Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy

Transparent background logo & image vs. Titleboard

Which would you prefer? I added the logo and image after I saw a similar format used on other popular series' articles (e.g. Family Guy), and I really liked the fancy look because of the transparent backgrounds which made the images blend in with the infobox. The titleboard was a bit low-res, so a few spots looked a bit pixelated -- and it didn't have that fancy look as the logo-image did. However, the titleboard does have the characters in the right order (left to right: Ed, Edd and Eddy) rather than the new images (from left to right: Edd, Eddy, Ed); of course this is easily solved with the image description, which explains the order. So, which would you prefer? --Khanassassin ☪ 12:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The current setup is fine with me. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 21:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Purgatory Theory

Hey, everyone. It's been a while. How's it going? I don't expect that I will have the time to get involved with this article to the same extent that I had been last year, but I came across something that I thought would be worth mentioning.

Some time ago, another editor asked whether a fan theory, in which the show is actually set in purgatory, could be mentioned somewhere in the article. I had to oppose the request at the time, on the basis that it had not been reported on by any reliable source. Since then however, I have come across this article [1] on Cracked.com. Seeing as though Cracked is a humor website, I was unsure whether other editors would accept it as a reliable reference and brought up the question at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Here is a link to the discussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 147#Cracked.com.

Of the half-dozen editors who weighed in on the issue, none of them actually showed support for the website and the discussion was ultimately closed. As you can see though, many of their arguments were based on mistaken information (e.g. that Cracked does not have attributed authors or editorial control, when in fact, it does) and thus, I felt that the conversation was not allowed to reach a clear conclusion. Having discussed my concerns with the editor who closed the discussion, we were able to come to a better understanding of each other's viewpoints and I will probably open a new thread on the topic soon. However, I was also encouraged to bring the matter up here first. If none of you feel that the source should be accepted, than I will probably just drop the matter all together. If however, some of you agree with me, than the source will likely fair much better in a second discussion at the RSN.

This is my view of the matter. Cracked is a professional website (as opposed to say, a blog or forum) with editorial control (see here [2]) and professional writers (One of the authors of the article in question has also written for mentalfloss.com, Film School Rejects, and thesmokingjacket.com). Although it is primarily a "humor website", it differs greatly from say, The Onion, in that it never reports false news. Articles on the website are constantly accurate and simply present information in a humorous style.

Additionally, several highly esteemed publications have cited Cracked as a reference:

• From USA Today - [3] [4] [5] [6]
• From Entertainment Weekly - [7] [8]
• From the LA Times - [9] [10] [11]

The first one by USA Today and the last one by the LA Times are actually citing Cracked for information. Most of the others are simply citing opinion pieces by the website, but personally, I feel that shows they recognize it as a respectable source for pop-culture commentary.

Pop-culture is actually the only topic that I would support using Cracked as a reference for. Although the website contains many articles on other topics, such as history, science, and psychology (just to name a few), no discovery or theory in those areas of study would go completely unreported on by any publication other than Cracked and a more scholarly source would certainly be more appropriate to them. This does not mean that Cracked is unreliable when reporting on those topics; it simply means that there are better alternatives. On the other hand, many areas of pop-culture (such as children's cartoons) go largely unreported on by mainstream news sources and I see no reason why a professional and accurate source like Cracked could not be used in these instances.

Looking forward to hearing from you all again and getting your thoughts on the matter. :) --Jpcase (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Jpcase. Cracked reader reporting in. First off, you presented your case very well, and there's not much I can say here without repeating what you've already stated. I agree with all of it. I do have one more thing to add, though. If something is talked about by Cracked and only by Cracked (excluding unreliable sources), is it notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia in the first place? In the case of this fan theory, I don't think that is. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 05:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. The way I see it, Cracked should be used as a reference as rarely as possible; only when no other sources are available. Thus, I feel that the website should only be used as a source for information that has not been reported on by other publications. If the same information can be found in say, Entertainment Weekly, than why bother using Cracked at all?

I understand your point though. Again, I would never support using the website as a reference for more scholarly topics. If Cracked wrote about some historical discovery or scientific theory that no other publication had ever reported on, than that would send all kinds of red flags, essentially ruining the website's credibility. I feel that pop-culture is a different matter though. Some topics are simply too trivial to receive much coverage from mainstream news publications. That Cracked has been cited by USA Today, Entertainment Weekly and the LA Times shows me that it is respected as a source for pop-culture commentary.

I feel that the real question should be whether a fan theory is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia under any circumstances. Perhaps the answer is no. But no fan theory would ever get written about in the LA Times. Getting covered by Cracked is about a notable as a fan theory can get. --Jpcase (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it is notable enough for a little mention somewhere in the article - as you've said, Jpcase, "Getting covered by Cracked is about a notable as a fan theory can get." Not only that, the famous YouTube personality "McCreepy Pasta" popularized the theory with one of the most viewed Ed, Edd n Eddy videos in the last year or so (with an exception of the 2 million views Big Picture Show, which was sadly taken down) - I'm not sure, but I think he might be the creator of the theory? I'm just sayin', it's a pretty big thing on the internet. --Khanassassin ☪ 13:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

So Paper Luigi, you definitely oppose mentioning this anywhere in the article? I guess that means we don't have much of a consensus either way then. I would have liked to have a few more editors weigh in on this; too bad StaleCupcakes seems to have left. Do either of you know of anyone else who has shown an interest in this article and might like to take part in the discussion? --Jpcase (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I oppose its mention in the article. Including a fan theory here isn't going to appeal to the general audience the article is meant for; it's only going to appeal to those who have specific interests (generally fans). A person unfamiliar with EEnE could be confused when reading the fan theory part because only those familiar with the characters would be able to see the similarities the theory describes. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 06:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we added the fan theory, it would probably go towards the end of the article, so I am not sure what a reader who is unfamiliar with the show would be confused about as long as they had read the previous sections. I know most people don't actually read the entire article all the way through, but still, we could probably find a way to write the content so that it is easy enough to understand. As for the information only appealing to fans of the series, does Wikipedia have any clear policy on not adding something like this? I actually feel like I had read something along those lines before, but I can't remember where. If you know of it, could you provide a link? --Jpcase (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There's WP:FAN, but it's not a policy. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 20:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that. I'm not entirely sure whether this should actually be considered fancruft, since it has received coverage by Cracked, but it's a close call and since we don't really have a strong consensus either way on whether to add it to the article, I'll refrain from doing so. I appreciate each of you sharing your opinions on the matter. :) --Jpcase (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Rolf's Inspiration

The production section contains two nearly identical sentences that detail the inspiration for Rolf. I was about to remove one of them, but realized that they each use a different reference. Since I don't have access to both references, I am not sure which one should be kept. Is one better than the other? --Jpcase (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It's fine the way it is now. --Khanassassin ☪ 18:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, Khanassassin. How's it going? It's good to hear from you again. The article as it is written however, essentially repeats the same sentence twice. First it reads:

"Rolf is based on Antonucci and his cousins, since he was part of an immigrant family, and grew up in a first generation foreign household with different customs and ways of living."

Then right after that comes:

"Rolf is based on himself and his cousins, since he was part of an immigrant family, and grew up in a first generation foreign household with different customs and ways of living, compared to those born in Canada."

What purpose is served by saying this twice? It looks to me like this was simply done by mistake. I feel that the first variation of this sentence should be removed, but again, do not know which reference to use. Should I keep both? --Jpcase (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I think that the last time we tried to collaborate, I might have gotten on your nerves a bit (On Danny Antonucci's talk page). My apologies about that. I still don't understand the issue that we had been discussing, but having taken another look at the conversation, I can't even say that my own posts seemed very coherent. That whole thing was a mess and I probably should have just dropped the matter earlier on. I'm pretty sure I have some mild form of OCD though, so getting hung up on small, relatively unimportant details has always been a problem of mine.

Anyways, I know that it was a long time ago and I have no idea how you actually felt about that discussion, but it just seemed to me that we had parted on a somewhat negative note, so I wanted to apologize for that. --Jpcase (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I have merged the sentences about Rolf, it's all good now. I hold no grudges against you for your comments at Antonucci's page at all, heh. I just thought that you either moved to another project (working on another page), or just became inactive. I didn't feel like working at Antonucci's page, plus I became slightly less active on Wikipedia - but if you'd like to revisit the page, I'd be cool with it. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 13:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear that everything is fine between us. Maybe my "obsessiveness" got me worrying about it too much. I'm kind of like Double D that way; always worried about everything. :)

Yeah, I had left to work on some other pages, but recently decided that I wanted to check up on things here again. I'll probably have some more thoughts coming up soon. No problem if you aren't able to be as active right now; I try to relegate the amount of time I spend on Wikipedia myself. Still, I really value your input and would certainly enjoy the chance to collaborate with you again. --Jpcase (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Image use

I should note that I really don't know much about using images on Wikipedia. But I do remember that this article had once included the titleboard and the image that was constructed from cartoonnetwork.com (File:All 3 eds.png) only to have the titleboard removed; I believe on the grounds that only one of the images could be considered fair use. What has changed since then that makes it acceptable for both of them to be included in the article? Jpcase (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

After taking a look at the description pages for each image, it appears that EEnE Titles.jpg is in the public domain. If my knowledge of the public domain is correct, the current setup with both images in the infobox doesn't violate any fair use restrictions. However, I have removed the show's intertitle (EEnE Titles.jpg) from the body of the article as there was no fair use rationale provided for its use on this particular article. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 19:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. --Jpcase (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the reason the titleboard was deleted the last time is: there were 3 non-free images: the "3 eds" image, the titleboard, and a screenshot of the Ed, Edd n Eddy cameo in Foster's. Three is too much, not two. So, I think the titleboard should be re-added. :)

Hmm, well if the image from Foster's is an option, than I would personally consider it a better selection than the titleboard. File:All 3 eds.png and EEnE Titles.jpg show pretty much the same thing. I like the titleboard and would be open to using it instead of the current image in the infobox (though I really don't have a strong preference either way), but if only two non-free images are allowed, than I think that showing a cameo appearance of the characters in a separate T.V. show would display their cultural influence, while anything that the other two images contribute to the article could still be maintained by just using one of them. --Jpcase (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree on adding the Foster's image back. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 21:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think of it, I'm not sure whether copyrighted images are allowed to be used in articles where the primary focus is not on the body of work that the image was taken from. I remember wanting to add an image from Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer to the article on Hoodwinked!, since the latter film's visual style was inspired by Rankin/Bass (the production company behind Rudolph). I was told though, that this would not fall under fair use, since the image was not actually from the film that the article was about. It could be that this is not applicable to the Foster's image though, since it actually contains the characters of Ed, Double D, and Eddy. Do either of you have any knowledge on this? --Jpcase (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I brought this question up here Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Would this be fair use? and was told that the Fosters image probably would not fall under fair use. Oh well. --Jpcase (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hallmarks

Maybe this is a stupid question, but I can't figure out how the word "hallmark" is being used in this article. From what I can gather, the word means "a distinguishing characteristic", but that doesn't really seem to fit the context. --Jpcase (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

A portion of this article was modeled after Family Guy, which has its own (admittedly more fitting) "hallmarks" section. The way I see it, it doesn't make much sense in EEnE. I've edited the page to drop the "hallmarks" name so that the two subsections are merged into the existing one on episodes. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 23:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I can see how the title would work for the section in the Family Guy article, but it didn't really make sense in the way that it was being used here. I think that merging it with the Episodes section was definitely the best idea. --Jpcase (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Minnesota Daily

Here is another proposition coming somewhat out of left field, but I figure it should at least be discussed. I just found this article [12] from the Minnesota Daily, in which the columnist writes about taking a lawsuit against Netflix, over them making Cartoon Network shows available for streaming, during the time that he needs to be studying for exams. He details Ed, Edd n Eddy as one of the shows that are being offered and writes, "We do not contend that any person of ordinary will could, or should, resist such classic and well-crafted animations." Now the lawsuit is really just a joke; a tongue-in-cheek way of saying how much he loves these shows. But that makes me think that it could essentially be considered as a review. Do you think that this might be worth mentioning in the Critical reception section?

I should note though, that the Minnesota Daily is a college newspaper. Having checked the archives on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, there seems to be some support for using college newspapers as reliable sources, although only in certain situations. I'm not really sure how other editors would feel about using one in this context, so I would ask about it over at the RSN before actually adding it to the article. --Jpcase (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The Minnesota Daily looks like it has a lot of credibility in the world of college newspapers. From the MD article on WP: "Published since 1900, the paper is currently the largest student-run and student-written newspaper in the United States and the third-largest paper in the state of Minnesota." My main issue with this one is in the way it's written. It's not a serious review nor is it an article that only covers Ed, Edd n Eddy; The Powerpuff Girls gets more coverage here than EEnE does. I also have concerns about the author himself. According to the author's bio page, "Castle joined The Daily staff in January 2013 as a columnist, writing opinions primarily on law and sexuality." You can see how he integrated his knowledge of the law into this article, but animation does not appear to be his specialty. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 21:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be included in the reception section. While he may not be an animation-exclusive writer, it is still an opinion of a writer of possibly the biggest and most respected college newspaper out there. --Khanassassin ☪ 11:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it should matter whether an article focuses on a single show individually or in conjunction with others. The point is Ed, Edd n Eddy is mentioned by name and thus, included in the writer's praise. Now a review that is only about Ed, Edd n Eddy might be preferable, but there don't seem to be a lot of those; especially if ToonZone is discounted as a reliable source. I understand the hesitancy over Castle's area of expertise not being in television, but I think I might agree with Khanassassin; if the Minnesota Daily is such a highly esteemed publication, than surely that he was allowed to write this article for the newspaper must give him some form of qualification. To me, the biggest issue with using this reference is it's non-serious style. If, Paper Luigi, you strongly feel that this makes it unacceptable for use and no further editors show support for the article (which I doubt is going to happen, since it seems that we three are the only ones here) than I won't include it. I will say however, that if we did add it to the article, we would obviously make it clear that the lawsuit is a joke. Possible phrasing could be -

"When Netflix offered several Cartoon Network shows to stream on-demand, James Castle, a columnist for the University of Minnesota's newspaper, the Minnesota Daily, wrote a tongue-in-cheek article suggesting that Ed, Edd n Eddy and the other available shows are of such high quality, that he would be unable to focus on his exams, unless he took a lawsuit against the company to have them removed. In his praise of the shows, he wrote 'We do not contend that any person of ordinary will could, or should, resist such classic and well-crafted animations.'

Of course, it could be phrased differently if you or Khanassassin have any better ideas, but I thought I would at least give you a feel for the manner in which we might mention it in the article. --Jpcase (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I like that. I change my mind to support :) Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 21:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, great! I'll go ahead and add the above paragraph, but if you or anyone else want revise it, feel free to do so.--Jpcase (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

ToonZone

Having looked through Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy's Boo Haw Haw/GA1 and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 140#ToonZone, it doesn't seem that ToonZone has much support as a reliable reference. Now, as Khanassassin pointed out, the website has been used as a source by several highly esteemed publications, which is certainly an important step towards establishing credibility. But I still don't see much evidence to show that this is a professional website, as opposed to just a fan-forum that has managed to garner a particularly good reputation for itself. According to this page [13], there does seem to be something of a "staff", but it doesn't appear that working for the website is a full-time job for any of them. Also, while this page [14] mentions three owners of the site, it then classifies everyone else as "volunteers". So I'm getting the impression that the writers, moderators, editors, etc. are just devoted animation fans who help out on the website as a hobby.

One editor did suggest that as a self-published source, it could be acceptable as long as it wasn't the primary reference being used in the article, but I am not entirely convinced. Looking at WP:SPS, self-published sources should only be used if they were written by "an established expert on the subject matter". If any of the writers for ToonZone have been published by another, more reliable source, than any of their articles would be fine to use. Unfortunately though, that doesn't seem to be the case here. --Jpcase (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I personally still stand behind it being used as a source. I've really been through too much of this "ToonZone" fighting, I stick to my claim. If anyone wants to remove it, don't involve me in it - but it shall for me remain a good source. ToonZone for life, peace out. --Khanassassin ☪ 17:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for having to bring this up. It's certainly not my intention to start a "fight" or anything and I can understand that you wouldn't want to have to deal with all of this again. It's just that ToonZone really doesn't meet my understanding of what is supposed to constitute a reliable source and since this is a Featured Article, it really does need to be held to high standards. Please know that all I am trying to do is help. I'm even open to changing my mind on this if you really feel that there is anything that makes the writers for the website more than just hobbyists, but so far, I'm afraid I'm not seeing it. --Jpcase (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I decided to remove the ToonZone reviews from the article. It's not that big of a loss really, since I was able to replace them with the review from The Minnesota Daily. I'll leave the other ToonZone references in the article for now, until I have a chance to check on whether I can find any other sources that can be used for the information that is being cited by them. Hope you aren't too disappointed with this. :) --Jpcase (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking ... Since, by your views, ToonZone is not written by authors that are profesionally involved in animation. However, it is still a respected website among other publications and animation professionals. And, while I was researching notable websites using ToonZone as a source, I noticed, that normally they didn't cite the reviews (why would they, except if they're covering its reception deeply instead of seeking information of the show's development]. But - They cite articles such as interviews and reports from events such as Comic-Con) from ToonZone quite often - for example, if Antonucci was interviewed by ToonZone, he would tehnically be the author of the interview; sure the writer asks the questions, but pretty much everything in it is written by Antonucci (or was said by him). Reports of Comic-Con for example do not require the reporter to be an expert in the field of animation. Is it really so hard to take notes of what the show's creator said at the pannel? Again, in this case, the creator would be the author, while the reporter just writes it down, summarizes it.

So, my conclusion: ToonZone might not be the best source for animaton reviews (since there is no proof that the authors are pros), but since its a highly popular news source that is respected by well-known, reliable publication and most importantly, the cartoonist pros themselves. And as said, these publications often use ToonZone as a source. So why shouldn't it be used as a source for interviews, event coverages and ratings news when they get this information from the animation pros themselves? They're technically the authors. Peace. --Khanassassin ☪ 18:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...it's an interesting thought. Actually, I had just been looking into this a little bit more and have to say, I'm impressed to find out that ToonZone engages in investigative journalism, as opposed to just reporting hear-say or stuff that they read in other publications. Really, I don't have a problem myself with using the website in the way that you described; it makes sense. The thing is though, with this being a Featured Article, it has to be held to the highest possible standards or else it could face the possibility of getting de-listed. So while I won't be the one to say that the remaining ToonZone references have to be removed, I do feel the responsibility of raising this issue one last time at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Whatever the final consensus comes out to be, I believe should be respected and implemented on this page. Since I am unfamiliar with the website, the chances of it finding support will likely be higher if you participate in the discussion, but I understand if you don't want to go through that whole process again. :) --Jpcase (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's a link to the discussion - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Can a fansite ever be considered as a reliable source? - ToonZone Also, the ToonZone reference for "The Best Day Edder"'s ratings was a dead link, so I replaced it with one from Animation Insider, which is better anyway, since the author of that article is a professional. --Jpcase (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion was archived due to a lack of responses, but I still feel that it is important to get the opinions of other editors on this, so I have re-posted it and updated the link above to point to the new discussion. --Jpcase (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping for more participation in the discussion, but I'm not going to post it a third time. Feel free to keep searching for other editors who support ToonZone, but as things stand, I feel that the website ought to be treated as an unreliable reference. If you would be willing to help me remove it from any E, E n E articles that are still using it, I would certainly appreciate the help, but I get it if that's something you wouldn't want to be involved in. I do have a question though, before the Film sub-section under Other media is re-written. The copyright entry for Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show is being used as a reference for the statement that the film completed production in 2008, but doesn't seem to actually contain that information. Am I missing something? If not, do you know of any other references that could be used for this? --Jpcase (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Page milestones

Just though it would be interesting to see how the article "grew".

• 2004 (creation) - August/September 2003
• 2005-2006 - January 1, 2006
• How it looked when it was not promoted (GA1) - August 5, 2008
• How it looked a bit of time before before it was promoted to GA - April 21, 2012
• How it looked when it was promoted (GA2) - May 2, 2012
• How it looked when it was promoted (FA) - July 13, 2012
  • How it looked when it appeared on the front page (TFA) - July 23, 2012
• How it looks now

A very interesting process. :) And is it just me, or does the blue color in the infobox used in the FA promotion revision look better than the current light-purple-ish color? :)

That's pretty cool to see the development of the page. Yeah, I think I might agree with you on the coloring. Feel free to change it if you want (I wouldn't know how). --Jpcase (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. One thing that caught my eye was the phrase "their plans usually fail, leaving them in various predicaments," which has survived for over 7 years on the page with only minor alterations. Anyway, about the color change, MOS:TABLES says, "Deviations from standard conventions are acceptable where they create a semantic distinction (for instance, the infoboxes and navigational templates relating to The Simpsons use a yellow colour-scheme instead of the customary mauve, to tie in with the dominant colour in the series) but should not be used gratuitously." I'd take this to mean that we could only use the blue color if it was of significant importance to the series. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 20:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ed, Edd n Eddy (Season 1)'s Featured Article Nomination

I noticed that several good suggestions were made at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ed, Edd n Eddy (season 1)/archive1, so I went ahead and incorporated them here, seeing as though much of the content that was part of Ed, Edd n Eddy (season 1) at the time had been copied from this article. --Jpcase (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The Walking Ed

OK,why is someone's fan project featured on the page? It's scarecely the only one out there, and it's not even complete. We might as well add the pugatory theory and every other fan project of that one is noteable. 173.174.65.216 (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, but I think it should be removed. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 20:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I've had doubts about this myself, but haven't had the time to check into it yet. I'll try to give it a look here soon. --Jpcase (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The creator indicated it is an Antonucci/CN-approved web series, which might air on CN, but most likely won't, since it is "rated mature". --Khanassassin ☪ 08:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for going inactive the last few days; things had been really busy for me, but they've slowed down now. I just checked out the official Walking Ed website and watched all of this guy's behind-the-scenes YouTube videos on the series, and apparently he has held talks with Cartoon Network in an attempt to work out any legal issues and see if they would provide funding. Seeing as though he is still going ahead with production, I assume that some kind of deal was probably made, but haven't seen any announcement of the specifics. Whatever agreement he and the network might have come to, I seriously doubt that it includes funding or even the series being labeled as an official spin-off. As it is, this doesn't seem to be anything more than a fan project that might have managed to work out a deal that would keep it from infringing upon copyright laws. If Cartoon Network ever puts out an official press release on the series, then I would support mentioning it in the article, but unless that ever happens, it really ought to be removed. --Jpcase (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, well, if no one has any further thoughts, than I will go ahead and remove the last mention of The Walking Ed from the article. --Jpcase (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Chronology

Should we have the Chronology section in the infobox? It sort of made sense when The Walking Ed was mentioned, but now the only entry is Cartoon Cartoon Fridays, which is listed as a "Related Show". There's nothing chronological about that though, and Cartoon Cartoon Fridays isn't even a real show; it's a programming block. If we switched the term to Cartoon Cartoons, that might make a little more sense, but it still isn't really a show in and of itself; just a catch-all term to describe any original shows that aired on Cartoon Network during a certain era. Now that the Reruns section has been reduced to a single sentence, I think that it might be worth trying to create a new Broadcast history section, merge the two, and then we could mention the series' position as a part of the Cartoon Cartoon Fridays lineup there. However I'm not sure that it is necessary to maintain this information in the infobox. Thoughts? --Jpcase (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed CCF from the infobox per your reasoning above. As for the section on broadcast history, be sure to take a quick read through WP:TV's style guidelines on that section before constructing that part of the article. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 20:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that. I probably won't have the chance to create the section right away, so if you or Khan want to get started on it, go right on ahead. Otherwise, I'll be sure to get to it before long.--Jpcase (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts on the new "Broadcast history" section? --Khanassassin ☪ 17:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a good start! It would still be good to mention that the series aired as a part of the Cartoon Cartoon Fridays programming block, if any references can be found. Also, what would you think about moving the paragraph on marathons into this section and then creating a "Shorts" sub-section under Other Media, between "Publications" and "Film"? --Jpcase (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added a short sentence about CCF to the section and still think that it would be worth moving the marathons information there. I don't want to do this until I've gotten your opinions on it though, so let me know what you think. --Jpcase (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It would make sense, but the marathon section is not complete, I've found info about other marathons on the internet, but haven't yet took the time to include it. I know I could add the remaining info about marathons after the sections are merged, but it's kind of easier to navigate when there's a separate section, so please wait until I finish the section up. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 12:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good! :) --Jpcase (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Alrighty, I think I'm done with the marathon section (I believe Toon Zone might have had some interesting info, but it's "unreliable", so forget it), so I've merged the info with the "Broadcast history" section. Although there is some info to be added to that section as well. --Khanassassin ☪ 18:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I made a few changes, one of which I'll explain in more detail here. As I noted in my edit summary, this reference [15] doesn't necessarily state that the "Cartoon Cartoon Marathon Weekend" was an annual event (though I understand why you thought that it did). According to this article [16], 2000's end-of-summer marathon was actually titled "Cartoon, Cartoon's Voice Your Choice Weekend". Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything detailing 2001's end-of-summer marathon, although there clearly must have been one. What's the new information that you think should be added to the section? Also, do you have any objections against me moving the Shorts sub-section into the Other Media section, as I proposed above? --Jpcase (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Cartoon Network tended to use several names for their marathons back in those days. The 2000 marathon was also titled "The Big Pick",[17] the 2001 marathon was called "The Big Pick II (or 2)" and "The Big Pick Show",[18][19][20] and both marathons were referred to as the "Big Pick Weekend".[21][22] Here's another link detailing the 2001 summer ratings for the network, although EEnE isn't mentioned specifically.[23] Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 01:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad to have that clarified. There's something strange that I've noticed though. This article [24] states that an end-of-summer marathon also ran in 1999 and in this case, it really was an annual event in its third year. However that would mean that Cartoon Network did these marathons for at least six consecutive years; not three as was stated in this article [25]. Am I missing some fine point or do you think that one of the articles simply made a mistake? --Jpcase (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Both sources are accurate. The 2002 AWN article states, "For the third year in a row, Cartoon Network will wrap up summer with a weekend-long marathon of original animation." The marathons in fact ran in November of 1997 and 1998 and in late August from 1999 to 2002. Considering these dates, it's possible that the author could've meant to say "fourth year", as four of them did fall in the summertime, but I have another idea. The CCW changed significantly beginning with the 2000 marathon due to a larger focus on original shorts showcased. Also, it was the first marathon that featured cartoon characters "hosting" and the likelihood of at least one of the shorts being made into a full series. With all of these changes in mind, combined with the variations in title, I can see why the author would've said that. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The article now says that Ed, Edd n Eddy aired only as part of the 1999 and 2002 Cartoon Cartoon marathon. And I'm pretty sure it didn't get ignored during the '00 and '01 marathons. --Khanassassin ☪ 15:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Reminder

Just leaving this message as a self-(or co-editor)-reminder: Publications such as Los Angeles Times and Animation World Network/Magazine have written articles including information about Ed, Edd n Eddy marathons not mentioned in this article. AWN also mentioned some interesting "museum" information, if I recall correctly - and that could be added to the accolades / legacy section. The specials also had a lot of other re-airings. If I recall, Animation Insider had some similar interesting info. --Khanassassin ☪ 17:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Jump in views

In previous months, views have been jumping from the average 2,500 views to 4,000 and then going back down, but yesterday the views jumped to nearly 20,000. Anybody knows why? --Khanassassin ☪ 11:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That's really weird. Maybe Cartoon Network did a re-broadcast of the movie or something? I don't know.

By the way, sorry for disappearing recently. I've been out of town and will be at least until the end of the week. Unfortunately, my laptop is broken, so while I still have occasional access to a computer, I probably won't be able to do much on here until I get back. We'll see. --Jpcase (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Smosh source (comment copied from Antonucci article)

The article says that the Smosh duo themselves listed it on their website as a cartoon that needs a reboot, when in reality it was just a writer that writes for Smosh Pit, a section of their website for user-submitted content. Frankly, that is such a lousy link farm article that it makes Kotaku look like quality journalism. I have removed the reference altogether, but if anyone thinks it would be relevant, they should specify who exactly gave the accolade. EmperorFishFinger (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That reference always seemed kind of trivial to me, but I figured that it was technically notable enough for inclusion, even if just barely. I hadn't realized until now though, that it wasn't actually written by Smosh. Seeing as though it was just user-submitted content, I don't see any reason for having it mentioned in the article. Thanks for catching that. --Jpcase (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

According to User:Khanassassin, the articles on Smosh Pit are actually written by staff members. If so, then I suppose that they would be acceptable for use after all. I'm not familiar with the website myself, so could either of you provide evidence for your respective viewpoints? --Jpcase (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

As a user, a cannot post articles; Desi, a professional freelance writer and performer (see external links at the bottom of the page for more information), can, as part of the staff. --Khanassassin ☪ 11:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That link simply calls her a writer and then names a couple of unfinished projects as examples. I don't see anything about her being a professional freelancer. Still, the website doesn't seem to say anything about users being allowed to post articles on Smosh Pit, so I'm willing to take your word that they can't. --Jpcase (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for pointing that out. I didn't think to look at the links.

P.S. I would have preferred it had you made a new post below mine, rather than ammending your old one. It's definitely not a big deal and I hope I don't come across as critical or obnoxious for bringing it up, but WP:REDACT advises against the practice. It just muddles things up a bit, since now my comment isn't really applicable to yours anymore. --Jpcase (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)