Talk:Scrappy-Doo

message: Eh, I just watched Scooby-Doo on ABC Family tonight, they gave Scrappy-Doo's name as Scrappy Cornelius Doo (spelled out that way in the closed captioning as well). --Geopgeop 05:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Movie appearance

message: It is not accurate to credit toned down Scrappy to the Superstars 10 movies. This happened years earlier in the New Scooby Mysteries Series. by that year Scrappy often paired up with Daphne and both were clearly altered, Scrappy not being as gung-ho and more logical and Daphne showing herself to be more strong-willed. This was obvious in hindsight to let Scooby and Shaggy go off and do their usual gags and have Daphne and Scrappy play off each other since the previous two series always had Shaggy and Scooby having to chase after and stop Scrappy.
Plus in 13 ghosts Scrappy is clearly still less hyper-active and more playing to a mix of Daphne and Flim Flam. By the time of the SUperstars 10, the trend of Scrappy being super brave going at every monster was pretty much non-existent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.163 (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Toning down happened much earlier

message: This article unfairly promotes the idea of the Scrappy promo being against his character directly. This is blatantly ignoring the two other ptomos originating from this time. One staring Yogi Bear not being able to get into an office and Ugh giving Double D a tour. All three of these were all apart of Cartoon Network poking fun of itself for slowly showing more and more of their own characters and less of the original characters that made up most of their lineup in the 90s. Scrappy in that case could have been being made out to be disliked himself or instead one of many who were being forced out. This of course hilarious in hindsight when the Cartoon Cartoons had the same thing happened to them. This article should be more fair in it's wording. As of right now it promotes a conspiracy and ignores the context of that bumper. This will give people who did not live through the time a bias impression that the promo was specifically to lampoon Scrappy, which doesn't hold up with the context. As that would be in favor of the Scrappy being a representation rather than a target.
While unless you have some kind of proof to say specifically they did, which i see nothing other than then just saying it was. Without that all you have to go on is the context, which would mean you have no actual argument. How can two other similar commercials make Scrappy a target? No one is shouting Ugh the caveman and Yogi Bear suffered the same thing. If Scrappy's promo was a target, shouldn't they be in the exact same boat. This is a slippery slope that doesn't allow any fairness. I would expect more homework on this from an encylopedia.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.163 (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Context needed on Cartoon Network bumper

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Scrappy-Doo's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "BarberaAutoBio":
From William Hanna: 
From The Flintstones: 
From Jonny Quest (TV series): 
From The Smurfs (TV series): 
From Joseph Barbera: 
From List of works produced by Hanna-Barbera Productions: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Scrappy-Doo]] 

message: Not notable enough for a standalone article; character already covered in the merger target DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Scrappy-Doo (live-action film)]] into [[Scrappy-Doo#Scooby-Doo Live Action Movie (2002)]] 

message: This is really messy. Its a convoluted and unclear explanation which doesn't bring much to the article. At the end I was wondering if 1500 is a lot of not. How did it compare to other shows? Beyondheat (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Heim/Jump The Shark site 

message: Saw this linked on Popbitch, so am posting it here as it might be of interest. The Scrappy-Doo Wikipedia mystery by Amelia Tait Ericoides (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I just encountered that essay via twitter and came here to post the link as well, . Kind of fascinating to read the story behind the edits. Schazjmd (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrappy-Doo Wikipedia mystery 

message: Smcupcake19, your last edit summary directed to me said "Check the talk page" - I see nothing here in the talk page to justify your plot summaries.  You need to convince other editors - especially as you've been reverted at least once regarding this - that your contributions are valid and should stay.  Please do that here, because at the moment I see no reason to include them and as such challenge their validity.  It looks as though ImaginesTigers holds a similar viewpoint, so that's two editors who have concerns.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ferret is expressing the same concerns above, too. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 10:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've additionally highlighted copyvio issues. Either way, the plot of films and shows belong in the articles of those films and shows, not a character article. -- ferret (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Please explain to me why a page being too long would be a problem. Smcupcake19 (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can refer to WP:CRUFT as a good starting place. Plenty of policies have been cited for the removal of the content. Please don't re-add it, especially when there are potentially copyright issues with the material. A group of editors are indicating that the material you've been gathering is out of place on this article; much of it poorly referenced (citations must be from reliable sources and verifiable). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

text:  I'll look. But this isn't over.Smcupcake19 (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Article size. We have an entire guideline on article length. Experienced editors have already explained the issues to you. You may find editing on Fandom is a better endeavor. Not all content is suitable for Wikipedia. -- ferret (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

text: "An article longer than one or two pages when printed should be divided into sections to ease navigation (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Layout for guidance). For most long articles, division into sections is natural anyway. Readers of the mobile version of Wikipedia can be helped by ensuring that sections are not so long or so numerous as to impede navigation." Have I not done that? And I plan on adding citations, Amazon/TubiTV. And I believe Scrappy-Doo passes the pokemon test.--Smcupcake19 (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Interpretation of a policy doesn't matter when the material added to trigger the policy is itself invalid.  You're adding poorly written, badly sourced potential copyvio.  Until that issue itself is resolved there is no point speculating over the results and how the material will affect the article.  At the moment there is a broad consensus not to include it, ergo the issue of article size is a moot point.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Theoretically speaking, if I cited everything (and I am fully willing to) would it pass muster? And under what grounds is it poorly written? Smcupcake19 (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

text:  There should NOT be any copyright violations, since I wrote all of these myself-if you find any that were not by me, you feel free to remove them, but there should not be as I remember it. Those are my property and you can check the net for those summaries, but you won't find any of mine elsewhere, unless (which I have no problem with!) someone liked my work enough to copy/paste onto their own wiki, which again is not problematic in any respect, because it would be easy to see that this only happened after I wrote them, and because you are allowed to surrender your own property to the public! Since I wrote them, it's up to me to decide if I want Wikipedia to use them, and obviously, I do, since I wrote them with that very purpose in mind. If anything that was prewritten got in there, feel free to remove it, but "guilty until proven innocent" is a pretty poor standard to uphold. You yourself admitted you didn't want to check and assumed I lifted them. I do not think that I am the one at fault in that situation, and I don't appreciate being accused of copyright violations because you don't want to bother to be thorough. Also, these problems are only popping up very recently. I took the liberty of finding the source for the page with my summaries and fed it to a plagiarism checker, the results were exactly what I expected-wikipedia and sights like WikiZero (that Wikipedia "feeds"). I have no problem with people doing that. I want people to do that. But I did not copy off of people. I understand that you have a real-life and that it would be hard to do so, but that is not an acceptable reason to accuse me of something I didn't do. Nothing would make that acceptable. Nothing. I edited completely undisturbed when I added this-none of the other editors immediately resorted to mass deletion and I assume there was no consensus to do so-speaking of consensus, check the history and you'll find that there was no consensus in the abrupt removal of my content. If I am at fault for suddenly reinserting my content, then so is the person who randomly decided to remove it since I added it without any objection, then there should have been a consensus to remove it in the first place.Smcupcake19 (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: But you are guilty of copyright violations. You have been warned about it several times. I found that you reinserted more after Diane warned and removed some from October. It's your IP, not someone else. I've specifically reviewed the diffs where you added it, and I assure you, I'm well aware of how to search for copyright violation without getting tripped by Wikipedia mirror sites. It's not all of the content, or even a majority, but there's bits and pieces all over taken from official episode descriptions. Even if there was no immediate consensus to remove the content as inappropriate at the very beginning, one has since developed. This is not how articles on Wikipedia should be written, with massive amounts of plot crammed into a character page, no matter how many months it went unnoticed. It's far more than would be appropriate for most "List of xyz TV show episodes" even. -- ferret (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aight, let's start off with the response to saturation, then copyright. I'm open to moving them to a subpage or fleshing out the full summaries for the TV appearances. So, where is this site that I copied off of?I did my best to keep my work original when I found out-which was quite early at the start of my endeavor. Yeah, there was a brief time when I found some summaries someone had done and tried to incorporate them in, but when I found out it was against the rules, I went back to handwritten summaries that were the same size but no violations. Smcupcake19 (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not listening. Why would we want you to expand and flesh them out further? We're telling you they are excessive already, far too much detail. The sites have already been posted in this discussion, and you did not stop inserting them back in 2020, even if they aren't a majority of the content. -- ferret (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You are saying that I inserted copyrighted summaries and reinserted them. But I didn't. After they were removed, I did not reinsert them. Instead, I wrote my own so that I would not have to break the rules by reinserting them. I focused on your accusations of copyright violations because they were a result of incomplete investigation on your part and undeserved on my part. Now, on to the main issue. What would be acceptable for Scrappy's character biography? Smcupcake19 (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't see any need to engage further at this time. My investigation was not incomplete nor undeserved. I reviewed the individual diffs where you added them as well as the fact they were still in the article when removed. I do not make such lightly. Do not restore the past content. -- ferret (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended plot summaries 

message: If it pleases everybody, I would like to re-appeal for the restoration of these summaries. I have read through some policies at your behest, and I have found this:
=== Did I violate copyright? ===
You claimed that "several" of my summaries were copyright violations. I have only found 3 out of 183 animated stories that are from fandom which does not, in any world, sound like "several", nor does it warrant a removal en masse. Now that these have my attention,  Of a few copyright issues and would happily write my own as I have done for many others. It certainly is not enough to qualify as "several" copyright violations as you put it. I intended to write about Scrappy, and I shall make sure to do that to completion.
=== Were My Edits Valid?===
Now let's get to your first complaint-that my edits were unnecessary. But let's see what the rules themselves have to s
:"Of course, as Wikipedia is a wiki, its materials can be said to reflect readers' priorities, since anyone may add more information about their preferred subjects and become an editor." -Wikipedia:Fancruft
:Scrappy had a Wikipedia page, I wanted to help it grow. That was my priority. Now I won't deny that Wikipedia has other things to say about this, so I shall acknowledge them and continue to debate for my point.
:Although, the issue of systemic bias is a real one, as is the issue of bias in the form of deletion of verifiable material on the vague grounds of it being "unencyclopedic." - Wikipedia:Fancruft
:In one fell swoop it strikes against my case and yours. Now. Let's counter the main problem you have-
=== Were my edits original research? ===
The summaries, being the recounting of a piece of media focused on Scrappy, are not of my invention since I am summarizing the stories. I do my best to stay objective and did not want to start a discussion forum. Thus, I can only presume that the first is your option-original research. Am I guilty of original research? Well, by your own rules:
The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. I believe I performed the latter to satisfaction. If I am wrong, then you may say so and I will fix it with the source of the page with the edits that I have saved.
Are my sources reliable?
:My sources are of the episodes themselves, which has caused some complaints I believe. Scrappy's story is embedded in the stories, and I believe in this context it's justifiable.
You claim that I have committed the misdemeanor of original research, but have I really? 
"material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research." What better source then the episodes themselves? And Wikipedia itself does not have entirely bad things to say about primary sources.
These primary sources have advantages: they were written at the time, and so are free of the opinions and fictions imposed by later generations. They also have disadvantages: the proclamation might contain propaganda designed to pacify the conquered country, or omit politically inconvenient facts, or overstate the importance of other facts, or be designed to stroke the new ruler's ego. The diary will reflect the prejudices of its author, and its author might be unaware of relevant facts. 
The accounts of Scrappy's appearances are a good source of Scrappy's biography. And since they are the story itself that means it's not biased.
I have done as is prescribed. If they need citations, I shall add it. If they need more work, I shall add it. Wikipedia does not recommend removing something en masse.
Smcupcake19 (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What's appropriate for a fictional character biography is a brief summary style overview of who the character is and his defining traits. It is not an exhaustive list of everything that's ever happened to them. A summary for every episode that Scrappy Doo appears in is inappropriate for inclusion on this article. I highly recommend going to Fandom, where you can include everything you want to in exhaustive detail (that fans of the franchise will actually appreciate). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "This does not go on forever: very long articles would cause problems and should be split." In fact, what I have seen wikipedia should not be cut. You, ImaginesTigers, didn't do that, did you? You cut it all out. If you had a problem with that, you should have fixed the problem or left a note. You immediately cut a very large amount of information on a wikipedia page, and after someone else put it back in, citing "removal of useful content", you put it back-the very thing that I have been accused of for trying to reverse what you did. I think if we're going to discuss what should or shouldn't be done on Wikipedia, everything about the case at hand should be reviewed.71.84.97.108 (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not disruptively blank the talk page contents again. You have also been warned about editing logged out. Continued disruption will result in being blocked from editing. -- ferret (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. Would you please address the rest of my issues? Smcupcake19 (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nothing further to say. You're making the same arguments that have already been refuted in the end. I'm not going to endlessly repeat with you about the unattributed fandom copying (Well over 3) and copyvio issues where multiple (more than 3) official descriptions were still in. This is simply not appropriate content for Wikipedia and far too detailed. I'm not a hostage that has to reply each time you repeat your arguments and ask again for us to reply. -- ferret (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

text: @Smcupcake19 and @Spacebabe51, if you have a beef against Fandom or don't want to look at the ads, Mirahize will let you create your wiki, and you can describe fictional in minute detail to your heart's content. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 14:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very sorry about that. I'll argue on my own two feet from now on. The specifics are being argued out on the OR noticeboard, so, you're good! I was anxious because I wanted to keep the discussion alive. Smcupcake19 (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration Appeal 

message: The summaries, being the recounting of a piece of media focused on Scrappy, are not of my invention since I am summarizing the stories. I do my best to stay objective and did not want to start a discussion forum. Thus, I can only presume that the first is your option-original research. Am I guilty of original research? Well, by your own rules:
The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. I believe I performed the latter to satisfaction. If I am wrong, then you may say so and I will fix it with the source of the page with the edits that I have saved.
Are my sources reliable?
:My sources are of the episodes themselves, which has caused some complaints I believe. Scrappy's story is embedded in the stories, and I believe in this context it's justifiable.
You claim that I have committed the misdemeanor of original research, but have I really? 
"material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research." What better source then the episodes themselves? And Wikipedia itself does not have entirely bad things to say about primary sources.
These primary sources have advantages: they were written at the time, and so are free of the opinions and fictions imposed by later generations. They also have disadvantages: the proclamation might contain propaganda designed to pacify the conquered country, or omit politically inconvenient facts, or overstate the importance of other facts, or be designed to stroke the new ruler's ego. The diary will reflect the prejudices of its author, and its author might be unaware of relevant facts. 
The accounts of Scrappy's appearances are a good source of Scrappy's biography. And since they are the story itself that means it's not biased.
I have done as is prescribed. If they need citations, I shall add it. If they need more work, I shall add it. Wikipedia does not recommend removing something en masse.
Smcupcake19 (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What's appropriate for a fictional character biography is a brief summary style overview of who the character is and his defining traits. It is not an exhaustive list of everything that's ever happened to them. A summary for every episode that Scrappy Doo appears in is inappropriate for inclusion on this article. I highly recommend going to Fandom, where you can include everything you want to in exhaustive detail (that fans of the franchise will actually appreciate). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "This does not go on forever: very long articles would cause problems and should be split." In fact, what I have seen wikipedia should not be cut. You, ImaginesTigers, didn't do that, did you? You cut it all out. If you had a problem with that, you should have fixed the problem or left a note. You immediately cut a very large amount of information on a wikipedia page, and after someone else put it back in, citing "removal of useful content", you put it back-the very thing that I have been accused of for trying to reverse what you did. I think if we're going to discuss what should or shouldn't be done on Wikipedia, everything about the case at hand should be reviewed.71.84.97.108 (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not disruptively blank the talk page contents again. You have also been warned about editing logged out. Continued disruption will result in being blocked from editing. -- ferret (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. Would you please address the rest of my issues? Smcupcake19 (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nothing further to say. You're making the same arguments that have already been refuted in the end. I'm not going to endlessly repeat with you about the unattributed fandom copying (Well over 3) and copyvio issues where multiple (more than 3) official descriptions were still in. This is simply not appropriate content for Wikipedia and far too detailed. I'm not a hostage that has to reply each time you repeat your arguments and ask again for us to reply. -- ferret (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

text: @Smcupcake19 and @Spacebabe51, if you have a beef against Fandom or don't want to look at the ads, Mirahize will let you create your wiki, and you can describe fictional in minute detail to your heart's content. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 14:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very sorry about that. I'll argue on my own two feet from now on. The specifics are being argued out on the OR noticeboard, so, you're good! I was anxious because I wanted to keep the discussion alive. Smcupcake19 (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were my edits original research? 

message: Cross posting a discussion that was not listed here: Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Scrappy_Doo_Biography -- ferret (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion elsewhere

message: I attempted to make an edit on Scrappy appearing in boomerang reruns, but was denied as apparently this is a primary source. Since I obtained these from the "shows that have been aired on boomerang" page, this probably should be looked into. I also think that there should be some kind of consensus since this is an entirely new and simple addition.
--Smcupcake19 (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isn't about when shows reaired, especially non-notable reairring on a channel dedicated to reairring older cartoons. At best, as I said in the revert, it could maybe be mentioned on the pages for the shows, but we're not going to list every time a show or movie that Scrappy appeared in has been aired. -- ferret (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boomerang Reairings 

message: I’m not sure whether or not this is relevant but the website TVTropes.com includes a page titled The Scrappy (on popularly disliked characters) and characterises Scrappy Doo as the namesake of it. I’m not sure whether or not that fact is notable enough for us to put it in the main page or not. Thoughts? ~~ 198.200.115.29 (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: TVTropes is an unreliable source for Wikipedia, see WP:USERG. -- ferret (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  TVTropes