Talk:Saturday Night Live season 44

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	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 Episode coverage task force.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Are sub-bullets appropriate for opening monologue cameos? (ep. 856)

Hi, editors. BarbadosKen and I had some discussion on this talk page, and weren't able to resolve it. So I thought I'd bring it here, at the risk of overplaying a minor issue, rather than editing-warring or just capitulating. It's my contention that it's a bad idea to break the "Opening monologue guests" into 3 sub-bullets, because it makes it take up 4 lines rather than 1, giving undue space to a pretty minor piece of information and making the article harder to read. That is, I'd prefer:

	Carell's The Office costars Jenna Fischer, Ed Helms, and Ellie Kemper, family Nancy, Elisabeth and John Carell, and SNL writer Alison Gates appear in the opening monologue.

or:

	Opening monologue guests include Carell's The Office costars Jenna Fischer, Ed Helms, and Ellie Kemper; Carell's wife, Nancy, and children (Elisabeth and John); and SNL writer Alison Gates.

to the present:

	Opening monologue guests include: Carell's The Office costars Jenna Fischer, Ed Helms, and Ellie Kemper Carell's wife, Nancy, and children (Elisabeth and John) SNL writer Alison Gates.

I've reproduced our discussion from his Talk page:

	Your es was not responsive to my concern; I don't want to edit war, but what I said is still a problem and you have not addressed it and therefore compounded it. How about the same text with semicolons rather than line breaks and sub-bullets? jhawkinson (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] I guess I don't fully understand the issue that you bring up. What is wrong with giving prominence/space to what re truly minor details of a single skit? Readers who are interested can read it, and readers who are not interested can skip it. BarbadosKen (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] The sub-bullet format allows for the non-interested reader to more easily skip, and for the interested reader to better absorb the information. BarbadosKen (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] It would be helpful for you to respond to my compromise proposal. The problem is that giving inappropriate weight to minor details makes it hard to find the information people are mostly interested in. To give an extreme hypothetical: an encyclopedia article about SNL that spends 80% of its space on the architecture of the 8th floor of 30 Rock is going to make it hard for people to find what they want. The structure of information is important, and there's an implicit link between volume of information and structure. When you use sub-bullets here, you make the information take up 4x as much space. The only other instance of a 2ndary level sub-bullet is in Ep. 1, where it's about something that's pretty significant, that generated a lot of public discussion and even media articles (Kanye West). Not true for the cameo appearances in this intro skit. It may not seem like such a big deal, but as the article gets longer, it becomes more important. Readers can skip the ends of sentences just like they can skip sub-bullets. In fact, arguably more easily -- with a sub-bullet, they need to start reading each one, and with a long sentence, they can just skip rest of the sentence/bullet/paragraph. So I'd say that no, the sub-bullet format does not allow the reader to "more easily skipped," and you haven't made the case for why bullets allow the "reader to better absorb the information." I don't see offhand why that should be true (and, even if it is true, why it's worth the cost here of space here). Again, I suggest flattening it to one line with semicolon separation jhawkinson (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] I honestly do not see your point, and don't think your hypothetical is appropriate. This is an online encyclopedia, not a printed book, so there is no problem with having white space. In fact, putting information into a big long paragraph has a derogatory name within Wikipedia called "WP:Wall of text". The example you give about "the architecture of the 8th floor of 30 Rock" is inappropriate because this material is irrelevant to the subject (that's why you would just link to the appropriate article). All SNL season articles list appearances by non-cast members. That's the standard. Having information in bullets is a great way to list information. In this case, since there is a long list of different groups of guests, grouping the different guests into different bullets helps in the organization. BarbadosKen (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd welcome guidance from others on preferences, or that I should just WP:DISENGAGE. Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although jhawkinson did not link to WP:UNDUE in his/her argument of "giving undue space", I just want to clarify that WP:UNDUE relates to content, not physical space (or more accurately, space on the screen), which is his/her main concern. Therefore, what is listed above as "the present version" is not in violation of any Wikipedia policy. The question boils down to which version is the best way to present the material to the reader? BarbadosKen (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Clunky" wording regarding Pete Davidson's situation

Hello again, everyone! Another editor and I got into a disagreement on whether parenthetical expressions or more verbose wording is more clunky in this article's mentions of Pete Davidson's situation. I have reverted that section back to the parenthetical so that the difference will be clear to see in the edit history. I feel that the parenthetical expression is far less grammatically clunky than the over-wording in the previous version which the other editor seems to be standing by. But I am also of the opinion (based on over a decade of experience with editing here on Wikipedia) that taking such matters to the talk page can and often does yield a solution better than either of the two options respectively supported by another editor and myself. For what it's worth, I'd like to gain consensus on this matter and circumvent the potential of an edit war and/or injured feelings on either side. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You falsely called a simple edit of mine a reversion, when calling it a reversion is a stretch. You reverted my simple edit because it was “unexplained” when I didn’t have to explain anything to you. So first of all you’re bringing forth a discussion on false pretenses. You added 374 bytes to overexplain the situation and you’re calling my version clunky on a 7-byte change? I’m sorry but you have to leave it alone when you start a discussion, not revert it to your preferred. I’ve removed the entire contribution as it’s overcomplicating the entire situation instead of making things clear. Implying that the post meant something different from the very obvious and saying “fans felt” is very condescending to the reader. Your complaint is therefore invalid and you do risk discipline if you revert the edit again.--Fradio71 (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. My motivations have clearly been misunderstood, and you are clearly taking this as some kind of personal offense or affront. My aim in starting a dialogue on this was to assume good faith, and I apologize if that intent was misconstrued. Had you chosen to dialogue about this issue in a civil manner with that same good faith, I would have explained in more detail that the issue I had with the wording was in these two phrases from the relevant sentences in question: "as otherwise he only appeared in one pre-recorded sketch" and "he desired to end his life." In the first, "as otherwise" is the grammatically clunky part. A quick search on my part via Google demonstrated that most grammar websites find that two-word expression not well structured, and likely to confuse the reader as to what was being said. And if you insist on being concise and true to what the sources say, then he never said he "desired to end [his] life." No one i know talks like that, but maybe you know someone that does. If you go back and look at Pete's tweet, he said he didn't want to be on this earth anymore, and that he was doing his best to stay here for his fans, after which he deleted his account. And that entire course of events is what led fans and friends to be concerned. I was merely trying to fix the problems I saw with the wording. If that somehow makes me worthy of the threats you sent my way, I will certainly watch myself. I can't tell from our exchange whether you are an admin or not. If you are, then threatening someone acting in good faith may not be the best strategy, if it is even in keeping with the admin guidelines. And if you are not, you are free to report me if you choose. I have made a policy of always trying to get along with any Wikipedia user, whether admin or not, and as such, I am well respected for my work here. If I gave the opposite impression to you, that's my fault, and I apologize. Either way, I wanted to make my problems with the wording clear. Both of those things need to be fixed, and you may call that what you will. In my mind, both phrases remain clunky. And it seems to me that condescendingly calling my effort to fix the wording "condescending to the reader" may be slightly hypocritical, but that's just my opinion, and you are certain entitled to your own --Jgstokes (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Bayer

How come Vanessa Bayer is not mentioned? Please, verify her presence in the cast. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.227.106.27 (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very sure Bayer left at the end of season 42. Does that answer your question? - Jasonbres (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.227.106.27 (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a typo SNLfan123 (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Season 45

To clear up current confusion in terms of recent edits on this page, this content seems to imply SNL has already been renewed through season 45, and that, as a cultural icon, it is considered continuously renewed by NBC until further notice. Feel free to chime in here if you disagree, but for now, I think we have more than enough grounds to at least allow the creation of a season 45 page to stand. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point there is nothing to say about Season 45. We don't know who will be in the cast. No departures have been announced yet (at least that I have heard). Banana Republic (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point (if it wasn't clear in my prior comment) is that even if there is nothing to report on the new season, the fact that it has been confirmed at all needs to be mentioned here on Wikipedia somehow, somewhere. Whether that is through a reference on this page or through having a stub article for season 45 doesn't make any difference. A season 45 page has been created, and if that page is not allowed to stand, then there needs to be a note somewhere to note that SNL will be back this fall, since it is a cultural icon that is considered continuously renewed until further notice. Hope that clears up the reason I started this topic, and again, my apologies if I didn't make that clear enough the first time. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The season 45 article has been converted to a redirect, and rightly so. Until some press release comes out saying who has been fired and hired for the next season (and thereby confirming the existence of the next season) there is really nothing to say about the next season.

There is really no rush. In 3 to 4 months an article about season 45 will be warranted. Banana Republic (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Khaled's performace

It seems that editors prefer to describe DJ Khaled's performance in sentence format like this rather than in a bulleted list format like this. I think since different artists performed different songs within the Medley it would require 4 or 5 sentences to properly describe the performance which can be more compactly presented in a the bulleted list format. Banana Republic (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. The bullet points in that respect make the data easier to follow. If people are looking for specific information in that respect, a compact list won't cut it as well, IMHO. FWIW, that's my two cents on this. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

SNL S44 Title Card.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]