Jump to content

Talk:Frasier Crane

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How to appeal to general readers for general overview of this topic?

[edit]

I have requested that my version (User:George Ho/Frasier Crane) be pasted into this article. This version is awfully bloated with original thoughts and irrelevant analyses about this character. I didn't want to include Lilith at first, but I reluctantly had to do it because she was part of her life. As for speaking languages and education stuff, I wonder if anybody would bother reading about it at all. --George Ho (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current article is far too bloated (such as the lengthy discussion of his birthday, which is just dumb) but yours is too abridged. Frasier's eruditeness is a very important part of his personality, and your version does not discuss that, or his wealth, at all. It is better to use in-line references, rather than, mentioning episode names in text. Ylee (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...I don't know if I must include "eruditeness". What are key points related to that? However, I must include his "eruditeness" in a tone of what the show exactly says, not an interpretative tone. --George Ho (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, I separate Cheers and Frasier just for kicks. Also, it helps the fact that Sam and Diane give a child birth to Frasier Crane as one of love interests. --George Ho (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About using episodes as inline citations: I would prefer spelling them out because I like them this way. --George Ho (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Frasier's family life, I added scullery maid and prostitute, just in case. --George Ho (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Prior version is very bad, so I have copied-and-pasted the abridged version into this article with Ylee's approval and Joefromrandb's approval. --George Ho (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of the character's bio is ridiculously overly long and detailed, full of "and then this happened" anecdotes. It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article to go into more detail about a fictional character than most of them do for actual, important human beings. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@JasonAQuest: Which detail must be skimmed or eliminated? I make details in effort to avoid original research. --George Ho (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with Lilith

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It may seem silly to merge with Lilith Sternin article. However, even when she may be independently notable, there is nothing left to discuss independently about Lilith Sternin other than Frasier's relationship with her and Lilith's friendship with Frasier and motherhood with Frederick, which may be sufficiently mentioned in Frasier. If "merger" is not the answer, why not moving portions to the Lilith article and then renaming Lilith Sternin to Frasier Crane and Lilith Sternin then? After all, Frasier and Lilith are significant to each other. --George Ho (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Lilith Sternin should stay separate if anything more sources need to be found. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it stay separate? Why must that article repeat what this article says? I have already found sources, but Lilith has been Frasier's love life, and individual notability does not guarantee a stand-alone article. There is nothing else to say about Lilith's family background, as she was just there for Frasier's stories. Also, if I move portions into Lilith, what good would it do? Lilith appeared only once in the fourth season of Cheers, twice in fifth, and recurringly in both shows further. Even if she is notable, we are discussing what to insert. In other words, merits of an encyclopedia may triumph notability guidelines. --George Ho (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concede despite my efforts there is not enough of what I believed was satisfactory third person info I think she should be merged to List of recurring Cheers characters. Dwanyewest (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose only because she was, for at least one season, a main character, billed in the opening sequence. So she wouldn't really fit into the "recurring character" category.--JOJ Hutton 13:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still, what did she do in only one season that could make her independently notable from Frasier? --George Ho (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removing/redirecting/deleting the article on Lilith Sternin would trivialize the characters role in the sitcom. Her character would be the only "main" or "marque" character that would be without a standalone article, lessoning her character's role in the series.--JOJ Hutton 17:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • So? What's the point? Being a "main" character doesn't make Lilith that notable without Frasier. We're talking about encyclopedic content on the character, not notability of this character, right? We just can't use Wikipedia to compete fandom or fan dedications fixed in media. Being a mother and an ex-wife and dating with other men, including a gay guy, doesn't make Lilith article very strong. I mean, look at Sam Malone, Diane Chambers, and Sam and Diane. I mean, there is no way to balance real-world perspective and fictional background about Lilith without Frasier. --George Ho (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The point is that redirecting the character to either Frasier Crane (which would erroneously regulate her role in the series as "just" his wife), or to List of Cheers characters (which would diminish her characters importance in the plot of the series). There were plenty of instances when the character of Lilith had plot or story responsibility beyond that of just being Frasier's wife.--JOJ Hutton 13:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've already included Lilith's ex-lovers in Frasier Crane article. Many one-time stories of Lilith are not impactful, especially without Frasier. Even her lab rat Whiskers does not make Lilith worthy of inclusion, even if it might make her notable. --George Ho (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Also, how are Lilith's relationships with the Crane family worthy of inclusion, including Niles and Martin? Even if notable, I'm sure they are trivial, right? I've watched Frasier, and I don't see how Lilith must be stand-alone just because she has lab rats and trivial relationships with Niles, Martin, Daphne, and Roz. However, if you favor changing from "Lilith Sternin" to "Frasier Crane and Lilith Sternin", that would be fine. --George Ho (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • You can't regulate her role on Cheers to a few simple relationships. She had story responsibility and relationships with Cheers characters as well. You seem to want to only confine her story relationship to Frasier. It's not that simple. She had story relationships with just about everyone on Cheers.--JOJ Hutton 21:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Even her attempted seduction (maybe one-time) with Sam is not that worthy of inclusion there, but maybe I'll just include it in Frasier Crane article because... it inspired Frasier and Lilith into becoming committed to each other. As for Lilith's relationship with other barmates, only hers with Norm is more worthy than Carla because it also relates to Frasier also, especially when Norm brought barmates into their former home. Hers with Carla, Cliff, and other barmates... not exactly worthy of inclusion because I think I've sufficiently explained enough about Lilith's relationship with barmates. Even if she were just as pretentious as Frasier, then I would include something sufficiently significant. Do we must treat Wikipedia as a substitute for fansites and dedications? --George Ho (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Oh, wait. She had disastrous driving lessons with Sam, but... even that doesn't change Lilith's relationship with Sam. Maybe suitable for one episode, but not either Lilith or Frasier article. --George Ho (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hutton, I can't believe that you are putting my abilities into question. Every time I try to improve, I always end up verbally brawling with every other editor, including you. Somehow, I realize that being a main character does not make a character independently notable per WP:GNG. Why opposing renaming from Lilith Sternin to Frasier and Lilith? --George Ho (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aye, theres the rub. "Trying to improve". I respect the fact that you are trying to improve the articles, but everyone has a different take on what is and is not an improvement. In this case, it's taking a main character from a television series and regulating the characters role to "wife of Frasier", without consideration for the characters other story roles and responsibilities in the show. Like I said, its not that simple. The character's role is much more complicated than a few minor relationships. And lets not forget that Bebe Neuwirth won an Emmy for playing the part. Not that it makes the character more notable, but thougt I'd add that in since you don't win Emmys for playing minor characters with single story responsibility.--JOJ Hutton 21:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Emmys part: already added in Frasier Crane; already mentioned in Bebe article. How complicated? Look, we can't exceed limited broad interpretations of fiction. We can't say that she is anti-feminist or a stereotype of feminism or something without non-primary sources. I'm doing my best to broaden the interpretations; that's all. Complex character or not, content are what matters. I can't just include Lilith's guilt; even inclusion of it doesn't increase quality of either Lilith or Frasier article. --George Ho (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another thing: How complex is Lilith? To me, one-time stories are meaningless to Lilith. Which stories could possibly make her complex? --George Ho (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archiving

[edit]

It's a fair question, but why did you rename/move/archive all the previous edits for the talk page?--JOJ Hutton 03:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page is becoming too long; that's why. Also, many posts are either too old or inactive. --George Ho (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, in my experience, only talk page content is archived, not the complete editing history.--JOJ Hutton 03:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a big deal? If not, then can we get back to the proposal? --George Ho (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well ya, it is actually a big deal. The page's edit history needs to be on the page, keeping it all in one place and not spread out across several archives.--JOJ Hutton 03:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've done the same in Talk:Apu Nahasapeemapetilon. Is that the big deal, as well? I mean, do you know how irritating the copy-and-paste things are? Why not settle this in WP:REPAIR? --George Ho (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And will we discuss the merger and deal with that elsewhere? --George Ho (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Technically the "page move" archive is still within guidelines, but I believe the more common method is to use the "cut and paste" method, so as to retain the talk page's edit history in one easy to find place. A "bot" could be set up to archive the page every so often, if you desire.--JOJ Hutton 13:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're going off-topic, I've separated this from the merger. By the way, no "bots", please. --George Ho (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine without the bots taking care of the work. I'll handle this talk page better. --George Ho (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm sorry. I didn't realize you owned it. So sorry. I'll leave you and your article alone now.--JOJ Hutton 16:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still, as I said, you can request a page history move if you want, which I don't intend. --George Ho (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • George is right that talk pages can be archived in this way, and Jo is right that almost nobody ever actually does and the cut-and-paste method is far more common. The other way should probably be depracated for article talk pages as policies should reflect practices, not dictate them, but that is a different discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relationships

[edit]

I have removed Sam and Doctor Ludlow from the list of "Significant Others" - your fiancee's ex-boyfriend does not count as a significant other (and certainly not someone's "bartender", which is how he's listed). I have also changed Diane's description from "ex-fiancee" to "fiancee" - had she and Frasier been engaged before the character's first appearance, that would have been the correct description. Finally I've added Nanette's full name - saying Frasier is married to Nanny G is like saying Danny de Vito was married to Carla Tortelli. Smurfmeister (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added Sam Malone because he was the reason to be introduced. Also, he was introduced to help Sam Malone. Then Sam Malone became his friend because... well, no one else other than Sam and Diane can pull him out of the dark hole after the wedding disaster. As for Bennett Ludlow, I don't know why I added it, but he was his mentor. Well, both shows didn't explore Frasier's relationship with Ludlow very well. --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Plot" tag

[edit]

How is Cheers portion excessive? I thought I explained his character adequately. --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wording?

[edit]

The intro says Frasier debuts 'as Diane Chambers's love interest to the "Sam and Diane" dynamic.' The wording doesn't make sense. You can't be a love interest to a dynamic. I'm not sure how to reword it while retaining the phrase "Sam and Diane." Any suggestions? Sadiemonster (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the phrase to "story arc", Sadiemonster. --George Ho (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! Thanks George Ho. Sadiemonster (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Frasier Crane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph about Frasier's birthdate dispute

[edit]

After more additions about Frasier's birthdate, I wonder how valuable and encyclopedic his birthdate dispute is. Also, I'm concerned whether it's original research and whether readers are interested in his birthdate. I thought about removing it, but I welcome other opinions. --George Ho (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons appearance

[edit]

The Simpsons was added and improved, but there are disagreements about which version to use. Which version should we use?

My version (tweaked):

An animated version of the character appears in The Simpsons episode "Fear of Flying", although Grammer, who also voices another character Sideshow Bob, did not voiceover the character.

Current version:

An animated version of the character appears in The Simpsons episode "Fear of Flying", although Grammer does not voice the character of Frasier because he already voices another character, Sideshow Bob.

My version avoids risking the verifiability issue. Meanwhile, the current version uses "because" to make "Bob" the reason not to voiceover the character. However, the current version also has verifiability issues, like lack of sources to confirm the reason for Grammer not voicing the character in The Simpsons. Pinging Britmax for thoughts about this. The ping system would not notify IP addresses who did this, so I'll post a message instead. --George Ho (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The version that does not link the reason makes no promises it cannot keep, and so is better. Britmax (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red-colored Lua error

[edit]

It appears to be caused by this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module_talk:Footnotes#False_error_messages_everywhere WikiWikiHigh (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue appears to be resolved now. WikiWikiHigh (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edits needed

[edit]

Great article but:

  • this sentence from section on critical reactions makes no sense "However, Levine did not acknowledge it when Frasier was the new character in Cheers in 1984."
  • the critical reactions section repeats a story (slightly changed I think) about how a Frasier episode tries to reconcile inconsistencies with Cheers about Frasier's parents. That story should only be told once in the article.

72.66.42.223 (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revival info

[edit]

@Cassiopeia: I appreciate your enforcement of WP:CITE and WP:RS, but isn't primary source sufficient to explain the character's role in the revival/reboot? What about MOS:FICTION? Oh, just to clarify, the IP editor and I are not the same person. If I wanna reinsert the info, I may wanna reduce too many details. George Ho (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho Good day. All info added or changed should be supported by sources. Some info can be supported by primary source if the info is directedly about the subject and we use them sparingly (note: but it can not be used to meet notability requirements). The subject is notable and if you want to reinsert the info, make sure it is source and phrased the info from source to meet both source and WP:NPOV guidelines. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 09:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I undid your removal... Well, sort of. I made major changes, like removing too many details and characters, leaving in just the character himself and his son. George Ho (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frasier_Crane&oldid=1244314269"