Talk:How I Met Your Mother

Tie-Ins addition

canadiansexacts.org is another site mentioned in episode 18 of the fourth session and I think it should be added into the Tie-Ins section. Don't worry, no adult content ;-)

Yeah, for some reason the site is always down. Can't imagine why they don't fix that. Alan Thicke is certainly apologetic, however. And yes, it should be added to the list. — $wgUser 16:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• How many of the "tie-ins" listed on the site are official sites? At least a few of them are most likely created by fans in honor of the show. --V2Blast (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

LilyAndMarshallSellTheirStuff is no longer archived. Sound the alarms

Lorenzo Von Matterhorn fake wikipedia page: lorenzovonmatterhorn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.5.92 (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• TheSlapBetCountdown.com - Similiar in design to the abovementioned website SlapCountdown.com, this site features a countdown to May 6,2013 17:27.

I just added that. The website was mentioned on Barney's Twitter account on November 8 - apparently, it counted down to the Disaster Averted episode were, indeed, he gets slapped. Now, the timer was set to another date - May 6, 2013. The sourcecode to the website says "But here's the countdown until the next Slap". --DocBrown (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Production

The production section begins with a comment <!-- introduction, letterman etc. -->. The article makes no mention of David Letterman but by searching for the quote "our friends and the stupid stuff we did in New York" I was able to find an article explaining the writers worked on Letterman before they go the show. Is this something that still could or should be added to the article? -- Horkana (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability of International Broadcast section

I seriously question the notability of the "International Broadcast" section. Wikipedia is not TV Guide, and WP:NOTNEWS. It seems like CBS and Lifetime are the only two networks that are notable. How accurate will this information be in a week/month/year. This is the English language wikipedia, do the countries listed even broadcast the show in English? I know Germany dubs most programmes into German. I've looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/Style_guidelines and it doesn't mention anything about an international broadcast sections anywhere at all in the article. I looked at several well established articles mentioned on the project television guidelines. Prison_Break#Distribution does provide some information but certainly does not have a flat list of International broadcasters. Smallville, Heroes_(TV_series), The Simpsons, none of these shows have an international broadcasting section. The closest I've been able to find to an exception is Friends which still does not have a flat list but does have some information about exceptional Friends#International deals made in distributing the show. I'm going to delete the International Broadcast section now before it gets any worse. It is shame to see good faith edits going to waste but good articles just don't include lists like that. -- Horkana (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The list of International Broadcasters was only added recently (not in the article mid October) and started to sprawl very quickly. Based on the Friends article if there was some huge high profile deal made then it might be relevant to include it but so far the only thing like that was the deal with Lifetime network already mentioned in the article. -- Horkana (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You're forgetting That 70's Show, boy THAT one had a lot.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, good to have a counterpoint. I looked at Friends as a sitcom to make sure I was doing a fair comparison. I feel it is not unreasonable to delete the section because it was only recently added and I can say with confidence it is not something normally included in good articles. I can see how the information is useful to readers but just is not something a good encyclopedia would include, if nothing else it is too hard to verify if the information is still correct. -- Horkana (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Judging by hits on the German version of this article, the show is wildly popular in Germany: ranked 19th on dewiki views. That—at least—should be mentioned in this article. I looked for a German equivalent of Nielsen ratings, but could not tell if there is anything. —EncMstr (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Tristram Shandy

Has anybody considered the 18th Century novel "Tristram Shandy" as a model for the show? Both feature an comically inept narrator who gets events out of order, remembers the past with obvious exaggerations, forgets to give the reader crucial information (in this case the identity of the mother), and goes off on tangents all the time.CharlesTheBold (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

We'd rather go with Bays and Thomas' rationale for creating the show. To insist on this book being connected with it seem like OR. --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wendy the Waitress

Was searching for details about "Wendy the Waitress" and apparently John McCain used the name along with "Joe the Plumber" when he wanted to appeal to middle class voters. Did the writers of the show borrow from him or the other way round or was it just a bit of convenient coincidental alliteration? It is probably just a coincidence, a wikipedia search mentions a very old comic titled Wendy the Waitress.

I saw an online quiz which claimed that Charlene had auditioned for the part of "Girl who works with Carlos" before she got the part of Wendy the Waitress but couldn't find a suitable source. -- Horkana (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed odd information from recurring cast

I've removed the last two paragraphs on recurring characters because they don't seem to be relevant. A correlation between characters on a show also acting in another show is probably a co-incidence, unless there's something else to suggest a connection. If there is, then that should be in the article rather than what I've removed. Josh04 (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and that connection should be well sourced if it exists. DP76764 (Talk) 20:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What a shame. The paragraph you deleted was the reason I started watching the show (I'm a huge Joss Whedon fan). In fact, I just came here right now to add two more characters I spotted to the list. Odigity (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Which paragraph? Hard to find citations for a deleted paragraph. If it is something that probably could be sourced but you are having difficulty or don't have time to find them then don't just delete it, put the paragraph here on the Talk page and give other editors a chance to find sources.

The show creators have certainly mentioned in interviews about guest casting and how they have cast people who have previously worked with cast members in shows such as Buffy or Freak and Geeks but admittedly finding the right source for each guest can be a bit of a pain, usually you need to search through articles and reviews for specific episodes.

Again the first thing to do is to mark items as citation needed, only if citations are not available should you think about deleting. -- Horkana (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Simple

There is an article for How I Met Your Mother in Simple English Wikipedia that is really only a little more than a stub. The article needs to be expanded now but it will always need to be kept much simpler and more minimal than the many article we have for How I Met Your Mother in the English language Wikipedia and it might appeal to editors who feel we have too much detail about the show here. It might also inspire some of us to see where we have overcomplicated this article and things could be simplified with no loss of quality or detail. -- Horkana (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC) sloths shhhhh

The Mother

Why do people keep removing references to the "Mother" (from the title) from this article. The producers were happy enough to blatantly reveal that the mother would be played by Nicole Muirbrook in the episode "No Tomorrow" (season 3). What is the issue with having this up on wikipedia? Do you want me to say "Spoiler Alert" before informing people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Religious Burp (talk • contribs) 23:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As per the note on your talk page, we need reliable sources. IMDB doesn't meet that standard. If you are prepared to discuss the matter here rather than repeatedly reverting your text in, you'll find people are quite willing to help out. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So you want me to upload the physical episode as a way of citing this? How else is going to be cited. It's evident. How obvious does something need to be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Religious Burp (talk • contribs) 23:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed some of this, where exactly is your proof that the actor in question is intended as the mother character? In the absence of reliable proof, this is nothing but speculation, and has to go. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz, you should actually watch the episode. It's wrong of you to be removing content about an episode you haven't watched.--Religious Burp (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The actress mentioned appeared as the future mother, in an episode where only her hand was shown. When the mother is actually revealed there is no reason to believe that they will bring the same actress back when they go to actually show the face, ie actually introduce the character. Case in point the same actress was not used when future mother is seen again in which case only her ankle is shown. 24.255.228.55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC).

See also

See also Talk:No Tomorrow (How I Met Your Mother) where this is discussed further. This is speculation, which is interesting and notable and we can report on it as speculation by critics but there is not enough to do much more than that. -- Horkana (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"'How I Met Your Mother': We Think We Figured Out Who 'Your Mother' Is". New York Magazine. 2008-03-18.

Horkana, do you think it would be alright to start up a whole new section then? I think there is enough evidence, in edition to the article. And lots of people have noted this occurance in the episode as a give away that she will play Ted's wife. I think it belongs there, rather than getting however many years down the track and inserting information that was already evident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Religious Burp (talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I definitely encourage you to include the information in the article No Tomorrow (How I Met Your Mother), the only problem is how to present it but I think including it under Critics will be adequate.

I'm not sure what the appropriate way would be to include this information in the main How I Met Your Mother article. I've no great desire to delete the work of anyone trying to improve Wikipedia but I'm just not sure how we can massage this into a form others will accept. Perhaps the few other editors who reverted your changes can say what way they believe it would be acceptable to present this. -- Horkana (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Religious Burp (talk • contribs) 02:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest using the best sources you can find. Blogs and minor reviews aren't going to cut it. Nor will original research, but that's another story. DP76764 (Talk) 03:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent) I've removed the text yet again, per the discussions that recognize it as speculation. Given the media commentary, it probably can be restored in some form once the proper sources are added for the speculation. However, what we have to avoid is any speculation that comes from us as editors and/or viewers. For example, the article Nicole Muirbrook had text that was completely non-encyclopedic and speculatiove, such as "Nicole's breakthrough acting role", "...was the producers way of giving fans a sneak peak of who Ted would eventually marry" and "It is unknown when she will return to the series to film the episodes that lead to her marrying Ted". The main article, the episodes article, and the 3rd aseason article were all written in a manner that suggested the role definitely was that of the mother, whereas it would have to be written to reflect the fact that some critics thought this with no confirmation from the producers as to its accuracy. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz, you really are a bit full of yourself. You remove content (on this & other pages, as is evident on your talk page) that you have no idea about. And you say there isn't enough citations. But you only have to look lots of the plot summaries to find virtually no citations. In fact, the only citation on Nicole Muirbrook's page was the one I inserted. Perhaps you should back off and realise you don't know everything about everything, others know stuff too. At least do some research to back up your refusal of information. --Religious Burp (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so you're the one repeatedly adding unreferenced material, yet you say I am at fault? Look, if you want people to help you, you really need to adopt a less agressive attitude. The problem is not about reporting straight-forward plot elements, such as saying that character X bumped into a woman. The problem is in making speculative assumptions that the woman is the mother, without any proof whatsoever. Plus, the text you wrote on Nicole's page was non-encyclopedic in nature; among other opinions, you described Muirbrook's acting as her "breakthrough role" and you stated that she was the mother character. The IMDB reference - and keep in mind that IMDB is only usable for specific facts - does not support those claims in any way whatsoever. It only describes her role as "woman". --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You may think I'm the aggressive one but I'm not the one removing other's contributions willy nilly. You removed a contribution on Heidelberg railway station, Melbourne. How many times have you been there? Do you even live in Australia? I've been to that station a few hundred times. The only reason I have not oulined the evidence in the articles themselves was to save the articles becoming too messy. I think keeping it simple is more in the interest of the readability of the articles. If you think the description of Nicole Muirbrook on her page was non-encyclopedic then you should have amended it to be like that, not just rip out whole sections. You really need to stop thinking you are the king of wikipedia. --Religious Burp (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read through the verifiability and reliable sources policies. There are many, many, many things that you, I, and every other Wikipedia editor know. That does not mean we can write about it; we do not qualify as reliable sources. Material that is unreferenced can and should be removed; this is a fundamental and long-established practice on this site. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

So going to destination that is listed on wikipedia, seeing a massive landmark with an accompanying sign detailing it is unreliable. The actual place is unreliable? You don't even hear yourself, do you? Take your head out of your butt, it might help. --Religious Burp (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the station, please put yourself in the position of a reader. How are they supposed to know that the material is accurate? If you go there so often, why not simply post a photo of the sign? That would both serve to verify the information and add to the article. With respect to this article, please note that I am certainly not the only person who disagrees with your position. People here are willing to help you, but you have to work with them. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think I needed to take a photo of the sign because anyone going thru the station can see the semaphore signal as clear as day. The thing is huge. I don't come on wikipedia to see photos of signs. Are you honestly suggesting that I would concoct a story about a semaphore signal at Heidelberg Station? You think that's how I get my jollys? You think that just coz you believe the likelihood that someone would make up a story about a historic semaphore signal at a station is more likely than there actually being one gives you the right to remove content? Get a grip on reality. The fact you felt a need to remove this shows you are a control freak, simple. --Religious Burp (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, calm down please. I never said you were making up anything, I merely said that Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires us to provide proof. Note that I didn't make the rules; they were here when I started on Wikipedia, and they'll in all likelihood be here for the life of the project. Please also note that I'm bound by them as well. There is a lot of information that I could add with regard to my home town, but without any form of verifiability they would be just as likely to be removed.

Now, I do apologize if you're miffed over the station. To be fair to me, I was faced with unverified material that had been posted by an editor who was repeatedly adding unverified speculation to other articles. I suggest, however, that if you wish to continue discussing the sign, we take that either to our respective talk pages or to the station's article, as it is not related to this article. Fair enough? --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not a viewer of this show and found the article confusing. It seems that a central plot device or joke is that the viewer is kept in endless suspense from episode to episode about who Ted will eventually marry, even though his ostensible audience (his kids) presumably already know. Is this the case? If so, shouldn't it be mentioned early in the article? (The article currently seems to assume that every Wikipedia reader already knows this: for example, the synopsis of Season 1 says that the viewer can deduce that Robin is not the mother.) Eclecticos (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. I'll see what I can do to make this more clear. Reywas92^Talk 03:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

E4

Since the show reached the UK, its been airing on channel E4, i was going to add it, but because it was originally American and on CBS, i didn't know if it was relevant. --Stripy Socks (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It is also aired on the BBC 2. I don't think International broadcast sections are generally notable. Those big long tables full of countries are definitely not notable, they're of little relevance to English language Wikipedia, and hard to verify or keep up to date.

There are exceptions where foreign broadcasters pay a whole lot of money for exclusivity and it is enough to gain press coverage, but those are the exception rather than the rule of good television articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_(TV_series)#International

-- Horkana (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

An international broadcast section has already been deleted at least once. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=How_I_Met_Your_Mother&diff=356953434&oldid=356941004

I tagged it being of questionable importance. I was waiting before deleting in case anyone might have made the effort to show why it was notable but anyone restoring it would need to include citations not just to verify it was true and up to date but also something to suggest it is actually notable. -- Horkana (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Transcripts

A fan of the show has been writing transcripts of the episodes after they air. These might be of some use to verify quotes or points of discussion that might be disputed. -- Horkana (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I?

Why is the I capitalised? Shouldn't it be a small I, like in the title sequence? IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone correct me if im wrong, but the name of the article has to be grammatically correct, whereas the name of the show is similar to a logo. You wouldnt find the small i in a tv guide or something similar to it. --Stripy Socks (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

the iPod article starts with a small I..... most articles start with a capital.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, I could be wrong, but I think it may be because the ipod article has a one-worded title where the second letter is meant to be the capital on purpose as it is stated officially by Apple. Where as the How I Met Your Mother title sequence has it all in lower case because it looks better and suits the show, which is probably unneccessary for the article title. --Stripy Socks (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"I" is always capitalised, when used a pronoun, since it is a proper noun. Plus, all the other words are capitalized, so why shouldn't "I" be? --Babar Suhail (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

So you say that Friends' title should be "F.R.I.E.N.D.S"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.169.89 (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Guest stars

The show has had a lot of guest stars and even been criticized for stunt casting. I wouldn't go so far as to assert or presume these guest are "notable" but I think the list could be added back to the article in some form. Perhaps as prose rather than a list? -- Horkana (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

GNB Logo

It appears that Wikipedia (or a few of their hit men) are attempting to delete the GNB Logo. The logo is used a number of times during the series hence it was added to the text of this article. Please click on the logo and direct yourself to the section argue that the logo should stay.Throttler (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Marshall

Why does Marshall not have its own page? Where as the other 4 main characters have their own page! --94.215.215.175 (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

He has a page on the HIMYM Wiki ([1]) if you are looking for more info or want to add some. — JediRogue (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Linking to fan wiki here and episode/character pages

There are a lot of trivia and details on episode pages for How I Met Your Mother here on Wikipedia. Most of this content is less appropriate for Wikipedia than it would be on a wiki specific to the show. To encourage people to bring all this trivia there, as well as add an external source of information about the show, I am placing links to the show wiki on pages related to the show. Hopefully it will encourage less trivia lists on episode pages by making it apparent that a better place for it is available and encourage more of these devoted fans to contribute trivia, miscellaneous info, and other content relevant to that community which is a more appropriate venue for such content.

Note that, according to Template:Wikia which is being used, we shouldn't be linking to copyright violations (WP:COPYLINK). Pages on HIMYM Wiki that use content from wikipedia are (and should be if they are not--please add the template if you are editing over there unless you are recontributing your own content {{wikipedia|pagename}}) attributing the content to the original wiki page and marked for rewriting.

According to WP:FANSITE, we should not be linking to sites that don't add more content than the article should have based on the ideal amount of content needed to be featured. While some of the pages on the HIMYM wiki have less content than their wikipedia counterparts, ideally, the content on these articles should move from one wiki to the other. Especially considering, WP:PLOT and WP:TRIVIA. For these reasons, it should be appropriate to place these links to encourage the appropriate content placement.

Basically, althoough it is serving to "promote" that wiki and is linking to pages that sometimes don't contain more content than can be found here, I think its going to be beneficial in helping improve the content here. While so far, these links are only on episodes and pages that do have more/better content on Wikia, I want to put it on all the pages, regardless of their status on that wiki. So unless someone says something before tomorrow, I am going to be bold and start. Especially because I would not be suprised if someone started to delete the questionable content because its not as appropriate on wikipedia.

This should also be enough to justify going around the Template:no more links tag. — JediRogue (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have removed the links. There are very few cases where a fan wiki warrants inclusion as an external link. In this case, the wiki is so small and draws upon a very small pool of editors, so it would not meet the terms for inclusion. As an aside, we can not use wikis as reference sources; this site was used for a reference on one page. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion elsewhere that the wiki should be presented as a site for trivia etc. is useful. While it still does not mean we can link to the site from articles, it might be worth adding a mention on the series project page (if one exists) or in a FAQ on the talk page of the main article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No Lily in the title card picture

Wouldn't it be better if the whole main cast was shown in the title card picture? Maybe something like this @ http://daniel-gebauer.de/serientipp-met-mother --Lathrop1885 (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Lorenzopedia

There is also the Lorenzopedia, another Lorenzo von Matterhorn site, that is not mentioned in the article. I don't if it aws made by CBS. The Text is nearly or fully identical with the Text from the former Wikipedia page [2]. According the Buzzfeed, the Wikipedia page was created by CBS [3]. --Christian140 (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Continuity"

Please take a gander at my question here about "Continuity" sections. These sections in the HIMYM article are trivia and/or WP:OR. Can anyone offer a compelling reason for retaining them? --EEMIV (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've given up trying to improve these articles since others are so determined to delete large chunks of them - death of a thousand cuts - when as you can see from this page there are many who do want these article but again unfortunately aren't very interested in working on them or even relatively easy tasks such as expanding the Reception information beyond the bullet points to more thorough prose. If I'd known about (or if it had existed) The How I Met Your Mother Wiki I'd have gone there instead.

I'm especially disappointed to see the carefully sourced tie-in material from "Barney's blog" being deleted. I mention it particularly so others can note this date and the username EEMIV if they want to try to salvage the material. At this rate I expect whole episode articles will be redirected or deleted next and the information will be gone, so if anyone is interested in salvaging do it while you still can. -- Horkana (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The blog is also oddball trivia. But, yes, it's in the edit history. I only axed the trivial material from season 1 to see whether it actually motivates folks try to incorporate other articles' trivia into e.g. the production or promotion section. Ultimately though, yes, I suspect most of the episode articles would ultimately be better served as redirects to an episode list. But that's a push/conversation for another time. Here and now, it's pretty clear this continuity, cultural reference and blog-integration stuff is just too trivial for its current form of coverage here. --EEMIV (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you seriously underestimate the value of additional material from the producers of the show. It is as close as we have to the writers giving more detail about where they are coming from, even it is framed through the views of one character.

I think - hell I know, there have been calls before - there are editors who would prefer to see all these HIMYM episode articles removed. Deleting is too easy, improving is hard. Hard enough that after adding many reviews and other referenced material it wasn't fun anymore. Perhaps in time other editors will see a better way to present this information (like so many Trivia sections deleted before, later rephrased, regrouped, better referenced, and presented as good background information). I hate to see any good faith efforts deleted (with limits) but Deletionists have the consensus. So be it.

For now at least the information remains in the edit History, and motivated editors might try and do something with it. "Out of sight, out of mind." I'm not optimistic that articles will not be reduced to redirects then be deleted entirely leaving no history at all. I register in advance my unequivocal and very strong objections to deletion of the episode articles. While I try to be polite, it seem like I should take a long (if not permanent break) from Wikipedia. -- Horkana (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Season Six Overview

Obviously this need to be summarised. Don't do it yet though, wait till the Season Finale. Also, who ever summarises it, please re-write all of it. Don't go on deleting bunches of information to make it shorter. --Babar Suhail (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Crew of How I Met Your Mother (same as Crew of The Shield)

Directors: Pamela Fryman (Head Director) (126 episodes, 2005-2011) Rob Greenberg (6 episodes, 2006-2010) Michael Shea (2 episodes, 2008-2011)

Writers: Carter Bays (Head Writer) (135 episodes, 2005-2011) Craig Thomas (showrunner) (135 episodes, 2005-2011) Chris Harris (14 episodes, 2005-2011) Kourtney Kang (11 episodes, 2005-2010) Stephen Lloyd (9 episodes, 2006-2011) Jamie Rhonheimer (9 episodes, 2006-2010) Matt Kuhn (6 episodes, 2007-2011) Joe Kelly (6 episodes, 2008-2011) Brenda Hsueh (5 episodes, 2005-2007) Gloria Calderon Kellett (5 episodes, 2005-2007) Greg Malins (5 episodes, 2006-2010) Theresa Mulligan (4 episodes, 2008-2010) Robia Rashid (4 episodes, 2008-2010) Maria Ferrari (3 episodes, 2006-2007) Jonathan Groff (3 episodes, 2007-2009) Chuck Tatham (3 episodes, 2008-2010) Craig Gerard (3 episodes, 2009-2010) Matthew Zinman (3 episodes, 2009-2010) Sam Johnson (2 episodes, 2005) Phil Lord (2 episodes, 2005) Chris Marcil (2 episodes, 2005) Chris Miller (2 episodes, 2005) Kristin Newman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.21.217 (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

So what if they're the same?--Eaglestorm (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Episode Pages Notability

There is a page for every episode of this show. I believe that 99% of them are not notable. Some episodes did receive significant coverage, but the vast majority only have one citation (The onion AV club, which did a routine review of every episode). While I respect the work done by the relevant editors, I really think the majority of the episode pages should be merged into season level pages or some such, with the exceptions of the episodes that individually achieved notability. Depending on response here, I will propose a merge/delete for most of the episode pages.

It is important to bear this in mind when creating articles, and it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) explains further:

When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources — this will also ensure that there is enough source material for the article to be comprehensive and factually accurate.

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I am beginning with this effort. I have started redirection the individual episode pages to the season pages. The individual episodes are not notable, almost entirely plot or original research (trivia/continuity). The only references for 99% of the episodes is routine coverage from sites that give a review to every episode (of every show in many case). If individual episodes are notable and received commentary, I will leave them up. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not our job to determine why a reliable source chooses to cover a subject. Routine or not, if we have multiple reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth - as reviews do - then it meets Wikipedia:Notability and can exist as a separate article. Also, it's not your call to decide this. Posting here and then starting to do it before allowing consensus to develop is not the way to do it. Let's first discuss it, then if consensus is in favor, it can be done. Not before. Regards SoWhy 16:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No_original_research - the virtual entirety of each episode page is original research. The plot is not retold in the majority of the reviews, and the continuity is even further in the original research vein. There are ZERO citations on the majority of the pages

Wikipedia:PLOT#PLOT Wikipedia is not plot. All of the pages in question are essentially plot summaries. In fact, having episode pages that are ONLY plot opens wikipedia up to significant liability ""As the Wikipedia servers are located in the U.S. state of Florida, Wikipedia articles must conform to U.S. copyright laws. It has been held in a number of court cases that any work which re-tells original ideas from a fictional source, in sufficient quantity without adding information about that work, or in some way analyzing and explaining it, may be construed as a derivative work or a copyright violation...Information about copyright fictional worlds and plots of works of fiction can be provided only under a claim of fair use, and Wikipedia's fair-use policy holds that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible""

Wikipedia:EPISODE ""It is important to bear this in mind when creating articles, and it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available.""

Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Routine_coverage ""routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine.[3]"" ""common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out — are probably not notable"" - An automatic review of every epsiode or inclusion in IMDB falls here.

Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED Episodes are not inherently notable due to the series, actors, or other episodes.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections The continuity sections are problematic here as well.

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be:""Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary. For more information regarding plot summaries, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries. Similarly, articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents.""

Wikipedia:Television_episodes/Proposed_Objective_Criteria I fully admit this is a proposed criteria only, however, they seem very fair criteria for me, and even if you include the ones that are "generous" towards your position, almost none of the episodes satisfy ANY of these criteria.

Compare to The_Stolen_Earth None of the articles in question have anything close to this regarding production,writing, etc. Also see Stargate_SG-1_(season_1) For another major series that only shows episode pages for individually notable episodes. Numerous other examples of good episode pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/Episode_coverage

Now, You could possibly force me to manually deal with each of these issues - deleting the copyright violations, deleting the original research, etc. And you would be left with an empty article. None of the issues, guidelines, or policies is enough on its own to take action on these pages. But there is literally nothing redeeming about these articles when you take out the problems.

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's see:

1. Plot details are not original research. They are sourced to the primary source, i.e. the episode itself. This is completely allowed. As for continuity, I agree, but if not mentioned in the source, the section, not the page, should be removed.
2. Those pages contain more than just plot summaries - not much in some cases though. I'm no expert in US copyright law but as a German lawyer in training, I do know that a written summary of a multimedia work is not a copyright violation. Also, as you quoted: "in some way analyzing and explaining it" - saying it's an episode, directed by X, aired on Y, episode No. Z etc. is an explanation of the source - it might not be much but there is no denying that it is. I would not worry about copyright law though, if there really was a problem with such articles in a legal way, the Foundation would have said so years ago.
3. WP:EPISODE is a guideline that specifies a general rule. The question whether a certain episode meets this guideline should be made on a case-by-case-basis only. For example, every episode of The Simpsons has an article despite this guideline. Most HIMYM episodes (e.g. How I Met Everyone Else) have a number of sources and thus meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability.
4. Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine_coverage is a specialized guideline that only applies to events, nothing else
5. Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED - No one claimed that. They are notable because they received coverage
6. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections: To quote: "Such information is better presented in an organized way." - i.e. fix it, don't delete it.
7. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory: Not relevant to the topic at hand
8. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information: Not relevant. As said above, this only means if there is nothing else at all but a summary
9. Wikipedia:Television episodes/Proposed Objective Criteria: Might make sense to you but it clearly is not a position the community supports, so it's not relevant here.
10. As for the examples, I know them. I'm a member or former member of the related WikiProjects. But those again support the position that the decision has to be made on a case-by-case-basis after an honest attempt at fixing the problems failed.

Regards SoWhy 17:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

0) how do you do that cool line thing to reset indentation?

1) The raw plot can be cited against the primary source (which in almost all cases in unreferenced) - However there is a decent amount of subjective analysis in the plot summaries which is original research. We are agreed on the continuity. Assume they are deleted. That leaves the majority of pages with only the plot. The other source quite often listed is "Barney's Blog". A promotional "in universe" blog. See next item

2) US law is not german law. The foundation DID say so. My quote was directly from the plot page, directly addressing copyright. Beyond the direct copyright issue, the guidelines specifically call out plot only pages as not being encyclopedic

3) Absolutely agree. Case by case basis. But it is entirely possible that all (or most) cases end up with the same answer, since they are largely written by the same editors, using the same content, and same sources (or lack thereof)

4) I disagree that the guideline should only be applied to events (but realize that is only my opinion). Every show, every movie is listed in IMDB, tvguide etc. That does not make them notable.

5) I disagree that they received qualifying coverage.

8) Removing the original research leaves them with just a summary. Most of them do not have any thing other than a summary. The ones that have something more have "so and so gave it a b+".

9) I don't really think there is consensus either way, but there are numerous called out "good examples" of what I propose (season only, with episode pages for individually notable pages with significant analysis or historical information)

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

0. It's a template called {{outdent}}. Add it after the new indentation and before the text. It's usually used when the indentation reaches a level that makes it uncomfortable to read properly.

1. Plot sections do not need references since anyone can check the information by viewing the work in question themselves. Most episodes contain at least a reception section, an infobox with production details, related links etc. though - not just that section
2. I know. But as you cited, this does not apply if there is any analyzing/explaining at all - which there is. The policy does not require a certain amount. The point of "plot-only" is the "only" part - i.e. "nothing but", not "most of it"
3. Possibly but the decision has to be made on a case-by-case basis. The result might be the same for a number of such articles of course (since the variety of possible results is limited)
4. You are of course free to disagree with guidelines but we can only apply them as the community intended it ;-)
5. That's what we are discussing here, isn't it? But that's what we should discuss here before we take action (which was my first point). To quote my example from above (How I Met Everyone Else): It has two different sources ([4], [5]) that solely cover this episode in depth (and nothing but this episode). Both sources are reliable and independent of the subject as required by Wikipedia:Notability and cover the subject directly in detail. If you disagree, you can do so, but please do so based on what the guideline actually requires. :-)
8. Not true. They have at least an infobox with production infos and a lead sentence. It's not indiscriminate.
9. Consensus has to be established for every subject individually. As I said above, there is an article for every episode of The Simpsons or every story of Doctor Who for example. And yet those are frequently cited as great examples of how to do it.

Regards SoWhy 22:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SoWhy, and FYI there has been a great deal of work done to lot of the episode articles, picked those with a single source and redirecting is not the way to go about that. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe this - we have another TTN in the making? --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Season Colours

Aren't the Season Colours meant to reflect the DVD box art? Currently, they seem to have been chosen at random and some of the pages clash, especially How I Met Your Mother (season 2).Sween64 (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Season 7 Premiere

Season 7 has already premiered. Please make appropriate changes.

[sic] "The seventh season of the series is scheduled to premiere on September 19, 2011 with back-to-back episodes.[2]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinoda.manu (talk • contribs) 06:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Season 7 Overview

Please add more information about Season 7, as it has already aired and we have information about it. eg. Barney is proven to have cold feet before his wedding, and they reminisce about how Marshall ruined their friend Punchy's wedding by accidentaly revealing that the bride is pregnant. Marshall and Lilly also keep Lilly's pregnancy a secret, but not for very long. Barney's relationship deepens with Nora after he vows not to leave a 24hr diner till he gets a second date, and Marshall gets a job at Honeywell and Cootes, an environmental law firm.

Matt99clancy (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

Per the edit semi-protected template...

This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

And any autoconfirmed editor can edit a semi-protected article. Shearonink (talk) 04:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

File:How i met your mother.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:How i met your mother.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

File:How I Met Your Mother - Season 7.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:How I Met Your Mother - Season 7.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:How I Met Your Mother - Season 7.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Season 9 and Jason Segel quitting speculation

An anonymous editor just added this link as a source for a season 9 and for Jason Segel quitting after season 9. Please be advised that this source is not a reliable source for a season 9. The source quotes Segel as having said "[...] deshalb steige ich jetzt auch aus 'How I Met Your Mother' nach acht Staffeln aus" (lit. "[...] which is why I will quit 'How I Met Your Mother' after eight seasons"). He did not say "there will be a ninth season without me". At this point it's equally (or maybe even more) likely that the producers will decide to end the show after season 8. Regards SoWhy 13:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think there's even a ref in the Jason Segel page that he will move on to other projects in 2013. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Comedy-Drama?

Under 'Genre', it is described as 'Comedy-Drama, I really don't see how it's a 'Drama' in any way? I mean some dramatic moments maybe, but I wouldn't exactly describe it as a Comedy-Drama, are there any objections to that being edited out maybe? Kane (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This show isn't a drama in anyway. --111.68.102.115 (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Websites

A section titled "Websites" was removed from the article in October 2012 with this edit. The content has subsequently been restored by two editors,[6][7][8][9] but each time it has been very quickly removed as unencyclopaedic, non-notable trivia.[10][11][12] There was never any stated consensus to add this content in the first place, only a suggestion by an IP in 2009.[13] Since the content has effectively been absent from the article since at least 10 October (more than two months and 238 edits ago), consensus is required to restore it, since restoration is clearly opposed by more editors than have attempted to restore it and, because of the time that the content has not been in the article, the status quo has to be considered to be the edit prior to the restoration of the content today.[14] Because, during a discussion the status quo reigns, I'm reverting to that version while we discuss it. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the restoration of the websites section, as it is fan cruft non-notable trivia that is not meant for an encyclopedia. In addition, it also appears to violate WP:ELNO. TBrandley 17:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• SupportThese sites are basically official erection, is also a means of publicity for drama and peripheral products, or recorded.--Qa003qa003 (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support keeping the websites section. AussieLegend, why do you suggest there needed to be a consensus to add the section in the first place? Websites were first added 1 April 2009, and have survived 4782 edits over 3 1/2 years without objection, this duration is a consensus, and supports WP:STATUSQUO, not the removal of the section lasting only two months. Tie-ins for Websites are just as valid to list as Books and Phone numbers.

WP:N is not applicable as it determines whether "a topic can have its own article", this discussion is about a section. The fact that How I Met Your Mother has actual websites is notable as this is mentioned at businessinsider.com and tv.yahoo.com.

WP:TRIVIA applies to lists of isolated information. This information is not isolated, as the websites are Tie-Ins to the show, created specifically for the show. WP:TRIVIA also states "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." We should keep this section, and perhaps present it in a better manner.

Which of the 20 listed issues at WP:ELNO is intended to support removal of this section? None appear to apply.

WP:FAN applies to content that "is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans", again, many editors over the past 3 1/2 years have added to the section, hardly a small population compared to the 3 editors which object to the section. CuriousEric 03:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The section under discussion can be seen in this permalink—it consists of 24 bullet points, each starting with an external link (and with more external links in the ensuing fancruft). Everyone familiar with how Wikipedia works knows that it is simply not worth discussing—it's not going to happen for the reasons already explained. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

And anyone who is willing to actually abide by the rules of wikipedia can clearly see that at least a part of that section should be kept on the page. The show is an example of a new generation that actively uses online media to the fullest extent, and while some items (like brobibs, grade my teacher, etc.) are clearly fancruft, others (like Barney's blog, and theslapcountdown) are active parts of the series and the franchise. Instead of going over this with a single ruling, did any of the parties actually consider making a selection? Mathijsvs (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Defecation vs masturbation

Which do you prefer? The edit war over these two words is beyond a joke and needs to stop.[15][16][17][18][19] --AussieLegend (✉) 03:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the bigger problem is that different characters in the show used it for different things, if I remember right. As I remember Marshall used "reading a magazine" as code for defecation whereas Barney used it for the masturbation, and I think everyone else was thinking the same as Marshall. Personally I don't think it really needs to be in the article anyways so now that you've taken it out I'd probably leave it out. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The number of times this has been changed was ridiculous. Since the first post there have been four more changes.[20][21][22][23] (only one of those was prior to my "useless" note being removed[24]) Until such time as somebody can provide a source (and maybe not even then) it can stay out. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Reception?

Why is there no reception section? You people are insane.