Talk:Glee (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Location

This appears to take place at McKinley High School in Canton, OH. Can anyone verify this? I know that it is filmed in LA, but it appears that the license plates on the cars are Ohio plates.

Rpcollins1 (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

According to [1], "the show's fictional McKinley High School is in Lima, series creator Ryan Murphy has said."

--JimBurnell (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If my memory serves me right I do belive that William McKinley High School is in Lima, Ohio. In addition to the lisence plates the beging of the song "Rehab" the students of Vocal Adrenline state "Ohio, Ohio..." [2] XKingStevenX (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What should do about the "first aired" date when fall comes?

Should we make the fall premiere date the "first aired" date or just stick with the preview date? - Jasonbres (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Despite the semantics ("preview") the first air date is still the first air date, which is May 19. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

The ratings for the first episode reports the high number from the first half of the episode not the actual rating average for the entire telecast. Think that should be changed? Doyn (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)doyn

Actual. 173.73.44.217 (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Artie/Arty?

The official site spells Kevin McHale's character's name as both Arty and Artie in different places. About three times as many news articles use Arty [3] over Artie [4], but as there's conflict on the official site, I'm not sure which way we should go. Any thoughts? Frickative 23:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The tweet peak says it's "artie". 174.17.246.223 (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If the primary sources truly are ambiguous throughout, then use what the press uses, I'd say. However, I think official things such as scripts or what he's credited as should be used over press mentions (assuming that they're consistent). 173.73.44.217 (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

CLEANUP!

This article is in need of a massive clean-up! There's a lot of stuff on here that is detailed beyond necessity, unencyclopaedic or not up to notability guidelines. At the moment most of the article reads more like a Fan Wiki than an online encyclopaedia. Please can folks pitch in and help me get this article up to standard? 89.243.213.103 (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of this article is pathetic crap. A large porportion of it needs to go, while other parts need to be reworked.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"Pathetic crap" is not a constructive comment, nor does it offer any suggestions for changes to instigate. Adding templates to the article (one of which was not even applicable) while offering no constructive suggestions on the talk page is not helpful to editors. Frickative 15:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Fantastic job on the clean-up Frickative.... --Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Considerbly better now.

But... Question: Isn't most of the reception part just reactions from the advance pilot screening? aka, 1 episode.

My main problem now is the horrible Cast and characters section. Casting seems fine, but the first bit too prosy. It would be considerbly better if it was more like Battlestar_Galactica_(2004_TV_series)#Cast_and_characters, where people could go to the Characters of Glee article to know more. Or maybe The_oc#Cast or or 90210_(TV_series)#Starring. Prose makes it to hard to find characters easily. A table quickly portrays information where as prose doesn't. That's the main thing that needs fixing, i've seen some really bad prose character/cast and it just gets ugly, thick, confusing, messy and out of hand.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Jordan.

Re: Characters - none of the examples you've given are of featured or even good article standard. The vast majority of FA standard articles use prose over list or table format, eg. Arrested Development (TV_series)#Characters, Carnivàle#Cast, Degrassi: The Next Generation#Cast, House (TV series)#Characters and story arcs, Last of the Summer Wine#Characters and casting, Lost (TV series)#Cast and characters, Making Waves (TV series)#Characters, Only Fools and Horses#Regular characters, The Wire#Cast and characters. While prose in your personal opinion might be "horrible", by top article standards it's the norm. And yes, the majority of the reception section is based on the pilot episode. I trimmed a lot out last week, and will add in more series general reviews as I come across them. Frickative 07:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Frickative. We should base it off what other FAs/GAs have it set up. Plus, on the Battlestar page, it doesn't tell me anything about the characters, and if it wasn't for characters number 6 and 8, I wouldn't know which side was their real name, and which side is character name. Also, if I came to the Glee page wondering who the glee teacher is, I can easily search teacher and find it. No such luck on the Battlestar page, which gives no description what so ever about the character. CTJF83 chat 08:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox tampering

The infobox section (namely the narrator and opening theme) have obviously been tampered with. i dont know if they are the only areas and i dont know what to replace them with, just notifying you.--Coin945 (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Singles vs. Album

I noticed that "On My Own" is listed as one of the singles from Volume One of the show's music. While it has in fact been released as a single, it's NOT on the album, and that should be noted on the page and not listed as it currently is on the Singles table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.194.221 (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry... i dont understand... did you mean that it should be noted and not listed on the album table? --GLee...PassThePuckPlz (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)GLee...PassThePuckPlz

Where is the Wikipedia list of all the songs

Where is such an article? For all the songs performed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.86.33 (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Reference 20

I just wanted to point out that Reference 20 is not a working link. (Currently ref 20 is for the sentence "Originally, the cast was set to perform at the 2009 Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, but NBC banned them from it since they were on a rival network.") I am getting a Authentication Required dialog box stating "A username and password are being requested by http://switch.sandbox.tmz.com. The site says: "Restricted Area"" (I was interested in checking out the reference because I was curious about the validity of saying they were actually "banned".) Just wanted to point out the bad link. Logical Fuzz (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Updated. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Studio: Colfer, stay in the closet!

Why is there no mention of this? Chris Colfer gave an interview to The Advocate where he said he is gay, and Fox has a problem with it, saying they "think he's too young to be labeled as a 'gay actor'". :P This needs to be mentioned in the article. --98.232.178.38 (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source saying Fox had a problem with it? CTJF83 chat 09:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Colfer a male soprano, or a countertenor?

As listed in the countertenor and sopranist articles, the term "male soprano" is considered controversial because the means by which vocalizations are produced are different for male and female singers in the soprano range. The F₅ that Kurt just barely hits in "Wheels" is at the upper edge of the countertenor range, and so I think using the term countertenor would be preferable. Thoughts? Stile4aly (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, reverted this change without noticing you'd posted on the talk page. Given that Kurt identifies in the show as a soprano and that's how Fox identify him also [5], I think it would be original research on our part to deem him otherwise. Frickative 04:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Given that's how Fox identifies him, I'd say it's appropriate even if technically incorrect. I'll add your link as a reference. Stile4aly (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop changing correct and verifiable episode titles!

Just because several sources out there decided to shorten the title of the episode "Once Upon a Mattress" to just "Mattress" doesn't mean it's gospel. There are several other sources that do list the episode title correctly, according to both Fox's own website and an official press release for the (currently) upcoming DVD box set of Season One. If you can't go by an official press release that indicates how the episode will be listed on the company's own upcoming box set, who can you go by? It's "Once Upon a Mattress". Please leave it. Lvillealumni (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No, here is the official Fox press release that we will go by. CTJF83 chat 09:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Do whatever you want. I hereby refuse any further attempts on my part to provide correct information, and concede to the apparent gods of this site who feel that they're right and the rest of the world is wrong, even when provided with verifiable proof. I'm going to contact Fox and make sure they know that the editors of Wikipedia know more about their show than they do, and they should change every copy of their DVD set before release, to reflect what the Wiki Gods say it should be. It's become apparent that there's only a select few individuals whose input is actually valued around here. I may not be as frequent a contributor as others, but apparently my contribution is not welcome. Pardon me for trying to do something right. Lvillealumni (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you not click on my link? Do you see it is from the Fox site? Not sure what the problem is. CTJF83 chat 09:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you not read my edits? Here's one link, and another, and another. Do you see those are all from Fox? Not sure what the problem is, either. Lvillealumni (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No answer, huh? It's a bitch being proven wrong, isn't it? Lvillealumni (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The second two of your sources give an incorrect title for "Throwdown", so aren't definitively reliable. TV Shows on DVD is, I believe, the website most commonly used to verify DVD details, and here lists the episode title as "Mattress": [6]. It's literally a matter of days until the DVD comes out and can be used to verify the correct title anyway. Frickative 16:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the name calling, it's called going to sleep. Frickative is right. CTJF83 chat 19:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Mattress / Once Upon A Mattress

If you guys would please double check before you submit something to Wikipedia. The official name (as stated by the OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE distributed by the OFFICIAL PRODUCTION COMPANY of FOX ENTRAINMENT clearly states that the name of this episode is 'ONCE UPON A MATTRESS' and not simply 'MATTRESS'. The OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE advertising the first season dvd release of Glee also clearly states the name of this episode as ONCE UPON A MATTRESS. Please, stop resetting it back to the incorrect title of simply 'MATTRESS'. You are embarrassing yourself and this website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.50.159 (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the above discussion? One Fox source calls it "Once Upon...", one calls it simply "Mattress". Both of the DVD press releases calling it "Once Upon..." have an erroneous title for another episode. The DVD press release from the site most commonly used to verify such details calls it "Mattress". Reliable sources in the form of reviews and other news articles on the episode more commonly use the title "Mattress" as opposed to "Once Upon...", at a ratio of around 12:1. Furthermore, shouting things loudly does not make them true. Frickative 08:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

LGBT STUDIES!?

Why is this article listed under "LGBT Studies"? This show has nothing to do with LGBT stuff, so please cancel that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealEeL (talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it, per your question. If someone wants to restore it, it really isn't a big deal, but perhaps a note as to why this series rates special attention might be warranted. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it should contain the tag, cause one of the main characters is gay, and a gay person created the series. I'm open to discussing the tag being or not being included.CTJF83 chat 03:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because there is a gay character and the creator is gay doesn't mean that the show is meant to be about gay activities or anything. It is not a show like "Will & Grace" that is heavily based in a world related to gay things. That's why I think that it shouldn't be referenced since the show isn't about gay people primarily. I don't mind discussing some more if you want190.59.13.81 (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You do have a point, thank you for being civil too. I'd be fine either way, I'd like to see other user's opinions too. CTJF83 chat 02:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that for now, removing the tag was probably the right call, because the only mention of homosexuality in the article is the single sentence which states that Kurt is gay. If there was anything in the article discussing the importance/impact of LGBT issues on the show, or reaction/reviews from LGBT advocacy groups or similar, then I'd be for including it. I've Googled around a bit to see if there's anything worth including, and while I may just be using poor search terms, all I can really find are episode recaps on After Elton and one minor report from GLAAD [7]. Obviously if there's any supporting material added to the article in future this can be revisited. There is an interesting piece in the Los Angeles Times about how Kurt's coming out on the show was based on Murphy's own experience, but that's more suitable for inclusion at Kurt Hummel, if/when that's spun-out into an independent article (& where I think the LGBT tag absolutely would be applicable). Frickative 08:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I can live with that. The IP made a good point saying it isn't like Will and Grace where it is more of a gay show. CTJF83 chat 08:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That was my take on it as well. Homosexuality is not a central theme in the show, just an aspect of one character's personality. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Crediting titles, etc etc...

So I was wondering, should we being this article with something in leu of the golden globe nominations (i.e. "Glee is a Golden Globe Nominated American musical comedy-drama television..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.119.215 (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The TV style guidelines advise against it, as "it provides insufficient context to the reader, and subsequent paragraphs in the lead can detail the major awards or nominations received by the television show." :) Frickative 23:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No more Brittany?

Are Brittany, Santana, Mike, & Matt returning in the second half of the season? IMDb doesn't list them for episodes after "Sectionals".
—WWoods (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

While I do not know the answer for you, I wouldn't worry that they are not listed in IMDB yet. IMDB has a lot of inaccuracies. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

They will indeed return in April. The set-photos for the Golden Globe nominations celebrations show them all there filming for the back nine. According to Naya Rivera, Santana will have a bigger role in the coming episodes, which is something I've been meaning to include in the Characters of Glee article for a while, so thanks for the reminder :) Frickative 02:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a note

I'm really please with how much this article has come along since just a few months ago. Good work so far everyone. 69.57.119.215 (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Glee (season one) / List of Glee episodes

Just a quick query - is the Glee (season one) article really necessary at this point? There's nothing there that isn't at List of Glee episodes apart from the awards section, and this AfD suggests community consensus is against it. Though it may indeed be useful in future months if/when further seasons are confirmed, at the moment there's nothing there except duplicated material. Frickative 21:44, 3 January 2010 (

well I think it should stay or maybe be merged and then come back when the season is over TheSimpsonsRocks (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)TheSimpsonsRocks

• Merge till more seasons come out CTJF83 chat 03:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm all for merge/delete until there is a second season. (Funny, though, I had a similar question about "10 Things I Hate About You (TV series), where there is an episode list page and season 1 page, which are all but identical. As a new editor, I asked about it at the Help Desk and was told to keep it because it would just have to be made again if there is a season 2. Right now it just seems excessive.) --Logical Fuzz (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Merge: It seems fairly repetitive. I'm all for "Glee (season one)" having it's own article if it was more about the season itself, rather than just a copy of the main article. -- A ^talk/_contribs 21:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Don't Merge, for an example of how these two pages should be presented see True Blood (season 1) which houses the synopses and List of True Blood episodes which does not. The "list of..." page will naturally expand when the second season starts in nine months time, whereas the season pages can have expanded synopsis to prevent the "list of..." page from becoming too large. The show has been recommissioned so a second season page could be started as early as May once the September start date is confirmed. Remove the synopses from the "list of..." page and then the use for each become delineated. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, unless I've missed a major piece of news, in which case I apologize, a second season hasn't yet been commissioned. Although it seems likely, there's nothing to confirm it, and editing this far in advance on an assumption doesn't seem best practice. I've nothing against a season 1 article if/when one is needed, but as long as it remains a possibility there will never be more than one season, I don't think now is that time. Frickative 03:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The argument about duplication no longer applies, as the episodes summaries have been transcluded into the season 1 page from the episode list. The season 1 page now needs to be expanded in a similar way to 30 Rock (season 1) to talk about the production and crew in a way which cannot be done on the "list of..." page. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Due to lack of consensus and the precedent set by the AfD for FlashForward, another show presently only a single season long, I'll file an RfC and see what comes of that. Frickative 15:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd also just like to point out that in expanding the article along the lines of the 30 Rock article, there would then be significant duplication of content from this, the main series article, so the duplication argument is not rendered invalid. Frickative 15:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So now the second season has been confirmed what needs to be done is the expansion of the cast and crew details on the season 1 article and the removal of the DVD details from the "list of..." article. This is all about the correct division of information, episodes contain details and reviews of those episodes, which cannot go on a list article or the main article. The list article needs to list only the episodes with wikilinks and ratings, the season articles need to detail what happens in each season and that information needs to be summarised in the main article. The first three seasons of 30 Rock and the list of... articles are an FAs and FL, I don't think that copying them is a bad idea. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Season 1 article

The following discussion 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.

---

Is a "season 1" article necessary when a series is a single season long, or will the "List of episodes" article suffice? Frickative 15:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Previously involved editors

Comments from Frickative

Given that no second season of the show has yet been announced, I believe that at present, the Glee (season one) article is unnecessary. While discussion has been ongoing, the episode summaries have been moved there from List of Glee episodes, making them all that are unique to the article. I would favor them being moved back to the episode list, and the season 1 article being redirected there until such time a second season is confirmed. I would absolutely support a season 1 article were it certain a second season would be produced, however, for as long as it remains a possibility the show will only ever run for one season, it results in unnecessary duplication of content. Any expansion of the article to discuss cast, crew, production etc will simply be re-iterating everything already contained in this, the main series article. As there are no other seasons of Glee, all this article can discuss is the first season. Production of the first season, cast of the first season, awards garnered by the first season, critical reception of the first season, ratings for the first season... Ergo, having a separate article for the first season is, at present, entirely redundant. Frickative 17:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In light of the very early season 2 pick up, my objection to the article is moot, so I'm going to go ahead and close this. Frickative 17:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved editors

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.

Controversies and disability issues

As someone who knows very little about the show, it would be nice if the article could mention some of the controversies surrounding it. We've got a couple paragraphs on whether or not the show is anti-Christian or "bad for teens", but no mention of the disability issues and controversies around them. Between Tina's faked stutter, disability advocates' arguments about Artie (whether he should have been portrayed by a disabled actor, whether the wheelchair choreography sucks, whether the actor seems comfortable in a chair, etc) the character with Down's syndrome, and the appearance of a deaf choir in another episode, it seems this ought to get a mention on the main page.

Feyandstrange (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a link to any sources talking about Tina's stutter? There's criticism of the disability issue wrt Artie/Kevin McHale and the handling of the deaf choir in the articles for "Wheels" and "Hairography" respectively, if anyone wants to pick out bits from there for inclusion here. If not, I'll get on it myself in a day or so :) Frickative 14:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

From the looks of things you do know quite a bit about glee. As for " anti-Christian or "bad for teens" " where? I've heard nothing of the sort from the many articles I have read on Glee. The only thing is maybe Sue's little jibes, but other than that I don't see your source for this. 90.202.63.218 (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nancy Gibbs

Did anybody really read her article? I did and in my opinion she makes a very clear statement, that Glee is not "anti-Christian"! She points out why the show, as it is, is very valuable for kids and teenagers and that it actually embraces the most important christian values. She also connects Glee with Harry Potter and explains that both contain a very important (and also christian) message: the ultimate power of love (beside other important messages). So it would be really great if anybody could read Nancy Gibbs's article and then correct the statement here at the Wiki-article (if he or she agrees with me after having read the article). I unfortunately can't do it because English isn't my mother tongue and i certainly would make terrible errors (which I surely made also here ;). Thanks for your help!
—benbawan (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2009 (CET)

Hey everybody! I want to thank you very much for correcting the statement to Nancy Gibbs article! That's really great! Now it grasps Gibbs opinion and the point of the article very well! I think it was "Frickative" who has done it, so (if it is true) special thanks to you Frickative! Finally I congratulate you all to this article, it has become very good! So keep on writing......:)
—benbawan (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The highest page views non-lead hook DYK in WIKI

Glee is now the highest viewed non-lead hook in Wiki-DYK history and it's only half of the views, the other half will be accounted for tomorrow per DYK Stats rules. Just sharing.--TitanOne (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot / Premise

This is a very long and detailed entry for a 1st season TV show - but nowhere does it say what the show is about? Forgive my ignorance - but I never heard of "Glee" before and this page doesn't help at all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.77.4.43 (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph or two sums it up very well I think. TomBeasley (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Brian Lowry

Even though I feel it is always better to have criticism on both sides of the coin, I feel that Brain Lowry from Variety is the wrong choice. He clearly is only critical of them for being a new show meant for teens, who reconsiders his statements after it has become popular. To me, it just seemed he was blindly criticizing the show, then changed it after he realized how much of a "buffoon" he appeared to be after the show became immensely popular. Can we possibly get a negative critic who isn't such a hypocrite? 72.199.100.223 (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Morris (Brittany) and Rivera (Santana) get promoted to regular cast

The actresses who play Brittany and Santana were promoted from recurring to regular cast status starting in season 2. Supporting articles: http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2010/04/27/glee-promotes-brittany-santana/ and http://advocate.com/Arts_and_Entertainment/Television/Heather_Morris_Its_Brittany,_Gleeks/ Unsure how to best put it in the article, hopefully someone else can do a good job with it. --72.199.12.227 (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking for? Are you wanting to just say they were promoted on the article page? Or are you saying they should be moved up to Characters_of_Glee#Main_characters on the page, from recurring characters? CTJF83 chat 05:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

72.199.12.227, we need to wait for official confirmation before changing articles accordingly. Entertainment Weekly couldn't get an official comment, so it's still speculation at this point. Frickative 08:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Frickative, I have a source saying they are "full time" members now, and saying Britney and Santa are lesbians? (I haven't seen the 3 newest episodes yet). I'll let you make the call. [8] CTJF83 chat 21:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

TV Guide Magazine's William Keck spoke to Heather and she confirmed that she and Naya will be promoted to regulars. http://www.tvguidemagazine.com/kecks-exclusives/glee-scoop-4870.html - Jasonbres (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Glee (TV series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 04:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Glee (TV series) IS this page!! Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You do know you're talking to a bot, right? — Mike 22:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The person who formulated this move request screwed up the templating, I think. -- there is no template or message on the dab page about the move. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Technical Aspects

I notice that there is a lot of amazing lighting going on in Glee and I am curious as to why there never appear to be technicians in the lighting booth, or anywhere else in the school for that matter? 71.196.199.176 (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that all you are wondering about? What about the RIAA coming after them for copyright infringement? It's fiction, not reality. -- GideonKlok (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Glee → Glee (disambiguation) — This is a textbook fit for the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines -- especially the wikilinks guideline -- and any disambiguation needs can easily be filled by use of the "about" template. — Mike 03:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Glee (TV series) → Glee

• Oppose: Glee may be the most popular topic right now, but it isn't the primary topic. The word Glee had a meaning (and an article) long before this television series. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic [...] Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere [...] For some terms with primary topics the title of the primary topic article may differ from the term itself." — Mike 03:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• The November 2009 discussion at Talk:Glee#Requested move for this same move decided "do not move". I also have never heard of the TV series. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as unnecessary and contrary to established practice. The series has not established itself as the primary topic for the term "glee". --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose WP:RECENTISM, WP:BIAS, this is pure US bias. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment there is no notice or banner on the dab page. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Question (loser gesture)

Is there any particular significance to the "loser" hand gesture frequently seen in promo spots or cast publicity photos? Should probably be mentioned in the article, if it's used in the show... AnonMoos (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The Glee kids are generally seen as being at the bottom of the high school food chain (unless that's changed in the last couple of episodes, I'm a bit behind at the moment). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

At the begining of the show that was the case. Now it is much more unclear............ Any thoughts?

I haven't caught up on the 3 new ones, so not sure...any mention would need a reliable source CTJF83 chat 21:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I always presumed it was just a metaphor for how they are considered losers by everyone else in the school. TomBeasley (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Other split-off articles

In much the same way how in the Simpsons articles there are things such as 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield Elementary School, Kwik-E-Mart and other fictional locations in The Simpsons, maybe we could (as time goes by, or maybe even now) obtain enough info to create our own split articles about various fictional aspects of Glee, for example William McKinley High School or Sue's office. (these settings might sound trivial but compared to somthing like the Simpsons which takes place over a whole city, this generally stays within the one school so articles on individual rooms and offices have much higher credibility). Any comments??--Coin945 (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If you were desperate to do something like this, then I suppose you could make a List of Locations style article. I don't really think there is enough information though. TomBeasley (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I think it's unlikely that there'll be enough information to justify spin-off articles on locations. If there is anything to work with though (is there a set tour on one of the DVDs?), it could be included in a "Filming" subsection of "Production". Frickative 22:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

On the Road To Sectionals DVD, there is a spoof Welcome to McKinley segment in which Figgins does a little tour of the school. TomBeasley (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Glee (TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GamerPro64 (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

O.k. now. I have found some problems in the article.

1. There is a dab link in the article.
2. There are 4 broken links.
3. The last sentence in the second paragraph of "Cast and characters" needs a citation.

Now, I'm gonna need a second reviewer to review the prose, but until then, I will put this article on hold. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Dab for Anne fixed, reference added for that sentence. Working on fixing the dead links. HGraphite (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion there is a little redundancy in the lead, for example, "Glee is an American musical drama satire television series that airs on Fox in the United States." If it is American does it not go without saying that it is shown in the US? and "It focuses on a high school show choir, called a Glee Club in the show," doesn't "it" refer to "the show" so it doesn't need to be said twice? Other than that I found nothing wrong with the prose.--Ishtar456 (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Both lines are fixed, in a correct prose now. HGraphite (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Two dead links fixed. HGraphite (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

All of my comments have been addressed. And looking at the article again, I believe that the article is Good Article material. Congrats! GamerPro64 (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

International syndication table?

The International Syndication section contains a lot of countries and networks now and it's lookinag a little messy. Would a table with the countries, networks and notes be more tidy and appropriate? --220.253.39.134 (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a table a one point, but it looked incredibly messy. It took up more than an entire screen view, which personally I think is far too much space to be dedicated to what is mostly trivial information. Wikipedia isn't a listings guide, after all. Even as it is now, I'm not sure there's anything particularly notable about detailing every station the show airs on worldwide, but at least in its current format it's compact. Frickative 14:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For reference, the table I'm referring to can be seen here. There may be a better way of presenting it, however. For instance, I've just played about and come up with:

International syndication

Glee has been syndicated for broadcast in several countries worldwide. Cast members visited Australia to promote the show prior to its September 2009 debut. In South Africa, Fox beams the episodes directly to the broadcast center in Johannesburg rather than delivering the tapes.

Africa

• South Africa - M-Net

North and South America

• Brazil - Canal Fox Brasil
• Canada - Global
• Latin America - Canal Fox

Asia

• Georgia - rustavi 2
• Japan - Fox
• Philippines - ETC and Jack TV.
• Southeast Asia - STAR World
• Turkey - Fox Life
• Israel - YES Stars / Yes Stars HD

Australia

• Australia - Network Ten
• Fiji - Fiji One and Sky Pacific.
• New Zealand - TV3 and C4

Europe

• Denmark - TV2
• Ireland - TV3 and 3e
• Italy - Fox
• Norway - TV2
• Portugal - Fox Life
• Spain - Antena 3
• Sweden - TV4
• United Kingdom - E4

It could use some work, but it does remove the stilted prose from repeating "In X, Glee airs on Y", while retaining the compact format. Frickative 14:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see why it is necessary to list all the stations. Surely it is sufficient to simply list the countries it has aired in? TomBeasley (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the show is going to be aired in France starting June 6th, on a small paying channel called "Orange Ciné Happy", every sunday 8.40PM. In 2011 it will be aired on one of the major channels. Sources available, but in French, on the "Glee" article in the french version of wikipedia. This means the show can't have any succes in France before 2011 (who would pay 35 euros per month just to get the channel for that show, and not all the population has acces to high speed internet/cable). Other solution: streaming, the episodes are available within 1 day with the subtitles in French. Not legal, but soooo satisfying! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.87.242.38 (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

MTV3 channel in Finland has bought rights to air Glee. http://www.mtv3.fi/viihde/uutiset/televisio.shtml/1117136/hittisarja-glee-tulee-mtv-kanavalle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.15.151 (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is my version: Glee has been syndicated for broadcast in several countries worldwide.

Country	Broadcaster	Season Premiere
Australia	Network Ten	September 17, 2009
Canada	Global Television Network	2009
Norway	TV 2	December 15, 2009
Argentina	Canal Fox	September 13, 2009
Mexico
Peru
Chile
Venezuela
Brazil	Globo de Ouro	2010
Spain	Antena 3	March 22, 2010
	FOX Spain	March 3, 2010
New Zealand	TV3	November 6, 2009
Fiji	Fiji Television
South Africa	M-Net	October 4, 2009
Ireland	TV3	September 10, 2009
United Kingdom	E4	December 15, 2009
Sweden	TV4	July 11, 2010
Portugal	Fox Life	December 6, 2009
Italy	Fox Life Italy	December 25, 2009
Denmark	TV2	February 7, 2010
Turkey	Fox Life	February 18, 2010
France	Orange Cinéhappy	June 6, 2010
	Groupe M6	2011
Philippines	Jack TV	September 14, 2009
Belgium	BeTV	2010
Luxembourg	RTL-TVI
Netherlands	RTL5
Japan	Fox
Malaysia	ntv7
Hungary	RTL Klub
Georgia	Rustavi 2
Singapore	Channel 5	June 9, 2010
India	STAR World	June 30, 2010
Southeast Asia

Is think that the channels and the dates are interessting for other users. And a table looks like better as the text. -- DC Fan 5 (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This issue came up at the Television WikiProject a couple of months ago, where consensus agreed that such lists violate WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Beyond that, the table introduces a lot of unsourced information - there seem to be at least a dozen entries in need of referencing in the table version. Frickative 19:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As User:Frickative has explained, paragraph form is preferred over table form and that international premier dates and channels aren't important as this is an American show, and only American related information is important. The Simpsons is a WP:FA, and has no mention of international airings. CTJF83 chat 19:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please unprotect it!

It's defenetly unfair if you protect the page that people wanna edit! --Mvtech^Faithfully 02:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The proper place for this is WP:RUP, nothing will happen on here. CTJF83 chat 02:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody likes someone who whines. It's protected because it's a good article, and they don't want random people ruining it. Take a gander at the Tekken article. It's a mess everyday considering it's not locked. Sallyboy44 (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

FA Status!

Just so I know, whats keeping this article from featured status? Whatever it is lets get it fixed!! Does it just need assesment for FA status? Or does somebody see something that needs changing? Thanks! Lets do it!! Flightx52 (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Writer!

The show has received mostly positive reviews from critics and viewers. The series won the 2010 Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series—Musical or Comedy and received three additional nominations for Best Actress (Lea Michele), Best Actor (Matthew Morrison), and Best Supporting Actress (Jane Lynch). The show won a People's Choice Award for Favorite New TV Comedy in 2010. Its first season also earned a Peabody Award. It received a comedy writing award at the Just for Laughs conference in Montreal in July 2010.[3] It won four Emmy Awards including Outstanding Supporting Actress – Jane Lynch, Outstanding Guest Actor for Neil Patrick Harris and Outstanding Direction of a Comedy Series for Ryan Murphy's direction of the pilot episode. It was also nominated for 15 other Emmy Awards, including Outstanding Comedy Series, Outstanding Actress – (Lea Michele), Outstanding Actor – (Matthew Morrison), Outstanding Supporting Actor – (Chris Colfer), Outstanding Guest Actress – Kristin Chenoweth, and Outstanding Guest Actor for Mike O'Malley. It also received one writing nomination and one other nomination for directing.

Given an 8-line list of awards, I think I might change "mostly positive" to "positive". Or what the heck, "excellent". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.252.248 (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the whole article, note Glee_(TV_series)#Reception how there are some negative reviews from Parents Television Council, which I absolutely despise, but for WP:Neutrality sake, we gotta list positive and negatives reviews. CTJF83 chat 02:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Revised lyrics of Imagine

I think that it's significant that Glee's version of Imagine omits the first verse that imagines a world without religion. It reflects a trend that I have seen in other copies (another well-known example is David Archuleta), where the performer wants to change the lyrics either because of their own religious bias or because of a desire to avoid controversy with fundamentalist groups. I think it's important to note significant changes in lyrics such as this, and believe that an editor's refusal to allow mention of it on the Glee wikipedia page only reinforces that it is a deliberate attempt to censor or sanitize Lennon's views and work for a mass audience.Keplerfan (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Other than your own personal opinion, why is this any more notable than any other edit they've done to any other song? CTJF83 chat 04:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Keplerfan - as I said in my edit summary, a lot of the songs covered in Glee are condensed from the original version. Do you have a reliable source which claims that the shortening of "Imagine" has these motivations? Without a good source, you run the risk of violating Wikipedia's original research policy. With a source, the main Glee article is probably not the best place for criticism of a single song (potentially giving it undue weight over the dozens of other songs covered), but it should certainly be acceptable in the reception section of the "Hairography" article. Frickative 04:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I also do not see why this is especially notable. As stated above, many Glee covers shorten songs (the most notorious being arguably show tunes), and this is just one of them, but without a reliable source, no verification can be done. I would also like to ask that if this trivial fact is especially notable, would there not be news articles or essays discussing this particular point of view? Yvesnimmo (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not violating the research policy because my edit merely noted that "Glee's cover omits the first verse of Lennon's original lyrics, which imagine a world without religion." That is fact, not opinion. Whether it gives undue weight IS a matter of opinion and we seem to disagree in this case... so who decides? Other than blog commentary, I cannot find a news source that discusses this, perhaps hampered by search engine capabilities or perhaps no one caught it or wanted the information highlighted... the absence of press coverage is in no way a barometer of worthiness for information sharing, in my opinion. Very doubtful that FOX News would go out of their way to point this out, for example. And of course, this show airs on FOX, doesn't it. The absent lyrics are discussed on Archuleta's wikipedia page, and were questioned in the press, by the way. I merely wanted to note that the Glee lyrics are similarly revised so that new, younger listeners realize that this is not the version Lennon intended.Keplerfan (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing that this is a fact, but Wikipedia's core policy is about verifiability, not truth. I don't know how one would go about sourcing this, as the album booklet doesn't contain lyrics. And FOX is only one of hundreds of news channels of one country in the world. And, again, if we were to show that "Imagine"'s lyrics were revised from the original, why not for "I Dreamed a Dream", "Total Eclipse of the Heart", "Sweet Caroline", and many, many other arguably notable songs? Yvesnimmo (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You know what? I think you should listen to the song again; because they do imagine a world without religion.Yvesnimmo (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ya, what are you talking about? http://www.hulu.com/watch/109904/glee-hairography the first words out of his mouth are "Imagine there's no heaven"...the video probably will expire today or tomorrow, due to a new episode tonight. CTJF83 chat 15:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Fast forward to 31:30. CTJF83 chat 15:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I had not seen the episode... my remarks pertain solely to the cast album. Listen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0mQvIiyMs0 As for verifying Lennon's lyrics, that's easy, just listen to him singing the song plus I don't think there is any controversy over his lyrics which were written and performed by him years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okd3hLlvvLw . As for why mention that lyrics are missing from Imagine... well, they are *important* lyrics and removing them is a disservice to Lennon's legacy and intent.Keplerfan (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's when Mercedes starts singing in the episode. Either way, unfortunately "I don't think there is any controversy" and "removing them is a disservice to Lennon's legacy and intent" are both your opinion, and are not for inclusion in an encyclopedia. As we've all said, you need a reliable source to say why it's removal was for any specific reason...not sure what else we can say without repeating ourselves. CTJF83 chat 17:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I realize that wikipedia in general is subjective, but hate to see it be the standard bearer of revisionism. I did not ask that the reason for removal of the lyrics be stated, I only wanted it noted, because I think that future generations who only hear sanitized versions of Lennon's work should at least be alerted that there has been a change. My question is, who has final authority on this? Are FOX staffers editing this page? I thought wikipedia was a peer collaboration. Keplerfan (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I highly doubt anyone from Fox is editing this page. No one has the final authority, per say, we just edit it based on policy, of which we've given you several. CTJF83 chat 00:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"...because I think that future generations who only hear sanitized versions of Lennon's work should at least be alerted that there has been a change": why? I don't. And I don't think reliable, third-party sources do, either. Yvesnimmo (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the rights to "Imagine" are very, very, very difficult to acquire, and Yoko Ono only agreed to allow Glee to cover it when she understood the context; the song was sung with a actual deaf choir played by deaf thespians. I don't think can count as a "disservice to Lennon's legacy", then, whatever that may be. Yvesnimmo (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

And just for the record, I do not and have never worked for Fox, nor was my reversion a "deliberate attempt to censor or sanitize Lennon's views and work for a mass audience" ;) Frickative 03:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the recent covers of the song missing the "religion" portion is significant. I've seen this discussed before, but not about Glee. Maybe, you will find more luck in the article for "Imagine"? I am new to the structure of wikipedia, but I would imagine that the editors of the Imagine artice would be more open to mentioning changes to the song's meaning since they actually care about it.

Exohuman (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but who says they're not mutually exclusive? Also, I don't know why this discussion is ongoing, as the Glee cover actually does not omit any lyrics. The song was performed in its entirety in "Hairography". Yves (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

Like a lot of other Glee articles, this one also has a messy Lead section. Can the annoying blue-link fest that is the third paragraph be summarised into neater prose by one of the more regular editors of this page, maybe highlighting its Emmys or the big ones, and consigning the rest to the Reception section? Also, because it's all consolidated it looks like it's been written by fans, there should probably be mention of the more negative reception on season 1's back 9 and critics' subsequent low expectations for the the season 2 première.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been a while since I'd read through the lead, but you're quite right, it is a bit of a mess. I'll take a stab at tidying it up later on. Re: the reception, do you know of any decent reviews that discuss the first season or back nine as a whole? I've struggled to find good post-season analyses, and don't want to stray into synthesis territory by comparing episode-by-episode reviews and concluding that later ones were more negative (however true that might be!). Frickative 22:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A good starting point would be the AV Club review of "Audition", it gives a good account of critical summaries of the back 9 and low expectations of season 2. That was sort of what I had in mind when I was saying the above. I totally understand what you mean about synthesis, it's best to stay clear of that, but AV Club's "Audition" review actually does the synthesis itself so it's okay to summarise what it takes to be the critical consensus of the back 9.

I would also suggest, although I'm not certain this is the case, DVD review websites? I suppose the issue is that DVD reviewers base reviews on the first couple of episodes, but perhaps there are some Glee – Volume 2: Road to Regionals reviews out there that tackle the issue more directly? Once the article, and the lead, covers it sufficiently to illustrate that the show's reception is not static (many articles treat the pilot's reception as the show's reception), it will go a long way to improving the overall quality of the article. Because Glee as a show is very responsive to fan criticism, critical reviews, the media and the music industry's responses to it, and whatnot, I suppose (in addition to a tidier, dedicated "Critical reception" section) summarising the seasons in a tree like

==History==
===Season one===
Glee premiered...
After a positively-reviewed half-season, the show's back nine debuted with lukewarm reviews..
background character Santana began to receive more screentime...
===Season two===
Speculation about season two had reflected on the weaknesses of the show's first season; Kristin Dos Santos... Michael Ausiello...
Murphy chose to write an opening segment to the season two opener which directly addressed these issue... praised by reviewer X, deemed unnecessary by reviewer Y...

etc., incorporating real-world information about critical reception and creative decisions alongside accounts of Glee's storylines.

That, however, is a big task. Probably one for a sandbox. But absolutely necessary for an FA, as it should be the article's main body. Compiling it all in a neutral style is an almost academic task, however.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, these are really useful suggestions! I've skimmed a couple of DVD reviews and they're looking like potentially good sources, as is the A.V. Club "Audition" review and a few from the tail end of season one. The proposed "History" section, though definitely a mammoth task, sounds as though it would improve the article a great deal, and is definitely something I'll start working on in a sandbox. I'm going to be a bit busier than expected for the next couple of days, so if anyone else reading wants to take a stab at fixing up the lead, please feel totally free - otherwise I'll get on it at the end of the week. Frickative 07:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo Controversy

Ok there is a big controversy over the GQ magazine pictures with Lea,Dianna,and Cory. Shouldn't we add this to the article? refrence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF5GM_blWZA&feature=fvsr

i know this is the show The Talk but it confirms the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebutton (talk • contribs) 01:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any non-youtube links stating it is controversial? CTJF83 chat 01:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a mention of the shoot and the Parents Television Council response in the article already. I condensed it down to a couple of sentences because an IP editor originally gave it a separate subsection and copied in the entire PTC press release, which I thought gave undue weight to a single incident. I don't mind at all if anyone thinks it deserves a few more lines of coverage, but I do think a whole section is too much. Frickative 01:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree..so tired of the PTC. CTJF83 chat 01:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Darren Criss

There have been many news stories recently claiming Darren Criss has been confirmed as a regular on the show, all of which seem to be based on an interview with AfterElton.com. However, a news article from The Associated Press says this is still unconfirmed and that he "could become a regular next year under a newly signed deal". Also, there has been no confirmation or press release from Fox—the press release for the November 30 episode still lists him as a guest star and the fact sheet does not include him, so I have removed him for now. Yves (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me...I don't think Sam or Sunshine are even regular characters yet. CTJF83 chat 21:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the AfterElton wording is ambiguous (RM: He’ll definitely continue through the year and longer. We just signed a deal with him, so I don’t know. AE: He's confirmed to be a regular for the remainder of Season 2 and next season as well? RM: Yes.) On the face of it I can see why news sites are seizing onto the 'regular' comment, but it could just mean he'll be a regular feature on the show, like Mike or Sam, as opposed to a series regular. I agree with waiting until there's unambiguous official confirmation. Frickative 21:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it definitely is ambiguous. And I don't think they would immediately sign him on as a regular cast member after one episode: Harry Shum, Jr. isn't even one of them yet. I think "regular feature" is what he is for now until unambiguity surfaces, like you said. Yves (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Directly from Criss, he's definitely not a series regular yet. Frickative 19:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the text here for tweaking and adjusting:

During season two, Darren Criss, who plays Blaine, will be made a series regular for the rest of that particular season, and also for season three.

--Ckatz^chat_spy 20:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, look at that: Harry Shum, Jr.'s regular for next season. Looking as all new regulars were former regular recurring characters, I'd say it is highly improbable for Criss to have become a regular, and his own words from the MTV News interview above confirms this. Yves (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose this discussion is rather moot, since Blaine seems to be a pretty regular character by now. Not sure if reliable sources have reflected this though. I mean...I would expect there to be more about him even on the minor characters page than just a few sentences. Are the references just not out there for him or is it that no one has bothered expanding his section yet? Silverseren^C 09:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well what more do you feel needs to be added to his blurb? Yves (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I just did a search for recent news on Google, which you can find here. Um...yeah, 320 results. And at least for the first page, there's a significant amount of info about him, if not entire articles dedicated to his relationship with Kurt. I think the section should definitely be expanded with more characterization. Right now, it's primarily just a quote about what the character Blaine is expected to be like in the season. Are we still considering him to not be a regular character? Because, if you'd like, i'd be happy to start an individual character page on him after class tomorrow (technically, today). I have more than enough references at my disposal. Silverseren^C 09:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree in that I don't think it's a matter of references; Glee is a well-documented show, with each episode earning at least twenty professional reviews. I don't think a separate article is necessary; what sources have can usually be paraphrased to three paragraphs at the most. Recent discussion at the Glee task force talk page has brought up the issue of length in character pages: the example of Homer Simpson's page was brought up, with his description being only a few paragraphs but covering an entire twenty-two episodes. The thing with character pages is that only the regular main characters have their own pages, and Burt Hummel doesn't even have his own (yet)! I'm looking at news stories for characters and both Beiste (372) and Sam (358) have more, not counting articles from months past in the archives, so I don't think numbers can be justified here in order of article eligibility. This is not at all meant to discourage; by all means, I welcome you to add more to the description! I think more could be added, but there's been recent cutting down on trivial one-episode details. Yves (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

[Google seems to have archived some news stories as I was typing the message. The news story count seems to change every time one refreshes, and Blaine is now at 219, Sam at 340, and Beiste at 373.] Yves (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Super Bowl episode

Any objection to me starting an article for the post-Super Bowl episode? I believe there is sufficient information available from reliable sources to meet criteria for inclusion, as this is scheduled (and important) and of wide interest. "Super Bowl episode of Glee" could work for now, then be moved to the appropriate article name once the title is revealed. Thoughts? Looking forward to starting the article, whether it is immediately or soon (it is only a matter of time, after all...) --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No objection from me on this one :) Despite it being a couple of months away, we have a wealth of production information to work with - initial plans for it to be a tribute episode, the finalization of artists to be covered, new character introductions, Couric guest starring etc. Obviously not having a title yet isn't ideal, but iirc, several 'Doctor Who Christmas episode (20XX)' articles have been kept at AfD in the past, so in and of itself that isn't a problem. Frickative 19:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Perhaps "Glee Super Bowl episode" is more fitting then... --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just had a quick search for the relevant AfDs, and of the two I found, the articles were originally titled 'Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special' and '2010 Christmas special (Doctor Who)'. As there's no real consistency there, I think either Super Bowl episode of Glee or Glee Super Bowl episode would be fine. Frickative 21:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. I went ahead and started an article. I had planned on waiting for more feedback, but I feel comfortable arguing notability if the article ends up at AFD. Here we go!... --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, AB! I'll start expanding it right now. Yves (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Show Resolution

Someone changed the resolution of the show to say "1080p". While it may be true on any Blu-ray releases, they are released at 480i/1080i on FOX in the United States and all other pages using this infobox use the first air resolution as the resolution. I am the IP that made this edit and want to explain to potential changers why. Thank you, Wanderson9 (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

The names of the actors on the right side are completely wrong. Someone please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.217.77.61 (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Done thank you very much. Yvesnimmo (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone's vandalised the country of origin and the language section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.132.13 (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Been reverted and editor warned. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Areas in the "broadcast" sidebar have been vandalized to say "awesome" somesuch.99.100.214.136 (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

PTC on Showmance

I'm not sure why an editor is intent on edit warring this sentence out of the article at the moment, but I thought I'd mention that I actually took the same thing out myself back in September, when we were working on getting Glee (season 1) to FL status. It was brought up in the review at the time that there was considerable overlap between that article and this, so I tried to excise parts of this article that are specific to single episodes, as the PTC's comments on "Showmance" are. So while I'm certainly not endorsing the on-going edit war, I think the reception section here should be for broader reviews, rather than responses to individual episodes. Frickative 22:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that, as it is such a strong criticism of Glee, it probably warrants going on the main page. I can understand why simple reviews of episodes don't belong there, but as this is over quite a serious thing, I think it should stay. I think the same organisation criticised another of the episodes, so that could be added (I'll work on finding a source at some point). Is there anything we can do to put an end to this stupid edit war? TomBeasley (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Number of Seasons

It says that there are 6 seasons, Is that right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.201.170.12 (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No. I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing that out! Yves (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Glee Project

According to this, it's going to be a reality show competition, with the winner being cast on Glee. I would think that this deserves a sentence in the article somewhere and likely a full section once the show finally airs in June. Silverseren^C 04:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Murphy & Brad Falchuk

I think Ryan Murphy makes the funniest episodes and Brad Falchuk makes the best stories (script, screenplay) in the episodes.--187.146.39.23 (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Please bear in mind that discussion pages are for discussing potential improvements to the article, not general discussion of the article's topic. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Positive effects"?

The article states that "The series' cover versions have also had a positive effect on the original recording artists" and only lists one Rihanna song with a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.170.132 (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done [9] CTJF83 21:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong CD's

On there it says that there are only 3 soundtracks in May 8, 2011 will be 5! So it is all wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruben 1120 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If I'm looking at the correct sentence, it says three soundtrack volumes were released for the first season, which is correct. The sixth volume is planned for release in less than a week, and I've added it to the merchandise section. Yves (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Glee no mention of the comic.

The description is not included in the Glee comics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boros1124 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There's not much press coverage of this (from reliable sources) and on the publisher's website there's no mention of this comic at all. I found some copies on ebay, but their cover says it's “unauthorized”, so I guess it's not mentioned because that would be giving it undue weight. --Six words (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Will's Ex-Wife, Not wife

In the first lines of the article, it says "Will's wife, Terry..." needs to be changed to ex-wife, they got divorced awhile ago. Just a small edit, but one I can't make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.184.211 (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:IN-U we try and not write the article based on fictional aspects of the show, but the real world aspect. So we try and make the article as accurate as possible, at one point they were married, so by putting ex, it forms a timeline and makes the earlier episodes false. I can't remember where this discussion took place... CTJF83 21:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I just changed it. I'm going to self-revert. --Six words (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Gleeks" is a portmanteau, not a conflation

The page incorrectly identifies the term "Gleeks" as a conflation of Glee and geeks, when it is a portmanteau of those two words. Brobinson9999 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC).

 Fixed thanks, CTJF83 03:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Glee articles are full of contradictions

First, I have placed this here because it is the center of all the Glee articles. These articles have numerous contradictions. Quinn Fabray's page says that Ryan Murphy is planning to recast the show at the end of season 3. Rachel Berry's says that she may graduate, the episodes page says that the cast won't go away in 2012, but nothing is posted on the actual Glee page. Just the other pages. Is there something wrong with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwolvesto50 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Flow of the article

I wanted to suggest moving some of the sections around for ease of use by putting the "Cast and Characters" and the "Broadcast" sections before the "Music and Choreography" section. Or at least before the "Promotion" section. I'm not sure what the wiki rules/guidelines say about how an article should be structured, please let me know.

DianeKurohyou (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Episodes

The guest star columns in the episodes are horribly put together. Chord Overstreet, Ben Jacob Israel, guy who's playing Mike chang are not guest stars! They are serious regulars and this article even refers to that. 76.92.255.42 (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Overstreet, Sussman and Shum Jr are all recurring cast members, credited by the series itself as guest-stars. Yes, they appear frequently, but it's not Wikipedia's place to override the producers and refer to them differently. Frickative 01:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Broadcast 20 hours after the US

It reads, " It also airs in the United Kingdom,[58] and in Ireland, where most episodes premiere 20 hours after their US broadcast." This is kind of incorrect, as it is weeks behind when it is broadcast in the UK. I.e, the Valentine's DAy special was on only three weeks ago or so. Thats more like 20 days than 20 hours. just sayin'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.128.117 (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The '20 hours' refers to Ireland, but feel free to change the sentence structure to make that clearer. Frickative 16:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Glee Cast

I think an article should be created called Glee Cast, in the same vein as Fame (1982 TV series)' The Kids from "Fame". The group is extremely successful and i think notable in its own right. I also think the subject matter wuld be diffreent from "Characters of Glee" which it redirects to now. What do you think?--Coin945 (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Apart from a little bit of background, The Kids from "Fame" article seems to be primarily a discography - what would you envision a Glee Cast article containing, so that it wouldn't just be an amalgam of Characters of Glee and Glee Cast discography? Frickative 16:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)