Talk:Tommy Westphall

What Were They Thinking?

The actual concept is an interesting piece of cultural commentary. But the content of this article seems to be ripped-off entirely from a chapter in the book "What Were They Thinking?" which is all about television's greatest mistakes. I can't remember the author, but I remember reading a chapter devoted to this very incident.

This is one of the most hillariously idiotic concepts I have ever encountered in my life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.11.69 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• The idea is discussed in What Were They Thinking?, but there's no plagiarism involved, and the idea of the hypothesis predates the book by several years. --Metropolitan90 23:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this article should exist

It seems to me that the basic premise of the "Tommy Westphall Universe" is far too shaky to even be writing about. There is no evidence supplied that demonstrates that any writers or producers beyond those from _St. Elsewhere_ intended for their entire show to exist in Tommy Westphall's mind. The article just says things like, "Certain TV producers even enjoy viewers spotting in-jokes that link their series within a fictional sphere" and, "The two series arguably exist within the same fictional universe." Nobody from _Law and Order_ or _The X-Files_ is quoted saying that their shows take place in Westphall's mind.

The claim that "[I]f St. Elsewhere is a figment of [Tommy Westphall's] imagination, then by extension every series that exists within that fictional sphere is also a part of his mind" is quite problematic. "Six Objections to the Westphall Hypothesis" mentions that Michael Bloomberg plays the mayor of New York both on _Law and Order_ and in the real world. Following this line of argument, our lives are merely figments of Tommy Westphall's imagination.

Indeed, the counterarguments are convincing in ways that the positive argument doesn't even come close to being. This article needs to be reworked in a way that indicates that this is just a theory that is supported only by some simple assumptions and not by a weight of evidence or particularly sound logical proof. As it stands now, it is far too matter-of-fact when it has no particular claim on being.

I agree as well. The biggest problem with some of their assumptions are that they are VERY flimsy. They make connections with shows either because they don't know much about the subject, or because they are "playing" ignorant so they can add as many 'connections' as possible. They take references (which in themselves are references to other work) such as "Yoyodyne" (apparently from a Thomas Pynchon novel, not to mention the cult film Buckaroo Banzai) which was referenced in The John Larroquette Show which they claim is the "same" Yoyodyne as in Angel AND Star Trek. Not to mention made up companies (for leagal reasons only for the most part) like Oceanic Airlines. This would mean that ANY connection to real life books/movies/tv shows/companies/events would all be in Tommy's mind. Some serious work needs to be done, keeping in NPOV of course (as much as it's possible with such an 'out there' topic such as this). Radagast83 06:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. Proponents of this "hypothesis" are overlooking the fact that the endings of both "St. Elsewhere" and "Newhart" were themselves joking references to "Dallas", where an entire season was revealed to be one character's dream, in order to bring back a character previously killed. Skyraider 23:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I doesn't matter what the intent of the writers was. If their shows and movies can be placed within the same ficitional multiverse as St. Elsewhere then that makes that they are all just a dream of Tommy Westphall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogma100 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 November 2006

There are plenty of other interpretations, as the article now indicates (it did not back in March). The article is in a lot better shape now. My initial concerns had been that Wikipedia, by way of this article, was serving to publicize a concept that just did not deserve to be publicized, and that most people who knew about the Hypothesis knew about it from reading this article. I still believe all that to a degree, but I think the article is a lot more balanced now. Based on Weatherson's objections, though, it seems clear to me that the Hypothesis is nonsense, but enough people believe or talk about it outside of Wikipedia that I can understand the reasons for keeping the article. Croctotheface 17:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Although the deletion controversy has long since passed, I'll add my two cents in the event that someone wants to bring it back: I stumbled on the concept of the Tommy Westphall multiverse elsewhere on the internet. The first thing I did was head here to see what it was about. I was satisfied when I saw the subject addressed. Maybe it did originate here, but it's spread enough that it needs to remain. Tprdave 00:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think deletion is the proper course of action now, either, and I was very much in favor of it back in early 2006 when this first came around. The article then (for instance, this version) looked very different. Though I'm concerned that, at the time, Wikipedia was used to promote a concept that was OR and not notable, by this point, it has most likely been covered in enough secondary material that it has become notable. Croctotheface 01:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello! A point of order here! The inclusion of a "Real Person" in a work of fiction does not invalidate Reality nor the existance of that Real Person, either dead or alive. Nor does it invalidate the fictional setting of a work of fiction. What it serves to do is to make such work more immersive for the viewer/reader/player, by making the work of fiction seem realistic enough that it might just exist. Enough so, so that the person reading the work, viewing the work, hearing the work, or interacting via gaming play with the work, can enjoy said work more than he or she would usually. People who go about saying that they dislike such and such a movie because it could never happen in Real Life, aren't the issue here, as to who needs to be convinced just enough that something is realistic enough that it could happen. Nor is it much ado about the Willing Suspension of Disbelief. But anyway, Jerry Seinfeld is a Real Person, yet he played a fictionalised version of himself for his sitcom. "The Tommy Westphall Multiverse" if you will, does not try to tell anyone that the Real Life Real Person Jerry Seinfeld is the exact same fictionalised "Jerry Seinfeld" character of the series "Seinfeld". (The Ingalls Family of "Little House on the Prairie" is also not the exact same Ingalls Family of Real Life for that matter!) By the way, "Seinfeld" is crossover connected to other television series that are linked to "St. Elsewhere", ergo the fictional "Jerry" would exist withing Tommy's imagination as well. Just because Tommy is himself fictional, just means that "Jerry" is more fictional than "Tommy", because he exists as a mere dream character of a fictional character. Just as other dream characters are more fictional than the fictional character that dreamed them up! "Commander Riker" is a fictional character, but his holographic version is even more fictional! However, in a fictional setting, such as "CHARMED" for one, they could enter the fictional universe of a movie being watched and suddenly those characters don't seem so "make believe" anymore, but real. That's not the same context as a holographic simulation. "Q" could recreate the setting of "Robin Hood" and make it feel more real than a Holodeck or Holosuite ever could, but according to him, it was just a little something he made up, that was more realistic than the fantasies of the amusement park planet could create, but for Picard and Company, it all felt like Reality. So that would seem to suggest that Reality is subjective. However it should be noted, offical canon stances aside for now, that Q, as a "STAR TREK CHARACTER", would seem to exist too in Tommy Westphall's mind, thanks to writers of "Team Knight Rider" using Nomad's creater in one of their episodes. "Team Knight Rider" is a part of the other series of the franchise in shared continuity, just as "Hawaii Five-O" is now linked to "NCIS" and "NCIS: LOS ANGELES", and "JAG", and "FIRST MONDAY". (No, I did not just link that set to the other set, I was making a point about other known crossovers and spin-offs!) The "Knight Rider Franchise" is linked to "LAS VEGAS". "LAS VEGAS" is also linked to, "CROSSING JORDAN", "HEROES", "MEDIUM", and "PASSIONS". "PASSIONS" was all ready linked to "BEWITCHED" and "TABITHA". What I'm missing here, is how that set got linked to the same one that includes, "JOEY", "FRIENDS", "MAD ABOUT YOU", "THE SINGLE GUY", "CAROLINE IN THE CITY", and so on and so forth, that eventually links them all to "St. Elsewhere". (What I'm wondering about now, is if "DAYS OF OUR LIVES" just linked itself to "PASSIONS" by listing "Harmony, Maine" as a sports team on Will's Webpage.) Well anyway, the summary or gist of all of this is, the professor made a big error by trying to use a Real Person in one of his objections! As far as I'm concerned, "ergo Reality must also exist...." is invalid. LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"no evidence supplied that demonstrates that any writers or producers beyond those from _St. Elsewhere_ intended for their entire show to exist in Tommy Westphall's mind. "

This seems irrelevant to me. Intentions are things people can only guess at. The product and what it contains is important, even if the comparison of evidence leads to conclusions the creators hadn't thought of, or even if it leads to undesired interpretations. Ranze (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Moved section of original research

Another good example of a crossover being insufficient to prove a concrete link between series is the case of the programs Family Matters, Step By Step, and Full House. Steve Urkel, character from the former, guest stars on the latter two programs. This of itself does not create a contradiction; a later crossover does. John Stamos (not the character of Uncle Jesse) also guest stars on Step By Step. During his brief cameo, he mentions his role on Full House. A strange paradox is evident; Urkel's presence seems to indicate that all the three shows are in the same continuity, but Stamos's appearance as himself makes that impossible. Clearly, Step By Step and Full House cannot coexist in the same universe (since the latter is a television show in the also-fictional world of the former). This means that at least one (or possibly both) of the Steve Urkels that we see visit the programs is not from the "real" Family Matters universe, but rather an "alternate Urkel" very similar to yet distinct from his canon counterpart.

This section, while interesting, strikes me as a violation of the no original research policy unless there is a source somewhere else. I've reverted to the previous paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croctotheface (talk • contribs) 01:47, 5 May 2006

How about if I delete the final two sentences, where I draw the conclusion about "alternate Urkels"? I would call my conclusion the only thing that's actually "original research"; the rest is merely facts, or very basic logic to say "something's not right here". Where I could be said to have stepped over the line is afterwards trying to provide a hypothesis to explain the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.141.159 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 5 May 2006

The very fact that the Westphall Universe is a dream proves there is no continuity problem since all three shows take place in Westphall's dream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogma100 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 17 November 2006

I don't see how this addresses the issue. Unless you believe that "it was all a dream" explains any and every paradox by itself. Croctotheface 02:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Not impossible, maybe Uncle Jesse just happens to look like John Stamos who appears on a show named Full House that isn't the same show as the one we know. Come to that it's not impossible that another person be born who looks just like you, grows up to become an actor and is then cast on a show which perfectly mirrors the events of your life by coincidence alone. Not terribly likely I'll grant you, but there's no physical laws of the universe which prevent it, and in all possible universes it not only could happen, it must happen.121.73.221.187 (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

As a note, the section which Croc removed looks to have been added in this edit by User:66.32.211.126. In case anyone wants to claim authorship to the Family Matters/Step by Step/Full House theory. Ranze (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Emergency

Hello! "EMERGENCY!" is a spin-off of, "ADAM-12". Yet in a later episode, the firefighters are concerned about the events of an episode of, you guessed it, "ADAM-12"! That's a big goof! To cover it it up though, as a viewer, we might presume or assume that they are watching what was yet to be called a "reality show", but a documentary series, of those two police officers. "SEINFELD" established a connection to "MAD ABOUT YOU" and also later tried to contradict it by having George and Susan watching an episode of "MAD ABOUT YOU". My guess was, that as Paul Buchman is a documentarian, they were watching one of his documentaties, presumably one about his life with Jamie. However, in retrospect, if "life is nothing but a dream", as would be the case with those latter two examples, it doesn't matter. As a person who remmeber his dreams well enough, I know how strange they can be in that regard. Surely, there must be someone else out there who realizes as much too? LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Candidate?

Wikipedia has four criteria for article deletion:

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:Copyrights

Aside from the fundamentally flawed logic of the premise, it appears to me that portions dealing with the "Tommy Westphall Universe" hypothesis violate at least two of four policies. As for the factual elements included at the beginning, is article devoted to such a minor character worth including in Wikipedia?

I'll content myself with watching the article for now. Sangrito

As much work as I've put in trying to round out the article, I support deletion. This whole concept was legitimized BECAUSE it received a Wikipedia article, despite the lack of evidence and logic to support it. It never should've been here in the first place. croctotheface 10 May 2006

It was my impression that this scene and the controversy surrounding it were pretty famous even before I read Wikipedia. I'd like to point out that Newsradio had a reference to this scene, complete with snow globe. Jztinfinity 18:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

About five sentences of the article are about the scene you mention. The rest of the article is about the "Westphall Universe," which is a logical fallacy. Croctotheface 20:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding:

"This whole concept was legitimized BECAUSE it received a Wikipedia article" .. "It never should've been here in the first place."

While both statements could indeed be true (I wouldn't know), they aren't relevant to whether or not the topic deserves an article NOW. If "the concept was legitimized due to Wikipedia article(s), so we shouldn't cover it" was policy, Wikipedia itself would never have an article. Ranze (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for Deletion

I've nominated this article for deletion. Please make sure to discuss deletion by returning to the article page and clicking the link to the deletion page. Sangrito 15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it survived deletion, which makes me happy, but it did not survive by much of a margin. Now we need to clean up and improve the article. Otherwise, I predict another afd in the not-too-distant future. --Charles 17:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement

While this article didn't so much "survive" an AfD so much as fail to generate enough discussion to push the vote one way or another, I'll offer that any article that can generate any reasonable number of adherents should stay. Such are the wages of democracy, protection of the minority, yadda yadda. A couple of points:

1. This article is less about Tommy Westphall than a) a 1980s television fad involving "dream episodes" and trick endings; and b) a pop culture meme. It might be a good idea to retitle the article to reflect the direction of the vast bulk of its material.
2. Stylistically, the article needs serious polishing. The informal tone is reminiscent of the scene in Animal House where two characters get stoned and start contemplating the nature of the Universe.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangrito (talk • contribs) 22:31, 19 May 2006

Improve this article

It needs to reach Featured Article status so it can go on the front page. People's ears will bleed when they try to comprehend this.Sockatume 13:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

is that "nanoo" or "nanu"?

Considering the whole John Stamos/Urkel thing, this might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article: Robin Williams (as himself) once had a cameo on the show Mork & Mindy. Figure that one out. - Ugliness Man 09:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Emerson put it pretty well: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Pjrich 20:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys", it turns out that "Kevin Sorbo" is merely the alias that Hercules lives under in the 20th Century! Meanwhile, Pamela Denise Anderson and Tommy Lee, appear as themselves, in animated form of course, in "Stripperella". In "The Last Action Hero", Arnold's character sort of encounters Arnold himself. However in an episode of "The Nanny", she encounters a character from, "This Is Spinal Tap", both played by the same actress. So it isn't like that it only happened just the one time, per your example with Robin meeting Mork. Sure the novels of "Star Trek" aren't considered to be canon, but in one of them, the primary characters traded placed with the primary cast, thanks to a Transporter incident, similiar to the one in "Mirror, Mirror". LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Dallas and Seven Days

Shouldn't this article mention the Dallas (TV series) episode("Blast From The Past") when Pam saw Bobby in the shower and the Seven Days episode("Déjà Vu All Over Again") where Frank sees himself back in the mental facility. I don't have any more information on these and would like it if someone more familiar with the two added them. A mention in the see also section is probably best. (IRMacGuyver (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

No, this article should NOT add...

So... here's what I was getting at nearly two years ago when I first criticized and then nominated for deletion this undergraduate, stoner, "whoa duuuude!" conversation which is masquerading as an article: The article is entitled "Tommy Westphall." Tommy Westphall is a minor character in a 1980s television show who would normally be folded into the main St. Elsewhere article. In two years, the writing was cleaned up a bit, but the content is only getting worse.

In spite of the title, the bulk, and I mean like 98% of this article is about a stunt-ending that generated a little bit of buzz, and now we have tons of people clamoring to add this odd cameo or that strange occurrence. Seriously, folks, enough is enough. If this article is about Tommy Westphall, let it be so. If it's about jokes by television writers that are mistaken as attempts at serious philosophy by some of the more earnest Wikipedians, then let's drive a stake through the heart of this article and create a new one where we can dump all the multiverse theories.

The fact that people keep adding "hey what about this..." kind of junk to the article and/or discussion makes it fairly plain that this article is not about Tommy Westphall. It's time. Let's get rid of this article, move Tommy where he belongs and make a new article for breaches in the imaginary space-time continuum. Sangrito (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to add one more thing: Go take a look at the actual article for St. Elsewhere, which includes a large section on in-jokes and crossovers where a brief summary of the contents of this article belongs. Why is this joke, just one among many, singled out for a stand-alone article? Sangrito (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like you're proposing a merger or cleanup here. I suspect that you'd agree that there would be no article without the content you're discussing. If this is indeed the case and you want to make a deletion argument, you should nominate it again. No matter what we decide here, it couldn't get the article deleted. Croctotheface (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What I suggest is this: 1) Tommy Westphall merges into St. Elsewhere main article; 2) this current article goes bye-bye; and 3) something like "Keyzer Soze's list of 1980s TV Crossovers, Jokes and other Mindfucks" be created where all of this fun stuff can go live. I'm trying to see what people think about trying to impose a little bit of discipline on the article at this point, because, as we are plainly seeing, the subject matter lends itself handily to... getting out of hand. Making a case for deletion in the discussion is just part of the process. Sangrito (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that all amounts to a deletion discussion, not a merger discussion. The coverage that you seem to want for what's currently here would be so minimal that I really think AfD would be the place to explore it. In truth, my primary opposition to this article in May 2006 was that the concept was not notable and that WP was being used to publicize it. Now, I acutally think that the concept is notable because in the interim it has received significant coverage. We could move the article to something like Tommy Westphall Universe Hypothesis if your issue is that the article isn't really about the character. Croctotheface (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be split into two: put a general Tommy character reference on the St. Elsewhere page and create the Tommy Westphall Universe Hypothesis. Dave 00:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tprdave (talk • contribs)

I would agree to a continuation of this article under a more fitting name, but not "Keyzer Soze's list of 1980s TV Crossovers, Jokes and other Mindfucks". A full deletion would not be satisfactory though.(IRMacGuyver (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC))

The original research "descendants"

I've removed from the article (and collected below) the numerous examples of situations on other series purportedly "inspired by" the Westphall Universe idea. First of all, the Dallas reveal that the entire previous season had been a dream happened in 1986, predating the St. Elsewhere finale and thus complicating the origins of these examples. More importantly, there are no sources provided which connect these examples back to St. Elsewhere (or even Dallas for that matter), so they amount to nothing more than original research, unreferenced trivia collected to make some point.

• "Normal Again," May 2002 episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, possibly "revealing" the entire series/Buffyverse to be a hallucination of a hospital-bound Buffy Summers.
• Newhart, the May 1990 final episode of which revealed the entire series to be a dream of Robert Hartley, Bob Newhart's character on the previous Bob Newhart Show.
• "Far Beyond the Stars", February 1998 episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, possibly "revealing" the entire series/Star Trek universe to be a hallucination of a 1950s African American science fiction writer Benny Russell (Benjamin Sisko).
• In Season 3, Episode 7 of Newsradio, "Daydream" (November 1996), the ending is a spoof of the Tommy Westphall sequence, with Jimmy, Dave, and Lisa reprising the roles of Tommy, his father, and his mother, respectively.
• The BBC series Life on Mars (2006-2007) and Ashes to Ashes (2008-present) both feature the premise that their main characters are dreaming the events of the series in the aftermath of a fatal or near-fatal incident.
• The British TV series Crossroads also ended in 2003 on the revelation that it had all been imagined by one of the characters.
• Likewise, the Twisted Metal series of video gamess (1995-present) has had several allusions to the possibility that the events of the games are a series of hallucinations on the part of a schizophrenic homeless man (Marcus Kane) after being in an automobile accident.
• In the January 2007 episode "Labyrinth" from season six of the TV show Smallville, it was briefly suggested that the whole universe was a romantic hallucination in the mind of a mentally ill Clark Kent.

I'm preserving the info here in the event that a citation makes any of it relevant in the future. — TAnthony^Talk 17:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Shouldn't the "Newhart" section be in a seperate listing? Within "The Bob Newhart Show" it was revealed that "I Dream of Jeannie" was the dream of Bill Daily's character in the latter. But as it turns out anyway, later on, Bob's secretary becomes one of Murphy Brown's temporary secretaries. The sitcom "Murphy Brown" is connected to "Cheers" and as it is connected to "St. Elsewhere" too, then we have dreams within dreams, and they all end up just being another part of Tommy's imagination anyway. I could go on and mention the "Star Trek" connection too, but I won't for now. My point here is, I guess, what do you mean in your statement about why you removed it and saved it to here? LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Smallville (season 6) also has its own article. I updated the link to the season 6 section that Anthony posted because it had been renamed. Ranze (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Confusing statements require clarification

crossovers and coincidences, critics of the hypothesis say, are not sufficient to link separate stories in such a fundamental way. The Westphall Hypothesis does not itself explain why this technique is indeed sufficient

I would like if someone could rephrase this section, or add to it, to make this easier to understand. What is the 'fundamental way' the TV series' universes are linked via crossovers? A crossover is a much more distinct thing involving an identifiable character (as opposed to simply an actor) compared to a coincidence. The whole idea of 'sufficient' evidence to support a hypothesis really depends on what it is claiming to explain. Fundamentality itself is a subjective idea, things are not fundamental or non-fundamental, but exist in a continuum of importance, interpreted differently. Just how fundamental a claim is to the core of a series might be exaggerated here. How would Law & Order be changed here?

The whole 'Westphall Universe' is also just a label to put on what we might otherwise call an 'Elsewhere Universe', via all things which can be tied to that show by character crossovers and cameos. This reality-linking would exist regardless of whether or not someone believes Elsewhere is in Westphall's mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranze (talk • contribs) 18:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Westphall Hypothesis does not itself explain why this technique is indeed sufficient, nor does it provide positive evidence suggesting that the writers and producers of each show purported to be in the Westphall Universe actually intended for their shows to exist only in the dream of an autistic child.

I don't see the necessity of mentioning this. Nothing about the hypothesis says anything about producer/writer intentions. While the statement here is true, it seems completely irrelevant to mention it. I'm going to remove it unless there's a good reason for having it. Guessing about "intentions" positive or negative is pointless since we're not mind-readers. All that matters in fictional universes is the product itself and what information is in that. If producers or writers of other shows had no plans for, or even actively object to their link to the Westphall universe, that doesn't matter in the slightest in regard to being able to link them an interpret them this way.

Star Trek and co are great examples of where the universe's multiple elements are compared and conclusions drawn in contrast or supplement to probable creator intentions, especially considering the active protest or ret-conning different parts get as a result. Ranze (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tommy Westphall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://unclebear.com/comments.php?id=2503_0_1_0_C

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge

I propose that Tommy Westphall be merged into "The Last One (St. Elsewhere episode)". I think that the character Tommy Westphall has no notability outside of this one episode and is even referred to as "a minor character" in the article's header. Minor characters generally aren't notable enough for their own article. SThompson (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)