Talk:Bewitched

Wikiproject Television

Wikiproject Television had rated this "start" class and "high" importance, but is no longer actively doing reassessments. Because their wikiproject is stagnant and I don't believe this would still rate as what they considered start class, it's not an appropriate tag for the top of this page and I have removed it. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Assessment

And how is removal of the assessment supposed to help? If you don't believe it rates as a start class, why didn't you re-rate it? GregorB (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the responsibility of people pointing out bad information on Wikipedia to correct the information themselves. The Wikiproject Television is obviously dead and I'm not interested in becoming an assessor, only in impoving THIS article. If you feel you are qualified to assess it yourself, why don't you do so? If you don't, then I don't see the point of your comment. Njsustain (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I restored the Wikiproject Television Tag and rated as High and C. Anybody so inclined can assess an article, or refrain from doing so. I have taken the liberty of doing so. Safiel (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please suggest what changes would make the article B-class in your opinion? Looking at some of the other articles which have been rated in the B and C classes, and the criteria, I would think "B" a more appropriate rating, in my opinon.Njsustain (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the article could qualify for "B" as it currently is. I was being rather conservative by rating it "C". But if there are no serious objections, I see no problem at all with going with a "B" rating. Safiel (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No separation of article to create character article.

I don't think the article should be split. This is a character based show... the description of the characters is the means by which the plot of the show is explained. If there were a separate article listing the individual characters it would simply be a "list" and take away from the article. IF a separate article is created, it should not replace the "Characters" section in the existing one. In other words, it is fine for there to be a separate article listing the characters, but it should be in addition to the current article, not split from the current article. Njsustain (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre classification

Isn't it a bit ridiculous to classify Bewitched based on a 14 issue comic book released 45 years ago? I mean, for crying out loud, there's a one line unreferenced mention of a comic book in the article. I certainly agree that it would be of "bottom" importance to the comic book project. Honestly, it isn't even worth mentioning on the talk page. It's just a nonsense header that is distracting. Njsustain (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Upon further research, it seems that a user was adding these headings willy nilly all over WP on any topic that was ever the slightest bit tangentially related to anything that was ever associated with a comic book (for example, on the talk page about the Batman theme song!). It does not add to the topic nor the talk page and I'm removing it. Njsustain (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Series Summary Information

I can not understand why the third paragraph of this "Bewitched" entry goes into detail about witches names ending in a "soft a" except for a some distant babysitter of Tabitha's. Tabitha had not even been introduced to the readers yet?!? As per my Journalism 101 classes from long ago, minutia should be placed at the very bottom of an article (if at all). I had tried several times to edit this, but apparently the original writer tenaciously retypes it back in. I agree that contributors are all probably fans of the series, but the goal is to enlighten an an uninformed reader. Said entry just obscures the reader from what he or she generally seeks- a succinct desciption/ definition of the subject. - SL

I see. So an ongoing element of the show (all females having their names end with the same sound) is "minutia", but the fact that Arthur made "ten" appearances rather than "several", and discussing a one-time character is not minutia, and is part of "a succinct desciption/ definition of the subject." Sorry, but that runs contrary to your claim. The consistency of the female names throughout the series is relevant. The one time character is not an essential aspect of the Arthur character nor of the series. Try taking Journalism (or English) 201. This is an encyclopedic article, not a news story. Encyclopedic articles should have elements in the right place, not haphazardly tacked on at the end. News articles need to get put out fast, which is why their literary style seems odd and irregular at times... which is fine for the latest headline, but not for WP. Also please note, unless you have done extensive research in the history, it is inappropriate to assume that a "tenacious" editor is the original writer of a certain piece of information, as doing so is accusatory and addresses personal motives rather than what is best for the article. Njsustain (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Touche! I withdraw my comments. So many good folks contribute here, and we all are fans of this GREAT series and its stars. I do not want to evoke hurt feelings, especially to another fan/ contributor. God Bless, and Happy Holidays/ New Year! -SL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.40.172.14 (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure where to check this, but I was sure that Adam did NOT have any supernatural powers. In the episode where the witches council come to test him, Maurice fakes Adam's powers to have him declared a warlock. - KP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazbec26 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but regardless of how "sure" you believe you are about this, you are incorrect. Once Darrin told Adam it was okay for him to display his powers to the witches' council, he proved to be a very powerful warlock. This was one of the last episodes of the series. Rent or buy the last season and you will see it. Njsustain (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why "trivia" tag?

With all due respect, I believe sometimes people tag sections because they have a crusade about those types of sections, rather than a problem with the actual content in question. Tags are a lazy way of attempting to improve WP, IMO when there is no attempt to edit or discuss. This type of tag is basically just a complaint. It's very convenient to have a prefabricated ditty: " "This "In popular culture" section may contain minor or trivial references. Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances, and remove trivia references. " Well, what exactly is the problem? There is a discussion, and this isn't an infinite list of random references to Bewitched. What is "trivial" or "minor"? These are merely a handful of examples of references the show over the years, and it is by no means out of hand. I'd like to hear exactly what the problems are and what can be done to improve the section. Without the discussion I don't think this tag is appropriate. It seems more like an automatic reflext to an "in popular culture" section rather than a beef with THIS "in popular culture" section.Njsustain (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Character Numbers

It's important to list the Characters names and numbers so that everyone will know which actors and actresses played the role of some of the Characters in "Bewitched". It also helps to put and after each twin's name who played Tabitha just like on the Full House section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.211.187 (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, but this doesn't improve the article. There was one character, not four. The people who played it are listed chronologically, and as the dates are shown there is no point in repeating the character's name with numbers. We assume good faith in your edits, but as they are not in keeping with Wikipedia standards they will be reverted. You may want to discuss proposed changes here before making them on the article page. Njsustain (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

More prominent episode link

Where would be an appropriate place to list a link for List of Bewitched episodes that is more prominent? I think it should go right before the TOC. Njsustain (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Stephens/s'/es/es'/etc.?

This is interesting: "When a family name (a proper noun) is pluralized, we almost always simply add an "s." So we go to visit the Smiths, the Kennedys, the Grays, etc.When a family name ends in s, x, ch, sh, or z, however, we form the plural by added -es, as in the Marches, the Joneses, the Maddoxes, the Bushes, the Rodriguezes. Do not form a family name plural by using an apostrophe; that device is reserved for creating possessive forms.

"When a proper noun ends in an "s" with a hard "z" sound, we don't add any ending to form the plural: "The Chambers are coming to dinner" (not the Chamberses); "The Hodges used to live here" (not the Hodgeses). There are exceptions even to this: we say "The Joneses are coming over," and we'd probably write "The Stevenses are coming, too." A modest proposal: women whose last names end in "s" (pronounced "z") should marry and take the names of men whose last names do not end with that sound, and eventually this problem will disappear." from http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm

So... ????? "Stephens's" is definitely no good, and it's not definitely "Stephenses" because of the "z" sound and could make it the exception "Stephens". But the writer of this article said there are exceptions to THAT exception, and that "we'd probably write "Stevenses" ", but that's hardly definitive. Who knew this would be such an edge of the knife situation? No wonder people have been going back and forth.

Unfortunately, I don't see any way to say definitely one way or the other. One person has a right to change it one way, and another has a right to change it the other way. Proposals to decide on a consistent standard for the Bewitched articles? I think I plan to just walk away from this hornets nest (hornet's nest?, hornets' nest?) I've now created. Sorry. Njsustain (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't realize the article had been changed when I did my revert to "Stephenses". The last time I had checked, the article was all "Stephenses" and "Kravitzes" throughout for plurals (and "Stephenses'"/"Kravitzes'" for possessive plurals). Some months ago, I made them that way, since it had been inconsistent throughout the article. At the time I did a Google search on pluralizing last names, although doing it again now, I see there's not total consensus. I think it's most important that it's consistent throughout the article, and that apostrophes are only used to denote possessives. I personally feel that using just "the Stephens" as the plural sounds weird (like saying "We're going to visit the Smith" instead of "the Smiths", but I realize what I find weird doesn't make it so! Mupept (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Bewitched B&B

I thought that you might wish to note this item somewhere and provide the link. Thanks! The Bewitched B&B in Rehoboth Beach, Del. is a shrine to the '60s sitcom http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061804299.html Rumjal rumjal 20:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

Bewitched Distributors

Do we really need to have who syndicated the show in reruns in the infobox. Can't we just cover who aired it in first-run production? Glickmam (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even sure the list is fully accurate. I know that episodes on Nick at Nite in 1995 were through The Program Exchange (it was when I first saw and taped the show). Everything else in the infobox is easily verifiable, but I would agree that the syndication distributor list should be removed (unless there's a source for them all). Mupept (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that vandals, probably corporate vandals from Sony, keep changing the production company to "Sony Pictures Entertainment" even though no such entity existed when the show was produced. That vandalism just never stopped, it was absolutely relentless... until someone had the bright idea of putting the distributor in the infobox. Some people at Sony are simply hell bent at putting their name in the infobox. If there is not accurate place to put it, well, they are just going to stick their name wherever they want, even some place inaccurate and ridiculous. If the list of distributors isn't complete, perhaps the category can be changed to "Current distributor". I agree the article doesn't need the entire history of syndicators, but I don't see anything wrong with listing the current distributor, especially if it prevents relentless vandalism by corporate idiots.Njsustain (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I propose deleting all but "Sony Pictures Television" and adding "(current)" after it since there's no option for "current distributor" in the TV infobox template that I've seen. Mupept (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I am leaning toward agreement with this. The infobox should be for "at-a-glance" information, not an exhaustive list. If anything, it can be broken out into the article somewhere. Elizium23 (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the list of distributors can be put in the article, but the infobox section can simply say "Current: Sony Pictures Entertainment". Deleting it entirely will result in constant vandalism from the corporate vandals. Unless you want to convince the administrators put put the half-lock on the article we will be back where we started. Njsustain (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Title in Other languages

An anonymous poster added the titles of Bewitched in other languages. Though interesting, it is completely unsourced. Does anyone think it needs sourcing? I think a list of this nature requires a source in an encyclopedic article, or it should be deleted. Njsustain (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, no other comments so far. I tagged the section. I think it's an interesting list and should be kept if sourced. Otherwise it will be removed eventually. Njsustain (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There have been no sources for where the titles initially came from. I'd really like to see this section stay, but as people have been editing the translations, it gives less creedence to the validity of the original list that was posted. If there are no sources forthcoming it will be deleted in the relatively near future.Njsustain (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bewitched/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I am quickfailing this article for lack of inline citations. (See WP:WIAGA)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Witches of Waverley yes, Heroes no

I agree that Witches of Waverly definitely belongs on the list of similar TV series. I also added the soap opera Passions, which has a rather strong connection to Bewitched anyway (as indicated in the new section I added). But I cannot think of any reason to have the NBC series Heroes listed here. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"The Bewitched Book" / Alice Ghostley info

The recently added info on Ghostley and the improper reference is fishy. While the book exists, why did the anonymous writer talk about the book's "First edition." What was the purpose of switching the Clara & Gladys paragraphs? I smell a non-encyclopedic motive. Full disclosure, please, anonymous editor. Anyway, I won't belabor the point. If the reference isn't done properly in a reasonable time I'll just revert it. New information is welcome, but this is not primary source info, so it needs to be done properly. Njsustain (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: Clear COI/ commercial use of WP. The author of said book is currently promoting it. Any further fishy additions from said book will be reported to WP administrators. Njsustain (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Update 2: There have been repeated anonymous, unexplained edits which serve no encyclopedic purpose. There seems to be no purpose other than to focus the article to put the spotlight on certain other media. That is not the purpose of WP and all such edits will be reverted as COI based vandalism. Njsustain (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Continued suspicious activity from "Goomoo": This contributor has frequently violated the rules and spirit of WP. Here is one commenter's take from that user's talk page: "Your chronic disregard for Wikipedia's neutral point of view and original commentary policies makes your continued editing of articles problematic. While some of your analysis may be factual, without sources to back it up, it looks like just some person with an opinion trying to make it part of the public record. If the analysis you're adding to articles is backed up by published, reliable sources then identify those sources. Otherwise, don't add it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)"

Again, some of the additions here have been suspicious in addition to having the wrong tone and being unsourced. It seems like promotional infor for that book which must have been recently re-released or something. In any case I will revert any similar edits without comment.Njsustain (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Other Shows section relevent

The "other supernatural television shows" section is somewhat interesting, but I don't think it should be part of this article. This is a holdover from the article's ancient non-encylopedic history. If this is important information it should be a separate article. The section is becoming a garbage/trivia magnet. It's not quite encyclopedic and has unclear boundaries. In any case I don't think it's appropriate for an article on a particular show. Opinions? Njsustain (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The entire section is unencylopedic and basically just a POV/trivia section. I think it should be removed. Pinkadelica^♣ 04:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

A reluctant delete because it is irrelevant and trivial. But Melissa Joan Hart is my favorite actress, ergo the reluctance... Elizium23 (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Bewitched's 9th Season

Bewitched, if you will go back and look at the facts, was supposed to run for a 9th season, instead the Ashmont company produced another show in its place to fill the contract. Montgomery did not come back for the 9th season, so her then husband produced another show maybe the Paul Lynde Show was produced and I will find the source/s for this. I have been editing this page for over 6 years. Thank YouJdcrackers (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That is nice. You should then be aware already of Wikipedia:Citing sources, WP:RS, and WP:V. Elizium23 (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't care how long you have been adding wrong information to this article, it is still wrong. No one will believe that ABC wanted to renew a show that had fallen to 72nd place in the ratings until multiple RELIABLE SOURCES have been cited. Your edits have been disruptive and will be taken to administration if they continue. Njsustain (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Further, based on the dates and articles edited, I believe you are the same person as the disruptive user Goomoo. This is sockpuppeting, which, as a long time user of WP you are obviously aware is against the rules. If you or Goomoo disrupt this article again I will be bringing this sockpuppetry up to administration as well and you risk having both those accounts deleted. So why don't you go bother the constructive editors at The Flying Nun or Mannix or My Mother the Car and stop your pointless and futile crusade to discuss a non-existent 9th season of Bewitched? Njsustain (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, wonderful news, everyone, the highly educated JDCrackers left me this personal message about some impending information about Bewitched's 9th season:

Excuse me, but I have used sources and I don't vandalize. I am a highly educated woman and I know what I am talking about. I will contact ABC and find out what is what and then I will back up my claims. I am not harrassing you, but simply telling you the facts. Bewitched was a very popular show as I grew up watching it. Have a good dayJdcrackers (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wonderful! I can't wait to see what ABC tells you. I'm sure they'll send you a certified letter telling you what their plans were for one of their lowest rated shows from forty years ago! Please don't leave us out of the loop, Dr. Crackers!!!!! Please tell us exactly what ABC tells you the minute you hear from them! Njsustain (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Inspirations

An editor recently added a line and as a reference used an arbitrary internet comment about a story whose plot had nothing whatsoever to do with that of Bewitched. This was reverted. In a response which I consider being done out of spite, the following long standing text was removed by said editor from the beginning of the "Production" section:

Inspirations for this series in which many similarities can be seen were the 1942 film I Married a Witch (from Thorne Smith's unfinished novel The Passionate Witch and Me), and the John Van Druten Broadway play Bell, Book and Candle that was adapted into a 1958 movie.

No one has ever questioned this text before. If you watch Bell, Book and Candle you can see the obvious direct inspirations. This is why I, for one, have never requested a source for these statements. I don't disagree that a source may be requested, but it should have been done so appropriately, by requesting a citation. Doing so out of spite is not the way to handle this. If no one objects, I will replace the text and anyone who wishes to add "citation needed" may do so. Njsustain (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I Married a Witch and Bell, Book and Candle are both mentioned in Herbie J Pilato's book as inspirations for the show. I'm not sure if he states it as a fact or not though (I don't currently have the book with me). Sol Saks also mentions the two movies on the E! True Hollywood Story episode about Bewitched and how they didn't have to worry about copyright since Columbia owned the films. There's more here: http://harpiesbizarre.com/solsaks.htm Mupept (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you mupept. I think that the source is reliable enough to at say that "It is reported that..." I will restore the text, later. I understand that if someone wants to claim another source is needed they can state so, but due to the nature of its deletion it should be replaced. Njsustain (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The material which I added to "Bewitched" was sourced. You deleted it. The material which I deleted was unsourced. I think one needs to be consistent here. If my material was deleted because the sourcing was "non-reliable" (your phrase), then clearly we need to delete material that is not sourced at all. The novel in question -- Conjure Wife -- is not just "about witches" (your phrase). It is a classic novel of fantasy about a world in which women are secretly witches; and it tells the story of a married couple in which the husband discovers the wife's secret and has to deal with it. That is very similar to the premise of "Bewitched". LyleHoward (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There are several differences in the sources and statements you are claiming are not being consistently used. First, your source was simply a random person giving an opinion on the similarities between the stories. The other source is reporting an interview with the creator of Bewitched, who says that those other sources were indeed his inspirations for the series. This is therefore a completely different situation. As a matter of which is a "reliable" source, that's not the point. The source you quoted, even if it were considered reliable, is clearly stating an opinion on the similarities, not facts. Harpie's Bizarre is stating a fact. There is no inconsistency. Njsustain (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Harpie's Bizarre is an unofficial fansite and shouldn't be used as a citation throughout the article anyway. However informative it may be, no fansite should be used as a source in any article on Wikipedia. I would go through and remove it as a citation as the article clearly isn't following policy, but there seems to be some "issues" regarding this article and I'd rather not get into a pissing contest about a 40+ year old show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.68.75.242 (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to be lectured to about WP rules by a sockpuppeter who doesn't even know how to sign his comments. You're obviously taking the removal of your poor addition personally and insulting long time dedicated editors by saying they are taking ownership of the articles is totally inappropriate. You have a right to question the reliability of sources, but not for the purpose of having a temper tantrum. If you would like to call in admins or have a request for comment on the issue, be my guest. Njsustain (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read and comprehend WP:AGF - I'm not a sockpuppet nor am I the editor you're currently in a tiff with. If you have issue with IP users (or any other user for that matter) chiming in on public talk pages, stop posting on talk pages. Additionally, you needn't let me know what I have the "right" to do. It's stated Wikipedia policy not to use unreliable sources such as an unofficial fansite like Harpie's Bizarre. There's no need whatsoever to "question" that. Long time editor or not, you're on here chiding others for things when all your ducks aren't in a row. Don't get your knickers in a twist because you got called on not following policy. I also don't need to contact an administrator or open up a request for comment about this issue though it would be interesting to see what other editors have to say about your issues regarding this article. 65.68.75.242 (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me start by reminding everyone of WP:CIVIL. Don't let the conversation degrade to personal attacks because you simply disagree on a few points. Now let's see what WP:RS says: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Harpie's Bizarre qualifies as a questionable source because it appears to have no editorial oversight. Let's contrast this with unreliable sources, such as IMDb, which has been proved inaccurate time and again, especially for biographical data about stars. By contrast, we don't know how accurate Harpie's Bizarre is. But can it be used to cite this claim? That depends on whether the claim is contentious. From the discussion above, it appears that the claim itself is not contested. The other editors have pointed out that the claim had no source at all. Now a source is provided, and it's not cast as speculation or fan research, it's a direct quote from an interview with the creator. It seems to me that in this case, HB is reliable for this particular quote from the creator, and might be used to weakly source the claim, in lieu of another definitely reliable source. In this case, HB is not relying on rumors, and it is quoting the personal opinion of an involved party, the creator of the series. Since this is not a contentious claim, I suggest you cite this article, leave a comment in the wikitext that you acknowledge it is a poor source, and move on. Elizium23 (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just read the article on Harpie's Bizarre, and it's even easier than that. The quote is not from an interview they did independently, it is from The E! True Hollywood Story: Bewitched. All that needs to be done is someone can find and watch that episode, and verify that he said that, and E! is automatically a reliable source that can be cited with {{cite episode}}. Elizium23 (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Elizium23, WP:CIVIL is a fantastic catch-all guideline to cite but it's not all that practical to follow when certain editors come out of the gate with a bad attitude. I simply pointed out that a fansite isn't considered a reliable source to begin with and I get accused of sockpuppetry. Unless the accusing editor has proof of sockpuppetry (ie CU results), I believe that kind of unfounded accusation should be stricken out. Also, that kind of elitist and snotty attitude is not collegial. I do not believe pointing out that a source is unacceptable should be met with such a snotty attitude. It doesn't matter if I just started editing yesterday and never sign up for an account. Wikipedia is and probably always will be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If certain editors can't handle that other editors have the right to edit their little pet articles even if they don't want them to, they should find another site to lord over. As far as the content, a fansite is never a reliable source. Harpie's Bizarre is cited at least twice in this article and it should be removed entirely. Also, an unacceptable source should not be left in an article. The source should simply be removed, not left in with a note stating that it doesn't meet standards. If the quote is from an episode of whatever, the episode should be cited. 65.68.75.242 (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't care about your attitude or his attitude, and one of you should take it to WP:WQA because that is a good place for mud-slinging, not Talk:Bewitched. Civility is a policy which has a higher standard than guidelines, in fact, policies are the highest standard. In fact, civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia.

As regards the source, your argument is moot because the actual reference is The E! True Hollywood Story: Bewitched. It should be verifiable to anyone who has access to a video of that episode. Apparently, it might even be available for $30 plus $5 shipping from a private seller. So I say to keep the source until someone with the episode steps forward, and then the episode itself can be cited.

As regards to removing sources from articles, WP:RS does not say that any source should be removed. It says Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. - the fact is not contentious, according to you, only the source is contentious, and WP:RS does not say to remove that source. It merely states that it is currently poorly sourced. Elizium23 (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If my argument is moot so is yours because basically said what you said to do without keeping the poor source. I don't think there should be a policy that says to remove poor sources because that should be common sense. What's the point of keeping a source that isn't considered reliable? It doesn't matter if the content is contentious or not. The source is crap and shouldn't be used here. As for you not caring about attitudes on here - don't jump into conversations attempting to reprimand others if you don't care. If you took two minutes to read through this talk page, you'll see that anyone who dares to improve the article or actually implement policy on it is met with a bad attitude and is quickly reverted. In short, there are bigger issues going on here than bad sources being used. That would be one of those pillars who refer to. 65.68.75.242 (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

From WP:OAS: "Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert unconstructive edits in order to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not in itself constitute ownership..."

I will continue to revert any edits I feel are non-constructive, and will welcome constructive edits when they occur. That the former occur more than the latter simply means that it is a good, stable article, not that any of its stewards have bad attitudes. Njsustain (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Actors playing McMann

I could easily be mistaken, but I thought that there was also an episode in which Charles Lane appeared as McMann. (I do realize he was seen one or more times in client roles.)Sillypillows (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No, only the two actors cited in the articles played Mr. McMann. Njsustain (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Correlation does not equal cause

The series' ratings declined after Dick York left, but that does not mean that his leaving was the cause of the decline. Stating that his leaving did cause the ratings to fall is a conclusion and/or opinion, not a fact, and cannot be included in an encyclopedic article. My opinion is that lazy writing and direction and lack of new stories was much more to blame, but in any case the change of actors cannot be stated as the cause in the WP article. Njsustain (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The tedious (and unreferenced) enumeration of the events surrounding Dick York's departure does not add to the article. There has been a systematic attempt to make this article and the List of Episodes article to revolve around Dick York's leaving the show. I'm sorry, but this article is about Bewitched, not about Dick York not being in Bewitched. This ongoing myopic focus on Dick York's departure unbalances the article. Please request other opinions or administrative input if you want to change the article to the "All about Dick York's departure from Bewitched" page. Your total lack of input into seasons 6-8 (not to mention spelling Dick Sargent's name wrong) shows your lack of a balanced view on the topic of this article. Maybe you should focus your efforts on the Dick York article instead. The discussion would be more appropriate there, as there would be little argument that York's notoriety is almost exclusively based on his work on Bewitched. Njsustain (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-NPOV isn't "factual"

As per a request, the edit I just undid was due to non-POV statements. Stating that characters have respect for one another, or that Dick York's absence was "ironic" are not "factual" statements. This isn't the Dick York fan site. Njsustain (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Also regarding non-factual information, although Maudie Prickett played a teacher in an earlier season episode, she was not Mrs. Peabody. That seemed to be more of a pre-school/day care center, not a grade school. Try to get the basic facts straight before leaping to judge the editing style of others. Njsustain (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Pandora uncredited

How strange that Serena goes unmentioned in the 1972 episode credits. Thanks for noticing, Mupept. Njsustain (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Too Bad

Too bad the copyright nazis have infiltrated this page, and Wikipedia. Don't know what they have against Bewitched in particular, but it is a shame.