Talk:Cheers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cheers article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Featured article star Cheers is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 19, 2006.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Arts article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
TV This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Maintained The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Staxringold (talk • contribs)

This needs some mention of Ernie 'Coach' Pantusso (Nicholas Colasanto (1982-1985)) who was replaced by Woodrow 'Woody' Boyd (Woody Harrelson) for the rest of the show's run after Colasanto's death. But I don't see quite where to showhorn it in. --wwoods 07:20, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Woody Boyd

I would also like to request that someone write about Woody Boyd and explain his role on this show. I've never seen the show, but it's now in Star Trek cultural references#Cheers, so I'd like some information about this character. -- Foolip 20:53, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • How's that? Jgm 21:23, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's very good, thanks :) I'll wikify his name so that if someone wishes to explain the character more in depth they can do so. -- Foolip 10:24, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Cheers" in other cultures

I suggest we add to this definition the related terms used in other cultures -- Kanpai (or kampai) in Japanese, for instance.

Do you mean the term 'Cheers'? In that case it should go in the disambiguation page (link at the top). DirkvdM 06:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glass ceiling?

Article says

The "glass ceiling" concept was personified in Rebecca.

Come on, that's silly. The "glass ceiling" is where women and minorities are not promoted to top levels for which they've shown the necessary skills and talents. Rebecca Howe, as I remember her, was barely adequate to manage a bar. --Trovatore 17:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I second the motion that the glass ceiling comment is silly. Rebecca failed do to her own inadequacies not due to discrimination against women. The reference should be removed. Master shepherd 06:25, 5 December 2006

Does anyone know why Shelley Long left Cheers in 1987 ? I've been searching for an explanation for years and couldn't find one - she was on top of it, the character was loved, money was good, so why ? Klauss 10:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

If memory serves, Shelley Long had just starred in a modest hit film with Bette Midler called "Outrageous Fortune" and had signed to do at least two other films. She'd also received good notices for her work in the 1984 film "Irreconcilable Differences". In other words, Long, already unhappy with her interaction with the rest of the Cheers cast, decided she had a very promising film career ahead of her and opted out of the series to pursue film roles full time. Of course, we all know what came of that decision: one modest hit ("The Brady Bunch Movie" in 1995) and an otherwise endless string of bombs. User:Meebly 9:30, 20 December 2005
Yes, she left to pursue a film career, which failed miserably. There's even a joke about it in The Simpsons, in the episode "Flaming Moe's" (which has a lot of Cheers jokes in it, including a Diane character).--Valwen 06:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bull & Finch

The name of the real bar in Boston is the Bull & Finch. Barneygumble 15:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the setting is not the literal bar, it is the name of the setting in the show, which is Cheers. Staxringold 01:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see the article make clear that the eponymous bar is also fictional. Chonak 05:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social classes in Cheers

Norm was an accountant and Sam was an ex-sports star. Surely this makes them middle class (well, at least for Norm)? Carla, Cliff (as stated) and Woody would have been the working class characters. WhizzBang 02:35, 10 December 2005 (GMT)

Norm is unemployed for a bulk of the series, but Sam is rather middle class. Editing. Staxringold 02:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

So does being unemployed make you working class? Is an unemployed doctor or lawyer working class? I think that Norm is middle class as he is educated and monied enough to waste his time in a bar while out of work. WhizzBang 03:10, 10 December (what does (UTC) mean? I assumed it was some kind of time code but now I am not so sure.

I don't have the slightest idea what UTC means. It's what happens when I sign ~ + ~ + ~ + ~. I think Cliff is working class in that we see him doing manual labor (painting Rebecca's office) and being unemployed. You don't make lots of money when you're unemployed. Besides that, his drinking is not proof of money as it is all on a tab. Staxringold 03:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I was talking about Norm, not Cliff. I am guessing that you (Staxringold )are from the US as I associate class with education and way of speaking rather than monetary income (I am from the UK). Considering that Cheers was a US show, perhaps it is correct to describe Norm as working class. WhizzBang 03:42, 10 December.

Grah, sorry, I meant Norm there, dunno why I said Cliff. Norm is the one with the massive tab, so you can't really associate his drinking with his class. And yes, in the US the class system tends to be based on cash levels, and someone like Norm (unemployed, performs manual labor, drinks all day) would generally be considered working class. Staxringold 04:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I always took Norm as middle class... he's the bar's average joe. You can be middle class and unemployed, especially because he was unemployed from his job as an accountant.--Cuchullain 08:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Eh, I guess the point is debateable enough. Also, there certainly are middle-class people in the bar, so I just edited the sentence to be upper class types rubbing elbows with "middle- and working-class" people. Staxringold 04:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about taking this so literally, but how can someone out of work be working class? Ah well, never mind that. Another thing I notice is that Rebecca is grouped in the 'upper class' section, which is described as 'refined characters'. Not quite the first word that comes to mind when I think of Rebecca, to put it mildly. She's wanna-be upper class, but will obviously never get there (see also 'glass ceiling' section above). I don't know how she could be (quite literally) 'classified'. So maybe she should be dropped from that list. And she's called a feminist. Do feminists dress like that and throw themselves at men for money? The word here is 'whore' (well, it basically comes down to that). In a cast of losers, Rebecca is the biggest loser because she starts off with a reasonable position (as a manager) and over the years slides down further and further, ultimately marrying a plumber (which is not a bad thing in my pov but in hers and that's what counts). Also, I don't see why the actors' names should be given here; they're already in the table above it. So I removed those. Lastly, was Carla a feminist? The bunch of kids don't quite fit in there and as Sam was a successful womaniser, Carla was an unsuccessful 'maniser' (is that an English word and if not why?). DirkvdM 13:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

For Carla and Rebecca as feminists, both of them were powerful women. It's not that they spouted the ideology (that's Diane), and they weren't perfect, they were strong women in action as opposed to a woman talking about being powerful (as in Diane). I put Rebecca under upper-class since she was a decently powerful member of a large corporation, so she assumedly has some money. And I put the actor's names in on the advice of a buddy, who thought people might have skimmed over the table, though personally I agree with you. Staxringold 13:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
You're right that Rebecca fits in with the upper class section (at least at first), but the 'refined' bit gets in the way, so I'll put her back and change the phrase to make it fit. I also added another phrase. Not sure if 'dimwittedness' is an English word, though. :) DirkvdM 15:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem guys, is that all of this is original research, as is much of the article. Some sources from interviews or books on the subject would be infinitely more valuable that what class we think they are in or even that we think class conflict is a theme. - Taxman Talk 15:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers around the world

In how many countries has Cheers been shown and how popular was it there? Of course the latter bit is especially difficult to establish. But the statement that it was 'one of the most popular shows on TV' needs such a basis. I know it's difficult to see past western culture (and, dare I say, a US perspective). How popular was Cheers in, say, China, Russia and India (which together represent about half of mankind)? And what is that top-ten rating? Probably a US rating if it's not specified, but that would then need to be done. And who decides something like that? Is it a viewer rating or based on the amount of viewers? A link to the rating type would be in place. Until sourced, I'll remove that bit. And that syndication run biut could do with some explaining. The link doesn't really help (actually, the intro of that article should be a bit clearer for non-US citizens). Does this refer to just the US or other countries as well? DirkvdM 15:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It had top ten Nielsen ratins in the US. That made it one of the most popular shows on TV in the US. I can't speak to other nations, but that bit is obvious. Staxringold 16:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, the Nielsen thing was hidden in the 'popular shows' link. While I understand such linking (to the flow of a sentence), I'm not too enthousiastic about it, for just this reason. You also removed several mentions of the US that I added to make clearer what's what (one cannot assume that everyone knows that, say, Seattle is in the US, but it is unnecessary to specify the state). It should at least be mentioned in the intro that it is a US show. That may be obvious to you, but you can't assume that knowledge. DirkvdM 16:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] US and states

This is not a major point, but I wonder why Staxringold insists on specifying the states that certain places are in. When talking about Boston, why specify it's in Massachusetts (odd spelling by the way - I had to check that)? That's not really important. When I talk about Amsterdam (my home town) I don't specify it's in the province North Holland. Who would care? Even though there is more than one Amsterdam (there's quite a lot of them) because it's obvious which one is meant. Specifying which country it's in does make sense though. The fact that it's a US series makes that plausible but not obvious (loads of films and such are made about other countries than the one they're made in). So I'd say Boston, USA makes more sense than Boston, Massachusetts. Another thing is the change from 'US comedy' to 'American comedy'. This is a longlasting dispute between people from the US and from elsewhere (roughly speaking), but 'US' is more specific by all accounts, while 'America' is ambiguous or even wrong to most people on Earth, so why change it?

Take this comment together with the above thread and you might notice that I'm on a bit of a crusade against US-centrism on Wikipedia. Alas I often find that people interpret that as an anti-US stance on my part but I assure you it isn't. If I notice any 'centrism' I fight it. It just happens that it's usually (and logically) mostly US-centrism. DirkvdM 09:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right about "US" versus "American", but not about including state names; this is standard practice for US cities. One reason is that there are very often cities with the same name in different states. For example, there's also Boston, Georgia; Boston, Indiana; Boston, Kentucky; and Boston, Pennsylvania. I grant you that no one is likely to misunderstand "Boston, USA", but as far as that goes, no one is likely to misunderstand simply "Boston", even though there's also a Boston, Ontario. --Trovatore 20:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Dirk... You realize you've practically violated the 3RR, right? US is a no-no because US can equal thousands of things, and isn't how an encyclopedia should read. American is. So stop it. Staxringold 16:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Stop it? This is Wikipedia. Aren't we supposed to talk things through? The 3RR is about doing three reverts in one day. And you revert just as 'heavily', so let's stop that. :) And the discussion here so far (albeit short) had led to the conclusion that 'US' should be used.
Anyway, it's America that can be interpreted in more than one way, both geographical. U.S. with both letters capitalised has just one meaning. And even if you ignore the capitalisation, the other meanings have little or nothing to do with the obvious one. I've seen a lot of reasonings in discussions about the US/America thing but this one is new to me. :) DirkvdM 07:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
If you bothered to look, it linked to United States, as it's supposed to. U.S. is just a redirect to United States, which is incredibly bad form. So stop it. Staxringold 15:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
That part at least is pretty much a no brainer. If you want the text to say "US", that's one thing, do that with [[United States|US]], but don't link to U.S.. And in this issue, I would say it is much clearer to call it an American comedy than a US one. No one use's US as an adjective to describe something made in the US (especailly not television comedy), but American is very common. Dirk, you can fight against bais all you want, but go find some places where it is a real problem and work on those, don't create artficial constructions where they aren't needed. - Taxman Talk 16:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Occupations

Why, if occupations are given, not specify the occupations of all the people at Cheers? DirkvdM 09:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Because the only time the occupation really matters is with their interaction with Cheers. Norm being an accountant/house painter literally comes up in maybe 2-3 episodes, they only talk about Cliff being a mailman to make fun of him, and the Cranes could basically be any upper-class folk from Ivy League (or similar) schools with some kind of psychology background. The jobs are certainly worthy of the character's articles, but it would make little sense to list it in the main, IMO. Staxringold 01:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
A similar reasoning could be given for the other occupations of the others. It could be a group of people in any given setting. The actual excuse for them spending so much time together is largely irrelevant. Which doesn't mean their occupations shouldn't be given. But then the same reasoning goes for the occupations of the other people. But I put those between brackets, so I don't see the problem. I must say I wasn't sure about the bit about Norm being a house painter, so that can go (although it came up in quite a lot more episodes, closer to 10 I think). DirkvdM 08:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Then again, saying they're customers in relation to the bar setting also makes sense, so maybe the occupations could be given in brackets between that. Ah well, never mind. DirkvdM 08:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The possessive form of "Cheers"

I'd rather not get into a debate about this. but:

"Cheers" is a proper noun, not a plural. It has one syllable. Therefore, the fact that it ends in S has no bearing on its possessive form.

The possessive form of "Cheers" is "Cheers's". Consult any book on the English language, US or Commonwealth usage, and you will find that this is the preferred form.

Reverts for this are time consuming and annoying. When the word is pronounced with an additional S (as in a ball belonging to myself would be Chris's ball) it is spelled with one. Thumper 14:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC) The S is therefore treated no differently to

As you say, it is a point of friction as many people see the need to "correct" it, as well as awkward to read. Better to rewrite to avoid the problem altogether; there is almost no instance where it is necessary to say either "Cheers's" or "Cheers'". Jgm 20:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that Thumper, the FAC has me on edge. :) Staxringold 23:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Thumper, if you look up pluralization of words ending in 's' in a style manuals you will actually find that "_Cheers'_" and "_Cheers's_" are both technically correct. I can't speak for usage in the Commonwealth, but in America the latter form of punctuation (i.e. "_Cheers's_") is consider akward and archiac and is becoming used less frequently. Ultimately, however, I don't think it's all that important really. Considering that Wiki articles are neverending works-in-progress I can't see how this issue would ever be resolved -- in any article. Plus, as Jgm said, it rarely comes up and furthermore you can almost always rephrase the sentence to avoid the possessive form if it's really a problem. Best to just let it go I think. -- Stereoisomer 03:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

It seems like the order of the two paragraphs in the intro should be switched. The first thing an ignorant reader would want to know is that it is a sitcom with such-and-such a premise, not a sitcom produced by blah blah blah.--ragesoss 23:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a pretty sensible idea. I have them ordered as they are (technical info the plot overview) for no particular reason, I'll try it out the other way around (since, as you said, looking at it from a completely uninformed POV the content of the show is more important than the background information). Staxringold 23:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modeled vs. Modelled

"Modeled" is usually used in American English, while "modelled" can be used in both British and American spelling variations. Looking up sources, both seem to be technically correct for use in an English article. However, in America, it is more often spelled with one "l;" U.S. English settings on Microsoft Word, for example, consider "modelled" a misspelling. I'd say to just go for the more common American spelling since we're dealing with an American show.

Okay, I'm done being annoyingly pedantic.

The more you know. -Rebelguys2 19:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The more you grow! I'll stop! Staxringold 23:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article

Well folks, Cheers is a featured article! Thanks to all of those who helped, and grah on you vandals! :) Staxringold 11:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frasier Crane used as a soccer term

One episode had Frasier returning from Europe explaining how his name had become the new term for describing how a football player would put the ball pass another opponent by putting it through the opponent's legs.... "Not when it's call a Frasier Crane" Can anyone provide a link to that? thx John wesley 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the exact quote:

Dr. Frasier Crane: Oh, was I?! Do you know that in soccer, when a player kicks at the ball, misses and falls down, it's now called a 'Frasier'.
Sam Malone: That could be a coincidence.
Dr. Frasier Crane: If he's knocked cold, it's called a 'Frasier Crane'.

it can be found here. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0539705/quotes Master shepherd 03:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flaming Moe's

Several scenes in The Simpson's episode "Flaming Moe's" were inspired by Cheers. I feel that should be mentioned in the article.

It is, at the end of "Post-Cheers" the only truly blatent reference to Cheers in the episode is mentioned (the parody of the Cheers intro done for Moe's. The rest are technically just similarities). Staxringold 21:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandal protection

But yet it's not protected! Vandals are enjoying themselves... --DCrazy talk/contrib 02:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There is actually a policy against protecting featured articles. While the vandalism is frustrating, we apparently have to deal with it. See Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfunny?

I find this almost impossible to believe:

Grammer's acting turned what were supposed to be unfunny lines into comedy the audience enjoyed

Clearly Grammer was brought on for what was likely intended to be a one or two episode story arc, but won audiences over. No dispute there. I can't believe though that writers like James E. Burrows were giving him lines they didn't think were funny. --Dhartung | Talk 06:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have changed this sentence to make it less controvercial.--JK the unwise 16:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler

The header is labeled 'Plot'. The Spoiler template says Plot and/or endings follow. I don't get your reasoning. Template is redundant. Chuck(척뉴넘) 12:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case the spoiler template is pointless, which it isn't. The spoiler template warns that plot spoiling details are contained in the enclosed section not just that general plot details are revealed. I'm reverting it to the form used by everything, including the television article that was made FA just before Cheers and was used as a template, The West Wing (TV series), where general plot details are not under spoiler heading but specific facts that could spoil events in later seasons are. Staxringold 12:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused...the template says, "Plot and/or ending details follow", when you say that that's not what it's purpose is. If that's how you feel, you should go to Template talk:Spoiler and request that the layout be changed. Reverting, as template is redundant, and reverting for the last time, as I don't break WP:3RR and so as not to inflame a revert war. If it gets reverted back, I will kindly ask an admin to step in. Chuck(척뉴넘) 13:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Not to sound condescending, but you are slightly confused apparently as you are missing the word details in the spoiler. The general plot overview is specifically written in such a way as to not contain spoilers (this was carefully done by myself and others during the FAC process). The template is not redundant as general plot ("Cheers is a television show about a bar in Boston, MA in which X, Y, and Z gather to drink with bartenders Joe and Schmoe") are not spoilers (this is why the template is called spoilers, by the way, and not plot) but details such as someone leaving the show or dying is a spoiler and needs an actual warning to stop people from having the show ruined for them. I will not violate the 3RR, but I will also not have it used as a shield to keep your version in place simply because I would be the first to break the reversion rule. I'm going to ask a third party to review this, because it's just silly. The section is not called spoilers, so spoilers are not assumed, and the template is not called plot so it does not pertain to all plot text. Staxringold 13:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I've put the spoilers back in for now, so that it wasn't halted at my version (I see you've put quite a lot of work into the article). Hopefully this can get figured out. Regards, Chuck(척뉴넘) 14:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I brought this up at the template talk, thanks for your continued replies Chck! Staxringold 14:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers Holidays?

There's an external link titled "Cheers Holidays". Does this have any relation to the show? 24.95.38.187 00:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC) is the Cheers reunion/wedding external link genuine? it looks like an email harvester/spam link. 86.137.59.61 13:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ratings information

Please stop summarily deleting this. It's not perfect, it should be improved, but whoever put it up to begin with looks to have worked hard on it. Its much more significant information about the show than so much of the fancruft in the article already. The editor soon to be formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • It has been reverted by another user. Unsourced information that does not lend all that much to the article does not belong in the article, especially one already of featured quality. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name of article

I'm a bit confused by the naming of this article. Shouldn't Cheers be for disambiguation? This article should be called Cheers (TV series) or something similar. Take a look at Fame, I think this should follow the same format. In the UK cheers also means thanks, it's relationship to the television series is minor, as I imagine it is in most of the English speaking world. I think the present title of the article suffers from systemic bias. Should we move it? Alun 18:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's fine where it is. The dictionary definition of "cheers" has no encyclopedic value, so it's not going to get an article. Chris Cunningham 20:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't suggest a dictionary definition, I suggested a disambig page. Alun 07:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but seeing as the only definition of the word with encyclopedic value is the TV series, I don't see why a disambig page is needed. Disambig is intended to eliminate confusion, not to provide sub-stubs for every possible definition of a word. Chris Cunningham 08:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Ummmm, but there's already a disambig page Cheers (disambiguation), did you not notice the link to it at the top of the article? All I'm suggesting is that Ceers should be the disambig page, and this article should be moved to Cheers (TV series), I think this would be more rational, more consistent and would make more sense. It's only a suggestion and not particularly important. Alun 10:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
D'oh. good point :) Errr, I don't think the current situation is particularly confusing, but it's more that I'm ambivilent to moving it than that I'm actively opposed to it. Chris Cunningham 11:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
All I would note is that many TV articles are named without the (TV series) suffix if they are by a wide margin the most common instance of that name that would appear on Wikipedia. Example? Friends. Or The Sopranos. Or Sex and the City. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to know what other usage Sex and the City could possibly have for an article besides the tv series, is there a disambig page for this? Same reasoning for The Sopranos, these are unique articles that do not require disambiguation. Friends suffers from the same problems that this article does. It's really a question of what is the most logical way to structure Wikipedia. If someone searches Cheers, and it needs disambiguating, then it is more logical to get a disambig page, than an article about a tv series that points to a different page for disambiguation IMHO. Alun 14:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
My point is that many articles with disambiguation pages point to the most incredibly common thing people are looking for for that name, and then have a link to the disambig. Since Cheers as a word has no article on Wikipedia, Cheers the TV show seems most likely. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Since Cheers as a word has no article on Wikipedia. But this is not true, we have been talking about the disambig page, which is surely about cheers as a word. I really don't follow your logic. How do you know that the majority of people that look up Cheers on wikipedia are looking for the television series? I only came accross this article because I was looking for cheers and was amazed that what came up was in fact a television series, it was not what I was expecting, nor what I have experienced before and neither was it what I was looking for. It's not good enough to claim that because other articles do it it's OK for this one. I point out again that this is not convention and is not true for Fame for example. Alun 07:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Errr, it is convention not to overly-bracketise things for the sake of pacifying nitpickers, and nobody has yet provided any convincing argument that any other use of the word has a more popular encyclopedic definition. When it comes down to it, the disambig system means that article naming isn't really that important, and I'd really rather people went about improving the articles themselves than getting into long debates about such trivia on talk pages. Linux is particularly bad for getting nothing done on talk for the sake of this stupid argument. Chris Cunningham 08:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Errr, it is convention not to overly-bracketise things, this point is irrelevant to this debate, we will have the same number of articles with parentheses whatever is done, it would just be Cheers (TV series) rather than Cheers (disambiguation) with parentheses. nobody has yet provided any convincing argument that any other use of the word has a more popular encyclopedic definition, in fact nobody has provided any evidence that this use of the word is the most popular encyclopedic definition, or have I missed something? I agree with the rest of your post. What I'm fed up with is people giving spurious reasons for keeping it as it is. By all means keep it this way if that is the consensus, but don't give arguments for keeping it this way that don't make any sense. One thing we should have is consistency, so Fame should be about the television series and Fame (disambuguation) shuld be for disambig purposes, this is at least consistent. I most certainly was not looking for an article about a television series when I searched for Cheers, and I see no reason why it is assumed that most people who search for Cheers actually are looking for this article. It is a form of systemic bias. Alun 13:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Appeared" dates in cast

I originally thought about (and I believe I actually did include it, for a bit) including a set of "appeared" dates for the characters. This has 2 problems, however. First, guest appearances make the dates incorrect for people such as Shelley Long (who goes so far as to appear in the finale). Secondly, the cast section is purposefully vague to remain spoiler-less. Also, with the way you did it, even if included the dates should probably be by season and not by year, IMO. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] cast issue

Robin Colcord was not on the show till the 8th season. Therefore the image should say cast after the 8th season not the 5th Master shepherd 17:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] was and is

As discussed on the West Wing article, there's a real debate between whether it is more correct to refer to a tv show in the past or present tense. To see arguments as to why it should be in the present, see the West Wing discussion. Otherwise, basically: any reference to the show as a literary work, or references to the plot and other fictional elements really should be done in the present. External things outside the show's universe, like production, etc. are right to be referred to in past tense. M fic 07:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "dead last in the ratings"/intro

Does anyone know of a better/informative source to be given that the show started "dead last in the ratings"? On the weblinked one, it just mentions it in passing and doesn't really back it up, and the other book isn't available to me. Is there some year-end Neilsen ratings chart that can be found (maybe in an old Broadcasting magazine?) to back this up? I am aware that the show's ratings were poor when it started, but I think we need better evidence. Booshakla 05:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the blog, but Toasting 'Cheers' is a perfectly legitimate source. Perhaps something better could be found, but the book is sound for the time being.--Cúchullain t/c 06:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It might be a good source, and I know that the ratings were pretty bad in its first year, but I'd like to know of maybe a source outside of a cheers reference that could give year-end Neilsen ratings and that would give me more proof. And if one can be found (I'm sure a university library would have them) I would love to see it personally anyway. Booshakla 06:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/e/Talk%7ECheers_1b1b.html"