Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dcelano (talk | contribs) at 00:52, 18 December 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

	The Wiggles is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 31, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 18, 2007 Peer review Reviewed December 18, 2007 WikiProject peer review Reviewed January 18, 2008 Good article nominee Listed February 3, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted February 18, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 17, 2008 Peer review Reviewed April 17, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 24, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Australia: Television / Music High‑importance The Wiggles is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian music (assessed as High-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance). This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Template:LOCEcomplete

Archives

1, 2

Archive 1 - June 2005 to February 2008 Archive 2 - February 2008 to December 2009

Image improvement drive

One of the biggest weaknesses of this article (and other Wiggles-related articles) has been the images. I think that in the last couple of days, I've been able to accomplish much to remedy this situation, thanks to the donation of some pictures taken at concerts over the summer. I'm much happier with the images currently on this article, but it's not perfect--not yet. Below is my Wiggles image wishlist. Please add to it if you think of others.

• Big Red Car, with all four current members clearly shown, to replace the current infobox image. I like the idea of this depiction of The Guys in their infobox, but I'd like a clearer and better-quality image than the current one.

• Greg Page. For his bio article as well.

• "Finger-waving move". This has been a long-standing wish. I want this pose, but with all four guys. (I'm certain that the current image was taken when Anthony had the flu and had bowed out of the meet-and-greets, because that's exactly what happened when we attended the Spokane, WA concert in July.)

--Christine (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Since working on this article's images as described above, some additional frustrations occurred, mostly due to my ineptitude with images. It's my intention to address the issues that arose in the coming days. --Christine (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancies

I have found yet another possible discrepancy in this article. There seems to have a been a number of them, and as I've been able to find them, I've corrected them. The most recent one has to do with Greg Page's role in The Wiggles. The newest source, an article from CNN , states that Greg was a roadie for The Cockroaches, that Anthony and Murray met at Macquarie while training to become teachers. It also seems to suggest that they were teachers, not Greg. The 2006 New York Times article referenced in this article suggests that Greg was also a teacher, and that he met the other two at uni. That concerns me a bit, because to be frank, there has been many "facts" in the NYT article that have turned out to be plain wrong. I don't think the CNN article is clear enough to make any changes, though, and it may be incorrect about this as well. So if anyone finds any evidence regarding this issue, please bring it to our attention.

So the question that arises here, to summarize, is: Is Greg a teacher? Did he attend Macquarie to gain his early ed training? When exactly did he meet the other guys? Any help to clear up this discrepancy would be greatly appreciated. --Christine (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletion of Awards and nominations section

Performances artists generally have a section on their awards and nominations (or a link to an article with this information). Thus, I recently started such a section for the Wiggles and began with their 2007 APRA Award wins. I supplied two references for the material I added.

However the whole section was deleted/reverted with the following explanation (tranferred from my talkpage):

== ] ==

Hi, you might have noticed that I reverted your edit. I did it because the information was elsewhere in the article, and because the source you used isn't really appropriate. It's just the link to the APRA webpage, and says nothing about the actual award. The kicker part about it is, though, while I was in the middle of the revert, I literally had an edit conflict with an anonymous IP vandalizing the article again--and it was about poor Greg! Anyway, wanted to explain. --Christine (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My edit was:

==Awards and nominations== ===APRA-AGSC Awards=== The annual ] are presented by ] (APRA) and Australian Guild of Screen Composers (AGSC) for television and film scores and soundtracks.<ref name="APRAScreen"/> {{Awards table}} |- |rowspan="2"| ] || The Wiggles: ], ] , ], John Field, ] || International Achievement Award<small><ref name="SMAWin2007"/></small> || {{won}} |- | Cook, Fatt, Anthony Field, John Field, Page || Most Performed Screen Composer - Overseas<small><ref name="SMAWin2007"/></small> || {{won}} {{end}}

With the following references added in the specific section:

<ref name="APRAScreen">{{cite web | url = http://www.apra-amcos.com.au/APRAAwards/ScreenAwards.aspx | title = Screen Awards | publisher = ] (APRA) | accessdate = 28 April 2010 }}</ref> <ref name="SMAWin2007">{{cite web | url = http://www.apra-amcos.com.au/APRAAwards/ScreenAwards/History/2007Winners.aspx | title = 2007 Winners - Screen Music Awards | publisher = Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA) | accessdate = 2 May 2010 }}</ref>

Which is rendered as:

Awards and nominations

APRA-AGSC Awards

The annual Screen Music Awards are presented by Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA) and Australian Guild of Screen Composers (AGSC) for television and film scores and soundtracks.

References

1. "Screen Awards". Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA). Retrieved 28 April 2010.
2. ^ "2007 Winners - Screen Music Awards". Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA). Retrieved 2 May 2010.

Christine makes some claims in the statement above which I dispute:

Which, if you don't mind, I will respond to:

1. reverted because the information was elsewhere in the article"

The purpose of this section is to make it easier to find these awards & noms and not have to wade through so much text. It is unlikely that the article will specifically mention all of their awards and noms. This will be especially true when the whole list of awards and noms is formed: at some point editors may want to create a separate article from this section. One has to start somewhere and so I started with 2007 APRA Awards. The article currently states They won APRA song writing awards for Best Children's Song three times but does not specify when these awards occurred nor does the article show the APRA awards from 2007 that I had included above.

This is a featured article. Adding content that's half-finished decreases its quality. Perhaps a better way is to start the list in a sandbox, and when you complete it, you could add it. The WP MOS recommends that when possible, prose is a better choice than an embedded list. As a matter of fact, an old version of this article had a section, "Honours", but it was suggested way back in a peer review to make it into prose. The reason why the sentence you cite above isn't specific is that there were no reliable sources we found that stated them. It looks like you found it, so the information needs to be included. I will add it in the next day or so, I promise.

As indicated, I have no current intention of creating a List of awards and nominations received by The Wiggles page but felt that it was remiss of a Featured article on a performance artist to not include, at least, a wikilink to such an article or to ignore such important awards. Further work is sorely needed on both the prose and referencing of the existing descriptions of their APRAs and ARIAs.

2. because the source you used isn't really appropriate

In what way is APRA not an appropriate source for information on its awardees? Check footnote 7 where ARIA supplies information on its awardees: is this likewise not an appropriate source?

3. It's just the link to the APRA webpage, and says nothing about the actual award

The first source directs the reader to a greater description of the Screen Music Awards which are mentioned in the lead-in to the results table. This clearly describes what the awards are given for and by whom: they were awarded by APRA in conjunction with AGSC in November 2007.

The second source verifies what exactly the Wiggles actually won. 'International Achievement Award' and 'Most Performed Screen Composer - Overseas' for its members.

Taken together the two sources clearly indicate what awards were won, which organizations presented the Screen Music Awards and when it occurred.

Note: neither of these two APRA wins was for 'Best Children's Song'. Furthermore the current article's claim that the Wiggles won these awards is supported by the Wiggles website: is this an independent source?

Sorry, I misspoke. I think that the APRA webpage as a source for its awards is appropriate. I have no problem with the second reference, the actual list of winners. However, the first source is unnecessary. All that's required is a link to APRA's WP article, which I assume will have their webpage linked. Currently, it feels like an advertisement for APRA, which as I'm sure you're aware, WP is not. Again, we need to change the content in the prose. To answer your second question, APRA is the more reliable source, I believe, so the article should be edited to reflect it.

You'll need better references for the APRA wins for 'Best Children's Song': including the category titles as 'Childrens Composition of the Year' in 1994 for "Hot Potato" (see here) and 'Most Performed Children's Work' in 1996 for "Wake Up Jeff" (here). Note: I have not checked all of APRA's history for their other nominations/wins.

As for advertising APRA, I dispute your claim, the lead-in sentence describes the award giving bodies and the Screen Music Awards very briefly. The first reference supports this description as well as giving more details of the awarding process. In any case, if you're not using the awards table format/an embedded list then this Lead-in is not required and so this point is moot.

It is my contention that APRA is the appropriate source for information on APRA awards. Just the same as ARIA being the appropriate source for ARIA awards. Until a separate page is created for all their Awards and nominations I believe the above information should be returned to the article. At some point in the future a separate List of awards and nominations received by The Wiggles page can be created with a link left in the main article.--shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to create such an article, go right ahead. There are other lists associated with it. The standard practice is to create a section summarizing the honours in prose, so I'm not opposed to that. However, I oppose placing an embedded list in this article, for the reasons I described above. Thanks for your input, though; you found some missing but valuable information we can add to the article. --Christine (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave the creation of such an awards page for others: I was surprised that such a notable performance group did not already have one. While talking awards, why does note 7 only list four of The Wiggles nine ARIA wins? Why does the main text neglect the fact that The Wiggles are notable for winning and being nominated in the same category for the most times?

The main text claims In 2003, they received ARIA's Outstanding Achievement Award for their success in the US. but see here and here. ARIA seems to have left The Wiggles winning of the 2003 'Outstanding Achievement Award' from their summary lists! However, see text introduction to their 2003 list here. See also here where Andrew Denton is quoted when presenting the award to The Wiggles. These refs would be better than using The Wiggles own page to verify their award win. Also this award was for their early work (including as The Cockroaches) as well as their international success (not just US). With this added they have won nine ARIAs not eight! Hope I've helped rather than hindered.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've said, especially regarding The Wiggles being "a notable performance group". I'm just not used to that description being used in reference to The Guys in Misplaced Pages, the place it took four nominations before their article became FA! ;) I appreciate the references; they weren't included because I didn't know about 'em. That's what's great about WP, doncha know--where I fall short, other editors come around and fill in. The important thing is that this article is deserving of The Wiggles. So thanks again; I'll include the content in the next few days, if not before. --Christine (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Still pending?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Been a little busy; will take care of this in the next few days, I promise. Christine (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Early career - Non-contact of children

The reference to not touching children could probably do with a little clarification. Either that this rule was only enforced at the beginning of their careers, or it is only for official photo shoots. I was just watching Live Hot Potatoes with my daughter and at around the 20m 30s range, one of them is holding the shoulder of a boy in the audience. Not in any way does this look inappropriate, I just remembered reading this section yesterday, and thought it could do with re-writing/clarifying. No idea how to rewrite the sentence, or if people would consider this important enough to alter. --AntiSceptic (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anti, thanks for the input. I've noticed the same kind of thing myself. However, the information about this policy is well-sourced, and to change it based upon our observations of concerts and DVDs, I think, constitutes original research, something that's frowned upon in Misplaced Pages. Plus, it's a quote from Paul Paddick, who should know. That being said, though, I've found that many of the MSM articles written about The Guys through the years have been notoriously inaccurate. They need to do an interview correcting all the factual errors, gotten through reliable, third-party sources as required by Misplaced Pages, in their article. Next time you talk to Anthony Field, could you ask him to do that? ;) Anyway, thanks. BTW, please make sure that you put new conversations at the end of a talk page; it's easier to find that way. And it's convention here to only capitalize the first word in a heading. Christine (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. I'll try and remember how to add to talk pages correctly in the future, and I hadn't considered the issue of Original Research. AntiSceptic (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

JB

I have a question is JB a character on the Wiggles. --MikeySalinas17 (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, JB is a character specific to the Wiggly Waffle. Whether JB will make it into future Wiggles videos is uncertain; JB was not featured in Let's Eat, even though that had the Wiggly Waffle day of the week skits. Perhaps someone can add JB's involvement in Wiggly Waffle? AngusWOOF (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Children's group?

The first sentence is incorrect. It is not a "children's group," it is a group that entertains children. Nicmart (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with The Wiggles being described in that way. You could have just been WP:BOLD and made the change, and it probably wouldn't have been reverted, and it would've saved us all this time! Of course, this article has been a featured article since 2008, and no other editor or reviewer has ever had issues with it before. The Wiggles are a "children's group" like the Rolling Stones are a rock group, and no one takes issue with them being described that way, instead of "a group that entertains adults who enjoy rock music". Christine (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No one is likely to think that a "rock group" is a bunch of rocks singing, whereas groups of child singers are not uncommon. So I've changed it to "children's music group". Mitch Ames (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Greg's return

Everyone, I wanted to explain my edits yesterday but our electricity went out because of the major snow storm here before I could. I also made some other changes that had needed to happen for a while, which User: Mitch Ames graciously ce'ed for me. Notice that I changed the section heading; it parallels Van Halen, another group whose lead singer left and came back again. I've actually thought a lot about how we should handle this here. User:WLRoss made some edits that reflected some of the reporting in Aussie newspapers, which I reverted, and in the first potential WP:3RR in the history of this article, WLRoss reverted back.

It's my opinion that some of the reporting used in the contested additions is gossip. I think that this article should be treated as a WP:BLP, and the information added by WLRoss should be removed because it violates many BLP policies. The Advertiser may be a major newspaper in Australia, but the other source WLRoss used, Facebook, certainly is not. Christine (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article should follow BLP guidelines when referring to the individual people. (And it says so at the top of this talk page.) The first sentence of WP:BLP includes "... any Misplaced Pages page". I also agree that WLRoss's additions are not appropriate. I'm not sure that they breach BLP, but I do think that WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE apply - and both suggest that we do not need all those details.

Given the self-evident controversy, I've restored a couple of refs (Wiggle's web site and ABC story) that were previously removed. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Mitch. I keep flip-flopping on this issue, but I had forgotten about the two policies you mention. I think that restoring the ABC ref is fine, but The Wiggles ref violates WP:SPS. I know that this article cites their webpage, but for this issue, I think we should be a bit more strict about it. Christine (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a few concerns. A controversy was mentioned with nothing at all to indicate it's magnitude, which is obvious from a look at the public comments on their own website and Fields own apology, nor is there any explanation for what that controversy was. The statement "agreed to step aside" is the very definition of weasel words. It is obvious from the comments of all five that the media reporting is reasonably accurate. "Agreed" is PR spin. Something that comes up quite often in WP biographies is that the pages are not meant to be a fan site so we need to be careful with relying on the Wiggles PR releases for the details. As the event is recent I have no problem with leaving it to see what you guys can come up with. Wayne (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about cutting that weaselly sentence, so I went ahead and did it. Let's watch the news a little longer, and see what comes about, and see if we can make it better. Thanks for your help. Man, I am stressing out way too much about this! Wiggles on the brain! Well, more than usual anyway. ;) Christine (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI update. There was a full page in the paper, this is part of it. Apparently Anthony Field is not a people person, it's all business. Very sad. The rest of the page was childrens reactions (basically the kids recognise the colours and are not interested in the people wearing them) and financial organisation. The Red, Blue and purple Wiggles own 30% each, Paul Field (manager and Anthony's brother) 5% and Mike Conway (managing director) 5%. All the characters are owned by the Wiggles and the people who play them are all "hired hands". Wayne (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Everyone, I just reverted some edits regarding the reports about Greg's return being "temporary", for the same reason as the edits discussed above. I again refer to WP:BLP and WP:NOT#NEWS. I think we should hold off on including these statements until we're certain that they're true. When more sources substantiate them, or even better, Greg is re-replaced, we can add the information. Please discuss. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Greg's return - section heading

As mentioned above (#Greg's return), User:Figureskatingfan changed the section heading

As I state above, I was just following precedent--Van Halen, the only group I could think of where the lead singer leaves and comes back again later. Are there other groups, and if so, how does their articles handle it? Does anyone know of any group in which one of the members leave for health reasons, gets better, and returns? If so, we should follow that example. Christine (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Greg Page part owner - Sam Moran employee - Greg Page employee

Our article currently says that Greg Page returned as the Yellow Wiggle, replacing Sam Moran (who had earlier replaced Page when he retired due to ill health). WLRoss's version (which was later removed, and is the subject of #Greg's return above) quoted Anthony Field saying that "Sam ... was a hired hand". I think we should probably explicitly (and neutrally) mention that:

• Greg Page was originally a part-owner of the Wiggles, but sold his share after he retired in 2008.
• Sam Moran was an employee, not a part-owner
• Greg Page apparently rejoined as an employee; he did not buy back his share of the company.

Ie, he "returned" to his role as the Yellow Wiggle character, but not the co-owner of very profitable company.

Quoting The Weekend West: Stuart Washington (21–22 January 2012). "How Greg wiggled way back". The Weekend West. West Australian Newspapers Ltd. p. 11.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date format (link), which appears to be a cutdown copy of this article in the The Sydney Morning Herald

At its bluntest, Moran's departure provided an education in the difference between owner and worker ...

Moran was a worker.

... he left with contractual entitlements after earning a salary said to be $200,000 a year. He'll continue to collect song-writing royalties of between $60,000 and $100,000 a year.

...

By contrast, as a part-owner of the Wiggles, Page left with a payout believed to be about $20 million ...

Documents lodged with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission show he ceased to be an office holder in The Wiggles Pty Ltd in April 2008. He rejoins the group "exactly on the same level as Sam", according to Field.

"... there is a business side to this," Field said. "(Moran) was an employee. Greg is an employee. We are in debt - not to Greg, but to the bank. ...

"Sam's time came up and Greg was happy to go with what we're offering."

...

About his new arrangements - but not confirming whether he was simply returning as a salaried worker - Page would only say: "I go back in on a basis I'm happy with."

Any opinions on this? Suggestions as to wording? Do we have any other references that explicitly mention Page's status as co-owner and then employee? Mitch Ames (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly a separate section focussing on the business side of The Wiggles Pty Ltd" - including ownership and changes thereof - would be appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

These two articles--ref 10 and ref 11--are the two main articles about the business of The Wiggles. There's also information scattered throughout the article. We should add Greg's arrangements when he left and came back, and that Sam is receiving royalties as part of his severance package. I actually like the above article; it seems even-handed to me, so we should use some of it here. Regarding a new section, after thinking about it, I don't think it's necessary. Other articles, like The Rolling Stones and The Beatles don't have business sections. I don't think it's notable here, either; the only reason it's such an issue in the press is that we're talking about a kids' group and people are scandalised about the financial part of things. Christine (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added a sentence stating that Page returned as employee, not co-owner. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Changed the wording from "salaried employee" to "employee on the same level as Sam" since Page did not confirm the word salaried as shown above, and "on the same level as Sam" is what Anthony Field said in the article. AngusWOOF (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Distributors, Producers, record label

I was checking the infobox and had a question on where the video and broadcasting distributor companies should go in the list? Label seemed too specific for KidsCo, but if not, you can undo that.

Disney (former) Sprout (current) KidsCo (current, international) HIT Entertainment (UK, US, former) Roadshow Entertainment (current) Koch Entertainment (current) Warner Brothers (current)

AngusWOOF (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward/possible improvements

Ironic subject headline, especially with the events surrounding The Wiggles in the past couple of weeks, eh? One of the positives that have come out as a result of all the turmoil, though, at least in regards to this article, is that there's been a lot more information about them that simply hasn't been available up to this point. Yes, there's a lot of media coverage, but most of it is fluff or rehash of old stuff or gossip about whatever scandal is surrounding them at the time. In the last year, with their 20th anniversary, Greg's return, and the shake-up, the reporting has changed somewhat, to stories about The Wiggles' brand. (Plus, Anthony's book has a lot of information about the business aspect of the group.) Way back when this article became FA, a reviewer suggested that we add a section about the brand and business of The Wiggles, but I responded that there wasn't enough information even to warrant a section. I believe that has now changed; consequently, I'd like to add a "Brand" section, which would mean pulling existing content where it doesn't really fit at the current time and putting it there, as well as adding the new information gained in the past year. It's my intention to do that, after I finish writing notes from Anthony's book, which I'm doing at the current time. FAC has become more stringent since this article passed FA, and I'm not sure its current version would pass an FAR.

Another thing that I'm thinking about is the "Characters" section, and this is what I'd like some input about. At its FAC, a reviewer suggested that it be removed, or the content be placed in a forked article. With the new information and section I want to add, I'm no longer sure that the section fits into the article's tone any longer. What do folks think about creating a new article, The Wiggles characters? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Would the brand be like a business page? Talks about corporate owners and history of investors, and various partnerships, although finding stuff like financials besides the ARPA lists may be tough. For Characters, I'm concerned as to how detailed a list you want: i'm assuming the main four, the regular recurring characters such as Officer Beaples, Waggettes, Henry's Band (all in one group), Friendly Pirate Crew / Wiggly Dancers (all in one group), Little Wiggles (all in one group). Once it gets to Ringo the Ringmaster, Magdalena the Mermaid, Prof. Singalottasonga, Zardo Zap, you might want to relegate many roles to the List of guest stars with The Wiggles and List of The Wiggles episodes. Listing kids and families gets messy too although the best grouping of that can be found on their Hot Potatoes the Best of the Wiggles DVD which combines the lists over the many years. The other wiggles related shows (Kingdom of Paramithi, Dorothy the Dinosaur, Wiggly Waffle, (and assuming the spanish and Mandarin Wiggles) already have pages. AngusWOOF (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It'd be a section that discusses the business aspect of The Wiggles, not just the merchandising, since you're right that there's not enough information. Anthony's book, for example, has several pages about their business philosophies, policies, and practices. Angus, can you think of an another article that discusses this kind of thing? I'll link what I come up with when I finish it here and see you think. Re: characters, I'm thinking about just the main characters that's already there, since again, there's no reliable sources about the other characters. It occurs to me that we can simply remove the current section, and fold the information into other sections. Anthony's book also goes into their educational philosophy, so perhaps the character descriptions and history can go there. (That's the other thing I'd like to expand here, so that the "Educational theory" is more like the "Educational goals" in Sesame Street.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's just about the business relationships, it can be like Happy Madison (Adam Sandler's company), and then call it by their business name The Wiggles Touring Pty Limited.

• There's an article that follows Paul Field and Mike Conway: It's a Wiggly Wiggly World
• The Wiggles Movie had a press kit that floated on the net some years ago. It probably has some educational goals, along with other intentions.
• Wiggles Magazine media kit
• Yummy Yummy Top 7 Business Lessons from The Wiggles - sorry the link to ezine was blocked, but can find another
• BusinessWeek profile for The Wiggles Touring Pty Limited
• interviews with Paul Field
• interviews like "The Woman who signed The Wiggles" are quite insightful.
• articles about partnering with Disney, Hit Entertainment, move to Sprout AngusWOOF (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks, a lot of these sources are already cited in the main article. I'll keep your ideas in mind as I develop the section/new article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Update

I'm almost done drafting the suggested section (User:Figureskatingfan/Sesame Street sandbox--pay no attention to the title; it's just a handy dandy sandbox, har har), and have realized that it best fits in its own article, which will probably, as Angus suggests above, be entitled The Wiggles Pty Ltd. All I need to do is to write a lead, add some pictures, remove the content from here, and then submit it for DYK. Another few days, most likely. Woo hoo! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I added some category suggestions to your sandbox. Hope that's alright. Also you can use the documentary about the Wiggles "Everybody Clap! Everybody Sing!" for the "baseball caps" suggestion AngusWOOF (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

And I reverted the "Other ventures" section. I don't see this article as a list of every single product The Wiggles have ever endorsed. If we went that way, it'd be a long, boring, redundant, unnecessary list, and not an article. Angus, if you want to create such a list, go ahead, and then link it to this article. Mott is always mentioned because that it was the first biggest product they endorsed; it occurs to me that should be mentioned, so I'll go ahead and do it. The YouTube you suggested is confusing to me. It looks like it's a comedy bit; again, I don't think we should list every Wiggles YouTube clip out there; that's Jena's job on her Anthony webpage.

This, like every other article based on entertainers, is an introduction to their work and career. If people want to know what a Wiggles concert looks like, they can go find it easily elsewhere. I also believe it's possible to over-sectionize, meaning that every thought doesn't have to go into its own section. I also believe that there's some kind of advice about it is in the MOS, except I can't find it. I can tell you that if an article has too many sections, it'll be pinged at both GAC and FAC. (Speaking of, it is my eventual intention to bring this to GAC, as well as the recently expanded Anthony Field.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so I looked at the source about Mott's , and it's at the end of a discussion about their, at that time, recent endorsements and deals. I don't see how Mott's is more important than any other product, so I don't see how it fits. You can disagree if you want, but make sure you support your argument. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Mott's can go with the misc business partnerships/sponsors; I agree that you can just mention it in passing and it doesn't need an entire list or section (I'm not interested in compiling one). I'm confused about the Youtube thing; which reference was that? I know they rebranded part of their website to the "Wiggle Time" product which uses a membership pay scheme. The "Everybody Clap Everybody Sing" was an official documentary that was posted to Sprout on Demand on the cable networks, I only added that for biographical referencing. They also entered into a partnership with CinemaLive to do the "concert broadcast in movie theater" products which became "In the Round" products; that was like the big deal back in 2009 or 2010. Also in the TV/DVD Production, can mention a sentence on the distributors Lyrick Studios / HIT Entertainment which later got changed over to Koch Records / NCircle, and Warner Home Video http://www.thewiggles.com.au/au/mediacentre/news/48 AngusWOOF (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link for the documentary? I googled "Everybody Clap Everybody Sing" and found some silly cartoon. I hope you weren't talking about that. The main article has something about the concert broadcast; I kind of think that it falls within the list of deals we want to avoid in the new article, but I can be convinced because it was a big event, like the upcoming performance with the Sydney Operahouse, which should be mentioned in the main article. I need to next go through the main article and remove the redundancies, which is my intention in the next few days or over the weekend at least. Anthony's book talks about how they started with Lyrick, and having to move onto HIT, but that's all. But you're right; there should be something about the companies that distribute their DVDs and CDs. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No it wasn't a silly cartoon and you can ignore the Youtube closing credits from thomascondon02 (falsified animation). It was a fairly lengthy documentary. Here's a link from National Library of Australia, showing it was added to their Big Birthday DVD http://nla.gov.au/nla.cs-ma-an47346091 and Sprout announcement on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/Sprout/posts/10150430602602930 AngusWOOF (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wiggles characters

So I went ahead and created a new article because I realized that the content about the characters wouldn't easily be folded into this article. Two new Wiggles articles in one week! Must be a world's record! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Capitalisation of references

I recently changed the capitalisation of many of the references, to match the sources. Christine (Figureskatingfan) reverted these changes. The reversion includes other edits which are not within the scope of this post. I've moved her reasons, and my disagreement with them, from my talk page where they were originally posted, to here. I'd appreciate some other editor's opinions on the matter. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Mitch, you might have noticed that I reverted your good faith edits to this article. I did it because as WP:CIT states, the type of citation styles used doesn't matter, as long as it's consistent. For this article, I used the templates at WP:CT; the titles are capitalised, regardless of the original source's use. All the major citation styles do that; they bypass the source's use for consistency sake. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of WP:CIT. My understanding of CIT is that makes the order of entries (URL, author name, title, date etc) and punctuation, consistent, not that it is intended to force a consistent capitalisation of titles. There is nothing in CIT that mentions changing capitalisation of a source's title. The only mention I can find is in MOS:CAPS which says that we should reduce all caps and small caps to title or normal case - but this does not apply in this case. MOS:CT says use title caps for composition titles, but I don't think most of these refs (eg news articles) could be considered "compositions". Can you provide a specific reference to a MOS page/section that says we should change the case of citation titles? The {{cite news}} example on WP:CT clearly does not capitalise words other than the first in the title. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, the goal is consistency. It's not consistent to capitalize based upon the source. If WP:CT states that the titles of news articles should not be capitalized (and I don't think that it makes that proscription), then we need to change them in this article. I've been trying to find what citation style this project is most like; I think that it's most like the Chicago Style, and it capitalizes the titles. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that consistency, in general, is a good thing. Hence consistently quoting the reference's title without modification, in the spirit of MOS:QUOTE (which, admittedly, does not mention capitalisation). If we were going to change the capitalisation at all, presumably it would be more consistent to change to sentence case, to match the case of most articles, per MOS:CAPS - but I still assert that preserving the original is better. WP:CT makes no mention of capitalisation at all - but does not change the capitalisation of its example - thus if you are to use WP:CT as your guide, then we should not change the case either. Again, I invite you to provide a specific reference that says we should change to title case. The {{cite news}} example in WP:CT suggests that we should not change the case. If you believe that we should, you should probably raise the matter on CT's talk page and suggest that the example be changed to title case. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Mitch, I followed your suggestion and looked at the practice of other featured articles that use news sources as their main references, especially Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell and The Simpsons, and found, to my honest surprise, that they retain the original sources' capitalization. Ya live and learn, as my departed mother would say. I'm not above admitting when I'm wrong. It's an easy fix, just busywork that can be done in front of the TV, so I'll get to fixing them in the coming weeks. I'd much rather do that than make changes due to lineup changes, let me tell you. If you want to help, that would be grand, of course. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I've simply re-copied the references from my last edit of them (from 2012-05-20T09:00:20‎ UTC+8) - there had been no other changes to them since then. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

semi-protection?

The article's still regularly vandalized by anonymous users. :( Should we get this semi-protected? AngusWOOF (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Summer's about to hit and all the kiddies come out with too much time on their hands, so it will increase in the next couple of weeks. The shake-up has meant we've had to be more persistent in the vandal-fighting lately. I usually request semi-protection at times like this, at least temporary. It's easy enough to do; if you have Twinkle, all you have to do is go to the menu and click "RPP". I'll do it now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Was Page paid $20M or not?

All of:

• The Wiggles#Greg_Page.'s retirement
• The Wiggles Pty Ltd#Merchandising
• Greg Page (musician)#Illness and retirement

say that "It was reported that ... Page was given a $20 million payout" (or similar), all citing the same reference , which says

Page left with a payout believed to be about $20 million

I'm a little concerned that "it was reported ..." violates WP:ALLEGED. If we believe the source, that he was paid "about $20 million", we should just say so ("It was reported that ... Page was given a payout of about $20 million"). If we doubt that veracity of the statement we should either not mention the amount at all, or state explicitly that there is doubt about the amount, and state why (possibly in a footnote). Mitch Ames (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's a style thing I suppose; I included the "it was reported" because of the word "believed" in the original source. It could also be my attempt to avoid close paraphrasing. The easy way to resolve this is to follow your suggestion and strike the problematic phrase. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

All three pages updated. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of first names

I propose that this edit, which inserts the members' first names, should be reverted, in accordance with WP:SURNAME. In fact there are numerous other uses of their first names that ought to be removed. There may be some exceptions - eg in the paragraph that includes "... The Wiggles, who were called by their first names when they performed, ...", and specifically when referring to their on-stage schticks - but generally there's no reason why SURNAME should not apply. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Mitch, I actually agree with your reversion; it was added by someone along the way and didn't get caught. The original version included only the guys' last names. I believe that the paragraph you mention is the only exception of the SURNAME policy in this article, and since I wrote it, I disagree with changing it, of course. The reason their first names are listed is that the paragraph is a discussion of their on-stage personas--the characters they play. It also demonstrates that their audience knows them by their first names. It's complicated by the fact that their characters are based upon themselves and named after themselves. You'll notice that their last names are used in the short description of how they chose their colours, and that's because it moves away from discussing their characters. And then it goes back to using first names when discussing their shticks. It's the only time in the entire article, and for the most part, across all Wiggles-articles, even their individual bio articles, where the SURNAME policy is not strictly followed, and I think it's appropriate. Remember WP:IAR. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Brand

Re: "They made careful decisions regarding their endorsements of toys and other products, and avoided over-extending their brand by only licensing products that correlated with their image."

Is there a source for this? So much product is or has been Wiggles branded that it's hard to take these "careful decisions" seriously. Children's nappies, children's toothpaste, children's spaghetti maybe correlated.. But how does Coles "down down" campaign fit with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.6.232 (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for ALL their endorsement decisions, since the reasoning behind most of them, including Cole's, hasn't been documented. You're right; that statement needed to be sourced, so it now is. That's the problem with creating sections that are summaries of forked articles. Thanks for the catch. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

New Members

Can anybody upload a picture of the current members to the info box, and move the current one down to one of the sections concerning Greg, Murray, and Jeff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rd9787 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be great, but the images have to be free or fair use. If someone would like to pursue that, great. It'd be great if someone donated an image of the new group, but it takes time to pursue it. I can help some, but don't have the resources to hunt down such an image. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully someone can provide some concert shots where they aren't dressed in Wiggle in Training shirts. AngusWOOF (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Anthony's Shirts

I thought Anthony had a white shirt in the "Big Red Car" video. Dcelano 24:13 December 3, 2013, (UTC)

The Propeller Song

Did any of you folks see the Wiggles' Propeller video clip last year in live shows and on the internet, including in Australia? I did when I was at the Tower of Philadelphia before the Wiggles show began. That's where it shows what the next generation of Wiggles would look like. In fact, it was seen before and after Surfer Jeff was released on DVD. And that's not all. It sounds like the song "Ooh, It's Captain Feathersword". Dcelano, 23:24, December 3, 2013 (UTC)

It might be useful for an album article based on Taking Off! Here is the promo as an extra on Celebration -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You will need to find news articles or press releases that show they were broadcasting the video during the entire tour or before/after Surfer Jeff's release so it doesn't become WP:OR. The Canberra Times article I found and posted to the main article only mentions that they were performing it in December. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Which year?

Which year did Paul Field became the Wiggles' manager? 1996, 1997 or 1998? Dcelano, 05:01, December 7, 2013 (UTC)

According to ref 13, Paul became the Wiggles' manager in "the mid-90s", which is stated in this article. Over at Paul Field (musician), the source (ref 11), which was published in 2008, states that he became their manager "about ten years ago", so I made a judgment call and stated in that article that it was 1998. Anthony's autobiography doesn't include an exact date. I think that the dates as they're currently stated are adequate, and until we find a reliable source that's more exact, it should stand. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

But that's the year when Yummy Yummy, Wiggle Time and Wiggledance! were reprinted. I thought it was 1997. Daniel (Dcelano) (talk) 4:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

He has had different roles in the organization but according to his LinkedIn page he became Managing Director in 1998. -AngusWOOF (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Australia articles
• High-importance Australia articles
• FA-Class Australian television articles
• High-importance Australian television articles
• WikiProject Australian television articles
• FA-Class Australian music articles
• High-importance Australian music articles
• WikiProject Australian music articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Mid-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles