Talk:Too Many Cooks (short)

	Cartoon Network portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cartoon Network, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Cartoon Network on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cartoon NetworkWikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkTemplate:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkCartoon Network articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Horror

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Credits for music/song

The creators had an AMA (AUA) on Reddit and gave the song credits: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2lm9se/we_are_the_gobsmacked_creators_behind_too_many/clw3zmu 75.37.205.50 (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

It seems the film infobox is better suited for this than the episodic television one as the former is meant for "one-off" productions as this and has proper fields for editors, production designers and other important production personnel while the latter is meant for mulitple episodes and doesn't have those credit fields.--Oakshade (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Grapesoda22 changed the article's title from Too Many Cooks (short) to Too Many Cooks (TV special) without explanation (a move summary or talk page message).

While it debuted on television, the piece generated most of its attention (among reliable sources and members of the general public) as a viral Web video. It's been widely described as a "short" or "short film", with the former being more inclusive (because it encompasses TV shorts, while "short film" typically doesn't carry that meaning). This is why I've reverted the move. —David Levy 18:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was made as a special so it is listed as a special, as it should be. Just because it was more popular online doesn't mean its not a special. Lots of TV shows are posted online but we don't change accurate information to cater to that. Grapesoda22 (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually made, as well as listed, as part of their "informercials" block. I've added reliable sources as citations for that fact.--Oakshade (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They've called it DVR Theater before. But I don't think "informercials" block is a real name by the network. 4 am is just referred to as that in the article. I realize that its categorized that way on the site but no formal press from Adult Swim calls 4 am their "infomercial block". Grapesoda22 (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to reliable sources, Adult Swim called the block this short was aired on "informercials" block. I can't find any source, from Adult Swim or otherwise that said this was originally aired during "DVR Theater". If you find such a contradictory source, pleas present it here.--Oakshade (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well until I see a real source of Adult Swim (not an entertainment news site making that assumption) calling it that I'll back down with that. And several promos aired from adult swim calling it DVR Theater before. Besides they air other stuff besides infomercial parodies at 4am, Too Many Cooks itself isn't a parody of infomercials. Besides we don't even have to mention it being a part of any block at all, its not critical to the article. I would say leave the unique 4 am slot mentioned, but we don't have to say its part of a block. Grapesoda22 (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The name of the programming block isn't particularly important anyway, so it's best to simply omit any such claim for the time being. —David Levy 19:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's important enough for multiple reliable sources (I've counted 10 so far) to find the anomaly notable enough to describe it, then its worthy of describing. It's reliable sources that decide what's notable for inclusion, not us. --Oakshade (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I think that we could flesh out the statement, though. (I've read several articles in which the circumstances behind the piece's production and scheduling as a so-called "infomercial" were explained.) —David Levy 21:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the "Development and production" section would be a good place to provide that content.--Oakshade (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is claiming that "Too Many Cooks" is a parody of informercials. It's that all reliable sources say this was first aired in a block called "Infomercials." All we have are reliable sources. If there's an "official" Adult Swim source that states it was aired during a block called "DVR Theater", we can have that information. So far zero say such a thing. In fact, "DVD Theater" is not a programming block, it's a streaming video library that has most of Adult Swim programming available on-demand for some cable subscribers. To say it was aired during "DVR Theater" is not only not what any reliable source says, but it's nonsensical. --Oakshade (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Just to add to this, the actual Adult Swim source has "Too Many Cooks" under the heading "INFOMERCIALS"--Oakshade (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "DVR Theater" claim is inconsistent with the information published by reliable sources. And while mistakes can occur (and sometimes are picked up and spread rapidly), Casper Kelly noted in his blog that Too Many Cooks was listed as "Infomercial". —David Levy 21:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point that "short" is applicable regardless. (It doesn't contradict "TV special".) Irrespective of the medium in which it's presented, Too Many Cooks unquestionably is a short (and has been described as such by reliable sources), so there's no need for the title's parenthetical disambiguation to exclude the context in which most of the piece's notability arose.

As explained at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Undiscussed moves, when your bold move was reverted, you should not have reinstated it unilaterally. —David Levy 19:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most programs on a Adult Swim have an 11 minuet run time including regular programming and other specials. So in context of be produced and for and airing on Adult Swim the run time isn't considered "short". Grapesoda22 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term "short" refers to a one-off piece's duration relative to that of a feature film. Even a regular TV series (such as Liquid Television or Animation Domination High-Def) can consist partially or entirely of shorts. —David Levy 20:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "short" is the most appropriate term. Adult Swim has in general non-traditional programing categories and this doesn't stand out as "special" in terms of the type of content it airs. --Oakshade (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image of "Bill"

An editor has removed the "Bill the killer" image File:Bill, the Killer from "Too Many Cooks".jpg citing "w/o critical commentary" and WP:NFCC#8- However, WP:NFCC#8 criteria is described very clearly in the image page -

The killer is the common thread that gradually disturbs the "cheerful intro" atmosphere, and as illustrated by sources within the article, is perhaps the most important character in the film. The screenshot depicts the point in the film that switches him to the front of the imaginary show because he killed all the characters, and is now enacting their opening credits.

This image should be placed back in the article quickly. --Oakshade (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You transcluded the image above. (I've hidden it.) In the very next criterion, it's explained that "non-free content is allowed only in articles" and that "images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion".

Based on the article's revision history, you appear to have misunderstood the meaning of "critical commentary", a concept addressed at Wikipedia:Non-free content. (Please see Fair use.) The character is merely mentioned in passing, and I'm not sure that the image enhances a reader's understanding of the topic. —David Levy 14:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Levy In actuality, according to all reliable sources Bill is the primary and central character to the entire piece and sources go into incredible detail of him, much more so than any other character. This isn't my opinion, it's all the sources opinions. We decided content and images by reliable sources, not our own opinions. --Oakshade (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before we can include non-free content, we must lay a foundation by citing these reliable sources in the article. Currently, the character is mentioned in a single sentence, wherein he's described as "a homicidal maniac with a machete". The image doesn't even include his machete (one of very few details provided), and even if it did, I don't see how it would enhance readers' understanding.

There's no dispute that the character is central to the piece or that reliable sources state this. That simply isn't adequate justification to drop a non-free image into the article. This is a legal matter. —David Levy 21:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I’m that editor who removed the image! When I made the change, I asked Oakshade to check out WP:NFC, because it explains the issue way better than I could. Here’s the relevant part:

Two of the most common circumstances in which an item of non-free content can meet the contextual significance criterion are:

where the item is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article, or
where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article.

The first bulletpoint obviously fails, since no one’s discussing the screenshot. The second is maybe possibly perhaps debatable, except there’s no explicit reference to how Bill the Killer looks, and if his physical appearance isn’t discussed in the article, then there’s no contextual significance.

Anyway, as I mentioned before, given that we’re including content that’s not licensed for use on Wikipedia, there has to be a compelling reason to include non-free content. As it is, there's not even an attempt to communicate information that couldn't be adequately described by text alone. Mosmof (talk)

Talk about the theme song in the premise, how it is played throughout

We should write something about the theme song in the premise, how it is played throughout.

And someone erased my kooks/pun reference. That was informative, just not properly phrased. Dicks. Subjective dicks.

"in which many of the multitude of stock characters introduced in the opening credits are brutally murdered by a homicidal maniac with a machete, who then proceeds to cook and eat them." Make this sound less nerd-fanboyish somehow. And then proceeds to cook and eat them doesn't look quite right. And shouldn't that be whom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.21.34 (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smarf

I've seen puppet characters from regular other sitcoms that have similar roles, but can't remember the exact names of the shows and puppets. Smarf is supposed to look like a archetypical house pet puppet, but then later more weird things are given away about him. Philmonte101 (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be sourced. Philmonte101, it could help if you remembered any specifics. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 05:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Plenty of good arguments on both sides, and a slight majority to move, but not really a consensus. Consider the other options presented, and consider another RM discussion later if/when it looks like consensus can be achieved. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– Two separate but related questions. First, is this a short film? Despite the fact that it aired on television I would say yes. The first sentence of the article just calls it a "short", but the word links to Short film. The article is also in Category:American short films. So if there's consensus here that it's not a short film, we should change both of those things. WP:NCFILM doesn't explicitly address short films, but as a matter of practice, length is not mentioned in in their titles. No other member of Category:American short films uses (film), and none use (short film). The second question is easy: is there a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC between this and the 1931 film? Definitely not. If we answer yes to the first question, the move of the 1931 film naturally follows. --BDD (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The running time of the 2014 film is given as 11 minutes, which certainly makes it a short, although a reasonable argument can also be made for listing it as a TV episode {Too Many Cooks (Adult Swim)}. However, due to the specialized nature of Adult Swim as a programming block which featured a diverse schedule of experimental features, it is not usually considered as a single TV series and its various unrelated or loosely related elements can be qualified as individual entities, separate from their TV origins.
ABC Movie of the Week can be submitted as a distantly related example in that its individual installments, while specifically made for television, are considered as films, rather than as episodes of a weekly TV series. Shorts and features have, of course, been qualified as "(film)", without differentiation, for years and, in this instance, there is, indeed, no primary topic. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Most people would probably agree that 11 minutes qualifies for a short film, with regular-length films usually being an hour or longer or so. The 1931 film, for instance, is 77 minutes long. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no one is saying that this isn't a short film at all (some might argue that it's not a short film). The question is how to name it, then, given that most short films do not indicate their length in their title. --BDD (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When the parenthetical qualifier "(film)" or "(XXXX film)" is appended to an article, no distinction is made between shorts and features. Examples abound on various disambiguation pages.
For example, Bright Lights features Bright Lights (1916 film), a comedy short starring Fatty Arbuckle, Bright Lights (1925 film), an MGM feature, Bright Lights (1928 film), a Disney cartoon, Bright Lights (1930 film), a Technicolor feature and Bright Lights (1935 film), another feature.
Another example, Love Sick features Lovesick (1937 film), a Walter Lantz cartoon, Lovesick (1983 film), a 1983 feature film and Lovesick (2014 film), another feature film. There are scores, if not hundreds, of such examples. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support straightforward WP:NCF In ictu oculi (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, WP:NCF. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming Too Many Cooks (short). The production is a short film in a broad sense, but it isn't labeled as such by many reliable sources. It's generally regarded as a short television program, due to its method of distribution and unusual format pointedly mimicking a TV episode (to the extent that this is essentially the entire premise). We link to Short film because it's the most relevant Wikipedia article (and the creation of separate article for television shorts probably isn't warranted). This has no bearing on what constitutes the best description for the purpose of titular disambiguation. Replacing "short" with "2014 film" would make the title less accurate and less helpful to readers. If a change were needed, "(TV special)" would be preferable, but I see no good reason not to maintain the status quo. (On its own, deviation from Wikipedia's usual naming conventions isn't sufficient. It's a valid rationale when a conventional alternative is equally suitable or better on its own merits, but not when it's worse.) The nominator acknowledges that the "short" element is undisputed, but "some might argue that it's not a short film". So how would replacing an uncontested descriptor with a questionable one be an improvement? What problem would this solve?
Neutral on renaming Too Many Cooks (film). I see little likelihood of confusion, but as noted above, the short can be considered a film in a broad sense of the word, so there is some justification for a move (though I would advocate retaining the current title as a redirect to the 1931 film's article, not pointing it to the disambiguation page). —David Levy 18:04/18:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those who are familiar with my reading of naming policies will know that I'm rabidly opposed to the idea of "Too Many Cooks (film)" redirecting to "Too Many Cooks (1931 film)". If it's good enough to redirect there, it's good enough for the title (see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONCISE). Otherwise, these are good points, and I thank you for the constructive, reader-focused thoughts. --BDD (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've said the same thing in the past, but various discussions have led me soften my position. I believe that there are reasonable arguments for and against the practice, so I'm more or less neutral on the matter.
I'm fine with Too Many Cooks (film) remaining the article's title or redirecting to it. I'm only opposed to retargeting the title to a disambiguation page, as I regard the 1931 film as its the primary usage. —David Levy 21:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone object to the previously-mentioned form, Too Many Cooks (Adult Swim), as a compromise solution? The 1931 film could then remain as Too Many Cooks (film). If acceptable, we may also decide on the placement of italics — if "Too Many Cooks" is to be considered as a TV episode, then only Adult Swim would need to be italicized. Adult Swim's main title header is not currently italicized since it is apparently considered as a programming block, rather than as an individual TV series. Alternatively, again, if acceptable, we may decide to italicize Too Many Cooks as TV film title, but not italicize "Adult Swim". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Too Many Cooks (Adult Swim) seems like a reasonable option, but I'm unclear on how it's an improvement. Is Too Many Cooks (short) problematic in some way? —David Levy 05:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may be considered "problematic" primarily because "(short)" is simply not used as a qualifier. It suffices to visit Category:American short films as well as Category:Short films by country for a confirmation of its absence. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may be considered "problematic" primarily because "(short)" is simply not used as a qualifier.

Why does its lack of use elsewhere make it problematic here (applied to an unusual subject that doesn't fall cleanly within the boundaries of anything typical)? Is "short" not an accurate descriptor?

It suffices to visit Category:American short films as well as Category:Short films by country for a confirmation of its absence.

Likewise, the qualifier "(Adult Swim)" is absent from articles appearing in Category:Adult Swim original programs and Category:Adult Swim pilots and specials. So how is this an argument in its favor? —David Levy 10:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As illustrated by the above Bright Lights example, the qualifier "(XXXX film)" is, in its manner, all-inclusive, encompassing a two-reel comedy short, a Disney animated short as well as feature films.
The difficulty in using such a qualifier lies in the fact that all of those titles and also the 1931 feature Too Many Cooks, were produced for presentation in theaters, while the 2014 entry was intended for initial presentations on television, thus suggesting a qualifier for TV, rather than one for film.
The use of "(Adult Swim)" as a qualifier was offered in the form of a reluctant compromise, but has obviously proven to be inadequate in that Adult Swim is not a TV series, but a programming block, similar in function to a TV channel, with the above-mentioned Category:Adult Swim original programs listing various titles which, when in need of a qualifier, use "(TV series)".
If there was evidence that the 2014 Too Many Cooks was exhibited theatrically or was at least shown at film festivals, then it would certainly have a strong case for being qualified as an "(XXXX film)". Since it is not a "(TV special)" or a "(TV pilot)", in the standard meaning of those qualifiers and, in the face of opposition to the use of "(2014 film)", we could consider other compromises, such as "(TV short)" or "(TV short film)".
The stand-alone "(short)", in addition to not being used as qualifier anywhere else, invites the question as to the reason for its use, rather than "(XXXX film)", which is the standard form that qualifies theatrical shorts and features. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the use of a nonstandard qualifier is inherently problematic, provided that a valid rationale exists (which I believe to be the case, for the reasons discussed). I don't know how likely the article's current title is to arouse Wikipedia editors' curiosity, but I know that allowing such concerns to dictate the site's content would be a disservice to its readers, a vast majority of whom pay little attention to our naming conventions and the logic behind them.

It's important to keep in mind why these standards were devised in the first place: to facilitate access to encyclopedic content. Adherence to our naming conventions is a means to an end, not an end in an of itself. When an exception arises, we react accordingly.

Additionally, I don't see how substituting a different nonstandard qualifier (such as "TV short" or "TV short film") would even address the issue. (Also, those examples are excessively precise, and the latter carries the same baggage as others containing the word "film".) —David Levy 07:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "ordinary", albeit nonstandard, qualifier, such as "(short)" or "(short film)" specifies that it is, in fact, a film which, as such, should have simply used the standard qualifier "(XXXX film)" which encompasses both shorts and features.
If, due to the special nature of this production, it is appropriate that a nonstandard qualifier is used, then the article creator's original qualifier "(video)" would seem to fit better than "(short)". Since insistence may arise that the qualifier must specify the production's relatively brief running time, we might need to include a discussion regarding expansion of the qualifier into two words, such as "(video short)" or "(TV short)". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "ordinary", albeit nonstandard, qualifier, such as "(short)" or "(short film)" specifies that it is, in fact, a film which, as such, should have simply used the standard qualifier "(XXXX film)" which encompasses both shorts and features.

As covered elsewhere in this discussion, no one asserts that the production couldn't be classified as a film. The argument is that such terminology, despite its technical applicability under certain definitions, is relatively unhelpful in this context, wherein an alternative descriptor better conveys the subject's nature (thereby furthering our goal of aiding readers' efforts to find the articles that they seek – our titles' fundamental purpose).

If, due to the special nature of this production, it is appropriate that a nonstandard qualifier is used, then the article creator's original qualifier "(video)" would seem to fit better than "(short)".

Please elaborate. In what respect(s) is "video" a better fit?

Is this not also a video? What about this and these (playable in the UK)?

Since insistence may arise that the qualifier must specify the production's relatively brief running time,

I've seen no such claim. I regard "short" as the most appropriate disambiguation term among those suggested, but not because that particular detail must be mentioned in the article's title, regardless of what other information is included. For example, I believe that "short" is a better option than "Adult Swim" is, but the latter (on its own) would suffice; "Adult Swim short" is not an improvement over "Adult Swim" (or "short") alone.

we might need to include a discussion regarding expansion of the qualifier into two words, such as "(video short)" or "(TV short)".

Please see Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation. Unless we need to distinguish the production from a different "Too Many Cooks" short that isn't a "video short" or "TV short", such elaboration is superfluous. —David Levy 13:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose dabbing the old feature-length film further. Too much disambiguation for the feature film. However, for the "short" one, alternatively move to (short film) or (TV film), which is more suitable than the suggested year dabs. --George Ho (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (article creator) - The short is a very different kind of format than the 1931 film and not at all in the same catagory. The short is simply not a "film" as most people identify as films which are generally feature-length narrative motion picture works while a "short" is less than feature-length When I created the article, I actually called it "Too Many Cooks (video)" which is arguably more accurate. It was changed to the current title and I didn't contest it. This is not just my subjective opinion - There are varying official designations of "film" vs. "short film" like that of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the Screen Actors Guild which designate "short film" as under 40 or 80 minutes respectively. The short here of course is way under 40 minutes and therefore falls under every official definition of "short film." --Oakshade (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem with "(video)" was its applicability to video recordings of other media titled "Too Many Cooks". —David Levy 10:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By simple definitions, let alone Wikipedia practice, a short film is a type of film. --BDD (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of semantic accuracy vs. clarity. Technically, the production in question can be considered a "2014 film". But it also can be classified as a "short", a term much more helpful to readers in the context of titular disambiguation. —David Levy 15:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The purpose of disambiguation is to distinguish between articles of the same title, so it's generally best if the distinction is clear. "Too Many Cooks (film)" is incomplete disambiguation as it can refer to either subject.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Parodied shows

It appears that Married with Children is also one of the shows this parodies. The front door is the same and the layout of the room is similar. 205.154.230.31 (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]