Talk:That '70s Show

My Favorite Show

This is, without a doubt, the best television show ever. Please comment with your opinions!Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.175.176 (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger, but this not the place for this. Try looking for an online forum. Voodoowitchdr (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there really going to be a '70s Show movie in '12 or '13? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.88.178 (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cast Biographies

Why are there cast biographies on this page when each character already has their own page. It is simply repetition. I'm reverting it, if anyone has any reasoning behind why it is important, let me know. Wikiguy09 (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not repetition. The brief bios on the main page are summaries of the very extended descriptions on the individual pages. The summaries should stay. I'm not going to revert your change reverting Marcus Qwertyus's reversion of your change. I'll leave that to Marcus.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead of complicating the page, why not just put a note stating "For full biographies of the Cast, see their pages". Or something similiar and more official. Just a thought.Wikiguy09 (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that each cast member is clearly a link already indicates there's a full page on the character. I also don't think the summaries "complicate" the page. I realize there's some overlap in having summaries, but it's fairly common in Wikipedia to have summaries in one spot and more full-blown descriptions elsewhere. Frankly, the page looks naked at the moment without the summaries.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate to disagree, but where you see naked, I see simplified and uncluttered. Again, I believe adding a note will suffice.Wikiguy09 (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It could do with a little summarizing but blanking is excessive. Marcus Qwertyus 17:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I reinserted the descriptions but at the same time reduced them quite a bit. Hopefully, that's a good compromise. Wikiguy09, please don't revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe it looks not as bad anymore, I won't revert it. However I might make some changes here and there. For instance, Hyde's summary isn't very well said: it says nothing about him being taken in by the Forman's etc. I might make small small changes to each to try and improve each one, tell me what you think, and let me know if you believe changes need to be made.Wikiguy09 (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with your making improvements to the descriptions. It was a lot of work paring it down, and I did it fairly quickly. I'm sure there's room for improvement.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think they turned out to be short and sweet, and give just enough information for each character. Good job! I'll look them over a little more, but they are good.Wikiguy09 (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Tanya Roberts not part of the 70s

I don't know why this was brought up in the article. Tanya Roberts was not on Charlie's Angels in the 70s. She didn't show up until the 80s, so she doesn't count. Just because Charlie's Angels started in the 70s doesn't mean every cast member was on the show in the 70s. I'm removing her name from the list of 70s TV show personalities. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 14:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Wisconsin!, part 345 (and when the show ended)

The controversy about who yelled "Hello, Wisconsin!" in the first season's opening credits has reared its ugly head again. I have reverted an (IP) edit by someone who changed it from Danny Masterson to Ashton Kutcher without citing any references. The talk page archive mentions this link, which states that it was Masterson. However, the article doesn't cite that page as a reference and I'm not quite sure if an archive of a now defunct website can be considered a reliable source. Does anyone known of a reliable source for this? To be honest, when listening to it I too get the idea that it's Kutcher rather than Masterson, but then again my ears are by no stretch of the imagination a reliable source ;-)

On another note: I couldn't help but notice that people keep changing the date the show ended from 31 december 1979 to 1 january 1980 and back. I've seen the final episode a couple of times and the show itself seems to end one second before midnight (so I think the correct answer is 31 december 1979), but I think it would be a good idea to try and reach consensus about this. Anyone have any thoughts (or better: references)? Skysmurf (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As for the opening theme song, I have no opinion and no reference. I've listened to it but am not good enough to tell whose voice it is. Frankly, I'm not sure I much care. We could change the article to say that one of the characters screams it and then move on. I did find a very funny old web forum (I think from 2002-03) where everyone is discussing whose voice it is and no one can prove anything. Cute.

As for the 1979-1980 controversy, it should remain 12/31/79. The show ends one second before midnight. The only basis for saying it continues into 1980 is the tag/image afterwards that says, I think, That '80s Show. I don't think that counts (if you'll pardon the pun).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Running Gag Subsection

An editor added a subsection under show elements called running gag. It involves Red's constant threats to kick Eric's ass. Putting aside for the moment how the subsection is written, is it a good idea to have it? I lean in favor of it, but I didn't want to reword it until I asked others for their comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No comments, so I'm rewording.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be more mention of Red's infamous "foot in your ass" lines? Those seem to be more prevelent and iconic than the "kicking ass" lines.Wikiguy09 (talk)

I've had some second thoughts about this subsection and possible sourcing and copyright issues (WP:COPYLINKS). I've removed the sources I added for the kick ass episodes because the website is probably violating the copyrights of the show's writers (or their assignees). That still leaves the issue of how do I know what anyone says in any particular episode, which is a broader problem running throughout the entire article, arguably violating WP:OR. I'm discussing these issues with a more senior editor, and I may bring it up in a broader forum.

In the same vein, Wikiguy, I've removed the one sentence you added about why the creators didn't reveal Fez's country of origin. You can add it back in if you can find a reliable source for it. It's one thing for us to discuss the content of the episodes (although that's arguably a policy violation, it's done routinely in movie plots, for example), but it's another thing for us to say what the creators think without any source.

Finally, as for your suggestion about "foot in your ass" lines, I agree that's an expression Red uses frequently. You can add it, preferably if you can find an episode that uses it, but one example should be sufficient, and keep it tasteful, please. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually took that from Fez's article. That might have been a mistake knowing there was no source (as far as I know)..but I'll have to watch the show soon, Red does say it quite frequently so it shouldn't be too hard to find an episode.

I also have another suggestion. I think it may simplify relationships between the characters. On each individual page, perhaps we should create a subsection for each character said character has a relationship with? For example, on Hyde's page there would be "Relationship with Eric Forman" "Relationship with Donna P" "Relationship with Red and Kitty Forman" "Relationship with Kelso" etc etc. My only worry would be that it might look like it's crowding the page. So perhaps a "Relationship with members of the group" and "Relationships with adults" would suffice? I'm not sure how to go about this, but it seems each character is lacking the connection to each other on their pages since they were such close friends. Let me knowWikiguy09 (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I understand. Do you mean on each character article (as opposed to the main article about the show)? I didn't look at every one of them, but it looks like at least some already have sections on relationships. Anyway, if that's what you mean, why don't you look at what's already on those pages and let us know what you think. If my understanding is wrong, please explain it to me. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, each page has some relationship info. (for instance, in Hyde's page it talks about his relationship with Eric and Jackie. No info on his relationships with the other teenagers.) All of the individual pages lack the information of the friendships or relationships between EVERYONE on the show. So what I'm trying to convey is that under each individual page (not the main page) perhaps there should be a section (or subsection) called "Relationships with members of the group", and "Relationships with adults", or something similiar. I just feel like the individual pages talk about relationships with certain people, but not everyone of the group, which is not good because the show was based around these 6 teenage friends (and their parents in some instances). Does this make sense? Wikiguy09 (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe each individual character page could just have a section on relationships, and you could put in all the notable information about that character's relationships with the other characters. Why don't you try one like that and see how it goes? Don't forget, despite your enthusiasm to add value to these articles, which is great, we don't want to drown in detail.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The running gag sections need to go they are unencyclopedic and totally unreferenced. It's fan site original research. In fact this article pretty much needs a total rewrite.

Disagee with whoever wrote the above comment. Most of the material is referenced from the episodes themselves.

To Bbb23, I will get around to making the relationships on Hyde's page soon as an example. I can't guarentee it will be perfect...but I'll try to source everything the best I can. It's hard to reference episodes since there are so many, so maybe I could get some help with that. We'll work on it.Wikiguy09 (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have the DVDs of the show, that would be best because then you can use the cite episode template and actually source precisely where in a particular episode something happens or someone says something. Seeing reruns on TV helps but it doesn't have the same power as being able to use the timings in the template.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

watching the episodes and then coming here and writing your own commentary on them is practically the definition of Original Research. I'm removing the section until you can write a properly sourced version since you have just admired you basically made this all up on your own. 70.119.247.185 (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using the a fictious work as the source. See Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Works_of_fiction. I'm going to revert your massive blankings. If you do it again, I'll seek protection for the article or a block of your address or both.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is and a prertty major problem from WP:WAF [1]

Presenting fictional material from the original work is fine, provided passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research., This entire section clearly crosses the line into interpretation and sites no sources hence it is being removed until proper sourcing is provided. Also back off the threats. Have it protected, this is a content dispute, if you want to escalate it I recommend asking for a thrid opion first. 70.119.247.185 (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)