The article cites Insider #27 as a source, yet doesn't specify the article or column in which the tumble bunny trainer is mentioned. -- 13:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Almost half the article isn't even about the subject, but about Wicket or the other Ewoks. - Lord Hydronium 13:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It's all relevant to the guy's show. .... 21:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
"With a sense of trepidation and dread, but at the same time, a lingering sense of hope, Wicket W. Warrick attended the tumble bunny show."
This is about Wicket's emotional state, entirely irrelevant to the subject of the trainer.
"Shodu Warrick heard of the tumble bunny show, and thought it would be a good idea for her son, Wicket W. Warrick, to guide a cabal of woklings to the show, and supervise them. Warrick had his doubts about the show, not believing it was his type of entertainment. Nevertheless, he gathered the woklings, and took them to see the tumble bunny program."
Again, about Wicket. If this is needed to establish context, it can be pared down into a sentence or so to keep the focus on the trainer.
"Some time later, Warrick was forced to hold his own tumble bunny show. It bore all the trappings of the tumble bunny trainer's show, right down to the large tumble bunny outfit. He was even able to perform the trainer's trick with the hoop without any incident."
Still Wicket. I know you tie it in to the trainer at the end, but this part should be pared down as well, then. The article isn't about Wicket or the show, it's about the trainer, and all this stuff is only very tangentially related to him. I mean, it's not a bad article, it's just not an article about the subject. - Lord Hydronium 02:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
"Oh, well allow me to retort!"
Wicket's emotional state is relevant to his critical outburst later at the trainer's antics. Directly relevant, in fact. His prior assumptions led to his later public denouncement of the trainer's program, which is directly relevant to the story of the trainer.
It's all the lead up and proper context for the devastating scene that Wicket caused at the stage.
Direct competition and plagarism of the trainer's own program. Strong relevance. .... 02:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
These nested quotes are going to go crazy. :P Anyway, here we go:
Wicket's emotions are only relevant insofar as they impact the subject. What he thinks before he even visits has only an indirect connection. Wicket's outburst has an impact, but that can be explained at the appropriate time.
Again, even lead-up needs to ultimately have its focus on the subject. There's more context than relevant data here. If I'm writing about the Bothans, I might say that Mon Mothma mentioned them to the Rebel fleet. That's relevant. If I went on to say that she had just learned of her son's death and was getting over her grief, that's straying from the topic. That Wicket had an outburst is related to the trainer; why Wicket had an outburst only relates to Wicket.
For one thing, the idea that they were in competition is speculative. And even so, how well Wicket does, as an example, is not relevant. Again, Wicket's actions are only important insofar as they relate to the trainer; you can make an argument that the fact that Wicket did an identical show is connected with the trainer, but going further is straying from the topic. I might support this if it were an article on a tumblebunny show, but the show is not the trainer. - Lord Hydronium 03:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
My knuckles hurt from the straw clutching.
For both examples of lead-in context apply directly. If you're talking about Luke Skywalker duelling on Bespin, you would say that Vader set the trap with a view to converting Luke for himself. Now, that context does not directly relate to Luke...you could just say that he fell into Vader's trap. But, the context of Vader's view and intent on the subject is important, unless you want to go bare bones. Warrick's mentality towards the show, the subject of tumble bunnies, and the forced upon nature of his attendance are all essential in the understanding of how the trainer lost a significant chunk of his audience.
Again, the context is essential in understanding what could have possibly potentially been the second turd in the waterpipe of the trainer's career. Even more so the fact that it was not Warrick's passion, but rather forced upon him, wheras it was clearly the trainer's passion, due to his boundless enthusaism.
In the words of Friar Tuck from the animated furry film of Robin Hood: "Have a heart, Sheriff". .... 03:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna make you work for this, dagnabbit. Seriously, though, I don't think that we should be highlighting as one of what's supposed to be our best articles something that's only peripherally focused on its own subject. I'm just not seeing an article here on the tumble bunny trainer; it's an article on the story of the episode, Wicket, the tumble bunny show, with a few extra sentences on the trainer himself tossed in there. It digresses too much to be a good article on the TBT. I'm glad you managed to drag so many words out of an eight-second appearance, but I don't think that makes this one of our best. - Lord Hydronium 04:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Focus has been shifted back onto the character. - Lord Hydronium 07:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Per Lord Hydronium. And as for "having a heart", remember, the Inquisitorius of which LH and I are members of is "teh evil" when it comes to FAs. Atarumaster88(Audience Chamber) 04:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Look, anything not directly to do with the trainer himself in this article is all semi-once removed context that provides the reason as to why he possibly was run out of business. .... 04:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
And Ataru, don't cite quotes of which I was the initial utterer. .... 05:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Could you do me a favor and get rid of those redlinks? Fix it and I'll vote, even though I'm not a fan of Ewoks.--Darthchristian(Hey!) 3:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)