Talk:The Wiggles/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Characters section images

As this article's main editor, this section has given me the most headaches.

Yesterday (2/13), Balloonman re-organized the images in this section. I would like to talk about this. My initial reaction was, "Ooo, I don't like it." Of course, that could be an emotional reaction, so I need the input of someone who's not as invested in this article. I've noticed, though, that most of the images in WP articles tend to be put on either the left or right, and not in the center or in a gallery as Balloonman has done. I haven't found any policy about that, but it seems to be common practice. Therefore, I vote to return the images to the right side of the article, as before. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I really didn't like the old format... four pictures in such a small area made it look very cluttered and sloppy---especially when the pictures extend past the relevant section. I've always hated the way it looks. Thus, I decided to try something that I've seen elsewhere that I think does work. My main quibble right now is that I think there needs to be a few more pictures in the article ABOVE the characters section.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

See, and I liked it. Maybe a solution is to put half the images on the right, and half on the left. I'll try it when I have time later on today. I'll also see what additional photos I can find on my image source, from Jeff's fan page on MySpace, also later. Happy V-Day, sweetie! ;) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Man, I'd cuss but this is a family organisation and it's Valentine's Day! ;)

As the history shows, I tried several experimentations, and nothing worked to solve our problem. I even played around with changing the size of the images, but I didn't want to make them too small, ya know. I think keeping the gallery with slightly smaller sizes works. Of course, that's just my impression. Someone else can try, as long as it looks attractive. Arrrgh, as the good Capt. would say! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The wiggles stage

I would love to see another picture replace the wiggles stage... the stage is a nice picture when it is full size, but shrunk down to fit in an Wiki-article makes it too small. I won't delete it because I think we need more 2-3 more pictures anyways...Balloonman (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before (on the FAN page, I think), the guys really need to come close enough to my town to warrant going to one of their concerts so that I can get some of the images we need myself! This article has always suffered from a lack of adequate free images. The few that we have at this point are due to some generous souls who have donated them. I think we should keep the concert image because although it's small, it demonstrates one of the most important aspects of The Wiggles--their stage shows and concerts. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"NASA" image

On 2/17, Balloonman, who has helped with this article second only to mineself, replaced the "NASA" picture with the correct one with the guys' logo on the correct side of their shirts. He also moved the image to a different section of the article. Man, what happened to not making any substantial changes without discussing it first?

Anyway, I'd like to talk about it now. I'd like to return this image to its original place like this. There are a couple of reasons for it. First, I believe that it introduces the topic of The Wiggles' origins, since it shows all four original members. Second, I personally think that it looks better there. Its current placement makes the end of the article looks too busy and makes the beginning of the article look too empty.

I agree with Balloon's evaluation that this article doesn't have enough images, but I think we've done the best with what's available. The ideal image for the end of the article, "Greg Page's retirement" would be an image of Greg. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a free one. I'll be on the look-out, though. Until then, discussion about this would be nice. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The location of the image doesn't matter to me... but the reversed image should be deleted. It is innacurate.Balloonman (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then I'll move it back. Oh, and thanks for archiving this talk page; it needed it! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Remaining FAC feedback

I was unfortunately unable to address a few of the FAC comments before the nom was closed, so I'm pasting the rest here, for evidence that all concerns were addressed before the next nom: --Figureskatingfan (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• A "Leeanne Ashley" is mentioned as the choreographer; a "Leanne Ashley" is mentioned as having acted as Dorothy; a "Leanne Halloran" is mentioned at the end as the choreographer.

Both women have been choreographers, and I corrected the typo. I can see how it can be confusing, though, so I deleted the reference to Halloran as being a choreographer, since she served in that role in one Wiggles video.

• The wiggly dancers are referred to variously as (verbatim): "The Wiggly Dancers", the Wiggly Dancers, and "the "Wiggly dancers".

I made an executive decision, and it's "dancers." --Figureskatingfan (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the references need parameter work. For example, ABC News is improperly italicized because it was set as a 'work' parameter; the same is true of references including the Australian Film Commission, ABC TV Online, MSNBC, Tv.com, and MTV.com. 'Publisher' or 'author' would be a more appropriate parameter, and would result in the proper display format.

Done; I also tried to ensure the refs were, as much as possible, reliable. It's my intention, before I resubmit this article for FAC again, to go through each ref and ensure they're still working and accessible.

• I'd suggest fleshing out the intro to the Characters section by reinforcing that the main 4 characters are known by their first names; I think this is important since the bulk of the article refers to them by their last names.

I agree with this suggestion. As a result, I think what I've come up with a good solution. Earlier, in the "Early Career" section, I made an addition that while performing, The Wiggles are addressed by their first names. Perhaps that makes the "Characters" section clearer.

• Regarding the first oppose vote above, where an editor wants to see an article for the tv series: yes, that would be lovely, but I do not see that as a valid reason for opposing since this FAC is not overly laden with tv series-specific content. I can't see opposing because you don't like some of the categories on the article. Maralia (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I suspect that the person who made this suggestion has an agenda, since his/her project is to have a WP article on every Aussie TV show produced. Sorry, but I have no personal investment in this agenda/project.

So all objections thus far have been addressed. My intention is to submit this article for another copyedit, and then resubmit it in a couple of weeks. Thanks to all who assisted! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Splitting article

I don't like the idea of splitting the article into two. The Band/Tv Series are the same. I don't like the idea.Balloonman (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already gone on the record regarding this issue, in the second FAC nom, so I agree and don't think it should be split either. However, I think that in the most recent peer review, Ruhrfisch has a point that there needs to be additional information about both The Wiggles' six TV series and their music. I'm working on that, as per WP:Summary style. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Voting against the split. This current article contains very little information that is specific to the TV series only, so I'm not sure how a split would work. For example, the minor characters (Catpain Feathersword, etc.) exist in the TV series, AND in their home videos, AND in their concerts, so you wouldn't want to remove them from the main article. Furthermore, there isn't/wasn't just one TV series called "The Wiggles". In the episodes I've seen, some were titled "The Wiggles", others were called "Lights, Camera, Action, Wiggles!", and still others were titled "The Wiggles World" (I think). And many of the episodes consisted mainly of clips drawn from the home videos, so it all gets very intertwined. I think it makes more sense to discuss their various series in the main article. Vandelay (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of splitting the article either. It should be kept as is. The Wiggles band, TV show and arena shows seem to be all the same thing.Dincher (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm also against a split, and have removed the template, as nobody here seems to support it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

ARIA Awards

I know that in 2006 the Wiggles received their 6th ARIA award (Australia's big music award) and that they received at least one in 2007... but I don't know how many they currently have. I think this would be a piece of information to include in the article someplace.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs)

Here's a link - they've won 4 (their latest was in 2005, it says) and have been nominated for another 6. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

But then, this says they won Best Childrens Album for Racing To The Rainbow, so perhaps the ARIA site is sometimes slow on the update (first time I've seen that happen...) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the reason self-published websites aren't considered reliable. For now, until we find an updated, reliable source, I think we should keep it as is. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I thought ARIA's webiste would be considered reliable. I've always used it/seen it as such. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 04:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think self published websites aren't reliable in so far as they relate to claims about themselves. In other words, if the page said that it was the most prestigious musical award in Australia, then no, that is not reliable. But when it is reporting facts such as the number of awards presented, that is generally a different story. I would have thought it would be reliable as well as it is in regards to it's own awards.

• ARIA's official site says they won 4 and were nominated for 6 more with nothing since 2005. BUT
• they won best children's album in 2007
• they won best children's album in 2006
• reports it as 6 best children's aria's
• According to the Wiggles Page, they have 5 best albums (don't list Pop Goes the Wiggles-2007) and an Oustanding Achievement Award in 2003Balloonman (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the solution, since there's all this "conflicting" info, is to simply say, "The Wiggles have won and been nominated for several ARIA awards, the most prestigious music award in Australia," with appropriate citing, of course. Opinions? --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine. Personally I would go with an accumulation of the ARIA info via all the links provided, but I don't mind this easier. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about it, and since there was no more discussion, I conflated the above references to the current version. I believe it satisfies the concerns of all interested parties. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC process

So this article failed FAC again, for the third time. I wasn't able to address the most recent set of comments/feedback, so I will cut-and-paste them below and when I have time (I have some RL deadlines to meet this week), I'll address them.

I must say, getting this article to FA-status has been frustrating. I realize that as a writer, I have some weaknesses, as well as lack of experience. One of the things I love about WP is how much I've learned as an editor and about the editing process. I'm certain that the next article I tackle will be easier. My writing has improved, that's for certain.

However, I'm beginning to have some misgivings about the FAC process, especially how it relates to this particular article. From what I've seen of other FAs, even the ones that have been put on the main page, they haven't gone through nearly as much scrutiny as this one has: three peer reviews, a copyedit, a GAN, and now three FACs. I'm willing to admit that it can be explained in part by the weaknesses of this article, with my weaknesses and inexperience as an editor, and with the subject of this article.

I wonder, though, if there hasn't been some biases against this article, and perhaps that explains the tendency for reviewers to judge it more harshly than how other FAs about similar topics have been judged. First, the subject is non-American. Second, it focuses on children's music, not a highly respected genre in the music field. Finally, the main editor is a woman. Now, I don't want to accuse anyone of anything, but I think it's important enough to at least bring up here on this talk page.

At any rate, I will address the objections that I didn't have the time to address before the nomination was closed, and try again at a later time, after the dust settles. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tony and myself are both Australian... Roger is an Englishman. I've suported stacks of artilces by females - eg Awadewit (talk · contribs). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also Australian. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

But you didn't address the children's music issue. One of the major weaknesses of this article is the subject matter. No one's out there writing about the efficacy of The Wiggles' educational methods or doing any studies about them. Part of that, I believe, is because their audience is very young children, and children's music is not yet accepted by the mainstream of the music industry. In other words, the attitude is, "Why should the WP article about a children's music group become a FA? How is that notable?" As a result, this article may be suffering from a higher level of scrutiny than other articles of a similar topic.

Of course, that's nothing that I can prove, but I wanted to at least put it out there. I also hope this doesn't disable this article any further. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC notes to be addressed

Cut-and-paste by Figureskatingfan. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Fair-use justification: I find it inadequate. If there's an educational function (as required), it's unclear in the main text. What is it about the settings that makes them suitable for children? What did they do to the original Cockroaches songs, musically and in terms of the lyrics? And how is the educational function of the Wiggles's songs achieved. More details, analysis, required. I don't see that the sources have this information. TONY (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're talking about the audio samples. I added more information to them; perhaps that's adequate. I've also added more information about the educational function of the group's music and performances, at least what I was able to source. The sources out there don't go into any more detail than what's described in this article. I'd love to be able to find a sample of The Cockroaches songs that were changed, but they're just simply not out there that I could find. (And believe me, I did an extensive search.) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I have concerns about comprehensiveness. There are also a few prose issues and many quotations that are not directly cited.

• Question on the timeline: Was the first self-titled album created before the stuff that happened in the second paragraph of the Origins section? I found it a little odd that it mentioned the "self-titled album" but took another paragraph to explain where the name came from.

I restructured that section, so hopefully this issue has been addressed satisfactorily.

• I thought "songwriting" was one word.

Nope. In Aussie spelling, it's two.

• Need a citation for the quote here "Their songs combined "fun with educational messages" that were accessible to parents and children." (even if the next sentence cite covers it, just in case someone inserts another fact in the middle)

Point here is mute, since I deleted this phrase to address the overusage of quotes.

• I may be interpreting this incorrectly, but this appears to be a bit of a contradiction in these 2 sentences "The Wiggles were musicians, "a rock band, pure and simple".[1] They were not tied to one style or genre of music"

Again, mute point now; I deleted the "rock band" reference and expanded the second point. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Go through the article and watch for unnecessary repetition within sentences and paragraphs. (Ex: "Cook, as a guitarist, was conscious that he was probably the first guitarist children would see" two "guitarist" refs?) (Ex 2 :They have been awarded with several music industry awards in Australia")

Done, but it could use some additional eyes.

• "The Wiggles wrote new music each year since their inception; three albums worth of original children's music, drawing upon several genres of music and types of instruments, were written during marathon song writing sessions for a month each summer and were based on simple concepts familiar to young children" - Does this mean the wrote three albums total or that they wrote three albums a year each year since 1991?

Changed; it's now clearer, I believe.

• This is a pretty broad claim "Fatt reported that children with autism "respond to [The] Wiggles and nothing else"." - I think that this might need to be more specific.

How's this: According to Fatt, many parents of these children have reported that The Wiggles' music has "enhanced their lives",[15] and that children with autism "respond to [The] Wiggles and nothing else".[15]

• Need citation for the quotation here "For a few years during the late 90s, while "riding an enormous wave of success in America and the UK", The Wiggles travelled in two planes and on two buses so that if disaster occurred, "at least half of them would survive and carry on". After "
• Need citation for quotes: "Their "strong connection" with the US was "forged in the shell-shocked weeks after the terrorist attacks on New York in 2001," when The Wiggles travelled to America to perform despite the "stated risks".

Fixed.

• Need a cite for the quotes: "n "one of the highlights of their 15 years of being together", The Wiggles were awarded honorary doctorate degrees from the Australian Catholic University in recognition of "their outstanding contribution to early child development" in 2006. "

Fixed.

• This sentence makes it sound like the kids would want them to disband "The Wiggles "struggled" over their decision to replace Page, but they decided not to disband because they thought that was what their young audience would want."

Okay, I changed the wording to satisfy this objection.

• The tone of this is off a bit - it reads like an ad from the Wiggles "Dorothy is a "rososaurus", a "yellow-spotted green dinosaur with surprisingly scary teeth".[34] She lives in a beautiful pink and purple house with her own Rosy Orchestra and a rose garden in her backyard. She loves to eat roses and dance the ballet.[34] She enjoys serving guests rose-derived treats such as "rosy tea".

Okay, perhaps there needs to be a discussion about this section. Do you recommend that we completely remove it, or that we move it to another article? I'd accept moving it, since these characters (including their portrayers) are important to The Wiggles. In writing/editing/expanding this section, I used some of the Character articles as a model (i.e.,Kermit the Frog), although unlike these articles, I strictly included only source-able information. For example, in an early version of this article, there was a line about "The Wiggles death curse", which refered to the fact that two of the people who played a minor character had died. There is nothing to substantiate this, so it was deleted. (Also see this discussion.) The earlier versions of this section also suffered from WP:OR, as do other similar articles (i.e., Kermit). I made a conscious decision and effort to avoid that in this article, so the descriptions are shorter than in previous versions. If anyone has a better idea as to how to handle this issue, please share. Also, remember that these are children's characters, so I don't see why we can't get a little whimsical here, WP as an encyclopedia notwithstanding.

• Need a citation for the quotes: "Ferrie described Dorothy as "a dinosaur superstar ... very open, friendly, and warm. She is like a mother figure even though she is only meant to be five, and kids really respond to her ... She is calm and mothering but friendly as well. She's young and still playful but has got a motherly feeling to her".

Also fixed.

• Need a cite for quotes "Ferrie insisted that Dorothy "is number one after the boys including Captain Feathersword, in terms of who kids say they love".

Ahem, see above.

• This ref does not have a publisher listed: Bourgeau, Michel. "Play your guitar with Murray" (DOC). Retrieved on 2007-08-06.

Okay.

• Overall in the article there is an overemphasis on quotes.

I went through the article and tried to decrease this emphasis by changing many quotes to prose. Hope it's adequate.

• There is no section about critical response. Have there been no reviews of their music? Have there been any controversies about the group?

As I describe in the below section, I created a new section, "Reception", in the hopes that it satisfies this objection. I think that I've included as many reviews and criticism as possible. For example, John Fogerty's comments about them, the problems with Greg's retirement, and this year's "ticketing scandal". What do you do when one of the article subject's goals is to stay as squeaky-clean as they can, and for the most part, do a really good job? Sorry, The Wiggles aren't Jamie-Lynn Spears. They're boring (not that there's anything wrong with that!), but much cuter. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What I did

I'm now ready to address some of the issues raised in this article's last FAC. Before addressing them, I wanted to find more information that specifically addressed some these concerns (i.e., criticism and educational efficacy), so I went through everything this article cites and added information when appropriate. Notice that I created two new sections: Musical style and Reception. I wasn't able to find a great deal of information, since as I've stated before, this article's biggest weakness is its subject matter, and the fact that not much has been written about the influence of The Wiggles' music and some of the other demands of this article's reviewers.

I need some input: I placed the new sections at the end of the Characters section. Is this the most appropriate placement? I think it was, since the Characters section flow naturally from the History section. Please discuss, for if someone can adequately justify changing it, I will do so.--Figureskatingfan (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

New lead

On 5/19, Dihydrogen Monoxide made some edits to this article's lead. I have some problems with them, which I will list for you below:

• "Formed in Sydney in 1991, the group's original members were Anthony Field, Murray Cook, Greg Page, and Jeff Fatt—Page left the group in 2006 and was replaced by Sam Moran."

I like the first part of that sentence. Perhaps it's solely a style preference, but I don't think that the slash (--) is good usage. In addition, the content expressed in the second part of the sentence was originally placed at the end of the lead for timeline purposes; that's why the sentence states, "The original members were..." So I support putting it at the end as I have done.

• "The Wiggles' popularity has seen them referred to as..."

Don't like phrasing of this at all. How about the original phrasing ("The group has achieved worldwide success..."); "has seen" and "popularity" are peacock terms. "Worldwide success" is peacock, too, but not as much, IMO.

• "...their albums, videos, television series, and concerts have achieved success worldwide."

Similar issue as above, or continuing it. The albums et al haven't achieved success; the guys have.

• "They have received tens of multi-platinum certifications and have sold over 17 million DVDs, and four million CDs."

What's wrong with the list of their specific sells? "Tens of" makes little sense. I'm okay with the "have sold over" phrase, but my version is tighter, IMO.

• "Field and Fatt were members of the Australian pop band The Cockroaches in the 1980s, while Cook played guitar in several bands. The trio met at Macquarie University, where they were studying to become pre-school teachers."

This is just plain wrong. (Well, Murray did play the guitar...) The timeline goes: Anthony and Jeff were in the Cockroaches; Murray was in several bands; Anthony, Murray, and Greg met at university, and so on. The current version makes no mention of Greg. It needs to be changed.

That's all. My preference is to revert it back to the version before Di's, but I wanted consensus first. Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...thanks for the feedback. Long of the short; I've reverted myself...it is "your" article, and I understand your issues. Sometimes it's hard when you aren't as familiar with the subject to do a good lead. Good luck at FAC. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yah, but Di, the policy you quote says that I don't own the article. Sure, I have a great deal invested in it, as all editors who commit themselves to a particular article do, but I think that I've always been open to the constructive input of others. I've followed every reasonable suggestion made during every milestone it's been through. So I have some emotional attachment to it, and I'm sure that's been obvious as we've gone through this process as well. At any rate, thanks for your help in that process (and for your revert) and keep your fingers crossed for FA! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor correction

I've corrected the reference to Murray Cook's pre-Wiggles group -- it was Finger Guns, not Bang Shang A Lang. Both groups feature Cook and Mark Mulligan, but BSL is their current band. Finger Guns played in the late 1980s. Dunks (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dunk, at first, I reverted your correction, but after thinking about it some, I corrected it even further. Murray was in both groups, so I changed the line to reflect it, and added a reference. Thanks for your input, since it ultimately led to the improvement of the article, but in the future, please make sure that you provide good sources for your edits and additions.

I noticed from your talk page that you're friends with Murray, which is way cool. I wonder, though, if there's a connection between the name of his old band and "the signature finger-wagging move", which looks an awful lot like a "finger gun". Do you know anything about that, and if you do, do you know of a reliable source about it? Just wondering. ;) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

On one of their video's they talk about the finger wagging move. Apparently, it was introduced early on. One of the Wiggles, I think it was Jeff, saw it while watching professional bowlers on TV. After throwing a strike, they would turn around and wag their hands. They decided to make this their signature move in part to give them something to do when taking pictures with children. They realized that if they were going to work with children that they were going to have to make sure that there were no questions about where their hands were during photo shoots---thus the finger wag. I'll try to take a look and remember which DvD it is on, but we'd have to get the DvD to confirm it/cite it. It was a video that had 2 episodes of "Lights Camera Action" and Dorothy giving a history of the Wiggles. I think it was Hot Potato---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As the article says, they explained this move during an interview with Andrew Denton in Australia; Murray was the one who saw it on TV. And it was Paul Paddick who says in an interview with the SMH that they adopted it to avoid litigation. I just wondered (enough to asks Dunk) if there was connection between that, since Murray came up with it, and Finger Guns. I didn't think we'd find a source for it. As far as the video you mention, I'm pretty sure we have it (I'll have to locate it, but that's another story I'm sure no one wants to hear)--it's "Wiggledancing (Live in the USA)". I also remember that Dorothy's narration didn't say anything new or something that could be added to the article's content. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan -- the reason for my minor amendment was that the paragraph is slightly innaccurate. Bang Shang A Lang came LONG after The Wiggles formed -- it's a relatively recent group. Murray and Mark Mulligan played together in Finger Guns in for several years in the mid 1980s; FYI they also performed at parties as an occasional duo called "Yellow Snow" (the name I think was coined for our Antarctic-themed house party ca. 1985, at which they played). I know this is classified as "original research" but Murray and I were housemates for about four years in that period, so I can assure you the information is correct. I've never asked Murray if there's a "conceptual continuity" thing hapenning there with the name and the gesture -- I doubt it. Dunks (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC).

Dunks, you either need to write a book or an article and get it published in a reputable publication. ;) Seriously, though, the sources we *do* have support the line as already written: "Murray Cook was the guitarist in various pop bands, including Finger Guns[6] and Bang Shang a Lang, and had worked as a clerk at the Australian Taxation Office before enrolling at Macquarie.[7]" In an article Mark Mulligan wrote (which is referenced on Murray Cook, he mentions Yellow Snow, but the chronology of it is a bit unclear. In other words, it's unclear as to what came first, and when: Bangshangalang or Yellow Snow. I have to run now, but I'll add more from that article in this discussion later. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Mainpage!!!

Wow, that was quick... it often takes longer (from FAC to main page). Congrats!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hooray! —Giggy 23:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OMG! I wasn't even gonna nominate it for the mainpage until November, to honor the second anniversary of Greg's retirement. I can't even believe it! Whoo-hoo! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

AWESOME! what does that meen? were on the main page is it? --Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We were yesterday... which is why the page was vandalized so much... front page = vandalism.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I got that.. LOL Oh well they were on the front page! The big red car pic was on the front page AWESOME! that is too cool!!! --Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories

• For an FA, I'm very surprised this hasn't even got categories! Jasca Ducato (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is, but somewhere down the line, it was removed. I added it back in. Thanks for catching it! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Back in July 2007, there was a stealth CFD that nomed the Wiggles and a number of other categories for deletion---the CFD nom'd about 30 "bands member categories" and deleted all but a handful. I call it a stealth CFD because the person who posted the CFD didn't notify the different categories.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

--Figureskatingfan (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)==Little Wiggles?==

I don't know much about the Wiggles but have heard stuff from people with kids. Shouldn't the Little Wiggles be mentioned at least briefly? Are there no RS on them? They don't seem to be mentioned at all in the characters section or anywhere else from what I can tell. Nil Einne (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The little wiggles are no more than a skit done during one of the Wiggles shows. As far as I know, they don't exist anywhere else.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? From these sources, none of them seemings RS admitedly, [1] [2] [3] [4], [5] it appears to me they've made appareances in multiple shows/episodes in recent times Nil Einne (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

None of them are very notable/reliable... There are plenty of other minor characters that aren't mentioned in the article. At most, the little wiggles could be listed as a sentence or as part of a list. I wouldn't object to that. But they are too minor for anything more.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with B. I did a brief Google search for them, and also found nothing notable. They're cute, and Jeff's Little Wiggles counterpart looks eerily like him, but it's not enough to include in the article. They were also in only two seasons of their shows. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Founding members

Phillip Wilcher was a founding member of The Wiggles. When my children were little, The Wiggles first emerged, and Wilcher was prominent on their first CD - on the cover and composing the bulk of the material. Whatever happened afterwards - musical differences from all appearances - he was there at the start and any truthful account of their history should reflect this.136.186.1.188 (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The IP is correct, he should be listed as an original member.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I just read this article, and as much as I personally hate to admit it, this information is correct. As a result, the article should be changed, and that's what I'll do while I'm here this morning. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

he's so Arogent.. he gives me the Creeps! --Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that article does Phillip few favours, but it's uncharacteristic from what I've read elsewhere, and I even wonder how accurately he was quoted. He is a fine musician. I'm also not sure if Jeff Fatt was actually a founding member, though he is certainly on the first album. Still, if Phillip is included in this original list, I see no reason to go there.136.186.1.185 (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

whatever... --Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiggles on Sprout

I think we need to add some Stuff to the Article about Sprout.. and I wish there was more Pics we could put in.. --Jena (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what more there is to add about Sprout, Jena. The line that's there is adequate; it states what's happened, just like any other event in The Wiggles' history. I don't see how it's any more or less important than anything else. I suppose we could wait and see if something's printed about their reaction to it, or how if affects them (i.e., if their sales or popularity go down). It's hard to say now; the Sprout thing is still happening as we speak.

Re: images: I agree, actually. I'm thinking about writing them and asking for their release of photos. I don't think it's realistic to depend upon fans to get the pics we want. My family and I saw them in concert last Sat. (7/18) in Spokane, WA, but I got none of the pictures I wanted (i.e., all four doing the "signature finger-wagging move"). The meet-and-greet was fun, but it was unrealistic to try and get the photos and deal with the kids at the same time. Plus, Anthony had the flu, so he didn't participate (although he did perform, and was great). (See my blog for more: http://christinemeyer.blogspot.com/) --Christine (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wilcher in Intro

I agree with Prohibit Onions, I think the Wilcher sentence improves the article.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm indifferent about this, folks. I can see both points. Forgive my presumption, but I'm sure that Jena would say that placing Wilcher in the intro gives him too much importance. There really isn't any good evidence regarding Wilcher's role in The Wiggles' early history. As a matter of fact, that's on my list of questions for Anthony, in a reputable source of course. I notice that no one has changed Jena's revert, though. I'll just go with whatever consensus decides, at least until we find a good source about this "controversy". At any rate, excluding Wilcher from the intro shouldn't be about our dislike for the guy, or even Anthony's. Of course, that's a huge assumption, isn't it, but one I suspect is correct. --Christine (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL you know me too well Christine! yes thats right I Just don't think he was all that Importent.. --Jena (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

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 [6], 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 [7] 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):

== [[The Wiggles]] ==

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 [[APRA Awards|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.<ref name="APRAScreen"/> {{Awards table}} |- |rowspan="2"| [[APRA Awards of 2007|2007]] || The Wiggles: [[Murray Cook]], [[Jeff Fatt]] , [[Anthony Field]], John Field, [[Greg Page (musician)|Greg Page]] || 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 = [[Australasian Performing Right Association]] (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.

Year	Nominee / work	Award	Result
2007	The Wiggles: Murray Cook, Jeff Fatt , Anthony Field, John Field, Greg Page	International Achievement Award	Won
	Cook, Fatt, Anthony Field, John Field, Page	Most Performed Screen Composer - Overseas	Won

References

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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?

Resolved

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.[8]

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 Wikipedia 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 [from "Return of Greg Page" to "Reunion with Page". I think "return" is a better word. "Reunion" implies (to me) that they "split up", which has negative connotations that don't apply here. Admittedly this is just a personal opinion, which is hard to put into words, so I'm not going to change the article on the strength of it. Others may care to opine on the matter. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

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 [Anthony] 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--[9]ref 10 and [10]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 [11], 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

Resolved

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?

Resolved

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 [12], 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 [13] -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. [14] -AngusWOOF (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

And another thing. Field played Captain Feathersword in the Big Red Car video released in 1995 and Wags the Dog in the circus scene of The Wiggles Movie in 1997. Dcelano 16:40, March 1, 2014 (UTC) Dcelano

The Wiggles Live at Disneyland

If somebody had the Wiggles Live special taped at Disneyland and then broadcasted in Australia, we could see what it would look like. Dcelano, 04:39, December 18, 2013, (UTC)

Are you asking why I commented out the Live at Disneyland broadcast in The Wiggles videography: DIFF It is because the original bio source said that they were filmed for a TV special, and met some executives from Lyrick Studios. It does not say that the special was exclusively about The Wiggles or named "Live at Disneyland", so that information requires a source. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Since no one knows what the name of the Australian Disneyland TV Special is anymore maybe the Wiggles did a live guest appearance. And besides, the songs they were performing were "Hot Potato", "Quack Quack", "Henry's Dance" and "Wiggly Medley". I saw it on YouTube years ago. And another thing. The Australians didn't know about Disneyland and it's a theme park. I think I'll show you a photo gallery I made. https://www.mediafire.com/?x5g64x3laqxhebi Dcelano, 04:02, January 04, 2014, (UTC)

Regarding the photo of the poster, that only shows that they performed at Disneyland and how they were billed on the posters for their shows there: "Disney Channel presents The Wiggles Live at Disneyland", and were therefore sponsored or presented by Disney Channel (and Qantas Holidays). This article and especially this article shows that they planned to use it for a TV special, however, whether they actually broadcast that special in Australia is not confirmed. It is possible they just used video clips as promotional material. One would need to look up television guides themselves to see what their final product was. From what I have seen of the archive, there was no broadcast, but they did announce signing a major deal with Lyrick soon afterwards to distribute in the United States. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan finally found a reliable source so I have added it to the videography part. [15]. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The Wiggles' First TV Appearance

I heard that according to the Celebration programme book, the Wiggles made their first TV appearance about Red Nose Day. I think it was 1991 or 1998. Dcelano, 01:07, December 19, 2013, (UTC)

It is 1991 according to this Paul Field's autobiographical article posted to the ACU alumni magazine: [16]. quote: "The Wiggles’ very first TV appearance was to launch the SIDS and Kids Red Nose Day campaign in 1991. Since the beginning of this campaign, infant mortality as a result of SIDS in Australia has reduced by more than 80 per cent – and it’s amazing to be involved in something that’s still saving lives." -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC), updated 19:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2014

I'll do my best on editing. 73.33.217.222 (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2015

Where's the padlock. Requesting the addition of {{pp-vandal}} 115.188.176.136 (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)