Talk:Cheers season 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Showdown" should be split in two.[edit]

Per a request at WP:ANRFC, this discussion is closed with the result being to list the two parts separately. There were no policy-based reasons to do this besides editorial discretion. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I don't know who wants to combine "Showdown" into a one-hour episode when in fact the first part aired one week and the second part the next week. That being the case, it should be split in two.--StewieBaby05 (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - This rationale is based on pragmatism of the nominator when it comes to two-parters or other multiple-parters. In this case, I had to combine two parts without implying that it was a one-hour episode because I had to condense summary of two-part episode, like "Showdown". Also, there is already Showdown (Cheers). By the way, I added the RFC tag. --George Ho (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - If these were two episodes that aired together, combining them might make sense, but they were aired on two different days so they should have their own entries, as they did for quite some time. That they were part of the same story arc is not justification alone for combining them. This aside, I note from the diffs that were provided, {{anchor}} has been used. This is unnecessary, as {{Episode list}} already anchors |EpisodeNumber=. To link to the episode entry from another article, Cheers (season 1)#ep21 / 22 does that. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Episodes summaries can be as short or as long as you want, provided they don't exceed the 200 words specified by MOS:TV and the instructions for {{Episode list}}. The episode summaries here should be a reasonable summary, but not so short that the reader is forced to go to Showdown (Cheers) to find basic information. Prior to the two episodes being merged, the total for the two summaries was 145words, which is only 38 words more than what the combined summary is now.[1] Why not use those? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well... I already spoiled the ending of a very old episode, and the episodes are very old. Tell me, which average viewer would learn better: the old un-merged split version or the merged summary? --George Ho (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:SPOILER, we aren't concerned about spoiling episodes for people. I'd go with the the old un-merged split version. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why learning too much detail from two episodes of the same plot? How would two summaries of a plot that went... straightforward be more valuable than a mere one? I mean, why making more details about Norm's and Coach's subplots? Sam and Diane were the central focal of the two-parter, and... explaining too much... is... pointless, as the ending already happened with just two arguing and kissing at the last minute. --George Ho (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are two separate episodes so you need two separate summaries. It really doesn't matter what you put as long as it summarises the episode. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should I other than the fact that two episodes aired separately? Why else is combining non-hourlong two-parters bad? What's wrong with not following the standard? --George Ho (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, I'm not totally convinced that pragmatism matters more than quality, especially when I must put more elaborate detail about the guy's brother, who is unseen and lasted only one episode, while he is mentioned in the second part? --George Ho (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The standard is that when episodes air separately on different nights we provide each with its own entry. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just provided an opinion. When two episodes are aired on two different nights we give them separate entries in the episode list, even if they're part one and two of an episode arc. That's standard practice. I can't see why you are making such a big deal out of it and insisting on merging two different episodes into one. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Standard or not, I pick quality over pragmatism. Also, while you want to learn more about the unseen brother, I'm not convinced that an average/general reader is the same as you. Why would an average/general reader want to read or add more about an unseen brother in the episode list, as the brother remained unseen and lasted for only one episode? Also, why would separating two parts matter more than making a good short summary of one plot? --George Ho (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Quality over pragmatism" has nothing to do with following standard practice. I don't care about any unseen brother, I haven't even mentioned that. As for "why would separating two parts matter more than making a good short summary of one plot", the answer here that it wasn't one plot. There are two separate episodes, that aired on two nights, each with its own plot and, per standard practice the episodes should be presented that way. Simple really. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.... I'm not sure how each part has its own plot. Generally, they are one and the same, are they not? In one part, the guy is jealous over the brother and then loses the girl. In another, the guy gets the girl when the girl dumps the brother, but the guy and the girl become vicious toward each other and violenty smooch. They look different, but the situation is... just like other plots of other shows... But the plot is the same, isn't it? --George Ho (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every episode has its own plot. The plot is really irrelevant here though. What is relevant is whether individual episodes should be merged just because they happen to be two parts of one story. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You see, you think that separating makes senses only to bloat a detail about the same plot. If the show lasted only one season, I could have been okay with two parts. The show, nevertheless, lasted eleven seasons, and the two-parter is part of the first season. Why bother? Well, to tell you the truth, One for the Road (Cheers) lasted 98 minutes, including the commercial; honestly, if "Cheers (season 11)" exists as an article, I could split it into three parts since the plot summary is too long to condense... Or I could basically mention the Sam-and-Diane final breakup and then mention changes of other lives in one summary. Back to the topic, "Showdown" is very easy to condense and to omit detail that fits in separate episode article, especially for general reader. --George Ho (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think nothing of the sort. I really don't care about the plot, I've said that. You're making assumptions that have no basis in fact. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since when? How are my "assumptions" not basis on some "facts" that you're not explaining adequately about? --George Ho (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You said "you think that separating makes senses only to bloat a detail about the same plot" but the fact is that I don't think that. As I've said I don't care about the plot at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the fact that you "don't care", you only believe that splitting the parts helps because it's standard. I am sorry, but the fact that you don't care about the plot as much as you care about following the standard is... not helping me change my stand over this. A reader could understand very well what the current version says about the airdates and numbers of two parters. I can read it well, and I hope you did. Plot aside, and transclusion issues (i.e. anchoring issues) aside, the matter should be reading this format well. I'm sure that anybody reads the current version well. --George Ho (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about splitting the parts, this is about you combining two episodes that aired on different nights simply because they share a storyline. We don't do that. I agree with StewieBaby05, they should be listed as separate episodes and no amount of obfuscation changes that. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this is also about re-splitting just because two of you found my combining edit an unhelpful cause. Since I don't see an overwhelming majority here, and I haven't found a guideline that explains two parters, this is a matter of editorial discretion, as far as I know. --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television and WP:Television episodes again, I cannot find anything that discusses editing a story that is split into two or more parts, and they didn't say "part" or "parts" in regards to broadcasts and episodes. The essay Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary has "parts", but it does not discuss two-parters or multi-parters. --George Ho (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Curiously, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction does not mention two-parters either. --George Ho (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just have a look at other episode lists. Where two different episodes aired on two different nights, they are listed separately in the episode lists. They can have a common episode article, but in the season article and/or main episode list, they're listed separately. List of NCIS episodes is a good start. Check out NCIS (season 3). --AussieLegend (✉) 03:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That two-parter of NCIS is more complicated than Cheers one. Why else should I do this traditionally? --George Ho (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Complexity is irrelevant. How about just sticking to the way things are normally done to be consistent. You haven't provided a single, valid reason for not doing so. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aussie, it would be best that you stop aggressively asking or pleading me to do this the "normal" way. Perhaps stop trying to prompt people into doing something they do not want to do. Not one average reader complained about the contents... yet, as far as I know. I have to avoid split summaries because of plot redundancies, prose size, and the episode's content. Also, there is no specific rule on two-parters yet, no essay about them yet. That's all. Also, I don't like splitting two up and extend irrelevant details, and avoiding irrelevant details would make summaries very small. Care to challenge? --George Ho (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This episode won many awards and nominations. Were those for one part or the whole thing?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Part Two, unfortunately. I've already created the separate episode page. --George Ho (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Scratch that: I realize that Parts One and Two won awards separately. --George Ho (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
another indication that the episodes should be listed separately. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've already added awards and noms in the Accolades section. It is in prose rather than a stellar list format, but I hope prose is well-read. --George Ho (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The episodes did not air together, so as far as a table of episodes goes they should be separate. If you're combining them on a separate page, that is different. Here, it needs to reflect the history of the episodes and they were 2 distinct episodes that aired on separate weeks. Separate them here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Commenting in passing, because this RFC came up on my watchlist. I certainly don't want to get into the lovely to-and-fro above, but I do have a couple of comments. Firstly, standardisation is a good thing in an encyclopedia, so if a separate entry for each aired episode is standard throughout the project (I haven't researched it, hence my 'if'), it is therefore established custom and practice, and should be observed. The fact that it has never been codified would just mean that it probably should be. George is rightly concerned about duplicating information, but this can be avoided with well written prose. The question also probably isn't worth this many words. .
(edit conflict)Just for fun, though, here's an example after a quick search, where episodes are combined in a list (it's a bit different, because there are no summaries, and the 2-part nature is a consistent feature of the series - but it does show that there will always be exceptions to hard and fast rules...) - List of The Sarah Jane Adventures serials Begoon talk 06:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must I say something? I don't understand why combining the two so-called "distinct" two-parters is unhelpful besides not following the standard. If I split it up again, how will I avoid what Showdown (Cheers) said already and not force readers into reading more about the episode? Obviously, I could avoid too much about Sam's unseen brother, like his talents and background, but that could result the summary of each part into becoming small. And I don't need to add a sentimental moment between Coach and Diane, do I? --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the diff you link above before they were combined really is an ok way to do it. The summaries could be copyedited, but I don't see duplication as a big issue, in all honesty. Whether you discuss "sentimental moments" (or anything else) is really a separate question to whether you combine summaries, and I think it may be adding to the confusion. Anyway, I don't feel particularly strongly about it, so I'm happy with what people decide here... Begoon talk 07:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
George, I'm seeing a case of "I didn't hear that" here. I've previously said that summaries can be as short or as long as necessary as long as they don't exceed 200 words. You don't even need a summary at all. There's nothing wrong with the summaries that were in the original version of this article. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably not entirely fair, though I can understand why you said it. George isn't just restating the same opinion, he's genuinely trying to understand why people have the opinion they do. That being said, I don't think much new is being added on either side of the discussion now. Begoon talk 07:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It aired as two separate episodes. It should be listed as such. If it does get listed as a single plot, however, mention should be made of the fact that it was two episodes, not a single, hour-long episode. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Table formatting[edit]

Neither MOS:ACCESS nor MOS:DTT says that tables must be exactly the way you wanted. I skimmed it down for size reasons. --George Ho (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are supposed to comply with MOS:ACCESS and MOS:DTT explains generally how to format tables so they do comply. Your edits removed all MOS:ACCESS compliance, which is inappropriate. The instructions for {{Episode list}}, especially the examples, explain how headers should be formatted specifically in episode tables. This format was reached after much discussion last year that resulted in {{Episode list}} being converted for full compliance. You can see the discussions starting here on Archive 3 and extending all the way to the end of the page. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The examples do not explain that they are required. And where? The discussion that you linked doesn't mean how a table canshould be formatted in a simple or complex way. --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DTT explains the absolute minimum formatting required for MOS:ACCESS compliance, which is the inclusion of "{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders"" and row and column scopes. {{Episode list}} includes row scopes but it is still necessary to include plainrowheaders and column scopes in the table headers, which is why they are included in the examples. Is there a reason why you are against including headers as per the {{Episode list}} examples? We included them there for good reason. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does this work in all browsers? Or my way? --George Ho (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should work in all browsers, but it's not of much use for the average person. Screen readers, like Jaws, need it so they can read the tables correctly for vision impaired readers. Your way does not. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge two parts of "Showdown" into one summary?[edit]

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus remains the same as the previous RFC (closed on 23 June 2013), that the two individual parts of "Showdown" should have separate summaries. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:19, 25 November 2013 (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.

Despite one air date for each separate part, the closing comments from prior discussion says that there is no policy-based comments. Rather there were comments concerning editorial discretion. The result from prior discussion was re-separate two parts. However, I still am concerned about writing one or two summaries of two parts of the same story. Yet concerns are discarded as irrelevant in prior discussion. Nonetheless, we must abide to MOS:FICTION and MOS:TV regarding plot summaries in an episode list. Whether the matter is airing two parts or more in one night or separate nights is up to you. Because there are no guidelines or policies about two- or multiple-parters, I welcome your comments. --George Ho (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy regarding whether or not to list episodes under one entry or two. It's entirely editorial discretion based on, hopefully, commonsense. Commonsense dictates, for reasons explained above, that the episodes be listed separately as they aired separately on different nights. That's how we normally do it. The two episodes have two summaries and are covered adequately in Showdown (Cheers) as well. I really don't see where the problem is. I do see that several episodes that aired on different nights have been combined in other seasons, these need to be split too, for the same reasons as Showdown. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commonsense is telling the story in a briefer, accurate way. Also, combined with commonsense are policies and guidelines. Answer is storytelling; storytelling overcomes the need to either combine or separate parts (based on / regardless of airdates). Along with commonsense and storytelling guidelines is WP:SPOILER. Once you spoil the whole story, you must make the story briefer and omit irrelevant, minor events. Per MOS:TV, a summary of the same story (two parts or more, especially) must be no more than 200 words. Unfortunately, the story I told in "Never Love a Goalie, Part 1" is too short; Part 2 dictates most of it due to major events. Part 1 never had much of major events; Part 2 does, however. "Strange Bedfellows, Part 1" no longer has much of major events except one; Part 2 and 3 are best to tell, but I must make the same story simple. I had to brief the story into no more than 200, as I did to "Strange Bedfellows". Back to "Goalie", if I separate "Goalie", I would either make Part 1's summary resemble a TV listing, or expand Part 1 with irrelevant events, like Carla's lies and corrections to her lover Eddie that went nowhere, and Diane's irrelevant longwinded storytelling of her jury duties to irrelevant bar customers. As for "Showdown", I must make the story brief and simple for the episode listing. Maybe I can brief both parts in Showdown (Cheers). --George Ho (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for "Coach in Love, Part 1", only the subplot has much of a story, while the major plot didn't. And even I omitted Sam's needless sexual harassment on one character because it went nowhere and was trivial to either plot. Part 2 has more major events than Part 1; well, the subplot ended with just one scene. --George Ho (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't tell stories, so the answer is not storytelling. The episode entries should contain a less than 200 word summary of the episode that has aired. That is presently the case with Showdown. Combining two different episodes and telling a story based on the two episodes is not what we do. There's no such thing as "too short". Episode summaries are optional. They can be zero words in length. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least the table is readable when two parts are combined. You're not suggesting that we must abide to table manners, do we? Like using [[#ep00]] for certain pages? And you're implying that bad editing is irrelevant, as long as table manners are followed? Since when standard practise leads to good editing and good summary per MOS:TV? --George Ho (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The table is readable when the two parts are separate, and not as confusing as when episodes that aired on separate nights are combined. As for the rest of what you said, I'm not really sure what you're saying. The situation as it stands is that a majority of editors at the June RfC felt that the episodes should be separated, and nothing has changed that would change that opinion, which really should carry on to the rest of the episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rephrase: is linking to the episode necessary? As for what you said previous, summary is optional per WP:IMPERFECT? Or am I mocking? From MOS:TV: "This plot summary should generally be brief but complete, including spoilers." Are you implying that combining two parts into one makes the summary imcomplete? Or separating two parts should have brief but complete stories? Or what do you really want for general readers? George Ho (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I re-separated "Coach in Love" and "Strange Bedfellows" because I disobeyed the "complete" part from MOS:TV, not because of some "standard" practice on parts that is irrelevant to policies and guidelines. But I believe that "Never Love a Goalie" is already complete and brief. George Ho (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to anything on Wikipedia is optional, but there may be a reason to do so. MOS:TV#Episode listing refers, as the section title implies, to plot summaries for individual episodes. It doesn't say that you should combine episodes and write a summary for the combined episodes. I'm not implying that "combining two parts into one makes the summary imcomplete" at all. I'm saying, as we said in the first RfC, that you shouldn't combine two episodes that aired a week (or even a day) apart and treat them as one episode with parts that were separated by a 168-hour-long commercial break. It makes no sense to do that. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't tell us to separate parts either. Also, it doesn't tell us to count one part as either the complete or the piece of the episode. Also, since when standard practice equates to good editing? --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We edit as we do because we've found over time that it results in the best quality articles and results in consistency between articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I already splitted up "Never Love a Goalie" and then expanded briefly the Part 1. I'm sure that it's complete. By the way, I removed the RFC tag, so you can revert the invitation that you did in WT:TV. --George Ho (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I re-added the RFC tag, so we'll wait for other people's comments, despite recent updates. George Ho (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect how it is now. The combined version is deceptive in that every other row in the table no longer always represents one episode. --SubSeven (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separate episodes. Didn't we already have an rfc about this? Just summarize what happened in each individual episode and make them separate entries. I don't understand why we're discussing this again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plot is more important than some "standard", but alas people want to avoid spoilers, making plot irrelevant. I still don't understand why people think merging two into one makes the table less readable. And I don't still understand why separating parts benefits more, unless the plot is told incompletely. --George Ho (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If people are looking at individual episodes that aired on different nights, they want to see the plot for a specific episode, not for two episodes combined. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are others expecting the two-parter episode, as well. Not everyone knows when the episodes aired, and why would original airing dates be important? Also, some people expect combined editing of two parts of the same story. Why and how would one part be different from the other? George Ho (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Double episodes that air back to back are the exception, rather than the norm, so people expect to see the summary for a single episode, not two. Airing dates are important because articles are supposed to show the history (one of the reasons the field is called |OriginalAirDate=) and because DVDs often organise episodes by production, rather than aired order. Either one may alter the story the series is telling. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • If we don't know original airdates, and the DVD boxes don't tell us, and browsing sources is too inconvenient, at least the DVD boxes tell us which episodes belong to... unless they don't say "season". Rather "production code" can do? Also, Firefly episodes are arranged in story/production code order, making the airdates... well, less important than what the episode number is for one episode. Got any more alternatives if airdates are not yet found? George Ho (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cheers (season 1). 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cheers_season_1&oldid=1216217356"