I would highly recommend reading the proposed manual of style. You have written three plot summaries (by my count, at least) that do not conform to an encyclopedic style, and the last one was particularly egregious with terms like "some guy with an accent" and "the guy running the lottery". You've also neglected to put in paragraph breaks and commas in the summaries.
I'm not saying this to be mean, I am merely making sure everyone's contributions help make the wiki pages look better.
EDIT: Also, be careful about adding in new categories, especially without announcement/consultation.
I made a slight grammar error with "leading Swindler to say", and am happy that it was corrected (albeit without the "catchphrase" mention).
You've been adding goofs that aren't really goofs (or are at least debatable), making plot summaries that are not encyclopedia friendly, and the last one, at least, even had sloppy editing. That's nothing to be ashamed of, so long as you learn from your mistakes. But that's not "the same", if you ask me.
MGMFan1995 wrote: Yeah, well guess what Low Spark of Lyman, I can’t improve if you don’t tell me how! And who’s to say you’re the one deciding what goofs are real anyway, why not have a vote or something!
I've already told you where to improve.
Many of the things you consider goofs are really just cartoon logic/physics/etc. Taking that all the way, you can argue that Garfield eating lasagna, walking on two legs, and not chasing mice are goofs. Do you really want to go there?
Don’t use the pronoun “you” in articles (unless it's part of a quote). For example, instead of "During the final scene, you can see a portrait of Jim Davis", try "During the final scene, a portrait of Jim Davis can be seen".
Avoid using contractions (e.g. "he's", "can't"), except, again, for quotes.
Don't use "The episode begins with..." to start an episode plot summary. A possible exception would be for episodes that largely break the fourth wall (e.g. Star Struck, The Garfield Opera, Canned Laughter, The Garfield-Only Show).
Just out of curiousity, did you think about whether or not there were any rules posted on this site?
Maybe it is my/our fault for thinking people would go there before making more drastic changes here; this doesn't apply to vandals and the like (I'm not saying you're one of them, MGMFan1995), since they wouldn't care about the rules anyway.
"Part of the reason Penelope was created was because the writers were having a hard time writing Arlene. Jim Davis had reservations on Arlene, not wanting the character used if they were unable to portray her the way he wanted. Seasons later, Penelope was made in the cartoon."
You're not making much sense. He was able to make a special appearance in the comic since that's still being made. GAF hasn't been in production for over 20 years; it ended when Jim Davis was mostly giving Lyman the cold shoulder.
And you still haven't said anything about Arlene/Penelope. So even if you turn out to be right about Lyman, there are still other problems with treating GAF and the comic as the same entity.
You're saying that since Lyman wasn't in Garfield and Friends it was a different entity, but when the show was made Lyman never appeared in the comic strip during that time even though he was a part of that entity. With Arlene and Penelope it makes sense that Garfield stopped seeing Arlene for a while and then met Penelope and then he reunited with Arlene.
Well if that's the case about Arlene then how come he didn't let Mark Evanier handle her in Garfield and Friends but did let him do it for The Garfield Show? And what I'm saying about Lyman is the only reason you have for him not being canonical for Garfield and Friends is that he didn't appear, but he wasn't in the comic strip during that time either.
Let me put it this way: If Lyman and Arlene had little, if any, appearances in Garfield and Friends, and there are reasons, even just apparent ones, for them not appearing, why do you think they should still be considered canonical? Why say, "Oh, they didn't appear at all, but they're still a part of them."? I mean, that's fine for fanon, but for canon, it's disposable.
Do you consider Al Swindler a part of TGS? Eddie Gourmand a part of GAF?
I’m trying to prove that the comic strip canon should be included with Garfield and Friends for goofs, not about Lyman or Penelope. With your logic, I guess we can consider Doc Boy and Jon’s parents not to be canonical in Garfield and Friends, right?
Jon's parents were in a dream sequence in Feeling Feline, FYI. Although it'd be harder to retcon family members, anyway, at least as long as they're still appearing in the comic strip (i.e. semi regularly, not like a blue moon).
I only included Lyman and Arlene as examples of where the comics and GAF differ, hence why they are separate entities. So yeah, we don't need to focus on those two here.
As for the crux of your argument- reconciling the comic strips with GAF- I think you'll find more examples of disharmony between the two, to the point where you may ask yourself, "Why even bother?".
And as I pointed out earlier, "it looks like the whole "What's a record?" gag was just that, a gag...[so] calling it a goof seems to be overthinking it."
If that's the case, then The Garfield Show is what validates Lyman being canon in Garfield and Friends. If he was really eliminated then why he reappear later with an explanation? And what other examples of disharmony are there, Tim?
No it doesn't, you're assuming TGS and GAF are continuous with each other, when there does not appear to be sufficient evidence for that. So you still think a character is canonical to a show when said character is not shown or even mentioned in that show?
As for other examples, I suggest you find out for yourself.
MGMFan1995 wrote: Well I think that they’re all the same and that the continuity should be the same between them.
And I think that Jim Davis will know the answers for your questions - after all, he's responsible for all those discrepancies between cartoons and comics strips.
As for Arlene/Penelope issue, those are only two females Garfield was seen romancing with. Tim hasn't mentioned Mona , Miss Kitty and her TGS rip-off, Lola , Gwendolyn, Lorelei , Mindy from TGS and couple of female cats seen in various comics strips.
Many fans refuse to see that, but all those females were introduced with a reason - to underline Garfield's ego. Jim Davis left a hint on the official page https://garfield.com/characters/arlene - in the part "She ( Arlene ) was introduced to add a little romance to the strip, but don’t look for anything serious to develop."
In short: those, who fell in love with themselves, aren't likely to find their second half.
He was comparing the comic strip to the merchandise (or licensing programs). I think he would do the same for the other aspects of the franchise. It's not so much whether or not he mentions the shows so much as what is implied.
At any rate, you still haven't demonstrated any canonical connections between the comics and the shows. So far it's mostly been me showing the problems with that idea and you going "but what if..." When are you going to give it a rest?
Not at all. A user with the most contributions could also be among the most incompetent (I'm not saying that's the case with TeeJay87, of course, just pointing out the bad logic).
E.g. on another wiki, when I talked about becoming an administrator there, someone else asked for it because he had more edits...even though most of those were vandalism. Who would you give the position to?
MGMFan1995 wrote: You said I was throwing you under the bus when I’m just trying to discuss this.
Exhibit A: "If all the administrators have equal say then when one agrees they should all agree."
Exhibit B: "TeeJay87 was the first to respond, so it only makes sense to follow his opinion on this."
Exhibit C: "Well, maybe since TeeJay87 has the most contributions you should listen to him on this? Is that better?"
You literally, directly told us how to run the wiki. So, you're assuming we aren't doing our jobs properly. It is insulting, which ever way you look at it.
But if they are all administrators, then they are all productive so your previous argument doesn’t apply. Someone has to be at the top and so it should be the one with the most edits and who has been on the longest, right?
MGMFan1995 wrote: But if they are all administrators, then they are all productive so your previous argument doesn’t apply. Someone has to be at the top and so it should be the one with the most edits and who has been on the longest, right?
Think about it: If this applies to all contributors, a certain vandal would have a better chance at voicing his opinion rather than you, just because he's been on longer, and has made more edits.
Also, my argument isn't irrelavant; you're saying that anyone with a higher edit count is more important. The less edits, the less the chance to voice his opinion.
MGMFan1995 wrote: I was only talking about administrators.
But it would apply if you were talking about all contributors. You wouldn't be happy if a vandal had a better chance than you. And if I were to be shut down just because I don't have enough edits, I'd be pretty angry too.
I'm afraid not, as there are still downsides. The wiki couldn't progress as no one can give their own opinion, and ideas (for instance, your continuity idea), rendering the place pretty much useless. Therefore, it would be an autocracy, or a dictatorship.
I don't want to have a bad relationship with any of my contributors, and therefore I'll apologize.
MGMFan1995 wrote: I’m just trying to offer improvements. If there was a top administrator then everything could be handled simply and easily.
Giving one person absolute power sounds like an ideal solution to everything, but that's just theory. I've seen top admins on various Wikis around the cyberspace, who behave as if they had monopoly for thinking and breathing.
If you're interested, I can show you such examples, though I'd prefer doing so through Wiki chat instead of giving evidence in comments.