The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Rugrats episode "At the Movies" introduced the character of
Reptar, who became a heavily recurring character throughout the series and the basis of countless merchandising tie-ins?
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can
the article attached to this page, help out with the
open tasks, or contribute to the
discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
I see what you are referring to, but as noted in the template above, this isn't for general discussion on the article itself, only on further improving its content. The Flash{talk} 16:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Right. I'm not engaging in "general discussion," I'm saying it might improve the article to replace the picture with one that doesn't have quite as much sexual imagery--as funny as it is. If you think it's alright, though, I don't have a problem with it.
Ah, yes, I understand; the image was the best I could find, but I'll see if I can get a better one. The Flash{talk} 20:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)reply
No sweat. I would have attempted to find one but I am definitely not skilled in the art of image-uploading, or using the Commons, or any of that.
AlexHOUSE (
talk) 21:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)reply
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
Not sure where this fits, so I will put it here- I think the title should be
At the Movies (Rugrats episode) instead- I accept it can go both ways. Do we have any MOS guidance on this?
The title meets
WP:MOSTV naming style guidelines; adding "episode" is only used when the title is something like "Mr. Burns (The Simpsons episode)" to differentiate between the two existing subjects. The Flash{talk} 21:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)reply
What is Point of Purchase, and why is it reliable?
I found the article on a website featuring multiple publications from throughout the country. If I'm not mistaken, it's some kind of print media or other form of publication. The Flash{talk} 03:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
"The episode received a generally positive response." is based off one review. Do we have no other reviews at all?
Unfortunately, that's all there is. Remember, this is an episode of a kids cartoon that aired in 1991. The Flash{talk} 03:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I accept that, but I would say that that means we are not in a position to make the statement.
J Milburn (
talk) 20:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
You seem to really get off the point when discussing Reptar... I get the impression this stuff should be in an article on Reptar, not on this episode. The issue regarding the award nomination is also a little misleading- that nomination was for the video, not the episode, and that is not made as clear as it could be.
I tried chopping it down a bit, so tell me if it's fine now. How would you like me to adjust the nomination? The Flash{talk} 03:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The stuff on Reptar is better. I would be inclined to say the video award does not belong in the lead. I would also say that the line "In 2000, it and the other selected episodes featured in Rugrats: Return of Reptar was nominated for Video Software Dealers Association's Home Entertainment Award for "Outstanding Marketing Campaign for a Major Direct-to-Video Release."" (which actually doesn'ty make sense) Should be changed to "In 2000, Rugrats: Return of Reptar, on which the episode featured, was nominated for Video Software Dealers Association's Home Entertainment Award for "Outstanding Marketing Campaign for a Major Direct-to-Video Release." or something similar. The current wording makes it sound like it is the episodes winning the award, rather than the video.
J Milburn (
talk) 20:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have
fair use rationales:
The lead image is excellent and has a solid rationale. I am less certain the other is necessary- the parody can be mentioned in text, and is hardly an integral part of the episode- I'm not sure it needs to be illustrated by two non-free images.
Still, I believe it helps give a visual reference to something that is possibly unvisable by certain readers who have never seen neither the episode nor Care Bears. The Flash{talk} 03:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Perhaps, but does that point really need to be made? The issue is more a point of interest than central to the episode. I'm really not convinced the images meet
non-free content criterion 8.
J Milburn (
talk) 20:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On hold. There are a few things that need to be dealt with here. I have mixed feelings about this article- a lot of the discussion seems to be a little off-topic.
Yeah, so we need a full stop after the "!", I believe. Just as you wouldn't finish a sentence as U.S. without an additional full stop.
J Milburn (
talk) 20:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I have just modified one external link on
At the Movies (Rugrats). 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}}).
YAn 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.
I have just modified one external link on
At the Movies (Rugrats). 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: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on
At the Movies (Rugrats). 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: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.