Jump to content

Talk:That '70s Show/Archive 1

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

Is/was

Just because a show has ended its initial run doesn't mean it's not a show anymore. The West Wing is over, but it still says "The West Wing is" in the heading. I left a notice regarding tense change. - Zone46 20:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

heh, I was just gonna change it back to 'is' to see someone did it right then :P definitely should stay "is" —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

None of these shows should say "is," "is" is passive voice which isn't good for an encyclopedia. -The Big X 23:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fez's Name

I remember reading somewhere that Fez's name is actually an abreviation of Foreign Exchange Student, though I'm not sure about this. Does anyone else know about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.47.146 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 3 February 2006

I heard this, I believe it is true. Mr Bisciut 21:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It's most likely true. i think they mentioned it once on a show and they also said it on a website. --Anisha93 18:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It used to say that on the IMDb page for the show (it doesn't any more). That is the only place I've ever seen it. Laszlo Panaflex 22:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons IMDb is not a reliable source: It's just another wiki. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

yes it does, thus it is Fes.

It's spelled Fez, though. In one episode there was a banner with his name on it, and it read "Fez." - Zone46 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Good point. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Eric & Kelso

How are they going to write these two out?

Anyone know?--Crestville 20:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eric is spending a year in Africa to earn money for college to become a teacher. Kelso got a job in Chicago as a security officer. Q0 00:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The location of Point Place

  • green bay? im rather sure they live near kenosha, green bay is rarely mentioned yet kenosha and chicago are.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.226.79 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 8 December 2004
  • That '70s Show is a Fox Network television sitcom centered around the lives of a group of teenagers living in the fictional suburb of Point Place, Wisconsin, a suburb of Green Bay, near Milwaukee, during the late 1970s.

So...which is it...is it a suburb of Green Bay or is it near Milwaukee? It can't be both. They're nowhere near each other. bob rulz 04:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It's fictitious, so I guess it can be wherever they want it to be, even somewhere impossible.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.46.8 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 30 November 2005
  • Therefore I will add this information at the very beginning of the page. I will also mention this at the trivia section. --Konstantin 09:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to move down the information regarding Point Place's exact location as it is clearly explained on the show's official webpage that:
Where is Point Place, Wisconsin?
Point Place is a fictional suburb of Green Bay, Wisconsin. This is why many Wisconsinites may recognize names of nearby towns such as Kenosha. [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.83.65 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 17 February 2005
The problem with this statement is that Kenosha is on the Illinois border, south of Milwaukee and over a hundred miles from Green Bay. During the course of the show, however, they make the same mistake. They reference going shopping or to movies in or near Sheboygan and Oshkosh, which are between GB and Milw. But they also go to a dance club in Kenosha, which would be clear on the other side of Milwaukee. - Laszlo Panaflex 07:18, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • The shows fictional location is a consistantly shifting location "Somewhere in Wisconsin" basicly [basically] for story reasons everything is within 30 minutes of the plot point no matter how many hours it would really take to get there. To try and pinpoint it would be an exersize [exercise] is pure speculation as the number of direct contridictions [contradictions] in the show are staggering. Fairly reliably to a wisconsin native nothing they say really makes any sence [sense]. Its [It's] been in every corner of the state, Even the far north in the episode they make a quick drive to canada for booze. The article should say something to this respect and not try and pinpoint it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.128.247 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 22 December 2005

John Grisham commented at the end of his book The King of Torts that Mark Twain "often moved cities, counties, and even entire states when necessary to help move a story along." Likewise, so did Grisham in his book. I'd say that the show writers do the same for Point Place as the episodes call for it. I wouldn't try to pin Point Place to any specific city/town within Wisconsin, any more than I would for Arlen, Texas. — EagleOne\Talk 01:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


Did you ever noticew [notice] how the characters pronounce the names of many Wisconsin cities wrong. Like Milwaukee, the characters pronounce the cities [city's] name the way it's spelled. The real way to pronounce Milwaukee is Mawaukee, no one from Wisconsin pronouces the i and l. They also pronouce Wisconsin wrong. It's not pronounced Wisc.ons.in as they do in the show. It's really pronounced Wis.con.sin. The characters also pronounce Green Bay wrong. It's not pronounced Gre`en Bay with the esagerated [exaggerated] sound on Green. It's pronounced Green B`ay with the esagerated [exaggerated] sound on Bay. — 206.40.99.11210:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Timeline Issue

I'd like to mention a slip up that was made when the gang was arrested in Canada by the RCMP. A map of Canada on the wall of the border station clearly showed the northern territory of Nunavut. This territory was only created on April 1st, 1999. As well, the RCMP generally don't man the border crossings, a separate agency is responsible for that.

"Although the show has been on for seven years, the timeline has been noticeably slowed. When the show first began in 1998, the show was set in May 1976, and in the past seven seasons, only three years have gone by."

Thats why they should have started in 1970 instead of 76. Dumb producers, well maybe they thought the show would end sooner than assumed.--King of the Dancehall 05:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Or, it could be that they wanted the show's setting to be late 70's and contain references to things that happened throughout the decade, (ie, movies, music, TV). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.42.108 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 28 January 2006

They probably wanted to do the Star Wars themed episode in the first season, which meant the first season had to end in 1977. It seems common for shows to last only one season, so it would make sense if they wanted the first season to be 1976-77, just in case it did get cancelled. If the storyline of each episode lasted about five or six days, then the show would still not make it to 1980. Though having more Christmas episodes than years in which the show spanned would cause continuity errors. Q0 00:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just been watching the episodes in order... I noticed this continuity issue. In episode 3.2 "Red sees Red", Kitty quits her job as a nurse to take care of the family because Red cracks down on Hyde and Eric for smoking pot. About a season goes by where she is clearly not working, then an episode (4.13, "Jackie says cheese") happens when she walks in with a nurse's uniform on. At first I thought they had her return to the hospital without bothering to explain it, but the next episode (4.14, "Eric's hot cousin") is about her wanting to work and eventually going back to work. Thought this might be interesting, though probably not worth putting on the wiki... but maybe someone has an explanation. Cms479 17:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think any discrepency here can be put down to kinky sex games, God Bless 'em.--Crestville 21:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Something I've noticed... a few of the early episodes of the eighth season, there Isn't a year on the license plate (where there would normally be 76, 77, etc). Any explanation?--Cms479 15:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The show stopped following a timeline as the seasons progressed. If they were following the timeline, then the second half of Season 7 and all of Season 8 would take place over the course of six days, seeing as how the Season 7 episode "Winter" takes place on December 24, 1979. - Zone46 16:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Red in World War II

"Neither character mentioned military service in WWII in earlier episodes."

Not true, it was established that Red was in WWII in the pilot episode. Red and Bob are talking about Japanese cars, and Red says "Last time I was that close to a Japanese machine, it was shooting at me." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Beavis (talk • contribs) 15:22, 10 December 2005

Also, one night when Red excelled the car rapidly, Kitty exclaimed, "You're not getting a flashback to Guadalcanal, are you? Mike H. That's hot 02:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Weasel language in "8th Season changes"

I edited the "Decline" and "Lack of continuity" sections down into the present form, the more neutral "8th Season changes". In the process I eliminated a lot of negative POV and weasel language. Please do not include language such as "Many fans feel..." or "Some fans think...". This kind of language adds nothing to the article, especially as when there are no sources to back them up. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words for some advice on how to avoid this kind of language. — EagleOne\Talk 18:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The Show is Jumping

If Fez and Jackie don't finally hook up, this show will jump the shark. It's already in shark infested waters. Put this into the article. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I feel that isn't NPOV, which is the reason I reverted it. The content that was already in the section is fact, whereas your edit was opinion. -- PS2pcGAMER 07:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Memorable Quotes

Someone recently added this section. Is there any reason to keep it as Wikiquote serves the same function? There is already a page over there for the show, so the quotes can just be moved over there IMO. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. A list of random funny quotes is not encyclopedic, unless they are so ingrained in the popular consciousness that almost everyone recognizes them. I am removing the quotes section. —Psychonaut 06:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea. Now we have to resort to IMDB quotes. --domokun

Use Wikiquote.Kundor 17:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

i would honestly like to see some content on this because it is generally accepted how the show strated to decline after grace and kutcher left.

No Mention of Marijuana and "Circles"?

In almost every episode (if not every), some of the characters get into a "circle," where it's implied that they have been smoking marijuana. As they discuss any current situations, the camera moves around the circle to whoever is speaking, and it is clear that the characters are not in full control of their faculties. Even when the parents accidentally consume Hyde's "brownies with the special ingredient," they hid in the garage and had a circle of their own.

Shouldn't something this integral to the series be mentioned? I would write it myself if I had a better understanding of the "pot culture" and time to learn all the Wikipedia conventions. Cuteswan 16:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There isn't much specific plot detail in this article. However, as far as a reoccurring event, this is quite common and should probably be mentioned, I am just not sure where. I would encourage you however to go ahead and add it and if the wiki syntax is off, someone will correct it quickly. Please don't worry about making a mistake on wikipedia as either your or someone else can fix it if necessary. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I added this:
"Signature elements of That '70s Show includes surreal dream sequences to illustrate the various characters' vivid imagination, and the 360-degree scenes, also known as the Circle. The Circle are usually used to illustrate the teens' marijuana use in Eric Formans basement. As they discuss any current situations, the camera moves around the circle to whoever is speaking." I know my English is rusty, so please correct it if it needs to be corrected. --User:Mirshafie

Time Lapse

I could have sworn this show was on before 1998. I have memories of watching it in 1996 and 1997. Mabye my memory is just giving out? Captain Jackson 01:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably just the fact that they've gone into such heavy reruns on FOX JQF 01:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


In the circle scenes when they all smoke weed, how come they never show the joint itself? Some kind of broadcasting restriction? Just curious, because in those scenes they say really stupid things and smoke rolls around so I assume they smoke grass.

"Hello Wisconsin!"

This edit changed from claiming that Hyde/Danny Masterson shouted "Hello Wisconsin!" in the theme song to claiming that Kelso/Ashton Kutcher did. According to this faq, however, it's Hyde/Danny Masterson. They might have gotten their info from wikipedia, however: does anyone have evidence? Kundor 18:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In the 1st season it was Masterson and in the 2nd thru 6th seasons it was Kutcher acording to the season 1 or 2 dvd. I don´t know about after Kutcher left anoyone else know? -Unregistered guest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.124.212 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 12 May 2006

Jumping the shark removed?

The Jumping the Shark section of this article was removed[2] because it looked like OR.

Well how, exactly, do you cite a TV show? How many books/Web sites/films document exactly what went on in a show, so that we can cite them? Does the fact that something exists only on TV make it inadmissable on Wikipedia?

Saying that "Kelso was written out of the show in Season 8" is just as good as citing a source. The fact that this could be unfaithfully documented is just as true for people citing books as sources. I can sit here and lie about something that happened in the show as easily as I could lie in a science article about something I read in a book. Besides, there are countless examples of just this kind of thing on Wikipedia with no accusations of OR: deux ex machina or M*A*S*H (TV series) for example. --Stellis 23:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Facts about characters leaving the show in such-and-such a season are different to an evaluation of whether a show "jumped the shark". — Matt Crypto 10:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Final Episode

There is no proof I've seen that Topher Grace will be in last episode. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that should be removed/editted. Marcus1060 05:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That 80's Show

How did That 70's Show last 8 seasons and That 80's Show last not even 1. Kevmicester2000 11:46, 25, May 2006 (UTC)

For a very simple reason, That 70s Show was good and That 80s Show was bad.ImmortalDragon 21:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just watched 10 episodes of that 80's show (really bad insomnia), and I liked it. A LOT. Too bad it's cancelled. Soulsenseii 17:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Longer

Couldn't of that 70's show have lasted longer if they started at the first of 1970 instead of 1976. So the question is why did they start the show so late.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevmicester2000 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 14 June 2006

I'm guessing it was to do with when the writers were 16. It already lasted too long. Plus 1970 was a very differant world.--Crestville 20:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere that it was because they wanted to add Star Wars into the show at the beginning. ImmortalDragon 03:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

the main reason is simply that when the show was first conceived, there is no way that the writers could have dreamed that it would last 8 seasons. Just look at That 80's show, it wasnt a terrible concept but the show wasnt well received and it was cancelled midway through the first season. By setting the show in 1976, it wasnt right on the tail of the 'end of the 60's.' In hindsight though, the writers probably would have set the film earlierazzytyb

Other vehicles in series

Anyone know what Red's car is? I'm thinking Toyota Corolla but I'm not quite sure. And what about Kelso's van? --Zilog Jones 01:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Red's car is certainly a Toyota. Kelso's van is, among the three makes, not a Ford Econoline. I believe it's a Chevrolet?? --Guroadrunner 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup and Expansion

I did some cleaning up on this article, but I need the help of "experts" who have followed and know the show better than I do. (I was never interested first-run, and I'm just getting caught up in reruns). Maybe we could add sections on the various relationships and jobs characters had throughout the series, or other things of that nature. - Zone46 04:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Dave Thomas Special Guest

needs a serious disambig ... Btyner 23:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Section Issue

"That patrick Farrley thing is rubbish, Topher was originally chose as the creators of the show saw him in a plya t their chil's school and decided to give him the role.*"

This seems to be a bit random and/or a bit rushed --86.135.189.219 19:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Lucas

Requesting semi-protection

Someone keeps writing about a movie without citing any sources. This has been going on for several months now and I'm tired of reverting. If anyone can semi-protect the page for a while, maybe this will stop. Unless there really is going to be a movie (fat chance), then I'll just shut up. – Zone46 23:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Who references

anybody hink there should be some mention of the numerous references to songs by The Who.one episode was called "Magic Bus" and two names they were going to go with were teenage wasteland,the name by which baba o'reily is often mistakingly called, and The Kids are alright

This is mentioned in the heading of the list of That '70s Show episodes. – Zone46 02:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


Musical License (Complete Control)

After watching numerous syndicated episodes I have found that many popular songs have been removed from the soundtrack. I suspect there was an issue involved similar to the affect experienced on WKRP. (Mchelada 22:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

Picture and audio format?

I do know the picture/audio format is varying between PAL and NTSC (480i and 576p), and stereo, respectively. Do you think its format is in SDTV or not? Starkiller88 04:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Other characters

Aren't Charlie Richardson and Samantha important enough to at least get a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.198.104 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 30 March 2006

Also, what about Donna's sisters?

Also, Eric's older brother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.96.156 (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable special guests

I've watched That 70's Show, and tho I haven't seen every episode, I don't see why this show rates this lengthy list of names, with no context. Why are they notable? Did that actor's character change a regular character significantly? Or is it just "for fun" to have the list (meaning, it's non encyclopedic and unneccessary). At the very least it ought to be formatted into several columns, because it's presently just a long long list of names to scroll past. I've commented it out for these reasons. 216.153.143.247 19:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing it started as a short list of well-known actors who did a guest spot, and over time it turned into a list of people who aren't in the main cast. I think we should get rid of it altogether. – Zone46 20:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur and have done so. 216.153.143.247 17:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That one episode...

Okay, I remember this one episode where Kelso is showing off the pictures of his baby. She apparently has his smile and his fondness for mooning the camera. They then proceed to smoke his cigars, leading to a funny circle seen where Fez remarks "I hate cigars". Anybody remember what episode that was?--Captain N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.100.223.47 (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


It was called (I Can Get No) Satisfaction, third episode of season seven. 77.193.69.68 (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Circle

The circle does not always indicate pot use, like the article indicates. Lots42 (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


The best circle was when kitty and red and bob and midge made their own circle in the basement after eating hyde's pot brownies. [1]

Song inquiries

  • Who sang the theme in the first season? It was neither Cheap Trick nor Big Star.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Calbaer (talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 December 2005

It's mentioned in the article. And no, it wasn't Shit Face.

  • In the one episode where they go skinny dipping in the resevoir and Jakcie gets sick, and the boyfriend of jackie sees her and she is so ugly, what song is playing?!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.165.114 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 7 November 2004

It's an instrumental from some Beatles song. I don't know which one.99.247.202.127 (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC) The Man knows

It might be Revolution, but don't quote me.

Running Gags

Some of the running gags stuff seems more like 'general comedy' then anything else. Lots42 (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

None At All?

No talk of a movie? "That '70s Movie" sounds good for the title(NPOV). But there is no talks of a movie for the show?

Bonnie and Terry Turner have expressed interest in doing a movie, but many of the shows cast members have decided not to return, according to interviews discussing the subject. The show's ex-producers have stated that if there is a movie, it will not be begun for a long time. Just look for the interviews on Youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Grounded for Life

Does anyone know how many 70's show stars appeared in GFL and the oppoisite i seam to remember reading some where that there was alot because that studios were near each other, is this true and should it be added? the watertower is the same in both shows, and doesnt almost everyone fall off it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.177.41.4 (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Grounded For Life?

Donna's Sister

What ever happened to Donna's 14 year old sister, Tina? She was in an episode in 1998, but was never seen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skilletfan92 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It mentions that in Donna's article. Also, what happened to her sister Valerie, who was away at college? They both fazed out of the series, and Donna became an only child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.202.127 (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Guest Stars

What about a section dedicated to the many varied notable guest stars that have appeared over the years. trezjr (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hell yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

To trezjr and the anon- there used to be a list of every last one actor and actress who ever made a guest appearance on the show...and that has since been removed as listcruft. I'd certainly insist against another such list being created. --Eaglestorm (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Importance

How is it a show as large and well-known as this is only Mid-important whereas other shows like "Zoey 101" is listed as Important? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Languageleon (talk • contribs) 04:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This show should be listed as important. Next to Friends, its the sitcom with the most well-detailed and numerous articles. And no offense, but Zoey 101 sucks. Big time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Dream Sequences

In the article it says 'In early dream sequences, the characters who were dreamt of were talking with voices of those who were imagining the scene...This was soon phased out.' I've just watched one of the episodes from season 4 (Forgotten Son), where Eric does the voices as he imagines Donna and Kitty talking about him when they're hanging out together. I'm not sure how late this goes on, but I wouldn't call season 4 'soon phased out'. WiggleWaggle (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be rephrased to say that it was used less regularily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, same thing Kitty did when she dreamt that she left and Eric's friends were tearing up the house while they tied up Eric. All of them had her voice. I don't know what season this was, but I guess it's mid-late or later. I'd say seasons 4,5 or 6. 68.39.79.161 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

Samantha Hyde Article

I think that, since many minor characters have articles (such as Bernice Forman or Burt Sigurdson), that Samantha Hyde should have one. There is a lot of information about her that could be used in the article. Does anybody agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellcraft11 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Bernice Forman was in a grand total of three episodes. And she has her own article. Samantha Hyde was in nine episodes, and was a major part of the series. Like, "No" is an acceptable answer if you can give a reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because Bernice Forman has an article, doesn't mean that Samantha Hyde should have one. Bernice Forman probably should not have an article. Remember, it's about notable information that is well sourced to reliable sources. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, fine. But at the very least remove the articles for Bernice Forman and the Sigurdsons. Seriously, Samantha Hyde meets the notability guide. Think about this (I'm naming reasons why she is notable): She was the first woman to marry Hyde. Since she was married to Hyde, he and Jackie could not be together and she ended up with Fez. Since Fez was with Jackie, Caroline appeared more than once. She was responsible for Kitty changing her hair.
She was a major part of the eighth season. She at least needs an section on Hyde's article, like Bob and Midge.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

International channel listings

Over the past few months, I've seen the list of international broadcasters change from a paragraph form to chart form. Given the multiple number of channels by some of the countries airing the show, can't we just bunch one country's channels into a single entry each? I'm looking at the listings for Israel, Thailand, and that big one from Canada as examples. I think that would be better than how the UK and France listings were done. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"citation needed" tag still needed?

By my count, there is exactly ONE cite tag in this entire article...yes, we need someone to back up the fact that Ashton Kutcher took the "stupid helmet" with him. But that's the only call for a cite that I can see. Every thing else seems well documented or does not need a citation because it's common knowledge (i.e. - the ridiculously unnecessary "scene transition" section that I am very seriously removing for notability...that doesn't need documentation.) Someone tagged this entire article for inline cites but I really don't understand where they are needed. I will wait my obligatory two weeks for someone to respond before I remove the tag. One cite request does not call for an article tag. Either make your inline requests or take off the tag. Thanks.ocrasaroon (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  • First of all, you need to calm down. Second, just because one spot has the {{fact}} tag doesn't necessarily mean that's the only place where a citation is needed; in this case, it appears to be the only place anyone bothered to place a tag. And if you looked at the article as a whole, you'll notice that much of it is unsourced. Take the back-to-back sections Elements of the show, Timeline, and British remake, for example. None of those sections have any sources. In fact, most of the sources in the article at all are about TV listings and Nielsen ratings. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Is This True?

According to the That '70s Show article:

"That '70s Show is scheduled to make a comeback on August 18th, 2010. The comeback will include all of the original cast. With the exception of Midge (Donna's mother). The show will be much different. Each member of the group has grown up quite alot. Donna and Eric had a son which they named Bobbaganeush Forman. Michael Kelso and Brooke get married after having their child. Jackie and Steven are married. And Fez, well he is still Fez."

This is a pretty bold claim for having no references. I would like to know if this is really true or not. If it's not, it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackerni888 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Anything about the show coming back is fake and will be unless it comes straight from the creators/Fox. Its highly doubtful since the actors that played Kelso, Eric, and Donna all moved on to other things. The show including only half of the original main cast would not make much of a show.76.175.186.16 (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

theme

the section about who yells "hello wisconsin" is a complete mess. trying to decipher the meaning of that section is impossible. also, who cares what key the song is played in and what the authors opinion about who sounds like someone else is? i'm going to try to fix it without changing the meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellcraft11 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

For all you know, someone does care about that information. Musicians trying to figure out how to play the song would need to know what key it was in. And I fail to see how any of that information being in the article somehow makes it less of a good article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.40.74 (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Um if you do not care/ why are you writing about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.175.176 (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Who Says "Hello Wisconsin!" ???

Anonymous editors have been messing around with the information in the Theme song section of the article, continuing an argument about who yells "Hello Wisconsin!" at the end of the song. This has already been discussed on this talk page, indicating that it's a controversy among fans, I extracted the following comment from the code within the article:

"<--ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE (http://web.archive.org/web/20080206041554/http://www.that70sshow.com/index_faq.htm), IT IS HYDE WHO YELLS "HELLO WISCONSIN", NOT KELSO OR ERIC.-->"

I can't figure out who left that comment within the code. Regardless, can anyone confirm that the web page cited qualifies as verifiable under Wikipedia standards? Or can anyone find a truly reliable source? The consensus among fans appears to be that Danny Masterson did it in the first season, followed by Robin Zander of Cheap Trick who did the version of the theme song they started using in the second season. But most of the potential online sites saying anything about this appear to be non-verifiable fan sites. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Donna's Sister

I thought that it might be worth mentioning the disappearance of Donna's sister who I believe only appeared in one episode. After that there was no reference to her other than a mock soap opera "next time on..." preview mentioning, "what happened to Midge's daughter..." Voodoowitchdr (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles about individual episodes

A lot of popular T.V. shows have individual articles about their episodes like The Simpsons, South Park, American Dad, Family Guy, and even The Cleveland Show. Why cant That 70's Show have its own individual episode articles? We should start a that 70's show wikiproject. I would definitely be interested in that... would anyone else be as well? Zonafan39 (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Each episode needs to be notable to have its own article. While the shows you mentioned (at least the first four, I don't know about the last) have articles on all of the episodes, they also have lots and lots of reliable sources to establish notability. Just because the episode exists, that doesn't mean it is notable. If all the article consists of is the plot, then it shouldn't be an article. If the article can't establish notability, it'll eventually be redirected or deleted. --132 22:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

My Favorite Show

This is, without a doubt, the best television show ever. Please comment with your opinions!Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.175.176 (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger, but this not the place for this. Try looking for an online forum. Voodoowitchdr (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


Is there really going to be a '70s Show movie in '12 or '13? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.88.178 (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cast Biographies

Why are there cast biographies on this page when each character already has their own page. It is simply repetition. I'm reverting it, if anyone has any reasoning behind why it is important, let me know. Wikiguy09 (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not repetition. The brief bios on the main page are summaries of the very extended descriptions on the individual pages. The summaries should stay. I'm not going to revert your change reverting Marcus Qwertyus's reversion of your change. I'll leave that to Marcus.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Instead of complicating the page, why not just put a note stating "For full biographies of the Cast, see their pages". Or something similiar and more official. Just a thought.Wikiguy09 (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The fact that each cast member is clearly a link already indicates there's a full page on the character. I also don't think the summaries "complicate" the page. I realize there's some overlap in having summaries, but it's fairly common in Wikipedia to have summaries in one spot and more full-blown descriptions elsewhere. Frankly, the page looks naked at the moment without the summaries.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I hate to disagree, but where you see naked, I see simplified and uncluttered. Again, I believe adding a note will suffice.Wikiguy09 (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It could do with a little summarizing but blanking is excessive. Marcus Qwertyus 17:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I reinserted the descriptions but at the same time reduced them quite a bit. Hopefully, that's a good compromise. Wikiguy09, please don't revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe it looks not as bad anymore, I won't revert it. However I might make some changes here and there. For instance, Hyde's summary isn't very well said: it says nothing about him being taken in by the Forman's etc. I might make small small changes to each to try and improve each one, tell me what you think, and let me know if you believe changes need to be made.Wikiguy09 (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with your making improvements to the descriptions. It was a lot of work paring it down, and I did it fairly quickly. I'm sure there's room for improvement.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I think they turned out to be short and sweet, and give just enough information for each character. Good job! I'll look them over a little more, but they are good.Wikiguy09 (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Tanya Roberts not part of the 70s

I don't know why this was brought up in the article. Tanya Roberts was not on Charlie's Angels in the 70s. She didn't show up until the 80s, so she doesn't count. Just because Charlie's Angels started in the 70s doesn't mean every cast member was on the show in the 70s. I'm removing her name from the list of 70s TV show personalities. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Running Gag Subsection

An editor added a subsection under show elements called running gag. It involves Red's constant threats to kick Eric's ass. Putting aside for the moment how the subsection is written, is it a good idea to have it? I lean in favor of it, but I didn't want to reword it until I asked others for their comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No comments, so I'm rewording.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be more mention of Red's infamous "foot in your ass" lines? Those seem to be more prevelent and iconic than the "kicking ass" lines.Wikiguy09 (talk)
I've had some second thoughts about this subsection and possible sourcing and copyright issues (WP:COPYLINKS). I've removed the sources I added for the kick ass episodes because the website is probably violating the copyrights of the show's writers (or their assignees). That still leaves the issue of how do I know what anyone says in any particular episode, which is a broader problem running throughout the entire article, arguably violating WP:OR. I'm discussing these issues with a more senior editor, and I may bring it up in a broader forum.
In the same vein, Wikiguy, I've removed the one sentence you added about why the creators didn't reveal Fez's country of origin. You can add it back in if you can find a reliable source for it. It's one thing for us to discuss the content of the episodes (although that's arguably a policy violation, it's done routinely in movie plots, for example), but it's another thing for us to say what the creators think without any source.
Finally, as for your suggestion about "foot in your ass" lines, I agree that's an expression Red uses frequently. You can add it, preferably if you can find an episode that uses it, but one example should be sufficient, and keep it tasteful, please. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I actually took that from Fez's article. That might have been a mistake knowing there was no source (as far as I know)..but I'll have to watch the show soon, Red does say it quite frequently so it shouldn't be too hard to find an episode.

I also have another suggestion. I think it may simplify relationships between the characters. On each individual page, perhaps we should create a subsection for each character said character has a relationship with? For example, on Hyde's page there would be "Relationship with Eric Forman" "Relationship with Donna P" "Relationship with Red and Kitty Forman" "Relationship with Kelso" etc etc. My only worry would be that it might look like it's crowding the page. So perhaps a "Relationship with members of the group" and "Relationships with adults" would suffice? I'm not sure how to go about this, but it seems each character is lacking the connection to each other on their pages since they were such close friends. Let me knowWikiguy09 (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I understand. Do you mean on each character article (as opposed to the main article about the show)? I didn't look at every one of them, but it looks like at least some already have sections on relationships. Anyway, if that's what you mean, why don't you look at what's already on those pages and let us know what you think. If my understanding is wrong, please explain it to me. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, each page has some relationship info. (for instance, in Hyde's page it talks about his relationship with Eric and Jackie. No info on his relationships with the other teenagers.) All of the individual pages lack the information of the friendships or relationships between EVERYONE on the show. So what I'm trying to convey is that under each individual page (not the main page) perhaps there should be a section (or subsection) called "Relationships with members of the group", and "Relationships with adults", or something similiar. I just feel like the individual pages talk about relationships with certain people, but not everyone of the group, which is not good because the show was based around these 6 teenage friends (and their parents in some instances). Does this make sense? Wikiguy09 (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe each individual character page could just have a section on relationships, and you could put in all the notable information about that character's relationships with the other characters. Why don't you try one like that and see how it goes? Don't forget, despite your enthusiasm to add value to these articles, which is great, we don't want to drown in detail.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The running gag sections need to go they are unencyclopedic and totally unreferenced. It's fan site original research. In fact this article pretty much needs a total rewrite.

Disagee with whoever wrote the above comment. Most of the material is referenced from the episodes themselves.
To Bbb23, I will get around to making the relationships on Hyde's page soon as an example. I can't guarentee it will be perfect...but I'll try to source everything the best I can. It's hard to reference episodes since there are so many, so maybe I could get some help with that. We'll work on it.Wikiguy09 (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
If you have the DVDs of the show, that would be best because then you can use the cite episode template and actually source precisely where in a particular episode something happens or someone says something. Seeing reruns on TV helps but it doesn't have the same power as being able to use the timings in the template.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
watching the episodes and then coming here and writing your own commentary on them is practically the definition of Original Research. I'm removing the section until you can write a properly sourced version since you have just admired you basically made this all up on your own. 70.119.247.185 (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with using the a fictious work as the source. See Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Works_of_fiction. I'm going to revert your massive blankings. If you do it again, I'll seek protection for the article or a block of your address or both.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes there is and a prertty major problem from WP:WAF [3]
Presenting fictional material from the original work is fine, provided passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research., This entire section clearly crosses the line into interpretation and sites no sources hence it is being removed until proper sourcing is provided. Also back off the threats. Have it protected, this is a content dispute, if you want to escalate it I recommend asking for a thrid opion first. 70.119.247.185 (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
First of, I did not write this whole article-not even close. I make small changes and try to work with people on here to get them done. Secondly, how is it fictional if many concepts come from the show themselves? I realize it's a fictional show, but that's what the article is on...a fictional show. What concrete sources do you recommend for this article? We could find every single concept such as the "running gags" sourced online, but sourcing the episodes themselves (as long as we pick facts from opinions) doesn't hurt the article whatsoever. There's your third opinion.Wikiguy09 (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Wisconsin!, part 345 (and when the show ended)

The controversy about who yelled "Hello, Wisconsin!" in the first season's opening credits has reared its ugly head again. I have reverted an (IP) edit by someone who changed it from Danny Masterson to Ashton Kutcher without citing any references. The talk page archive mentions this link, which states that it was Masterson. However, the article doesn't cite that page as a reference and I'm not quite sure if an archive of a now defunct website can be considered a reliable source. Does anyone known of a reliable source for this? To be honest, when listening to it I too get the idea that it's Kutcher rather than Masterson, but then again my ears are by no stretch of the imagination a reliable source ;-)

On another note: I couldn't help but notice that people keep changing the date the show ended from 31 december 1979 to 1 january 1980 and back. I've seen the final episode a couple of times and the show itself seems to end one second before midnight (so I think the correct answer is 31 december 1979), but I think it would be a good idea to try and reach consensus about this. Anyone have any thoughts (or better: references)? Skysmurf (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As for the opening theme song, I have no opinion and no reference. I've listened to it but am not good enough to tell whose voice it is. Frankly, I'm not sure I much care. We could change the article to say that one of the characters screams it and then move on. I did find a very funny old web forum (I think from 2002-03) where everyone is discussing whose voice it is and no one can prove anything. Cute.
As for the 1979-1980 controversy, it should remain 12/31/79. The show ends one second before midnight. The only basis for saying it continues into 1980 is the tag/image afterwards that says, I think, That '80s Show. I don't think that counts (if you'll pardon the pun).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Very well, the ending date should stay as it is unless someone comes up with a very good source that says otherwise. In the meantime, I'll try to find something on the Hello Wisconsin thing. Skysmurf (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Massive blanking

@70.119.247.185:

You seem willing to discuss things, so I'll have a crack at it.

  • For starters, I'm sure you'll agree that you've been making a massive edit. We're not talking typo fixes or other such small things, this amount of blanking really is a significantly big deal.
  • I'm not directly accusing you of vandalism (nor acquitting, for that matter) because that's a harsh accusation that I try not to toss around too carelessly. I'm willing to assume that you're acting in good faith.
  • Having said that, your edit has been reverted on three occasions, each by a different editor. That doesn't necessarily mean they are "right" and you are "wrong" (whatever right and wrong mean), but I honestly think that it should at least make you wonder if what you're doing really is such a good idea and that perhaps treading lightly is advisable. Just a thought...
  • The second part of this edit summary has me worried. One of the main ideas behind the 3RR rule is to encourage people to step back, take a breath, possibly sober up a bit (this applies to football-related articles particularly, I've come to discover), sleep on things for a night and then try to reach consensus (known as the bold, revert, discuss cycle). Your remark appears indicative of preconception and a determination to "win the argument", no matter what. I sure hope that's not the case...
  • I agree that this article is not without flaws. However, there's a difference between a) expressing concern, b) getting off your ass and fixing it yourself and c) rigorously deleting large chunks of other people's sincere efforts. I regret that you've chosen the latter.
  • I agree that this article as a whole is poorly sourced. However, I like to think that the Refimprove tag at the top of the page means "this article needs fixing" rather than "feel free to delete large portions of this article at will".
  • I also agree that parts of this article come across as the work of fans. However, isn't that how Wikipedia works? People add stuff that may not comply with Wikipedia guidelines but then others go to work on fixing it. Again, I like to think that fixing is preferable to simply deleting large parts of well-intentioned contributions. If you have the time, you might want to check out early revisions of the Jeff Dunham article. It was poorly written, clearly by a fan, but since then others have stepped up and improved it significantly. You may mean well, but in my opinion you're not actually helping.
  • One problem with the sourcing issue is that there aren't a whole lot of reliable sources to cite from. However, because That '70s Show is a work of fiction, it is (within reason) an acceptable source in and by itself. That doesn't change the fact that the article is poorly referenced, but it is verifiable and not by default original research. In fact, things that are clearly OR are generally quickly reverted, as can be seen in the edit logs.
  • As stated above, I am not denying that this article needs work. And I do intend to give it a good once-over, but these improvements can't be made overnight. I'm not like that comic book store geek from The Simpsons. I have an academic career and there are more activities I like to pursue in my spare time than just sitting in front of the TV watching That '70s Show over and over again.

To summarize: we are aware of your concerns and intend to fix them (as far as they are justified, anyway). But simply deleting large portions of the article isn't exactly helping. In fact, the best way of helping is by, ehm, actually helping.

Regards, Skysmurf (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Skysmurf has done an excellent job summarizing the strengths and weaknesses of the article, not just with respect to the excessive blanking by 70.119.247.185, but with respect to improving the article going forward. Fans of TV shows, movies, actors, etc. often add tremendous value to a WP article, but fans can also get carried away. To the extent possible, we need to source what we say and make sure it's notable, meaning important to the show, not just to a single fan or a group of fans. Also, as Skysmurf correctly notes, it's not always easy to find sources, particularly for a show that is no longer in production. For example, the show's official website has disappeared, it's less likely anyone is going to discuss it in the media, and memories of what happened years ago are often flawed. So, there's nothing wrong with adding more information to the article, but perhaps a better focus would be to hone what's already there. There's also nothing wrong with stating what we actually see on the show. The show is an acceptable source, although anyone who has DVDs and can use the episode template, that would be helpful, although contrary to what 70.119.247.185 believes, not required. Like Skysmurf, I and no doubt others, have a professional life that doesn't necessarily permit me to watch the show over and over to be able to memorialize what I see in the article. So everyone has to pitch in as best they can.
That doesn't mean that the article doesn't occasionally cross the line into interpretation. Although benign, commonsense interpretation may be acceptable, anytime we interpret, we arguably inject our own views. To highlight one example, here is the paragraph on Split Screens:

One common device in the show is to depict a split screen in which two pairs of characters speak. One character is usually seeking advice on a problem with a character in the second pairing, and the other character advises them. The humor in such scenes stems from the conversations mirroring each other but coming to entirely different conclusions. It is most often used for the couples of the show, with each member of the couple being advised on the relationship in a different fashion. For example, Donna and Eric consult Jackie and Kelso for advice on attending a drive-in; as the scene closes, Kelso offers to accompany them, but Eric rejects the idea, while Donna asks Jackie to accompany them, and Jackie agrees. The split screens were rarely used in the later seasons of the series.

Each sentence in the paragraph is a statement of fact except the sentence that begins with "The humor ..." But that sentence could be worded differently to avoid an interpretative conclusion: "Although the conversations appear to mirror each other, the device ends as the characters come to entirely different conclusions." We don't say it's funny, even though it is, we just say what happens. I'm not sure how others feel, but that kind of change would probably be an improvement and leave the article less susceptible to criticism.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I think Bbb23 is on the right track re: the split screen suggestion. That is a good example of the kind of improvement I was referring to.
To reiterate, I understand 70.119.247.185's concerns, but I think that making improvements, or even placing an {{Original research}} notice if really deemed necessary, are preferable to simply blanking large amounts of text. Obviously the rules are more strict in case of a biography of a living person, but that doesn't apply here.
Skysmurf (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Great job summarizing what we are trying to do here you two: I couldn't agree more. 70.119.247.185, I hope you understand that we aren't "ganging up" on you. We are simply just fans trying to get reliable information on the article out there. Sometimes it takes a long time for an article to really convey everything in a correct, helpful manner. However, I think deleting the entire article itself causes much more room for errors that were probably fixed in the past. If you really belive that they article has many mistakes in it, try your best to make it better! Talk about issues you have with it on here, and we can work together to solve them. Don't just delete everyone's hard work. Wikiguy09 (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Infoxbox (format and genre)

An editor just changed the format parameter in the infobox from sitcom to period sitcom. I can understand why you would want to call the show a period piece because it takes place in a particular period, the 70s. But I'm confused as to what should go in the infobox. I'm not even sure what the parameter "format" means, and the template itself is of little help. But it sounds to me like sitcom or period sitcom is the genre (in which case we should add the genre parameter to the infobox), not the format. If so, what is the format? I tried to find somewhere in the television project to ask this question, but they don't seem to have a place to post questions. Any thoughts on any of this?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A check of various articles makes me think this would be a very good question to ask at Template talk:Infobox television. Format and genre seem to be misunderstood widely. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks much for the suggestion. I also looked at more articles, and I think I have a better handle on genre (and I've changed the parameter in the article to genre), but I still don't really understand format. In any event, I've posted the question to the template Talk page. Let's see what responses, if any, I get.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

8th Season and series finale citations

Added some citations on the reasons for Grace and Kutcher departures. Also I reworded Kutcher's departure since claims were unsubstantiated. If they were true, they can be added back with supporting references, until then they should be removed. I also added a citation on the reason Meyers was brought to the show, but left the citation needed on that one. It's hard because Googling the dislike of his character provides many results on how fans disliked him, but the problem is how do you cite those? Most are not what we'd call reliable sources but they still reflect fandom dislike, which is the point the article makes. Anyway, because of this I left it because I didn't know how else to handle it. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your changes - much better. I'll look at the source issue more closely when I have a moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Fez's best friend

Just a small thing, but in the article it says: "His (Fez) best friend is Kelso, and he shares a "younger brother" type relationship with Hyde and Eric". I agree after watching the whole series that he has a best relationship with Kelso, but Fez claims in the season 7 finale before Eric is leaving that he is his best friend and I believe that he never says that Kelso is his best friend. Vitual (talk) 04:36, 17 september 2010 (UTC+01:00)

I've never liked the "best friend" language generally. Part of the problem is that Fez says all sorts of things at different times, so it's hard to rely principally on his statements. However, his conduct and his statements seem to bear out that he has a special relationship with Kelso, but not with any of the other males. Frankly, I'm not sure what's best to do with the description.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Character list

Mg14 created a new article with a list of all of the show's characters. As far as I can tell, he copied and pasted the list from the main article into the new article. He then put a pointer to the new article in the Characters section in the main article and eliminated completely the list in the main article. I'm not sure how I feel about having a separate article. However, we can't leave the main article without any discussion of the characters. Normally, the main article would have a description of each character and, if appropriate, a separate article might have a fuller description, but Mg14's method would require the reader to bounce back and forth.

I'm going to revert the changes and ask that Mg14's idea and implementation be discussed and some consensus be reached as to what is best.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I clicked on their names in the main article and it brought right back to the same page. Is it supposed to do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonymousFriend80 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, since there is no article for Bob, Midge and Leo. It looks like there used to be but was either merged or redirected back to the "That '70s Show" article. Bhall87Four Scoreand Seven 23:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Current disruptive edits

Since we've been seeing relatively many edits recently that either change the end date of the show or insert unverifiable claims about who's yelling Hello Wisconsin, and apparently the HTML comments don't seem to deter people from still making these edits, I was thinking that perhaps an edit notice for this page is in order.

I don't have a whole lot of inspiration right now, but I did manage to conjure up a draft, which can be found here. Feel free to voice any comments (or objections) - because edit notices in article space have to be added by an admin I didn't want to make such a request unilaterally. --Skysmurf (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. These terrible people need to be stopped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.16.11 (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-neutral point of view and other changes

  • Eric is a nice guy, generally geeky, physically slight, and somewhat clumsy. He is a smart-aleck with a fast wit and a deadpan sense of humor. from watching the series I know this may be true but it could be worded differently to fit a neutral point of view in.
  • His father, Red, is always hard on him this is not only lacking a npov, it is incorrect.
  • The youngest member of the group, Jackie starts the series as the pretty, rich, spoiled, selfish, conceited, and annoying immature girl., Excuse me, this could be reworded to "At the start of the series, Jackie has certain unlikeable traits", not only shortens it but gives it a more npov.
  • As the series progresses, she strays from her self-centered ways and becomes sweeter. My be it could be reworded to she strays from her self-centered ways and begins to get a more likeable personality.
  • Although rebellious, he is also smart, and the other group members often ask for his advice. whoa, calling a person smart is always non-neutral.
  • Donna is intelligent, good-looking, and a feminist. not neutral at all.
  • Although she doesn't agree with what Jackie stands for in the beginning of the series, they soon become good friends., Please remove the good.
  • He is sweet, friendly, perverted, gullible, and rather odd., Not neutral at all.
  • Initially, he has a lot of trouble getting attention from girls but during the eighth season he becomes a ladies' man. Could be reworded, particularly with the end.
  • Eric's beautiful but evil older sister., Non-neutral
  • She also has a strained relationship with her mother who thinks of her as a free-loader., Lets try, She also has a strained relationship with her mother.
  • She is also a good mother figure to Eric's friends., Should just remove that all-together.
  • Despite his mean exterior, to Despite his tough exterior,
  • , she is also a kind-hearted woman who develops feminist ideals., That is opinion, not fact.
  • Bob is almost always in a good mood and is a ladies' man., This is also opinion.
  • He disappears from the series after season four but is later referenced in season five's "The Battle of Evermore" when the gang goes on a mission to find him, but with no luck., try group.

I may came back with more, but my computer is on the blink and I just wanted to get this save before it restarts again.—Croisés Majestic (sur nous mars) 18:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the emphasis on marijuana use in The Circle section is distracting. I'm open to ideas on how to handle it. Split into what?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Marijuana use maybe?—Croisés Majestic (sur nous mars) 19:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
That means adding yet another so-called "element". I wish the article didn't tell the story of the show through the elements section. There should really be some sort of Summary or Premise or Plot section. That would give us more flexibility if we wanted to add material, or in this instance move material.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
We could eliminate all the sections, and make the main section header Plot. —Croisés Majestic (sur nous mars) 19:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd probably want to keep at least some as subsections. Do you know if there's any standard practice at Wikipedia for this sort of thing? I've never looked. The articles I happen to know don't seem to follow any set style, unfortunately. A standard framework would be nice.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You're welcome to edit for better wording, but if you challenge the opinions of the editors who've added descriptions that arguably fit the characters, you open up a can of worms. Frankly, I don't know what the policy is on this sort of thing (TV character descriptions), but many of these characters have their own standalone articles with descriptions that are more detailed and probably more objectionable to you as "opinion" than the brief descriptions in the show article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
@Croisés Majestic: When you first tagged the article I couldn't see why and removed the tag because you didn't specify anything here. Now that you have, thanks for mentioning these points of attention. We'll look into it and you are of course more than welcome to help. You've made some good points.
@Bbb23: I think we should start with reading WP:MOS:TV.
--Skysmurf (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Great, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Forgotten Character?

In the fifth episode of the first season, titled "Eric's Burger Job", Donna was noted for having a younger sister named Tina, played by Amanda Fuller. This was the only episode throughout the entire series that she is shown, although she was mentioned at the end of an episode of season two. I had thought about adding it to this article because it is not listed. But I decided to check here first to see if this is okay to do. User Aidensdaddy2k9 18:46 8/19/11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice of you to ask. I don't think it's important enough to mention.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Mentioning it somewhere in the article about Donna is ok (and currently done), but one appearance and one mention in 200 episodes are in my opinion nowhere near enough to justify mentioning Tina as a character on the show as a whole. --SkysmurfTalkContribs 02:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I'm glad I checked here first before just posting it. And I can definitely see your point of view, Skysmurf, and agree with it completely. If she was already mentioned under the character Donna, I must have missed it before. User Aidensdaddy2k9 00:11 8/21/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The Circle

Under the The Circle heading it goes:

Also, there were no visible drug-related paraphernalia like water pipes or cigarette papers.

Just a note, in "Cat Fight Club" - the 25th episode of the second season - in the last two minutes; after Jackie and Laurie's catfight, Jackie asks everyone if they could form a circle. You can clearly see Eric Forman lighting something with a lighter. Carl Francis (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This issue has been going on for some time now. I'll try to watch that particular episode. To be continued. -- Skysmurf  (Talk) 13:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I just checked and he's lighting an incense stick. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hyde has been seen lighting incense sticks, as a 13-year-old in 'Reefer Madness' and as an adult in 'Baby Fever' episodes.120.28.250.23 (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Latest edit about inspiration

I have taken the liberty of moving the remark about Point Place being (alledgedly) based on a NY area to a separate subsection of "Elements of the Show". I also added two tags, as the statement is unsourced and the section is quite short as it is.

If it stays as it is now, it should probably be removed altogether, but for the time being this seemed like the best alternative. -- Skysmurf  (Talk) 05:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the material. There's no basis for adding unsourced information to the article, even with a tag. If the editor who added the material can find reliable sources to back it up, they can add it at that time, assuming it's done in an encyclopedic manner and it's sufficiently relevant to warrant inclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I already mentioned that it's subject to deletion if not sourced and/or expanded, I just figured I'd keep it around for the editor in question to do just that (the don't bite the newbies thing). But (s)he hasn't been back yet, so it looks like you made the right call.  Skysmurf  (Talk) 18:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

International broadcasts

Just wondering: do we really need this entire list? For one thing it's in constant flux, second most of it is unsourced and third I haven't seen a whole lot of articles about other shows that have such a list. I'm not sure if there's a formal "Wikipedia is not a TV guide" policy, but I'm inclined to say it might be better to replace it with a short section containing a rough estimate of the number of countries that aired and/or are airing the show.  Skysmurf  (Talk) 18:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

MOS:TV does support inclusion of an international broadcast section, but not in the format used in this article which is, unfortunately, far too common. I've pruned some of these lists considerably but they're always problematic and the MOS recommends prose anyway. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that was informative. I will read the MOS more carefully but at the moment I think the list as we have it now ought to be replaced by something more appropriate (and maintainable). I sometimes think this particular section is a TV guide rather than anything else. Do you have any examples of how what such an International Broadcast section should look like?  Skysmurf  (Talk) 22:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you that it looks like a TV guide. I also believe that we should require sourcing for each assertion. That will eliminate a lot.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
The table at Two and a Half Men was a mess.[4] Even though the section had been tagged as needing citations for 11 months, no attempt had been made to source any of it, even after I added a "Sources" column and tagged each entry. The current version is completely sourced,[5] although people still keep adding unsourced content despite notes in the table saying that unsourced additions will be reverted. It won't hurt to be brutal in editing the section here. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I almost forgot about this, but Bbb23's edit which added {{Unreferenced section}} reminded me again. Probably some time this weekend I will tackle the International Broadcasts section along the lines of what AussieLegend suggested above. -- Skysmurf  (Talk) 05:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Skysmurf, thanks for your hard work. One thought. Do we really need a column for the references? Couldn't we just put any cites right after the country in the leftmost column? And if you (and others) think a sources column is better, then it shouldn't be sortable.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My experience at other articles has been that, for reasons that escape me, people adding content to the tables seem completely oblivious to the requirement to add sources. The section heading template is never respected and, despite other entries having sources, they are often omitted from new additions, especially if the entry is for Turkey (an especially problematic country). Still, a separate column for sources makes the requirement obvious, so it's a lot easier to identify unsourced additions. You're correct that the column shouldn't be sortable. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. As for the references column, I'm inclined to agree with AussieLegend: such a column might make it easier to spot unsourced entries. You're both right about the sortability, it doesn't make a lot of sense. The old table was already sortable, which probably explains why it managed to evade my attention. -- Skysmurf  (Talk) 08:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
If both of you believe the reference column is helpful, I'm okay with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

When are we going to start removing the unsourced entries?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I added the individual {{citation needed}} tags on 5 February.[6] A month seems sufficient time for sourcing so whatever is unsourced on 5 March should be removed. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Sounds fair, thanks for responding.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I verified a couple more countries and can do a few more before monday and before running out of languages. -- Skysmurf  (Talk) 15:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 Done

Thanks so much for all your hard work.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Bob and Midge

Somebody merged a lengthy section on Bob and Midge from a seperate article into this one. Any thoughts on how to deal with that?

  • I'm not happy with the placement: there's now a "Characters" section describing only Bob and Midge, as if they were the leads.
  • The other regular characters only have shorter descriptions and their own articles. Perhaps those articles could be merged into a new common "That '70s Show Characters" article or something, but the way it is now, much undue weight is given to Bob and Midge.
  • The section repeats much of what is already said in the "Cast" section.

All in all, nobody discussed this merge (not here, at least) and I think it's a pretty bad idea. -- Skysmurf  (Talk) 15:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't find anywhere it's been discussed, either. There was an article on Bob and Midge (don't ask me why). There was a template on that article saying a merger was proposed in 2009 and discussed here. I looked back at the only archive for this Talk page, and I didn't see anything except an offhand allusion to it in 2011 (not a discussion). The content is clearly unacceptable in this article - there's no basis to give that much space to those two characters. I've reverted the material and pointed whomever here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Twelve months ago all of the character information was deleted from here,[7] List of That '70s Show characters was created,[8] and articles like Midge and Bob Pinciotti were redirected. It was all reverted but no discussion ensued. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Broadcast in Serbia in the early 2000s

Regarding the 'International broadcasts of U.S. version' list for the series in the main article -- editors should most certainly add Serbia in that list, as the series was first aired in Serbia on one of the nation-wide TV stations called B92 beginning in early 2000's (not sure when exactly - maybe 2003. but don't take my word for it). The series was subtitled and the translated title of the series in Serbian was "Vesele 70-e" ("Jolly '70s"). It gained a fairly large amount of popularity in the audience -- both younger and old (in that regard I recall one, you may say, anecdotal event from my personal experience: back in the summer of something like 2005/2006. while riding on a bus I've overheard some older lady who was commenting on what some eighteen-year-old-looking folks were chatting about on their day out to town - the lady had fond memories of 1970's (particularly recollecting the fashion of the time) and in that regard mentioned and recommended this series she recently watched although she couldn't remember the exact title, to which they replied in their jolly mood that the series was filmed recently (not in the 1970's) and that the actors in the series are not much older than they were right then). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.203.193 (talk) 8:19 am, Today (UTC+11)

Addition requires a citation from a reliable source. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Reliable sources: only some rag-tag information can be traced on the internet (partial information doesn't mean it's unreliable mind you) - for example: on the OFFICIAL site for the show http://www.that70sshow.com/ under 'Global audience' section there is an alphabetical list of countries (with national flags) - the last one listed being Yugoslavia (former state consisting of Serbia and Montenegro which dissolved in 2003.) - that implies that the series was first broadcast on B92 television station (in Serbia) prior or around that time - there is an article on B92 official site announcing the series http://www.b92.net/tv/najava.php?id=495 ... and official B92 forum announcing the fifth season of the show for December 10th, 2004.: http://forum.b92.net/topic/16093-vesele-70-te/ . For more information contact B92 TV: http://www.b92.net/eng/contact.php

Vista Cruiser

Wilmer Valderrama's interview on Access Hollywood where he mentions that he bought the Vista Cruiser for no more than $500: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IPM_CMRQko&t=229s Mofoq (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirect all That '70s Show character pages to this page

None of the character pages have sources and several have {{Refimprove}} dating back to 2009 and it is 2013. So if no one objects i would like to redirect all that 70s show characters to this page? 184.58.24.163 (talk) 07:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC) - Redirect

There have been numerous AfDs concerning character articles similar to these and there is rarely a consensus to delete or redirect articles where the subject is a main character in a notable TV program. It's generally far more productive to attempt to establish real-world notability. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
If notability cannot be established than the pages need to be redirected. Only Michael Kelso has reasonable references (beyond the show itself, which does not establish notability at all). These pages have been tagged with notability concerns for over a year and no progress has been made, it's time to redirect them all (except Michael Kelso) --RadioFan (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I've used these very arguments myself at AfDs but the community disagrees. Wikipedia is not working to a deadline. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Deadline is not the point. Laurie Forman was already redirected and if Michael Kelso is the only decent one then I agree with RadioFan we need to redirect them. 184.58.24.163 (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
So far it is two for redirect and one against. If no one else comments within the next few days it will be considered consensus and remaining page, Red Forman, will be reverted to this page. 184.58.24.163 (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
We don't form WP:CONSENSUS based on the number of votes. WP:NORUSH is very relevant. Laurie Forman was redirected because she wan't a "core" main character. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
There is two for redirect and one against. Please keep the conversation at either redirecting them or not. Do not bring in other stuff as this is the Afd and consensus discussion. If no one else is against redirecting them when consensus has been reached then it needs to be merged just as others were. 184.58.24.163 (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Also note that the pages do not meet WP:Article development, WP:Reliable, WP:Notability, etc. 184.58.24.163 (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
This should be routed through WP:AFD to get community consensus. This talk page is not an AfD discussion, it's a talk page discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ LSANCH
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:That_%2770s_Show/Archive_1&oldid=1136384473"