Talk:Woody Interruptus

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

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

This topic

I don't even know why accolates make this episode notable enough for a stand-alone article. This episode also needs reviews, production stuff, writing history, and... something else that helps strengthens this article to prove this episode's strong notability. Without sufficient information about this episode other than plot, ratings, and even ten awards, why would we be keeping this article? --George Ho (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a WP:GA, the article needs a lot of things. Some articles never grow past start-class. This article should be kept for the mere fact that it is a classic episode in terms of direction. I don't recall exactly when cable networks became eligible for Emmys, but there are hundreds (if not thousands) of episodes written in a given season. This is regarded as the very best episode in terms of direction by both the Emmy selectors and the DGA selectors. It is extremely notable for that fact alone. Surely we could beef up a Cheers episode with some ratings information to add content. Just those two awards and the almost certain high ratings make this a notable episode.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Cheers was the #1 rated show that season, so this episode likely had high ratings that should be noted in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just added its #1 Nielsen rating. Prestigious Best Episode awards do not exist. Thus, we have to use Best Director and Best Screenplay as a proxy for the most critically acclaimed episodes. I consider any episode that is even nominated for best Director or Best Screenplay a notable episode now that dozens of networks are competing for these awards. Basically, there are two pretty prestigious Best Director and two best Screenplay awards. They each nominate 5 episodes. At most, these are the top 20 (although overlap usually shortens the unique list quite a bit) of something like 3000 episodes annually. Prior to the expansive cable programming the awards were probably the top 20 of about 1000 episodes annually. Any episode that can source that it was among the Best Directed or Best Written should be kept as a standalone article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, enough with the tone that you are doing right now; otherwise, how can I see good in you if you keep doing that? Anyway, this episode fails WP:GNG, even with more important awards and ratings. There is no real-world significant review or analyse on this episodes. There is no coverage about Woody and some woman. Awards make James Burrows and the ninth season a lot more notable than they make this episode. Even awards alone could not suffice verification of this episode's notability. Have you read Sam and Diane? I have to research it with merely Google, and newspapers substantially covered it. The only part of this episode that newspapers discusses were awards... just awards. Sam and Diane, however, were discussed and compared substantially per WP:GNG, in spite of talks about merging into other content. However, look at Sam Malone; it would have been a mere redirect to Sam and Diane if not for academic journals, reception, and stuff about Sam's vanity, sexism, and just plain paranoia about feeling patronized by stuff, especially since Shelley Long left Cheers. --George Ho (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, all ratings of and awards for episodes from season nine would be good enough for Cheers (season 9). Look at The O.C. (season 1). --George Ho (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My contention is that critical acclaim in and of itself is sufficient for notability for an episode. I.E., it is extremely encyclopedic to note that an episode won the most prestigious episode awards. Every episode exists and can be documented. I am not claiming that every episode of Cheers should have an article. I am claiming that those that are recognized as elite performances in their field should have stand alone articles. This is the very best of about 1000 episodes at a minimum (in my estimation) that were eligible for critical acclaim. This is the best episode of both the 1990-91 Television season according to the Emmy folks and the Decemberish-Novemberish DGA calendar year according to the DGA. Verifying that it is the very best directed episode of the year is in and of itself encyclopedic. WP:GNG does not mean that this episode should be deleted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right that failure to meet guidelines of notability does not imply a chance of deletion. Instead, I'm just copying-and-pasting and redirecting Receptions passages into episode list, including ratings. Later then, I'm thinking about adding ratings into the list someday, as I'm doing on Season One. --George Ho (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

....Have you watched that episode? Whenever I'm reading your message, I sense anxiety and taste of desperation trying to prove me wrong, especially when you said that "Woody Interruptus" is the "best" episode ever. However, I read the article, and the plot is lighthearted and simple and jokes could be humorous, even when they should not be included for encyclopedic standards. I know Woody and Kelly, and I wouldn't create a stand-alone article about Woody and Kelly if no sources substantially cover them. Nothing in your words influence me to change my mind about this. In fact, to prove this episode's notability, there must be published good or bad reviews about this episode, so Receptions section will be expanded. Otherwise,.... let me research the ratings to just improve season articles. --George Ho (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep trying to pick a fight with me rather than argue about the topic. First you want to say I am trying to present myself as if I am doing right, then you try to make some point about desperation. My point is simple. Reread my statements. I have made no point about best ever. The episode is the best of the thousand or so episodes of the year. Best as in Best directed, that is. This is a notable episode for its best director. You claim that the only way an episode can be notable is if critics elaborate on it. My point is that the critics have spoken by saying it is the best directed episode. That is a summary statement of all kinds of critical review. How many episodes do you think there are in the 1990-91 season that competed for the award. I guess upward of 1000. This is number 1. I am not claiming it is notable for winning the Emmy for Cinematography or Sound editing. I only am claiming that 4 awards of all the annual awards confer notability. Best Director and Best Screenplay from the two most prestigious selectors confer automatic notability. P.S. I have not seen the episode.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, let's discuss this episode, which you, as you admitted, haven't watched, as you claim it is the "best" over and over. When you said critics, I don't know what you mean. However, Emmys and Directors Guild of America are accolates, not critics. Where do critics say that it is best-directed? I could not find one in Google. Using (maybe 1,000 or 10) awards and ratings alone are insufficient amount to me. Why do people assume that awards make one episode notable? To be honest, prestigeous critique, substantial opinionated analysis, and stuff are enough to substantially verify notability The Boys in the Bar. Also, look at The Pilot (Friends): even negative reviews and other reviews are covered to substantially verify the pilot episode's notability. --George Ho (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:N, a topic's notability does not guarantee an article; this would be an example. --George Ho (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes do not have a separate notability guide. The closest guide is the one for films. Look at this section: Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Other_evidence_of_notability. See item #3. A film can be deemed notable merely for the fact that "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" I am attempting to invoke an analogous argument for television episodes. Basically, I am saying to follow the common convention that major awards confer fairly automatic notability in the performing arts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. you may be interested in the efforts at Wikipedia:EPISODE#Episodes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a consensus to change Wikipedia:Television episodes from what it was in 2011 to what you have expanded in March 2012? Either way, even without notability guidelines for episodes, the fact that there is no notability guidelines of one episode does not imply that just one or two awards and ratings sufficiently verify one episode's notability. .....By the way, why expanding the guideline with a to-do list and recommendations? --George Ho (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, you can collapse the to-do list. If episodes had a notability guideline, it should be modeled on the film guideline I pointed you to above. Thus, a single major episode award should be sufficient for notability.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? How does collapsing solve anything? --George Ho (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of this topic

There may be 20 episodes in season 9 that are non-notable because all we can produce is a plot and character list. This episode is not one of those 20. It is the best directed episode of the 1000 television episodes of all the television shows on all the networks during the 1990–91 United States network television season. You keep responding as if you do not understand why I keep pointing to the fact that this is the best directed episode of the year. Do you understand how many television episodes there were in the entire television season. I don't know if networks like USA, TBS and TNT were eligible for Emmys in 1991, but even with just the four networks we are probably talking about 1000 episodes of original programming. This is the best directed one out of all of those. It won Best Episodic Director from the two most prestigious television award ceremonies that confer such an honor. I don't do PORNBIO type stuff, but it seems like you made a bad decision to redirect. It seems that he won several notable awards making him notable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is more to life than just awards. His life is not acknowledged in public, he made just one movie—one movie. That's it. After all, you have rambled on and on that each award-winning episode should have its own article. Even you posted the same stuff in my talk page and WP:television episodes. Telling me that my merging Adam Bristol to an article about only movie that he did was a "bad decision" is "too personal for comfort" (quoting from Dr. K) and uncalled for. Even somehow, "Woody Interruptus" article would deteriorate in one month or one day without substantial expansion, as "Adam Bristol" article did for a short time and was still standing for years per rules about a living person's biography and notability issues, regardless of such supplements as WP:PORNBIO. --George Ho (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are making comparisons to WP:PORNBIOs. People are ongoing entities and their notability is different than a one-time event. WP:FILM is a much more relevant comparison. I don't know why you piped rambled to CANVASS. Makes no sense since I have not contacted anyone. The other pipe to TV makes littel sense either. You seem to be a little bit thin skinned to take such an insubstantial statement personally after attacking me personally above. Why would "Woody Interruptus" decay. That makes no sense. The article was little changed for the month before you tried to redirect it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How did I "personally attacked" you? I piped CANVASS because I presumed WT:TV#Highbeam research on needed episodes as canvassing, as well as the changes in Wikipedia:Television episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and my talk page. However, if that is not canvassing, then what is it? As for this episode, why would this article not decay? I tried finding other non-award coverages about this episode, but I found none in Google News and Books. --George Ho (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CANVASS is when you post on a lot of peoples talk pages to get involved in a discussion in a way that will unfairly alter the discussion. Suppose there is a project with 25 active editors who always say keep episode articles. If we get in a debate about keeping this article, when I contact them, I am not getting toughtful opinions, but just soliciting opinions of people who will stick up for my side. That is CANVASSing. Look below, I found non-award coverage in Google.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think a mere one award makes this episode notable without analysis, similar to one award for some film? TV episodes and films are not the same. Possibly a TV episode article would be probably merged into a season article; whatever is done to a film article... there must be reviews from periodicals and books on an award-winning film to improve a film's notability. --George Ho (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at some point say whether you understand the significance of the award that was won. How many episodes do you think there were in the 1990–91 United States network television season? Do you understand that Best Director and Best Screenplay awards are the closest thing we have to Best episode?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best Director is Best Director; Best Writer is Best Writer. Neither makes this episode as notable as they do for its director and writers. In the essay WP:subjective importance, "importance or uniqueness" is commonly mistaken as notability; factors, such as awards, are commonly misinterpretted as substantial verifications of topic's notability. Maybe this essay would help you think through more rationally. --George Ho (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many episodes do you think were eligible for Best Director in the 1990–91 United States network television season?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the question, these nominations determine the best director of one episode. Does it matter how many episodes were eligible? Even "Best Director" does not make one episode a Best Episode. I wonder if a director was nominated as Best Director for the worst episode of the year in Emmys. --George Ho (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can read below, I realize that I mixed up "stand-alone article of a topic" with "notability of a topic" horribly. In some cases, notability of a topic does not guarantee a stand-alone article, as long as amount of notability is sufficient for a badly-executed (even if well-written, as your skills prove) stand-alone article and insufficient for a decent stand-alone article. Badly-executed stand-alone articles may be suitable as good mergers of a good parent article; Adam Bristol → A Young Man's World. Or maybe "badly-executed" stand-alone articles have good amount of past public records, even in a non-embedded list format: Olivia Hack. In other words, you did what you could to prove its notability, but, as proven, this article is suitable enough as part of a stand-alone list. --George Ho (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have searched Adam Bristol, and only reliable sources I found are only one film and several awards. --George Ho (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care much about this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Condition of this article

You have a high reputation to create a well-written article, such as Pilot (The Cosby Show). Therefore, I must be careful with you and not presume any more bad conclusions about you. In fact, I'm impressed about what you've done to make a good article a Good Article. Still, regardless of our own reputations and of good contributions you have done to other articles, such as "Hill Street Station", this article is.... not desirable to be read at this condition. It might look good for one week or month; later then people would realize that, even with awards and ratings, the episode is best suitable as part of a list. Without enough expansion, this stand-alone article would deteriorate somehow. --George Ho (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about this series because I never watched, but there is critical commentary on this episode, I think. See

Just to add a point about the article's condition: it's no more different than The One Where Estelle Dies or The One with the Lesbian Wedding. Should they be merged into the stand-alone Friends list? Keeping the article on virtue of winning two awards (important ones, mind) is acceptable I feel--provided they are well sourced. Unfortunately as I've said before I don't have the time to expand the article--the ER episode is at the top of my priority list, but I hope to get back to it one day. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Lesbian one: keep it because, although short, length is decent, GLAAD discusses its being censored overall, Associated Press covered this episode, Entertainment Weekly discusses it, and phone calls about it were verified by Marta Kauffman. The Estelle one, on the other hand, is missing a lot of information that could strengthen its article. Why did June Gable no longer play Estelle anymore; why was Estelle written out as dead, while Gable was/is still alive? How discussed was this episode in reliable sources besides ratings and accolates? Moreover, the plot is a little too long; even shortening it won't help matters, as there should be commentary from commentators in DVD. --George Ho (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this episode, I wonder why you used search terms "Woody Kelly France". I appreciate what you are trying if you intend to create an article about Woody and Kelly (as I did for Sam and Diane)... or clean the Woody Boyd article (as I did for Sam Malone). Maybe I used the words badly by mixing "notability" with "article"... Awards and ratings might verify this episode's notability, not substantial notability that suffices a decent stand-alone article. "Substantial notability" requires great amount of verification; I tried using this episode title in sources you found; I found none. --George Ho (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the plot and said to myself, "What search terms would yield this episode?" I thought Cheers France Woody Kelly. Whether or not the episode title is in the sources is not relevant. It was not common to refer to episodes by name before DVDs became popular. What matters is whether the search terms yielded relvant content. I think the first three definitely did. Not sure about the fourth. If you know the show you can beef it up with this content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why were the quotes added and necessary? How is that dialogue you added "well-known"? --George Ho (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Norm "Why buy the cow"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an unverifiable original research to conclude that a quote make this episode well-known. ...Well, the quote itself is verified by the episode, but the quote doesn't verify the notability of the episode. In fact, what's the point of adding it? By the way, I could not find reliable sources that say: this episode is well-known for its quote. --George Ho (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If sources do not verify the well-known by quote part, may I remove it? --George Ho (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have rephrased it. It is in one of the books I noted above and on numerous websites. I have changed well-known to notable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

....Hmmm.... quote or no quote, this article is still too short to be decent. --George Ho (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use the same book to expand it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are your ideas to expand it? I bought this e-Book and haven't found production and writing notes about this episode there. --George Ho (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did it have critical commentary? Which book did you buy? Try other google searches.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same source that you used for the quote, of course. Only Book and News I used for research because... there may be too many results. I'll keep trying. What's the point of keeping this article if merge is not the answer? --George Ho (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have appreciated additions of guest stars listed in the article. Unfortunately, even with guest list, this article has not been substantially expanded. As I said, without all together production and writing notes, opinionatedly or neutrally critical analysis, polls, and real-world stuff related to this episode, what's the point of keeping this article as a whole instead of turning this page faithfully into part of an episode list, even with ratings and accolates? --George Ho (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot: you may enjoy reading Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This essay explains how flawed every argument is for either "keeping" or "deleting" an article, even when an article is not nominated for deletion at this time. To me, "assertion notability" is used here. --George Ho (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least 5 reasons to keep this article. 1. It makes the templates look good, 2. It seems consistent with WP:MOVIE, 3. There are several books that we have not explored that we know about and probably others that we do not that detail the series and this episode, 4. Some of the books discuss this episode, but I don't know the show well enough to ferret out the comments. 5. You just prune the plot down so it looks insubstantial when you should have really been beefing it up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #5, I "prune" it down because I noticed that the previous version and the source's plot description almost matched each other, which may (or may not) be a possible copyright infringement. Also, we know that we both have never seen it before, so this version may or may not give away the plot. However, suppressing the Carla thing is becoming pointless, as you said, because this episode is more than 20 years old. Why beefing it? Look at Lemonade Mouth; it looks badly executed. Why should I beef up the forgettable movie Storm in a Teacup (1937)? Either plot versions or even bigger summaries of this episode does not make this episode notable, as far as I know. --George Ho (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #3–4, plot is already covered. However, production and writing are harder to seek. Therefore, we must first seek opinions and thematic interpretations of the episode from published sources. #2, however, is not what I have in mind; films and episodes are different; episode is part of a season, while film is independent. I don't use WP:MOVIE as a guide for each episode. --George Ho (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article needn't be complete to properly exist. All the features that you note are missing are great sections to fill in. The lack of them is does not make this deletable. Any episode with important details that distinguish it from other episodes in the series should have its own article. I will contest a redirect of this article. This debate has run its course. I don't have much else to say. I am unable to help you fill in the article further. At this point, you can either agree to allow the article to remain or take this to WP:AFD. You are also free to open a debate at either WP:TV or WP:EPISODE regarding a general guide for Episodes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger again?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

see next section for result

What is wrong with merging or redirecting this article into List of Cheers episodes#ep207? I have already copied-and-pasted ratings and accolates, and I don't need to copy-and-paste the quotes, do I? Why keeping this article when, in fact, this topic... isn't that stellar or influential? I mean, per WP:ATD, there is {{merged-from}}, which lets you access past revisions, and pages are preserved for future considerations. --George Ho (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, I am exhausted with this discussion. You can either agree to allow the article to remain or take this to WP:AFD where merge and redirect are options.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't propose a deletion without approval from mentors. By the way, I'm inviting more consensus by adding banners. --George Ho (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

the result was retain as a stand alone article. The vast majority of this converstaion is about broader issues and was not considered whn making this close. With that out of the picture there is a fairly clear consensus to retain this article. If a broad discussion of television episode articles is needed it should be done at some more high-profile page intended for such wide ranging discussions.Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per all my reasons stated above. This is sufficiently notable for an independent article and has won prestigious awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, ~~per nom.~~ Two awards won highlight notability, which are referenced. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, I was not the nominator. I just reformatted the page with a separate section for the merger discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, corrected now. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How much time is the research on this episode? How long will you change your minds? --George Ho (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are not expressing yourself cogently.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried research in LA Times; I found none about this episode. I even tried "'Woody Cheers' (Kelly OR Henri)"; no such luck, either. Awards don't prove notability of this episode as much as it proves praise on a director's handiwork. Maybe WP:subjective importance doesn't support my point to you, does it? Under another essay, Wikipedia:Trivial mentions cannot verify notability, praises on this episode's director are trivial mentions and cannot verify this episode's notability. Household Nielsen ratings are trivial mentions and cannot verify its notability, as well. To express myself, I found this episode's plot insignificant in a long-term, and praise on the direction is trivial to this episode's notability, as direction from non-awards sources have not been found. --George Ho (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll rephrase: Ratings and accolades on direction are trivial to the episode's plot, and there is nothing substantially covered about this episode's plot. Ratings and accolates may verify this episode's notability... not the plot's notability, and plot's notability is more important for this article. --George Ho (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Why did you add back that "dubious" quote? What's the point of adding it back instead of moving it to, logically, wikiquote:Cheers? --George Ho (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support the merger, this article doesnt offer much more than a few lines of plot (which is on the list page) and claims a notable dialogue which is dubious. The only additional info is for the awards and that can well be added to the list page (its 1 para anyways). Maybe in the future with more content it can be redone.(Lihaas (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Oppose If every episode of Seinfeld and most of The OC are notable enough to warrant their own articles, then an award-winning episode of Cheers during it's highest-rated season certainly also does. Also, removing a page reduces the amount of content on Wikipedia without any actual reason. This page isn't hurting anything. It really doesn't make any sense whatsoever to remove an article like this. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 19:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem! I have moved many O.C. episodes to Season articles due to notability issues. As for Seinfeld, notability solely rests upon impact. Since you mentioned Seinfeld, I must look for episodes with dubious notability and then discuss them. --George Ho (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? That's what you took away from what I said? That more articles need to be destroyed? My point was the simply being part of a successful TV show makes an episode notable enough to warrant it's own article. As far as I am concerned, every single episode of Cheers, Seinfeld, and The OC deserve their own articles, if someone is willing to write them, simply because that were part of a successful TV show. And as for you looking at Seinfeld episodes, I will be there every step of the way to stop you from destroying part of Wikipedia. I will make every attempt to stop your reign of destruction. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 20:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did not say I destroyed them. You can still view them in history pages or go to other O.C. dedications. For example, The End of Innocence (The O.C.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is still viewable, while some were not restored for copyright violations. --George Ho (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - As for the Three's Company episodes, there is not any one article about one them yet, even if they were successful back then. --George Ho (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I know that you didn't say you destroyed them, but that's what you've been doing. The vast majority of Wikipedia users aren't going to use the history pages to view the former articles, and you know that. And as for Three's Company, you're right, there are no articles for any of the episodes, but that's just because no fan has been willing to make them, it has nothing to do with notability. Most old TV shows, like Happy Days, The Golden Girls, Hogan's Heroes, and Will & Grace, have either none or very few episode articles simply because they don't have any fans who want to write articles. Some shows, like The Simpsons, Doctor Who, Star Trek, and The Twilight Zone, however, have an article for every single episode. It's not because they're more notable shows, it's just because they have fans that are willing to create a lot of articles. This is even true with more recent shows. Every single episode of How I Met Your Mother has it's own article, despite not being as popular as, and certainly no more notable than, The Big Bang Theory, which only has a handful of episodes with their own articles. Again, this is simply because How I Met Your Mother has fans that are willing to create an article for every single episode, while The Big Bang Theory does not. It's not a matter of notability, it's a matter of chance. How I Met Your Mother just happened to have fans that will create episode articles, while The Big Bang Theory does not.
      - My point is that Three's Company, and many other shows, not having episode articles isn't because they are less notable, it's just because they don't have fans that want to create them. It's very possible that, at some point in the future, a Three's Company fan will write an article for every episode, a Cheers fan will do the same, and so will a Big Bang Theory fan. They just haven't happened yet, and if/when they do, they articles will be notable simply because they were part of a popular TV show. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 22:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

....Well, too bad every episode article they created for recent shows, such as every O.C. episode (including ones I've redirected) except the Pilot, are based on existence and substituted for fansites. Ones that consist of only stories are not good as my accomplishments: I Do, Adieu (mostly copied from Sam and Diane), heavy revisions of One for the Road (Cheers), expansion of Give Me a Ring Sometime and trimming its plot, and The Boys in the Bar. This Cheers episode is no exception, and there are essays about notability, such as WP:existence does not prove notability. Maybe I'll create WP:notability (television episode) someday, but I don't know. At least I'm still developing user:George Ho/Notability (character). --George Ho (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors....Essays are not Wikipedia policies." - WP:existence does not prove notability

2. I never said that this episode's existence proves notability, I said that it's popularity (as proven by that fact that it was the most-viewed program of the week, with 22.6 million viewers) proves notability.

3. Why don't you try to improve the article instead of just complaining about it? Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 00:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that you could open your mind and be influenced by any essay. Yes, policies and guidelines must be followed (and changed if too frustrating). Nevertheless, essays are helpful for mind and critique.
Even if essays are not policies, I stand by my beliefs, according to the essay, WP:subjective importance, that ratings are insufficient to benefit a stand-alone article, as well as awards.
I tried every book and newspaper; none substantial have been found. I even tried Henri, Woody, and/or Kelly; nothing about the episode either, including its plot.

There is nothing else to expand anymore. There are so many wrong things about the plot itself, big or small: 1) it may be predictable; 2) no huge impact has been made; 3) not one reliable source grades or reviews this plot with unilaterial or neutral opinion

Recently, I have read two essays that can help us consider what to do with this article. Well, the opposing arguments are based on giving this article a chance to live like a dream come true. I have given up on expanding this article, and I can't give any more chances. If this discussion is closed as "keep", how many years must I wait for another merger discussion? --George Ho (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of this really even matters, I'm never going to convince you that you're wrong, and you're never going to convince me that I'm wrong. All that matters is that right now, there are two votes supporting merger, and three votes against, and it's been almost a week since voting was opened, and voting will probably be closed tomorrow with a decision not to merge. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 17:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

....Wait! I'll have (somewhat) uninvolved administrator decide on this instead. WP:Polling is not a substitute for consensus applies here. I'll request this in WP:AN/RFC. --George Ho (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I personally think that the nearly 100 edits to this page means that more than enough discussion has taken place, but your decision is fair enough. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 20:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal, part deux

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Notice banner should not have been removed, but someone did. Now with arguments about notability is greatly influence this discussion, I'm withdrawing because people here may be right in both ways due to banner removed. Still, this article is too redundant.

Someone said this article doesn't hurt. To me, without finding offline sources to signifies notability of this episode, this version may inspire editors to do other articles the same way this article evolved, which would hurt Wikipedia, unless otherwise. Awards may indicate hints of notability, but I'm doing my best to improve Wikipedia and prevent Wikipedia from deterioriating, especially in general.

Withdrawing this proposal does not prevent me from making other proposals, like a straw poll to exclude anything from consideration or another discussion about policies and guidelines in WP:village pump (policy). Nevertheless, I'll be careful and cautious before I make a merger proposal on this article again. --George Ho (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article... there is nothing more to say about this episode other than one award and one plot, which makes this article mergeable. Also, I've already done much as I can in List of Cheers episodes. Is it notable or not notable? Unfortunately, it doesn't matter because, even if "notable", the whole article is nothing more than a duplicate of what is already mentioned in the list, and even Woody and Kelly story would be suitable for Woody Boyd and List of characters. Even when plot is expanded, there is nothing else to do. The whole plot is nothing compared to Sam and Diane story, but... that's not the relevant issue. There is nothing else to learn more, as I searched over and over without luck. Even more offline reviews don't make any difference, and a grade B+ or C doesn't help matters, especially for general readers. This second merger proposal is about standards of an encyclopedia and what is best for Wikipedia, especially for fiction, not about notability or what general readers want. --George Ho (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have added more details of a plot in the list rather than this article to justify my point, and I've recently watched this episode. --George Ho (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose basically, what you are doing is trying to make the article appear as simple as possible by removing content and then plastering it with templates to make it look problematic. It clearly won more than the one award you acknowledge. I do not recall why you have removed the quote which seemed to be worth including.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is irrelevant generally to the main aspect of this episode. It's not like, Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Even the quote itself is not that worth mentioning. --George Ho (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even 1,000 Outstanding Direction awards for the same episode either could count as one award or makes James Burrows notable. Those awards have nothing to do with it; simple things matter to general readers. Why is this stand-alone article needed? --George Ho (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think unless there is consensus to delete all Cheers episode articles, we should keep this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... are you using straw man argument? There is no consensus to delete all other Cheers articles. One award or a bunch could result either prose or a list in an episode list, and nothing more. --George Ho (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support for lack of individual notability. There seems to be no significant coverage of that episode in secondary sources beyond a single book of reference on Cheers. The Los Angeles Times doesn't even devote a single sentence to the episode. I also don't think we'd lose significant information in the merger, so a redirect will do just as well. Huon (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur, but, in this proposal, we put notability (or lack of, thereof) aside, so we can discuss redundancy of this article, regardless of expansion or reduction.— Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talk • contribs) 15:18, 11 July 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As I have stated above, the two awards highlight notability, albeit subtle. It's not like the article does not have citations. This article does not have to conform to the traditional episode layout, you can improvise; I mean compare and contrast The One Where Rachel Smokes to The One with All the Thanksgivings – the producers only did audio commentaries for selected episodes, so while the latter's production section is indepth, the other just includes a factoid and who played who. 'Reception' can be renamed for instance, the plot could easily be expanded and the lead aswell. And going by "what general readers want", the page view statistics suggest it is doing fine, if not better than its fellow articles. As for more information, I found a Toronto Star article (The gang's all here at Cheers for tenth season of laughs, p. D16, Jay Sharbutt) on James Burrows giving his Emmy reaction which could easily be added into the latter section:

Last Sunday, it won four Emmys, one going to Burrows for direction. The awards made it and Hill Street Blues the second-most honored shows in Emmy history. Both have 26 :statuettes. Burrows has one regret about the Emmy awards. He wishes that Cheers, acclaimed for its tight, crisp writing and acting ensemble, had been nominated in the :scrivening category. "They're great," he says of the show's staff writers. "They don't get enough tribute. I marvel at the fact there were no nominations in the writing :category, because writing is the thing that propels the show." Lemonade51 (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burrows's speech refers to the show in general, not this episode. One prose about two awards (or more) is still too short. Maybe we can discuss WP:television episodes in that page and WP:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction in that page, as well. And an issue of having no notability guideline about fiction is not a good excuse to either support or oppose the merge. --George Ho (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there isn't anything else that contributed to or inspired this episode, as "Showdown" and "Power Play" did to each other. --George Ho (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: Does that newspaper article even mention the episode in a recognizable way? If not, it cannot really contribute towards notabiliy. Huon (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The LA Times only mentions its Nielsen ratings and nothing more. Speaking of ratings, I added the "Ratings/Share" column in the "Season 9" section. --George Ho (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per reasons already mentioned. Also, after a merger proposal fails, you're really not supposed to just resubmit the proposal. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 04:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, Premiere (The O.C.) is the only active article of all The O.C. episodes. You can expand every plot summary into no more than 300 words in The O.C. (season 1) and all other seasons articles if you may. After this proposal, regardless of outcome, I'll be proposing a straw poll on excluding non-Writing awards and ratings from benefitting a stand-alone article. --George Ho (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Must I say something? Even when this episode might meet WP:notability, this guideline does not triumph the conditions of this article and circumstances of List of Cheers episodes. I'm working on User:George Ho/Cheers (season 1), so I would hope anybody here can do the same for Season sections. --George Ho (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I felt compelled to remove the banner. You can't open a merge discussion and then tell people they're not allowed to discuss certain things. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as far as "notability not trumping (I think that's what you meant to say) the conditions of the article", I don't think that's correct. The article needs to be improved rather than merged. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried other sources, and I even used NewsBank to search for this episode for reviews other than awards. I can't find it. Maybe People magazine can grade it a B+, but that doesn't make any difference. How is my assumptions about notability not correct? --George Ho (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can you improve it if no significant viewpoints are found? --George Ho (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.