Talk:Meerkat Manor: Difference between revisions

Spoilers - once and for all

I agree that there may be a valid argument for putting spoilers on the "Featured families" section. I have read WP:SPOILER more carefully, and it doesn't say that they are inappropriate in this situation. However, the way to do this is not an all-caps warning with personal attacks against "the author", as in this [1] edit. There is a template to do this, {{spoiler}}. If we decide spoiler warnings are needed, this is what we should use for them. First I think we should come to a consensus. So anybody who has an opinion on this, please give it: should we or should we not have spoilers on the families section? --FlamingSilmaril 11:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I worded that warning to get your attention, because you are indifferent to the fact that people are being spoiled outside of the season three area and are not happy about it, and because you blew off earlier polite requests from me (and others, I notice) to add warnings. I know others who were inadvertantly spoiled, and I hate to think of school kids who watch the show having it "ruined" for them. This is a very simple request and does not require a think tank to come to the obvious conclusion. If some of us are unhappy and trying to fix the problem (and no doubt representative of a larger group that doesn't care enough to try, especially in the face of outright opposition), why are you removing spoilers and indifferent to viewer concerns? If you agree that spoilers are warranted in the season 3 area, then it's simple logic that they are also needed in other areas that spoil that information; in fact, more so, since there is no "season 3" heading to warn them off. I'll put it another way: what's the harm of adding a spoiler warning in the family section... my God, the first entry there spoils the death of a major character... have you no sensitivity as to how that has marred the viewing of this wonderful show for me and others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.35.7 (talk) 15:27, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

First of all: Please sign your posts yourself, with four tildes (~~~~). The bot is not there to do it for you.

Second: You already used the "Think of the children" argument once, and the related spoiler warning was removed for POV in this [2] edit. That kind of rhetoric will not win your argument.

Third: This discussion has come up before, and it was so heated that an admin protected the page because of edit warring. This is not a one-sided argument; please read the arguments for and against in the Archive [3].

Fourth: I am not "indifferent" to spoilers, or "blowing off" proposals to include them. I have only removed spoilers you added that were formatted incorrectly. As I said before, please use the {{spoiler}} template - WHEN we reach a consensus.

Fifth: Please go to WP:SPOILER and read the guidelines there. If you find something there to support your argument, by all means bring it up. But don't base your reasoning on an appeal to not spoil schoolkids.

--FlamingSilmaril 11:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

One other thing: there is indeed a harm of adding spoiler warnings wherever you feel like it. Spoiler warnings are to be used as sparingly as possible, and a revision of content is preferable to adding one. Putting in spoiler warnings wherever and whenever leads to a disorganized, messy, ugly article. You asked "what's the harm of adding a spoiler warning in the family section", so there you go. --FlamingSilmaril _Talk\^Contribs 23:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree revising content is preferable to putting up spoiler tags. I certainly do not have time to edit an article that is rife with many, many spoilers, nor would I take the time to do so because obviously you would remove those edits from your holy perch of Wikipedia faux authority. My reasoning is solid; yours is specious. I was personally spoiled and so were friends of mine and so were others as evidenced by posts here. I find your position on this simple issue utterly amazing. 76.170.35.7 19:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How is my position utterly amazing? I read the policy on such matters, and now I'm asking for your opinion. If you have any points you wish to bring up, I'm open to them, but so far you seem to be using an appeal to not spoil unsuspecting readers, without backing it up with precedent of how Wikipedia does things like this. Please do your homework before arguing vehemently for your case. For example: take a peek at WP:SPOILER, a wonderful little page explaining how Wikipedia uses that thing they call a spoiler warning.

On a different note: kudos for signing your post. Thank you very much. --FlamingSilmaril _Talk\^Contribs 23:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Spoiler notices may be appropriate when significant plot revelations appear in unexpected places. As with all content, if a particular spoiler notice is disputed, discuss on the talk page and abide by consensus with regard to including or omitting the spoiler notice."

When people read about Flower's death, they are immediately mad at wikipedia for spoiling them. Its happened to a lot of people I know. I think we should warn them about the most main character in the whole series' death. It seems pretty important to put the spoiler if the main character dies. Plus, maybe people would stop trying to put she doesn't die. Cruise meerkat 05:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a wildlife documentary. There are no characters, they're real meerkats. When Flower died, she died, she didn't wander off to find a new nature documentary in which to "play" a different meerkat. Moreover even if we did treat this particular nature documentary as if it were a soap opera, you're welcome to find one single soap opera for which there is a spoiler tag in the Wikipedia article over a well verified report of a forthcoming death. We don't do that any more, even if we ever did. If "Meerkat Manor is a documentary, not a soap opera" doesn't work for you, try "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site." --Tony Sidaway 07:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I read the article wanting to catch up. When I prematurely discovered that Flower had died I was very mad at Wikipedia. It seems that some editors of this page have chosen to bicker of the finer points of "spoiler policy" and have dismissed the concerns of the content consumers. I uderstand that there is policy and convention to follow. I also understand the need to reach consensus among editors. But at some point you gotta just ask yourself "what would the readers of this page want?" and "is defending my point really worth this ongoing grief?" That more than a few people have complained about the spoilers ruining their experience of the show should be cause for immediate concern. This debate appears to be more about jockying about who can lay claim to being right and less about what's best for the page. Given the ill-will that is being created, why would anyone want to perpetuate that for future visitors? After reading this debate the lesson is clear: avoid Wikipedia for TV related content. It's a shame. I might have stuck around and helped with maintaining the page but this needless headstrong approach of some editors means this is a page I'll never visit again. Along the way my faith in Wikipedia has dropped a bit too. This is a silly fight if I've ever seen one because it's reducing the appeal and value of the page in the first place.

"What's the policy?" is the wrong question to be asking. "What would most visitors coming to this page want?" is a better question. I'd much rather face the "ugly" formatting of spoiler warnings than unintentionally run into a plot spoiler. It's hard to imagine why any Wikipedia editor would want visitors to have a bad experience reading their pages. It's clear that people are upset by the manner in which the content is being presented and addressing this easy to do. Why, then, are we still debating? Can those who are blocking the spoiler warning please just step back for a moment and ask themselves if it's truly worth upsetting all of these visitors to the article so that they can continue to be "right" about the spoiler policy and whether or not this show is a documentary or a drama. C'mon...it does not matter. What matters is that people are needlessly getting ticked off reading the article. Why would anyone want that? It's easy to fix.

There is a real problem here. Do we want to see it fixed, or do we want to debate it and "win"?

Tobycat [[User_talk:Tobycat|(talk)]] 00:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

After trying to fix the awful spoiler problem, I gave up, realizing that I was up against the type of people who would say "There are no characters" in this show. The characters in Meerkat Manor have more depth and, well....character than any other show on TV today. I doubt that you will see anybody on any other show give their life to help their family the way Flower and Shakespeare did. I was glad to find out that there were other people who could fight my position better than I could (thank you Tobycat for your articulate words). Due to certain people's need to 'win', they will ruin the experience for many people in the future. stevielist , 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I am the "unsigned" poster who previously, unsuccessfully tried to add spoiler warnings to this article (as a direct result of reading about Flower's death and what happens after that, although I didn't mention specifically what had concerned me until now, after her death has aired on television). I gave up in the face of one arrogant person who designated themself the arbiter of this site, deleted attempts to add spoiler warnings, and called for a consensus on the issue (and then hypocritically ignored that the consensus of those posting here is to add the warnings). I am glad to see that others of you also tried (stevielist and tobycat in particular), using common sense, even though common sense obviously went right over the head of the self-designated arbiter. My opinion of Wikipedia has diminished, and I will never again use it for any purpose other than historical information. It saddens me to realize that this tool, Wikipedia, is designed in such a way that an article can be taken hostage by one individual and used to hurt others.76.171.174.37 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you done bickering now? Can we get back to the issue: IMHO, as it is now, a spoilerwarning should go on there. there is no harm in having it on there, but there clearly is harm if there isnt. if editing can be done in a way that does not give away the plot 9e.g. by putting the characters and plots on a separate page or a clearly spoilermarked section, it can be removed. for my part, i would not expect wikipedia should be an episode guide but i may be alone in that.

If you oppose spoilerwarnings, what is your argument? that people should not be reading wikipedia, as someone did below? also see my comments in the uk section below.Bine maya 12:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The main reason that spoiler tags aren't used here is that this is a nonfiction show. Spoiler tags are used only on articles about fictional topics. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This argument is based upon a false premise. I dispute that this is truly a "nonfiction" show. Although the video is collected by scientists affiliated with the Kalahari Meerkat Project, the narration is dramatized. Watch an episode...ANY episode...and you'll plainly see that motivations are ascribed to the Meerkats that nobody could possibly know. The meerkats are personified and given complex human personalities, conflicts, empotions, and motivations as a result. The narrative is inferred by the show's writers and dramatized for its entertainment value. Nowhere is the show represented as a real documentary. Although the broad themes of the show remain valid (Meerkats breed, hunt, and die) the sad truth is that those who believe the details of the dramatization as "fact" have spent too much time hiding in a burrow. This program is entertainment, loosly based upon facts. Tobycat [[User_talk:Tobycat|(talk)]] 20:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

On this whole "Meerket Manor is a documentary so it is OK to block addition of spoilers" argument I have to also add that this line of reasoning is arbitrary as it relies on convention and tosses out common sense. You are ignoring the intent behind spoiler warnings. Policy or convention are useful to the extent that they implement the intent of both editors and users. In the case of this article, it is not justifiable to continue blocking well-intentioned editors who seek to create a good readership experience for visitors to this page by adding a standard spoiler warning. Nothing is harmed by adding the spoiler except perhaps a bruised ego of the small group who are standing in the way of this sensible edit. This unfriendly obstinance is serving only one purpopse: it promotes ill-will regarding this page and harms the Wikipedia experience for readers. I assert strongly that a spoiler warning is appropriate for this page. The sad reality is that my "vote" counts for nothing as long as someone holds out and objects on the basis of policy/convention which can be nitpicked until the end of time. Tobycat [[User_talk:Tobycat|(talk)]] 21:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

While Meerkat Manor is heavily dramatized, it is still a documentary and still non-fiction. Adding the spoiler warnings would be pointless and adds nothing to the article. Even most fiction TV show articles rarely use spoiler tags. They detract from the appearance of the article and common sense indicates that if you are coming to Wikipedia to read about a show, you should be prepared for spoilers. Same thing for movies, or should all movies also have spoiler tags even if the plot section is, by nature, going to have spoilers.

There is also no reason for a spoiler tag when the show's primary site publishes those same "spoilers" even before Wikipedia does. I got all the information on the rest of the season 3 episodes from the AP site for the show, including Flower's death and Rocket Dog becoming the dominant female. I strongly oppose having a spoiler tag on this article. I've yet to see anyone articulate a good reason for it. "OMG, think of the readers" isn't one, I care about the articles, not the readers. Collectonian 01:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

UK Episodes

The UK is getting the episode every Monday-Friday now. They're getting Journey's End today, and some spoilers for both it and Heavy is the Crown have leaked. Should the article be updated with information from those airings, or are we strictly sticking with the US schedule? 70.189.237.15 12:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should post the details, because remember wikipedia is not jut for americans, and the programmes' origins come from the U.K. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.133.19 (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally. Last night the episode 'Farewell my Lovely' aired, and in that episode Zaphod left the Whiskers and became a roving male. Should I put that on the article? Me myself or I 06:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is international. Updates from "Heavy is the Crown" were removed and as a result details about Axl and his siblings became incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.8 (talk) 06:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if you UK viewers are so intent on spoiling American viewers, you can write a special UK section for the article and spoil away to your heart's content THERE. I don't understand the "me, me, me" logic that wants to ruin the show for other viewers. Of course, your discussion is moot, anyway. The entire season is spoiled for the US already. 76.171.174.37 22:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if your season is "spoiled" - but if you are so concerned about not learning details before they air, why are you reading the "episode" section? It should be obvious that episode descriptions will contain descriptions of the episodes. (Apologies if you think I'm unsympathetic, but it is interesting to note that U.S. contributors never suggest waiting until the episodes air elsewhere in the world before posting. This is true for most if not all television series on Wikipedia.) Again, if you don't want to know, you don't have to read - the choice is yours. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I would think it's not an all or nothing kind of thing- either your read or you don't. The first two paragraphs give info that actually give useful knowledge about the project, but then it suddenly goes into a character section that basically tells the whole plot (which really is not what one would expect- caught me totally off-guard). I'm neither UK nor US based and i do not care about your inter-anglo resentments (nor about reality TV shows). People access the english language wikipedia from all over the world and watch these kinds of shows through all sorts of distribution channels (DVDs, itunes, satellite, etc). So when you are done with your inter-anglo resentments, could we agree to give people a choice as you say, would be nice to let them know where the spoiling starts, non? Like say in the beginning- attention, section 'blablbabla contains spoilers'. BTW, this discussion about spoilers contains spoilers itself. that's pretty inconsiderate. why is it such a big problem to put a spoiler tag after the non-spoiling header sections? Bine maya 12:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

UK users

If you live in the UK, then you should make another Meerkat Manor article, but centers on UK info and not US. Then is parenthsis you can say whether it's US or UK.Mitchmeerkat 18:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically, wouldn't they be almost exactly the same in the end, save for announcer and airing schedules? I can see why some people might not want too many spoilers here, but it's the inconsistency of the overall edits that gets me (revert spoilers, bring them back, o hay let's bring the Aztecs in just because!). 70.189.237.15 23:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so mean. It was just a opinion. On this page it would say what our version says, and the UK one would say what ya'lls say. If it's the same, then it would be okay. Their may be spoilers for US, but for UK it would be fine.Mitchmeerkat 00:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

He's not being mean, he's being honest, with some fun, nothing wrong with that. How about we have a meerkat manor with all places thought of? Example-

Tale of Len and Squiggy (USA), Tale of Ren and Stumpy (UK) Mattkenn3 00:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't try to split this article in two based on the fact that there are different commentators in different countries. --Tony Sidaway 02:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am sick of spoilers. I think we should put out a spoiler warning. I did not want to know about Mozart or Kinkajou or De la Soul. Cruise meerkat 21:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I never thought they would die. I'm just glad we got to know Mozart. Never got to know Kink or De La Soul. It says that 4 litters were raised in the group. what were the other two??Mitchmeerkat 23:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No idea. Although, all litters died. Cruise meerkat 23:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Makes the loss even sadder.Mitchmeerkat 23:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• When and where is Meerkat Manor series 3 on on British television? I have found no trace of it in the Radio Times. Anthony Appleyard 14:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it airs on Animal Planet UK, which lists it as showing Monday-Friday at 8:30 [4] Collectonian 15:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Animal Planet UK is one of those cable channels that I can't get without ex£en$e and having funny kit put on my TV set. I suppose I'll have to wait for the DVD. Anthony Appleyard 16:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You can also watch full episodes, including all the new episodes, on the US Animal Planet site. Collectonian 16:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Can we have a list of all name differences between the TV series and the researchers? E.g. I suspect that Tosca's official researcher name is different. Anthony Appleyard 14:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a stage name guide below, however it is unverified and maybe be a violation of Wiki:NOR so we are in search of a verifiable source of the changes before encorporating them into the article. Collectonian 15:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody mind... Spoilers etc.

if i remove the first eleven lines of the "Featured Families" section. (i.e. from SPOILER WARNING!!! - presumed dead.) To me atleast this part seems superfluous because the same information is repeated in the same section in greater detail. I would have done so with out asking but since this is quite a major edit i thought i should see if it's the view of the majority of the people who edit this page frequently. --Insanity x 20:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I mind. It should stay there. It summarizes the members.Mitchmeerkat 00:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's good for the american fans to dish out unknown info to us across the sea so that we are prepared for what comes (e.g episode 8, journeys end) and so that we can keep up with the manor. XOXOX —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlowerQueen (talk • contribs) 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I vote for a SPOILER WARNING at the top of this page, or at least above the sections where it goes into details. Bine maya 15:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILER. Spoilers are part and parcel for any page about TV shows, movies, books, etc on Wikipedia. Spoiler tags should NOT be used on non-fiction pages (which Meerkat Manor is, despite the dramatic narration). Anyone reading an article about the show should expect spoilers. Collectonian 15:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Collectonian. Meerkat Manor is basically a documentary, which I think some editors of this article sometimes forget in their enthusiasm for the events. It is not uncommon for entire meerkat groups to be wiped out by accident, predation, scorpions, disease, drought and the like. --Tony Sidaway 17:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Predated"

for idiots like me, could you put a simpler word for "predated"? i dont know what it means...so how did mozart die? if this is true my mom will be so bummed! she loves mozart:mozart is my moms favorite infact...67.185.53.60 01:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed all references ro "predated" to "killed by predators" for easier comprehension. Collectonian 02:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Episode Titles

To stop the constant changing of some titles of some of the episodes, I've updated the episode table for Season 7 to note both the US and UK titles if they are different. So let's use this method to denote both so that both US and UK viewers are served and we providing a more thorough article since it is an important distinction that needs to be included anyway. I listed it with the US title in quotes followed by (US), then a <br /> tag, then the UK title using the same format. Collectonian 15:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Number in Whiskers Group

The Animal Planet sit lists the Whiskers group as being 50 members (presumably before whatever split may occur in the last episode). The article was updated to reflect that, but it keeps getting changed back to 33. Where is the 33 number coming from? Collectonian 00:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Kalahari Meerkat Project. It's the official site for the true info and group numbers. I'll get the link in a minute.Mitchmeerkat 00:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

http://friends.kalahari-meerkats.com/index.php?id=meerkat-groups0

Mitchmeerkat 00:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'll add the source to the article so hopefully it will stop the back and forth changes :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collectonian (talk • contribs) 00:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Kalahari - Source or Not

There needs to be a consensus here. Either the Kalahari project is a valid source for info on the groups or not. You can not pick and choose that it can be used for the Whiskers group count but can't be used to provide details on the status of other groups. Also, you've reverted a lot of edits (again) without giving any explanations as to why. Collectonian 02:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a source, but on this page we have to go with what Meerkat Manor and Animal Planet gives us.Mitchmeerkat 21:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. That goes against what you said yourself, just above. If we say "Kalahari" and "Meerkat Manor" are different, it must be universaly applied across the board. I.E. if it is not an appropriate a source for the status of groups, it also is not an appropriate source source for Yossarian got his scar, Mitch being "played" by different Meerkats, or, in the topic above as to the number of Meerkats in the Whiskers group. I would, however, like views from some other editors before we either change the article to remove all KMP references. For now, I've undone your edits. Let's finish discussing it FIRST before making unilateral changes. Collectonian 00:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Meerkat Manor and the Kalahari Meerkat Project are two seperate articles on wikipedia. Stuff about Withnail(Zappa DM) should not be on MM article, but some truths, like Starsky gang's fate, numbers of Whiskers, Commandoes reduced by TB(Commandoes are played by Vivian for shots of Hannibal and Commandos for larger, battle scenes), and stuff should be added to give a quality of truth to the article. Cruise meerkat 21:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain the KMP article needs to be completely separate considering they are supposed to be about the same group of animals. Still, if the groups have one name in Meerkat Manor, but another in the actual Kalahari project, this should be included in the article. That is part of the quality of truth (and it would certainly make it easier for someone who might want to look up their favorite group on the Kalahari site if they knew that some groups have different names on the show.

Also, what source do you have to show that the Commandoes are being "played" by two different groups of meerkats? Collectonian 21:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a source. I will try to find it in a moment, hold on. I will also give you the email of the webmaster of FKMP to ask her for yourself if Vivian-Commandos = Commandoes(although she might not know). She will know, however, that at least the Vivian make up the Commandoes if you tell her that the dominant male is one-eyed, but I'm pretty sure she knows it already. Cruise meerkat 22:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember, it needs to be a verifiable source. An email from the FKMP webmaster would not be sufficient to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability requirements. In particular, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." Also, you may want to review Wikipedia:NOR. Collectonian 00:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

She has asked people to not post the complete emails, so I will have to paraphrase it. Cruise meerkat 02:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Either way, it would not fit the necessary requirements for inclusion as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Unless there is something verifiable on either the Meerkat Manor, FKMP, or other reliable, unbiased site, the article can not claim that the Commandoes in the show are two different groups. Collectonian 02:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

if you go to the current group section of friends.kalahari-meerkats.com there will be group shots on the right hand side if you scroll down to the vivian and click for a larger view you will see a one eyed dominant standing in front of the researcher that should be all you need to see that the vivian are portrayed as the commandos and then if you look at the monthly reports and the map on the kmp website the whiskers dont encounter the vivian but they do however encounter the commandos who tookover whisker,elveera,and young ones land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.23 (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems to fall under Wikipedia:NOR which you guys really need to read. Collectonian 06:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, wait?

Collectonian, I thought you agreed with the Mitch thing with these markings proof? Will you accept it when the webmaster has put up the markings on FKMP? Cruise meerkat 22:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there needs to be some verifiable proof. The FKMP site did not have anything that I could find to support it. Collectonian 00:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

U know how i know Miss Lily The Pink's marks??? Well pictures.....- Mango_kat

That isn't something that can be used in the article. See Wikipedia:NOR Collectonian 13:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Mango_Kat: There are no known pictures on the intrnet of Miss Lilly The Pink. Cruise meerkat 22:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The US Book

On Amazon us, they have the book. No price yet.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0297844849/105-7167918-0858828

Mitchmeerkat 01:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I will have to wait until it comes to Barnes and Noble. No spoilers! Cruise meerkat 01:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Great to see! No release date yet, though, so I've removed the US release date from the article. Collectonian —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read a half of chapter one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.35 (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Kalahari Meerkat Project Proposed Merger

The Kalahari Meerkat Project has been slated for deletion due "no asertion of notability, no sources." I had actually looked at that page for the first time last night and recommended some changes, but in the end, I really don't think the page has enough notability to stand on it's on. The project seems to have been virtually unheard of outside of zoology circles until Meerkat manor and the article offers very little relevant or unique info.

So I propose the article be semi-merged with the Meerkat Manor article. There is already an existing section for the project in Meerkat Manor, which actually already has more useful info than the existing article. Still, that section could be fleshed out more to include more of the project's history and give a brief summation/discussion of the groups not featured in the show and discrepancies between the groups in the project and what the Meerkat Manor shows (properly cited, of course).

Thoughts? Collectonian 20:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The present state of that article is pretty devoid of context or content about the project, and spends most of its time just listing all the meerkat families. But I think that article could be improved. The "proposed deletion" tag can be removed by anyone; it's just a proposal. But it would be worthwhile to point out in the other article that the project is notable as the source of the footage used in the show Meerkat Manor. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

True...I'm still never quite sure what it takes to provide notability. :) Hmm...in looking over their site, it would appear that Meerkat Manor is not the first well known documentary shot there. Sci-Fi has quite a few B movies coming on this weekend to keep my in edit heaven, but I'm going to see if I can rework the Kalahari article enough to have some content sans the giant lists of meerkats. If can be fleshed out enough, I agree, let it stand. Collectonian 20:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The article has not been "slated for deletion". It was proposed for deletion. As I don't think it should be deleted I've removed the tag and cleaned it up by removing a lot of unnecessary clutter.

As to a merger, I think this would be grossly inappropriate. The Kalahari Meerkat Project has been running for over fourteen years under the aegis of one of the foremost research universities in the world, and is the only long term study of meerkat ethology ever undertaken. Meerkat Manor is a documentary series with a strong emphasis on entertainment. --Tony Sidaway 21:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

this is a bad idea the kmp wiki is updated with information from the yearly report, the monthly report,and the kmp website whereas the meerkat manor wiki is updated with what happens on the show.. the kalahari meerkat project and the tv series meerkat manor are two very different things that shouldn't be combined.....and now there is nothing on the kmp wiki so......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.23 (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Not anymore. All of that stuff was removed from the Kalahari page (by another editor) as they are not really things that should be included in the article. The KMP page has very little data on its own, hence the proposed merger. However, the general consensus seems to be to keep them separate, so I plan to try and fix up the KMP article to be more informative. Collectonian 06:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Stage Name Guide

• Youssarian - Yossarian
• Kinkajou - Kinkaju
• Sparky - Nita
• Maybelline - Monkulus
• Rocky - Hawkeye
• Sophie - Tina Sparkle
• Rose - Flo
• Parsley - Finn
• Mango - Ella
• Chutney - Billy
• Athena - Bananas
• Shelley - Cheetara
• Milley - Wileykat
• Einstein - Logan
• McMurphy - Maladoy
• Dudley - Machu Pichu
• Clive - Ningaloo
• Achilles - Miles
• Attila - Baker
• Pepper - Alonzo Mourning
• Nutmeg - Orinoco
• Bing - Panthro
• Buster - Busta
• Carlos - JD
• Magnus - JD
• Big Si - Basil
• Nikita - Rhian
• Hannibal - Jim Bob
• Axle - Axel(a Young Ones member, not Zappa)
• Squeak - Thundercat
• Tosca - Badiel
• Blossom - Sundance
• Marypat - Popkat

Cruise meerkat 23:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What purpose does this serve in the talk page? How does it contribute to the improvement of the article? Collectonian 00:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

what is daisy's research name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.23 (talk) 04:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It contributes because...Well, its a stagename, real name guide. It should be helpful in some way. Daisy's season 1 name is Super Furry Animal, season 2 unknown, and season 3 could be Petra or Flo, Hawkeye, or someone else I forgot. Cruise meerkat 07:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it is helpful at all, and it doesn't seem like you can come up with a good reason for how it actually contributes to the discussion of the article either. So it has no place here. Collectonian 08:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the source for this list? Are Axel's and Yossarian's names really misspelt in the program credits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs) 18:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The book about Flower and the KMP name list along with the KMP site for Youssy's name. Yes, Axle and Youssarian's names are both spelled incorrectly by Animal Planet. Cruise meerkat 20:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out the point of this list being here? The show uses one set of names and KMP another, but this is about the show not the KMP. Maybe you are thinking that it would help people (particularly editors) find info about the meerkats on the KMP site? If that is the case, perhaps it should be incorporated into the article in some way (in the meerkat section, where the names differ maybe put their real names in parenthesis). If that is done, though, verifiable sources for the differences in name are needed BEFORE the change is done, and we'd also need to have a note/paragraph about AP renaming some meerkats (and maybe why if they have published a reason for doing so). Collectonian 17:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mick Kaczorowski has a note about name changes somewhere. Will find it. Cruise meerkat 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say this list is useful for fans of the show who want to delve deeper. However, there needs to be some sourcing. TheUnknown285 19:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of it is in the book about Flower(which I will be getting soon), but you have to draw conclusions. Some, like Sparky-Nita are educated guesses, and others, like Tosca-Badiel, are for sure. Cruise meerkat 22:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you know it is in the book about Flower if you don't have it yet? If Sparky-Nita and Tosca-Badiel are "educated guesses" that would seem to against the Wikipedia:NOR policy, which would make them unusable for the article. Collectonian 23:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone I know has it, but we don't live near each other, so I haven't seen it. Tosca-Badiel is 100% for sure, Sparky-Nita is 99& sure. If you want, I can ask the person whether Sparky's real name is Nita or not. Cruise meerkat 00:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is printed in the book that meerkat X is called Y on the show, then it is verifiable and can be included (with a proper citation providing the book info and page number). If there is something on the AP site, Kalahari site, or contained in some other verifiable, reliable source, then it can be included. The research, guesses, etc of fans is not verifiable and can not be included in a Wikipedia article. Collectonian 00:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am getting the book around October 20th, I will confirm all these true, and, if not, change the false ones. Cruise meerkat 21:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Add Sophie and Maybelline to "Main Family Members" Heading?

With Sophie and Maybelline seemingly becoming more important and more featured in Meerkat Manor, shouldn't we promote them to the "Main Family Members" section? TheUnknown285 16:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

How is Sophie becoming more important (I don't watch the show that much myself)? With Maybelline, I'm inclined to hold off since the teasers for the rest of the season seem to indicate she's gonna end up as head of a new group that will split off from the Whiskers. Collectonian 17:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sophie has taken a bigger role this season, including babysitting and defending the pups on numerous occaisions and assisting Rocket Dog with the attack on Punk. TheUnknown285 17:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...I think it might be good to see where the season plays out first. I think that whole section really needs reformatting though, as it is getting very unwieldy and will only keep growing. I'm not sure listing all 50+ Whiskers (and all future generations) is conducive to the article, but I'm still trying to figure out what a better format will be. For now, let's leave them both where they are to see where they end up at the end of this season. Collectonian 18:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

For the overall name list, it might be useful to combine names on the same line in cases in which all the information is just who their littermates are, ie: "Meerkat A, Meerkat B, Meerkat C, Meerkat D -- members of [insert mother's name]'s [insert litter order]." TheUnknown285 19:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Mostly agreed. That whole section just needs doing. It is too long and bulky and it includes way too many minor meerkats. Now that I've studied up some more on the TV style guides to figure out how it applies to a show of this more unique show format, I'm working on completely redoing the entire "Featured" section. I hope to get the redo done by this weekend once I get a final paper for one of my classes done. Collectonian 02:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Maybelline should be featured, especially at the end. But not Sophie. She's still a minor character. Cruise meerkat 23:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Should Flower have her own article?

I created an article called Flower Whiskers, but almost right away, someone else redirtected it to Meerkat Manor. Grundle2600 00:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, she should not, nor should any of the other meerkats. She was the "star" for two seasons, but she still isn't that notable enough for her own page. There isn't much else to say about her other than what is already in this article and she isn't going to be showing up in any other series. She is neither an actress nor a character, she was a meerkat that has since died. Collectonian 00:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

this needs to stop(has spoilers)

i got spoilers for flowers death, from wikipedia, about 6 months before the episode aired, and i also found out about mozart from this article. we need a spoiler warning. i am tired of being a good wikipedian and removing speculation randomly added in by vandals, only for it to be a real spoiler. we need top either remove the spoilers or put a spoiler tag up. and dont say there arent spoilers! the producer of the show, as well as everyone else, considers it to be a soap opera. the wikipedia page on spoilers says that though generally shouldnt be added to non-fiction articles, there can be excpetions. sometimes you have to ignore all rules. im going to leave wikipedia if everytime i read this article i get a spoiler for something that is going to happen next season.67.185.53.60 00:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, if you do not want spoilers, you should not read this article (or any article for any TV series or movie found on Wikipedia because they ALL contain spoilers). Many of the "spoilers" come from the AP show page or the KMP project page. The issue has been beaten to death and it was general agreed upon by experienced editors that per WP:Spoiler, this show should not have one. Your bringing it up over and over is not going to change that. It is not a soap opera, it is a documentary told with a dramatic flair. If the show were a fictional piece or a soap opera, Flower probably wouldn't be dead, she'd have just been replaced with another meerkat that looked close enough, ditto Shakespeare and all the others that have died. Little pups wouldn't get killed by their aunts, females wouldn't get evicted to die of starvation, etc. It is the real life of the meerkats and the fact is, they do die and suddenly.

As for random speculation, you will not find any in this article. I monitor this article like a bull dog and quickly remove any vandalism and any random speculation, POV issues, etc. Collectonian 00:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Redo of Featured Meerkats Section

I've mostly finished a reworking of the featured meerkats section and would like to get some constructive feedback from other editors before I implement it in the main article. It can be found at User:Collectonian/WIP3. A few things I should note about this reworking:

• I've removed all minor meerkats (i.e. those who are only mentioned in one or two episodes, those who have no real significance in the show, and the plethora of pups that died shortly after birth or are just part of the mob; I did include Axle and Maybelline in the Whiskers section as Maybelline seems likely to break the Whiskers clan into two and Axle for the unusualness of his being adopted by the Whiskers. In the future, I propose that only meerkats of particular importance be included in the family sections, i.e. dominant females/males and those involved in rare or unusual events (i.e. adoption, acting outside of status, etc).
• I removed the Gattaca group as they seemed pretty insignificant, not even warranting a mention by name in a single episode summary over 3 seasons nor having any members mentioned in the featured list
• I reworked the whole list to a table format to try and tightening things up, and to make it a little easier to see the quick basic info about the group
• Extraneous commentary has also been removed...even the prominent meerkats don't need every thing they do mentioned, particular stuff word for word bites from the episode summaries

Again, please leave your constructive feedback, suggestions, etc here about this redo. Collectonian 05:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Flower

Yo

This is what really happened to Flower:

"Eventually, Flower appeared at the entrance, rocking from side to side. Her head and jaw were swollen and one eye was half shut. She stumbled to one side of the burrow and lay, breathing heavily. She had aborted during the night and there was some blood on her rear. Zaphod came across and groomed her briefly. As the sun mounted, the rest of Flower's family stopped sunning and started to feed. They were uneasy and called regularly. Eventually, Rocket Dog, led them off to the south and one by one they followed her. Flower tried to follow but fell and crawled back to the burrow entrance, where she lay in the shadow. As Zaphod left, he marked Flower on the head."

I got the book and it said this.

24.26.199.123 01:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying the book says Flower died from a miscarriage? Can you provide the page numbers with this information on it? Collectonian 01:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yo

No, she was preganet when she was bitten, and miscarried the following night. My friend is currently borrowing the book, so cannot give you numbers.

24.26.199.123 01:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...then whose pups are Animal Planet calling hers? And please stop removing Maybelline from the article. Collectonian 01:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yo

The clips you see of Liz/Bella is really Axle.

I was adding her to Main members.

24.26.199.123 01:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read the above discussion about that first. Right now, a redo of that section is under discussion, but until it is implemented, it was decided she would stay under the regular characters until we see she ends up at the end of the season. Collectonian 01:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yo

Thanks for explaining. Really sad about Flower. Just glad they never showed it on MM. The reason they made up a fake pup is to try to help the pain of Flower's death.

24.26.199.123 02:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Could be. It seems like the more popular MM gets, the more inclined AP is to start changing the facts of their lives.

Did Maybelline give birth in a recent episode or is that something from the book after happens after the end of Season 3? Collectonian 02:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yo

I'm trying to figure that out. Their was really 3 females preganet when Flower died. I'll try to find names.

Monkulus is Maybelline's real name. She has her own group called Aztecs.

24.26.199.123 02:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that is something that happens at the end of Season 3, so for now it needs to be left out until we see how AP will handle it (if Season 4 will bring in the Aztecs or give them another name). Collectonian 02:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Daisy

Yo

Everybody i know that there is some confusion about Daisy, but she is just a name for females that are preganet. If Mango is preganet, such as Season 3, they will say it's Daisy.

Her storyline is like Carlos.

24.26.199.123 02:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)