Jump to content

Talk:It's Still a Good Life

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

Untitled

[edit]

This article needs work, like maybe an infobox, better organization. RashBold (talk · contribs · count) 22:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the end of the episode was misunderstood. Anthony didn't just "accept" that his daughter brought the world back, the two of them were planning to unleash their powers on the entire world, just like Anthony had done to the small town.

I'm a little confused why the opening narration states the daughter has none of her father's powers, but the episode centers around her use of those powers. I guess it's because this reboot of the TZ series was terrible. 75.15.153.87 10:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because as of the opening narration no one knew she had powers. Fitfatfighter (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening narration

[edit]

Anybody noticed it contradicts the plot? Audrey possesed her father's powers. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as if this question was addressed just above. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on It's Still a Good Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contested redirect

[edit]

@Drovethrughosts, your revert was contested by @Sir Rhosis—please do not revert reverts, especially without edit summaries or any discussion,(Edit: Apologies—apparently I had a script blocking their display) as that is Wikipedia:Edit warring. I suggest discussing it here first before moving unilaterally, or bringing it to a formal discussion if need be, but your autonomy to Wikipedia:Be bold ends when another user contests the move (Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). czar 16:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep this article, as this episode is a follow-up to one of the original series' best remembered/most important episodes . In that respect, it achieves a notability the other eps of this revival do not. This should have been brought here for discussion before the redirect.Sir Rhosis (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did leave edit summaries. It should be redirected per WP:ALLPLOT and the article doesn't establish notability beyond a cast list. If there were a reception or production section, then yes, but there's nothing. The fact that it's a sequel episode and has returning cast is already established in the main series article. I fail see how a separate article is warranted for reiterating the same exact information. There's nothing else to expand upon and the article's barely been significantly edited/improved in almost ten years. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it should be redirected, it should be because there aren't any reliable sources with which to write an article. @Sir Rhosis, do you have reliable sources to back up your above claims of its importance? czar 20:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should be kept as a noteworthy episode of a notable television series that was broadcast on a national television network to a large U.S. audience and has been shown worldwide. The cult status of the series allows it episode articles in my view. Instead of redirecting it needs expanding. I don't have the deep knowledge of the show to expand it but others can, by adding a reception section for example.Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you can say that about any television series, but not every single episode of a every single television series deserves its own article. We're talking about the 2002 revival of The Twilight Zone not the original here, as you claim "cult status". You can talk notability all you want, but the article doesn't show it: it's nothing but WP:ALLPLOT and a cast list. Where's sections detailing its filming or writing, or reception of the episode? I suggest reading WP:EPISODE, which states, "If the article(s) contain little content, consider merging or redirecting them into another article", which is exactly the case here. There's nothing in this article that can't simply be achieved in the main series article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is the question here whether the sequel is notable in its own right, or whether it's just notable that the origin had a sequel in the revival series? If so, I think there is evidence the sequel might be notable in its own right.
While the first half of the season tried to build success by using stars like Jason Alexander, the second half tried to save th show with a slew of direct sequels and remakes. This story and "Maple Street" made up the episode that kicked off that effort. And this story was the only one of those sequels and remakes that reunited the cast from the original episode, and the star reprising a role he'd played at 6 years old made it more interesting news.
If I'm remembering right, there should be a lot more media coverage of this episode than of any after the first few, which means anyone who wants to establish notability should be able to do so relatively easily. But, of course, they still have to do it. --50.0.192.101 (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on It's Still a Good Life. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 21:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:It%27s_Still_a_Good_Life&oldid=1203024794"