Talk:The Bubble Boy (Seinfeld)

Television: Episode coverage / Seinfeld Mid‑importance

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

Untitled

just created a basic outline. needs more work. User:Kane5187

Notability

B.Wolterding tagged this article for "notability concerns - this article is mainly a plot summary" on 22 March. I have removed the tag because the content limitations of the article (all plot, little depth) are irrelevant to the notability of the subject matter. When you consider that there is a Seinfeld Wikiproject, which itself has not been challenged for notability, then the notability of episode pages is beyond question. If the episode pages are not notable, then you need to challenge the validity of the Wikiproject altogether. Darcyj (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline WP:N applies to article topics, not to WikiProjects. Since the article does not show that multiple independent sources have written about this particular episode, I still think it fails the guideline. Rather than sourced information, the article contains (as I said) mainly a plot summary, cf. WP:NOT#PLOT. Whether a WikiProject exists or not is irrelevant in that respect - anybody can found or join a project, and they don't override Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comments, and perhaps (therefore) there needs to be an extension of WP:N to projects. Since writing my comments above, I also discovered Wikipedia:Television episodes and read the notability guidelines more closely. My new question would be: How do you cite independent sources if their transient nature (eg, commentary in newspaper entertainment supplements) means that those sources are now (a) difficult to track down, and (b) almost impossible to verify because hard copies of the source are rare? In respect of this particular subject - The Bubble Boy - I am fairly certain I have seen reviews and commentary in TV guides, weekend magazines, etc etc, but I'm buggered if I can remember a date or edition number; nevertheless, it would be the case that every Seinfeld episode has been covered in this way, even if briefly. A research effort of herculean proportions would be needed to identify primary source material for every episode, even though everyone knows that the episode exists and is familiar with its features and characteristics. Thoughts? Darcyj (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Someone deleted my contribution to the article (see history) because it was "unsubstantiated" and "non-germane". I added trivia information about the diner, where Elaine and Jerry end up on their was to the bubble boy. It's the same set as "Reggie's" (the bizarro coffee shop)... "unsubstantiated": you just have to watch the episodes! and "non-germane": When is trivia ever germane? Unless someone gives me a good reason why not, I am going to put it back in in a few days.

-GL (Feb. 27th 2010) (sry for the form, I'm a wiki-noob) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.202.90.253 (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are always good. Lots42 (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

computer virus

why is the computer virus in an article about a seinfeld episode instead of it's own article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.92.138 (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bubble Boy (Seinfeld) → The Bubble Boy – This appears to be the only Wikipedia article about a topic called "The Bubble Boy." Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. One of many recent suggestions to remove information that is immediately useful to readers, by a narrow application of current guidelines. Nothing is lost by keeping the qualifier. Leave a good title alone, please. See also, in any case, the de facto disambiguation page Boy in the bubble, and Bubble Boy. It is ridiculous to rely so heavily on anything so tenuous as lower- and upper-casing, or presence of "the", to assist readers. Bubble Boy itself should be moved to Bubble Boy (film). Noetica^Tea? 23:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; not the primary topic. The Bubble Boy is properly a redirect to the disambiguation page. Powers ^T 23:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not the primary topic, per Powers. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not primary, it should redirect to the most famous real life bubble boy. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note. This and another RM (see Talk:Bubble_Boy#Requested_move) were listed and are being considered separately. The mechanism of multiple RMs is available for good reasons, but unfortunately it is not being used in this obvious case. Editors might like to visit that other RM as well. Noetica^Tea? 21:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me, when you mourn that the multiple-RM mechanism was not used, whether you realize that these two moves were proposed by different users, at different times, without any sort of coordination. I proposed the move of this page, but I had absolutely nothing to do with the other, similar proposal that was initiated three days later. (I also don't particularly think it would have been helpful to propose the two moves together, as this move is suggesting that the boy-in-a-bubble is not the primary topic for "The Bubble Boy.", and the other move is suggesting that the boy-in-a-bubble is the primary topic for "Bubble Boy".) Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.