Talk:2009 (Glee)

A fact from 2009 (Glee) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 April 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the first part of Glee's two-part series finale, "2009", was initially announced as airing three weeks prior to the finale date?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2009 (Glee).

Wikipedia

Television: Episode coverage / Glee Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Glee task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Natalija Nogulich[edit]

The actress Natalija Nogulich is credited as a guest star in the episode, but as far as I can determine, she does not actually appear in the episode as broadcast. Nogulich's website's news page says that she plays "Madame Helen" in the episode, along with a picture of her presumably in that role, but I haven't seen her.

If she doesn't actually appear, is it appropriate for us to say she's "Natalija Nogulich as Madame Helen" if there is no Madame Helen? I believe it's appropriate to list her as a guest star, since the episode does, but I can't see naming a non-existent character. Thoughts? If no one objects, I plan to remove the character name. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. BlueMoonset, I've watched the episode enough times and am also certain her character doesn't appear anywhere. But, since she is credited in the opening credits, I 100% agree with you on keeping her listed, but maybe having something like "Natalija Nogulich as non-appearing character". -- SanAnMan (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Is the usage of the hatnote justified in this article?[edit]

The consensus is that the usage of the hatnote is not justified in this article.
Cunard (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2018 (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.

Is the usage of the hatnote "For the calendar year, see 2009" justified in an article that is already disambiguated? © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Context[edit]

The article, which has the disambiguation term "(Glee)", currently includes a hatnote indicating that the term "2009 (Glee)" (somehow) can create confusion with people looking for the year 2009, which is not ambiguous. @SanAnMan: insists to keep it.[1].

Wikipedia:Hatnote, specifically WP:NAMB, recommends to exclude hatnotes in terms that a) are not ambiguous (like "2009 (Glee)") and b) keep them if, and only if, there are reasons that can lead to confusion (Hurricane redirecting to Tropical cyclone; Tree (set theory) vs tree (descriptive set theory); or like any Treaty of Paris (because years are not necessarily known and readers might confuse the 1810, 1812, 1814, or 1815 treaties easily, for example).

Also, WP:OVERLINK and WP:YEARLINK ask to not "[link] the names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar – unless there is a contextually important reason to link" and "year articles should not be linked unless the linked [...] year has a significant connection to the subject of the linking article, beyond that of the date itself, so that the linking enhances the reader's understanding of the subject." In other words, if the episode discussed the year itself it would have significant connection and would be linked in-text (not in a hatnote), but the episode isn't as it is not about the year 2009, but Glee's 2009 episode Pilot (Glee).

So, to reiterate, is the usage of the hatnote justified in this article?

@Tbhotch: I've gone ahead and removed the hatnote. The way I read the directions on the guideline was that if Article A had a hatnote referring to Article B, then Article B should also have a hatnote back to Article A to avoid confusion. That's why when the hatnote for the article 2009 referring to this article was created by me, I thought it necessary to include the reflecting hatnote as well. The more that I read over the guidelines in the MOS article, the more it makes sense not to have the hatnote on this article. Sorry for the issue. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

No, I don't see a valid reason to continue using a hatnote when a) the term "(Glee)" helps to distinguish it from 2009 and avoids ambiguity, and b) the year "2009" and its events have no connection or relevance to the episode itself. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No I have to agree, I don't see any ambiguity, nobody is going to be confused if they do Google searches. Damotclese (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2018 (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.

Quinn and Santana[edit]

I'm pretty sure Quinn and Santana only appeared in the archival footage of Don't Stop Believin'; why aren't Dianna and Naya listed as archival like Cory? Did they appear in non-reused footage in this episode but I just missed it?

157.131.141.206 (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]