Talk:The Garfield Show

Country of origin

I admittedly have little knowledge of this show, but it seems to me that if the show premiered in France, it is appropriate France is listed first in the infobox. However, my attempt to rectify this has been met with continual unexplained reverts by Montana's Defender (talk · contribs). I would welcome some input from an uninvolved party. Thanks, — Manticore 13:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's American In origin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montana's Defender (talk • contribs)

Do you have a source for this claim? If it is indeed American, why then would it premiere in France almost a year before it premiered in America? The IMDb article lists the country solely as France. — Manticore 23:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on the American comic strip Garfield —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montana's Defender (talk • contribs)

Yes, which is reflected in the article. However, the show itself is French in origin, as shown on IMDb. Given that, I am removing US from the infobox. — Manticore 00:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

IMDb is unreliable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montana's Defender (talk • contribs)

Episode History of Dog

There were some history of dogs storylines in the strip one time. Does the episode "History of Dog" have any relation to these? --User:Thebigfan (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. Although their both about a fictional history of dogs, the plots of the episode and those of the strips are very different. 202.69.188.168 (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Number of episodes

I believe the number of episodes in this show should be 52 and not 26. Why? For a half-hour session, there are 2 episodes each. Take Orange and Black and Freaky Monday for example. Don't those two count as two episodes? I mean they have different titles and different plots. Therefore the counting of episodes should be on that basis. 121.58.216.46 (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you have personally found out as Wikipedia does not publish original research. We publish the episode counting from reliable secondary sources that have been made public elsewhere already. De728631 (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to TV sitcoms, the confusing thing is way people define the word "episode." Is it an individual story or a group of stories for the entire session the show appears?(talk) 22:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)121.58.216.46

A TV sitcom is a whole different form of media, as this is an animated cartoon, but, anyway, in a TV sitcom an episode is the whole time the show is on. Same in cartoon shows, such as this one, it is the half-hour the show is on. Sometimes, it, occasionally may even last one hour or more. That should pretty much answer your question. --Thebigfan2 (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The word "episode" is synonymous to "chapter". A chapter is composed of a title, plot and ending. Compile those chapters together and you'll get a series. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to number episodes in a two-by-two basis. The inconsistent thing is that TV networks sometimes feature two stories for 30 minutes in an order other than at which they were release. 75.61.95.65 (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Season 2 Episodes (?)

Those season two episodes look kinda fake to me. Is there any source or is this vandalism? --Codyrox (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been confirmed directly on Mark Evanier's blog that the second episode season descriptions were bogus. They've already been removed. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Storyboard Panels

I sent the writer of this show, Mark Evanier, an email requesting some photos of storyboard panels for this show. Here's a bit the email I received from him:

 > Say, could you send me (via email) some pictures of storyboard panels
> from Garfield and Friends and The Garfield Show (if possible)? I'd love
> to see some. Thanks.
ME: I don't have any of GARFIELD & FRIENDS scanned.  That was all done 
on paper and mine are in storage.  I'll look around and see what I have 
of the new show.

So, as soon as I get them, should I add a couple to the article? --Codyrox (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Can everybody please listen to my little hidden message on the page under Season 2 and please not add any more episode titles until I get an episode list from Mark Evanier, then I'll add those episodes to the list. --Codyrox (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Inside Eddie Gourmand is real

Mark Evanier is the writer of this show. He's the guy I emailed. I would assume he'd be a reliable source, you can't get any more reliable than somebody who works on this show. I would assume he'd know episode titles and descriptions, since he wrote the episodes. Here's a bit from the email I received from him, confirming those episodes:

The second season episodes look pretty good...or at least the ones I've seen do. My favorite so far is one called "Which Witch?" in which the twins, Drusilla and Minerva, wind up like Hansel and Gretel in the lair of an evil witch. We also have one I like a lot called "Inside Eddie Gourmand," which explores Eddie's relationship with his mother.

Plus, he also mentions one called "Which Witch?" and it turned out that it premieres next week. I would assume that he'd be the most reliable source. --Codyrox (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not good enough - there is no outside evidence that this email exists. To be a reliable source this information needs to be published publicly, and disseminated by secondary & tertiary sources. Please read up on reliable sources. I could equally claim that I have an email from Philippe Vidal stating the Inside Eddie Gourmand episode is an elaborate hoax constructed by Odie, in an effort to discredit Garfield. There is no essential difference between either of our claims - neitehr can be proved, or disproved - hence they are not reliable. Also, I hope you don't mind in this context, but I've edited the Evanier quote so that it reads better without being on a single long line. a_man_alone (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Mark has posted on his newsblog that he's emailed the info to "codyrox", which is close enough for me. If we were discussing a BLP, I'd probably be a bit more demanding, but for a list of upcoming TV episodes (in-universe content) I'd think it should satisfy RS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, probably, but that's not my concern anymore - my concern is that so far there has been no understanding, or apparent desire to understand, what makes a reliable source, which considering BigFan's experience of 2+ years as an editor is perplexing. a_man_alone (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Emails are not reliable sources

Please bear in mind that an email sent to an individual is nto a reliable source, so any information added based on these emails is subject to removal, and the onus is on the adding editors to find a subsequent reliable source to back up their claims.

There is a big difference to what is considered reliable in the big ol' real world, and what Wikipedia considers to be reliable.

I'm not saying that people here are hoaxing, lying, or even wrong - just that the sources being used are not reliable.

a_man_alone (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if it's an email from the writer of this show (who I would assume would know everything about The Garfield Show and Garfield and Friends, since he wrote both) or anybody who works on this show, doesn't make it reliable even if I know for a fact that I have it? I do agree with that you said about claiming to have an email from somebody and nobody else can know if it's real or not or as you said, a hoax. For example, I could say something like I have two autographed letters from Jim Davis, but that doesn't prove it's real or not. Or I could say I have 29 emails from Paws, Inc.'s animation director, Glenn Zimmerman (I think), but that doesn't make it mean they actually exist. There's no proof, unless I took a picture of the emails and uploaded them on here, but they could just as well be hoaxes. Or one more example, I could say that I actually managed to call Paws, Inc. and that I spoke to Jim's secretary, Kim Campbell, but there's no proof that it actually happened. --Codyrox (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what it is, and where it's from, nor even whether you have it in your hands right now - it is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. It doesn't matter that it's from Mark Evanier, Jim Davis or has the Paws Inc letterhead (for example). None of this makes it a reliable source for Wikipedia. Please read through the previously linked pointer, and while you're at it, have a read through the Ownership page too - although there's nothing wrong with feeling pride in your creation, being the creator of this page gives you no more right to add, delete, control, or in any way modify the page than any other editor.

I don't mean to be unnecessarily harsh, but until you understand what a reliable source is, you're not going to make much headway here. a_man_alone (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What if this episode turns up on my TV's guide any time soon? Should I add it then? I added Ticket To Riches, Gravity Of The Situation, The Art Of Being Uncute, Night Of The Bunny Slippers, The Big Sneeze, The Spy Who Fed Me, and Meet Max Mouse on here because they came up on my TV's guide and I'd assume that this would be reliable, they don't usually lie about stuff they show in TV guides. Some of these I removed when somebody first added them because they looked to me like fake episodes, boy was I wrong! Anyway, when I see a sign of these, should I add them? --Codyrox (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have to be so pedantic about WP:RS in this case. Evanier himself has posted on his blog that he is in communication with Codyrox and will vouch for the veracity of his posts. [1] For the record, may I suggest that Codyrox post the contents of the email into the talk page. Eqdoktor (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, here's that entire email I sent to him. I didn't get a response email, for he posted that info on his web site, which is www.newsfromme.com.

Can you go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Garfield_Show#Inside_Eddie_Gourmand_is_real, and convince these guys at Wikipedia that the episode "Inside Eddie Gourmand" is real? They don't really seem to know that you're the writer of this show, and I'd assume you'd know about every episode of Garfield and Friends and The Garfield Show. I've kept telling them that it's real and that I found out about this one (Inside Eddie Gourmand and Which Witch?) from you, but they won't listen to me. Can you convince them? If you have to, create a user account called (don't worry, it's free) "Mark Evanier" (unless you're already on there, that is!) to convince 'em. They only seem to believe the episode is real if it has a premiere date or if there's a reliable source (and you would be the most reliable, wouldn't you?). I know this is kinda lengthy, but please? Please respond. Thanks.

So, should I post this episode (Inside Eddie Gourmand) or not?

--Codyrox (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I would think that it should be okay to post the information. Be Bold! Evanier is pretty good at following up on stuff like this (his fans and readers do anyway). I have also written an email to him and he is aware of the situation. If there are any egregious errors it would be pointed out and corrected. Eqdoktor (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please, bigfan2. What part of the reliable source post don't you understand? Have you read it yet? I suggest you also read through I didn't hear that - because that's also becoming apparent. I know exactly who Evanier is - he is a demi-God at least, because of mulch - and of his involvement in The Garfield Show, but that does not change the status of whether an email is a reliable source - because it isn't.. Evanier is reliable, but his emails to you are not.

You know what - even if Evanier emailed me to tell me about these episodes, that wouldn't count because there is no way to verify the content of the emails to externals - ie anybody other than myself.. Wikipedia is concerned with veracity, not truth. TheBigFan2 has been bold, and I have reverted. Now we are discussing, but we have yet to find a reliable source to back up the claims.

Evanier's blog:

There seems to be an argument brewing in your "talk" area about the veracity of various episode listings for the second season of The Garfield Show. I really appreciate you being so diligent about verifying info and weeding out that which is not credible. I am the Supervising Producer and main writer of this program so I'm a real good source since, you know, I wrote the stuff you're talking about. I've supplied a trustworthy list to "codyrox" (I think that's this person's handle) and they'll post it shortly and I will verify it is correct. Thank you.

This is a good start, but it doesn't actually contain the information that is being queried - there is nothing to prevent the recipient from changing the information. Appearing in a TV guide? Yes. That is a reliable source in this context.

Please all understand what a reliable source is to Wikipedia - because it isn't what you think it is.

a_man_alone (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute, see this: [2]? There's a episode here called "Which Witch?", now this was long berfore any episodes for the second season even premiered. There was no reliable source back then to back that up that "Which Witch?" even existed, I said it right in the summary of the edit that I found out about it in an e-mail from Mark Evanier. And it turns out it's premiering next week. Now, answer me this, how would I have known this episode existed long before any of these season 2 episodes were known about? The answer: I e-mailed Mark Evanier and it's real! Is this some kind of a phenomenon, or what? Because if I would just made it up, there'd be no way that it was real. Nobody can guess something long before in advance and it turns out to be real, unless there was somebody who knew it was real, Mark Evanier in this case. The reason Mark Evanier posted this whole thing in his blog is because I contacted him and told him about it. How could he have known about it? How did he know my name on here without even being on here? Think about it, if I wouldn't have e-mailed him and told him, there'd be no way. You can't guess at something and it turns out to be true. Same with this episode, "Which Witch?". There was no source to back it up that it even existed, I said I e-mailed Evanier and he gave me this episode title and even the full description. If I made up the whole e-mail thing, how did it end up being an episode premiering next week? If I had just made up that whole e-mail thing back then, there'd be hardly no chance, if any, of it existing. Same with "Inside Eddie Gourmand," if I made it up, I wouldn't have posted it in the first place, and I trust Mark Evanier. And that episode list I was talking about, I now have it, but I'm not going to add in any of these episodes until I see a sign of them on TV, or until I see any of them on a reliable source. You'll be surprised, though, when you see "Inside Eddie Gourmand" on TV, though, I guarantee you it will be real. --Codyrox (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You still have not shown that you understand what a reliable source is, and I'm beginning to doubt that you ever will. Being correct retrospectively does not grant you the ability or power to use (what wikipedia considers) unreliable sources for your information, even if they turn out to be true in the end as proven by a secondary or tertiary source - such as a TV guide. You may trust Mark Evanier if you wish, but Wikipedia doesn't - or at least not the emails he's sent you, and vice versa. In fact, I would also trust his emails, but only for personal use, and not for a reference work, as they cannot be reliably disseminated a_man_alone (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, what about IMBd (Internet Movie Database)? Is it a reliable source? I've seen that episode listed on there. --Codyrox (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of our policies on reliable sources and related policies is to ensure that information contained in Wikipedia is accurate. From the above citations, it is perfectly clear that Codyrox has received information from Mark Evanier and that Mr. Evanier is providing well-informed and accurate information. Under the circumstances, and particularly given the subject-matter (i.e., this is not a BLP making controversial claims or something of that nature), I see no reason to exclude this information from the article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

None of you two (A man alone and Newyorkbrad) leave yet until we get this thing settled. Can you stay on this page, please?. Now, all I want to know is should I add the episode "Inside Eddie Gourmand" or not and if I should add in these other episodes from this list that I have here. It says it right on Mark Evanier's post, [3] quote, "I'm a real good source since, you know, I wrote the stuff you're talking about." I would assume he'd be the most reliable source you can get. Here's a good example: What if Leonardo da Vinci were still living and he told you how long it took him to paint the Mona Lisa via e-mail, would you not believe him? He'd be the best source you could get. The original author or writer or painter or filmmaker, etc., would be the best source you could find. Mark Evanier is the original writer to these and he seems to be real sure that he's written an episode called "Inside Eddie Gourmand" and all the other episodes I have listed here. Plus, there can be mistakes in even the most reliable sources. People can get stuff wrong, they're human beings, right? So, I want all three of us to settle this right now. We're causing an edit war here and I want to end it. --Codyrox (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I no longer have any issues with the addition of information, my bone of contention is that CodyRox/BigFan2 has made no attempt to show that he understands the difference between what is a reliable source and what isn't. And incidentally, no, IMDB is not generally considered a reliable source, whether it is cited elsewhere on Wikipedia or not. a_man_alone (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Now, wait a minute. I do know what a good reliable source would be for this particular article. It would be www.garfield.com or www.thegarfieldshow-diary.com. Now, don't leave yet. Please? I just want both of us to stay on this page and discuss this controversial issue. I may have been on here for 2+ years, but I have a pretty darn good knowledge of Wikipedia and how it's run. --Codyrox (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, Mark Evanier has now posted the list on his own website (www.newsfromme.com), so hopefully that resolves this argument. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, Evanier has posted the episode list on his website [4]. Problem resolved. You can use that direct link to make a reference note to the article if its not done already. Eqdoktor (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As already stated, I have no bones with the info being posted anymore - enough other editors have contributed to form a consensus, and I'm happy to go with that. Evanier's website (to me) is perfectly acceptable, and I appreciate his humour in commenting that his site is credible (to us anyway), and frankly, it's great to see him taking such an interest in the project. As before, it's Codyrox's inability to understand why an email (not the author - but the medium) is not reliable that I ponder. a_man_alone (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Codyrox (or anyone else) is arguing that in general e-mails are reliable sources. I think he was arguing that under the specific circumstances here, an e-mail from this particular individual about this particular topic could be relied upon. In any event, unless you expect this specific situation to recur in the near future, there's no need to continue to debate it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the point I was trying to get across was that Mark Evanier is the writer of this show and he would have to know exactly what he is talking about. Besides, as the writer of this show, wouldn't he know what episodes he wrote? Ok, end of debate. --Codyrox (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish we could get editors handling BLPs to be this scrupulous. I had a nasty, extended argument with several users who insisted that a newspaper article describing the contents of a movie, before the movie had been released or even shot, was a reliable source for its contents (even though it was contradicted by later reviews written by critics who had actually seen the finished film); porn BLPs are filled with kayfabe nonsense and all sorts of minimally believable self-serving autobiographies; and various youtube "celebrity" articles are filled with extended promotional blathering.

I don't see how this situation is much different than citing a book (or other source) that's not easily available. We're dependent to some degree on the honesty of the editor involved. When Evanier posted that he's sent codyrox the email, that demonstrated that a reliable source existed. codyrox then plausibly reported its contents. How different is that from an editor citing a book whose existence can be demonstrated, but whose text can't be accessed online and is out of print? For sensitive/biographical information we might impose higher standards, but for cartoon episode titles? Given the pervasiveness of effectively unsourced plot summaries for fictional works, where we're dependent on both the goodwill and interpretive competence of the editor(s) involved, I'd think we have better places to demand stricter sourcing. (Check out this episode summary [5] for a prominent recent TV show, which butchers a key plot point.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let me end this controversial editing issue which should've already ended. First of all, I don't see why an e-mail isn't a reliable source, especially if it's from a trusted source, who'd be Mark Evanier. He confirmed this episode, "Inside Eddie Gourmand" and all the others on his website, [6]. You all should treat an e-mail, only if it's from a trusted source, as relialbe. You all here on Wikipedia should treat like as if it were a book. Only individual people have access to it, while others don't. I have access to 29 separate emails from Paws, Inc.'s animation director, Glenn Zimmerman. I have access to two signed letters from Jim Davis. And I have access to Paws, Inc.'s phone number, but that mean all of it's false? Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't real. For example, you can't see air, but does that mean it isn't real? Think about it. I hope you read this, and don't just put up another comment that I've not read the reliable sources policy, because I know what a reliable source is. --Codyrox (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Taking any further concerns to users talk page. "I hope you read this, and don't just put up another comment that I've not read the reliable sources policy, because I know what a reliable source is." - No, you don't. Until you understand why a personal email, IMDB[7] and forums[8] are not reliable sources, I will retain the opinion, in the nicest possible way that you have not read, and have no intention of reading, reliable sources. a_man_alone (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

How about instead of telling me I've not read the reliable sources page, how about you tell me what one would be. What about the official Garfield web site or [www.thegarfieldshow-diary.com The Garfield Show Diary]? You can't tell me those aren't reliable, because these are official. P.S. I am not arguing about reliable sources, I'm arguing about the fact that these episodes are real or not and I know they are, just wait 'til they premiere (I know they will, just trust me), you'll be shocked. Mark Evanier (writer) confirmed these on his web site, is it reliable? Would he lie about what he wrote? He said:

this web site is credible... to them [Wikipedia] anyway.

--Codyrox (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Taken to users talk page. a_man_alone (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Episode descriptions?

These episode descriptions for season 2 seem to be kinda fake to me. Is there any source or something reliable? We could just add them in as they premiere, couldn't we? --Codyrox (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - however they seem to premiere in the US first (and not wanting to be presumptious) that seems to be where you are based, so I'll leave that one up to you. I have to wait until the UK plays catch-up. a_man_alone (talk) 08:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Already, 26 episodes (12 half hours) have already premiered (counting "Home For The Holidays as two episodes). That's half of the season already! And, yes, I am located in the U.S., which is how I've seen them already. --Codyrox (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We probably won't be able to add episode discriptions as frequently any more. It seems now instead of premiering them 5 days a week (Mondays-Fridays), now they're premiering them Mondays and Wednesdays. --Codyrox (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)