Talk:That Guy with the Glasses

Way too big

This whole thing needs to be shrunk. This isn't a place to document every single episode of a webTV series. I've cut some useless stuff out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.141.186 (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Overhaul

I feel this article needs to be vastly improved, it just doesn't feel professional, also it hasn't been updated in a long time.

Doug's PBS Commercial?

Does anyone think that a note should be made about the PBS commercial that Doug recently made? Here is the link.[1]--Brad M. (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• This definitely establishes Walker as a notable person. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC))

Huray we won! *donates to PBS* xD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.165.203 (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Riz's Rejection?

Hey, what happened to Riz? He's part of the other comedians on the site too! He reviewed "Crocodile Dundee" and made many a clip, not to mention Transmission Awesome... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallaussiebloke (talk • contribs) 16:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Lori Prince Live?

Do we really need that section on lori prince live since that was just 2 sketches and there hasn't been a new episode since september?--Supertony14 (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a good point. Really though, the whole thing needs to be cut down a bit; I did some editing myself but there really should be more. Lord Seth (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Bjork Show

Does it deserve a section? It doesn't even have its own page at the website. 76.229.150.103 (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Image

Why is it taking forever for someone to add the website's logo to this page? It's a little jarring to be treated to zero images when you first enter only to come across four images while you scroll down. 76.229.171.152 (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Other Video Creators

I notice that creators and series Press Start Adventures, Little Miss Gamer, The Game Heroes, and Film Brain are missing... was this intentional? I'd write details on them, but I don't know enough about their series. 66.253.230.52 (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

MASSIVE Update to this page

Hey. This is Cferra from the TGWTG Wikia. I've been authorized to remove any and all mention of Dan Rizzo aka ThatAussieGuy for reasons I can not divulge. There is an update on TGWTG.com if you wish to see confirmation of the release. Info regarding him has been removed. That and myself and Film Brain have updated the entry to include the article writers of TGWTG.com.

We've also updated the "Bored Shitless" section under the orders of Mike Michaud to create a Blistered Thumbs section. Bored Shitless is no longer a part of the TGWTG family. All talent under it moved to Blistered Thumbs once Aussie left. That and people will need to be on the look out later when more channels are created.

--Cferra of the TGWTG Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.95.146 (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a lot of outdated/false information here that needed to be cleaned up. --Film Brain of TGWTG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.9.61 (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

About this so-called event...=

Hey. This is Cferra from the Channel Awesome/TGWTG wikia. I am posting in regards to this blurb:

A post by Mike Michaud revealed a talent contest taking place in September 2009. Rumors around the internet have hinted an appearance by the members of TGWTG in New York where the contest may be hold, Though this fact seems very unlikely. There will also be future auctions for props and other items used in the videos.

I recently deleted it and I've been sent by TGWTG personnel to inform you that no such event will take place. Seriously. It's pretty funny. And sad when you think of people making asinine rumors like this.

-Cferra from the TGWTG Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.95.146 (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Sun Times piece on Nostalgia Critic and Channel Awesome

Entertainers don't need TV break to hit it big

This has plenty of info that could be integrated into the article. It also acts as garlic & a cross against deletionists. 75.64.247.79 (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

One more from the Chicago Tribune

• Growing breed of accidental entrepreneur has recession to thank for business creation 75.64.247.79 (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Also added. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a third that showed up in my Google News results. I am only posting this story in case seasoned editors see any information that can be used to expand the TGWTG article or back up current information with citations. IT IS NOT SPAM. A disclaimer appears to be required for me posting this link, due to User:Megaman en m's scathing accusation that my link was spam, deleting the link while completely ignoring the posts above that were properly integrated by User:AdamBMorgan. The publication has been active since 1930 and has its own Wikipedia article at Advertising Age. There is nothing that leads me to believe this is just some blog and "spam". This is a news story from a reliable source. If an article I find is on the google news search and wikipedia article, I will post it here for reference for veteran editors. I don't care if it's the New York Times or the St. Catharines Standard, if it meets those conditions it is a RELIABLE SOURCE. IT IS NOT SPAM.

• Blip.tv Brings Programs to YouTube, Ads to Channel Awesome
  • Google News Search
  • Wikipedia article Advertising Age

I will quit this site if vets and administrators show up on this article and actively try to stifle its growth by censoring reliable sources. That is completely unacceptable and I don't have time to have to prove 10 times over that a news story for article expansion and/or citations is not spam just because somebody knows not a damn thing about the source. I want to help expand this article, but not if it's a bullshit uphill battle like it's turning out to be. 75.64.247.79 (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much to User:AdamBMorgan and no thanks to User:Megaman en m 75.64.247.79 (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Trailer failure GO!

Ever so recently Theamazingathiest of Youtube has made a video for This website. Hopefully it'll be an ongoing series. This needs to be in the article if so. --Olifromsolly (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The Critic's Running Gags

Is it necessary and/or possible for someone to stop others from adding extraneous detail to that paragraph all the freakin' time? Since the Critic's episode guide is being tagged for going into detail that would only interest a small audience, I think similar policies should be applied here. 134.48.244.63 (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Bum Reviews episode list nominated for deletion

Note that the List of Bum Reviews with Chester A. Bum episodes has been nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bum Reviews with Chester A. Bum episodes - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Why the hell was it deleted, other than to piss people off? Not to mention, I don't see anyone trying to delete the list of Nostalgia Chick episodes - or are you only dogging bums and not hot chicks? Bring Chester back! 87.207.49.165 (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nostalgia Chick episodes, not to mention Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Atop the Fourth Wall Episodes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ask That Guy with the Glasses episodes. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

So why don't you delete every list of episodes of whatever show, while you're at it? Surely there's no reason to have more information in an encyclopaedia when you can have less, right? 87.207.49.165 (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Picture

Does anyone else think that a better picture for the article would be a screencap of the shot near the end of the "TGWTG Team Brawl" video where it shows everyone together posing? Lord Seth (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. VmKid (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Fan site

There is way too much unsourced detail on this article, mostly in the NC/AVGN feud and the list of other TGwtG episodes. I don't want to take a sledgehammer to it just yet, though. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

New reliable source for potential integration of facts into article from Entrepreneur Magazine

• The Entrepreneur Economy - While the corporate world struggles to find its footing, entrepreneurs are stepping up with new ideas.

An article relating to Doug, Mike Ellis, Mike Michaud, and Channel Awesome/That Guy With The Glasses was published in the December 2008 issue of Entrepreneur Magazine. If any important new information can be found in this article, please integrate it into the That Guy With The Glasses article with proper references. I am avoiding editing it myself due to a potential Conflict of Interest.

I will request that User:Megaman en m once again refrains from trying to actively stifle progression of this article with reliable sources by labeling my links to third-party news coverage from reliable sources as spam. As this user refused to respond to my inquiries several times over his last attempt to purge suggested references for the Chicago Sun Times, the Chicago Tribune, and Advertising Age magazine, I feel it necessary to request that this user not interfere without merit again. I also request that User:TenPoundHammer does not go to the extreme of nominating a well-sourced article that satisfies WP:N and WP:V several times over for deletion. Thank you. 75.64.172.186 (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Accusatory much? I don't have any question whatsoever about his notability, and I don't appreciate being called out for my deletionist nature. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Revert of content removal

Whats to discuss? The content I removed was complete crap, just a list of web videos/series and writers for a just barely notable website. Discussion for the sake of discussion is ridiculous, if you disagree with my edit you revert it and we discuss, if you don't then leave it. That's the whole point of WP:BRD--Jac16888^Talk 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering that these ARE contributors for a site whose notability has been previously established, each with their own currently-running series, the list should be there. Perhaps it would be better as a separate article (i.e. "List of contributors for That Guy With The Glasses" or something like that), but getting rid of the list entirely seems...well, silly. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that the section could be trimmed up a bit (like getting rid of Emo Jones and other one-off sketches), but simply deleting a large amount of content without discretion seems excessive. Andy120290 (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The notability of the site is just barely established, that doesn't mean every single thing on the site is notable, notability is not inherited. I think having the list at all is the silly thing. If we look at CollegeHumor, a much more well known site, the article only briefly describes some of the major features, even though there are many videos/contributors/etc. If there are series/videos on this site that are notable on their own (i.e. not just for being on this site), that are covered in reliable 3rd party sources they should be mentioned, anything else should be removed. As it stands this article is a mess, it needs drastic edits to make it slightly more encyclopedic--Jac16888^Talk 01:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(reply to andy)None of the content I removed had any sources except for a couple from the site itself, Its removal is well within policy--Jac16888^Talk 01:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not true. Some of the ones you removed DID have established notability, but did so in their own separate articles, i.e. Happy Harry, Guru Larry and Wez. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

So A), why doesn't it say it here then? and B) why should we include it here? Neither of you have yet to give any valid reason this content should be kept - either fix it or its gonna go--Jac16888^Talk 11:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the CollegeHumor article seems less well referenced than this article, with fewer notable sources. Nor do I think the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument is any better here than in AfD (especially considering CollegeHumor is unassessed, making it a weak basis of comparison). Additionally, the "Other sections of the site" section can be referenced with primary references to the website per WP:SELFPUB and WP:PRIMARY as they are statements of fact. I think referencing basic facts (rather than contentious claims, see WP:CITE) is a bit silly but it should be easy to do so. While notability is not inherited, this is information about the content of the site itself, which has established notability and is the subject of this article. The content of the site is the site; there would be nothing else without it. The "Other sketches and series" is less defensible. While I think a section covering these other series should remain to completely cover the subject of the article, it does not need as much detail as presently exists. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes primary references can be used to show they exist, I'm not disputing that, the point is we don't need to document them, you say theres nothing without the content, the only content we should be listing is the stuff thats notable, i.e. they need to have 3rd party references. The simple fact that the content is on the website does not mean we should write about it, their should be things we can write about the site itself - its history, the reception it recieves, impact, all that kind of stuff, and only the major/important sketches need to be included. If we can't include anything of that before we start on the cruft, then perhaps there shouldn't be an article on it at all--Jac16888^Talk 17:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No response? Does that mean I can go ahead and remove this rubbish again?--Jac16888^Talk 02:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You're the only one arguing for its removal; find someone else to support it first so the decision bears at least some semblance of democracy... -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Your arguments for keeping it are invalid, the content is bad, its unsourced, and fancrufty, and suggests no notability. --Jac16888^Talk 12:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Since none of are you are bothering to reply anymore, I've gone ahead and removed the "Other sketches and series", since as Adam admits above, it is far too excessive. Hopefully you will take this as a hint that perhaps you should try and cleanup the rest of the article, rather than just blindly reverting me simply because you like the website--Jac16888^Talk 14:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I never really got the point of people like you. I know power corrupts and all, but are you really the type who goes apewire because he has the "power" to edit a website that he doesn't own?24.228.54.78 (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. When I see an article filled with guff about a bunch of vidoes on some barely important website, I feel its embarassing to leave it as such, just because the "fans" like it--Jac16888^Talk 02:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying that. People like something you don't and so you take scissors to it for no adequately-established reason than it's, like, a stupid website, and it's not important, 'n', like, there's too many words about it, 'n' stuff, so you have to unilaterally start deleting things despite being summarily ignored by people of both opinions. So it's pretty much what I said. 24.228.54.78 (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)