Talk:Emily's Reasons Why Not

Television Low‑importance

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.

More information:
/
	A production section needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be expanded. This section discusses the "behind the scenes" aspects of the production process, award nominations, and insights into the casting and staffing where possible.
	A response section needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be expanded. This section should be well cited using neutral and reliable sources that discuss the reaction of both critics and the viewing audience to the show. Additionally, document any impact the show has had on society, and merchandise that may have resulted from the show, such as toys, games, etc.
	A plot summary needs to be added to this television show article, or the current one needs to be expanded.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Red: #1day1woman (2020)

This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2020. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

Notability

First, this show is a rather rare example of a program that was canceled after a single airing. Furthermore, it was extremely heavily publicized---which makes it a notable phenomenon in the history of television. At the very least, it should be merged with the section on the novel by the same name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.205.125 (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That the show was heavily publicized, with print, TV, and out of home advertising makes it a notable show. There are other shows that meet the criteria of notability, but got canceled after only one episode, or got canceled after being announced, but never aired, such as Welcome to the Neighborhood on the same network. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The promotion and cancellation of Emily was a notable television event of 2006. SnappingTurtle (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia guidelines for television series notability state that any television series, no matter the length, that is aired on a national network is inherently notable. 23skidoo (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Figures?

I'm not really a TV person, but are you sure it's 6.2 million? That seems high. Maybe I'm out of touch. Yanksox 02:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read this [1] for an estimate of the figures. -Phoenixrod 07:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Release?

Any plans for a DVD release of all 6 episodes? And why didn't ABC jump at the chance to try to at least recoup some of their losses by making the show available on iTunes?

My guess is that they expect that they would make so little money on iTunes that it's not even worthwhile to go through the managerial hoops to make such a thing happen or to pay a technician to port the shows over to the appropriate format. It may even be that some of the shows aren't fully edited yet, in which case there actually would be a significant cost to finishing them. SnappingTurtle 19:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico

I was in Mexico earlier this summer and they kept airing commercials for this show. Why bother spending so much money to promote a show that only has one episode?65.69.142.11 21:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation request for trivia about cover article

A citation has been requested for this bit of trivia:

The promotion was so heavy and the cancellation so abrupt that some magazines found themselves carrying cover stories about a cancelled show.

When I posted that information I cited the New York Post article where I'd read it, but that article has since been taken down, so I removed the citation. I can find a blog entry that quotes the original article, but no reputable online source. And I don't feel like looking up old issues of the New York Post just to cite this trivia (I do have a life). So what's the applicable Wikipedia policy here? SnappingTurtle 17:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources and should be treated as such. If the blog has a citation from a reliable source (and it's a direct quotation), cite the citation. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emily's Reasons Why Not. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]