Talk:Too Many Cooks (short)

Credits for music/song

The creators had an AMA (AUA) on Reddit and gave the song credits: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2lm9se/we_are_the_gobsmacked_creators_behind_too_many/clw3zmu 75.37.205.50 (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

It seems the film infobox is better suited for this than the episodic television one as the former is meant for "one-off" productions as this and has proper fields for editors, production designers and other important production personnel while the latter is meant for mulitple episodes and doesn't have those credit fields.--Oakshade (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Article title

Grapesoda22 changed the article's title from Too Many Cooks (short) to Too Many Cooks (TV special) without explanation (a move summary or talk page message).

While it debuted on television, the piece generated most of its attention (among reliable sources and members of the general public) as a viral Web video. It's been widely described as a "short" or "short film", with the former being more inclusive (because it encompasses TV shorts, while "short film" typically doesn't carry that meaning). This is why I've reverted the move. —David Levy 18:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It was made as a special so it is listed as a special, as it should be. Just because it was more popular online doesn't mean its not a special. Lots of TV shows are posted online but we don't change accurate information to cater to that. Grapesoda22 (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It was actually made, as well as listed, as part of their "informercials" block. I've added reliable sources as citations for that fact.--Oakshade (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

They've called it DVR Theater before. But I don't think "informercials" block is a real name by the network. 4 am is just referred to as that in the article. I realize that its categorized that way on the site but no formal press from Adult Swim calls 4 am their "infomercial block". Grapesoda22 (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

According to reliable sources, Adult Swim called the block this short was aired on "informercials" block. I can't find any source, from Adult Swim or otherwise that said this was originally aired during "DVR Theater". If you find such a contradictory source, pleas present it here.--Oakshade (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well until I see a real source of Adult Swim (not an entertainment news site making that assumption) calling it that I'll back down with that. And several promos aired from adult swim calling it DVR Theater before. Besides they air other stuff besides infomercial parodies at 4am, Too Many Cooks itself isn't a parody of infomercials. Besides we don't even have to mention it being a part of any block at all, its not critical to the article. I would say leave the unique 4 am slot mentioned, but we don't have to say its part of a block. Grapesoda22 (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The name of the programming block isn't particularly important anyway, so it's best to simply omit any such claim for the time being. —David Levy 19:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If it's important enough for multiple reliable sources (I've counted 10 so far) to find the anomaly notable enough to describe it, then its worthy of describing. It's reliable sources that decide what's notable for inclusion, not us. --Oakshade (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. I think that we could flesh out the statement, though. (I've read several articles in which the circumstances behind the piece's production and scheduling as a so-called "infomercial" were explained.) —David Levy 21:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the "Development and production" section would be a good place to provide that content.--Oakshade (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that "Too Many Cooks" is a parody of informercials. It's that all reliable sources say this was first aired in a block called "Infomercials." All we have are reliable sources. If there's an "official" Adult Swim source that states it was aired during a block called "DVR Theater", we can have that information. So far zero say such a thing. In fact, "DVD Theater" is not a programming block, it's a streaming video library that has most of Adult Swim programming available on-demand for some cable subscribers. To say it was aired during "DVR Theater" is not only not what any reliable source says, but it's nonsensical. --Oakshade (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Just to add to this, the actual Adult Swim source has "Too Many Cooks" under the heading "INFOMERCIALS"--Oakshade (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the "DVR Theater" claim is inconsistent with the information published by reliable sources. And while mistakes can occur (and sometimes are picked up and spread rapidly), Casper Kelly noted in his blog that Too Many Cooks was listed as "Infomercial". —David Levy 21:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point that "short" is applicable regardless. (It doesn't contradict "TV special".) Irrespective of the medium in which it's presented, Too Many Cooks unquestionably is a short (and has been described as such by reliable sources), so there's no need for the title's parenthetical disambiguation to exclude the context in which most of the piece's notability arose.

As explained at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Undiscussed moves, when your bold move was reverted, you should not have reinstated it unilaterally. —David Levy 19:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Most programs on a Adult Swim have an 11 minuet run time including regular programming and other specials. So in context of be produced and for and airing on Adult Swim the run time isn't considered "short". Grapesoda22 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The term "short" refers to a one-off piece's duration relative to that of a feature film. Even a regular TV series (such as Liquid Television or Animation Domination High-Def) can consist partially or entirely of shorts. —David Levy 20:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "short" is the most appropriate term. Adult Swim has in general non-traditional programing categories and this doesn't stand out as "special" in terms of the type of content it airs. --Oakshade (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Image of "Bill"

An editor has removed the "Bill the killer" image -

File:Bill, the Killer from "Too Many Cooks".jpg

Bill the killer (William Tokarsky) takes over the "show"

File:Bill, the Killer from "Too Many Cooks".jpg citing "w/o critical commentary" and WP:NFCC#8- However, WP:NFCC#8 criteria is described very clearly in the image page -

The killer is the common thread that gradually disturbs the "cheerful intro" atmosphere, and as illustrated by sources within the article, is perhaps the most important character in the film. The screenshot depicts the point in the film that switches him to the front of the imaginary show because he killed all the characters, and is now enacting their opening credits.

This image should be placed back in the article quickly. --Oakshade (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You transcluded the image above. (I've hidden it.) In the very next criterion, it's explained that "non-free content is allowed only in articles" and that "images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion".

Based on the article's revision history, you appear to have misunderstood the meaning of "critical commentary", a concept addressed at Wikipedia:Non-free content. (Please see Fair use.) The character is merely mentioned in passing, and I'm not sure that the image enhances a reader's understanding of the topic. —David Levy 14:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

David Levy In actuality, according to all reliable sources Bill is the primary and central character to the entire piece and sources go into incredible detail of him, much more so than any other character. This isn't my opinion, it's all the sources opinions. We decided content and images by reliable sources, not our own opinions. --Oakshade (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Before we can include non-free content, we must lay a foundation by citing these reliable sources in the article. Currently, the character is mentioned in a single sentence, wherein he's described as "a homicidal maniac with a machete". The image doesn't even include his machete (one of very few details provided), and even if it did, I don't see how it would enhance readers' understanding.

There's no dispute that the character is central to the piece or that reliable sources state this. That simply isn't adequate justification to drop a non-free image into the article. This is a legal matter. —David Levy 21:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)