Talk:Two and a Half Men/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1


Published in Austria

In Austria its also published at ATV since 2011 ( (in german))under the name "two and a half men". At ORFeins (ORF1) it is only published under "mein cooler onkel charly" — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTB (talkcontribs) 17:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding in the New 2009 Emmy nomanations

Some one may want to take the time to add this in, Charlie was is one catagory —Preceding unsigned comment added by KathyCQ (talkcontribs) 11:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Other Notable Guests

Jamie Rose appeared in a slot in 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Jane Lynch appears as a notable role in the series, and she is even given an award for her appearance, which is already mentioned on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


I just added a longer plot description. Any one please feel free to change or add, this is Wikipedia! (user Cpom January 22 2006)

I just made some small plot point corrections. I broke down one early sentence into two or three, and the last, I feel, should go into a separate paragraph at some point. It was "Alan also, at one point, finds out that his ex-wife Judith has become a lesbian." This could be a new paragraph dealing with Alan's ex-wife and where the comedy comes into play with her, similar to Rose's paragraph and the brothers' mother's paragraph. Really, eventually, a lot of these points could go into episode pages. I'm pretty used to looking at Simpsons pages, which are very detailed. --Eric Jack Nash 21:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Synopsis

I really don't like it, it is not written from a Neutral Point of View and often talks about things that are irrelevant for a general overview of the show (as a detailed synopsis is only necessary for the individual episodes). Would be good if someone re-wrote this — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


  • There was an episode recently were Dharma from Dharma & Greg was in the show, but she was called Frankie. It's still the same character however, as she says her ex-husband Rans for congress and had "Stuck up" parents User:Zeldamaster3
Dharma was a lunatic, as is her portrayer. I think it would be easy to say that she just had a new nickname. Remember on the show she had two friends who became "Stewie" when they were together. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, by that logic, wouldn't Charlie be the same character that he played on Spin City? That's just silly.

Shawn Crapo (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

New category


it says that the episode "go get mummys bra" is one example of times the line is not used in the episode. that line is used in that episode, and there aren't any that have dropped the line that I've seen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

The Ocean

I could swear the backdrop used to represent the Pacific Ocean behind the windows gives illusion of movement to the waves. ( 01:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

I noticed that, too. It's probably the same effect used in those animated beer signs you see in bars. Just two layers of waves (partially transparent) moving side to side over a lighted background. But, then again, it could be a projection.

Shawn Crapo (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


Who played Isabella in that halloween episode? She's hot but that's beside the point. I wanna learn more about her. (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

-Jodi Lyn O'Keefe played Isabella - I only watched that episode myself today! Unwisely (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)==

Unknown Obvious Female Character

I'm curious about the actress who played the extremely dumb but gorgeous redhead who was Alans girlfriend and became Alans second wife.She seems to have been airbrushed out of this wikipedia, or am I missing the obvious?. Anyone know who I'm talking about? If she's listed in stars I've missed her.Thanks Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Just found her, stop looking. It's April Bowlby who played Kandi. If she was there I must've been blind.(It's called having a man-look; missing what's right in front of you)Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

NZ Flag?

Why is there a icon of the New Zealand flag by Charlie Sheen's name? Is it possibly meant for Melanie Lynskey?--Kjrjr (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

--Kjrjr (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


Is she still a main character? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she most certainly is. She appears in nearly every episode, sometimes you can even see her walking around in the background even when she's not involved in the scene at all. (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Theme Song

Was it really necessary to include the part about the theme song in this article? Is there anyone really stupid enough to actually believe that Angus T. Jones sang the backup in the theme song? I don't think such idiocy could be considered "popular belief".

Shawn Crapo (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Stiles

How come Ryan Stiles is the first person on the list of characters on the "infobox"? Doesn't he play a recurring character? If he does, he should be in the bottom or out of the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Interntional broadcasters

international broadcasters should be left alone as everyone who reads this article would be curious of what countrys this show is being broadcast this international thing has been here for about 3 years sn now you decide to delete it .. it not harm to leave it —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You have been consistently adding these to Cold Case after being told by numerous users to stop. Wikipedia is not a tv guide. I have given you several links to read in my edit summaries and your talkpage. I suggest you read them and familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not.--Fogeltje (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I been on this site for 4 years and that was there and why do you decide to delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
For the last time, please READ the links I posted in various edit summaries, talk pages and your own talkpage. Unfortunately I have the feeling you do not wish to understand.--Fogeltje (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


Is the show filmed before a live studio audience? --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

MAD Parody

The graphic showing the Mad parody doesn't have any text in the voice balloons. 45750born (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Are the words removed for copyright reasons or are there no words in the original - a joke about the quality of the script ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Character articles

There should be an article on Berta. The information here is very incomplete. What's her first appearance??-- (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Her first appearence was the fourth or fifth article. And she was a main cast member for Season Two, and the most common revurring character. She needs an article... I don't know how to make one, though. Also, Rose should have an article. Her psyche deserves a whole page in itself. Judith and Evelyn articles... I don't know, but definatly Berta and Rose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Melanie Lynskey (plays Rose) has an entire wikipedia article page that is linked in Two And A Half Men article. Click on that to read more,thanks Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sam Sheen is actually the daughter (not the son) of Charlie Sheen and Denise Richards, so that correction was made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshler05 (talkcontribs) 16:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The tone or style needs improvement. Appears to be opinions.

Added {{Inappropriate tone}} tag. The sections Main Characters and Recurring Characters contain many statements which appear to be opinions of editors or speculations. All material on Wikipedia should be cited to reliable third-party sources. -- (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Two and a Half Men wiki

The Two and a Half Men wiki linked to from some of these articles has information about a son Alan had with Kandi. None of that ever happened, as far as I know. So the question is, should we link to a wiki that has false information that it's trying to pass off as fact? --Jnelson09 (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC) (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC) why is the link i added not accepted? its a great link i found with hundreds of episodes of two and a half men, and its free, why is it not accepted to post it here?

The link has multiple issues - not the least of which is that the site does not appear to have legal copyright to provide the episodes. It would be worthwhile to read WP:COPYRIGHT, as well as WP:ELNO and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Theme Song

Who sings the theme song on "Two and A Half Men"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Ratings Table

Stop adding series 8 and 9, the show could be cancelled between then. (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Show was renewed for 3 more seasons taking it through 2011-2012 season which would be Season 9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


The article lacks a section on its critical reception. It has received quite a beating for being stereotypical, dimwitted, sexist and inappropriate, whatever that means. I don't necessarily share that view since I've been watching the show from the beginning, but over the years I've seen this repeated over and over again, so there has to be some quotable material on this topic. Likewise, somebody must have written something about why it's so successful. Many shows try to be simplistic, but few have shared the success of Two and a Half Men.-- (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree there should be some sort of critical reception section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I started a "Reaction" section. So far just two (negative) references, so it needs expansion and balancing, but it's a start. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The "Reaction" section has been renamed "Criticism" and tagged accordingly. In the context of the article as a whole, I don't think some commentary on the reaction of some reviewers that the sitcom is sexist is out of place. If this can be "balanced" by a response (i.e. someone arguing that it isn't sexist), then of course it should be included, but I can't find any such response. I don't think it's NPOV to include the criticism, but agree that the section needs more work. Also agree that "Criticism" is better than "Reaction". It would be easy to include all sorts of reviews, but the main point of the section is that the sitcom has been criticised as being sexist, which I think is important enough to include in its own right. Any comments? Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment indeed. The danger many people have of insisting on NPOV is to balance a negative comment with a positive comment. That's not how neutral works - neutral means to present *any* facts without undue bias towards them, or to favour any particular type of comment - be it negative or positive. Just because there are a couple of negative comments with no positive ones is no reason to remove the negative comments. I agree that they stay. a_man_alone (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
That's not actually correct. Neutrally treating facts is not enough. WP:WEIGHT states, "Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight"." Only providing negative viewpoints, as this article does, or only positive viewpoints is not being neutral. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but that's not what I was saying: My statement was, and is, that if there are *only* negative comments available they should not be removed under the banner of NPOV - so long as the way they are presented is itself unbiased. However, I note that for some reason in the past a valid positive comment was removed, [1] so I've reinserted it. Also, if we're truly striving for neutrality, the heading should be something other than "Criticism" - so I've changed that as well. a_man_alone (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I note that the positive comment I found and then later deleted has been included again. I don't mind per se, but my point when creating the section was actually to include discussion of claims of sexism, not a general discussion about likes the show and who doesn't. I would prefer if the positive comment, if any, would relate to the claim of sexism - i.e. a reliable secondary source explaining why the claims of sexism are wrong. Perhaps, with that in mind, the section should have been called "Claims of sexism". There is actually quite a bit of material online supporting this view and, interestingly, I couldn't find anything at all arguing against it. For the record, I don't have strong feelings about the show one way or another. Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I kind of agree with that as well. I think the section would be better off as a main heading "Critical reception", and then a sub-heading called "Claims of sexism" whcih could include the sourced comments. If there are other reasonable references, there's no reason why more cannot be included. A show of this popularity must have garnered reviews that are not focussed on the (potential) sexist attitude. I suppose.
FWIW - as with Wikipeter, I'm also somewhat apathetic about the show itself, but what I do care about is how the show is represented within Wikipedia. a_man_alone (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Could the sexist criticism really be integrated into the article as a whole? Is it possible to organize such criticisms into a robust context without an edit war to make the wording either innocuous or more critical? I would love to introduce quotes and opinions on the misogyny in TAAHM, but I know for a fact that they would be reverted within hours. (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I miss the argumentation. We have some articles which claim the series is sexist, but there is no plausible argumentation, there are only opinions. We should give the reader the chance to make an own judgement.-- (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Combining Premise and Introduction

Would it be beneficial to combine the premise and the introduction into one paragraph instead of two separate small ones? Joylovessonshine (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just reading the article and thought the same thing. So I will. Diderot's dreams (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever said & done, whatever "critical" comments have been given, the series is very successful & popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Soheyl (talkcontribs) 12:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Movie Etiquette Reel

Remember a few years back they did a "movie etiquette" reel that played a lot before films? I haven't successfully found any source of this but I remember like it was yesterday. Thus should be included once someone has solid info (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And this has what to do with this article?

-- (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Show shutdown?

Should something be in here about the show shutting down? [2] --James Kidd (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing guest star

Jenny McCarthy appeared in several episodes as Robert Wagner's daughter, culminating in the two episode arc of Evelyn's wedding to Teddy Leopold and the aftermath. I am not comfortable editing the main article. on this with my little experience in this kind of input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Kandis actress is named but her role is not. She had a very important part at a time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC) mike connors as hugo — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


This article is -crammed- with original research. So much editing needs to be done. Lots42 (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

SOFIXIT --AussieLegend (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The separate article on the character of Jake Harper is pretty flimsy and was written poorly. The information about Jake is pretty much covered here, so there is a proposal to merge it into this article. I think that perhaps all characters of this show can be merged here, into a section listing them with concise, encyclopedic character descriptions. If any characters warrant their own pages, it would be Charlie and Alan only, but there's no need to write about them as if they are real people ("in-universe") nor to include every little tidbit of silly details. Other opinions welcome. nycdi (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Jake Harper has been redirected here twice previously,[3][4] and the current version is no better than the previous two. Merging the content probably won't stop people recreating the article. My alternative suggestion would be to create List of Two and a Half Men characters and move all content there, including what's currently in Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men) and Alan Harper (Two and a Half Men) and most of what's here. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


Since when is Two and a Half Men german? SkySilver (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Beginning March 12 2005 (ORF 1 and ProSieben), since then all episodes have been shown in Germany (and German-speaking Europe) in GERMAN. (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Season 8, Episode 13

This episode doesn't air for another 2 weeks, yet the description and title quote has already been filled out. Should this not be deleted or did the episode leak? There's no way one could know about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talktoemjoey (talkcontribs) 18:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the description was found on the press release.[5] --AussieLegend (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


It was canceled today, right? Can I put that in? Or will you dicks revert it and ban me? Jkbena612 (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You may be blocked for your tone. And please read the news carefully and rely on primary sources. The show is not cancelled yet - the just stopped filming in 2011 due to Sheen's health (and mental) condition. --Denniss (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Are they still gonna go for Season 9. --WigglesFan1991 (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It's over man. I know a person on the inside, and CBS is weighing new shows to put in its place for the fall season! It's gone, they are going to end it, because they don't want to keep the Sheen-aholic on set. It's gone, those a-dollar-sign-dollar-sign-holes ended it because the drunk guy couldn't hold his comments to himself. Oh well, time to watch Monday Night Raw.[[File:-- (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Example.jpg]]
They can still replace Sheen? It is possible? -- (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Replace him? That's just impossible.-- (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah! He's one of the "odd couple", and the reason he's able to get away with so much demands, which is why CBS is giving the yerkif what he wants! (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, he could be replaced. We don't know yet though, so we can't make any definitive statements about the fate of the show or the character. Reach Out to the Truth 18:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen has now been fired! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's already in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You all need a life; go to college or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "hostile comments" against Lorre

The article says "Sheen appeared for interviews on ABC's 20/20, NBC's Today, and CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight, continuing to make hostile comments about Lorre, as well as CBS." I saw some of the interviews and did not hear hostile remarks, maybe he made them on the other interviews which I didn't see. Certainly this sentence gives the impressions he made these comments every time he appeared for an interview, which I don't think was the case. Adjust? (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sheen's argument seems to be that when he came back from rehab, that production would get going and he had a contractual commitment with CBS and Lorre, but when he showed up at the studio, it was vacant, no production happening, and Lorre admitted he had not written any episodes for Season 8. Sheen's argument seems to be that Lorre is attempting to use his power in the media to make Charlie out to be the bad guy when in fact Lorre and CBS have failed to perform per the contract. Perhaps to be NPOV this sort of information needs to be documented here, otherwise the page seems slanted against Sheen. (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment from a 'Reader' - It does sound very slanted against Charlie. In fact before reading the discussion page I thought the whole wiki article/page was run by CBS and written by Chuck Lorre — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Another Reader comment - This article does not represent Charlie's side at all. It is certainly not neutral nor objective. For example, it is a fact the Lorre was publicly insulting Charlie using his famous "vanity cards" (i.e. numbers 324 and 329 from his website). This is not to say Charlie is better or worse than Chuck. All I'm saying is that both sides were waging a war for a long time before Charlie was fired. This Wiki article seems to imply that Charlie was very bad and Chuck was an angel. Also, note — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is clear this article is not neutral. I have no problems with glorifying Lorre, but as per Wikipedia guidelines, please have some other opinions whether they are majority or minority! For me it is clear that we need multiple viewpoints because right now this page is biased (as other posters mention above) Xbalance (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Starring Charlie Sheen seasons 1 - 8

I have removed two references to Charlie Sheen starring in seasons 1 - 8; there have only been eight seasons so far, and no episodes produced since his sacking. If and when the show resumes production without him, then this information could legitimately be included. Smurfmeister (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

They just announced that Charlie Sheen will not be returning and that Ashton Kutcher would take his place beginning with Season 9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This was announced a few days ago and is already in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Gordon : Pizza Deliver

Gordon also appears in season 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxime McFly (talkcontribs) 07:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

charlie sheen's departure

In the section of "charlie sheen's departure" ,its written that there has been talks between producers and charlie to make charlie returning to the small screen but this has been rubbished by the producers and here is the proof

so please either remove it or add this new info! thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually there have been talks of Sheen "returning to the small screen" and in fact it has been announced that he has signed on to star in a sitcom based on the movie Anger Management Rouse52794 (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

CSI crossover

I don't know if I'd really call it a crossover. Characters from each show appeared on the other, but after watching the two episodes, they are two totally separate plots. I think a crossover is usually defined as a storyline that starts on an episode of one series and ends on the other. (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks for starting this, so now I don't have too! You are correct! It was a "writer exchange program" concept, not an actual crossover! "Joey" is/was a spin-off from "Friends", but their connections to other television series are all true crossovers. Oh, it doesn't have to be a storyline, it can just be the usage of the same characters or just one, or set in the same place. All of the "Knight Rider" series share the same universe continuity. The original spun-off "Dalton's Code of Vengeance". However, the 2008 revival crossed over with "Las Vegas" by visiting that show's hotel. "Las Vegas" got crossover linked to other series as well. Now as for "Two and a Half Men" itself, having "Dharma & Greg" appear would count as a true crossover! But behind-the-scenes shenanigans like having a writer exhange program don't count! LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 5 June 2011

3 things first accept that charlie is gone and add seasons 1-8 to his name on the starring section, add Ashton Kutcher to the starring section and change the status from suspended to returning season. (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

We can't do this until Kutcher is actually credited in an episode. pcuser42 (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Can the season be added already?

"Do not add years or seasons here until such time as there is confirmation from a reliable source that season 9 episodes will be aired."

CBS has now confirmed that there will be a season 9, and a premiere date (Sept 19, 2011) has already been officially announced by CBS. So couldn't someone now add to the article that Sheen starred in the series from season 1 to season 8? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinWiki (talkcontribs) 22:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerning Ashton Kutcher's character on the show......

The only way that info about Kutcher's character on the show should be placed on the article is if it can be verified by a third-party source. Otherwise, it's just speculation, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 4 August 2011

Two and a half Men is aired every day in Australia.

Source: I watch it every day. (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Under the syndication section it is already listed that it airs in Australia. Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sheen vs Kutcher

This crap has to end! I edit this article to better fit the current season. Sheen is still present but I label him as a FORMER star! And he is still retained on the list of stars on the side bar; I just place him at the bottom. Please STOP re-editing this or I shall report it as vandalizm! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westvoja (talkcontribs) 21:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Per the infobox instructions, original cast should be listed first in credits order followed by additional cast in the order they joined the show. --Davejohnsan (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Ditto Dave. I am wondering though... what about Westvoja's edits elsewhere in the article (as reflected in most recent diff)? Would it be appropriate to change the lead to reflect the current starring cast or are there be WP:RECENTISM problems there, too? I personally, don't have a problem with those changes, just the infobox. But I'm not sure, being less familiar with the TV mos than I am with films, if there are MOS policies against those changes. Millahnna (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
MOS:TV says that we always treat fiction in the present, articles must reflect the entire history of a series, and main cast members stay on the list even after their departure from the series. Even when a series is ended we say "it is a series", not "it was a series". This applies to cast members as well, which is why they remain on the cast list even after they've left and why we say "starring Charlie Sheen", not "formerly starring Charlie Sheen". --AussieLegend (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It does seem stupid though that the firdt name in the starring section doesn't star in it anymore yet the guy who does is right down at the bottom below a bunch of other former stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Fiction is always treated in the present. If you're watching seasons 1-8 right now, Charlie Sheen is still starring. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

My god you guys are way too wrapped uo in your own self importance if i were watching seasons 1-8 right now i would be watching old episodes by your reckoning you should change a show that has ended like scrubs should have its run changed from 2001-2010 to 2001- forever because im sure someone somewhere will be watching it for the first time making it current to them, the fact is wikipedia is for facts and charlie SHEEN DOES NOT star in two and a half men anymore he did so he should be in the starring section below Jon Cryer and Angus T Jones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:11, 21 November 2011‎ (UTC)

Protest all you want, a Wikipedia policy is still a Wikipedia policy. A series' run is when the series was screened for the first time on television, not later runs or DVDs. pcuser42 (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Treating fiction in the present doesn't affect the dates of the series first run. However, your example is correct. If somebody is watching seasons 1-8 of the series, Charlie Sheen is starring to them. I suggest you read MOS:TV, which requires that articles must present the entire history of a series, and WP:TENSE. That might make it clearer to you. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It Would make more sense if their position in the starring section was based on their episode count although i suppose Kutcher would still be near the bottom then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What matters isn't episode count but how the show itself bills them. Currently, Cryer is billed first, Kutcher second and Jones third. When Sheen was on the show he was given top billing so the order should be:

  • Sheen (series 1-8)
  • Cryer
  • Kutcher (series 9)
  • Jones

Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


Perhaps this is just me nitpicking but I have a problem with the sub header "Charlie Sheen's departure and show recasting" if only because it wasnt recast. Kutcher was not cast as Charlie Harper, it is a seperate character so surely recast is not an appropriate description? Pat (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Individual Episodes

Generally upon viewing an episode of a show on TV, I go onto Wikipedia to read more about it. It occurred to me that Two and A Half Men is one TV show that has has almost none of its episodes turned into a Wikipedia article. I was wondering if this was because they weren't notable enough in their own right, or because of a lack of interest. I would be happy to aid in making preliminary stubs for the episodes just so there is at least something there, if the former is the case.--Coin945 (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's more likely a lack of notability. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
What makes Two and a Half Men episode different to, say, House episodes for example (which all have an article)?--Coin945 (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Each article has to demonstrate notability. Many of the House episode articles do not do this, are tagged appropriately, and should be redirected. That they exist doesn't justify creation of similar articles for this series. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, fair enough.--Coin945 (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Taylor

She also has a short appearance in the pilot episode. (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That is noted in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Creation of new article: Jake Harper

Hi. I was wondering if I can create a new article for the character Jake Harper, just like Alan Harper and Charlie Harper. Can I do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IIM93 (talkcontribs) 05:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can establish notability of the character and provide a real-world, encyclopaedic treatment with appropriate citations, then there is no reason why an article can't be created. However, previous attempts at Jake Harper, Jake Harper (Two and a Half Men) and Jake Harper (Character) have all failed to do so, with the articles all ending up being redirected to List of Two and a Half Men characters#Jake Harper. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Addition of information about theme song

Don't you guys think we should put a section addressing the theme song? In more recent episodes, it shows the cycle of Jake growing up from his young appearance at the very last "Men.", and in even more recent episodes, it shows Kutcher's hair going behind his head, since he started out with long hair, and now cut his hair. Percivl (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

4 days and no response. Anyone here? Percivl (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea to me and especially relevant with the changes in the show. Xbalance (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


A new editor has made changes to the article that imply a link between Kutcher's inclusion in the series and Sheen's removal. This is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH and so I reverted the changes. However, the editor has reverted, with his edit summary leaving his intent in no question.[6] I've started this discussion so that the editor can explain why he thinks that his edits should be included. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

[From XBalance]: My initial edit had a direct sentence which violated WP:SYNTH because it drew a conclusion. I have looked up the Wikipedia entries on SYNTH and read the following:

"SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources."

"If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources."

Immediately after, I decided to try to simply state facts without drawing a conclusion and that was the second edit (AussieLegend removed both edits)

My question (for my edification) is whether the paragraph below violates WP:SYNTH? Is it clearly a major WP:SYNTH violation or is it in the gray area or not a violation? If it is SYNTH, then what is the new thesis which is not verifiable from the sources?

"While the Two and a Half Men debut from the 2011-2012 season was 28.74[33] million viewers, by the showing of the season finale, there was a significant drop in viewers to 11.55[34]. To put this into perspective with prior seasons, the 2011-2012 season finale was significantly lower in viewers compared to prior season finales: 14.51 [35] for 2010-2011 and 15.46[36] for 2009-2010. Average total viewers during the 2011–2012 season rose 13% to 15 million."

My next post will paraphrase a much harsher news article such as — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xbalance (talkcontribs) 14:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC) "The show hit a series low in the Nielsen ratings on Mon., April 9"

"According to The Hollywood Reporter, "Two and a Half Men" got a 3.5 rating in the coveted 18-49 demographic, a low for the popular series."

unless this violates a Wikipedia policy. If there is something wrong with my plan for my next post, let me know.

Thanks for the feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xbalance (talkcontribs) 13:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have looked at the s9 finale ratings, saw that they were lower than the figures for the s8 and s7 finales and come to the conclusion that the ratings are attributable to Sheen's replacement by Kutcher. Placing the ratings figures in the "Sheen's firing and replacement" section gives the implication that this was the case. As indicated in WP:SYNTH, sources need to specifically support claims and the sources that you used don't do that, they merely report the number of people who watched. Even worse, there was a source that was titled "Kutcher’s Arrival Helps Revive a Comedy" which you removed as part of your edits.[7] If you had looked back through previous seasons you would have seen that the series' lowest number of viewers for a finale was at the end of season 4 when Kutcher was nowhere to be seen. This was even lower than the number of viewers for the April 9, 2012 episode mentioned in the link that you provided. In summary, because the implication of what you added is not supported directly by sources it constitutes original research which can't be accepted. The same figures in the "Reception" section of the article, where there is no implication, would not be WP:OR. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Back to my explicit question on this paragraph ""While the Two and a Half Men debut from the 2011-2012 season was 28.74[33] million viewers, by the showing of the season finale, there was a significant drop in viewers to 11.55[34]. To put this into perspective with prior seasons, the 2011-2012 season finale was significantly lower in viewers compared to prior two season finales: 14.51 [35] for 2010-2011 and 15.46[36] for 2009-2010."" So, based on the above comments, I am concluding that the above paragraph would not violate WP:OR or in general SYNTH if it were simply placed in the Reception section Xbalance (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Charlie and Rose

An IP has been inserting content in Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men) stating that Charlie and Rose were married, based on an article from the "Yahoo! Contributor Network", a network that is apparently open to anyone. As an open network it doesn't constitute a reliable source so I've reverted, but extra eyes on the article wouldn't hurt. There is a discussion at Talk:Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men)#Rose Is His Wife. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


In the episode Slowly and in a Circular Fasion, it clearley states that Zoey's name is Zoey Hyde-Tottingham-Pierce (When Walden introduces her to Bridget) but here it is stated otherwise. Can we change this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect information regarding show's India Syndication

The show is not aired on WB TV or CBS and is being aired on Star World. Even the source mentioned doesn't say that it is being aired on that channel in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssanchitt (talkcontribs) 20:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Two and a Half Men

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Two and a Half Men's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "s10premiere":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 13:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge

There is a discussion about merging Walden Schmidt (Two and a Half Men character) into Walden Schmidt at Talk:Walden Schmidt#Proposed merge. --AussieLegend () 10:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What happened to Alan's Chiropractic job??--Nithinthilak (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


Before an edit war occurs, could I point out that starting a sentence with "who" is bad grammar? This is not acceptable. pcuser42 (talk) 06:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

DVD section

In the DVD section, shouldn't it say Season 1 FEATURES as opposed to Season 1 EXTRAS? Extras to me are commentaries, bloopers, behind the scenes, etc, NOT "3 disk set". Rricci428 (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen returning for final season

Here's one source 2601:C:780:234:2C2E:673A:24E1:C699 (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, false alarm... source 2601:C:780:234:2C2E:673A:24E1:C699 (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


The reception section is pretty thin for a TV series that's lasted 11 seasons and been consistently in the Top 20 in Nielsen. I know the critical reception has been largely negative. Major newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and the Chicago Tribune have reviewed the show, so citing "The Australian" seems unnecessary. Are people caretaking this article so negative criticism isn't shown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with citing The Australian, which is a major newspaper in Australia? Are you suggesting we "caretake" the article by listing only reviews from select American cities? Including reviews from any English language country is entirely appropriate. --AussieLegend () 06:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't criticizing the inclusion of The Australian because it's foreign, but because it has a small circulation. The Australian puts out 200,000 copies compared to 2 million by the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. There is also influence question. Why not put in a review from the Lubbock Weekly with a circulation of 20,000? Or the Deer Park Register with a circulation of 2,000 papers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Where's Hilary Duff?

Why isn't Hilary Duff in the list of Guest Stars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMGBASKFH (talkcontribs) 01:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe that Martin Mull is not listed among the guest stars. He has a recurring role as pharmacist Russell after all! --Hodsha (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hodsha. Fixed, you're welcome!W3ird N3rd (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


Since we have a picture of the original cast, how about this image which features the 2011-2013 cast? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Or here's another image that could be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Where's Courtney Thorne-Smith?

Courtney Thorne-Smith, who plays the character of Lyndsey McElroy, is mentioned only once in the Overview section of the article. She is not mentioned in the Cast and Characters section nor the Guest Stars section. She was part of the main plot line, entering in season four and playing for a few seasons more. She is certainly more than a peripheral character such as Martin Mull and at least a recurring character. She is as integral to Alan's story line as was April Bowlby and comparable in importance to Jennifer Bini Taylor's role in Charlie's story line. She's more than an also-ran. I'm not really capable of tracking down all the information and editing the page. So to anyone capable and in agreement, get crackin'!  :¬D (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)ExternalMonolog

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Two and a Half Men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Two and a Half Men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

New Criticism Section

Please do not misunderstand be cause I like Two And A Half Men (or the first few seasons as I have not seen the more recent seasons) but I ended up creating a small Criticism section. I was going to place the information into the Production Background (premise) section but there is no such section. There is only a "Production" section which mentions the problems that occurred during production. (more like Controversy. perhaps the "Production" section should be renamed "Controversy" or perhaps "Controversy and Criticism"??) Currently, the Criticism is at the end of the "Production" (more like Controversy) section. The information I found doesn't seem to fit a "Premise" section. It seemed to be fit better in a "Criticism" section. But please do not accuse me of trying to smear this show. I am not trying to smear it or promote it. I only wanted to add a few sentences or perhaps a paragraph. In Correct (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Renaming The "Production" Section

I think it should be split and renamed as "Controversy" and "Criticism" or perhaps renamed "Controversy and Criticism" because that section is slightly more about Controversy occurring during the production. I did not find any information about the background, premise, or technical aspects. Who else agrees? In Correct (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


I love this show be cause it is standing up against Feminism. This is evident with Alan inexplicably paying large amounts of alimony for two ex wives, and also be cause Rose tortured and killed Charlie. Why does this article not contain any information that Two And A Half Men was created to promote Men's Rights?! In Correct (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you cite your sources? pcuser42 (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. I will look for them now. In Correct (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Feminism and Mens Rights might not be the correct word to describe it. Although I observed Judith to have feminist intentions, I was mainly wanting to add to the article a sentence about the male characters were struggling emotionally from failed relationships. I have found a source with the interview about Lee Aronsohn, but the source is from The Daily Beast. In Correct (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

SINCE YOU BRING UP SEXUAL POLITICS... Why is it not mentioned that Judith divorced Alan after realizing she was a lesbian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

This show has received plenty of criticisms from various groups, not counting those who criticize its apparent lack of quality. I don't see this show as anti-feminist in any particular way. Fyi, Alan deserves everything he gets for being one of those creepy "nice guys". Yerghhh.-- (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)