Jump to content

Talk:Seinfeld/Archive 2

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

Wikiproject

Is there a Seinfeld wikiproject? If not, is there any speculation about creating one? Mbatman72 02:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Characters

I have taken away the character info on the main seinfeld page and moved it to their own character pages however I have copied and pasted small pieces of information from their main character info pages which sums up their chacters and linked these to their characetr pages as well. This is to shorten the article and make it easier to read.

Season 8 & 9???

Why is there a spot for a "potential" Season 8 & 9? I've heard nothing on the matter Mike Flynn 18:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Coca cola trivia

In the trivia list this point appears: In various episodes where one or more of the main characters are shown on the street, there is sometimes a Coca-Cola advertisement. However, it is scratched up and distorted looking. This was done to bypass having to pay the Coca-Cola company.

Why is that when we have a clearly reference to Coca Cola company in at least one episode: The BIg Salad. Elaine is drinking a cola light. --80.161.192.58 20:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC) tonny

reason I removed the following statement

The article claimed that, "In fact, because the first episode order came from the Late Night and Specials department, Seinfeld is technically not a sitcom, but a very long series of comedy specials."

I apologize if my reasoning offends the author of this statement, but this is simply a ludicrous conclusion. Something is not defined by who pays for its production, and in this case, that means that "Seinfeld" cannot be defined by the NBC department that had room in its budget for production. This is like saying, "In fact, because the first few elevators in the NBC building came from the Late Night and Specials department budget, these elevators are technically not elevators at all, but a group of comedy specials." A sitcom is defined by its structure and narrative form, not its funding.Minaker 14:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Running Gags

I deleted the section entitled Running Gags due to the fact that there is an exhaustive sub-article highlighting these gags and most of the owns that were listed on the main article are also listed on the sub-article. T. White 06:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The running gags page can be found at Running gags in Seinfeld. T. White 06:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of gumph.

Ive deleted several parts of the thread. The idea is to provide info on Seinfled, not provide a synopsis of every episode or their employment history in the show.

I deleted the episode highlights, as that is just a matter of opinion. I deleted the character employment parts.

I deleted a few other bits and bobs that were either already mentioned, or werent really essential. The article is too long and I feel a few people are getting carried away.

Hi 82.41.106.25, I agree with you that this article is very long. Also it contains a lot of info on individual episodes that are just trivia. Those should be pruned. But you also delete a lot of real information that is well written and complete with references. Why do you delete those also? I think removing information from articles just like that is not the way forward. Sander123 09:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


what song?

Does any one know what song was playing (in the back ground)of the Seinfeld episode when George & his mother walked in on Kramer placing a man-siere (a.ka. the bro) on George's Dad. Thanks

All I know is that it is a mambo or cha-cha type record --Mikecraig 21:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Seinfeld Curse

Shouldn't the paragraph on Louis-Dreyfus' success with "The New Adventures of Old Christine" be in the "Successes" section of the article and not in the "Seinfeld Curse" section? Demoman87 15:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that past versions contained this information and that it was removed (drastic changes have been made with no note on the talk page, unfortunately). Well, I'm adding the information back in, with references. I see why the article needed to be cleaned up, but the "Seinfeld curse," is definitely relevant to this article. Robocracy 07:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the previous information in this article on the Seinfeld curse was fairly good, IMO, and I think I'm just going to restore it under the section title "Seinfeld Curse." Robocracy 07:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Definitely like the new section. Perhaps we can move some parts of it to pages dedicated to the individuals. For example that Jerry Seinfeld was touring in 1998 maybe should be on his own page? That way this page remains dedicated to the sitcom. I'll do some editing later. Sander123 08:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Fine the new section is great and all, but it's way too long, and a lot of the information has nothing to do with the 'Seinfeld Curse', especially that part about the show that was supposedly a rip off of Seinfeld. Lets be realistic, either get rid of half of that section, or create another section, maybe 'After Seinfeld' citing stuff about Seinfelds influence on other shows, and the careers of the actors. Just a thought. Arthur5005 11:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
You know reading this over again, it is much cleaner than it was months ago, but it's those hardcore dedicated Seinfeld fans that want to pursue every venue of information and vomit it back on to wikipedia, that ruins this article. I LOVE Seinfeld just as much as anyone and this article is BEGGING to be on the front page of Wikipedia, it just needs someone with 'guts' to clean it up a little and cut out the pork. Thanks!! Arthur5005 11:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that when I looked the old version, the info on the Seinfeld curse was too extensive, so I did make some minor revisions, here and there. I admit the section still needs a little work. Robocracy 22:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It's just too long - the article itself is really fantastic, and of such high quality (especially for a pop culture article), but the "Seinfeld curse" section really only needs to be a paragraph explaining what did and didn't happen with the careers of those three stars. If the topic of a "Seinfeld curse" is so interesting, spawn it off onto a separate article - don't keep expanding it here. Stevage 02:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I really agree. I don't want to do it now as nobody has responded to Stevage's comment, but the Seinfeld Curse deals not just with Seinfeld but with all high-profile shows. There should be a paragraph on it on the Seinfeld Page but it should be its own separate article. Thoughts? Scholarus 04:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

On closer inspection, a lot of the material is not actually about the so called curse, but is actually relevant material about what the actors have done since the show. So I've renamed that section "Careers after Seinfeld" (feel free to improve on it). However, I've removed the following paragraph, as it's really only very tangentially connected to Seinfeld: Stevage 12:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

In the 1999-2000 television season, ABC aired the short-lived series It's Like, You Know.... Taking its title from a common West Coast catchphrase, the series revolved around the lives of five eclectic residents of Los Angeles, including actress Jennifer Grey (portraying herself). However, it was considered to be highly derivative of Seinfeld ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed], and was cancelled after 19 episodes. Interestingly, the series was created by Seinfeld writer Peter Mehlman.
That's fine with me. I think this paragraph belongs in a Seinfeld Curse article, not a Seinfeld article. I might create a "Seinfeld Curse" article; I think it's its own, meritworthy topic. Scholarus 03:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Having looked over the article, I actually think that it is quite good except for the Life After Seinfeld section and the Product Placement section. Scholarus 03:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that the official Seinfeld MySpace Page should be added under the EXTERNAL LINKS section and the main SHOW INFO box.

The URL is | Offical Seinfeld MySpace Page.

How can we go about getting this updated?

Cbates76 01:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Haven't heard back from anyone..but it's also important to note that the logo with the blue triangle is not the offical syndicated logo anymore. I can provide the correct logo with proper red triangle if anyone wants to help me include the MySpace address. Cbates76 08:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor Characters

I added a summary of the minor characters. Scholarus 03:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia- Superman in every episode?

is this a joke?192.30.202.29 22:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Superman is on Jerry's fridge as a magnet in every single episode.Cbates76 05:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


The Parking Garage, and The Chinese Restaurant have no scenes in Jerry's apartment, and contain no other references to Superman.
Sana 21:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


I think that at least one exception to the "Superman Myth" should be explicitly stated, in order to provide proof that this widely held belief is inaccurate. 71.229.106.172 03:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Jerry would often wear red shirts with blue jeans, and on commentaries this is seen as a reference to Superman, watch the above episodes and see what heis wearing. Darrenhusted 10:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

To Do List

I added a To Do List so that we can determine some of the things we need to fix. Scholarus 00:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

Whats up with the accusation of going too far and stuff in the season 7, 8 and 9 descriptions? Seems unfit for wikipedia if you ask me... --129.241.156.75 23:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It is just someone's opinion, but seems to have slipped through un-detected. I have never heard of that before, so I put up a POV warning to readers until it is sorted. A lot of this article is terribly POV. The descriptive headings a really pov as well, Season Seven Finale: Too Far? etc. Davey4 08:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Richards

I took the bit about Richards at the Laugh Factory out of the Sucesses section. Maybe it should be mentioned, but certainly not in that section. If anybody wants to reproduce it, here it is:

On November 17 that same year, Michael Richards wasa performing at in West Hollywood's Laugh Factory when he responded to a pair of black hecklers in what many have called a "racial tirade." While Richards has apologized, many pundits have speculated that it has damaged his career beyond repair.

caz | speak 22:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Game

Isn't a Seinfeld trivia game relevant for the trivia section? I put a link to the game there and it was deleted. Then, I just mentioned the game (without any link) along with the fact that Seinfeld trivia has increased in popularity since the show has gone off the air, and it was deleted again. I'm not trying to overstep any bounds. I'm just trying to understand the process.

Sounds like you were inappropriately deleted, as long as the link was not to a money-making item. Please sign your entries (and subsequent readers will take your edits more seriously). Sfahey 13:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A radical idea for getting this article featured, finally...

Why don't we, instead of clamouring to find sources, just 'remove' some of the uncited claims that are unnecessary? Or would this hurt the article's chances of being featured? Just a theory I'd like to put fourth, I mean.--Dark Green 18:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that about 95% of wikipedia is uncited, it can't just be all removed. Ecostaz 15:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue is that a sect of Wikinazi's single out Seinfeld and spend a lot of time posting crap and attempting to get epesode guides removed and so on. The same people who target other Jewish entertainment articles and so on...Djarra 13:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Season 8

I just want to confirm that season eight will be coming out on DVD and i expect season nine will too.

Premiere

The article now states:

The show premiered as The Seinfeld Chronicles on Thursday, May 31, 1989 on NBC. The show was not an immediate success. After the pilot was shown, on July 5, 1989, ...

Why are there two dates? Isn't the premiere the same thing as it for the first time? Can somebody clarify this? [1] gives also the july 5 date. Sander123 08:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

July 5, 1989 (pilot premiere) and May 31, 1990 (original series premiere). The pilot didn't premiere on July 5, 1889, but the series will take a long time until 1998. [User: Nate Speed]

'greatest show ever, period'?

The top paragraph of the page says it is the greatest show ever- is this backed by the nielsen ratings discussed, or is just purely a statement? If so, I think many would probably disagree (though I do love the show- I'd perhaps put Grey's Anatomy in the running for the best show ever) Just a thought. --btrotter 06:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

outstanding. I went to fix the greatest show period comment and when i pulled up the edit page it was fxed already. 24.237.207.0 16:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Larry David appearances

The "Trivia" section states: "Co-Creator Larry David voices many of the unseen 'extras' even though he is present on camera only once. An example of this is his "Is anyone here a marine biologist?!?," or his playing unseen Newman on the roof, while threatening to jump."

I can think of at least two occasions David is on camera...he is the cape-wearing lawyer talking to George's dad in the street in one episode, and on another episode, I recall David working in a newspaper/snack booth, saying something like "I beg your pardon your majesty (in ref. to George's outfit), but we don't accept bills with lipstick on the President.". This statement should be changed to reflect this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.107.108.112 (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

He also plays the "flaming orbs" guy (or whatever he said) that Jerry saw on television (he looked like he was spoofing a B science fiction movie). 138.69.160.1 19:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Famous people references

what happened to the List of Seinfeld references to actual people....? Thismightbezach 07:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Superman Reference

The source link is contradictory to the text it is supposed to support

Text: A popular myth is that Superman appears in every episode of the show, either during discussions or as picture or a statue.

"support link": http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainnameatlonglast.com/trivia49.html

In a list under "useless facts", that link states:

In every episode of Seinfeld there is a Superman somewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.68.113.222 (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

That link also states that the Great Wall of China is the only man made landmark to be seen from space, which isn't true, so you couldn't really call that source reliable.Joshi38 14:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the link is referencing the fact that the myth exists, not the actual truth. TheHYPO 21:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

One vital thing that I'm disappointed about on Seinfeld.

I've seen the history of changes throughout the Seinfeld Wikipedia Saga. I tried to fill in gaps and add more depth to the already made page. The biggest downside on this page is there is no mention of music at all on this page. My challenge to you is this. I don't care if it's irrelevant. All I care is to somehow put the music section back on the page so one day if they are trying to find songs from Seinfeld but is shocked to see the "sitcom only" section, their luck has just run out.

I've seen changes in all other pages and if they're going to keep cutting vital sections out, I don't know how anyone can figure out how all those things work like "The Godfather: The Game" where there's a section that explains further criticisms and difference in the story structures for the game.

My positive and wish is to add enough depth so it makes a lot of sense. I know wikipedia is like an excyclopedia but they must ensure that no info has been missed. That's all I'm asking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 09:22, May 25, 2007

Seinfeld Skit On SNL

My wife told me that in the 1980's, when Larry David was a writer on SNL, he wrote, and got on the air, a sketch that starred Jerry Seinfeld and Julia-Louis Drefus playing the characters that they would later play on SEINFELD. She says it has to do with the "Contest" and giving an elevator operator a chair. Does anyone know if this is true? Should we put it in the article as fact?

If you're here because you don't even know if it's true, how can you possibly suggest putting it in as fact? TheHYPO 21:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia - remove.

Read the take at the top of the Trivia section - wikipedia is anti-trivia sections. Please don't add MORE trivia to this section. It should be removed - if you have to do it one by one, so be it. Either delete it, or copy/reword it into a relevant section of the actual text.

Things so trivial as to be in this section shouldn't be important enough for the show's article anyway. Jiffy Dump recurring in TWO episodes is not vital information. Noone is going to wiki-lookup seinfeld to learn whether the Jiffy Park guy ever appeared twice. It may be notable in the articles for each episode, but not for the show itself. TheHYPO 21:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Puddy

My wife and I just got into an argument about this Seinfeld related topic. Please help if you can; She says that the actor who plays David Puddy was in a short-lived tv series called "No Radio, Soap" where he ran a hotel or something. I have no recolection of this, but can someone please tell me if she's right or not?

Nope, she's thinking of Steve Guttenberg. Patrick Warburton would have been only 18 years old at the time. --Jonrock 17:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Theme Song Info

My wife has recently told me that the opening and closing music is arranged and preformed by the artist Bobby Mcferrin. Is this true, and if so, does it warrent a mention in the article? I could find no info about this on his page, so she may be thinking of something else.

I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't McFerrin. In fact, to my memory, this article used to include some great information on the theme music. Should be easy to find out. Why don't you just Google it? paul klenk talk 00:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For music lovers.

Since I love music, it wouldn't hurt to have something which is common to other sitcoms. Sitcoms are not special if you're talking about sitcoms itself. I bring that section from the history because there is no way I'm going to waste my time trying to find music so I can make a Seinfeld CD. Enough of the rhetoric. If you decide its not a good idea, then don't make me go through history just to finding the missing pieces to this page.

What did you do to the "Evolution" section?

Just this morning, it had subtitles like "Beginning" and "Golden Age" and it's changed to "Andy Ackman Era"? Change it back!

I disagree with the term "Evolution" to describe this show. It did not evolve, it was created by intelligent design. paul klenk talk 09:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No hugging, no learning

I'm confused about the plot and the no hugging no learning section. My biggest concern is this: Those that section make sense to you? I mean when you read it, do you have a clue what it means? Is the lexicon part of that section? I'm so confused I wonder if anyone else read them. If only they refixed that section so the dumbest people would easily understand what that section means to them. I don't want to have to do that research to resolve that idea. That's just me. What will you do?

two-parters

"The Trip" Parts 1 & 2, "The Wallet" and "The Watch" (correct order) were written and shot as two-parters. From in between, "The Pitch and the Ticket" was originally an hour that was split up for reruns (I have "Seinfeld Forever" from TV Guide (as ratty as the later pages with Season 9 may be) and the hourlong episodes are given as such. Also, a tie for "Longest Title" goes to the above and "The Mom And Pop Store".

Each character on Seinfeld has a MySpace, not as the actor, but the character. There should be a link to their MySpace in the article, preferably beside their names under the main characters section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by N64128256 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 Jul 2007 (UTC)

Only if there's proof it's official. Miles Blues 18:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Seasons 8 and 9 section.

That sections raises more questions than it answers. It did mention the tone of the show but doesn't add in more episodes that are enjoyable amongst communities. It feels too different to the other earlier sections Seasons 1 to 7 where their episodes is mentioned very faithfully. It would be worth it if they define seasons 8 and 9 with more episodes to clarify that level like for example: "The Bizzaro Jerry" when Elaine is torn between the opposites of the men she hangs around with or "The Betrayal" when everyone stories go backwards. If you do it in a more cohesive way, it will be worth it given that's in line with the other sections.

This is just a note on the web page. I won't edit for a week but if that section doesn't change, I'll change it whether you like it or not.

From Johnnyauau2000 04:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC).

DVD Info at the Opening of each Episode Page

Would it be a good idea if we put what 'Volume' and 'Disc' the episode was on in the intro to each page? CJMylentz 13:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

High regard overseas

The article cites a poll for Channel 4 (in the UK) that named Seinfeld the number 3 greatest sitcom. Whilst the article does mention that this was among writers, actors and so on, I don't know if you can infer from this that is has high general regard overseas. I know Seinfeld is much loved in America and probably overseas as well and I would never criticise it, but speaking as a British person, the Channel 4 programme named many sitcoms that just aren't popular in Britain and I remember watching incredulously to see things like Seinfeld and the Larry Sanders Show chosen as top sitcoms. Obviously it's not verifiable but I don't know any other British people who watch these programmes. I think perhaps it could be made a bit clearer that this was just among people in the industry itself, like "showing its high regard amongst industry professionals overseas" or something like that.

Cameronlad 16:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism

Does this article really belong in that particular wikiproject? According to it's header, not really.

From the WikiProject Judaism Page -

This WikiProject aims to standardize Wikipedia articles on Judaism, Halakha ("Jewish law" and tradition) and other subjects and phenomena that are directly related to Judaism as a religion.

Seinfeld as a TV show isn't really directly related to Judaism as a religion. Culturally, maybe, but not religiously. nf utvol 18:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The central character being Jewish has little or no affect on the show and the relationships therein. I don't think the wikiproject need touch everything Jewish. Has Jesus been included yet? :P the_undertow talk 18:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What's the deal with WikiProject Judaism?!

What happened to the running gags?

I know this place is known for its editing but removing the running gags from this subject? Where am I going to find info for each characters now? They should've reserve and put the remaining material in the main casts instead of destroying all the hard work we put in. If you're going to keep doing that then let me know and I'll find a way to comprise the material to a better location rather than giving me a hard time. Well this is just my review and my opinion. They better not remove anymore garbage because this is killing me. All the hard work going to waste.

From Johnnyauau2000 01:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Casting and ratings racial issues

I recall (but cannot cite any sources) criticism by minority spokespersons of the lilly-white nature of the show, i.e., very few black characters. (Friends got the same criticism.) I also recall reading somewhere (once again, I can't cite any sources) that whereas Seinfeld was one of the most popular shows among Whites, it was one of the least popular shows among Blacks. 65tosspowertrap 01:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What about among people in general? was it any popular and its humor quite broad? meh! The world is neither black nor white, it's gray... --189.11.192.130 (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Technically it's a rainbow-ish gray.....

mm excus me plz wut about lawyer guy and the exterminator nd that guy who elaine thought was black but he turnd out to be whit 99.230.152.143 (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


mm excus me plz wut about lawyer guy and the exterminator nd that guy who elaine thought was black but he turnd out to be whit hmmmm?Lordparadise (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Seinfeld WikiProject

I am interested in setting up a Seinfeld WikiProject to improve articles related to Seinfeld. At the moment I am just looking for people who are interested in joining. If anyone is interested in joining, please add your name here or contact me on my talk page. Thankyou, Joelster 23:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The project has been set up here. Anyone is welcome to join. Joelster 23:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Consumer products

"The show's creators claim that they were not engaging in a product placement strategy for commercial gain."

This is a pretty round-about way to addressing a central issue: Was the show paid, directly or indirectly, for any of the product placements, or not. Because so many consumer products are featured so prominently, this is a rather important question. -69.87.204.114 13:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


"The computers in Jerry's apartment are always Apple Macintosh; the featured model changed every few seasons to reflect Apple's latest offerings."

I'm not so sure about that. I don't know the exact episodes, but within seasons 6 and 7, I have noticed Microsoft product boxes several times. Once or twice they could be seen in Elaine's apartment (parts of Microsoft Office), but I know that I saw a box of Microsoft Windows 95 at least one time on Jerry's desk. Has anyone else noticed that? I will try to find the exact episode and post it here. - 81.210.148.136 (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it, S07E09 - The Sponge. While Jerry is on the phone, you can see a box of Windows 95, Word, and Excel. Framegrab: http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/9758/seinfeldmicrosoftne6.png - 81.210.148.136 (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Contesting edits

I would like people to examine the edits of Dec. 5, 20:43 (RabidWolf) vs. 21:53 (Johnnyauau2000). The latter undoes what I and RabidWolf did, and I have no desire to get into an editing war, so I'd like it discussed. Subsequent edits have changed it a little, but not much.

I believe the edit that Johnnyauau2000 re-created is full of trivia, assertions of universal traits based on the events of a single episode and other non-NPOV things.

For example:

  • (Jerry) typically finds "stupid reasons to break up" with women. According to Elaine, this happened "every week."
The second sentence is trivial and asserts what the character said once, which doesn't make it true.
  • Frequently exhibiting a lot of negative traits, (George) could perhaps be described as a borderline psychopath. George is arguably the most amoral character while still being one of its most lovable.
On what basis could he be called a psychopath? I think this is an unfounded opinion. The second sentence just seems to be one person's opinion.
  • Intelligent and assertive, but superficial, (Elaine's) honesty will often get her in to trouble.
I don't believe this stands up to examination.
  • She is seen as the intellectual stronghold of the group of friends.
By whom, for Pete's sake?
  • Flaws notwithstanding, Kramer is the closest thing in Seinfeld to a decent human being, as he consistently goes out of his way to help total strangers. He is known as an action character of the group.
I don't know where this assertion comes from. It sounds like more opinion. And what in heck is an "action character"?

I'll stop there, but my point is this isn't supposed to be a critical review, it's supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Can we come to a consensus on which way to go? I believe this article needs a lot of work, and I attempted to start that process. Undoing my edit and saying "It doesn't work that way" is not respecting the process without adequate reason. InkQuill (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:InkQuill on this one. the user User:Johnnyauau2000 seems hell bent on imposing his opinions and beliefs in this article. I agree that he is a diehard seinfeld fan but so is everyone here. Disrespecting other peoples opinions and reverting without giving valid reasons or discussing it on a talk page is a strict no-no. Since, this is an encyclopaedic article and not a fan page, i guess the article needs a major rehaul and some trivial stuff really needs to be deleted. Also User:Johnnyauau2000 needs to know that he does not own this article.Gprince007 (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder but keep this in mind, if you are hell bent of creating a lot of false hopes and to the point that this is so encyclopedic madness then answer this, what could have worked better? What makes you so dense? What makes you so sure that editors is simply wasting there own time getting it 'encyclopedic perfect'? When I came here I would've been banned doing this. It took me one year to get back to editing again. You can ban me again and you won't have to worry about my beliefs. I already regretted once being editor and I'll do it again. You want me to go out in a hail storm I will. The only thing about editing that makes me sick is the perfection of reading a damn encyclopedia. You want to go back to boredom I'll reverting everything and pretend that nothing happens. Cut that trivial CRAP and see who enjoys reading a very boring Wikipedia page. Since it's December, you better not get me upset about being Mr Right. You like being Mr Right, that being an encyclopedia editor is all you dream about? Fine. I'm now this close to quitting the whole thing. Remember, if it weren't for my ups and downs, the only thing I rate the Seinfeld page is a load of garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyauau2000 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. That means only verifyable, supported, and objective information is to be provided. If you wish to discuss opinions, please visit a blog or something. I attempted to sign your above comment for you, by the way, but the bot got to it first. -76.188.26.92 (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

New update. It took me a while to think it over but maybe you are right except that your history is inaccurate. I couldn't find Dec. 5, 20:43 (RabidWolf) vs. 21:53 (Johnnyauau2000) 'cause in that history section it doesn't exist. The closest is mine and InkQuill. I assume you don't want to resolve this instead using the rules of Wikipedia. If it weren't for FullMetal Falcon's obsession with F Zero X, maybe I am over my head. So here's the deal: I'll give you guys a chance to edit your things as long as aren't too much excyclopedic obsessed. Why? You'll be dense again and I don't want that. I just wanted to find ways to keep myself becoming too unhappy with my editing skills and when I cross the line. Besides if you didn't know, I was in Website Design in TAFE in Canberra, Australia before I took up this challenge. In other words, I just wanted something interesting going on whenever I read the webpage. That's what I want. I didn't want to put my ego on the line. I know what you'll be like. Sending hate mails and all that wouldn't resolve the difference. If you don't want me to blow some steam again, how about giving ideas on what I should add to the webpage? 'Cause if you try to define encyclopedia, you have no answer for that. I don't know what encyclopedia is either. If cooler heads should prevail, let's move on. If you wanna talk to me, go on my talk page but do it in plain english only. I don't understand encyclopedia or wikipedia language very well ok? Thank you. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV means Neutral Point Of View, wich 76.188.26.92 explained to you when he said: "only verifyable, supported, and objective information is to be provided", something your edits are not. I see that you created an account, wich to me means that you actually want to stay here. If you wish for your edits not to be challenged, you should learn more about Wikipedia policies. On this particular matter, please see WP:NPOV. I'm not reverting your changes because I do not want to get into an edit war, but please understand why they are not acceptable, and be kind enough to remove them yourself. Thank you --W2bh (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit and cleanup

I've noticed that the article is full of irrelevant, unsourced trivia and OR (original research). Also the article can do with a copyedit. I've started to address these issues and wish to get the article to FA or GA level. right now it seems a uphill task. it wud be great if ppl can help cite various claims made in the article. also if there is any dispute regarding content addition/deletion then i suggest we resolve it on this talk page instead of getting into edit war. any suggestions are welcome...Gprince007 (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC) i am new to this and was reading the wikipedia page on seinfeld. i noticed the blurb about george is wrong...it was not he who got caught peeing in the parking garage, it was jerry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calexa (talk • contribs) 23:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Original reasearch tag

i have decided to remove the tag from the characters section becos i feel that the section reads better now. i've also provided some cites/sources in the characters section ...so i guess the removal of tag is ok...Gprince007 (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Awards and nomination section

Any suggestion about this section is welcome...i felt that the info in this section was too cluttered...so i have three suggestions:

pls ppl lets get this article to GA or FA status...Gprince007 (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have created an article Seinfeld awards and nominations and moved all the awards there. I've given a brief description of awards won by the show in this article and provided a link to its main article. I hope its ok...Gprince007 (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ownership

I am a little confused on who holds ownership of Seinfeld. Here it says that Warner Bros. owns it and sony holds distribution rights, but than why is the official site say sony pictures television and why is it not mentioned on Warner Bros. sites. It seems to me that sony owns the rights, not Warner Bros? Could someone answer this?

76.167.228.35 (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

My Season 7 DVD set has Sony Pictures Home Entertainment all over it, and no mention of Warner Bros. InkQuill (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I was looking at a website that lets me view old cache's of websites. I typed in Seinfeld.com and discovered that in February 2003 the show changed websites from Warner Bros. to Sony so maybe the show changed owner's from Warner Bros. to Sony, because why else would the website change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.228.35 (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There is one flaw with the page.

Although you did an excellent job with the page Gprince007, I was wondering if anyone in this page would believe that all Seinfeld episodes are identical? You think that "The Chinese Restaraunt" has Jerry's apartment in it? What about "The Boyfriend"? Even in syndication, do they refer that as a half hour show? What I put in already address that issue but it was taken out because they believe it's irrelevant. So Gprince007, if you are reading this, can you resolve that one flaw? If you can address that issue then I don't have to worry anymore. If you think about it, you should put it in already. The rest of the page is fine. Test it in the sandbox and see if it works on the page but keep it simple. Thank you.

Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

well certainly not all episodes are identical...every episode is different but i think we dont need to add the "special features" in this article. maybe we can add stuff about "the chinese restaurant" and "the boyfriend" in their own respective articles. But i doubt that it might sound like original reasearch and pov. actually a long time back there was a section about "notable episodes" in this article but i guess it was removed...maybe that was the reason why. anyways, coming back to the article, if anyone can help with citing sources it wud be great help....thanx...Gprince007 (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


Music

"These short riffs were composed by Jonathan Wolff and are considered groundbreaking in their use as sitcom music."

What does this even mean? It's unsourced. It's just some guys opinion. The use of hyperbole belies opinion and fan-colored prose. This should be deleted. All music is either groundbreaking or plagiristic -- to specify this as being ground breaking is just plain dumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.129.123 (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, basically every sitcom must have music or it make no sense that the show is lost without it. My few suggestions is to make another page for that section or simplify the music summary (but not the music list). If you delete that section, then the editors work would be wasted. Don't worry I just wanted to answer your question. That's all.

Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just finished editing the Music table. I just wanted to correct a few mistakes. The opera song that Elaine signs with the Maestro conducting ys Funniculi Funnicula, and Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings is used in the episode where Frank remembers his days as a cook in the Korean War as a reference to Platoon, which features the same music in a similar scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surten (talk • contribs) 23:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"...it consists of distinct solo sampled bass guitar riffs..."

I'm quite sure those were not samples, but a Yamaha DX7 analog FM synthesizer. It had a slap bass patch. Where did the writer get the information that they were samples? It is a keyboard playing the bass lines, but that's all we know for sure. I'll look for a source. DavidRavenMoon (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Number of episodes

"No. of episodes 180 (including two-part episodes and clip shows)"

I find this confusing. "The Bottle Deposit" and The Finale aired as hourlong special episodes. In The Bottle Deposit, Part 1, it says "This was originally an hour-long episode, but split into two parts for syndication." I really don't think these shows should be counted as two. It would also help to say how many clip shows there were so we know how many original episodes there were vs. how many total episodes. InkQuill (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable guest appearances.

The notable guest appearances is a good idea but it's very shallow. That leads to one question: What episodes are they in? If you think about it, many other people think it's just a list. My only suggestion should be very simple and you have no trouble over it. How about simple putting episodes besides their name and maybe put it in a table like you did with the music list. Although I'm not editing right now until February, the best is to give you suggestions about that page. Well it's nearly Christmas and I hope you can finish with your last minute edits. As you know every editor needs a break from time to time.

Well I'm not forcing you to make changes, these are just suggestions. That's all. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Merry Christmas! InkQuill (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to know that is a "Table" a better idea or should we convert the whole thing into prose. Also we need to get to a consensus about who are the "notable" guest stars ....becos if we dont, then everyone will keep on adding names to the list and it will just grow bigger and bigger in the future. for now, i wud like to know whether a table or prose is a good idea. any suggestions?? Gprince007 (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I vote for a table. Since the celebrities each have their own page (or should), there's no real need to describe them. A table with their name and episode title, perhaps divided by season, would be fine, I think. As for who should be there, I think people who played themselves because they were well-known is one good critierion (Marisa Tomei, various New York Yankees and Mets). I think the iffy ones are those who became famous later (Kristen Davis, Teri Hatcher), but I would vote to include them because people reading the page might be curious about what episode they were in. The table would then serve as a reference to the individual episode articles. This could raise questions, though, about who is eligible. For example, I had not heard of Jane Leeves, who played Marla and is better known for playing Daphne Moon on Frasier. InkQuill (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you guys think of this?

Celebrity Reason for fame Episode Season Notes
Keith Hernandez New York Mets first baseman "The Boyfriend, Part 1" and "Part 2" 3 One-hour episode
Mary Hart Entertainment Tonight host "The Good Samaritan" 3 Voice only
Candice Bergen Actress "The Keys" 3

Well that's a good way to start it off. It's not just me. What do the others think? Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well i also vote in favor of the table...but we need to be careful abt who we add in the list.Gprince007 (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I decided to brainstorm and did check ups on episodes to really add extra notable celebrities and guest stars and also did some minor adjustments to get the maximum value over a page. Although I'm still concerned about the overview but for now, those people I added should've been honoured 'cause after all, they are such memorable characters. Anyway Happy New Year!

Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree that all the characters you added should be there. Neither Kevin Dunn's nor James Hong's Wikipedia articles mark them as notable, and I fear we're going down a road that will mean any appearance by a non-recurring character will be added or the entire table will be deleted. Your edit summarys almost admit to adding them just to have Season 1 and 2 represented, which isn't a reason to add special appearances. Neither is that they were "memorable characters." I tried to set out the parameters of the table, either "household names" or "well-known for later work." I don't think either of these fit and I think Jane Leeves and Lawrence Tierney are questionable. I won't revert so that others may weigh in, but I think that again you're looking at this as a fan site and not an objective article. InkQuill (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that's life. If everyone disagrees with my idea of a table for those people then they should do it themselves. It will be bad that if I didn't add those people, I know for certain there will be some in your face complaints. Now that it's 2008, you can delete it yourself and no-one really cares. That's the world of editing. Like everyone else, we expect something new that'll fit the page. If we miss a beat, it will show up on the discussion page. Anyway, like they said in contesting edits that we shouldn't go into war.

I don't care if you don't like my ideas, I'm only interested in making the page special. Next time if I had an idea, I'll put it on the page. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I did do it myself! But this is not about who does it. It's a community. I don't know why you can't hold a civil discussion, but it's really not helpful to throw out challenges when people are trying to explain to you what this project is about. It's not my opinion or your opinion. It's Wikipedia guidelines that matter. InkQuill (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well lets not fight over this ...after lots of seemingly contesting and disruptive edits we all have started workin towards bettering the article. Although i created the notable guest appearance section i would not shy from suggesting the deletion of same if it creates problems or "edit warring". I guess we need to reach a consensus on who to include and who not to. The idea of segregating the list into "Actors appearing as themselves" and "Actors who became famous later" was a good idea. Although i dont know how Russ Leatherman can be "notable" person appearing on the show ..becos as far as i know his name is not in the credits at the end of show. Also Jane Wells...is she so notable as a reporter???....but then i'm not from US so i dont know abt many ppl in the list....apart from these, i guess the "actors appearing as themselves" section is OK. But the other section is the problematic one and we may need to evolve a list which is agreeable with everyone....Gprince007 (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, and I'm glad you like how I split the table. I agree with you. I would remove Leatherman, Kevin Dunn and James Hong, at least. Jane Wells is not as noteworthy as other TV news people, but she did appear as herself so I thought her worth adding. If others disagree, I'm fine with taking her out. InkQuill (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why not do it? What's stopping you? I did after all check on the actors film and TV credits and Moviephone shouldn't be dis so easily. I never jump to conclusion. It's so simple. A table is a great idea by me, Inkquill created it but at the same time disagrees with my addition. That's a double standard. Keep one thing in mind at least that you cannot have it both ways. Yes, not all characters are notable but you can't delete them without knowing them first. That's life. If you think that life is better without challenges then what's the point? Without challenges, then what are your goals then? It's funny that this is a double standard. Well, I don't mind the disagreements. I just don't want you to take it so personally because your standards are higher then mine. I'll address the Moviephone guy and you worry about those notable stars. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Inkquill, you shouldn't have agreed to my suggestion in the first place. Sooner or later you'll also delete the notable guest stars in favour of the link to the page with minor characters. Even worse, if you decide to delete the minor characters and leave the link to it, then look how much time every editor has wasted over this one deal. I'd think twice instead of jumping to conclusions. That goes for all other pages. Cluebot knows what to do. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The WikiProject.

Here's my final post before New Years Day. The work on Seinfeld is good. Like my last message and a definite plus although if you can finish with your last minute edits, you can also encourage other editors to join the Wikiproject. You can be sure that if it weren't for Wikipedia, we wouldn't know how to make a page look good even from a neutral point of view. I can only step in if something is wrong with the page but otherwise I'll let them do the honours until February.

So in other words, if you're getting ready for the countdown to New Years Day, please finish with this page before you get really burned out or for a total loss of sleep. I wanna know that you'll have a great time to relax and see the fireworks before you get back to editing.

Well, have a great edit day. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the page looks good enough now....the only thing left to do is citing sources. I'm requesting again that ppl please help in citing certain claims in the article....thankx for the wishes Johny. Gprince007 (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The Highlights of 100 and The Chronicles (The Clip Shows)

Forgive me for going off topic but I hope you can help me on these episodes as they remain empty for so long. If you already own a Seinfeld DVD, maybe you could help me in compiling all the episodes with their production numbers and take the guessing game out of what clips have been used including creating sections etc. I want to do it but I can't do it on my own so if you're willing to help I'll be glad that those episodes have been resolved. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Language barrier.

I'm curious about Seinfeld in different languages. If you are not too busy, I want you to translate three languages. French, German and Spanish. I'd be interested in there reception and I'm always curious in who does the dubbing. Thank you.

Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm from Argentina and I don't think that there're dubbed versions. I only saw it with subtitles... And Seinfeld is very popular here among people who usually watch sitcoms, since it was shown only in cable (it still runs in Sony Entertainment Television) unlike sitcoms like Friends or similar shows.--201.252.102.27 (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

DVD release.

I was thinking that maybe you can expand the table to include Australian release dates and I don't know the other region but I feel it needs something more to expand it. Like my table idea for the notable stars, I can't force changes. These are just suggestions. If the community agrees with the idea then go for it. If not then what's next? Respond to this as soon as you made up your mind. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Filming place

Where was Seinfeld filmed? New York or Los Angeles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.90.51 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Primarily in Los Angeles. The exception with New York is with three episodes. The Today Show in "The Puffy Shirt", A press conference with Rudy Guilani in "The Non-fat Yoghurt" and "The Opposite" with Regis and Kathie. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we remove minor characters section?

Given the contention over which characters should be included here, the length of the article and the fact that it is redundant to the List of Seinfeld minor characters, I propose that we delete this section, replacing it with one paragraph that would name a few of the most often recurring characters. From the table at the list article, we could briefly identify those appearing in 15 or more episodes: Newman, Susan, Jerry's and George's parents, Peterman, Steinbrenner and Uncle Leo. The next one, Puddy, seems clearly to drop to a lower level of importance on the show anyway. What do you think? — InkQuill 21:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC) It's a good idea if we can balance the minor characters and maybe add a new level by the type of people they hang around like bosses etc. But not just me, what does anyone else think? Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We should work on the other sections.

My main concern is the overview, the plot and the summary of season 9. If I remember correctly about a year ago, I put on the discussion page that the summary of season 8 and 9 is aiming at the critics instead of establishing those seasons. Today the summary of season 9 is simply nothing. I don't know what it's suppose to be. The plot and the summary isn't making any sense and although it's still good, it's still not cohesive enough. I don't have any ideas now but if you have suggestions to resolve those three, do not hesitate to put in your ideas and your concerns as well. It's also good if newcomers who have some experience with editing should also come to the Seinfeld discussion page to discuss about it. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the "season 8-9 :Without Larry david" section looks ok to me...the problem is all the season infos are evenly matched. If we expand season 9 info, then other season infos will look small and less in comparison to season 9. We can expand all season infos but i guess we need to source and cite the quotes in the article first. Without that a GA or an FA nomination is difficult. A few examples which need to backed by valid reliable sources are:-
  • In "Seasons 6 to 7: Maintaining the top" section, "According to the cast, crew, and many critics, Season 7 was when the show reached its creative peak"....This needs to be cited.
  • "Garnering its highest ratings yet, Seinfeld went on to produce some of its most famous episodes..."...Did any media reports suggest that the said episodes were "Famous" ???..."Highest ratings" also needs to backed up by sources...
  • In "Seasons 8 to 9: Without Larry David" section, "...under the direction of a new writing staff, Seinfeld became more of a fast-paced, absurdist show."...absurdist show?? according to who??? did any critic say so?? if he did then it needs to be cited..

The above statements are just a few observations....there are tons of statements in the article which need to be cited. If we want to get this article to GA/FA level then we need to address these issues. Content-wise i think the article is ok. I dont think more content is needed. But the problem is we need to find sources and cite them in the article. Gprince007 (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No offence but what websites can we look up for those info? If you think about it, it will take a week to find all those info. We just need a good starting point. I also was hoping to have a fresh start on this page but no can do. That'll be impossible. The only thing possible is to check other websites like TV.com for example and try to find all these notes that'll work on the page. As for the seasons, we should really focus away on the critics (unless it's backed up by source) and establishing about those seasons. Long story short, where do we start? Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What does everyone think about adding a "Seinfeld in popular culture" section? Some of the phrases from the show are being used today like: "...not that there's anything wrong with that"; "yadda, yadda, yadda"; "regifter" etc. 156.34.237.51 (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

POV in "Ratings and Time Slot History" section

I feel that the entire info added by the anon user is not needed. It sounds like blatant POV and OR. Also some issues raised in the para have been mentioned before. I suggest we delete the whole para and let only the table remain. I would have done it myself but still i thought of discussing it here first. Gprince007 (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's sourced, I agree it should be deleted. Even with sources, it should be tightened up.  ~ InkQuill  18:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast about it! Bring me up to date about it. I know I'm getting tired of it but one step at a time. The first thing is to double check it then maybe I'll agree with you Gprince007. Since there is no way to get evidence here, I need at least your opinion after you proof read it so that we're not jumping to conclusions here. Then you can delete it. The other alternative is to simplify it so that it is more direct and up to the point. I'll give you my response after you give me at least a second opinion. I'll check on the page tomorrow. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Johnny but I have to disagree with you. The section is pretty biased. Delete the paragraph and keep the table. That's what I think anyway. If the article is ever going to reach Good Article status we're going to have to remove stuff like that. It's good that we're discussion things as a team anyway. Joelster (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well. Sorry about it. I just wanted a second opinion but since your answer is so clear than I have no objections. Anytime you want, you can delete just the paragraph. Next time I won't ask for a second opinion. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't feel sorry. Expressing your opinion is part of what Wikipedia is. In any case, the consensus seems to be delete the paragraph or at least give it a good re-write. Does everyone agree? Joelster (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
there are plenty of stuff in the article which would classify as original research and pov. We need to cite the claims made in the article so that it becomes verifiable and encyclopaedic. Regarding the paragraph, i guess i made my views clear on it in the previous threads.Gprince007 (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking about cites, does anyone think that every sentence has to be cited to death or can we balance out? I mean for example like if I'm going to write about a pencil, do you think that every has to come from every source? Or is this normal? I'm just trying to figure if we're going for the record of the most cites ever produced for one page. The reason I couldn't cite it is because there is no starting point. Well if you're going to make it like an encyclopaedia full of cites, you're going to need to find more websites over this. I presume your thinking power is better than mine so I'll let you decide. I already have one idea I presume that no one is willing to do that I left in WikiSeinfeld discussion page. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Every sentence need not be cited....but "important claims" made in the article need to be proved by a reliable cite. For example, Earth revolves around the sun....we believe the statement becos it is based on facts and has been proved. Similarly, In "Seasons 6 to 7: Maintaining the top" section, "According to the cast, crew, and many critics, Season 7 was when the show reached its creative peak".....Which cast,which critics??? do we know the names of these "Critics"???....did any critics or crew member really say that the show reached its peak in the said season??? if so, then we need to find a cite and put it there so that the "claim" is based on facts and is verifiable. Similarly, in "Seasons 8 to 9: Without Larry David" section it states,"...under the direction of a new writing staff, Seinfeld became more of a fast-paced, absurdist show"....absurdist?? fast-paced??? according to who??? Did any critics say so?? if so then cite it otherwise remove the sentence. It might seem like fast-paced and absurdist to one editor but others might disagree. So we need a reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I know that at times it gets frustrating but we are building an encyclopedia here....not a blog or a opinion poll. So i guess Johnny u'll understand and come to terms with it.

Regarding Johnny's query on wikiproject page, i didnt get what u were trying to say....if u meant writin Seinfeld article in foreign language, then it already exists in many languages on wikipedia. Gprince007 (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor characters

I have one more thing to worry about. You know people like George Steinbrenner, Mr Pitt, J. Peterman and David Puddy, it should or shouldn't be hard to figure out what episodes these people are in. Call it trivial but I don't want to have a difficult time keeping tabs on what episodes in detail are they really in. An example is simply the pages like Newman and Susan which is truly well down. If you think it's too much, then I'll have to think of another way until well, it could be the craziest experience ever. Well, like all my other ideas, it's simply just suggestions. That's all. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Overview section contains plagiarized text

I am concerned that a large subsection of the Overview section contains text copied almost verbatim from http://www.jerryseinfeldclub.com/seinfeld-the-show/about/. I was going to add a block quote, but there is so much copied text that I think this section needs to be rewritten. There is of course a possibility that JerrySeinfeldClub.com copied the text from this article although it claims to have copyrighted the text. Thoughts? Dheppens (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • That's a good point. We should rewrite the overview section so that there is little chance of people plagiarizing the text. It will be good to refresh the subject more closely but it's way beyond what I intended to be after people voted to have the recurring gags be removed. Hopefully if anyone else has thoughts in regards to Dheppens, please do not hesitate to answer his thoughts. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well the content does seem identical. But as Dheppens said it is quite possible that JerrySeinfeldClub.com copied the text from this article. The website has article on jerry seinfeld and it cites wikipedia as its source. In its references section also it cites wikipedia as its source. But on this page it doesnt mention any source....so either way its possible that the site copied from wiki or some editor plagiarized the text from site. But my benefit of doubt goes to wikipedia. In any case, i dont object to a rewrite. Gprince007 (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Update required on new TV High Definition 16:9 (widescreen) release?

Because Seinfeld was actually shot on 35mm film as opposed to videotape it has been possible for Sony to remaster a new widescreen (16:9) HD version (1080i) which is currently being broadcast here in Australia and I'm sure in the USA and elsewhere. Compared to the previous Standard Definition NTSC 4:3 version that we are used to, it breathes a whole new life into the series. I don't feel I'm technically knowledgeable enough to put in a section on this, but someone might like to take this up. Of course with a HD version available, one would speculate that it would eventually be available on Blu-Ray as well. --MichaelGG (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well i dont know the difference on my TV...but if anyone has the technical know-how and can put it in easy-to-understand language then i guess it could be added. In the above discussion thread, you said, "Of course with a HD version available, one would speculate that it would eventually be available on Blu-Ray as well..." ....pls dont add speculations and ur own conclusions. If something is based on facts then feel free to add it....otherwise pls refrain from adding speculative rumors. Gprince007 (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
No, GPrince, you would not notice any difference on your TV as you don't have High Definition TV in India yet, unlike USA, Europe or Australia. I can write a paragraph but might have difficulty in referencing it properly, but will have a go. As for the speculation, I thought this was a talk page for people actually interested in this subject. Obviously I wouldn't consider putting speculation on the main article page. --MichaelGG (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, how can u say that India doesnt have high-def tv???.... it is definitely available in India....the point is that i dont own a high def tv....anyways u can add an info but try to cite it..Gprince007 (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I can say this because India does not yet have broadcast HDTV but are calling for proposals. In India of course, as in the rest of the world, you can certainly import a HDTV set but have to connect it to your private high definition source such as your own Blu-Ray player. However this does not constitute a HD Television SERVICE. If you are looking for a reference, not that I need to provide a reference in a TALK page, nonetheless try this one: http://www.broadcastpapers.com/NewsItem.cfm?objid=405 In the past India has been behind in adopting all the latest technology, especially in the high-tech sectors including entertainment. Now as the world progresses to HDTV, we do not have a word from any of the Indian television companies on HDTV. This session will discuss the advent of HDTV into Indian Television. Panellists will discuss plans for HDTV by Indian TV channels and the technology and cost implications. The Panel will present the audience potential and growth of HDTV ready homes in India. HDTV screen CE players and content producers and delivery system suppliers will form the panel to discuss India’s progress. How much of TV content in India is on HD? Are the Indian TV broadcasters preparing for HD and is there a business model for HDTV rollout?. I'm not indulging in speculation here, just telling it like it is. And not knocking India either, it's to be expected that a third world country aspires to the services available in countries such as the USA and Australia. No problems with that and good on ya. --MichaelGG (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Is that right? All I know is now, there's only 4:3 clean, sharp, standard DVD version in Australia and maybe around the world. There's really no sign that today, we're going to watch it in widescreen and up to the top in 1080i. Plus I'm not certain you can play it on HD-DVD or in Blu-Ray. My point is nothing is happening yet. Why not update me with what you do have. This is nothing more than "The Merv Griffin Show". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyauau2000 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Watching Seinfeld today.

In Australia, Seinfeld which used to be on Ten is also on Nine and been shown less frequency ever since. I suppose its the same thing around the world. Depending what country you live in, maybe you can update whether its on TV or cable that the show would go on. The reason I brought it up is when I look at Friends page, they still have the show around the world. Maybe you could make one more link to see if the show is still on either original or syndication. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the Friends page has info from britain, US ,Australia and NZ. If Seinfeld airs around the world, then maybe we can add it. But the thing is that if we dont have enough material then i dont see the point in adding it. If we have enough details then i guess it can be added. I can say about my country India. Seinfeld has been airing for the past 3 yrs-5 days a week. And i have watched each episode atleast 2-3 times...and i still watch it :-) Gprince007 (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Production locations

Should the infobox fields for production locations not say New York, San Francisco(?)? I know that the outside of Jerry's apartment is somewhere in California. --71.101.33.94 (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Syndication money controversy

When Seinfeld began getting syndicated, I recall a little controversy surrounding that Seinfeld and Larry David were making lots of money off the syndication of "Seinfeld", but the 3 co-stars made very little, if anything. Can anyone provide information on how much Alexander, Dreyfus, and Richards make off the syndication? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.158.179 (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

alternative cast members

I heard once that another actor was considered for the role of George. I bet they auditioned a bunch of people before finally choosing Jason Alexander, Julia Louis Dreyfus, and Michael Richards. We should put something about that in the article. It's interesting thinking about the other actors that could have been playing these characters if things went a little differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.214.174 (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrap up to New Years Day.

Its been a moderately slow year up to 2009. It is my duty to give you a heart warming end to this year. I trust editors to really take a break until at least February or when you have a bright idea that you want to add to an article. Of course it has to be recited if you want to keep the info in. I do feel the editors should deserve credits for further shaping up the article but at the same time a few pictures has been forever deleted from the article.

So to wrap it up, put all your fears behind and put in all the positive thoughts you want to put in the article and relax your mind when you're finished. Don't take this as a wrong note. After all, the best I could say is "Happy New Year".

Yours truly Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Diversity

Was it prominent on this show or was it all white?68.225.74.103 (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

They may all be white but certain episodes do have guest stars in different ethics like Babu Bhatt and Jackie Chiles. To answer the question, it really depends on the requirements on the episode. I'm not being racist or anything but this is my point of view. It would've been the same thing if the show is done in a similar ethic way like chinese or blacks version of a Seinfeld show. Anyway, this show is so original with the main characters with no remorse that there won't be any other shows that can match this show. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


No. It's mostly white, just like black sitcoms are mostly black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.190.75 (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra and the finale

The article says that the finale was the third most watched of all time. There were parties in homes and bars to watch it. It was criticized by many as not being what they had hoped for as far as quality, but it was in no way overshadowed by Frank Sinatra's death except maybe to a few people who were close to him or just crazy about him. So, let's all agree to keep that line about his death overshadowing the finale out of the article. Thank you. Belasted (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, leaving Frank Sinatra out might lead to a backlash to people who are fond of this singer. So writing people off is not something I appreciated. Maybe next time, how about giving someone a chance why they need to keep it as part of the article. If anything else is unsourced, I'll find the source or anyone else find the source. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Catchphrases

Enough, Enough already. Will you people please fix "yada, yada, yada." The writers or Seinfeld himself stole it from Lenny Bruce and it's-yadee, yadee, yada. The phrase is from "Father Flotski's Triumph" and it can be found "Lenny Bruce Originals Vol 1". Flotski is trying to reason with a prisoner in prison. The flustered prisoner finally says-"yadee, yadee, yada, Father".Dcrasno (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with it. I have no problem with people stealing ideas but the Seinfeld writers didn't know that at the time. It's not like history repeats itself. Same with Hollywood directors stealing ideas from Hong Kong. Also this is a ridiculous issue which I find it weird to deal with. So for my sake, just let it go. Don't make me thing you're here to vandalize the article. One more thing. If there's anything else that has been borrowed, all you need is a website source or a DVD source or a book source is what you need to back up the claim.

To set the record straight, on the "Inside Look" on Seinfeld DVD "The Yada Yada", Peter Mehlman remembered a woman who used that phrase the first time and he never heard anyone else use it so it became the episode. So there you go. Don't believe me? Watch that show and draw up your own judgement. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 10:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

length of george and jerry's friendship

in "the betrayal," george mentions on the plane that he and jerry have been friends "since fourth grade." why does it keep getting changed back to "high school?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.21.210 (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Put it simply that it's a fictional show and there is no specific time about how Goerge and Jerry got together. I felt that aspect is not that important. "The Betrayal" says he's in fourth grade, "The Outing" in seventh grade and "The Library" with a grade totally unknown. So it would be better to simply say that they have been friends "since high school". If the sitcom was set in high school like Hillary Duff for example, maybe we can go to specifics that they've been friends "since fourth grade" or whatever. But for Seinfeld, I don't think it's important. All we're interested is watching the show and having a good time instead of obsessing with little details for the sake of being right. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Seinfeld/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am planning to shortly review this article and make comments on this sub-page. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


Review (comments are chronological)

  1. 'Many of its catch phrases have entered into the popular culture lexicon.' This should preferably go behind the critical receptions to the bottom of the first paragraph. Its location at the moment feels amiss.
  2. 'Seinfeld stood out from the typical family- or coworker-driven TV sitcoms of its time.' Needs some examples of sitcoms at the time that deployed those dynamics. The following statements to this need ';' since they are connected.
  3. Thomas Hibbs needs an article. If he is not notable enough to have one then he is not notable enough to be quoted.
  4. Section on Jerry's stand-up routine should be placed under 'Evolution' since it shows change in the show's formula. A mention needs to be made in how the stand-up routine worked, not where it was present.
  5. '[...] characters and plots from past episodes were frequently referenced or expanded upon.' Needs examples of episodes in which this happens I think.
  6. 'He would later make use of season-long story arcs in his next series, Curb Your Enthusiasm.' Unnecessary without specific connection to Seinfeld. Better would be to share that the long story arcs are shared by both shows, otherwise Larry David is the only connection.
  7. 'He fantasizes about being an architect and once pretended to be a marine biologist.' Needs expansion into George's fantasy jobs (I've seen a lot of Seinfeld and there are more), of which two examples are those mentioned.
  8. 'She is notable among sitcom characters in that she is not the "straight face" of the show and behaves with much the same conceited attitude as her male friends.' Do you mean notable among female characters? The comment seems to be gender orientated (women being the voice of reason I suppose) but does not specifically state.
  9. 'He will go out of his way to make Jerry's life miserable.' Future tense? Should be 'he goes'.
  10. Characteristics: 'Several elements of Seinfeld fit in with a postmodern interpretation'. Such as, need examples when the comment is ambiguous.
  11. 'Evolution'. Can't help but feeling 'Progression' or 'Evolution of the show [or Seinfeld]' would be better.
  12. Awards and Nominations: make sure this section contains all the critical reception points made in lead, as per WP:LEAD.
  13. Another scene: 'He mentioned he is far too busy to do it now' When was this said? Needs dating. '[...] do it now (January...)'
  14. Reference 59. needs better formatting, it should be {{cite web

Hope that helps you. I shall let someone else make these revisions, and will check to see the progress shortly. GA has been put on-hold until these recommendations have been discussed or exacted. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There are only three days left in which to edit and improve the article before I make a decision. As it stands I probably won't be passing it; there are issues with references, notes and wording and many of the above suggestions have yet to be implemented. Please if you would like to help, do it soon. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  1. Well-written:
    (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
    Particularly the section on Characters. and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  2. Broad in its coverage:
    (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  3. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  4. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  5. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    A few more images would be good, the two present are near the top and not equally spaced
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Failed criteria (original research and MoS). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


The Cartoon (Season 9, Episode 13)

The article on this episode was deleted by an administrator. A deletion review has been initiated. Rainjar (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

see also

Cheers/seinfeld link is because both sitcom were about "nothing," no real running tale from episode to episode as such. Its common knowledge for seinfeld, but even cheers. What is it about?(Lihaas (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)).

Well clasifying Cheers as show abt nothing is "Original reasearch" as it was not promoted as a "Show about nothing"....moreover i dont see any link betwn Cheers and SEinfeld except that Richards once appeared in an episode of Cheers...and that wont qualify as a reason for inclusion in "See also" section. We can include "Curb your enthusiasm" in "See also" section as the creator of both shows is Larry david and there is definitely a link between the two shows...Gprince007 (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:Common sense and WP:IAR (although the latter is not necessarily. At any rate, theres also section here do use the former.
As an aside, im find with adding the curb your enthusiasm link, if that parralel is thereLihaas (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Secondary character

The article claims that Newman is the most frequent character, yet – obviously – he's not more frequent than any of the primary four. Why do certain editors insist on leaving the word "secondary" out of that sentence, when its absence ascertains a false statement? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"Secondary" is being removed because I feel it is irrelevant...I feel that classification of characters as Secondary characters is wrong. Nobody is "Secondary" to anyone. I would rather suggest we rename the section as "Recurring characters" and write that "Newman is the most frequently recurring character"...the focus being on "frequently RECURRING character". Also leaving the word "secondary" does not ascertain a false statement because it is clearly mentioned that he is a "recurring" character and most frequent among the recurring characters...Gprince007 (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Copyedited accordingly. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Well obviously you can't just put in all those adjectives in a single line. I mean "Newman is the most frequent recurring character" makes more sense than "Newman is the most frequent recurring secondary character". Even though it's not suppose to be a big deal, anyone going through English class would not put all those words and expect them to read correctly. Most importantly, it doesn't have to be complex to read. After all "secondary" is another word for "another part of something". Even if I'm wrong, I would think twice about how to write a sentence rather than finding a way to put the word in because it make sense. Lastly, the reason Newman is a recurring character because out of the minor casts apart from fictional parents of George and Jerry, Kramer's friend had made such an impression that he'll be there at certainly episodes down to the last one. Same with Susan. Even though she really didn't do much, she help keep the show going until her fictional death. It may not make sense to you but it does help to keep it from getting too complex. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it was "Newman is the most frequently recurring character", a false statement to begin with, since (here I go repeating myself again) only the four main characters fall under that category. Never mind all that, I hope the current version is to everyone's satisfaction. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
A false statement? That Newman is just a recurring character with no basis? That's just your point of view. If Newman is part of the main cast, we would've seen it in every episode known to man. If Newman is seen at places where they need him to make the episodes work, then that's a recurring character. But if he seen in more episodes than the other minor characters, then that's worth pointing that out why I put in "most frequently recurring character". Originally I put in "most frequently recurring male character" but I can see why compare to Susan. I believe what you did is satisfying and put simply there's no right or wrong approach. Only how you see it. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Expanding the article.

I don't know where editors can have an open discussion. This or WikiSeinfeld project is the two places. Anyway, I was hoping for more brainstorming and throw in any ideas you can put into this main article despite B-class, it has very good strong points and some minor weak points. There won't be any right or wrong, just how you approach it. Perhaps myself is also open to any compromise over anything that's wrong in this article unless it doesn't work. Last of all, sign up so I know who has the idea. Even if you don't, you will have to in order to avoid confusion. Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Seinfeld in HD

I don't think the first part of this section is accurate. It says the HD network version was "downscaled" to DVD. The network never showed Seinfeld in HD. We're talking about a show that ended in 1998 before HD broadcasting even started. The show was probably delivered on SD video just as it had been for all 9 seasons. DVD quality is basically broadcast quality except compressed a bit more. I wouldn't call DVD quality "downscaled," especially since cable companies have been compressing video signals a lot than DVDs do. Most people viewing through their cable company probably saw a lot fuzzier picture on cable than from their DVDs.

Also the description about Sony "cropping" images is a bit incorrect. A 35mm film frame is 1:1.5 ratio, compared to SD TV's 1:1.33 ratio and HD TV's 1:1.77 ratio. So no matter which way you slice it, it was cropped when it was originally shown on network TV, and it's been cropped for HD. Some people think that 1:1.66 would have been a good compromise, but most people hate seeing black bars anywhere within the picture, and if the show was shot today in HD, I think the framing would be approximately the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.162.96 (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Nihilism

What does Seinfeld have to do with Nihilism? Or even pop-nihilism (eg. The Big Lebowski)?

I think whoever added that comment is confusing nihilism with self-absorption. The two are mutually exclusive. Please remove.

72.135.230.155 (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The source says:
Thomas Hibbs, professor and chair of philosophy at Boston College, ... relies on Nietzsche to define nihilism as the devaluation of important values, as a life '"devoid of fundamental meaning or final purpose.' ... While older shows depended on a resolution of a dilemma in order to end the episode happily, the catastrophe in an episode of "Seinfeld" is frequently left unresolved. "[`Seinfeld'] goes for the art of the unhappy, but the very funny," said Hibbs.
While the characters had more than their share of self-absorption, it seems to me that the show meets the definition quoted in the source. GoingBatty (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review second look.

Check Archive 2 and see why this article couldn't get to A-Class. We did well addressing the problems but we also failed on the basics. There's two reasons behind it:

  • 1b says that it has to be well written meaning the text should be comfortable and neutral to read. Also keeping the article well balanced.
  • 1c says it must not contain original research. Problem? Which parts?

My instincts may almost be right but I think that could be something that can be improved upon.

On a side note, the Seinfeld curse is written well but there's no timeline and may include Curb your Enthusiasm so I hope it can be addressed as well. I think that pretty much covers everything.

The other note is the balance of the article. Like recurring characters, Season structures and even the alarming made up and real product placement which I think has overblown and has only one web reference and could use some restructuring and keep it a suitable length. If there is more that needs to be addressed, please add your thoughts here or the Seinfeld project (if you signed up to it). Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please provide specific examples, coupled with solutions. Some of your edits have been reverted because they go against WP:COMMON SENSE: for example, the bubble boy is met with sympathy until he displays profound anti-social characteristics, going as far as physically attacking George, while Susan's death is probably the only real tragedy that should have been met with a reasonable amount of grief, but isn't because of the "no hugging, no learning" credo. The recurring characters you took out are memorable enough to merit inclusion. Again, please be specific in your replies. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Well how should I say it? I'll take one step at a time. The idea that Susan's death doesn't elicit emotion from the audience maybe true but really no sympathy for Susan is where the misunderstanding is. The bubble boy would've been a good example but hey, it does go against common sense doesn't it? It's my bad but I moved on from that because what's reverted already has been reverted. With recurring characters, my only issue really is the presence and how many is too many. Anyway, I'm back to square one, cooling myself down. So I'm not going to edit for a while until there's something that we can settle down on. Besides I'm not really good at answering your question since my english isn't perfect. If you got anymore concerns or solutions I'll be happy to read it off. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I have a better solution, one based on policy: unless either of you can produce sources that support the sentences: "The show is typically driven by humor interspersed with superficial conflict and characters with strange dispositions. Many episodes revolved around the characters becoming involved in the lives of others to typically disastrous results. On the set, the notion that the characters should not develop or improve throughout the series was expressed as the "no hugging, no learning" rule. Unlike most sitcoms, there are no moments of pathos; the audience is never made to feel sorry for any of the characters. Even Susan's death in the series elicits no genuine emotions from anyone in the show." then I'm removing all of them as original research. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
This is especially the case since nothing in that description has anything whatsoever to do with post-modernism. Unless references support that those are examples of PM, that nothing in the show elicits genuine emotions, etc., I'll remove the whole thing in a few days. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
What does "elicit genuine emotions" mean? I'm not smart when it comes to words I don't understand. Worse, I don't think I'll crazy to find sites that fits the notion "post-modernism". Well, if you have the time to look at all the web-references down below, perhaps there's certain things that can be easily overlooked but it's up to you. My weekend is nearly finished so that's all I got to say. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hearfourmewesique, maybe you're not understanding my tagging, so I'll explain. Plot elements do not need to be sourced, that is correct. Any interpretation of plot elements, even the smallest interpretation like "they express no emotions" is interpretation, and must be sourced to an independent, reliable source. Major claims like "This show is post-modernist" needs a very serious, highly reliable source (here, nothing less than an academic journal/book would suffice), because 1) the claim is highly dubious on the face of it and 2) it creates a major claim as to the whole philosophical/aesthetic underpinning of the show, and, as such, requires major sources. If you have those sources, fine, feel free to add them. If not, please do not remove the tags, and, eventually, I'll remove the claims as original research. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I think Qwyrxian is right. I mean what is post-modernist? It should be deleted because there's not really any web reseach that can say that Seinfeld is post-modernist. I even tried and failed so anytime, you can delete it and as long as it's well written referring to 1b, at least won't get confused on what's happen after you delete it. Up to you. As I say again, if you have concerns and/or ideas, don't hesitate to put it in and last of all, don't overuse the colons on this talk page or it will drive me crazy. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting minor characters

I decided to leave a note here, where I assume more people watch, instead of on each of the individual article pages. I intend to redirect almost all of the articles on recurrent/secondary characters to List of Seinfeld minor characters. Articles on television characters are not exempt from our rules on notability. Unless the character him/herself has been the subject of detailed coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, they cannot have their own articles. So, for example, Newman (Seinfeld) is fine, because there are numerous sources there discussing the character. I glanced at a handful of the rest, and they have no sources at all. If anyone wants to find references and add them, feel free to do so, but I'll be planning to follow through with the redirects in about a week if no independent sources are provided. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Since there has been no response to this in over 2 weeks, I am now going to go ahead with all of the redirects on characters that don't have reliable sources independent of the show itself. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review second look part 2.

The reason I've add this because I don't want to overuse the colons and can be monotony to read from a viewers perspective. Anyway, I believe what could be expanded is definitely the Seasons l to 9 with examples to what seasons can be web sourced. I did it quite well with Seasons 1-3. I could do the same with the others which means going back and forth with the Official Seinfeld Website which is still on and hasn't fallen off. So if anyone likes to help me on that it's fine but perhaps when I have the time, I'll definitely work on it to help minimise as much original research as I can. The Overview still needs to be well written and be kept updated today. There's still depth that could be added with plot threads and continuity. Others is the product placement which is way too overwhelming for anyone to read. Lastly, the music section as a suggestion can be moved to another page. Well in case someone decides to delete it or something.

So four areas: Overview, plot threads and continuity. Seasons 4-9 episode highlights, product placement and music. Remember this is the place for suggestions, criticisms and solutions. Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Discuss the inclusion of minor characters

Please make arguments for or against including specific minor characters here. No more edit warring on this issue will be tolerated. 00:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Oh, and if the two of you (or other interested editors) can't come to an agreement amongst yourselves, we will take the issue through dispute resolution. I will aid you in this process as you need it. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's about time I give the reason by removing to minor characters that's already listed in another article. The reason I wanted to remove Uncle Leo and Kenny Bania is really the importance of keeping the recurring character section from being too long. They are popular but they aren't used as frequently as Newman and Susan. After all, Wikipedia is not in it's words a "fan based site" meaning you don't want to dwell on the idea that having lots of recurring characters is going to appear to fans as it's not the case. I mean, about eight to ten is recommend but only with people which has a better presence and less about "the reason I want to add him/her is because I want to". Uncle Leo and Kenny Bania might be popular but they are there to setup usually Jerry's character and nothing else. It's not really a question of keeping too many recurring characters for the sake of it but all I wanted to do is to balance the article and make sure each section doesn't become a major centrepiece on the readers perspective. As Jackie Chan pointed out to Bey Logan, if people notice minor additions and inconsistencies, then they're bored already. They should be reading the article for being informative and people who are new to reading this. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I have a change of heart. Maybe it will be better to have minor characters that appears more than ten episodes of Seinfeld. So the reason I changed it because compare to Bania, I feel it works real well with minor characters that has more screen time and has a better presence on the article than just people that appears in less than five episodes. You might not get it but I'm putting it out there my reasons behind it. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Is that change acceptable to others? Actually, let me phrase this a differently: what should the criteria be for which minor characters are listed here? I recommend something very "factual", like number of episodes. I also recommend a more restrictive criteria than used at the list article itself, since there is no need to duplicate that list here.
Second, Johnnyauau2000, please self-revert your changes to the spelling of the name. If you don't have a reliable source, the name should remain the same as the List and how the previous article was spelled. One of the problems has been you making changes simply based on your own understanding, memory, or opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. I'll revert it back for now. As usual I'm over my head. Well if they persist, the official website name on the episode "The Secret Code" is Jacopo but on the DVD "Notes about Nothing", it's Jacobo. So, I'll let the editors besides me decide how they want to pronounce it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyauau2000 (talk • contribs)
What is the exact context of the name "Jacobo" as presented on the DVD extras? His name originates from (if we base that on the database of pre-existing names, which are more or less reasonable to think of) Giacopo, which is Italian for Jacob... nothing out of the ordinary here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Johnyauau2000 told me on my talk page that he's planning to take a few days off from this article; we should be able to get more details later. Meanwhile.... Qwyrxian (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Briefly, on the DVD, Alec Berg and Jeff Schaffer who wrote "The Secret Code" revealed on "Notes about Nothing" and maybe on "Audio commentary" revealed to give J.Peterman his first name. When I listen to it, John O' Hurly who played the role pronounced his first name as "Jacobo". On the Seinfeld official website, the episode with the same name is spelled "Jacopo". If there was a poll which won't happen here, I think people with listening skills would pick the one that they remember the most. Sorry, thought I add this before I take a few days break. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
It is not uncommon for an actor to erroneously mispronounce the name of their character, especially an unusual one. The official website is clearly the WP:RS here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realize your (Johnnyauaua2000's) edits were based on your hearing. We have to go with either what is at the official site or on written materials including with the DVD. If more than one spelling is provided, provide both; but what you "here" isn't relevant, as different people hear different things, and it still wouldn't tell us spelling, since English spelling often doesn't match the pronunciation, especially for names (I know my real name doesn't). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I think I got my message screwed up. What I meant to say the DVD episode can be more reliable sometimes. Had people known "Jacobo" from the start, I wouldn't have bring this up at all. It's now a good example of a misspelling of the name becomes the name of the various websites because they don't have the time. But perhaps in relation to what Rydernyc says, I think he makes a very good point. First of all because of so much original research, but also because it's distracting and not exactly a good balance for the article. Because of that, perhaps it's for the best, well if we go with Rydernyc's suggestion. So I'm gonna go along for now. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion as a minor character

What criteria should be set for including minor characters on this page? A certain minimum number of episodes? Mention on some standard reference document? Something else? Personally, my opinion is that none of them should be listed on this page--you should just provide a link to List of Senifeld minor characters, but that's just my opinion; I'd rather you all set something. But you do need a criteria, so that you can stop the back and forth changing of who is on the list--i.e., some rule so that the issue is not subjective. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The article already exists, but the ones included in this (main) article are the ones who recurred several times and have a memorable trait/punchline. This is why it's important to keep Kenny Bania ("the best", "gold!") and Uncle Leo ("Hello!"). Their removal was contested in the past, and so far Johnnyauau2000 seems like the only editor who is keen enough to remove them – or replace a perfect example of lack of emotion (Susan's death, after which the characters just get up and "go get a coffee or something") with a completely unrelated one (the Bubble Boy, who actually meets with sympathy, going as far as causing Jerry, who is usually apathetic, to pay him a visit, until the Bubble Boy's profound display of ill manners and temper). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
"Memorable trait/punchline" is not an acceptable inclusion criteria, as it is 100% subjective. You have two choices: either set an objective criteria, or argue about every single inclusion or exclusion. Personally I prefer the former, but, if you want to go with the latter, that's up to y'all; just be sure to start a clear discussion on each person whenever someone objects, and be sure that whoever is included is based on consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
As basically an outside uninvolved editor I feel the criteria should be based on whether or not the character is key to the understanding the series or key to understanding one of the leads. For example it would be hard to understand the character of George without describing his parents. I would say everyone in the list after Susan totally fails this criteria and is not needed in the main article at all. I would further argue that all of this should be covered by using prose and there should not be such a heavy reliance on lists in this article. The idea of this article should be to give someone unfamiliar with subject a nice complete overview of the subject, not to give them details on large number of characters. Ridernyc (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Bania is a mediocre stand-up comedian who, in a way, is more "popular" than Jerry because of his lower-level humor, but looks up to Jerry, who in turn despises him for the reasons stated earlier; I'd say he is "key" to understanding Jerry. Uncle Leo follows the traits of a typical Jewish stereotype, being goodhearted but overbearing; one of his strong characteristics is the anti-anti-semitic paranoia; Jerry also detests him; I'd say he's also "key" to understanding Jerry. Next? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
nope not key enough for me. Again personally I think the lists need to go since there will never be a clear criteria plus prose should always be preferred over lists. To be honest the entire article needs massive work so focusing on this list which is not necessary at all to the article is a major distraction. Instead of arguing about why certain characters should be in or out of a list why don't we spend time on focusing on more important issues. Ridernyc (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
You're definitely correct on this one. I would've gotten more web reference but I'll let it slide. Also, I think sooner or later, even though the music section is sourced, I'm thinking of moving the section to another page because the table feels like a list and the last thing I want to do is to delete it completely without given a second though. But if I want music lovers to take notes before it's deleted that's fine with me. Anyway, any suggestions would be helpful. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
"nope not key enough for me"? Please explain, as I have before. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Is There A Consensus For The Lists

Before we go down the rabbit hole and start an endless argument about list inclusion criteria, is there any consensus that the list should be here at all? Do they add anything to the general understanding of the show? Are they the way we want to present this information? George Steinbrenner is explained earlier in prose, why do we need to clutter the article with a list that repeats the information already presented? If we agree that characters should only be presented in prose, and that the prose should not be forced to simply include a character then we don't really need an inclusion criteria. I think the lists are a not needed are are just a lightning rod for edit wars. Ridernyc (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Another issue, nothing in these lists is referenced. They contain tons of OR, an interpretive statement like "Newman is mainly considered to be Jerry's nemesis." is an interpretation needs a reference. As pointed out previously there are massive problems with this article and focusing on which characters should be in the list is not one of them. Ridernyc (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example of the problems with OR "She is the most frequent recurring female character in seasons 4 and 7 and has a brief appearance again in a flashback sequence in the season 9 episode titled "The Betrayal"." Really? She recurs more then Elaine? Is this sourced? or do we have an interpretation of "recurring character" that excludes the leads? Ridernyc (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think my idea of appearances worked a few years earlier but again your right on this one that it wouldn't work today. So I'll let it slide for that reason. I do wish they tell me the meaning of criteria and consensus because I could never understand what those words mean which is why I'm hesitant to answer the questions. Anyway, I'm not really into politics and more into problem solving. If any of you guys can tell me the meaning of those words, maybe I'll try to answer it. Perhaps for the best, "appearances" and OR would be allowed to be deleted for that reason and I have no objection since I have no more ideas left. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
consensus means that when we have a disagreement about what should happen on an article, we talk about it on the talk page until we get general agreement. If we can't get that, we use our dispute resolution processes to try to get consensus. Sometimes, if we really can't get consensus, a vote suffices, but it's really not ideal. A criteria is just a "rule" for deciding what gets included and what doesn't. Any time we have a list with more possible things that could be listed than we will actually list, we should try to get consensus on what goes on the list and what doesn't. In this case, we basically have 3 choices:
  1. Set clear, specific objective criteria for who is or is not included. That would mean we could say something like "has appeared in more than X episodes" or "more than X episodes and Y seasons" or "is listed on the main credits" or "is discussed in a Z number of reliable, independent sources."
  2. Set a clear, but subjective criteria. This is more like the idea of "someone integral to a major story arc" or "someone with a permanent effect on the lives of one of the main characters". This is an acceptable criteria, but the problem with it is that we have to argue for every single character who does and who doesn't meet it. That's okay, but it can be a pain if people disagree.
  3. Get rid of the lists all together, as Ridernyc has suggested.
I'm trying to avoid taking a stand as I'm trying to act as an admin, not editor on this page, but I do recommend that you make some clear decision. Then we can, hopefully, stop the edit warring about who to include. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand this. I'm not used to complex terms so I'll use the simple terms instead. "Consensus" is like a discussion of the topic until there's an agreement for two people. If it fails, the dispute resolution would help solve it further. "Criteria" is a rule or a set of rules for a section. If there are more examples, I'll get a better about what's consensus and what's criteria. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
To Ridernyc and whomever that may find this useful – here is a great Wikipedia essay that helps clarify the confusion when it comes to statements like "you need a quote from the New York Times to prove that the sky is blue". Susan is the most frequent recurring character (in seasons 4 and 7) and Elaine is one of the main characters; the number of Susan's appearances is a matter of simple math, therefore not OR. I have had this type of confusion in the past and the solution seems to keep the phrase "frequent recurring character" instead of "frequently recurring character", or – we could settle for "secondary character". Newman is clearly defined as Jerry's nemesis if you observe certain episodes, but it is also specifically mentioned by Jerry on the DVD extras as well. Not[1] every[2] little[3] thing[4] needs[5] a[6] cite.[7] Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Please do not start lecturing me on proper sourcing. I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole with you. An interpretive statement like that needs to be sourced if it can not be sourced it needs to be removed. Ridernyc (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Please do not patronize me, but rather answer this: what is interpretative about "the most frequent"? I'll quote, to remove all doubts: "Compiling related facts and information[...]is part of writing an encyclopedia[...]Any relatively simple and direct mathematical calculation that reasonably educated readers can be expected to quickly and easily reproduce[...]may be included[...]Anything that can be observed by a reasonable person simply by [observing] the work itself[...]is not original research[...]" Remember, you cannot just say "it's interpretative" without reasoning your claim. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
It is your interpretation the Elaine is somehow not a recurring character. You are interpreting a definition and twisting to make a statement that you want to make. Elaine is clearly the most recurring female character on the show. If you want to make it that somehow there is some interpretation of the phrase "recurring character" that excludes the leads of a show then you need to source. See how you are not simply doing the math and are instead interrupting the math how you want. If you said "x was on the show 55 times" and then showed that no other female was on the show more then "x" then you would be correct, but that is not what you are doing. Ridernyc (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Had you read my entire reply, you would have noticed that I provided an extensive explanation for "recurring" and also suggested substituting "secondary" for it. Thoughts? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for making it harder Hearfourwesique. I'm not the smartest editor in the room but perhaps you know what consensus and criteria means. Perhaps in your owns you can tell me what it is. I did mention I'm not a professional editor by any standards. By the way, the simple Wikipedia is too easy and too boring. If I'm going to learn something, Wikipedia is a balance of both extremes. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Making it harder??? I provided the hyperlinks to the proper definitions, but what the hey... there it is again, in an even easier to read format:
  • Click here to read about consensus on Wikipedia;
  • Click here for the dictionary definition of the word "criterion", which is the singular form of "criteria".
Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Must be hard doing this talk page and "The Finale (Seinfeld episode)" talk page at the same time Hearfourmewesique. Anyway, I'm slowly getting it. Also I need a cooler since it's near the weekend. We'll continue this conversation on Monday. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
As far as criteria is concerned, I was thinking of second, setting a subjective criteria, but because of a lack of web references, the third would be the most acceptable with Ridernyc's idea of well, taking down the list. So perhaps the third is a good option, because the list of minor characters have already been made. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What I see so far is, Hearfourmewisque implies (in the section above this one), that we take each character on a case by case basis, using, I think, the criteria "is integral to the story". Hearfourmewisque, please clarify/correct my interpretation of your words. Ridernyc wants to get rid of the lists entirely (I'm assuming with the exception of the main character lists), leaving all of the listings to the List of Seinfeld minor characters article. Johnnyauau2000 at first expresses a preference for a subjective criteria, but shifts to Ridernyc's position of removing the lists entirely. Is this an accurate summary of everyone's opinions thus far? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is correct and sensible approach to it. I think Ridernyc say near the beginning is the list are not needed and are just a lightning rod for edit wars. In that sense, I agree with his suggestion for that reason. I'm ready to put this issue to rest. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 06:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

While I wouldn't go as far as saying the main character list should be removed. I think it is redundant and not needed. I however stand pretty firmly in the camp of not including a list of minor characters. I don't think an objective criteria is possible and even if one was somehow agreed upon I think including minor characters is over coverage and crossing the line into intricate detail. I would also say that the list should be removed from the article until a time when an objective criteria can be established. Ridernyc (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what Hearfourwesique might say but for the time being the minor character list has to be taken off until there's a new objective criteria as you say Ridernyc. I perhaps should also say that I've already signed up to Seinfeld Wikiproject but anyway, it's worth a shot. I would've done the same with the main character list but there's already an official site that helps established those four. So for the time being, take down the minor character list and leave a summary. Some more brainstorming on the objective criteria will be worth it in the near future. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Also even though the Music section is sourced, not to really changed the subject but I'm considering making a new page for the list. I still need to chat to someone or if by the week there's no brainstorming, then I'll leave it either here or the Seinfeld WikiProject what I'm going to do and getting a response whether I should do it or not. I'm not doing this personally but I felt kind of obtrusive since the Music list got so long that it could easily overwhelm the article and I'm afraid of starting another edit war. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I would say the list in the music section needs to go. It crosses the line into intricate detail. I also don't feel it is an element of the show that justifies having it's own page. Ridernyc (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Not to go far ahead, I'll check at least that all episode page mentions a piece of music before the list goes. It will stay for now until the 4th of October so that readers have a last chance and also give others a say. In short, I just want to be fair so no one gets upset once it reaches the date I set. But if there are no objections, then the list can be taken off but the summary with web references stays. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll give the message once more. Any objections to taking the music list down? Also the minor character list and who wants to do it? It will be one last chance before the decision is final. I would ask Hearfourwesique but he's been blocked for a week. So please message here if there's anything left that needs to be discussed. I'll check back here later on. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Since there's no objections, both recurring character list and non music list would be taken down until there's a better criteria. Until there's more web references and better ideas, it's for the best since the recurring character is a source for edit wars. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review part 3.

Now that the minor character list and music list has been resolved by being taken down because of a lack of consensus and web references, there should now be a focus on the article as a whole. I will remind once more from Archive 2 on this article that there's two goals:

  • No original research.
  • Well written and balanced article.

The success is increasing web reference and restructuring the progression section. The downside is Overview paragraph 2 which doesn't really explain what kind of characters would be in a sitcom. It just says "The character's based on Jerry's and Larry's real life acquaintances. Most prominently J Peterman and George Steinbrenner." I tried to find web references but some pages similar to this is basically an age old copycat like Wikia. If you have anymore ideas, put it here or Seinfeld WikiProject. Once we agree on something, it would be put into the article. Shouldn't be hard. Thank you. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, we don't need webreferences. Wikipedia has never required or even preferred things that can be linked online to other types of sources. The key is that the sources need to be reliable, not that they need to be online. In fact, WP:V explicitly says, "Verifiability in this context means anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." Qwyrxian (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
However, I should clarify: if you use a print source, another editor can be justified in saying, "Could you please provide a substantial quotation so that I can understand the context of that information?" That is, some of the onus will be on you to verify that the sources actually says what you claim it says. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
More general problems: the article says a lot of things that aren't sourced. In a lot of cases, the information looks sourced, because it has a reference after it, but the key fact is not sourced. As a minor example that caught my eye, in the Season 6-7 section, it says, "Garnering its highest ratings yet, Seinfeld went on to produce some of its most famous episodes—namely "The Soup Nazi" in which Elaine has a rocky rivalry with the soup nazi himself [45] and "The Rye" that shows George's memorable scheme to get the rye with the help of Jerry and Kramer.[46]" Well, those two references verify the plots of the shows, but neither of them verify that Seinfeld was at the time getting its highest ratings ever, nor that these two particular episodes are some of its "most famous". Any claim of value, quality, importance, etc., needs to be verified or removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Well what can I do, this Seinfeld article could fall apart easily. It's not easy to please everyone. Like presenting this as homework to a teacher but with holes in it, someone might get an F for making it up. I'll have to think of something, near the weekend. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Some sentences which I wanted to remove because of lack of sources or these being Original research is given below:

  • In the subsection about Elaine: "She is attractive, intelligent and assertive, but superficial". ...Superficial?? Needs a source otherwise it sounds like original research...
  • The sentence in the Lead: - Seinfeld episode, the main characters' unique storyline is different from the conventions of a normal sitcom in that in each episode some new problem would come along" ....New Problem would come along??? Seems like original reasearch...maybe we should remove this phrase...

Maybe some loose ends are still there and I feel we should close these loose ends....Gprince007 (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a problem. Well deleting them can be easy but at least take the part out of a sentence... I don't know what to think. If there's a good approach to it, maybe it can be resolved but the best and sad solution probably be deleting them. My take really is to take out "but superficial" and the second sentence with "in that in each episode some new problem would come along" but that's just me. To be fair, what would you do? I'm just expressing my opinion for now and trying to relax on the weekend at the same time. At least to keep my stress level down. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Never mind. But I just want to be clear. I guess you can't rely on web references on everything on every sentence. I would easily think that books and DVD with information is unreliable. That you have to be restricted to finding websites in clarifying the data you put into an article. Those issues you guys raised can easily be resolved and Gprince007 is right in tying up some loose ends. Anyway, I'm glad you guys raised it, otherwise I would've made some errors and there would be no indication that can help me. So if there's anymore, whether you guys are playing an active role or a passive role, do what you can so I can get it off my chest. Especially the overview second paragraph. I seriously feel that paragraph needs to be written better but I have no answer to it. Keep me updated. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review part 4.

I don't want to keep doing this. Gprince007 is right in tying up loose ends and Qwxyrian pointed out that not everything has to be restricted to web source if that's correct. But leaving that behind, I just want to clear up Overview second paragraph. It currently says about characters are based on people that Jerry and Larry know at the time. Also just mentions J Peterman and George Steinbrenner. The others are well written but this feels slightly outdated itself and seriously needs to be better written with much clarity about types of characters it's talking about. Web source may help but also explaining more clearly about real life counterparts when it comes to minor characters as well like Jackie Chiles and Susan Ross but these are the examples I'm talking about. I won't delete it but I can't do much as I'm currently doing The Betrayal (Seinfeld episode). If you're either active or a passive editor or both, please help me on this.

Something I forgot to mention. If you see it already, the Seinfeld WikiProject is inactive. It would be good for any editors who likes to dedicate their effort into improving and updating Seinfeld articles. Remember by signing up using four wavy dashes on the Seinfeld WikiProject. As mentioned on my last message, you either do it as active, passive or both. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is as good as it gets from now. There's one that needs citation but I'm not that smart. It's somewhere on the theme section. I'll need help on that but I think it should be satisfactory enough. Please make sure there's no original research left and also clean up any grammar and punctuation issues in the near future. Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There's one major issue is how updated the web pages is. I've checked recently that all Seinfeld preview episodes have been left blank with no video preview except that it only show's up on what episode it's showing now. Since this is hard to explain, go to the official Seinfeld website and check that all Seinfeld episodes with its plots and facts is still there or not. The web references will still stay but I might do the unthinkable unless something can be resolved about it. Check if you don't believe me before passing judgement. Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

greatest television show?

This statement should probably have a qualifier, to indicate by which criteria it is the greatest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.170.253 (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No "Production" section

In addition to the other GA issues, there is no "Production" section giving the nuts-and-bolts, real-life production of the show: Where and when it was filmed, who the key writers, producers and other personnel were, how the casting process went, etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Just if you are interested

There's a lyrebird from Australia who can imitate the Seinfeld intro [3]
And here's the full version — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.206.10 (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Replacing The Race with The Beard.

I'll keep it simple. The reason I replaced it is because the mention of the Superman music is hardly worth mentioning. So I put in The Beard which has a cultural reference which should be enough, because of the funny premise of putting Jerry through a lie detector, about Melrose Place. If there are any objections, try not to be too harsh, especially near Christmas so make it straightforward and snappy. That's all. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live Skit

If the page makes mention of the Seinfeld plot in Curb Your Enthusiasm, I think it is appropriate to make mention of the SNL skit Jerry did pretending to be in prison in OZ from HBO in the "After Seinfeld" section. I think I might write something small about it in a couple days when I get some time. If anyone would like to see it, it's all over the internet as a reference.Zdawg1029 (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Seinfeld named the #2 Best Written TV Series of All Time.

Seinfeld was recently named the #2 Best Written TV Series of All Time by the Writers Guild of America, second only to The Sopranos. I think that should be mentioned in the article about Seinfeld. Thank you for your consideration. Mr. Brain (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Eric Christmas/Mr Harharwood???

I could not tell you either the name or the number, but I believe the English character actor Eric Christmas played one of Kramer's many eccentric acquaintances in an episode where Kramer is helping Christmas (Mr Harharwood) restore a historic landmark movie theatre. For some reason, I think the episode aired during the 1994-95 season. Any help???User:JCHeverly 00:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Future cleanups

At this point, I already felt burned out and I thought the best I can do is just clean up errors and anything that feels out of place. I might no longer do major changes but if I stumble across web pages and many other things, I'll bring it up soon, at least to show that I'm not making it up. Anyway, all it takes is a dedicated editor and the page would look at its best. I'll be checking this page from time to time if there's any new suggestions that's forthcoming and straightforward enough. I look forward in working together in the near future.

Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I edited the last paragraph about the last episode where it said they had they were sent to prison, and corrected it with the term "Jail terms". Jail and prison are NOT interchangeable, no matter how many news agencies make the same mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.214.100 (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
But where is your proof/source that it was jail? --Musdan77 (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The Finale

According to the Wiki Entry for The_Finale_(Seinfeld) :-

In its original American broadcast, 76.3 million U.S. television viewers tuned into "The Finale", becoming the fifth most watched overall series finale in the U.S. after M*A*S*H*, Roots, Cheers and The Fugitive.

But according to this entry :-

The final episode enjoyed a huge audience, estimated at 76.3 million viewers (58 percent of all viewers that night) making it the fourth most watched regular series finale in U.S. television history, behind M*A*S*H, Cheers and The Fugitive.

I am guessing only one of them can be true, so does anyone know which one it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.232.123 (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

(Additional note) -- according to List_of_most_watched_television_broadcasts#Most_watched_U.S._TV_series_finales_-_Top_15_list it was the fifth most watched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.232.123 (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Decision to kill of Swedberg's character

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/entertainment/feat-seinfeld-jason-alexander-susan/ Majinsnake (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Seinfeld. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Kramer vs. Kessler

Currently there's nothing in the article about the Kessler character in the original pilot episode. Shouldn't that be in here, explaining how the character might not have ever been named Kramer? (There's a story there, in case you don't about it.) 209.179.33.246 (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2016

genre = Lit 173.3.142.5 (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes (Talk) 06:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 46 external links on Seinfeld. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Filmed and recorded

" ... filmed at Stage 8 of Desilu Cahuenga studios ... and was recorded at Ren-Mar Studios in Hollywood." How was it filmed and then recorded? Did they do the pilot twice, once on film, and once on magnetic media? Or is it referring to recording the audio? Wouldn't that be rerecording the audio with ADR? Can anyone clear up the confusion? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Kramer vs. Kramer: Kenny to Cosmo

The page Kramer vs. Kramer: Kenny to Cosmo redirects here but this page contains no information about it at all. Either the information should be added or the redirect changed/removed. Tiggum (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2017

add something about it being a meme online 50.201.237.194 (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: How about you find something and reopen the request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ [blank]
  2. ^ [blank]
  3. ^ [blank]
  4. ^ [blank]
  5. ^ [blank]
  6. ^ [blank]
  7. ^ [blank]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seinfeld/Archive_2&oldid=1137179244"