Jump to content

Talk:Saturday Night Live/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

The Albert Brooks Show?

I'm surprised to see no reference to this title.

According to http://albertbrooks.com/movies.html

NBC's Saturday Night Live was originally going to be called The Albert Brooks Show, but Albert declined the move to New York and proposed that they have rotating hosts each week and that he'd make a series of short films for the show instead.

Sazma (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


Merchandise section needs to be expanded

Hello, I just wanted to express that in my opinion the merchandise section needs to be expanded. I especially look for entries about audio CDs from that show series. Also I have an older PC CD-ROM multimedia product about that show series, which I think can be considered "merchandise", too. Alrik Fassbauer (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Censorship

I've removed the sentence "The film is a scathing critique of corporate media ownership, including NBC's ownership by General Electric/Westinghouse.[37]" from the part about Conspiracy Theory Rock. I looked the video up on youtube... turns out it's an animated debunking of the Kennedy assassination, nothing about corporate media ownership whatsoever. Also, the source this person cites is nothing. It was "^ "Error: no |title= specified when using {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help)". http://everything2.com/title/Conspiracy+Theory+Rock." Who knows... maybe there's such a massive corporate conspiracy that they've made a fake conspiracy theory video and have destroyed the original. I think I'm gonna publish that one on my blog...

Derp, that's the wrong video. Try http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/12/conspiracy-Theory-Rock-416809.html Coolgamer (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


The Ashlee Simpson incident doesn't actually involve any censorship.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.111.251 (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Family Connections

I added a paragraph in the family connections section noting that Brad Hall, Rich Hall and Anthony Michael Hall are not related. It was promptly removed as "unnecessary info", which I suppose it is, but the whole section is unnecessary except to satisfy a reader's curiosity about SNL cast members. I had always wondered if these 3 were related, so I imagine I'm not the only one. I think it is a useful addition to the section. Capmango 15:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no objections raised here, I am putting the sentence back in. I myself find the information useful and interesting, so it is reasonable to assume others would as well. If someone feels strongly that it is bad for the sentence to be there, then please add to this discussion. Capmango 20:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Article for each episode

What are your thoughts on articles for each episode? I have constructed a model article for Scarlett Johansson/Bjork. List any thoughts on the format/etc. here. Weatherman90 18:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What in the...

Why does the Dick in the Box skecth link appear in EVERY SNL-related page, even if it has nothing to do with it? you're not colorblind, it's colored this way. Misteryoshi 22:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Article needs work

The problem I have with this article is that it's mostly lists, with virtually nothing about the history of the show. Most of the actual "content" is in the Trivia section. And while I do not share the viewpoint of others that Trivia needs to be removed from Wikipedia, in this case I will agree that most of the items listed there should be rewritten into a section on the history of the show. I've put this article on my "to rewrite" list for when I have time. 23skidoo 13:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm making some changes. Feel free to undo stuff if you disagree. -- Viewdrix 01:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Production?

Is SNL producing any new shows? I haven't seen any new ones in a while. 71.221.238.182 20:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's called summer hiatus. Notice how almost no scripted TV shows are making new episodes right now? -- Viewdrix 00:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Each season its own article.

All and every single one of Connerb312's season breakdown articles are, sorry for that expression, total crap. They all sound like from the fairy tales. The information is either insufficient or false. Also, the episode lists are disorganized. Off-the-air 14:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

True, they need to be deleted or heavily re-worked, re-edited, re-worded, and re-everything. I have decided to take care of this myself and leave the following message on each of the discussion pages:

"To Connerb312: I have edited your articles because they do not meet the encyclopedic styles of Wikipedia. Please take more consideration and effort into your articles, and review them carefully for spelling/grammar mistakes or non-sensical statements. Please focus more on general ideas than specifics, and please do not write articles like you are re-counting a story or a fairy tale. This will help to meet Wikipedia's guidelines."

- Spyke1077 01:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have edited all of the season articles, and boy where they A-W-F-U-L! You can see the changes I made. Whew, editing thirty-three articles is tough. I deserve a barnstar! LOL I hope I did a good job with them. - Spyke1077 03:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming Episodes?

I really see no reason for the Upcoming Episodes section, and I'm sure that there is some WP policy against it. I haven't removed it yet, because I'm not exactly sure about the policy. Feel free to delete it if it violates. 76.217.109.179 11:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, found it myself WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.109.179 (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's odd. A number of Family Guy's upcoming episodes are listed on the site. So why is it okay for FG but not for SNL? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

SNL Digital Shorts

Not a single mention of the SNL Digital Shorts? It has an article of its own on Wikipedia, yet it is never mentioned in this article? I added it under See Also. I think it should have its own section in this article, since SNL Digital Shorts have been in the spotlight recently, especially since they aired Lazy Sunday and Dick in a Box.

It's in the Saturday Night Live template, but that's way far out of the way. I'm going to move the template up to aid navigation. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism reverting help, please?

Someone under the IP address 24.14.20.44 keeps vandalising each of the individual season articles by changing out names of hosts and changing episode details and the such. I spent an hour yesterday reverting some only to find more new vandalism today. Could someone please help me revert as well as report the vandalism? Please and thank you. Magkaz 03:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Strike

Anyone know if SNL is coming back (with the writer's strike and all)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.214.27 (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlike other late night shows, Saturday Night Live is the only show that hasn't announced its return. To be honest, I don't think they will come back before a contract is agreed upon. The 1987-88 season only had 13 episodes after the 1988 Writers Guild of America strike. Personally, I think the strike will go to at least March, so I don't see SNL coming back before then -- sketches are written and rewritten many times during the week-long production schedule. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Any update? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.247.64 (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

TV Guide reports that SNL is returning Feb 23, with Tina Fey hosting. Here's the reference: SNL to Return Feb 23, With Tina Fey Hosting

Tubesurfer (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

91 Minutes?

Could someone elaborate: How come the show is listed as being 91 minutes long instead of 90? Is the extra minute at the beginning or end, and has it always been 91 minutes long and not 90? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't always been the case, just for the last couple of years. It's listed as 11:30 PM - 1:01 AM. In reality, though, It tends to come on at about 11:29.45 PM. Lambertman (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

tape delay

Is Saturday Night Live tape delayed or is that bs with the Writers Guild Strike because I was watching SNL last night in Texas , and the intro said Recorded eariler from live broadcast. Was last night a live or its a re-runRio de oro (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

When it says recorded from an earlier brodcast that means its a repeat, or if you live on the west coast, that means you're an hour behind. SNL was under the writers' strike during February 2nd. The show was a repeat from season 30, with host Tom Brady. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.67.120 (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wayne's-world.jpg

Image:Wayne's-world.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

History needs work

This article needs some serious work in terms of history:

  • If there are era articles, they should link to the year articles. Currently they don't.
  • The 5 year intervals chosen for the history breakdown don't make too much sense. If there's going to be separate articles for different eras of the show, they should follow the important eras defined by the people involved, as detailed below.
  • When did SNL begin to rely heavily on pre-recorded segments like the SNL Digital Shorts? It seems to be going away from the spirit of "Live".
SNL had pre-recorded short films from the very first season (by Michael O'Donohugh). IMHO, it never "relied heavily" on pre-recorded content. The fake commercials are generally pre-recorded also. Capmango (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A summary of the overall history of the show, in the main article. Especially this should cover the important eras of the show. For example, 1975-80 (original cast), 1981-84 (eddie murphy and joe piscopo, no lorne michaels), 85-90 (lorne michaels back, revival, mike myers), etc. See for example [1], [2], [3]

Sbwoodside (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What actually is SNL?

There isn't really a good section devoted to explaining what Saturday Night Live actually is and what typically goes on in the show; at best, the introductory paragraphs give a very vague idea. Could this be remedied please? Metsfanmax (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Curse

I find it odd that there is nothing in this page about the alleged SNL "Curse" -- the page is kind of incomplete without it. Whether or not any sort of a curse is mentioned, it is certainly noteworthy that a large number of prominent SNL cast members (Radner, Farley, Belushi, Hartman) died very premature deaths. Vegaswiki (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it definitely deserves mention --Ragemanchoo (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comedians in general tend not to be long lived. Not unique to SNL. 76.237.239.102 (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

SNL start date

Greetings, The Saturday Night Live television show was broadcast at least prior to Oct 1973 in upstate NY. Your article has 1975. I remember watching it on TV before I joined the Army. I worked a weekend shift at St. Elizabeth's hospital in Utica N.Y. and I would come home and watch it. I can't recall the exact start date however it was definitely prior to Oct 1973. 65.160.171.42 (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Patrick Costello CCDDJJPP@aol.com hope this helps....

Your help is appreciated, but the 1975 date is a well-documented fact. Lambertman (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you watched Monty Python. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.216.32 (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Thank you both. Patrick C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.112.6 (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Runtime

Some anonymous user(s) has changed it to 94 minutes a few times. I put it back to 90 minutes (as per the introductory sentence, and every other source). There's a talk section about it being 91 minutes up above. I changed it so the article does not contradict itself. I have not seen a source showing the runtime as anything besides 90 minutes. Baseballfan (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. But, usually the reason why people do that is because the show starts at 11:29, instead 11:30 PM Eastern Time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.98.60 (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I haven't watched SNL much lately (since Tina Fey left), but I'll take a look next time, as I'm used to 11:30. Anywho... Baseballfan (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that SNL started at 11:35 (and ran for an hour), but thanks to my reading this, it actually starts at 11:30. Explains why I'm always missing the cold openings. Resetti 4 Prez (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

He's probably talking about the Cosell show? 69.206.130.183 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted material in DVDs?

  • A sketch involving "butt pregnancy" during the first broadcast of the November 12, 2005, Jason Lee episode was replaced with a musical sketch about cafeteria food during the repeat.
  • When Sam Kinison delivered a comic monologue in 1986, NBC removed his plea for the legalization of marijuana from the West Coast broadcast and all subsequent airings.

Does this mean the sketches wouldn't be in the DVD of their respective seasons? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Office Space Created for SNL

The movie spinoff section says that the Office Space shorts appeared on other shows first, with a citation and link to an Entertainment Weekly article. But the article in question specifically states that the shorts were created for SNL. So there's a citation to show that Office Space should be listed as a spinoff.146.122.71.68 (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Land Shark?

Just wondering if anyone added the land shark to this or any other SNL page. -Lea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.152.218 (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

AC/DC on SNL?

No articles on SNL metion when AC/DC guest stared to play "Stuff Upper Lip" back in 2000. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.9.145 (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Other than you being a fan of AC/DC, what is notable about this one musical appearance out of the hundreds of musical appearances in the show's history? Lambertman (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


Thursday night show

Should the new show be incorporated into this article, or have a new article? googuse (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No John Belushi reference

The John Belushi page mentions that John was an original cast member of Saturday Night Live (1975) yet I find no reference to John on the Saturday Night Live page. Is this an oversight? Rs2saj5n (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say that it's not. Chevy Chase, for example, was also an original cast member, but the only references to him in this main article are to his hosting the show after his tenure in the cast; there's no mention of him having been a cast member. The history of the show is split into subarticles that are linked near the beginning of this article; see History of Saturday Night Live (1975–1980), which documents that Belushi was an original cast member. --Tkynerd (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnny Carson

The show replaced scheduled showings of "Best Of Carson" and Johnny Carson was outraged when the show first appeared, without his consent. Shouldn't this be noted? 76.237.239.102 (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That is almost the exact opposite of what happened. Carson demanded they stop rerunning his show in that time slot, and SNL was created specifically to fill that void. It's in the book Live From New York. 68.197.166.162 (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Season 34

Now that Amy Poehler has left the show, there only 1 women and still 8 men in the cast because Darrell Hammond is still here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.189.21.176 (talk) 04:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Mikeala Waltkins, Abby Elliot, and Casey Wilson? Those names ring a bell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.19.206 (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episodes and characters, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Five timer's club.

According to the article, Alec baldwin has hosted 16 times. In reality, with his performance on the 14th, he will only have hosted 14 times. I believe this should be fixed, but i don't know how to edit tables —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistedkombat (talk • contribs) 22:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My opinion on Saturday Night Live

I have to say that SNL is very important, and has Jerry Stiller ever appeared on the show?Raninair10 (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Debbie Downer redux

How come the one with Ben Affleck was re-edited because in its original airing the actors kept breaking character by laughing while saying their lines, but the Downer sketch with Lindsay Lohan in 2004 (when she was host) had the same problem and was left as is in repeat broadcasts? --Whip it! Now whip it good! 07:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Firing of Norm Mcdonals?

SNL is known for firing the funniest commediian the show has ever had. The producers of NBC demander that norm mcdonald be fired from the news segment of the show. After norm left the show, their ratings plummeted, and no one has really cared about SNL since. It would be nice if a section on the contreversial firing of Norm Mcdonald could be addded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.154.212 (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

my edits

I have made some rather large changes to this article, removing a great deal of stuff (mostly tables) into either existing articles or to their own list page. This page was getting out of control! Matt Deres (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Was Al Franken a notable performer in additin to writer?

Yes. Curvebill (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What kind of character generator do they use?

I'm interested in what corporation makes their digital graphics and character generation. Does anybody know? Curvebill (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the font on the title card?

What font do they use on the title card and opening credits? Curvebill (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Gotham Ultra. Gage (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Nasim Pedrad and Jenny Slate

I belive including Nasim Pedrad and Jenny Slate as Featured Players is incorrect as NBC has not comfirmed the rumor reported in TV Guide. Including rumors, even if passed along by a reputable source, that will be confirmed or denied in the near future does not make much sense.Sandcherry (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

TV Guide, which is a reliable news source, stated that "Jenny Slate and Nasim Pedrad have joined the cast of Saturday Night Live, TVGuide.com has confirmed." It then went on to discuss the original (blog-sourced) report of the casting. This goes beyond simply passing along the rumors, which MTV did earlier in the day (your revert of the MTV-sourced claims was absolutely correct). I recently was a little involved in a similar situation, where some editors questioned whether a Billboard article stating it had confirmed a rumor regarding an upcoming album release satisfied WP:RS, and the consensus there was that it met RS requirements. I think TV Guide is as reliable regarding TV as Billboard is to music, so the same result would follow. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I see your point based on a review of WP:RS and your example. It does seem odd to me to represent a rumor as a fact in the body of an article (my perception) instead of as a confirmed rumor as mentioned in the citation. However, this example is relatively trivial and will undoubtedly be a moot point on September 26 (new season start) or perhaps sooner if NBC annouces they are joining the cast.Sandcherry (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

International broadcaster clean-up

Okay, so I cleaned up the European/International broadcaster section, as it was a bit of a mess. While I don't know for sure, I'd swear that the show is being shown in different countries as well (I'd assume Israel, for one), so if someone could help beef up that section, it would be appreciated.Mainly.generic (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

International, vandalism?

Okay, I don't know if it's vandalism per se, but someone added a tonne of countries/channels that do not, and have not carried the show. If this happens again, maybe it's worth closing edits? Mainly.generic (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

All the irrelevant entries involve Asian broadcasters. I've been checking out the channels, and none of them check out. If any do, I'll fix them up. Mainly.generic (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

DVD Releases

Hopefully it's not too much of an issue, but I've moved the DVD section to another page, where I'm in the midst of tabulating the DVD releases for the regular seasons, and the specials. Give me a couple hours to complete the tables, and then write up a paragraph or two to tie the whole thing together. Mainly.generic (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Rage Against the Machine incident

While I don't want to open a hole where every movie that has an SNL-type show gets referenced, Tim Robbins' Bob Roberts has a lengthy fictionalization version of the Rage Against the Machine incident which elucidates the GE-sponsorship criticism almost word-for-word in the way it is expressed in this article. This particular film appearance should be noticed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.145.105 (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

VANDALISM

Can someone put semi-protection on the article? We've been attacked maybe two or three times in the past week by anon ips in the form of text deletions and insertions of BS. Mainly.generic (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Broadway Video

Hey all. Just spent a good week or two taking the Broadway Video from a stub to a full-fledged article. Now I just need people to give it a once-over, mainly for grammar and punctuation. Thanks! Mainly.generic (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Revamp time!

Over the next week or two, I'll be undertaking a massive revamp of the article, with the hope of getting it, quality wise, to something that could be considered eligible for featured article status. Also, if you're adding something to the article, REMEMBER TO CITE!Mainly.generic (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Headlines

Okay, so I'm putting "Writers", "Cast", and "Band" under the headline of Production, as a way of better organising the article. A brief synopsis will go at the start, but that can wait for a bit. Main reason for this change is that headlines should not repeat the title of the article, as when one reads "Writers" on the Saturday Night Live page, they should rightly assume that we are talking about SNL Writers. This is inline with Wiki policy. Mainly.generic (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Filming and photography

Okay, so I stumbled upon the holy grail for the filming and photography section. NBC Production services details exactly what equipment is used within Studio 8H. There's a TON of information there, but it will take a bit of work to integrate it cohesively into the page, so that it doesn't end up dominating the article. Also included is a facilities diagram and a QTVR tour! http://www.nbcproductionservices.com/studio8H.stm Mainly.generic (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

See Also Section

In terms of the most recent edit, I understand why 30 Rock was added. However, I have removed everything except for "Live from New York", with this including Friday, Kids in the Hall, and the aforementioned 30 Rock.

  • While the shows may share a "spiritual link" to SNL, they are not spinoffs of the show. Just because they were created by Lorne Michaels, and are mentioned within the article, they do not merit inclusion in the "See Also" section. I recently did a complete overhaul of the Broadway Video article, so if you want to add them somewhere, then put them there.
  • The "See Also" section should only include articles that are pertinant, and assist in a reader better understanding the the subject area of Saturday Night Live. Worthy inclusions would be the show's production companies, broadcaster, and so on. In terms of article inclusions, remember, sometimes less is more. Including information that can only be weakly justified cheapens the article.

Mainly.generic (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Awards section

I'm fleshing out the Awards section, and am creating a sub-page for SNL's various awards and nominations. This section in the main article needs a bit added to it, as right now apart from key information, it's pretty sparse. On the awards page, feel free to add relevant awards, but steer clear from small-time honours, such as lists of best shows for any given year by TV critics (note that I'm not disputing the validity of such honours, but that such lists are highly biased, relatively small in scope, and very numerous). That said, I am including a reference to SNL being included on Time magazine's list of 100 best TV shows of all time.

Mainly.generic (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Episode specific page anchors

To aid with navigation, I'm adding invisible anchors next to every show number in the lists of seasons, so that if you were to click on show "641" on one page, it will take you to that show in the associated season. I figure that's it's too Herculian a task to make a page for every episode (I'd love to see this happen, but lets get this page, and associated pages up to FA status first). For a good example of this in action, go to the List of awards and nominations received by Saturday Night Live.

How to create an anchor (using show 641) as a guide:

  • On the season page:

{{anchor|show641}}641

  • On the linking page:

[[Saturday Night Live (season 34)#show641|641 <br /> (34.5)]]


Mainly.generic (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Seasons

CALL FOR COMMENT: Removal of show notes

Earlier today, a major edit was made on the Saturday Night Live (season 35) page, where all show notes were removed. The edits were undone, but they shone a light on an issue that deserves discussion. Add your opinion following this post, and after a reasonable amount of time (say, one month), we'll see what the general consensus is.Mainly.generic (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Personally, I am for the removal of the majority of the show notes. As noted by American Metrosexual above, I feel that they are thinly-veiled trivia sections. They are rarely, if ever, sourced, and there is no agreed upon criteria that dictates what is, and what isn't included. For the most part, they are extremely subjective, which is an issue that has plagued most existing SNL articles. I feel if we do want to continue down the path of retaining this information, then episode specific pages would be more appropriate. That said, it would be a MASSIVE task (we're approaching 700 shows), and would still require a hell of a lot of retooling so as to make the information more encyclopedic in nature. I also propose that we remove the DVD information within the infobox, as now that we have a DVD page, that information has become redundant. While ideally I'd like to see the inclusion of ratings information, it would be near impossible to find the information for early shows, which becomes somewhat of a moot point when you consider the Neilsen ratings were overhauled at various points during SNL's run. Mainly.generic (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. It's trivia; that's all there is to it. Why do you think it was all the deleted from List of Saturday Night Live episodes? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE with limits - Leave the notes, but do it within reason. We don't need a statement every time a cast member does not appear in an episode. We don't need a comment about every flubbed line unless it's noteworthy (such as "fucking" instead of "frickin"). We don't need to list each sketch in which every host or musical guest appears. We don't need to list the cameos for people who regularly appear on the show, such as Lorne Michaels. Some editors have tried to make a play-by-play description of each episode. The section is for noteworthy comments, not a reproduction of the script. Edit with some common sense. 71.77.17.46 (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
      • We don't need to list any of those things. Although the notes are a little interesting, that isn't exactly what Wikipedia is for. A separate Saturday Night Live wiki (or maybe TV.com) would be a better place for that. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
        • You missed my point Metro. I was arguing that we don't need the things I listed because they are too trivial, but I did not argue that we don't need any notes. And your argument is lame. Of course Wikipedia includes interesting information; if it didn't no one would read it. "We don't need to list anything"??? There is no policy forbidding such information. We don't need Wikipedia either, but it's a good idea so that's why we have it. 71.77.17.46 (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
          • I think you missed my point. My point about the notes being somewhat interesting has to do with WP:INTERESTING. And as for no policy forbidding such information, um...did you even bother to read WP:TRIV?...Well, to be fair, it says such notes have to be presented in an organized way; for example, sourced information (see also WP:OR). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
              • Metro, have you read WP:TRIV? Last time I checked, there was nothing forbidding the kind of information in these notes sections. And material such as plot summaries and descriptions of TV episodes do not require sources. The shows themselves are sources. Name a film or TV plot summary that cites sources. 71.77.17.46 (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
            • My confusion in this argument is that if we were to state partial inclusion was allowed, what information would we consider trivial or not? I am against making a show note every time a curse word is uttered, as its happened so often over the history of the show, that at this point it is a very trivial matter. If the FCC laid charges against the producers of SNL, then yeah, I'd say include it as a note, but how often does that happen? I'm honestly scratching my head right now trying to think of information that would merit inclusion, and for the life of me, I can't think of anything. Mainly.generic (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
              • Uttering the word "fucking" has not "happened so often over the history of the show". I only recall two incidents in the entire 35 seasons of the show. But beyond curse words, if Wikipedia articles only included material that no one considered trivial, we would be slashing most articles to the bone. Certainly there is a gray areas of disagreement, but let's not throw out useful information simply because some people consider it trivial. I, for one, consider naming the songs performed by musical artists useful information if I'm deciding whether to watch my recording of the program. I enjoy knowing that there is an unannounced cameo by a celebrity (especially if they have speaking parts). Wikipedia has a lot of flaws because anyone can edit, but one advantage of an online encyclopedia is that it does not have the space restrictions for including information that print encylcopedias have. The notes sections for SNL episodes is no different (and includes less trivia in many cases) than other descriptions of TV episodes found all over Wikipedia. 71.77.17.46 (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
                • I don't think you read my entire comment. As I (and WP:TRIV) clearly stated,

Especially read the section where an example is given. And it is different than other descriptions of TV episodes because those shows give plot summaries; you can't really do the same thing for a sketch comedy show. Maybe I confused people when I linked to the AfD from a year or so back, but I wanted you to notice the closing admin's rationale for keeping the article: the article wasn't bad in itself, but all the unsourced trivia had to go. Sneaking it into the individual season articles is the same thing. (BTW, it appears that the only person that seems to disagree with this is you.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Let me quote you: "for example, sourced information". As for "in an organized way", please ... tell us what is "disorganized" about the notes sections in SNL articles. And please ... tell us how listing songs performed by musical guests, notable cameo appearances, etc. is not the same as an episode summary. What you really mean is that you don't like including the information and that your idea of notable and trivia is what should prevail. As for your comment that "the only person that seems to disagree with this is" me ... what's your point? That there is a consensus in favor of removing notes sections when two people favor it? Or that your opinion is more important than mine? 71.77.17.46 (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah ... the classic pot calling the kettle black. You tell me to calm down, and in the very next sentence make a personal attack by (falsely) accusing me of having a "tantrum". And please ... tell the rest of us what is "random" about naming the songs performed by musical guests. If I wrote that the musical guest wore a green shirt, that would be random. You apparently have a different definition of random than most people. 71.77.17.46 (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE somewhat - OK First let me say I was the one who reverted Compfunk's edit. I did that because first of all, as far as I remember, that setup had been in existence for a few years now and second of all, It was a night before the next episode was going to air and people like JasonBres or others would have been much morevocal against CompFunk then I was. I simply wanted to tell him that before he erased a big chunk of text, he should do something like this to get the people's consensus then to start an edit war, but I was not registered so I couldn't write anything on his discussion page.

I have to say that I understand both views on whether to keep the notes. I personally think we can streamline some of the notes and keep some notes. The ones we could keep: a) songs that the musical guest performed and if they appeared in any sketch. B) unexpected cameos. (ie Alex Trebek on Celebrity Jeopardy, Barbra Streisand on Coffee Talk) c) sourced cases of last minute substitutions of hosts d) First or final episodes of main cast members e) well-documented events: (Sinead O'Connor ripping up the picture of the Pope) e2) notes on syndication details such as this particular episode pulled out of syndication or this host was banned because....)

Note that this is just one opinion and just a suggestion. I don't think we should get rid of everything, i think some is quite all right, but just not to go overboard. We should try and find some common ground. If we got rid of it all, why would we need two lists of episodes for each season. I do have to argue a point with CompFunk about the example he is putting in as evidence. That list is a list of every episode in the whole series since 1974. What we are talking about here is an individual season. There are many shows on Wikipedia that follow the same pattern as SNL ie a list of all the episodes and then individual articles for each season with synopsises, guest stars, and notes for each episode. and I know alot of them are for television dramas and comedies, but if you look at episode guides for certain British panel shows, they do the same thing and they add in a bunch of notes and footnotes and the like and they don't get penalized for it. What puzzles me I guess in one respect is why do some shows like SNL get caught at doing something like this and others seem to always fly under the radar?

Anyhow, that's just my litle opinion. Feel free to comment to explain65.92.21.111 (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC) samusek2

  • The reason why other shows seem to fly under the radar is simple; because no one has challenged them yet (see also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). (And in response to the previous IP (I'm not writing out that whole address), I did not make a personal attack against you. A personal attack would be calling you a name or demeaning you because of your lifestyle, for example. Suggesting that you calm down because of your escalating anger and complaints is a bad reflection on you.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Telling someone who is behaving rationally that he is having a tantrum is a personal attack, but I suppose you have your own definition for that word too. In any event, let's focus on the issues and not the editors. You haven't explained how listing the songs performed by a musical guest is "random". If that's random, then all of the plot summaries on Wikipedia are random. 71.77.17.46 (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 71.77 in the respect that while I agree with Compfunk in part to clean up the notes, we shouldn't get rid of all the notes. I do think while some notes are padded fluff, other notes like the ones 71 and I listed earlier seem like valid notes to keep. I think, IMO, that both of you guys are right and there should be some kind of common ground that the lot of us could agree upon before this argument turns into a full-blown edit war. What do you, think, Compfunk??? 71??? Mainly generic???? Can we come to an agreement that will be agreeable on both parts? (combining our two points of view?)65.92.21.111 (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)samusek2

  • My point was simple; the notes were trivia. I used the AfD link above to easily explain why they were deleted before (by an admin, remember) and then later by me, but it seems like the 71 IP doesn't get it because s/he doesn't want to get it. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 02:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Metro, 71 IP doesn't want to get it?? It's you who doesn't want to answer his question. How is listing the songs peformed by a musical guest "random", "disorganized" "trivia"? The question has been asked several times. And, by the way, you just made another personal attack. 65.41.234.238 (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, my God, will y'all stop? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Just as I thought. You made a statement and refuse to back it up. Why is that? Is it because you can't explain it because it isn't true? Just as 71 IP said, your argument is lame. 65.41.234.238 (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I refuse to back it up? Have you not read how many times I asserted my point? And the 71 IP hasn't said anything in the past twenty-four hours about this; maybe it's because s/he is trying to do what I'm doing; being civil and moving forward. (By the way, I could very easily act like you and suggest that your calling my argument "lame" is a personal attack, but I won't.) Different users are going to have different opinions, and that's fine, but what you're doing isn't helping anything. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've read every word you wrote. And yes, you have not backed up your comment. You have said nothing about how listing songs performed by musical guests is "random", "disorganized", "trivia". Nothing. And the reason for that is simple: it is not random, disorganized, trivia. I could claim that listing guest stars in other TV series, or listing events of a film or TV episode, or listing the songs on an album are random, disorganized trivia. In fact, I could claim that the entirety of Wikipedia is random, disorganized, trivia, but that would not make it true. So until you explain yourself, you have refused to back up what you say. You could easily resolve this matter if you would simply admit that some (not all) of the contents of SNL notes sections are not random, disorganized trivia. But you prefer stick to your argument at all costs, including getting rid of acceptable information in your attempt to get rid of the trivia. 65.41.234.238 (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I never said listing musical guests was random. And by the way, information is supposed to be acceptable by Wikipedia guidelines, not yours. I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL because you're getting worked up over nothing. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
You know what? You're not even worth responding to anymore, so I'm just going to ignore your comments and focus back on the issue because we're straying too far from it. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for finally admitting that some of the contents of SNL notes sections are not trivia. And I never said anything about my guidelines. I was simply asking for your explanation of trivia. And it's up to you whether you respond to me; you can respond to editors' inquiries for explanations of your comments, or you can ignore them and remove any doubt that you know how to defend what you say. And oh how fond you are of accusing people of being uncivil or uncool when there's absolutely no basis for it!! What's this, about the fourth of fifth time you've done that in this section alone? That's a classic defense against a weak position. But so be it. I'm glad we agree that SNL notes contain some nontrivial information. 65.41.234.238 (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


In response to IP 71, regarding cursing. Are we watching the same show? Mind you, I am watching the West Coast feed, so if you are watching the East Coast feed, there's a chance I see and hear a little content that is a bit different than what you see, but it's definitely been more than twice over the whole run of the show. Hell, just looking at this season (35) we have had two utterances. First is the Jenny Slate example that you pointed out, but there was also another one during the Joseph Gordon-Levitt show. During the Reba Digital Short, Andy Samberg clearly said "fuck" (if you have the episode Tivoed, then watch that portion again, and you'll hear it as clear as day). There are many more examples over the past seasons, but for the most part, they are such a minor infringement that they barely get a mention. I believe the reason the Jenny Slate utterance got increased attention was that the episode was one of her first, and from memory, the sketch itself was one the the first ones where she has had a principal role. While I wouldn't be happy about it, I could understand its inclusion within the show notes, but only if its properly cited (e.g. news articles detailing the controversy).
65.92.21.111, I respect the fact that you're keeping this civil. Yes, I am willing to make a concession, but bear in mind, it's going to be nothing even close to the existing situation. Okay, being that there are no individual show pages, I'd be able to live with having the names of the sketches and musical acts listed, but no descriptions. If a sketch is notable enough, and has appeared more than a handful of times, then we can create a separate page for it. We don't need elaboration about the sketches on the show page, just a straight list about what sketches were shown. Cameos should not be listed, as SNL is, but its nature, a very cameo heavy show. Like the sketches, yeah, if there's an episode specific page, then note it there, but as it is right now, they should be included as show notes.
An episode being nominated for an award also does not merit inclusion in the show notes section. We have a page specific for that (which I'll be done with in the next few days, I swear! Right now I'm just finishing off inserting proper citations in the international broadcasters page). We don't need to know that someone was the youngest person to host, and we don't need to know that an episode did not feature a digital short. It doesn't merit mention whether an episode was a cast member's first, as going to the cast page will allow the reader to gather that information in their own right.
In summing up, my concession is this: for show notes, we have a named list of the sketches performed. Just the names, that's it. If there is major controversy surrounding the episode, then yes, include it, but only if there are reputable news articles that confirm its controversy (say, a post in the NY Times, not a blog post, or a news outlet that is little more than a glorified blog, e.g. NY Post Page 6).
I think where myself and Metro are coming from is that we want to see this article, and all sub-articles, are taken seriously. When you read them, you should feel like you are getting a proper knowledge on what the show is, rather than just being a collection of pop culture trivia. I understand that for SNL in particular it's a fine line we walk, as arguably, the show helps define pop culture, but remember, we are writing for an encyclopaedia. We are tasked with providing readers with the essential information, not answering every question that may crop up. Like what was stated before, just because something is interesting does not grant it inclusion. We should strive to make this an article that other people use as a guide, and not one that's used as precedent in arguments about articles bending the rules of Wikipedia. Personally, I use The Simpsons article as a guide, as that is a very well done article, and one that I hope we can emulate here.
Mainly.generic (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Well said. My only mission is to edit articles as regulated by Wikipedia guidelines. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 04:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Show note inclusion

Okay, I feel like we're kinda treading water with the discussion about the show notes. I figure the best way we can come to a consensus is for everyone who is interested to give a specific listing of what should be including within the show notes section.

Proposal: Mainly.generic

Type of Information To Be Included? Notes
Sketch names Green tickYGreen tickY
Sketch descriptions Red XNRed XN
Name of songs performed by musical guest Green tickYGreen tickY
Accidental curses Red XNGreen tickY Must be decided on case-by-case basis based on acceptability of word on broadcast TV (including FCC rules), unusual reactions by cast members when it happens, whether the word gets removed in re-broadcasts, etc. Example to include would be "fuck" said by Charles Rocket, which got him fired.
Acts of controversy (including cursing) Green tickYGreen tickY Only if there was a significant controversy caused. Inclusions must have at least two reputable sources cited. An example to include would be Sinead O'Connor ripping the Pope's picture.
Cast member's first or last episode Red XNGreen tickY If discussed by reliable source.
Cameos Red XNGreen tickY Decide on case-by-case basis. Must not include Lorne Michaels or others who appear fairly regularly. Unannounced major stars and former cast members (who have left permanently) might be included, especially if they have speaking roles.
Whether a major show element was included or not (including digital shorts or funhouse cartoons) Red XNRed XN
Replaced hosts/musical acts Green tickY Red XNGreen tickY I'm flexible with this one. Include it, but only if you have a proper reference to back up your statement.
Cast member replacement in sketches Red XNRed XN
Ratings Green tickY Red XNRed XN I'd love to see ratings included, but only if we can get figures for every show
Random information about host/castmember/musical guest Red XNRed XN We do not need to know that, for example, Jamie Pressly was two months pregnant when hosting the show; As we have seen in above discussion, some people think almost anything is random. These details should be included sparingly, but may have a place. For example, if Barack Obama appeared again after becoming President, it might be worth mentioning that fact.
  • This sounds fine, but...
I think anything you listed with a check mark should only be included if the episode has its own article (to avoid listcruft)...and the information should be listed in a prose format rather than in a list format (here's a good example of what I mean), THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Then we would have even more listcruft. An entire article on an SNL episode? That's utterly absurd. All we need is a few comments (at most) on an episode, not an entire article. Talk about overkill with the trivia; having entire articles on episodes would invite -- hell, it would BEG people to add useless information. Is the underlying motive here to try to shift everything -- important information currently in notes sections as well as useless trivia -- to a separate article so that the article can then be nominated for deletion? Let's deal with one issue at a time: What belongs in notes sections? The issue of individual articles on episodes should be discussed separately. 65.41.234.238 (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"So it can be nominated for deletion?" How'd you even come to that conclusion? And episodes of television series can have separate articles without trivia; see WP:EPISODE. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Just because an episode can have an article doesn't mean it should have an article. You seem to have problems distinguishing between what is allowed on Wikipedia and what is a good idea. Other television series have a continuous plot throughout the episode; SNL is sketch comedy. The plot changes every four or five minutes. It is a ridiculous idea to propose that every SNL episode should have a separate article. If that was such a good idea someone, in all of the years of Wikipedia's existence, someone would have written a few articles on episodes. Why didn't that happen: Because it's a bad idea that invites useless trivia. What is astounding, Metro, is that you earlier wanted to get rid of virtually everything in Notes sections because you thought it was trivia, and now you propose setting up entire articles that will be bloated with trivia. And how did I come to the conclusion that the suggestion of an article for each episode is "so it can be nominated for deletion"? Because it's a way to get rid of the contents of Notes sections in SNL season articles and get around others' opinions that the Notes sections should stay. It's not a very clever way to do that, but that's certainly a possible reason the idea was proposed. 65.41.234.238 (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, what is your problem? I'm here trying to improve articles while you're just starting trouble based on nothing more than assumptions. Any article invites trivia; it's up to us other users to clean things up. I'm starting to wonder if you're calling the idea bad simply because it's mine. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like you're the one with the problem, Metro. Yes, any article invites trivia, so Metro you don't prevent the trivia by removing nontrivial information from Notes sections. The Notes sections are for nontrivial information and should remain, contrary to your efforts to wipe out the Notes sections completely. This section of the discussion is for deciding the contents of Notes sections, not for you to try to push your POV that the Notes section should only exist if there is a separate article on the episode, which in effect eliminates Notes sections because no one, and I mean NO ONE is going to create separate articles for episodes. As stated above, that's becaues it's a bad idea; there's not enough to merit a separate article. So you need to discuss the issue of separate articles for episodes in a new section on this page and stop insisting that nothing can be included in Notes sections if it is not included in a separate article. 75.178.178.212 (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
No one is going to create separate articles for episodes? How do you know? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The same reason I know that no one is going to create an entire article on relative speed of growth of the fingernail of the index finger in males and females. It's a ridiculously narrow topic that barely has enough information for a few comments in Notes sections. Tell you what ... I'll keep my eyes open for the stampede of editors that you seem to think will come flooding in to write articles on individual SNL episodes. I haven't seen any evidence of them over the past decade, but if I see any sign of them, I'll get in touch with you. But for now, we need to confine ourselves to deciding what goes in Notes sections. If you persist in pushing the idea that there should be nothing in Notes that is not included in a separate article, I'll be happy to start a separate discussion below about the worthiness of separate articles on SNL episodes so we can see how many other editors think that's a good idea. 75.178.178.212 (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
"Relative speed of growth of the fingernail of the index finger in males and females"? What kind of comparison is that? Anyway, will you please explain why you're picking apart what I'm saying in an effort to miss my point? I've said earlier that we need to bring the focus back to the notes section instead of the focus being on me versus you or something. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It's a perfectly appropriate comparison because that topic, as well as individual articles for SNL episodes, are utterly ridiculous article ideas. I am "picking apart what you are saying" because I think the idea of requiring a separate article to include something in Notes is abusrd; I am not doing anything "in an effort to miss your point". I completely get your point; I just think your comment that "anything you listed with a check mark should only be included if the episode has its own article" is one of the most unrealistic propositions I have ever seen on Wikipedia. And I am in full agreement that we need to "bring the focus back to the notes section", which is why I have asked you to discuss the idea of separate articles for SNL episodes in a separate section of this page rather than trying to make an irrelevant connection to that concept and the notes sections. As for your comment that the focus is "on me versus you or something", that is a misperception that you have created without any basis in reality. This has always been about my disagreement with your ideas, not about you personally. 75.178.178.212 (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is it so much more absurd for SNL to have individual episode articles than, say, The Simpsons? While I do want to keep things civil, there is a major link between show notes and individual episodes. If we have individual articles, then it allows us to be slightly more verbose, whereas as it is right now, we're trying to accommodate that verboseness into the notes section. Among well written television articles (which SNL, at this moment, is not. I'm working my ass off to fix this, but as we can see, it's not going to be easy), rarely do the articles contain as much 'fluff' as do the ones for SNL. I want to bring some professionalism to these SNL articles. Right now, when you look over them, they seem too filled with 'fluff' to be considered encyclopaedic. Mainly.generic (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a major difference, because as has been stated above, The Simpsons generally has a major plot line running through the show. SNL episodes have numerous short segments with a different plot line for each. At the most one sentence can be written about each sketch, and that's stretching it. So we end up with 8 or 10 totally disjointed sentences. That invites trivia and ultimately will lead to the article being nominated for deletion. It's much more sensible, not to mention vastly more logical, to confine episode descriptions to the tables currently in SNL season articles. In some episodes we don't need more than the date of the episode, the host and musical guest, and the songs performed by the musical guest. Sometimes one or two additional comments may be needed. If you want to avoid the "fluff", then that makes more sense than separate articles for each episode. And it's much easier to get rid of the fluff the way it currently is set up, as opposed to having to battle the constant additions of useless trivia and AfDs for individual episode articles.
"It allows us to be slightly more verbose"? That seems to sum up the problem. We don't need to be more verbose, meaning "containing more words than necessary". That's already too much of a problem. We don't need any more of it.
Since this "article for each episode" idea has been pushed beyond reason, as stated above, I am starting a separate discussion below on that topic to try to put an end to this nonsense. 75.178.178.212 (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Separate articles for each SNL episode?

The idea was put forth in a section above that each SNL episode should have its own article.

  • Oppose - With a very, very few possible exceptions, separate articles for each episode is an unreasonable proposal. There has been no reasonable argument presented that episodes have enough continuous plot or other content (beyond random and useless trivia) to merit individual articles. Please forgive my redundancy, but for purposes of discussion in this section I'll repeat a few points from above. SNL episodes have numerous short segments with a different plot line for each. At the most one sentence can be written about each sketch, and that's stretching it. So we end up with 8 or 10 totally disjointed sentences. That invites trivia and ultimately will lead to the article being nominated for deletion. It's much more sensible, not to mention vastly more logical, to confine episode descriptions to the tables currently in SNL season articles. In some episodes we don't need more than the date of the episode, the host and musical guest, and the songs performed by the musical guest. Sometimes one or two additional comments may be needed. If you want to avoid the "fluff", then that makes more sense than separate articles for each episode. And it's much easier to get rid of the fluff the way it currently is set up, as opposed to having to battle the constant additions of useless trivia and AfDs for individual episode articles. 75.178.178.212 (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I believe that Saturday Night Live, even more so than many other series, deserves separate episode articles. I believe that much of the resistance to do so is a veiled way of resisting the need to put in some major effort. If other series have them, and they haven't been deleted, then I can't see why SNL articles would be. Just because things are more verbose, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's a cause for trivia. I'd say it's harder to leave the fluff out with the current arrangement, as editors do not have a proper idea of what constitutes necessary information, and what is trivia (on the cast page, do we really need to know the tallest and shortest cast members?). Mainly.generic (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Without disparaging your efforts, the fact that you created one SNL episode article after this discussion began to demonstrate that it can be done does little or nothing to support the idea that it should be done. In fact (and again no personal reflection on your efforts), it supports the idea that we should not have individual articles. The article you created basically is trivia overkill to the nth degree. It comes very close to reproducing the actual script for the episode, and we don't need that kind of detail. In fact, the section on Weekend Update is a copyright violation of the script because it gives almost the entire verbatim wording of that segment; having it in quotation marks does not mitigate the copyright violation; there are limits to how much copyrighted material can be reproduced here. I would ask you to change that section right away; otherwise I'll probably tag it for copyvio.
One more point: Do you plan to create a separate article for every episode? I ask because I doubt very seriously that anyone else will do so? In all the years of Wikipedia, no one else has offered to do so (at least that I am aware of), so I don't think anyone else will go to that much trouble just to show that it can be done.
After the dust settles on this discussion, unless there is a strong consensus for individual episode articles, I'll probably place an AfD tag on the article, unless someone does it before me. I applaud you efforts, but I'm afraid the product of all that work is just lots of unnecessary trivia and other significant problems. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saturday_Night_Live/Archive_2&oldid=1137174390"