Talk:Give Me a Ring Sometime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Citing this episode's plot?[edit]

To Lihaas: Is citing the plot really necessary? Let's look at Avatar's plot. I wanted to discuss this in your talk page, but it needs archiving. --George Ho (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge back?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There are already enough information about the pilot in Cheers (season 1). Why resurrecting it? The plot is not that impactful enough to benefit a stand-alone anymore, and reviews... image growing number of redundant reviews, good or bad. I realize that balancing the article is pointless if same information is already merged into the season article. "The Boys in the Bar" do have significant reviews enough to benefit a stand-alone, and "Coach's Daughter" may have some valuable reviews and production notes. The pilot... well, information already belongs to the season, and any other information is worthless. --George Ho (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I oppose this merge because this is an important and substantive article. I don't think the entire 9K of text needs to be merged into Season 1 and I don't think it should be deleted from WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
There are enough information about the plot, the Casting, and the awards in the Season article. Reception, as I realized, is the least worthy of all. And to which "9K" text are you referring? I believe that you haven't read the Season article, have you? --George Ho (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I mean, I don't need to merge info about ratings of the pilot; rerun ratings are sufficiently mentioned in Season article. Moreover, first-run ratings are sufficient; reruns of the pilot are excessive, redundant, and worthless anymore to me. Critical reviews are not that worthy to merge; all the critics did say are basic stuff without much value. In other words, they are attempts to balance fiction and reality, but fiction has more value and importance. The season article already exists with same info that this article has, so there is no fear to lose worthless info, as more worthy info is already copied-and-pasted. --George Ho (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
George, you must remember that what is "worthless" to you may be important to others, and vice-versa. This article has an abundance of secondary sources. There's no need to merge. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of a kind, remember that this is an episode (well, a pilot), and every episode is a subtopic of a season, and every season is a subtopic of a show. That makes an episode a sub-subtopic, doesn't it? Secondary sources... as I realized, are just extras to make balance; plot matters. Look at the plot itself: some guy brings in his fiancee and then jilts her. Then that fiancee gets hired by the bartender. Other people were introduced. That's all. Inspiring or not, amount of summary is sufficient for readers. As someone said, why would any reader learn more about anything besides the plot? --George Ho (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - while there's quite some overlap between this article and the episode article (casting and setting, for example), the reception section alone justifies a stand-alone article. I don't agree with George Ho's assessment of what the critics say, and even if it were just basic stuff, they got it published, which suffices for our purposes. Huon (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Since the season article is the main aspect, perhaps must I skim down the Casting and Setting sections? --George Ho (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. This article has too much/lots of information that couldn't be merged fully into a season article. There is an overlap. There's no need to merge at all. TBrandley 18:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Give Me a Ring Sometime/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) 01:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks great, but the are some issues:

  • Ted Danson and Shelley Long are examples of articles that shouldn't be linked repeatedly per WP:OVERLINK
  • the parentheses are unnecessary; you may also remove "in order of appearance"
  • the source on airdate is unnecessary per WP:LEADCITE
  • I don't think it's necessary to mention what shows were part of "Must See TV".
  • if you do the above-mentioned suggestion (to avoid a short second paragraph) I would suggest you to split "In the original script ... to start over" and merge it to "Ratings were low ... Best Writing in 1983."
  • you say nothing about the plot

Yes check.svg Done all. --George Ho (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

  • "wisecracking, cynical waitress" and "gravelly-voiced bartender" would fit better in the character descriptions above
  • you missed a parenthesis on "(making Sam a former relief pitcher for the Boston Red Sox"; maybe you can remove it since it's mentioned above in the character descriptions
  • "(as Carla)"; parentheses are not needed
  • "Les Charles,,"
  • I don't think the previous roles of actors are really necessary; removing it, you can merge the then-small paragraphs by topic
  • There is a solo article for Glen and Les Charles, so link it as such
  • Exactly, it's a single article, but they are linked separately in the sentence: "The creators of Cheers (and the crew of Taxi), co-writers Glen and Les Charles and director James Burrows,"
  • "As owner Sam Malone (Ted Danson) opens the bar Sumner Sloane"; maybe a comma would be helpful to avoid to think the bar name is Sumner Sloane(?)
  • Maybe you can paraphrase some sentences, but sincerely I have no complaint here
None specifically. In fact, there's no problem with the section. However, to avoid to use directly quotes and paraphrase some sentences is recommended in WP:PARAPHRASE. But if you don't feel it's a problem, I actually have no complaint on it.
Paraphrasing ain't easy; let it go. --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I messed up... the plot detail was already included in the lead... I just rewrote it how it was before, but divided the paragraphs in a different way, and added a bit of proudction, which in fact wasn't included in the lead. I also broke the long "Casting" paragraph. Tell me what you think about its current state. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh... either version is fine, but I'm relieved that I don't have to put too much detail (despite no preference). Let's stick to the current version for now. --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm about to pass it, but first I'll do a source check. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a dead link. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Google Newspapers removed Anchorage Daily News. However, I still affirm its verifiability. --George Ho (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Even if I assume good faith, it's definitely a problem. There's no way to replace it? If you can't replace it, in fact, there's no problem since, per the third point of WP:DEADREF, you can just remove it. ;) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. George Ho (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
When I access the info on Toasting Cheers: An Episode Guide to the 1982-1993 Comedy Series with Cast Biographies and Character Profiles, it's said to be published by Praetorian Publishing, but the article says McFarland & Co. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --George Ho (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
You should be consistent on what format you want to use for references. Sometimes it's formated "Month Day, Year", but sometimes it's formated "Day Month Year". Probably, the first way is the best since its about an American sitcom. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --George Ho (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just passed as it isn't a criteria to have the refs perfectly formatted, but I would suggest to use cite web in all of them instead of only in some. Great work! Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Give Me a Ring Sometime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)