Talk:List of Ed, Edd n Eddy characters/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Rules (READ NEW USERS)

Please read this before editing the page.

It seems people are having trouble finding where the rules actually are on this page, but I'll make it easier. Heres a full list of the rules for this page.

1. One episode rule. If it was mentioned in only one single episode, it doesn't belong here. There are many trivial facts about each and every character (which I believe is actually canon), but the page would be a big mess, therefore these one time facts aren't worth mentioning. Although, there can be exceptions to this rule. First of all, one part mentions a single episode which reveals Jimmy's teeth being destroyed by a bowling pin disguised as a cream horn. This should stay because it gives people the answer to "why" he has the retainer (which was a popular question before it was revealed). Stuff like "Nazz is fat" should not be put in because it was never assumed in the first place she was fat in the past. Another is Eddy's Brother's history with the kids. This explains his relationships with the other kids.
2. Parents, characters alter-egos, and other kids shall not be added. They do not have a dense personality like the kids, and never appear. I realize one episode Ed's mom or aunt, and Eddy's dad pulls them off screen, but this refers back to the one episode rule. Their parents are not characters, like I stated above, they have little to no personality, and were just there to finish off the plot. Same goes with the Lemon Brook Lumpers, the school nurse, and other one shots. alter-egos should not be added either because it once again, breaks the one episode rule.
3. Double D's hat. It is a mystery of whats under there, and the videogame "lunchroom rumble" is not canon, because it wasn't made by AKA Cartoon. This goes for fanfics too, fanfics are not canon.
4. Rolf's country has no name, and shall remain that way. This country is a fictional country made by Danny. He chose Rolf to be from a fictional country so he could make up several foreign ways to make the stories, plots, and his overall character more interesting. If he was from a specific real country, there would be a limit to what Rolf could do.
5. Superhuman strength. All characters can possess unrealalistic strength at anytime to keep the story going along, it's used in many, many old cartoons.
6. Jimmy is not a homsexual. He looks up to Sarah as an older sister, and tends to immitate her because he wants to be just like her. More evidence that supports this is "Ed in a halfshell", where Sarah leaves Jimmy with the Ed's. Jimmy for a short time, looks up to Ed and Eddy, therefore he begins acting similar to them. I understand this is only in one episode, but like I said, I believe the entire show is filled with canon trivial facts about the characters. This comment about Jimmy looking up to people should not be added to the page, but it proves that Jimmy is not a homosexual. That's all I can think of right now, if anyone wants to add anything I missed or forgot, feel free. DietLimeCola 02:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Grades and other school records should not be added. While it is highly likely what was revieled in the report card episode is true, (i.e. Ed and Eddy's Fs, Rolf's D in typing) this breaks the one-episode rule, and should not be added. Wack'd About Wiki 19:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

....Since when can you tell other people what to do? Who died and made you queen? No one! --Naruto134 00:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No one. These rules were reached from a consensus vote, not created by Wack'd. Dagron12345 23:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have to give DietLimeCola for listing 1-6. If you'll notice, I only worte the last one. But, yes, these were agreed on before the list was written here. --Wack'd ^{Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork!} 14:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would add that Jimmy's retainer is there in every show, so a one time explanation of how it happened is acceptable. Also, regarding games - the online games at cartoonnetwork.com also have nothing to do with the actual show, and are thus not canon. -- 71.138.27.12 14:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Dyslexic

Judging for this page [1]

What symptons Ed has or doesn't have.

Directional Confusion - Doesn't Have

Sequencing Difficulties -Doesn't Have

Difficulties with the Little Words - Doesn't Have

Bizarre Reading and Spelling - Doesn't Have

Late Talking or Immature Speech - Has

Difficulties with Handwriting - Doesn't have

Difficulties with Math - Doesn't Have

God, this takes overanalizing a cartoon to a whole new level. You two figured it out. DietLimeCola 06:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I kept removing it. I guess you were right all along. Peace. Blakebs 05:03, 13 March 2007 (CST)

Have related problems with attention in a school setting; for instance they might seem to "zone out" or daydream often; get lost easily or lose track of time; and have difficulty sustaining attention. In other words, "mind movies." -- Elaich 23:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for showing the error of my ways, guys. Boy, was I wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.133.205.139 (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Nicknames?

I know about the 1 episode rule, but is it okay to add some of the characters' nicknames to their profiles—I mean the ones that don't break the 1 episode rule? For example, Eddy refers to Edd as "Sockhead" in many episodes, so wouldn't this be appropriate to add to the article? Kikiluvscheese 03:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sockhead is not a nickname - it's a put down. It's the same as calling Ed Lumpy or monobrow. It's really very trivial, and I don't think it deserves mention. -- 70.135.58.102 23:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got to say this: When I went for clean-up like someone said (I forgot who, but thanks for giving me a clean-up I know about!!!), and I went to fix 'Jonny'. Alot of errors, and when I went to fix them, I read the rules that said 'No H in Jonny, no 2X4 as a nickname, ect. ...'. Johnny is spelled, well, Johnny, and his name in the credits is 'Johnny 2X4'. The reason for this is because of Plank, who is a piece of plank, which is know as a 2X4. I was going to edit the title from 'Jonny' to 'Johnny', and mention in the beginning as so; 'Also known as 'Johnny 2X4', as in the credits, ...'. Why can't that be allowed? It's for clean-up!!! It's just outrageous!!! (And sorry if I misspelled it) -- ??lostiNconfusIoN?? AKA Wandering_In_My_Mind_. 00:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you even read the credits? In there, it's spelt "Jonny", not "Johnny". DietLimeCola 00:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That's because it is "Jonny" you NINCOMPOOP!

I've tagged this article for clean-up

I've tagged this article for clean-up because most of it is written in a in-universe perspective. At first, in the the lead, the characters are treated as if they were fictional (out-of-universe perspective), but then it becomes the opposite when it starts to describe them. Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an overall out-of-universe perspective. See WP:WAF for more information.

The article only has a few references. It has problems with tone and a having a neutral point of view. Squirepants101 18:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think there's any way you can write this article in any other fashion. Where are the references supposed to come from? Fan pages? The information in this article is based on osmosis from watching the show, by a group of fans who generally agree on what's published here. Sources would be nice, but they do not exist, other than the already linked to interview with Danny Antonucci, and the sparse character bios on cartoonnetwork.com. Fan pages are based on self research and often contain many errors. A dedicated group of fans have worked constantly to keep this article clean of fancruft, vandalism, and inaccuracies. If you can find sources for these facts, then by all means link to them. As such, I think the tag is in error, and I will remove it in 3 days if you can't produce any sources. -- 70.135.58.102 22:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess we could use some of the actual quotes of the show as references. Final Fantasy VII is a featured article and it does this. Squirepants101 02:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• The only way to make this article into what you wish is to completely eliminate the character bios. Just list the characters in the main article and be done with it. I would support that wholeheartedly, as it would eliminate the source of most of the problems we have here. -- Elaich 13:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Just to notify the users who edit this article, Children of the Corn: Boy Preachers is somewhat similar this article. They both start out with a lead that explains that the characters listed are fiction, then they treat the characters as if they existed in reality. I've recently added this article to WP:CLEANUP. Squirepants101 20:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

removed the part about Ed possessing inhuman strength

What part of this talk page do people not understand? Like the cartoons before it, characters have been known to gain unrealistic stregnth dozens of times. Sometimes Ed is stronger than Sarah, sometimes Eddy is stronger than Ed, sometimes Ed is stronger than Sarah, sometimes Rolf is stronger than Ed, sometimes Eddy is stronger than Rolf, you get my point. Why should it say Ed has inhuman strength? It doesn't say that about any other characters. What makes Ed so special? He might seem to be stronger then all the characters, but still, all characters can gain inhuman strength numerous times in order to advance the story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blakebs (talk • contribs) 04:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

• True, but Ed has been shown to perform feats of strenght that go far beyone your simple cartoon physics average. In other words, Ed's superhuman strength is a defining characteristic of his. Just like how Edd is the brains and Eddy is the leader, Ed is the brawn. --Piemanmoo 04:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• • What part of this do you not understand? All the characters have exhibited superhuman strength at times. It's a mere cartoon cliche' dating back to the beginning of cartooning. It's been used in many, many cartoon series. It is simply not remarkable. -- Elaich 13:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • They are just cartoon physics and gags meant to make the audience laugh or be amused. Squirepants101 20:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm begining to have second thoghts about this, at least with respect to Ed. Superhuman strength only happens rarely with all the other characters (except Edd, who has never displayed it.) However, Ed can call on it at any time. Perhaps it should be mentioned in his case only. -- Elaich 18:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

He is actually called the "ultimate tool" in one episode (the spa one) - apparently the others recognize his above-average strength. Add that to the fact that they commonly use him as the muscle (in the truth or dare episode, Rolf even appropriates "Ed" to help him crush grapes).KrytenKoro 02:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Rolf's Nationality? He's from "Fairy-Tale-Land" for crying out loud!

People tend to make many common mistakes surrounding Rolf and what they perceive as the show's so-called "rewritten canon" (not). As far as I can tell, the only retcon in the show's entire history was changing Double D's name to "Eddward." The "official site biographies" and "FAQs from the comics" are the only write-ups with any actual or real credentials. Anything else is purely subjective and/or conjectural (including this commentary, strange as that may seem).

Anyway, just because Rolf wore lederhosen does not mean he is German, as many other countries do the same thing. Knowing a Norwegian prankster does not make him Norwegian, it just makes said prankster famous (in more than one country). It was NEVER stated he was part of those countries, it was just implied that he shared customs and celebrities.

It is perfectly likely he is from an as yet unnamed and made-up-by-the-creator Indo-European (?) country that just so happens to combine the traits of numerous other countries (for exotic flavor I'd imagine), such as having German lederhosen, Swiss snow-capped mountains, imported Indian elephants, a meaty Christmas with a bearded lady (made-up), East Asian seafood, Lovecraftian giant sea monsters, werewolves, Greek Faeries, and what-have-you (all of these things have appeared in the show as of now).

Point in fact "Früz Du" (seen on a sign in the "old country scam") is NOT German, but made-up (except the "du" part, indicating a linguistic RELATION, but NOT identicalness).

In sum, the only thing we know is that the "Old Country" Rolf came from is NOT any extant country, but a made-up "fairy-tale land" (just like "Norweigia" is a made-up place, but perhaps that's a wrong analogy). Anyone agree? --Zenosaga 18:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• These facts are all accepted by the community here, but we have to fight it constantly. I recently found out that even a reputable site like Edtropolis is not above spreading misinformation about Rolf's heritage. -- 71.138.27.12 19:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Separare Character Pages? Why not?

Wouldn't it be easier to create separate character pages for each of the characters, thus allowing better citations of the so-called "trivial data" and better analysis of the characters? Even The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy has this basic functionality. A page for each of the main characters, and a page for brief write-ups of the "lacking of personality minor characters" in the series, which incidentally are actually more like cameos (such as parents, animals, alter egos, props, etc). Thoughts? --Zenosaga 18:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The characters would have to meet basic notability guidelines in order to do that. Squirepants101 19:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• This has been discussed before, and rejected. I see someone just did it, and posted links to them in the article. I deleted the links. -- 71.138.27.12 19:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Why freaking not? All the other articles have facts that were only mentioned once, what makes EENE any different? I ask you! Things are way to tight around here.
  • Are you suggesting that some of the editors here are trying to own the article? I, along with User:DietLimeCola, have gotten that type of feeling before when editing this article. Squirepants101 21:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As User:DietLimeCola stated, he believes the show is filled with trivial facts, so why on earth don't we just give the characters the own articles? It would settle all this debating once and for all. I'm not suggesting any one wants to "own the article" as you put it. So, come on, let's just give them they're own articles, tell me, is it really worth all this controversy? Well, I think not, if you ask me, Wikipedia is not all it's cracked up to be. I mean sure, it was not meant to be a crystal ball, or a fansite for that matter, But if we don't do something about this issue, it will just constantly keep poping up on the discussion page time and time again. I mean it says Double-D is an excellent steal guitar player, and that was only mentioned in one episode. User:Blakebs 11:17 pm, April 6, 2007 (CST).
    • Because all other shows are not Ed, Edd n Eddy. This show is noted for bending it's own facts to accomodate a one time only storyline. Thus, "bent facts" happen once only, are not canon, and do not deserve mention here. A perfect example is Nazz's obesity. Giving the characters their own articles has been discussed here before, and rejected. This would also fly in the face of attempts by Squirepants and others to Wikify this article, since separate character pages would only serve to attract more off topic and "in-universe" posts. And, you are wrong, Blakebs. Edd's steel guitar playing was in several episodes, unlike Ed's violin and piano playing. I don't feel it's particularly notable, but at least it's canonical. Squirepants, there is no way to Wikify this article in the way that you desire. As long as the characters pages exists, it will be written in-universe, because there is really no way to do it otherwise. I agree with your efforts, and believe that this article should match the FF VII article that you cited, where the characters have a brief outline on the main page. However, fighting the vandalism and the well intentioned but misguided efforts of others is a full time job here. Getting rid of the characters page, based on established Wikipeida guielines, would be a major step forward. Once that was done, it would be easy to resist the attempts of others to add in-universe content to the brief character outlines. -- Elaich 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
      • While I believe the events in Ed, Edd n Eddy are canon, they do not warrant mention due to the fact they are just simply facts about the character. Each character has several one episode facts about them, and the page would look like a big mess if we listed them all. It's best to keep all the 'one episode' facts off, for even if one got on, there would be debates of WHAT fact goes on and why. Just keep it to what is shown in more than one episode and it'll be fine. DietLimeCola 04:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
        • There should not be seperate charater pages because we have plenty of information on the charaters already, and it's useful to have all the information on one page anyway.Flyingace555 14:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

About the {{In universe}}

Since most of you seem to agree that the parts of the article that the {{in universe}} refers to basically cannot be rewritten practically, why not remove the template with a note on the talk page (and, if necessary, comments in the article). Or did I miss some that can be fixed?Thinboy00 21:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)(just added sig now)

• I vote yes. Then, we can simply delete any further in-universe edits, or attempts to establish a separate characters page by tagging it {{in universe}} . -- Elaich 03:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempts to Wikify

I attempted to Wikify the page by using leading statements to take the article more out-of-universe, as suggested by Squirepants. What do you think? It probably could be improved upon, but I don't think we need to go to great lengths. It goes without saying that this a cartoon and fiction. -- Elaich 20:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Aliens

We should refrain from contributing information about "characters" that only appear in one episode, which is currently unaired. We don't even know if they are aliens, could be something like Kankers pretending to be them, etc. We just don't know. DietLimeCola 23:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, the aliens are "invading" Cartoon Network, and will be in several shows. I can see us 2 years from now reverting edits from people trying to make the aliens into characters. *sigh*. Thanks, CN. -- Elaich 04:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• The "aliens" are Rolf's relatives, as stated in the episode. And due to something I wasn't here for, we shouldn't put information on them. --UBracter 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Wow. I never would have thought those would have survived an AfD. That really proves that the system definitely is a vote instead of a discussion. It makes no sense for these pages to exist when looking from policy, guidelines, or just with common sense. Why do they need to exist? Nemu 10:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

They didn't, and that is why I nominated them for Afd. Why they survived is beyond me. They did not meet notability guidelines in any way. Now, they have been merged, and the issue is over, for now. -- Elaich 13:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

They're still not redirected due to the closing admin sticking too close to the book. I guess it should be fine in a few days. Nemu 16:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, some other admin has restored them after being merged. -- Elaich 02:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge per WP:FICT>Fiction in Wikipedia>Major characters. -- 69.111.92.155 16:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong agree There really is no place for this, and list of characters, and Ed Edd n Eddy. I even doubt there is enough for two pages, let alone 5. Martijn Hoekstra 11:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This issue has already been discussed. The articles stay. The Prince of Darkness 12:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The closing admin stated that this could be rediscussed as a merge. Nemu 12:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this discussion is not concluded. Other users should be able to share their opinions. Now, instead of being so impatient, leave the discussion for a while, and if mostly vote for merge, you can eventually merge the articles. As of now the articles stay. The Prince of Darkness 12:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no specified time limit for mergers. The suggested time limit is five days, but with the current trend of "votes", it's easy to see that they will be redirected. Nemu 12:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional merge The character entries here are too short to have their own articles, although they are probably the most notable characters in the series. It is better to have all the main characters on one page. Unless the article gets too large (I mean past 32 KB), the pages should stay redirects. Squirepants101 19:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Article title

Is that OK, if i edit the title from "List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy" to "List of Ed Edd n Eddy characters"?

I don't see what's wrong with the article's title. Squirepants101 20:54, 19 April 2007

Im just saying that List of Ed Edd n Eddy Characters sounds a little bit better (Im NOT critism the original title!)

You would have to change the page name to change that link. "List of characters in..." is universally used across Wikipedia. -- Elaich 18:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Ed stupid or insane?

I definitely think insane, as he has demonstrated intelligence on more than a few occassions. He has also demonstrated violent schizophrenia, violent bipolar disorder, violent multiple personality disorder, extreme naivete, violent manipulation of reality, violent astral projection, and violent psychopathy, among other things. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zenosaga (talk • contribs) 00:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I think he has not displayed any of these things. Ed suffers from dyslexia. His mind is constantly playing movies for him that he confuses with reality. You take a mere cartoon too seriously. Many times, Ed is made to say certain things just to further a storyline. At any rate, discussion pages are for discussing the content of the article, nothing more.-- Elaich 03:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

He has every right to take a mere cartoon too seriously! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.133.205.139 (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly how so? The only thing he has in common with dyslexia is bad writing skills, which doesn't necessarily indicate dyslexia as the absolute cause. Dyslexia is NOT a confusion of reality and fiction, despite your apparent belief that it is. How can dyslexia possibly cause hallucinations, extreme naivete, and oft times violent behavior (such as dropping houses on people, throwing them like baseballs, or virtually strangling them)? Ed is a character designed to appear stupid (a common cartoon cliche that entertains children) at first glance, but when you get to know him you realize he is in actually violently insane (which is really quite original for children's cartoons). --Zenosaga 19:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. Ed's "insane" acts of violence are for comic relief. The punch line of the joke is when the victim is not hurt at all. Be careful that you yourself do not fall victim to not being able to distinguish between fiction and reality. You are talking about a cartoon character, not a real person. A characer being "violently insane" is not new, and by no means original . You only have to go back to both Donald Duck and Daffy Duck to find examples of the same thing. Or, Itchy and Scratchy. As you mentioned, it's a cartoon cliche, and has been around almost since the beginnings of the animation industry. As far as dyslexia, Ed's exhibits a number of symptoms, including "zoning out from reality." My son's school psychologist called it "mind movies." So, as you can see, I have some experience with this area. As per your first post in this thread, you saw "violent" in every aspect of Ed's behavior. He is certainly neither schizophrenic or bi-polar. Perhaps the problem lies in your perception of Ed (which could be based on a number of factors.) At least, thanks for discussing it. That's the proper thing to do. -- Elaich 22:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It could be possible he has one of those disorders. Just like Elaich said, though, it's a cartoon, and a lot of times the slap-stick is it's main purpose. You're right that dyslexia wouldn't affect his personality, and Danny (the creator) even said that Ed's persona is basically living in his own world. I think that Edd has OCD, due to that he pretty much fits it perfectly. Don't know whether he actually does have it or not as a fact, but he definitely copies the common traits. It could just be a way to make it silly. EEnE is definitely written to be a slap-stick style, which is probably part of Danny's homage to old cartoons, just like the swiggly line effect is. Black Kat 13:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that Edd's parents have OCD. As far as Edd himself, he is just reacting to his upbringing and surroundings. OCD is not diagnosed in children, as far as I know. -- Elaich 03:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If Edd's parents have OCD, 99.9% chance he has it too. My OCD came out at the oldest age 10, so it is detectable, depending on recorded history. JadeOwl 12:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Edd's parents

I don't remember the name of the episode, but it was the one where Ed and Eddy were messing around in Edd's house, impersonating his parents. I noticed that Edd's parents have seperate beds - I know that this is probably a one-time only fact, but I can't think of any time it's been contradicted, and it would certainly fit with the impersonal, unemotional personality that seems to be given to Edd's parents.

I don't see a section on the parents, and I'm not sure how I'd cleanly fit that into Edd's section, so should this even be mentioned?KrytenKoro 02:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not needed. Those are small facts, and the parents aren't even talked about since they're so rarely seen. Good idea on asking, just to make sure before you added. Black Kat 20:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Having 2 beds is a sly reference to old TV sitcoms from the 1950s and 1960s, like The Dick Van Dyke Show. -- Elaich 14:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Psychotic?

Why is Eddy labeled as Psychotic??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.205.70.254 (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

I noticed that as well. He is definetly NOT psychotic. a megalomaniac and narcisstic for sure, but he's perfectly in contact with reality! 86.12.242.245 20:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Must be vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.87.201 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible reasons for others adding cruft

Here are some possible reasons for some users adding fancruft to this page: 1. The user/IP is new to Wikipedia. 2. The user/IP is new to editing this article. 3. The user/IP did not read the rules in neither the hidden note or the talk page. 4. The user/IP read the rules, but missed one. 5. The user/IP missed all of the rules by accident (e.g. scrolling the page window too fast in a web browser). 6. The user/IP is intentionally adding cruft. There may be other reasons for users to add cruft, but most of the time, good faith should be assumed. If the contributor is a new user, then the user should be welcomed with one of the templates from the welcoming committee and should not be bitten. A light warning or reminder will do just fine. Keep in mind that fancruft is not officially categorized into the nineteen categories of vandalism, so a vandalism template is not necessary. Also keep in mind that fancruft is an essay, so it does not have policy or guideline status. Squirepants101 22:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Has there been fighting or editors adding cruft hassled by the regulars? Just so I know. Black Kat 19:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In-universe

Has the in-universe problem been satisfied yet? I'm really not quite sure how else to approach it, other than making sure it's known that the characters are playing roles. And, they are. Every character in EEnE is a stereotype. -- Elaich 03:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mime Trio vandalism is back

Here we go again... --Wack'd About Wiki 02:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This time, the IP address who added it is not an open proxy and seemed to have made some constructive edits on other articles. It is probably shared by multiple users. I have warned the IP with uw-vandalism1. Pants^(T) 03:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And I warned him with a 3rd level vandalism warning, as well as reporting him to a moderator. This particular vandalism is intentional, and it is unlikely that it is not the same person every time. The last time, the vandal was blocked for 6 months. It's no surprise that he would vandalize again if he could do so from another computer. Any such vandalism should be reacted to with extreme prejudice. If there are other users at this IP, they need to know that someone is using it for vandalism, so they can take steps to deal with it. There is no way under the sun to assume good faith with this kind of edit. -- Elaich 07:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was necessary to lock the page because of one IP vandal. DietLimeCola 04:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The admin decided to do that. The IP was blocked for only 24 hours. When the vandal comes back, maybe we'll just let you be the one to have to deal with it. -- Elaich 13:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If he vandalizes again, let's just inform the admin again and he'll block him for longer. DietLimeCola 18:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For the Love of God, somebody lock this article! Firedracax 11:29, 9 may 2007

I'm a afraid you are a little too late for that comment because the IP was blocked days ago, and hasn't edited this page ever since. The article was also semi-protected for a few hours. Pants^(T) 02:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jonny 2x4

That's what he's called in the credits. And on the offical website. Just as well, I heard Eddy call him "Jonny 2x4" or simply "2x4" before (although not many times.). Why shouldn't we add it to his name? --Wack'd About Wiki 22:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a nickname, just like Jonny Woodboy. You don't actually think his last name is 2x4, do you? -- Elaich 01:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No. But the credits don't list him as Jonny Woodboy, do they? Practically every offical source lists Jonny's name as Jonny 2x4. I doubt it's his surname, and until Danny answers the question in an interview or something, we'll never know. But the fact of the matter is that his name [whatever part of his name that might be] is Jonny 2x4.

If you click here, look under the "Characters" heading and find Jonny's bio, you'll see him listed as "Jonny 2x4".

Jeez. All this for two numbers and an X. --Wack'd About Wiki 14:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, all this for maintaining the purity of this encyclopedia article, and protecting it from continual editing and re-editing. Once I decided to leave the 2x4 alone, and somebody else deleted it. We know for a fact that his name is Jonny, and you can't go wrong with that. We don't know for sure about 2x4, so until we do, it must not stay. -- Elaich 13:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll give in. I didn't know how you were going across this...to me, if almost every source lists a name one way, it's a fact. But hey, that's just me. Have a nice day! --Wack'd About Wiki 11:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wack'd, I feel that if there is going to be a constant edit war over something, then there's enough doubt about it to leave it out. It can't be proved one way or the other, so that makes it either speculation or POV. -- Elaich 14:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to end the arguement by giving in, I wasn't being sarcastic. I see your point, and I don't feel the need to carry this arguement out any further. That is, unless you want to... --Wack'd About Wiki 21:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Odd. I see it as a discussion: you see it as an argument. I didn't know that. -- Elaich 14:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You know what I mean. An arguement is is two people discussing oppisite views. Whether or not it gets nasty doesn't nessisarilly mean anything. --Wack'd About Wiki 18:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Double D's hat

do we have any possibilitys of why Double D wears the hat, why the terrible secret he is hiding is? Mr Richardson 23:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No. And even if we did, we shouldn't put them in the article. It would be unencyclopedic. --Wack'd About Wiki 11:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I just heard this from [Edtropolis], but I think Double D's head is raw. Pacguy19 00:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me guess, the person who said that played the non-canon Lunchroom Rumble game, right? DietLimeCola 00:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I know this is random but what does Pacguy19 mean when he says that Edd's head is "raw"

Double D

Does anybody think Double D looks like a girl because I've watched a couple of episodes and to my opinion he looks like a girl. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.251.251 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

• No, Double D does not look like a girl, and this page is for discussion of editing the article only. -- Elaich 22:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Of course he's not a girl. I've been watching Ed Edd n Eddy all my life, and the only reason he looked like a girl is because he kept getting makeovers from the Kankers. 8:55 am, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bending the facts

Many editors here say that the show bends facts to accommodate non-canonical storylines; this is flat-out untrue. It is ridiculous to think that just because an event appears only once does not mean it is non-canonical, and practically none of the later episodes contradict the previous ones, and frequent references are often made to past episodes. The only noticeable retcon in the entire series (besides the animation styles between seasons) was in the letters of Double D's first name. Let me give some examples:

Little-Known Fact: Nazz was once fat before the series began.

Little-Known Fact: Jimmy lost his teeth to a bowling pin before the series began.

Little-Known Fact: Kevin used to have long hair before the series began.

Proven Fact: Jonny's last name is 2x4, and he is always referred as this in the story boards and character designs.

Proven Fact: Ed is clinically insane and has consistently shown the power to manipulate and alter the laws of reality.

Proven Fact: Plank is in fact a character and capable of thought, mind control, and independent movement, making the number of "regular" characters in the series unlucky 13. If he was not, he would not appear in 80% of the series.

Proven Fact: The characters listed on this page are the "regulars." Meaning that there are other characters, but they are perpetually confined to cameos and guest appearances.

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. This is why I voted for individual character pages (one for each of the regulars, and one for cameos and guests). --Zenoseiya 00:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The 2x4 thing with Jonny is a nickname because he always carries Plank around. I do agree, though, that just because some things happen only once doesn't make it irrelevent. Jade Owl 1:15, 26 May, 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Plank is listed as a character on the Cartoon Network website, as well as Jonny 2x4. --Zenoseiya 21:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It is apparent that you do not understand the kind of non-linear thinking that goes into the creativity behind this cartoon. You would have to view and appreciate many old television and comedy series that aired in the 1950s and 1960s in order to do so. The fact is that this cartoon is non-linear. Things are done once for comedic relief and forgotten. You also do not seem to understand fantasy at all. The episode where Nazz was depicted as fat, and Kevin with long hair was a fantasy episode that kept shifting between alternate realities. That is the problem we have here - that people who do not understand these very basic principles keep wanting to make these things part of the show's canon. Haven't you ever watched Star Trek and other sci-fi series that create alternate realities? Those alternate realities are never considered part of the series canon, but are understood for what they are - fantasmagorical flights of fancy. And your continued insistence that Ed is insane makes me have lasting doubts about your perception of reality. Plank is no more alive and sentient than Charlie McCarthy was, and has never been shown on screen to be capable of movement. Any movement of Plank was done by Jonny off camera. Plank has never been shown to control anybody's mind but Jonny's, and that is Jonny using Plank as a fall guy for his own disruptive behavior. I'm not surprised that you don't "get it" because this show is written on different levels to appeal to different audiences. The fact will remain that nothing will be allowed to remain here that is up to any argument and/or based on speculation. It is an encyclopedia article, and is bound to publish established facts. You and others have continually tried to make it into a fan page. That will simply not stand, and is backed by numerous published Wikipedia articles defining the content and style of Wikipedia articles. -- Elaich 22:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternate realities? Those were flashbacks to events that happened BEFORE the events of the show. Ed has the ability to alter reality, entirely BECAUSE his insanity. Plank IS considered a character by the crew, the creator, and the producers; his movement is NOT due to Jonny off-camera. If this article was even a QUARTER the site Edtropolis is (and that site is endorsed completely by AKA Cartoon), then we wouldn't be having these problems. Just look at the articles for other CN shows: they are much more detailed even though the ridiculous criteria you list could be generously applied to them. AND WHY? Because some silly little "human beans" want to own this, and I mean this and not any other article. And I used to think human children and the elderly were pathetic... America was STOLEN! --Zenoseiya 21:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a fan site. There is a big difference. And, the explanation above is accepted by nearly everybody here. EEnE is NOT LIKE other CN shows. You seem to have anger issues, Zenoseiya. Have you ever seen Plank move? No. We used to have Plank as a character, and others began to delete it, so it was discussed, and decided to remove it. Plank could be reinstated as a character if the majority agree, but I don't think he meets notability guidelines to be one, since his personality is just a projection of Jonny's hidden side. Jonny uses Plank to project the person he would secretly like to be. And what does this have to do with your last sentence, which made no sense at all? -- Elaich ^talk 21:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just an addendum: looking at Zenoseiya's talk page, he has been having these problems since he joined here. He doesn't understand the difference between encyclopedias and fan pages, and has been involved in disputes over content since Day 1. I won't attribute bad faith to him, since he really does seem to be sincere in his beliefs. -- Elaich ^talk 04:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a Mr. Sun!

I got something on my talk page that said "There is no Mr. Sun". But there IS a Mr. Sun, he talks to Jimmy, and I can prove it! If anyone watched the episode "The Ed's are Coming", you'll see Mr. Sun. I even have a screenshot, here you go! img341.imagesha ck.us/img341/4246/mrsunym4.png I proved you wrong, now what do you have to say about THAT Mr. Editor? I think you owe me an apology. 64.72.126.134 09:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Sun was a character in Jimmy's imagination, and has no relivance to this article. He only appeared in one episode, anyway. --Wack'd • Talk to me! • Admire my handywork! • 15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I explained to that user that Mr. Sun is not a character. BTW, Wack'd, handiwork is spelled with an "i", not a "y." -- Elaich ^talk 21:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I fixed that now. --Wack'd • Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! • 12:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How is he not a character? He was there, he talked to Jimmy, and he moved, he had a voice and everything! 64.72.126.134 22:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

imagine any given television show. in one scene, one of the main characters passes a guy on the street and he says "good day". would you list him as one of the characters? --Philip Laurence 22:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If he has a name, then yes! And Mr. Sun is his name. However, I suppose this isnt worth fighting over. It's just a stupid sun. 64.72.126.134 00:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A number of different individuals have appeared, but they are not characters because they appeared only once. I suppose they could be listed under a section called "One time appearances" or something, but then that would encourage editors to begin adding too much material, and we'd end up with a huge, bloated section like the old "Trivia" section. It would also encourage the listing of parent's arms, etc. which we have been fighting here ongoingly. -- Elaich ^talk 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Movie?

Now, I know there is to be an Ed Edd n Eddy movie at some point, but the information on this page is clearly false and made-up. For one, unless openly stated by Antonucci that the movie would introduce new characters, there should not be any guest voices (and the ones listed are rediculous anyway). Then, there is absolutely no date on when a DVD would even be released, let alone the rating for it.

It was vandalism, and the editor who added it has been blocked. -- Elaich ^talk 07:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi protection

I requested semi protection for this page: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for protection Martijn Hoekstra 10:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

and denied, on the grounds that the disruptive edits are good faith. Which they probably are, but that doesn't mean they're not disruptive. I'll see if I can figure out something else. Martijn Hoekstra 17:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy's Gay

Changed it so that it says there's a suggestion of latent homosexuality. Yes, I read the rules, but the flamboyance is seriously too much to ignore.

It would be nice if you would have signed your post. The comment was deleted. Flamboyance does not mean a person is gay. I think this topic has been beaten to death, and I don't see how anyone can ignore the lengthy discussion about it elsewhere on this page. It had already been decided that such comments will be deleted, so you are wasting your time adding them. -- Elaich ^talk 18:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I am completley offended. We do not disscus homosexuality, not when the kids are around. Jimmy is not gay, and you are an inconsiderate, two-timing, sex-making, double-crossing, republican-loving rapscallion!!

• Jimmy GAY? thats like saying Hugh Hefner is gay too. Jimmy is not gay, he hangs out with girls which is what every guy does. the thing is about Jimmy is that he's young, Jimmy's about 8 or 7 years old. And like the guy who posted above mine i am Deaply offended, shame on you Tu-49 20:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your sentiments, and I have had the same thoughts, but there is a couple of things I like to comment on.

1. Wikipedia is not censored. It sounds harsh, but we don't care if kids are around. If the issue demands it, we discuss it. In this case, I agree that there is no ground on which to say that Jimmy is gay, but if he were, and it was significant, we should discuss it.
2. Please be civil to your fellow editors, even if their oppinion offends you. Saying that Jimmy is gay, although I disagree with it, is still far far better than calling someone an inconsiderate, two-timing, sex-making, double-crossing, republican-loving rapscallion.
3. Jimmy is 8 or 9 years old, so if he were a real person, it would be highly unlikely that he would be gay. Or straight. It is just not that common that a sexuality is that well defined at that age. However, Jimmy is not real, he is a character, and therefore, he could be gay if the creators of the show wanted him to be. I still don't think he is though.

Anyway, long story short, please use this page only to discuss the article, and not what you think of another editor. Martijn Hoekstra 21:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Martijn, it's too bad that this even has to be discussed here. It's been popping up for years. These people frequent the fansite forums, talk it up, and make decisions which have no bearing on reality. Thankfully, for the moment, this page is semi-protected, so we will not miss the drive by IP edits. DietLimeCola even went so far as to add editing guidelines above each section, which are more or less ignored. Jimmy is not gay, but according to Danny, was patterned after one of his cousins. That is referenced in the article. -- Elaich ^talk 03:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

well he might not be gay, but his flamboyance should definitely be noted; i mean he is constantly grouped with the girls and right now im watching the episode where they're trying to find out how to scam the girls so they observe them and to conclude their research double d says "girls are prone to..." and he lists what they observed, including what they saw of Jimmy. --Whimsickal 00:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy's personality is very well described already. Did it ever occur to you that Jimmy was left behind with the girls because the older boys did not want the responsibility of taking him along? -- Elaich ^talk 05:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Man you got to watch the show more often. it's not that they don't want the responability of taking care of Jimmy, which is clearly stated in the epsiode where Eddy teaches Jimmy all he knows, its just that he is either too young for them or doesn't connect with the boys cuz they are older than him Tu-49 02:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor characters

Can I put in the minor characters, I saw some including jip, ed's imaginary friend. Panguirus 03:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

He was only in one episode and isn't really important.--$UIT 22:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone who appeared in only one episode cannot be considered a character. This has been discussed before. -- Elaich ^talk 03:23, 21 June 2007

Go to hell, Elaich. - Claymort

Character influence

Do you think it would be a good idea to add what every character is supposed to be from, i.e. Eddy is the "know it all who knows nothing" part of Danny, that Jonny and Plank are based off of a kid he knew as a child, etc...? It seems logical, even if we make them seperate paragraphs. Jade Owl 11:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

These things are either already stated in the article, or are referenced. It would be mainly POV to begin with. Thanks for bringing it up for discussion. -- Elaich ^talk 05:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be POV, though, if we go only by what Antonucci has stated for the characteristics of the Eds. I don't think they're mentioned in the articles. Jade Owl 21:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is self intuitive. And, as I said, much of it is already stated. -- Elaich ^talk 04:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What this page is for

This is a page for character bios. It is not for technical data about the cartoon, like who was the voice actor, Eddy's brother may appear in a future movie, etc. Those would fall under technical details of the show, which belong on the Ed, Edd n Eddy page. Thank you. -- Elaich ^talk 02:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Plank

Should plank get his own character section? He(it)'s capable of independent movement and thought, etc. He could even be a sub-paragraph under Johnny. Discuss. 2stepMW 13:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and the consensis was Plank doesn't get his own section. --Wack'd ^{Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork!} 02:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Plank has never been seen to move on camera unless launched, and is not capable of independant thought. Jonny uses Plank as a foil and an alter ego to allow/enable his own erratic, often irrational behavior. -- Elaich ^talk 04:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eddy 1.jpg

Image:Eddy 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The introduction of this article is too short.

How can it possibly be any longer? It is a sub-page of Ed, Edd n Eddy where all the relevant information is already explained. Are we supposed to restate it here just to satisfy some editor who didn't take a look at the whole picture? I'm removing the tag - if anyone wants to discuss or dispute this, please reach me at my talk page. Thank you. -- Elaich ^talk 20:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

An introduction should at least contain three paragraphs. See WP:LEAD. I'm reinserting it. The Prince of Darkness 13:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather than putting a tag, why don't you figure out how to write a better one? -- Elaich ^talk 01:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

BRAVO!! Hats off to Prince of Darkness for "improving" the intro by changing 12 to "twelve" and adding redundant links. Where are the three paragraphs suggested by WP:LEAD? It's not as easy as you think, is it? -- Elaich ^talk 13:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already said that I know too little about the subject. You should be able to do it though, as this is the only article you edit. The Prince of Darkness 16:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Before this arguement {cough cough} sorry, Elaich, I mean, discussion, gets any more rediculious, I would like to point out that the vast majority of television-program-character-listings have incredibly short introductions (i.e. List of characters in The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy and List of characters in Invader Zim), and some don't have introductions at all (i.e. List of South Park characters). None of these pages have been tagged as having too short an intro. The fact of the matter is that it is incredibly hard to properly introduce an article that is basically just a page of smaller articles. In short, my opinion is that Elaich is right and Prince of Darkness is just being nitpicky. Fell free to completely disregard this and go on argueing...er, discussing. --Wack'd ^{Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork!} 17:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. To continue an edit war is not appopriate. I accepted the fact that the lead section obviously couldn't be improved, and removed the template. Instead of saying thanks, he/she just mocked me because I did some minor improvements to the article. I have also noticed that he/she thinks he/she owns this article, and as soon as a user/IP address edits it, he/she instantly removes it. I look at this as rude and bad behaviour. The Prince of Darkness 22:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what this is all about, isn't it, Prince of Darkness? If you will look at the history of this page, you will see many edits that I have not deleted. That in itself disproves your claim of WP:OWN. That I delete almost every edit made by an IP editor is because most of these editors add nothing of value to the article. The fact is that you jumped in here as an editor who added mostly fancruft, which I deleted. Now, rather than add content, you add tags. When challenged to live up to the tags you added, you added nothing of substance, and then begged off with the excuse that "you know very little about this article." If you know very little about it, why the hell are you editing it in the first place?????!!!! If you know very little about this subject, you are not qualified to edit it to begin with. If any behavior is rude and bad, it is yours. Don't come crashing into a subject that, by your own admission, "you know little about" and try to impose your will. -- Elaich ^talk 07:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

For the love of Pete, how much longer will this continue? Prince, stop editing this article unless you have useful information. It's that simple. This started out as being about the introduction to this article, and you are turning it into a personal arguement. The fact of the matter is, I'm sure there are articles you could be adding constructive material to, but instead you're choosing to argue with Elaich over little more than a little tag. Elaich, I am on your side, but I do think that your little example of sumugness earlier was unnessicary and innappropreate. I, for one, think this is pointless, and that you both are accomplishing nothing by debating each other. The end.--Wack'd ^{Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork!} 13:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about being smug. I just can't understand why someone would try to edit an article they themselves admit they know little about. I like what he did with the images. Someone else once did the same thing, and they ended up deleted. Maybe these will stay if some image kopp doesn't intervene. -- Elaich ^talk 03:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Plank

Well, first off, I would just like to say this discussion page is a mess. It's got far too much discussions going on. It will soon be impossible to distinguish what is recent and what is not unless we delete the old discussions. I see some sections of this page that are closed, as in, the discussions ended several months ago, yet the tediously written paragraphs still remain. Should these not be deleted, to make more room on the talk page, and make it easier for people who have just decided to edit this page (like me) to decipher which discussions are still going and which ones are not?

And now, what I was trying to say. Should Plank be included in this article? If this has been discussed before, I apologize, I probably wasn't able to find it due to the general clutter of this whole page. But, furthermore, should Plank be included? After all, he is a major character. Jonny is considered a major character, and personally I have never seen an episode where Jonny was present without Plank. Plank has also, on more than one occasion, demonstrated the ability to think, act, see, feel, etc. of his own accord. I would consider these actions a little more than just "plot advancers". If one were to consider Plank's existence in the cartoon for the sole purpose of aiding the plotline, then one would also have to consider Jonny and Nazz the same. They are not the major characters in the series, but they do have influence on the rest of the characters, Plank just the same. Some episodes have revolved around a single character (i.e. Jimmy), and likewise, there are several episodes that revolve around Plank. Essentially what I'm getting at is that Plank functions in the series the same way any of the other supplementary characters (supplementary as in, not Edd, Ed, or Eddy) function. And, if indeed this page lists all the supplementary characters as well as the main ones, Plank would be a candidate then. Cervantes de Leon 17:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you would read the comments about Plank, Plank is not capable of thought, or self movement. Plank exists as a foil to allow Jonny's eccentric behavior, and any movement took place off camera. I sense that this is too much an adult concept for younger people to grasp. Plank is not a character. Also, be aware that removal of content on Wikipedia talk pages is vandalism. -- Elaich ^talk 20:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

{{talkarchive}