Jump to content

Talk:Nostalgia Critic/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Who deleted the links which went directly to the concerning video on TGWTG.com? i found them really handy and they were the main reason i used this page. Please put them back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.63.234 (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think someone is trying to ruin this page, hence this: "This page was nominated for deletion on 3 November 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus." I don't edit wiki's..so can whoever maintains this page please put the links back? I use this page to find new episodes/rewatch old ones exclusively. Much hate to the idiot that removed the links.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.60.200 (talk)

I third that. I get the removal of the overly detailed episode info, but what's the point in removing the links? Please put them back. 60.226.67.88 (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I fourth that. Also, I second the notion that Duffbeerforme is an idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.73.59.183 (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Other stuff exists is not a reasonable argument due to the nature of Wikipedia. —Half Price 16:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Which is what, exactly? 89.73.59.183 (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Look, can we stop mindlessly citing Wikipedia and get back to the real issue at hand? I was more using that as a side note rather than my argument, anyway. Since you missed it the first time, I'll re-iterate: the links do not clutter up the page (since, you know, Wikipedia is not a paper encycl- uh, sorry, I forgot we weren't doing that). Yeesh, it's not like we're debating whether there is or isn't a God, we just want (tiny!) links back on a page! 60.226.67.88 (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
You are just fundamentally wrong. Users above (me included) have said all there is to say. Take it or leave it. —Half Price 20:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Fundamentally wrong... about the links cluttering up the page? I don't think so. They weren't just bare links, you know... it was just (episode number). Like episode six was linked like this: (6). If I offended you by ignoring the holy texts of how to argue on Wikipedia, I'm very sorry, but please don't just dismiss what I'm saying as "fundamentally wrong". 60.226.67.88 (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately you are fundamentally wrong. Adding links would be breaking the following Wikipedia fundamentals (previously mentioned above already): WP:NOTLINK, WP:ELPOINTS and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. My advice to you is to give up this crusade. Thanks. —Half Price 14:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Crusade? Jeeze, Half Price, do you think we could possibly keep this civilised? No need to describe me as some sort of zealot. Anyway, I think both you and duffbeerforme are misinterpreting the holy texts of Wikipedia. WP:NOTLINK says Wikipedia is not Mere collections of external links or Internet directories - and neither is this article - there's episode info in there as well. It further states excessive lists can dwarf articles, but I hardly think (6) next to the running time "dwarfs" much of the article at all. WP:ELPOINTS states External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox - the are in infoboxes. And yes, Wikipedia is not a directory, but the list of episodes does not soley exist to provide links, the links compliment the episode info. So Half Price, am I still fundamentally wrong, or are we going back to childish name calling? Whatever suits you. 60.226.67.88 (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
They were not in the infobox and there was no misinterpreting on my part. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
And there was no childish name-calling on my part! —Half Price 17:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Just saying there was no misinterpreting does not make it so, Duffy. Now, I just want to claify something here: you guys honestly want to make this page less useful, simply because you believe that's what Wikipedia wants? Because that's the only argument I'm seeing here. If you were in favour of making the page less cluttered, more readable, more academic, hey, fine, I'm with you 100%. But reducing the usefulness just for the sake of it? I don't get it.
Look, you two clearly care more about Wikipedia than me. All you need to do is show me where it says you can't have links in lists of web series and I'll go on my merry way. Seriously. That's it. And don't just point me to WP:NOTLINK WP:ELPOINTS, because I read those pages and found nothing in there that explicity banned links (see above for more detail). Those articles seem to be guidelines for "regular" articles, like, say, Barack Obama. I wouldn't want links interrupting the flow on his page, but this isn't an article, guys, it's a list of episodes! Surely if each episode had its own seperate page we'd have a link at the bottom? 60.226.67.88 (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia wants to be an encyclopedia and that is why it has it's guidelines. To quote DevinCook "Ultimately, the guidelines set down in Wikipedia are designed for it to be a useful resource to begin research. The page must be encyclopedic - in that sense it needs to relay information. Information about episodes are encyclopedic. The episodes themselves, are not. Besides the obvious fan-dome direction Wiki would take without these rules, it makes the articles "fragile" insomuch external links can never be considered 100% stable." ([1]).
From WP:SAL, "Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies". If the single episodes where notable enough to have their own articles things would be different. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Finally. Still, I can't believe you did this to The Nerd's page too. Way to make two pages on Wikipedia less useful. But hey, what do I know, right? If Wikipedia has a policy written down, we have to follow it. It's not like we can change the content on Wikip- oh. 60.226.67.88 (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I can just imagine the future of wikipedia if the fans take over cause I like it, cause it's useful, cause I said. Visit the Justin Beiber article. Justin is OMFG, he is my boyfriend. visit my fan site, awesome, OMFG, he he he. Which part of "I'll go on my merry way" didn't you mean? duffbeerforme (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Um... I didn't not mean any of it? I thought I'd end with a joke, but in case it was too subtle for you, I was just pointing out that if there is a policy on Wikipedia that is outdated or seems illogical (as I believe is the case here) we can, um, change it? I wasn't suggesting Wikipedia be run soley based on what people want, but a democracy would be nice. Just looking at the debate on this page, we have me and four other people for the links, you and Half-Price against. That's five to two, but, really, I'm done here. Clearly the wants of the few outweigh the needs of the many. How silly of me to think otherwise. 60.226.67.88 (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I know this debate was written a long time ago, but I do agree with the user who has the IP 60.226.67.88. Wikipedia sounds like total bureaucracy, which it is not supposed to be. IP 60.226.67.88's pointa are very valid, and unfortunately yours HalfPrice, and yours Duffbeerforme, is not. The way you are talking makes it seem that you are blindly following whatever guidelines Wikipedia has written out. I am not saying that is what you are doing though, please don't think that about me! I am a nice guy, really. I just feel that I still need to point out, not just to you, but to everyone that it is okay to follow the guidlines, nothing wrong with that, since it is what they are here for. However, when a user seems to think that something in those guidelines may not work very well, and you simply shoot them down with the policy that "rules are to be followed," when that user is simply requesting that we take that part of the guidelines up to re-evaluation, you come off as very illogical. Or maybe you just misunderstood IP 60.226.67.88 throughout the whole conversation? In that case I apologize for sounding a bit rude. --Luka1184 (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Ref error

We've got a ref error and I can't seem to track it down. Reference #7 falls under the Legal problems section. THe ref is named maskick but we have no corresponding ref on the page and I can't seem to find it in the history. Millahnna (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It was a typo. "masnick" was the ref name. Thanks. —Half Price 19:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Huge removal of FANCRUFT

Yesterday and today, I've shortened all episode summaries to one or two sentences. Please take note when writing in new episodes as this is how they all should be. The page has been halved from a mammoth 126k bytes (making loading slow slow slow) to a still large 64k bytes.

Additionally, how do people know what episodes are coming out in the future? Thanks. —Half Price 19:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Future episodes are announced on the site, the most recent list is here. As it's non-controversial (well, hopefully), I haven't used it as a reference whenever I've made the update. I've trimmed summaries myself in the past for similar reasons although I'd have gone for 3-4 sentences (I haven't done this recently as I've been doing other stuff and the internet ate my last big edit). FYI, at some stage I may go back and restore about one sentence per episode to cover the final verdict/conclusions where applicable, but I don't have the time for that right now. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
That's fine. As I said, I would have liked to have done that but some of the summaries were hard to squash into one sentence. —Half Price 13:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


DUDE, you just RUINED this page even further. That "FANCRUFT" was a MAJOR + to this page. YES we want to know who is in the video, YES we want to know what it is about in DETAIL. 1 stupid sentence with: The critic revieuws: ..." is NOT doing the job!!! We can she what he is revieuwing by looking at the title. SO, reverse this epic downgrade, please! We don't care it sows the site down for 2 seconds!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.63.234 (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2010

OK. Firstly, we need short summaries. By your use of 'we' I assume you mean 'us fans'. The aim of Wikipedia is not just to pile in as much information onto the site as possible. This isn't a fansite, it's an encyclopedia. You say that we can see what he is reviewing in the title, but this isn't always the case, especially when there are two or more versions of a film or he is comparing two films. Of course, my removal isn't perfect–that would be pretty hard–but it's a huge improvement on before. Sorry it wasn't to your liking. Thanks. —Half Price 17:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, you are right. But those episodes could use some more info than just one single sentence.

thanks anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.63.234 (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you probably could have something along the lines of:
"The Critic reviews XXXX (1979). He takes issue with the plot inconsistencies and bad acting."
The only times I didn't do something like this was when it wasn't easy to do. The summaries often included solely trivial bits of the video and so made it hard to make into 1/2 sentences. —Half Price 17:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it should either have full summaries, or no summary of episodes like other pages. i.e. "Flubber: the critic reviews flubber" is useless. Also think there should really be seperate episode page, for a show with this many episodes it looks stupid to have all the episodes on the main wiki page.84.13.93.150 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not totally useless. It provides a link and says the year of release. —Half Price 18:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
It does NOT provide a link any more. Somedy please fix this.(Yeah, yeah "WP is not a repository blah blah". Just give us the links and we will be happy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.11.83 (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
(A link to the article of the film in question.) —Half Price 17:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


And already people are making and changing summaries which are too long and full of fancruft. *sigh* —Half Price 15:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you stop bothering with this particular article, Mr Half Price. I mean, initially it was written by the fans for the fans and in its current state is useful to virtually noone, including its target audience. Of course, people will always try to return it to its "former glory". - Shadurak —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC).
It is a list of episodes an has to conform to standards set for this type of list. I have to agree with Half Price: we should not be adding too much Fancruft. A wikia for fans is located at thatguywiththeglasses.wikia.com. Jarkeld (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that the episode list should be collapsible and default to "collapsed". Furthermore, readd the Top 11 lists as they are verifiable and notable information. 24.176.184.74 (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the time myself, but maybe we could split this article up and make the episode list a separate page again, with a link to it here. That way, there'll be plenty of room for all the detailed descriptions and links people want to put in without slowing the loading speed down.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think they should be split but it won't allow anyone to start putting detailed descriptions in again. The removal of fancruft was not just because of size constraints. The IP above raises an interesting idea about having a collapsible box for each year. What do people think about that? —Half Price 12:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The thing here is, without the fancruft, this page is essentially useless to anyone who might want to read it. 24.87.40.201 (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
OK we'll just delete the page then. And does everybody realise that this sort of discussion should now be at List of Nostalgia Critic episodes instead? —Half Price 21:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, now it just sounds like you're trying to make the page seem inept enough to be worth deletable. You're the Nerd, aren't you? 24.87.40.201 (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
James Rolfe and Doug Walker are friends, no? Isn't that so-called "feud" of theirs done and over with? What's wrong with you? --69.136.96.78 (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
That was a joke. But seriously, the first part of that statement seems true. 24.87.40.201 (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Retsupurae in Reception section

Who or what is "Retsupurae" and why should Wikipedia care what they think? Are they notable or important enough to be included in this article. The other people in the reception section are Ebert and Dini, who both have their own articles (which, I admit, does necessarily mean they're better sources than Retsupurae but they are notable, important and relevant). Their comments about the Nostalgia Critic are part of why the show is itself notable. I'm not opposed to negative comments, they help to round out the article, but as it stands this looks like some random person on the internet didn't like an episode. I will remove it if it cannot be shown to be a reliable source. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


Agreed. It is good to have balanced critical responses, but we need sourced, viable replies from persons of note, not "some say (specific personal opinion)". I'm going to go ahead and delete the unsourced, non-notable replies. If someone can find negative criticism from a worthwhile source with attribution, that would improve things. GenHavoc (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"The Nostalgia Critic has received high praise from critics and audiences, but received mixed-to-negative reviews from actors from the reviewed movies throughout the show." This summary is not backed up by the subsequent examples, which only cite positive reactions from the subjects of specific reviews (with Mara Wilson being the only one who initially reacted negatively, which was due to a misunderstanding).--217.187.24.222 (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Date

This entry states that the videos were uploaded in July 2007, but this Guardian article says his account was suspended in June 2007 for copyright violations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.49.100 (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"I'm acting" running gag

I think that the running gag of The Nostalgia Critic saying, "I'm acting" when referring to a character in the movie should me mentioned in the "Running gags" section. --Fladoodle (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Walker out of character.

Incase anyone is wondering, I deleted the bit about Doug thinking Michael Bay was the director of the Ninga Turtles movie because he didn't do that video as The Nostalgia Critic, so it belongs on a page about Doug Walker the real person and not The Nostalgia Critic show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BGBazz (talk • contribs) 10:52, 21 October 2012 (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.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The Nostalgia Critic → Nostalgia Critic – The title card does not have a "The". On That Guy with the Glasses, the series is under "Nostalgia Critic." It's clear that the "The" isn't part of the official title. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

  • (Weak?) Support - WP:NC-TV does encourage usage of official titles. WP:COMMONNAMES encourages using commonly used names. One with "The" and without "The" are used by sources, despite how many sources use one or the other. Since WP:THE discourages "The" usually, I might go ahead saying, "Go for it!" --George Ho (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see where WP:NC-TV supports use of official names. It describes, primarily, what to put in parentheticals, or what naming to go for when a show is associated with completely different names (e.g., season, series, and episode). Dovid (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2013 (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.

AFD of The Nostalgia Chick

Please weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nostalgia Chick by providing sources that can help prove notability or by giving an informed opinion.--Coin945 (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight to primary sourced content

The section Nostalgia_Critic#Celebrity_contributions has no inline citations as is required by policy for content that has been challenged (as this has been [2]). With only the episodes themselves, there is no indication that the incidents are worthy of coverage, let alone a whole stand alone section WP:UNDUE. Commentary in the section "After a misunderstanding, former child actress" without sources is a violation of WP:OR.

the content either needs sourcing or it needs to go. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done for Wilson. The Sestero senetence is a statement of fact, so it doesn't need citation per WP:PRIMARY. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Who is the old smoking lady

She appears in several episodes. AmericanLeMans (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I dunno. 24.212.194.146 (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Cast list redo

@Money emoji: Could we at least leave a couple of the more prominent characters in it (e.g Doug & Rob Walker and what they do)? Of course, the section would be much smaller than it was, maybe at maximum 5 sentences, or it could be combined into an already existing section. Topper13009 (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a better idea- Sorry for being overly aggressive in removing the section💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 23:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed it up- Now it should be good now.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 23:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It's alright, it did seem awfully like fancruft at first glance. Thanks. Topper13009 (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


Shouldn't Walter Banasiak be included in the cast list? he's a regular at CA and has appeared in many NC videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.208.43 (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Bringing back an episode list page

Why did we remove that in the first place? Did the page get deleted. If so, just why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.165.190 (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I also agree that the page should be brought back. It appears it was deleted just out of spite with the recent controversy going on.
Many other TV shows rightfully have an episodes page and the Nostalgia Critic isn't any less legitimate than those shows just because it's a web series. The show is notable enough to warrant the episodes page. 67.242.119.234 (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
it's arguably even more legitimate than most (if not all) tv shows. face it oldies, webisodic programs is the future and the futrure is now!! --Roman Dog Bird (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Read this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (3rd nomination) - EclecticEnnui (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Answers nothing. They removed all the information without moving it anywhere. The pages may have not met notability (except it did), but the information inarguably did--Harmony944 (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The deletion is definitely in spite of the document, and is in very bad taste of the Wikipedia community to do this. The article has existed for years (I can't view the history for exact dates), and haven't been deleted so far. It was nominated 2 times before, for sure, but it was the document, an unrelated event to Wikipedia, that it was deleted.
Either way, the list of episodes can be found on Channel Awesome Wikia/Fandom for now. (inb4 Wikipedia deletes this link too out of spite)
To add to this, the List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes is still up. Is it in better quality? It's also been nominated for deletion 3 times (2010–2011), but haven't been considered for the last 7 years. Liggliluff (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. They deleted Doug Walker's main article, too. Some Wikipedians have an axe to grind, apparently. If we can't have a separate list, I'd say we should at least have an episode list here on the main page. Obviously we couldn't add summaries and stuff like that, but we can just add the episodes and the airdates. Dpm12 (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It is interesting that Doug Walker doesn't have a page currently, but a character he plays does. How can a character be notable enough to have a Wikipedia page but not the actor who plays him? What about all the other characters he plays?73.58.152.96 (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
i mean EVERYBODY knows CHESTER A. BUM and MELVIN, BROTHER OF THE JOKER, let's get on with it people!!! what ELSE are you going to write about??? --Roman Dog Bird (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
it's a conspiracy!!! let's expose tgemh! --Roman Dog Bird (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

What is Doug Walkers(Nostalgia Critic) personal life

In some videos referring to Doug walker reviews, as himself, we've heard things like he has a wife, and he has a father who was in the army, but we might be able to go deeper. What does he do on a natural day, what was his childhood like, what inspired him to start nostalgia critic? We need answers. DEATHDOOM76 (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

have you considered going to where he lives and stalking him? --Roman Dog Bird (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Add a link to the article of nostalgia critic's the wall

In the reception section you should add a link to the article nostalgia critic's the wall Ok? Tee wew28 (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok? --Roman Dog Bird (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Episode Number

What is the criteria for the episode number? It says 658 as of the Trick 'r Treat review, but the playlist I made is only 656 DinoDude4449 (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I left out the deathly hallows release episode and the holiday music video, but I don't consider them true episodes DinoDude4449 (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

"The Wall Nostalgia Critic" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Wall Nostalgia Critic has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 21 § The Wall Nostalgia Critic until a consensus is reached. cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nostalgia_Critic/Archive_1&oldid=1241179512"