blocks away around 5 blocks away double d loses hope and runs into the fire serveral blocks away from the shelter ed and eddy find out Edd isnt dead and he claims that there are helicopters Near and are leaving in 2 minutes then it cuts to eddy alone in a helicopter and he says "Ed doulble D i cant let you two die like this" Then eddy jumps into the fire.the camera then pans over a burnt cul-de-sac while a radio broadcast is heard in the backround "There is still hope for the northern part of town evacuate safely"

Borhat (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? First of all, every Ed, Edd n Eddy episode has the word "Ed" in it (except for the specials), and I have never heard of these "lost episodes". Still, if you can find a reliable source and if it can make this article better, then include it. StaleCupcakes (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ed, Edd n Eddy episode articles

I would like to contribute to Wikipedia by creating an article for each Ed, Edd n Eddy episode. Look, if each Family Guy episode has their own article, then Ed, Edd n Eddy should too. Would anyone like to help? -StaleCupcakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.58.205 (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If you can manage to find sufficient information to justify the creation of individual articles on specific episodes of the show than go ahead. But for most of the episodes I doubt that you'll be able to include anything beyond a plot description and list of crew members. If you can't find anything else to include, such as professional reviews or production information, than these articles will most likely wind up getting deleted. A better idea would be to just work on improving this article.--Jpcase (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Censorship

I was just wondering if I should include a "censorship" section, because some scenes from a couple of episodes were actually cut. Can I include this? Because I think it's very interesting. Meanwhile, I'll be trying to clean up this article. StaleCupcakes (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Are there any sources?  MegastarLV  (talk)

Here's the link to 2 deleted scenes in the episode "Take this Ed and Shove It" StaleCupcakes (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clN6581EyNY — Preceding unsigned comment added by StaleCupcakes (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That video is posted in violation of copyright and cannot be used.  MegastarLV  (talk)

I wasn't thinking about using the VIDEO in the article... I was thinking that maybe a "Censorship" section could be added into the article. So does it sound good? StaleCupcakes (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Youtube usually isn't acceptable as a reference on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Video links. You cannot use that video as a reference unless it was uploaded to youtube with the permission of the copyright holder. In addition, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary sources, so this probably wouldn't be a suitable reference anyway. An official news article mentioning the deleted scene would be better.

That being said, most television shows have deleted scenes. The fact that scenes have been cut from "Ed, Edd n Eddy" does not mean that the show has actually been censored. Most likely the scenes were deleted simply due to time constraint. If you can find a reliable source proving that the scenes were actually censored and not just cut, then a censorship section might be appropriate. If these scenes were not actually censored, you might still consider creating articles for the individual episodes and making mention of the deleted scenes there, however I believe that you would still need reliable, non-copyright-violating, secondary sources to do so.--Jpcase (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits by Khanassassin

The editor Khanassassin has made major changes to this page, and while I agree with most of them, there are a few issues that I believe should be discussed.

1. The last paragraph of the Overview section (before the production sub-section) should be joined with the first paragraph of the Overview section. They are part of the same topic and had previously been written as one paragraph. I do not understand why Khanassassin decided to seperate them and I believe that the article would be better if they were re-joined.

2. The article no longer mentions the appearances of people through silhouettes or the appearance of Eddy's father's and Ed's mother's arms. This is an important point that should be included in the article, as without it readers will mistakenly assume that Eddy's brother was the first person beyond the main cast members to appear on the show in any form.

3. Khanassassin has also removed information explaining that the first four seasons of the show took place during a perpetual summer. This information is accurate and important to a proper understanding of the show. No explanation was given for its removal and I see no reason for it not to be in the article.

4. The third paragraph of the production sub-section would fit better in the main Overview section. Nothing contained in that paragraph has anything to do with production, except for perhaps the coloring of the kids' tongues; however even that point would fit just as well in the main Overview section.--Jpcase (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jpcase! I am currently working on this article, since I want to make it a GA. And, yes, I have deleted much accurate information, but that's because there are no reliable sources anywhere, and sadly, because of that, I have to delete it. And I think The Ed's parents' hands are sort of...well...if there was a source for it, I would have surely left it there, but since there are none at all, I have to remove these things. I have also removed a few other sentences, including the one about coloring etc. etc. I have made quite a few (though not cartoon-related) GAs, and sometimes you just have to "sacrifice" information like this. And, if I remember correctly, weren't those "silhouettes" fakes made by Eds (like when Double-D makes a "silhouettes" of the school principle")? All the Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 15:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that in one episode Double D created a fake shadow of the school principle, however there have also been instances where the silhouettes of real people have appeared on this show. In the alien invasion episode The Eds are Coming, The Eds are Coming, the silhouettes of Rolf's family members can be seen through his window and in Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show Jonny boards a bus on which the silhouettes of many adults can be seen. I understand that references would be needed for this information, however the article as it is currently written is inaccurate, and an inaccurate article is just as bad, if not worse than an unreferenced article. The statement "Until the debut of the movie "Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show"—where Eddy's brother, an adult, was shown for the first time—no other characters besides the main cast were ever seen, which also makes Eddy's brother the only adult to appear on the show." is simply untrue. I suggest fixing this problem by changing the sentence to read, "...no other characters besides the main cast were ever fully seen, which also makes Eddy's brother the only adult to fully appear on the show." This may not be an ideal solution, as readers may not understand why the word "fully" has to be used, without examples being provided of cases where characters appeared, but were not fully seen; however this is probably the best possible solution.

I am curious though; if something is a clear fact that can be proven simply by viewing the show, does it actually need a reference, or can the show itself stand as a reference for the information? For example, you have chosen to leave the sentence "The series takes place within the fictional town of Peach Creek and new locations are rarely introduced." in the article, even though the information is unreferenced. I do not know if you are planning on removing that sentence or if you are looking for a reference for it, but removing it from the article would be a shame as it is important to a proper understanding of the show and can be clearly proven simply by viewing the show. The same holds true for the information that you have removed concerning the first four seasons of the show taking place during a perpetual summer. This is important information, that can be proven simply by viewing the show. Why does this information need a reference, while the sentence about the show's locations does not need a reference? Also, the reference that is currently being provided for this statement, "Until the debut of the movie "Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show"—where Eddy's brother, an adult, was shown for the first time—no other characters besides the main cast were ever seen..." doesn't actually say anything about Eddy's brother being the first non-main cast member to appear on the show. It simply says that Eddy's brother appeared for the first time in Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show. So does this sentence also need to be removed unless a better reference can be provided, or can it remain simply because it is a clear fact? I know that plot sections for articles about films and books do not need references. Couldn't all of this information be considered part of the "plot" of Ed, Edd n Eddy?--Jpcase (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

From my video game-related editing (I have 5 GAs btw, not braggin' ;) ), you may be correct. It's generally accepted that since a work's plot sections are referencing the work itself, refs are not needed - same goes for movies/books. The Overview section should be sorta treated as a plot section, so, the sentences about Summer in seasons 1-4/Adults etc. can be re-added. However, since the sentence about cel animation isn't referencing the work itself...it can't be re-added. I'm afraid I'll have to remove the Netflix sentence in the "Marketing and home video releases," since there's no ref. Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 18:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reinserting those. Can these sentences also be reincluded? "The show frequently makes meta-references and breaks the fourth wall. In addition, the letters AKA, the abbreviation for the name of the company that produces the show (a.k.a. Cartoon), frequently appear in the show on license plates and other items." If so, I think that they should be included in the Overview section, not the Production section where you initially had them. Also, I think that the second paragraph of the Overview section should be in the production section, as it concerns the development of the show's characters.--Jpcase (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, it seems we think very similar. I actually wanted to ask you (I did here, but decided to delete the comment) if you thought I should re-add the meta-reference sentence to the Overview section, but thought, "is that really important?" But hey, I'll just re-add it, and if the reviewer at GAN says I have to remove it, I will. I also thought, when I first started working on this article, that the character-paragraph might fit better in the Production section, but since it was about characters, which I thought fit in the Overview section I put them there. But you're right. It doesn't explain who the characters are or anything about them (except the Eds), rather it's about how they were developed. But, then the sentence about why Antonucci did not include adults in the show should go into the Production section too. Oh, and, I'd like your opinion on my lead? Anything you'd like to change? :) All the Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 08:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually would suggest making some changes to the introductory paragraph. Many of the sentences contained in it are exact copies of text found elsewhere in the article. The introductory paragraph should summarize much of the information found in the rest of the article, but it shouldn't be an exact, word for word copy. In addition, I think that the paragraph may go a little too in detail. As I understand it, the introduction should only summarize information that is truely important to gaining an understanding of the topic. Some of what is currently contained in the paragraph, such as information about characters in the show being based off of Antonucci and other people from his life, and Antonucci's reason for not including adults in the show doesn't seem to be important to a basic understanding of the show. Altogether, you've done a great job with this article though, and hopefully it will be accepted as a GA.--Jpcase (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This article currently includes the sentences "Antonucci spent months designing the show, and seeking as wide an audience as possible, Antonucci shopped the show to Nickelodeon, which demanded creative control. Antonucci refused to give it, so he took the show to Cartoon Network, which quickly picked it up." I am not sure that all of this information is precisely accurate. The reference currently supplied for this information doesn't actually say anything about Antonucci seeking as wide an audience as possible or Nickelodean demanding creative control. The reference simply states that Antonucci showed the show to both Nickelodean and Cartoon Network, and chose to go with Cartoon Network once they agreed to give him creative control. This might insinuate that Nickelodean wouldn't give Antonucci creative control, but it doesn't mean that necessarily. You stated in the GA Review section of this talk page that some of the info drawn from this reference can also be found in a Season 1 DVD interview. Does the interview say anything about Antonucci seeking as wide an audience as possible or Nickelodean demanding creative control?--Jpcase (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, he doesn't say that he is "seeking for a wide audience as possible," so I'll remove that part. And yes, he stated that he refused to give creative control, which is why he decided to go with CN, who let him go in his own pace. Thanks for reminding me, I forgot to change the ref there. --Khanassassin ☪ 14:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

So just to be clear, you are saying that the DVD interview says that Nickelodean demanded creative control? Because the Animation by Mistake reference does not clearly state that.--Jpcase (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep. --Khanassassin ☪ 15:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I'm a little confused about this sentence though. "Cartoon Network also wanted Antonucci to show them more of his work, but they decided to let Antonucci go at his own pace." This sentence was previously referenced with the Animation by Mistake article, which states that Antonucci showed Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy to both Nickelodean and Cartoon Network and that both studios wanted to see more. It was after this that Cartoon Network picked up the show. The sentence included in this Wiki article only mentions Cartoon Network wanting to see more, and it is placed after the sentence explaining that Cartoon Network picked up show, even though the Animation by Mistake article insinuates that Cartoon Network asked to see more before picking up the show. Also, I'm not sure I see anything in the Animation by Mistake article that says Cartoon Network decided to let Antonucci "go at his own pace." It does say that Cartoon Network agreed to leave him alone to do what he wanted with the Eds, but this is in relation to creative control over the show, not Antonucci's work pace. You have however, replaced the Animation by Mistake reference with the DVD interview reference for this sentence, so perhaps I am missing something. If not, then I think that the statement about Cartoon Network letting Antonucci work at his own pace should be removed and that the article should be edited to reflect the fact that both Cartoon Network and Nickelodean wanted to see more of the show, before Cartoon Network picked it up.--Jpcase (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's all good. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 12:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

How so? Does the DVD interview say something different than the Animation by Mistake article about this topic?--Jpcase (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, Nickleodeon didn't give'em creative control, and so he chose Cartoon Network over Nickleodeon. --Khanassassin ☪ 12:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I know Nickelodean didn't give him creative control. You've already established that. My question is about this sentence. "Cartoon Network also wanted Antonucci to show them more of his work, but they decided to let Antonucci go at his own pace." Based on what is said in the Animation by Mistake reference, I believe that this article should be edited to reflect the fact that both Cartoon Network and Nickelodean asked to see more of the show before Cartoon Network picked it up, and that the info about Cartoon Network letting Antonucci work at his own pace should be deleted.--Jpcase (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It's good as it is now, the sentence about "letting him go in his own pace" smeans that they let him "do his own thing." Is good as it is. --Khanassassin ☪ 20:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that you were trying to say that Cartoon Network let him go in his own direction. Going in your own direction is not the same as going at your own pace. Pace means speed. I don't believe that it can be used to mean anything else.

However, if this is what you had meant to say, then I'm not sure what the connection is between Cartoon Network letting Antonucci go in his own direction, and Cartoon Network asking to see more of Antonucci's work. They seem like two seperate, unrelated points that should be contained in seperate sentences. You used the word "but" as though letting Antonucci go in his own direction was somehow contradictory to wanting to see more of his work, but I don't see why that would be.

It seems to me that you were trying to say one thing in this sentence, and that I am understanding the sentence to mean something else. I noticed that on DrNegative's talk page you mentioned not being a native English speaker, so perhaps you didn't write the sentence in exactly the clearest way, and thus I have been somewhat confused in trying to figure out what it means. If that's the case, don't worry; it's not a big deal and I get that it can be difficult to write something in a non-native language. But perhaps you could explain to me exactly what you were trying to say in this sentence and we can see if there is a clearer way of saying it.--Jpcase (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What he said is he went to both Nickle and CN. Both wanted "creative control," but only after CN agreed that Danny could what he wanted to do with the show/the Eds, he picked CN over Nickle. I guess my English ain't as good as I thought, lol. :) You can try to "re-write" the sentence. Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 08:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying that the DVD interview states that Cartoon Network also demanded creative control at first? Is that what you meant when you wrote that "Cartoon Network also wanted Antonucci to show them more of his work"? If so, I'm not sure how "wanting to see more of his work" means the same thing as "demanding creative control."

I hope that I didn't come across as overly critical by suggesting that the problem with the sentence may lie in your English skills. Your English really is quite good, and the problem may be my fault. Its possible that what you wrote is perfectly clear, and that I'm simply misunderstanding it. I don't know. I just want to make sure that everything written in this article is as accurate and as clear as possible. I can try re-writing the information in a way that seems clear to me and then you can let me know if you agree with my changes or not. But first, could you confirm whether I am correct or not in understanding the sentence "Cartoon Network also wanted Antonucci to show them more of his work, but they decided to let Antonucci go at his own pace" as meaning that Cartoon Network also demanded creative control over the series at first, but ultimately decided to let Antonucci go in his own direction?--Jpcase (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 15:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks for helping me understand that. I just have one more question that I want to ask, to ensure that what I write is as accurate as possible. Does the DVD interview clarify whether Antonucci showed the show to both Nickelodean and Cartoon Network at the same time or if he showed it to Nickelodean first, and then showed it to Cartoon Network only after deciding not to go through with Nickelodean?--Jpcase (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

He says he showed it to both, but doesn't say after/before, so, yes, he showed it to both at the same time. --Khanassassin ☪ 18:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed the Animation by Mistake reference from the paragraph, since I assumed that the DVD interview contains all of the information mentioned in it, however since I don't have the DVD interview I don't know for sure. If anything is mentioned in that paragraph that cannot be referenced by the DVD interview, let me know and I will re-insert the Animation by Mistake reference.

If you have any objections to my changes, just let me know and I will be more than happy to make alterations.--Jpcase (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentence "The Eds also held personality traits of The Three Stooges, who were a comedy trio whose various characters they portrayed in each short subject film often try to create money-making schemes, but their plans end up backfiring near the end of their films." is currently being referenced with the Animation World Magazine review Ed, Edd n Eddy: A Unique Approach, however I don't see anything in that review which compares them to The Three Stooges. The DVD talk review does compare them to the Three Stooges, so I'm going to switch references for that sentence. If there is any reason for the sentence to still be referenced by the Animation World Magazine review, feel free to re-insert it along with the DVD talk review.--Jpcase (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, look at what a conversation we have in this section! WHOOOOO! That's biiiig. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 14:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I know, its huge. I'm afraid there are few more points I'd like to address though. Sorry. As I mentioned over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ed, Edd n Eddy/archive1, I've been considering whether the Overview section should be renamed. "Overview" is a rather vague term; it could be referring to an overview of anything - the show itself, production, reception, merchandise, etc. I was considering simply renaming it "Plot", but I see that you disagree with that, and I understand why. There really is no continous plotline to Ed, Edd n Eddy, and aside from a few sentences, everything currently stated in the "Overview" section is really just interesting information about the content of the show. They aren't strictly "plot points". We could possibly try to add more "plot" information to the section, but I'm not sure there's really much else to say. So "Plot" may not be the best title. How do you feel about renaming it "Series overview"? That would specify that the section contains an overview only of what can be found in the series itself. No production, no reception, just information that has been gathered from a direct viewing of the series.--Jpcase (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I guess. --Khanassassin ☪ 16:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have any reservations, we don't have to change it. It seems to me that it would be a clearer title, and since it carries a similar (though not exactly the same) meaning as the word plot, my hope is that it will help others understand a little better why references aren't needed in the section. We don't have to change it though, if you don't feel that it will help the article.--Jpcase (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Change it, go ahaid. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 17:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I've re-written some parts of the introductory paragraph and the Series overview section. I haven't changed the substance of anything said, just the wording. There were a few sentences that were exact, or near exact copies of sentences contained in other parts of the article, so I wanted to change those, and there were a few other parts that I just felt could flow a little better. Again, if you have any objections just let me know. :) --Jpcase (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I've reinserted the information about Antonucci feeling "pigeonholed" in his work, but I've changed the word "pigeonholed" to "confined" so as to avoid using euphemisms. I have two more questions about the DVD interview (I'm not sure, but these might be my last issues with the article. Woohoo!) The Animation by Mistake article states that Ed, Edd n Eddy was inspired by cartoons produced between the 1940s and the 1970s, however only the 1940's are mentioned here. It also states that the Kanker sisters were based off of real people from Antonucci's life, however that is not mentioned here either. Since we're trying not to use the Animation by Mistake article as a reference, can you tell me whether the DVD interview says that the show was based off of cartoons produced between the 1940s and the 1970s or if it just mentions the 1940s, and whether it mentions the inspiration for the Kanker sisters?--Jpcase (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 18:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show

OK, now, I hope this article's "polished up." I have made the Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show article. Thouh not the best, it is really the only reliable information found. Now, the plot section is the only thing copy-pasted from the EEnE-Wiki page, and it's toooooo long and full of spoilers, and does not mention why the kids are persuing the Eds (the "BIG SCAM"). Now, I hoped you could help me out. And, I'd also like to add that some of the episodes actually could have there own articles. The only problem is that there's no reception info, I could easily add production and plot sections. But first, please help me with the BPS article. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 19:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help you with the Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show article if I can. I can't promise that I won't find anything else that needs fixing here on the main E, E n E article, but I don't see anything right now. You've done a great job. :) --Jpcase (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You may first want to look at these two discussions (there are others, these are just a couple of them):

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive749#Recreation of salted page under new title, using copy/pasted text
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show (2nd nomination)

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main reasons the article for Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show has been deleted in the past was due to copyright violations and a lack of references. The article no longer has either of those issues, so I see no obvious reason for it to be deleted again. The article certaintly still needs work, but Khanassassin and I will be attempting to bring it up to par. :) --Jpcase (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Creating the page as a copy/paste from another wiki is a copyright violation. Try drafting the article in userspace first, then take it to WP:DRV if you honestly believe you can overcome the WP:RS issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Episodes

Jpcase, I've decided to start making episode articles: "The Ed-Touchables" is ready. :) I know you might think the DVD/iTunes etc. statements shouldn't be in the "Reception" section, but in some Family Guy episode GAs, it is in that section. :) Not all episodes, but many, will be created. Oh, and you might wanna see this: THIS and THIS. Oh yeah! Jackpot! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 18:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Are those links saying that Ed, Edd n Eddy is going to air a new season?

The article for The Ed-Touchables seems okay to keep, as long as nothing was copied and pasted from another site, but do you really have sufficient information to create articles for many episodes? A few might be justifiable, but I'm not sure about most. If you actually have the information though, go ahead and make them. I'll help out where I can. As for the DVD/iTunes information, just because something was done in a GA, doesn't necessarily mean that it should be done. The information will fit much better in a Home media section.--Jpcase (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I never copy-paste really, I know it's against the rules of Wikipedia. What I was planning to do in the Big Picture Show article is, as you saw, would write the rest of the information myself. Ofcourse, it would take a few days/week to write the plot section, since it is for a 90 minute movie. So, what I wanted to was, until I write my own, better version of the plot in a few days, I'd replace it. On the episode articles, however, it wouldn't be so hard, since one episode is only 10 minutes, a few are 20 minutes. There's actually enough information for many of the episodes, except reception. There's no reception at all. None. And, yes, those websites (Metacritic for sure) are reliable (well, not sure about Addic7ed, but it's not user-added info or pages), so, we might see some new episodes. Sadly, the Addic7ed says the new episodes will air on Nick. :/ - If there will be another season, it should be on CN. :) PS. By many I mean, the first two, the specials, the movie (after the plot is written), and a few others. :) Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 10:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The Eds are Coming, the Eds are Coming is done. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 20:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ed, Edd n Eddy's Boo Haw Haw is done. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 19:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

And now - Ed, Edd n Eddy (season 1)'s here! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 18:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ed, Edd n Eddy (specials) :) --Khanassassin ☪ 13:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Everything looks pretty good. Unfortunately I'll be out of town for the next few days, so I won't be able to help out/comment, but I'll see what you've done when I get back. :) --Jpcase (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's cool. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 13:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ed, Edd n Eddy (season 2) and Ed, Edd n Eddy (season 3) are here, btw. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 18:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Characters

There might just be enough info for Ed, Edd and Eddy character articles ("THE EDS"). I've already made Eddy's article. :) Heck, they might actually meet the Good Article criteria! - Of course, I have a few sources to add (I have 'em), no worries. And people said there's not enough sources for Ed, Edd n Eddy articles! Psh-aa! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 12:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Tags removed!

The article is fully refferenced, does not contain any original research and unnecessary details. There are maybe 1-3 sources which need to be added (which will soon be fixed), but not enough for a tag. --Khanassassin ☪ 16:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

FINALLY! Those have been there ever since I first read this article! StaleCupcakes (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting ready for GAN

This article is almost ready for GAN. I just have to add a good lead, I'll see if there are things in need of tweaking, and we're DONE :) - Hopefully, the only reason for me to work on this article in the future'll be new episodes! Heheh...huuh --Khanassassin ☪ 21:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

DOOONEEEE!!! :) :D :) :D --Khanassassin ☪ 22:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes ready for FLC

List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes is now ready to be a featured list. I don't know, maybe the only thing needed if a full pot of every episode, not just a short description of the beginning... but, the episodes don't really have "plots," do they? After this, we'll work on List of Ed, Edd n Eddy characters, and Ed, Edd n Eddy will be a Featured topic. --Khanassassin ☪ 11:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 04:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's begin the review

This article has gone through quite a few changes since the last time it came up for GA. I'm a little different from other reviewers, I do not like the feel of checklists or fancy forms. Hope you don't mind.

Prose is well done. No concerns with grammar or spelling. It covers the topic well and gives way to the proper lists and discussions. Though I am going to have to point out the fair volume of questionable sources used and referred to, heavily as well, in decent chunks of the article.

1. The first source is a personal webpage. I doubt this is a reliable source. COMMENT by Nominator: Replaced (see comments below) - There are just a few sentences sourced by it.
2. Toonbarn doesn't seem to be reliable either. COMMENT by Nominator: It's not needed, and I replaced it with a source that's already in the article, so we're good. :)
3. Animation World Magazine doesn't seem to be wonderful, but it probably is okay.
4. Webpronews is probably not that reliable. Anyway to grab it from Cartoon Network themselves? COMMENT by Nominator: I have found a few replacements, please check which is the best. :)
5. Flickfilosopher is not a reliable source.
6. Dvdtalk is not great, but fine
7. WhosDatedWho.com is not a reliable source. While it is being used only to reflect the nomination, I'd use the actual Leo Award for it. [1] Sadly they do not seem to record nominees, so only the 2005 winner I found. Funny note, they have it as Ed, Edd and Eddie for the 2000 record. [2] COMMENT by Nominator: Ahh! I can't find a replacement! :/ COMMENT by Nominator: WOOHOOO (see the bottom of the page)! Found sources!

The reliable source issue needs to be addressed. I've gone ahead and pointed out the Leo Awards as those were easy to grab. I'm going to put this on hold, because reliable source issues are the major point and a GA article should not be referencing blogs or personal websites for a sizable portion of its citations.

Another section is the seemingly inserted and unsourced claims. This is the most concerning from the Overview section, "...however the show started to hint at the presence of other people in its fifth season, occasionally showing the silhouettes of people and in one episode the arms of Eddy's father and Ed's mother. Beyond these partial exceptions, Eddy's brother is the only adult to appear on the show.

The show frequently makes meta-references and breaks the fourth wall. In addition, the letters AKA, the abbreviation for the name of the company that produces the show (a.k.a. Cartoon), frequently appear in the show on license plates and other items."

While it may not seem like much, but this the reliable source matter is particularly troubling as the Wayback Machine to a personal webpage is the key source for a lot of important details. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Chris! Thanks for the review! The Overview section doesn't need to be sourced, since it's referencing the work itself: Similar to book, film or video game plot/synopsis sections, there is no need for sources. About DVD talk - I saw it used in FAs. Animation World Magazine is a magazine, so it should be taken as reliable - though the page looks sorta...well...cheap. :) The Toon Barn issue has been solved. But, if it will really have to be deleted, it doesn't play a major roll in the article. The 2000 winner isn't actually sourced by WhosDatedWho.com, so it'll leave all 3 Leo-nominations unsourced. :/ The first source I think should be reliable and is really important for some of the sections, so... Webpro news is not reliable? Flickphilosopher is one of the reviews, and if deleted, there'll only be two reviews: but, it's not that big of a problem, so it'll be removed. I'll just cross out the obvious solved issues myself, if you don't mind.

Hi again. If you look on the official Ed, Edd n Eddy site (which is its page on CartoonNetwork.com), it says that the show is part of Cartoon Planet, but it doesn't say since when. Oh, and the YouTube video that is enbeded on the page is from Cartoon Network's official YouTube account, which can actually be used as a reliable source. If not, these are the replacements I found: this and this and this AND this. Are they good? --Khanassassin ☪ 10:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The Leo Award 2000 source has been added. --Khanassassin ☪ 10:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The Leo Award 2005 added. --Khanassassin ☪ 10:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I found a Leo Awards nomination that wasn't even added! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 10:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Much of the information found in the "personal" page interview can be replaced with the "Season 1 DVD interview, I'll se what I can do... --Khanassassin ☪ 10:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Nickandmore.com is not a reliable source so it can't be used. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What about the others? --Khanassassin ☪ 14:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I replaced the Animation by Mistake interview with the DVD Interview source. I prefered to use the AbM interview, since I thought it was reliable and people could see it without buying the DVD, but since it's not reliable, I replaced it. There's only a few sentences sourced by it. Now, there are still three WhosDatedWho,com sources, which we'll have to replace. Uff, but with what? - I added the avaliable Leo Awards sources, and three are still WhosDatedWho sources - I can't find a replacement! :/ Think fast, think fast. --Khanassassin ☪ 14:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

'YES! I found replacements for the WhosDatedWho sources! I went to the internet archive and went to the archived official Leo Awards pages for nominees! YEEEEEAAAAH! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 15:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason I was looking for a source or something to point out that AKA is on many objects is simply because no example exists and while it has been awhile since I've seen the show, its one of those things that are hard to miss. It almost falls under the 'trivia' class of info, but its more of a 'did you know' since it is a singular instance. So a source or a note in a few episodes in which the AKA appears would be great, purely for verification even as a primary source. It won't prevent a pass though, since its not really contentious. The big part is still the sourcing matters. A livejournal is not a reliable source either, seems to be difficulty in sourcing some of the bits, but it seems that the Ed's Wikipedia seems to be a close mirror of this article albeit with no sources. themarysue.com is another unreliable source, it is a personal website from mediaite with no sign of editorial oversight, its a blog basically. That first source is the problem one for me... I heard something about interviews on the DVDs themselves; perhaps those could be used other then an archived personal webpage. I'll do some digging on it myself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I already used the DVD Interview source, and there are just a few sentences with the first source, so that's not that much of a problem. Like I said, there are a few words about the Cartoon Network blog on the Ed, Ed n Eddy website, so... yeah.

Just as a note: Only this is now sourced by the archived interview:

>>The kids have multi-colored tongues because, as Danny Antonucci stated, kids are almost always eating something that turn their tongues different colors.[2]

It has been noted that there is a lack of adults in the show, which Antonucci stated was intentional explaining, "throughout the long days of summer you simply didn't see anyone else's parents about and sometimes you didn't even see your own. Take the 'Edd's parents' factor, their means of communicating with him via sticky note, my parents worked long hours and they left me written messages in much the same way."[2]<< :)

It's not too much, and not all-too important. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 15:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This works. Its from Cartoon Network's podcast apparently. Mirrored on Youtube. [3] Though I found another interview with really strong language... though its not even from a great source, but it is an interview. Just so much profanity. [4] Again Youtube videos are not reliable sources for anything, and the first is just a mirror of a CN one, which CN would be reliable so I'd jump the connection and use the first link as a mirror. Same with this [5], guessing from the DVD? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool. The Behind the Ink isn't from the DVD, but it has some info to be added, that was already in, but I didn't find a source. So, it can be used, probably. The rest are from "The Best Day Edder," the marathon, and alot of the things he says are similar to what he says on the interview. Well, he actually says everything here, and a bit more about how it started (Nickelodeon and CN etc.) So, it could be used, but everythings on the interview on the DVD. The only thing is the tounges and "lack of adults," which are the only sentences sourced by the archived interview, and there is no mention about neither on YouTube nor on DVD. :/ --Khanassassin ☪ 15:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: Maybe it's the Season 2 DVD Interview? I have the first, not the second (this one's is better, btw). --Khanassassin ☪ 15:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll check on it real quick. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Can't find the interview, I don't have the DVD anyways, but the colored tongues matter can be dropped or reworked. The lack of adults doesn't need to be cited to a specific comment, but can just be reworked slightly, its not a serious matter. Its only minor issues now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I've done some checking, the ABM website has this tagline 'ABM is maintained by Kit in collaboration with aka CARTOON INC' meaning that it is at least officially recognized, but it is still a fansite. It might be okay as is, if no other source has it, the weight on an unreliable source must be low and specific, this seems to be not ideal, but acceptable for its current role in the article. If you agree then I'll pass it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I answered on your talk-page. The answer is yes, I agree. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Passed

Article has been touched up. Promoted to GA status. For the previous review in which it did not pass please see: Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy/GA1 ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes FLC

The article List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes is currently a featured list candidate. Please go vote Support/Oppose. --Khanassassin ☪ 13:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Reruns

The article states that CN no longer airs reruns of Ed, Edd n Eddy. This is wrong. Aside from Cartoon Planet airings, EEE still airs weekday afternoons. StaleCupcakes (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it says that it stopped airing in June 2011. While I know that (in the US/UK, not here :'() they started airing it again, there's only sources for the Cartoon Planet reruns, and even the EEnE website says the show is "Part of Cartoon Planet." We gotta take risks. --Khanassassin ☪ 19:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Anybody willing to help?

As you may have noticed, I have been working on/making a number of Ed, Edd n Eddy articles. As I currently want to make more of those articles, I'd like someone to help me out with Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show. I have the article for it in >my sandbox< with a copy-pasted from TV.com's summary. So, could anybody, while I'm working on other projects, re-write and shorten the plot in my sandbox, so the article will be ready for posting. :) Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 13:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Did quite a bit myself now, some help would be appreciated. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 14:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll help you out. Just create the article and I'll give it the copy-edit review and all that. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, the article keeps getting deleted or redirected, so it has to be in user space until it's as good as it can possibly be. You can simply edit my userbox (or in your own, I guess, but since I have the full plot already - now shortened and not just a copy-paste anymore, I think you could edit in mine). That's not a problem right? Thanks again. --Khanassassin ☪ 12:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure! I noticed. I guess they don't feel it fits the notability guidelines here. I'll try my hand at it tomorrow. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 07:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Just curious, is your name a combination of Cinema and Animaniacs? :) --Khanassassin ☪ 12:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right on the money! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 00:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, StaleCupcakes!

Thanks to StaleCupcakes for uploading the nice merged image of the three Eds' images from their official website at CartoonNetwork.com! Looks nice. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 12:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! It's a pleasure, and I will soon upload individual pictures of the Eds in case you want to create articles on Edd, Ed, or any other characters.. As you probably know, I uploaded a picture of Eddy, and I also uploaded a picture of Plank, which is currently on my user page. If you need me to upload any pictures, just ask me. StaleCupcakes (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I used that picture of Eddy already in the Eddy artilce. You can upload pictures of Ed and Edd, but not the other characters; There's enough sources for individual articles for Ed, Edd n Eddy, but not for the rest of the characters. Thanks. Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 19:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

StaleCupcakes, hope you don't mind me asking but, do you know My Gym Partner's a Monkey (I'm working on its article currently). If so, did you hate it like most people did during its run? - I see that a lot, I mean a lot, of people hated it, though there's quite a few who liked it... I personally think it was a great show! What about you? Hope you don't mind. Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 19:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I liked it a lot, and it was as good as Cartoon Network's original Cartoon Cartoons. I think this was probably CN's last great show, and it made me laugh when it was on. I'm also working on the Evil Con Carne, Cartoon Cartoons, and Camp Lazlo articles. I'll probably help with the My Gym Partner's a Monkey article. I can also find some My Gym Partner's a Monkey pictures if you want me to. good luck! StaleCupcakes (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Good to find atleast some people who liked the show. - I thought I'll see mostly great reactions to the show, but nope. And yes, could you merge the images of Adam and Jake from here to keep them transparent, and then upload it, please? Oh, and crop this image so only the logo of the show will be visable? They started re-airing Gym Partner here recently, btw. :) Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 12:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

A Few Questions

• I'm not sure I understand why the image of the show's intertitle was deleted. Personally, I think that the intertitle would be more useful to a reader than the image currently used in the article.

• Why was "longest running Cartoon Cartoons series" changed to "longest running original Cartoon Network series? "Original Cartoon Network series" seems unclear to me. Would a reader know what that means?

• The Genre section of the infobox describes the show as an "adventure" series. Is this really correct? I wouldn't necessarily think of Ed, Edd n Eddy as an adventure.--Jpcase (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Should the article say that Ed, Edd n Eddy was inspired by cartoons of the 1930s-1950s or 1940s-1970s? The Animation by Mistake source said 1940s-1970s. What does the DVD interview say?--Jpcase (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)