Talk:Ted (film)

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

lowercase title[edit]

Shouldn't we add a {{lowercase title}} template to this article, since the title is ted rather than Ted? Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispute about comedy-drama[edit]

There seems to be a slow-moving revert war, in which 'comedy' gets replaced by 'comedy-drama' every few days. As yet there has been no talk page discussion. Can anyone point to sources that might resolve this one way or the other? Our own article on comedy-drama gives TV shows as examples and does not list any films as comedy-drama. EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Comedy-drama is the consensus. A bunch of anonymous IPs keep changing it to comedy without an edit summary or any attempts to explain it on the talk page. This is not a content dispute, this is a sockpuppet attack. I'll try to find a source, but this is ridiculous... you're feeding the trolls a three course gourmet meal here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a review by a film critic with a decent reputation. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
It got reverted again, without any attempt to engage in this discussion. I reverted it back to the pre-dispute version, everyone is still welcome to weigh in here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Quick question how is Ted a comedy-drama? Its just about a Teddy bear brought to life that uses profanity, does drugs, parties and is voiced by Seth MacFarlane who is the creator of one of the best adult animation comedy shows that is airing at this time. User:TreCoolGuy
I did some Googling, and I don't think that the label "comedy-drama" surfaces so readily. There are probably some sources that use it, but from what I can tell, just "comedy" is far more used by most of the sources. We can reflect in the article body that it has its dramatic moments. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I guess I duplicated Erik's research because that's what I'm finding, too. Since our general rule is to keep genres simple, and only a handful are applying a label other than comedy, I'm inclined to leave it as comedy but perhaps refer to dramatic elements via reviews in reception. Millahnna (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, comedy it is... and no, it's not "just about a Teddy bear brought to life that uses profanity, does drugs, parties" etc. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Reference to 'Crack'[edit]

The second paaragraph of the plot summary says that the main characters smoke crack. At no point in the film does this happen, though they do snort powder cocaine at one point near then end. I'm sure the bots will revert my change, but I'm changing it to marijuana, which is what is smoked throughout the film. (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Ted (character)[edit]

the article was merged by JasonAQuest, and previous closure by McQueen.30/Atomic Meltdown was inappropriate (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ted (character) should be redirected to Ted (film). It is unlikely that the character article satisfies the general notability guideline beyond what can be incorporated into the film article. The Development of the character is nearly synonymous with the development of the film, and "appearances" is just redundant to the plot of the film. There is no evidence of significant coverage of the character independent of coverage of the film(s). Appearances on talk shows, etc. is simply more publicity by the creators, and is not independent of the subject for the purposes of Notability. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the page should be redirected because ever since the film's release he has been regonized. The character has led to merchandise and gained much popularity. Also why can't he have his own page? The giant ice monster from Frozen has his OWN PAGE! That just baffles me, he's in the movie for like five minutes and he has own page and doesn't isn't even recognizable. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC))
Marshmallow (Disney) was similarly recently created and may not meet notability guidelines itself. The fact that there are other non-notable articles on Wikipedia is not reason to ignore guidelines and policy. Fictional characters (cartoons, comics, TV, etc) tend to get a lot of unwarranted, plot-heavy coverage that tries to skirt the notability guidelines, but are often merged to lists of parent articles or lists of minor characters. There used to be an article on every individual Pokemon until community consensus weighed otherwise. Find a couple of sources that significantly discuss Ted the character in a real-world context, distinct from the movie, to justify an independent article. See for instance Darth Vader, especially cultural impact. Otherwise this is indistinguishable from a fan wiki, based on primary sources. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support merge – It mostly just re-hashes information from the main Ted article. The "voice" paragraph could be integrated into the "casting" section of the main article. There is nothing here that warrants an independent article. Betty Logan (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Not merge – The page is meant to give detail on the film's most popular character. It should have its own page and let readers know about him.(Atomic Meltdown (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC))
WP:Notability sets the criteria for whether an article can exist or not, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Are there are any sources that discuss the character of "Ted" independently of the film? If not then he is just a facet of the film that should be discussed within the article about the film. The amount of unique content does not qualify it as a legitimate sub-article either. Betty Logan (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Not merge - He stars in two films for a start '''tAD''' (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
By that logic should we then have an article for John Bennett (fictional character) and Tami-Lynn, who both appear in more than 1 film? I'll bet you that Cubone from Pokemon has had more screen time and more merchandising than Ted, and yet still doesn't warrant a stand alone article. None of the arguments for "not merge" discuss any policy or guidelines. The fact that an entity exists does not guarantee an article. There is no evidence that Ted, the character, has received significant, real world coverage independent from the film(s) and their publicity. In addition to WP:GNG See also WP:FANCRUFT. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This discussion was closed arbitrarily by a novice user, without regard to the arguments in favor of merging. 95% of Ted (character) is about Ted (film) (including the development and promotion of it), and another 2% of it is about the upcoming sequel. The character is not notable independent of the film franchise, and there is no reason whatsoever to maintain a separate, redundant article about the character, pretending that it is. Totally WP:FANCRUFT for sure. - (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree, no of the reasons brought up so far against the merge have solid backing.-- (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


I believe the fact that User:McQueen.30 (who tried to close this discussion, without merging) has been determined to also be User:Atomic Meltdown, who was permanently blocked from editing, means that this discussion can be legitimately closed, with the prevailing consensus being to merge the articles, redirecting Ted (character) to Ted (film). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding references to the Plot[edit]

Does the plot section really need any citations or references at all?? I have never seen that in my life. Face-surprise.svg DtwipzBTalk 13:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

not needed, and removed. As long as the plot summary is straightforward and free from commentary it is presumed the film itself is the reference. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. DtwipzBTalk 14:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


The movie can't be R-rated in other countries. They have entirely different rating systems. -- (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

That is entirely correct; the R rating only applies to the US market place. Betty Logan (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


In the "Plot" section, the text says

Lori is touched by the attempt and returns to her apartment after being angered by Rex's sneering of him. 

I don't think you can sneer of someone. You can sneer at someone, or about someone, but not of someone. I haven't seen the film, so I don't know what's being described here. Can someone who has seen it please fix this line?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ted (franchise) deletion[edit]

For more consensus, could I ask users to leave a vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted (franchise). Thanks. CDRL102 (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Teds accent[edit]

Teds accent should not be mentioned in the cast list. It isn't relevant there. Otherwise we should mention everyone's accent in the film. Also on other film pages with a CGI character, we don't mention their accent, so why do it here? The point about Peter Griffins voice should be excluded completely, it's because they have the same voice actor. CDRL102 (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

CDRL102 Thanks for opening the discussion. The relevant guideline is WP:FILMCAST. Cast write-ups should include real-world content, not just stiff generalized cookie-cutter descriptions of Cast and character. The notion that if we mention the accent MacFarlane chose, we have to do accent write-ups for everyone is not logical, particularly when other actors' accents may never have been discussed. We should only include content relevant to each character. Did someone have to gain weight for a role? Did someone have to go on police ride-alongs to get ready for a role? Such content would be unique to each performer, but relevant to their roles. I agree that the statement "Somehow similar to Peter Griffin's voice from Family Guy" should absolutely be cut. Somehow that slipped my To Do list. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)