Talk:Sanjay and Craig

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Nickelodeon task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Animation: American / Television Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Animated television work group (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Trivia

Regular Show storyboard artists Madeline Queripel and Sean Szeles have directed episodes of the show.http://nick-sanjayandcraig.wikia.com/wiki/Dog_Wave#Trivia. 98.90.178.168 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the trivia. Were you suggesting this as something that should be incorporated into the article? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Is there a way to do that? 98.90.178.168 (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone seems to like this show. Can we source more negative reviews? I put the ones most commonly talked about, that the show is considered to be a rip-off of Regular Show, dumber than Fanboy and Chum Chum, or that it should be on Cartoon Network instead of Nick. 98.90.56.138 (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a reputable critic has given it a negative review, then yes, that would be all right. We can't cite fan reviews, though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do any sources about negative reception exist? I found more reviews at TV.com, but there're fan reviews too and many contain obscene language. I believe more sources should be added. It'd be more neutral. Is there a proper way to cite the fact that Regular Show storyboard artists have directed episodes? I noticed that wikia can't count as a source. 98.90.56.138 (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Show genre

There's been some back-and-forth recently on the various show genres. Editors stripping out Surreal humor for surrealism, as though disjointed, crazy humor makes the show equal to a Magritte painting. Can anybody source any of these attributions, or is it all personal interpretation/speculation? If the latter, none of it need be included, for obvious reasons, and if the reasons aren't obvious, please immediately read WP:NOR. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should Plainlist be used in the infobox? Bcdb title only works on film articles, not TV shows. 172.243.2.244 (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than disruptive reverting and resubmitting, look it up. Template:Infobox television Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see the difference or the point, but can it at least be removed from genre if comedy is the only thing under that field? They said it should be used for multiple entries. There's only one under genre. Also I thought the end date should only be used if there's actually an end date. Nick hasn't announced if the show was cancelled or renewed. 172.243.2.244 (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{end date}} is used to emit the appropriate microformats. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I will stop the edit-war. 172.243.2.244 (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tufflips

Wait, Remington Tufflips actually existed as a movie star in the 80s, and the show character is a cartoon version of the celebrity? Wow, is that true?! 67.85.241.84 (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then how come it said it in the press release? Or are they just making things up and his voice actor is not a celebrity but rather an unknown actor? 67.85.241.84 (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are always self-promotional--that's why companies release them. This is one reason why Wikipedia frowns upon primary sources for factual content. The voice actor could be well-known, or they could be a lesser-known member of the cast and crew, but the most likely case is that Nick is making these statements to sell its product. If it wants to bill Remington Tufflips "as himself" to do so, that's their prerogative, but it doesn't mean the guy actually exists, and the more likely scenario is that it's a cutesy marketing gimmick designed to generate "heat" or "buzz". That is, as long as you're talking about who the mysterious Remington Tufflips could be IRL, they're getting value from having planted the mystery. For some scope: In the early 1980s there was a TV series called "Remington Steele" which featured actor Pierce Brosnan as the macho pretty-boy "Remington Steele". Brosnan's character was actually a con-man who donned the role of Steele after private investigator Laura Holt created "Remington Steele" as a fake partner to drum up business at her private investigation firm. You might read the two lead paragraphs here, as it might help you understand the likely origin of the reference. And if you're still not convinced, you could always go to a public library in New York, hit the microfiche and see if you can find any evidence of a "Remington Tufflips" existing in the 1980s. Then again, if you're in New York you could also lean over one of the marketing cubicles at Nickelodeon HQ and ask them wot-the-dilly-wot? about Remington Tufflips. (Your results could not be used in the article as they would constitute original research, but you might enjoy the experience!) You could also file a lawsuit and subpoena all involved to be deposed, but that's a subject for another day, and it would also constitute original research. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]