Talk:Glee (TV series)

Television B‑class Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Location

This appears to take place at McKinley High School in Canton, OH. Can anyone verify this? I know that it is filmed in LA, but it appears that the license plates on the cars are Ohio plates.

Rpcollins1 (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to [1], "the show's fictional McKinley High School is in Lima, series creator Ryan Murphy has said."

--JimBurnell (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If my memory serves me right I do belive that William McKinley High School is in Lima, Ohio. In addition to the lisence plates the beging of the song "Rehab" the students of Vocal Adrenline state "Ohio, Ohio..." [2] XKingStevenX (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What should do about the "first aired" date when fall comes?

Should we make the fall premiere date the "first aired" date or just stick with the preview date? - Jasonbres (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the semantics ("preview") the first air date is still the first air date, which is May 19. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

The ratings for the first episode reports the high number from the first half of the episode not the actual rating average for the entire telecast. Think that should be changed? Doyn (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)doyn[reply]

Actual. 173.73.44.217 (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artie/Arty?

The official site spells Kevin McHale's character's name as both Arty and Artie in different places. About three times as many news articles use Arty [3] over Artie [4], but as there's conflict on the official site, I'm not sure which way we should go. Any thoughts? Frickative 23:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tweet peak says it's "artie". 174.17.246.223 (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the primary sources truly are ambiguous throughout, then use what the press uses, I'd say. However, I think official things such as scripts or what he's credited as should be used over press mentions (assuming that they're consistent). 173.73.44.217 (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CLEANUP!

This article is in need of a massive clean-up! There's a lot of stuff on here that is detailed beyond necessity, unencyclopaedic or not up to notability guidelines. At the moment most of the article reads more like a Fan Wiki than an online encyclopaedia. Please can folks pitch in and help me get this article up to standard? 89.243.213.103 (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this article is pathetic crap. A large porportion of it needs to go, while other parts need to be reworked.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Pathetic crap" is not a constructive comment, nor does it offer any suggestions for changes to instigate. Adding templates to the article (one of which was not even applicable) while offering no constructive suggestions on the talk page is not helpful to editors. Frickative 15:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic job on the clean-up Frickative.... --Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considerbly better now.

But... Question: Isn't most of the reception part just reactions from the advance pilot screening? aka, 1 episode.

My main problem now is the horrible Cast and characters section. Casting seems fine, but the first bit too prosy. It would be considerbly better if it was more like Battlestar_Galactica_(2004_TV_series)#Cast_and_characters, where people could go to the Characters of Glee article to know more. Or maybe The_oc#Cast or or 90210_(TV_series)#Starring. Prose makes it to hard to find characters easily. A table quickly portrays information where as prose doesn't. That's the main thing that needs fixing, i've seen some really bad prose character/cast and it just gets ugly, thick, confusing, messy and out of hand.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Jordan.

Re: Characters - none of the examples you've given are of featured or even good article standard. The vast majority of FA standard articles use prose over list or table format, eg. Arrested Development (TV_series)#Characters, Carnivàle#Cast, Degrassi: The Next Generation#Cast, House (TV series)#Characters and story arcs, Last of the Summer Wine#Characters and casting, Lost (TV series)#Cast and characters, Making Waves (TV series)#Characters, Only Fools and Horses#Regular characters, The Wire#Cast and characters. While prose in your personal opinion might be "horrible", by top article standards it's the norm. And yes, the majority of the reception section is based on the pilot episode. I trimmed a lot out last week, and will add in more series general reviews as I come across them. Frickative 07:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Frickative. We should base it off what other FAs/GAs have it set up. Plus, on the Battlestar page, it doesn't tell me anything about the characters, and if it wasn't for characters number 6 and 8, I wouldn't know which side was their real name, and which side is character name. Also, if I came to the Glee page wondering who the glee teacher is, I can easily search teacher and find it. No such luck on the Battlestar page, which gives no description what so ever about the character. CTJF83 chat 08:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox tampering

The infobox section (namely the narrator and opening theme) have obviously been tampered with. i dont know if they are the only areas and i dont know what to replace them with, just notifying you.--Coin945 (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singles vs. Album

I noticed that "On My Own" is listed as one of the singles from Volume One of the show's music. While it has in fact been released as a single, it's NOT on the album, and that should be noted on the page and not listed as it currently is on the Singles table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.194.221 (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry... i dont understand... did you mean that it should be noted and not listed on the album table?

                              --GLee...PassThePuckPlz (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)GLee...PassThePuckPlz[reply]

Where is the Wikipedia list of all the songs

Where is such an article? For all the songs performed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.86.33 (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Reference 20

I just wanted to point out that Reference 20 is not a working link. (Currently ref 20 is for the sentence "Originally, the cast was set to perform at the 2009 Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, but NBC banned them from it since they were on a rival network.") I am getting a Authentication Required dialog box stating "A username and password are being requested by http://switch.sandbox.tmz.com. The site says: "Restricted Area"" (I was interested in checking out the reference because I was curious about the validity of saying they were actually "banned".) Just wanted to point out the bad link. Logical Fuzz (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Updated. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Studio: Colfer, stay in the closet!

Why is there no mention of this? Chris Colfer gave an interview to The Advocate where he said he is gay, and Fox has a problem with it, saying they "think he's too young to be labeled as a 'gay actor'". :P This needs to be mentioned in the article. --98.232.178.38 (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source saying Fox had a problem with it? CTJF83 chat 09:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colfer a male soprano, or a countertenor?

As listed in the countertenor and sopranist articles, the term "male soprano" is considered controversial because the means by which vocalizations are produced are different for male and female singers in the soprano range. The F₅ that Kurt just barely hits in "Wheels" is at the upper edge of the countertenor range, and so I think using the term countertenor would be preferable. Thoughts? Stile4aly (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, reverted this change without noticing you'd posted on the talk page. Given that Kurt identifies in the show as a soprano and that's how Fox identify him also [5], I think it would be original research on our part to deem him otherwise. Frickative 04:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Given that's how Fox identifies him, I'd say it's appropriate even if technically incorrect. I'll add your link as a reference. Stile4aly (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop changing correct and verifiable episode titles!

Just because several sources out there decided to shorten the title of the episode "Once Upon a Mattress" to just "Mattress" doesn't mean it's gospel. There are several other sources that do list the episode title correctly, according to both Fox's own website and an official press release for the (currently) upcoming DVD box set of Season One. If you can't go by an official press release that indicates how the episode will be listed on the company's own upcoming box set, who can you go by? It's "Once Upon a Mattress". Please leave it. Lvillealumni (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, here is the official Fox press release that we will go by. CTJF83 chat 09:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Do whatever you want. I hereby refuse any further attempts on my part to provide correct information, and concede to the apparent gods of this site who feel that they're right and the rest of the world is wrong, even when provided with verifiable proof. I'm going to contact Fox and make sure they know that the editors of Wikipedia know more about their show than they do, and they should change every copy of their DVD set before release, to reflect what the Wiki Gods say it should be. It's become apparent that there's only a select few individuals whose input is actually valued around here. I may not be as frequent a contributor as others, but apparently my contribution is not welcome. Pardon me for trying to do something right. Lvillealumni (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not click on my link? Do you see it is from the Fox site? Not sure what the problem is. CTJF83 chat 09:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read my edits? Here's one link, and another, and another. Do you see those are all from Fox? Not sure what the problem is, either. Lvillealumni (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No answer, huh? It's a bitch being proven wrong, isn't it? Lvillealumni (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second two of your sources give an incorrect title for "Throwdown", so aren't definitively reliable. TV Shows on DVD is, I believe, the website most commonly used to verify DVD details, and here lists the episode title as "Mattress": [6]. It's literally a matter of days until the DVD comes out and can be used to verify the correct title anyway. Frickative 16:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the name calling, it's called going to sleep. Frickative is right. CTJF83 chat 19:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattress / Once Upon A Mattress

If you guys would please double check before you submit something to Wikipedia. The official name (as stated by the OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE distributed by the OFFICIAL PRODUCTION COMPANY of FOX ENTRAINMENT clearly states that the name of this episode is 'ONCE UPON A MATTRESS' and not simply 'MATTRESS'. The OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE advertising the first season dvd release of Glee also clearly states the name of this episode as ONCE UPON A MATTRESS. Please, stop resetting it back to the incorrect title of simply 'MATTRESS'. You are embarrassing yourself and this website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.50.159 (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the above discussion? One Fox source calls it "Once Upon...", one calls it simply "Mattress". Both of the DVD press releases calling it "Once Upon..." have an erroneous title for another episode. The DVD press release from the site most commonly used to verify such details calls it "Mattress". Reliable sources in the form of reviews and other news articles on the episode more commonly use the title "Mattress" as opposed to "Once Upon...", at a ratio of around 12:1. Furthermore, shouting things loudly does not make them true. Frickative 08:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT STUDIES!?

Why is this article listed under "LGBT Studies"? This show has nothing to do with LGBT stuff, so please cancel that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealEeL (talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it, per your question. If someone wants to restore it, it really isn't a big deal, but perhaps a note as to why this series rates special attention might be warranted. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should contain the tag, cause one of the main characters is gay, and a gay person created the series. I'm open to discussing the tag being or not being included.CTJF83 chat 03:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is a gay character and the creator is gay doesn't mean that the show is meant to be about gay activities or anything. It is not a show like "Will & Grace" that is heavily based in a world related to gay things. That's why I think that it shouldn't be referenced since the show isn't about gay people primarily. I don't mind discussing some more if you want190.59.13.81 (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a point, thank you for being civil too. I'd be fine either way, I'd like to see other user's opinions too. CTJF83 chat 02:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that for now, removing the tag was probably the right call, because the only mention of homosexuality in the article is the single sentence which states that Kurt is gay. If there was anything in the article discussing the importance/impact of LGBT issues on the show, or reaction/reviews from LGBT advocacy groups or similar, then I'd be for including it. I've Googled around a bit to see if there's anything worth including, and while I may just be using poor search terms, all I can really find are episode recaps on After Elton and one minor report from GLAAD [7]. Obviously if there's any supporting material added to the article in future this can be revisited. There is an interesting piece in the Los Angeles Times about how Kurt's coming out on the show was based on Murphy's own experience, but that's more suitable for inclusion at Kurt Hummel, if/when that's spun-out into an independent article (& where I think the LGBT tag absolutely would be applicable). Frickative 08:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can live with that. The IP made a good point saying it isn't like Will and Grace where it is more of a gay show. CTJF83 chat 08:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was my take on it as well. Homosexuality is not a central theme in the show, just an aspect of one character's personality. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crediting titles, etc etc...

So I was wondering, should we being this article with something in leu of the golden globe nominations (i.e. "Glee is a Golden Globe Nominated American musical comedy-drama television..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.119.215 (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The TV style guidelines advise against it, as "it provides insufficient context to the reader, and subsequent paragraphs in the lead can detail the major awards or nominations received by the television show." :) Frickative 23:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No more Brittany?

Are Brittany, Santana, Mike, & Matt returning in the second half of the season? IMDb doesn't list them for episodes after "Sectionals".
—WWoods (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not know the answer for you, I wouldn't worry that they are not listed in IMDB yet. IMDB has a lot of inaccuracies. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They will indeed return in April. The set-photos for the Golden Globe nominations celebrations show them all there filming for the back nine. According to Naya Rivera, Santana will have a bigger role in the coming episodes, which is something I've been meaning to include in the Characters of Glee article for a while, so thanks for the reminder :) Frickative 02:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Gibbs

Did anybody really read her article? I did and in my opinion she makes a very clear statement, that Glee is not "anti-Christian"! She points out why the show, as it is, is very valuable for kids and teenagers and that it actually embraces the most important christian values. She also connects Glee with Harry Potter and explains that both contain a very important (and also christian) message: the ultimate power of love (beside other important messages). So it would be really great if anybody could read Nancy Gibbs's article and then correct the statement here at the Wiki-article (if he or she agrees with me after having read the article). I unfortunately can't do it because English isn't my mother tongue and i certainly would make terrible errors (which I surely made also here ;). Thanks for your help!
—benbawan (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2009 (CET)