Talk:Aaahh!!! Real Monsters/Archive 1

Archive 1

Uncategorized talk

It's "AAAHH!!! Real Monsters" not "AAAHH!!! Real Monsters!" --Wack'd About Wiki 14:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Does Danny Phantom really have a cult-following? The0208 00:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

No Rlk89 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How is this relevant to this discussion page? Not only do you break Wikipedia's 'no forum' rules but you discuss a completely unrelated topic. Eatspie (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikified...Removed unneeded linksEagle (talk) (desk) 05:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

We need a disambiguation page for David Eccles. Krumm's voicer is alive and well in Los Angeles. Gil 01:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Should it be noted that after it's end in 1998 that it still appeared in the early 2000s around halloween? --HurricaneJeanne 07:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "The Gromble's speech pattern is similar to the character "Him" from the Powerpuff Girls" -- Actually, both characters are directly based on the Chief of the Blue Meanies from the movie 'Yellow Submarine' (See description of "Him" in The Powerpuff Girls wiki). Suggest change to "The Gromble's voice and appearance resemble those of the Chief of the Blue Meanies in Yellow Submarine." 76.167.151.82 22:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ages of Ickis, Krumm and Oblina, anyone? Just thought I would mention something I noticed. (first time posting on wiki, so apoloies if this format is wonky.) Apparently the lead characters are many decades old, despite being "kids" as seen in action. A couple of the earlier episodes have photos of the three of them noted with the date they were taken. For example: in Krumm Goes Hollywood he flips over a photo that was noted on the back with "Us at the tar pits 1928" and in the photo they look identical in perceived age as they do in the actual episodes. This makes me wonder if monsters in this series were supposed to be seen as having incredibly long lifespans. Also, it shows that the three of them have been friends for a very long time. Although, I don't know if there is some part in the series that explains that monsters follow the same calendar year or not. However, seeing as how they speak English well enough to pass for humans in many cases an even read human dictionaries, I don't see why they couldn't be on the same calendar year. Hope this helps somewhat. Thanks! 24.1.19.128 (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)mixmadmen

Also, it is notable that Ickis has a fascination with human culture, creations, and even humans themselves. He has made friends with more humans than just Bradley alone. For instance, he became friends with the kind blind man "Mr. Robinson" in the episode Monster Blues, who agreed to let Ickis come to visit him in the future. This fascination has also driven him to try his hand at recreating things such as TV sets, and even watching old western movies. As a side note on that, this series did actually utilize live action clips of real people in an old western theme for the episode Fistful of Toenails. Additionally, Ickis seems to have an ear for human music, despite the Snorch's use of human music for torture. Most notably (and to the best of my knowledge, as there may be more,) Ickis enjoys the Rock, Punk, and Blues genres, These were introduced in that order, too. This fascination always ends up getting his friends and himself in a great deal of trouble, making it a convenient plot device. However, I do believe that this also does play a key element in a very subtle (and somewhat cheezy and cliche) moral of the series that you cannot always judge a book by its cover, as people (or in this case monsters) are not always as they seem. 24.148.17.205 (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)mixmadmen

Title needs to be corrected to Aaahh!!! Real Monsters

The correct title is Aaahh!!! Real Monsters. All three words were capitalized in the opening credits, so there is no logical reason to have only "Aaahh" in capitals here. Nickelodeon's own Nickelopedia has the title listed as Aaahh!!! Real Monsters - http://www.nickelodeon.com.au/blammo/nicklo/nicklo_a.html which is the way is should be written here. 172.132.245.31 16:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC) ~No? The sites the same as Wikipedia.Rlk89 01:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A source that could be used: Jerry Beck's Not Just Cartoons: Nicktoons!

I found a book in the bookstore called Not Just Cartoons: Nicktoons! by Jerry Beck. I'm not going to buy it and join the project, but I will ask the other members to get the book so that they can add real world information about various fictional characters.

This makes the creation of separate articles for *many* fictional characters feasible. Having information about the development of the character will make the articles satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish they would put "Aaahh!!! Real Monsters" back on the Air!

The show was out on Tv even before I was born.I heard there was shoes from the show and I want them!I like the show "Rugrats" but they canceled "Aaahh!!! Real Monsters" for the show "Rugrats" on air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.79.77 (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yay, someone just like me^^

The Dvds can be bought, I've loved this show ever since I was a kid^^ ----MinaBlues 20:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ratings

Added tag for WikiProject Television and ratings. Feel free to change. JimVC3 (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Japan? Jappanese Dub? MOVIE?!

under the Character info, it says the origional voice, and the Japanese Dub. But I don't see anything about it being released to Japan anywhere... Really? Japan? Where? And about the movie... is there any proof of that? That it was in fact, "too dark"? (Finding out about that movie...that just reuined my day, you have no idea.) ----MinaBlues 20:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Excessive detail in "Characters" section

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not just a dumping ground for personal interpretation of character traits and restatements of claims from the promotional websites of the television show or the episodes. Third party analysis is required to place information in context and to interpret impact in the real world. There are plenty of places to create fansites to go into however much detail and personal discovery that you would like, but that place is not the Wikipedia article. Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A character section is important. However blanking the section is not going to help it.Kelzorro (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"A character section is important" - based on what do you make that blanket claim? Active Banana (^bananaphone 01:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Get over yourself, it's about the tv show and it seems silly to not have since I don't know, it helps to know the damn characters. And there's an official site with them, the creators of the show Clasky Csupo.Kelzorro (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

And we have the official link to the site where anyone who is interested in that detail can find it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - just because we can find information doesnt mean it is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You can be butthurt all you want man, but just because you deem it is as worthless info doesn't mean other people do. It's about the show and I don't consider you credible at all since the very same site you mention is the one you claimed wasn't an official source.Kelzorro (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You have been warned about being civil and not making personal attacks. Please stop.

Regarding the site, either way the content is not appropriate for the article - either it is not sourced to a reliable source or it is right there avaialable on the official source - the result is the same: There is no need to include content in this article that no third party has found worthy of discussing in a meaningful way. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Boohoo, I'm not going to argue with you. You've been warned about removing content from articles for no apparent reason, so don't try and flash anything here. You want civility? Then stop trying to be an elitist and removing content from articles. That site is owned by the creators of the show.Kelzorro (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"no apparent reason" - where do you come up with that? I have outlined the reasons in the edit summaries and specifically restated them above. Just because crap exists on the web, even in reliable sources, does not, repeat NOT mean that we need to include it in the Wikipedia article. It is up to you to provide a valid explanation of how the content that you wish to include improves the encyclopedic content of the article for a reader. You have not done that, you have simply attacked me and ignored my reasons for removal. So now is your chance to do your part. How does the character list data, all available elsewhere on the web improve the article about the Aaahh!! Real Monsters encyclopedia article? Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you go and ask all the other articles that do the same? Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Having a list of characters and a short bio is perfectly ok. You're the one who needs to stop going around and blanking article sections, and i've seen that you've done it before. Kelzorro (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because other articles are crappy and dont follow the proper encyclopedic content requirement is not a suitable reason to allow crappy non-encyclopedic content in this article. Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Your superficial attitude doesn't determine what the standards of an article. But please, continue trolling more and more, but don't expect me to feed you. if you can not think of a legit reasons, I suggest you leave the article alone otherwise I am reporting you.Kelzorro (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You have already been told to not attack other editors. Please stop and discuss the article contents and the Wikipedia policy guidelines that support your position. Seeing that you have not yet provided anything to support your position, and I have, I am once again removing the trivia. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

And I've added it back. Unless you have a "real" reason to remove it, then I suggest you leave it alone. I've posted the official site, but just because you think the info is trivia doesn't mean it's the same for someone else. So no.Kelzorro (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And I have posted "real" reasons: its random information that does not support a readers actual understanding ot the topic of the series, it is personal opinion and interpretation that is not supported by third party sources, and wikipedia is not a fansite to recreate detailed character lists that are easily available upon clicking to the official site. Your position however, is NOT a valid position for keeping Wikipedia content. Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And yet you've been warned before about removing content without discussing it.Kelzorro (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"not discussing it"???? what do you call the multiple multiple paragraphs above? It has been thoroughly discussed with actual wikipedia guidelines to support the removal. It is the burden of the person wishing to add or return content to supply the appropriate third party sources to support any challenged claims. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And I suppose removing it and keeping it similar to other articles is supposed to be grand? Get over it, you do not speak for the entire Wikipedia community. Just removing info just because you see fit doesn't help anything and in my eyes, it's vandalism.Kelzorro (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, the fact that we have 3 million articles and some (many) do not meet our standards and criteria is NOT a valid reason to keep another one in an unsatisfactory condition. Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And also AGAIN discuss article content, not contributors. What you consider vandalism is essentially irrelevant: Wikipedia's definition of vandalism is what matters. Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

someone who vandalizes an article with no other motive other than trolling? Yup. Kelzorro (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

And yet again, random name calling is not a policy or guideline based reason. Please provide such for your edits and stop violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL so that you dont get blocked. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Look, neither of us are getting anywhere with this. Why don't we just discuss a better way to handle this than bicker like children.Kelzorro (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The way to handle it is to follow wikipedia guidelines. I have provided multiple guidelines multiple times to support my version. You, on the other hand are simply reverting and name calling. When you provide Wikipedia guideslines to support an alternative to my guideline backed version, then we will be able to move forward. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but this isn't a one sided world. So unless you have a more definite argument, then I don't think so.Kelzorro (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This particular conversation IS a one sided world: My side with guidelines and policies, and yours without. Now please privide some Wikipedia based rationale to your position or revert yourself to bring the article back into better compliance with Wikipedia policies. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

To bring a third voice into the discussion: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (television)#Cast information does allow for a listing of "Main characters" and "recurring characters." This information must, of course, be properly footnoted and, while the manual of style certainly allows appropriate in-universe material to establish who each character is and what place each character occupies in context, should also include relevant real-world context such as quotes by the show's writers/producers on how they see a character. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

thank you for clarifying. it's what i've been trying to tell this guy, but arguing with stubborness doesn't get anywhere. he's been constantly blanking the page for no apparent reason without bothering to clean the article up instead.Kelzorro (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Just trying to help. Please, though ... I'm asking that we all keep this discussion more civil. Aside from anything else, phrases like "arguing with stubbornness" gets people defensive, and that simply prolongs discussion unnecessarily. I'm sure we've all got work / school / family and don't have the time to get into needlessly lengthy or acrimonious discussions. Polite and simply is just more practical and pleasant — trust me on this. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

And please state the facts - i have been reducing the section to the main characters, as the guidelines indicate is a potentially acceptable. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the guidelines allow for allow for both "Main characters" and "recurring characters." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"This section can be listed in several ways. Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that really belongs in the plot summary; instead, focus on real world information on the characters and actors. It can sometimes be appropriate to bypass the use of a cast section altogether. To balance this, the relevant in-universe information can be presented in the plot section of the article with actor names listed beside their relevant characters as "(ACTOR)", while the real world information can be presented in a "Casting" subsection under "Production".

Whether main or recurring, the current content is EXACTLY what the guidelines say shouldnt be in an article. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. The list is way too long, and I don't believe that more than six characters fit the bill as main / recurring. I would remove all but the three kids, headmaster the Gromble, his aide-de-camp Zimbo (being being by Tim Curry helps add notability) and Simon. And we're completely in agreement that there should be third-party commentary about them by TV critics, etc.. I do think a descriptive sentence or two each is necessary, particularly as these are made-up creatures.

Otherwise, I'm all for removing the rest. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've placed what I hope will be a compromise version, which can be fleshed-out with third-party cites. I would ask Kelzorro to please not call other editors' good faith edits "vandalism." Let's dial down the discussion and speak civilly, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Channel 4

Started On 31st October 1997 and Ended On 31st October 2003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.79.93 (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the supposed film

So is there any actual evidence that a film was even planned, much less cancelled for being "too dark"? I can't find anything about it from anything approaching a primary source. Seems to be apocryphal. If so, mention of a film should be purged from the article, no?

It should and will be kept off until an actual source can be cited.

It's absolutely a fan created rumor. NO evidence exists. None. Onepiece226 (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Fredrick Zowski? =

In similar regards to the above discussion about the movie, has anyone found sources for the animator "Fredrick Zowski"? Googling his name in quotations from the years from 1999 to 2016 yields absolutely no results, leading me to believe that his involvement in the series is just another rumor to lend credence towards the fan rumor. --Jordan R D (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Syndication?

Did this ever get into syndication? I seem to recall watching it well after 1997, in the Twin Cities metro area. Sumanuil (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Argument for rewrite of article

The rewrite is necessary to make it more readable to the average person who may be overwhelmed with excessive paragraphs and to assign the correct topics to the correct headings. For example, in the 'plot' section where the second it refers to the show itself and its location, doesn't stick to the main show plot idea.YenOfVengerberg (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Go for it. Aoi (青い) (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Mismatched information in 1st Paragraph and Infobox

The artical is mostly okay, content-wise, but the 1st paragraph and the infobox contain information about something called, "8 Out Of 10 Cats Does Rory Little 124". 67.246.43.229 (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)