Talk:Seinfeld

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Seinfeld is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Seinfeld article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Archive
Archives
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh

Tasks To Do:

  • Revise Life After Seinfeld Section
  • Revise Product Placement Section
Seinfeld is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Contents

[edit] WikiProject Judaism

Does this article really belong in that particular wikiproject? According to it's header, not really.

From the WikiProject Judaism Page -

This WikiProject aims to standardize Wikipedia articles on Judaism, Halakha ("Jewish law" and tradition) and other subjects and phenomena that are directly related to Judaism as a religion.

Seinfeld as a TV show isn't really directly related to Judaism as a religion. Culturally, maybe, but not religiously. nf utvol 18:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The central character being Jewish has little or no affect on the show and the relationships therein. I don't think the wikiproject need touch everything Jewish. Has Jesus been included yet? :P the_undertow talk 18:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to the running gags?

I know this place is known for its editing but removing the running gags from this subject? Where am I going to find info for each characters now? They should've reserve and put the remaining material in the main casts instead of destroying all the hard work we put in. If you're going to keep doing that then let me know and I'll find a way to comprise the material to a better location rather than giving me a hard time. Well this is just my review and my opinion. They better not remove anymore garbage because this is killing me. All the hard work going to waste.

From Johnnyauau2000 01:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casting and ratings racial issues

I recall (but cannot cite any sources) criticism by minority spokespersons of the lilly-white nature of the show, i.e., very few black characters. (Friends got the same criticism.) I also recall reading somewhere (once again, I can't cite any sources) that whereas Seinfeld was one of the most popular shows among Whites, it was one of the least popular shows among Blacks. 65tosspowertrap 01:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What about among people in general? was it any popular and its humor quite broad? meh! The world is neither black nor white, it's gray... --189.11.192.130 (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Technically it's a rainbow-ish gray..... 99.230.152.143 (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seinfeld WikiProject

I am interested in setting up a Seinfeld WikiProject to improve articles related to Seinfeld. At the moment I am just looking for people who are interested in joining. If anyone is interested in joining, please add your name here or contact me on my talk page. Thankyou, Joelster 23:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The project has been set up here. Anyone is welcome to join. Joelster 23:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consumer products

"The show's creators claim that they were not engaging in a product placement strategy for commercial gain."

This is a pretty round-about way to addressing a central issue: Was the show paid, directly or indirectly, for any of the product placements, or not. Because so many consumer products are featured so prominently, this is a rather important question. -69.87.204.114 13:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


"The computers in Jerry's apartment are always Apple Macintosh; the featured model changed every few seasons to reflect Apple's latest offerings."

I'm not so sure about that. I don't know the exact episodes, but within seasons 6 and 7, I have noticed Microsoft product boxes several times. Once or twice they could be seen in Elaine's apartment (parts of Microsoft Office), but I know that I saw a box of Microsoft Windows 95 at least one time on Jerry's desk. Has anyone else noticed that? I will try to find the exact episode and post it here. - 81.210.148.136 (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it, S07E09 - The Sponge. While Jerry is on the phone, you can see a box of Windows 95, Word, and Excel. Framegrab: http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/9758/seinfeldmicrosoftne6.png - 81.210.148.136 (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contesting edits

I would like people to examine the edits of Dec. 5, 20:43 (RabidWolf) vs. 21:53 (Johnnyauau2000). The latter undoes what I and RabidWolf did, and I have no desire to get into an editing war, so I'd like it discussed. Subsequent edits have changed it a little, but not much.

I believe the edit that Johnnyauau2000 re-created is full of trivia, assertions of universal traits based on the events of a single episode and other non-NPOV things.

For example:

  • (Jerry) typically finds "stupid reasons to break up" with women. According to Elaine, this happened "every week."
The second sentence is trivial and asserts what the character said once, which doesn't make it true.
  • Frequently exhibiting a lot of negative traits, (George) could perhaps be described as a borderline psychopath. George is arguably the most amoral character while still being one of its most lovable.
On what basis could he be called a psychopath? I think this is an unfounded opinion. The second sentence just seems to be one person's opinion.
  • Intelligent and assertive, but superficial, (Elaine's) honesty will often get her in to trouble.
I don't believe this stands up to examination.
  • She is seen as the intellectual stronghold of the group of friends.
By whom, for Pete's sake?
  • Flaws notwithstanding, Kramer is the closest thing in Seinfeld to a decent human being, as he consistently goes out of his way to help total strangers. He is known as an action character of the group.
I don't know where this assertion comes from. It sounds like more opinion. And what in heck is an "action character"?

I'll stop there, but my point is this isn't supposed to be a critical review, it's supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Can we come to a consensus on which way to go? I believe this article needs a lot of work, and I attempted to start that process. Undoing my edit and saying "It doesn't work that way" is not respecting the process without adequate reason. InkQuill (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:InkQuill on this one. the user User:Johnnyauau2000 seems hell bent on imposing his opinions and beliefs in this article. I agree that he is a diehard seinfeld fan but so is everyone here. Disrespecting other peoples opinions and reverting without giving valid reasons or discussing it on a talk page is a strict no-no. Since, this is an encyclopaedic article and not a fan page, i guess the article needs a major rehaul and some trivial stuff really needs to be deleted. Also User:Johnnyauau2000 needs to know that he does not own this article.Gprince007 (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder but keep this in mind, if you are hell bent of creating a lot of false hopes and to the point that this is so encyclopedic madness then answer this, what could have worked better? What makes you so dense? What makes you so sure that editors is simply wasting there own time getting it 'encyclopedic perfect'? When I came here I would've been banned doing this. It took me one year to get back to editing again. You can ban me again and you won't have to worry about my beliefs. I already regretted once being editor and I'll do it again. You want me to go out in a hail storm I will. The only thing about editing that makes me sick is the perfection of reading a damn encyclopedia. You want to go back to boredom I'll reverting everything and pretend that nothing happens. Cut that trivial CRAP and see who enjoys reading a very boring Wikipedia page. Since it's December, you better not get me upset about being Mr Right. You like being Mr Right, that being an encyclopedia editor is all you dream about? Fine. I'm now this close to quitting the whole thing. Remember, if it weren't for my ups and downs, the only thing I rate the Seinfeld page is a load of garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyauau2000 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. That means only verifyable, supported, and objective information is to be provided. If you wish to discuss opinions, please visit a blog or something. I attempted to sign your above comment for you, by the way, but the bot got to it first. -76.188.26.92 (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

New update. It took me a while to think it over but maybe you are right except that your history is inaccurate. I couldn't find Dec. 5, 20:43 (RabidWolf) vs. 21:53 (Johnnyauau2000) 'cause in that history section it doesn't exist. The closest is mine and InkQuill. I assume you don't want to resolve this instead using the rules of Wikipedia. If it weren't for FullMetal Falcon's obsession with F Zero X, maybe I am over my head. So here's the deal: I'll give you guys a chance to edit your things as long as aren't too much excyclopedic obsessed. Why? You'll be dense again and I don't want that. I just wanted to find ways to keep myself becoming too unhappy with my editing skills and when I cross the line. Besides if you didn't know, I was in Website Design in TAFE in Canberra, Australia before I took up this challenge. In other words, I just wanted something interesting going on whenever I read the webpage. That's what I want. I didn't want to put my ego on the line. I know what you'll be like. Sending hate mails and all that wouldn't resolve the difference. If you don't want me to blow some steam again, how about giving ideas on what I should add to the webpage? 'Cause if you try to define encyclopedia, you have no answer for that. I don't know what encyclopedia is either. If cooler heads should prevail, let's move on. If you wanna talk to me, go on my talk page but do it in plain english only. I don't understand encyclopedia or wikipedia language very well ok? Thank you. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV means Neutral Point Of View, wich 76.188.26.92 explained to you when he said: "only verifyable, supported, and objective information is to be provided", something your edits are not. I see that you created an account, wich to me means that you actually want to stay here. If you wish for your edits not to be challenged, you should learn more about Wikipedia policies. On this particular matter, please see WP:NPOV. I'm not reverting your changes because I do not want to get into an edit war, but please understand why they are not acceptable, and be kind enough to remove them yourself. Thank you --W2bh (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit and cleanup

I've noticed that the article is full of irrelevant, unsourced trivia and OR (original research). Also the article can do with a copyedit. I've started to address these issues and wish to get the article to FA or GA level. right now it seems a uphill task. it wud be great if ppl can help cite various claims made in the article. also if there is any dispute regarding content addition/deletion then i suggest we resolve it on this talk page instead of getting into edit war. any suggestions are welcome...Gprince007 (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC) i am new to this and was reading the wikipedia page on seinfeld. i noticed the blurb about george is wrong...it was not he who got caught peeing in the parking garage, it was jerry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calexa (talk • contribs) 23:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Original reasearch tag

i have decided to remove the tag from the characters section becos i feel that the section reads better now. i've also provided some cites/sources in the characters section ...so i guess the removal of tag is ok...Gprince007 (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awards and nomination section

Any suggestion about this section is welcome...i felt that the info in this section was too cluttered...so i have three suggestions:

pls ppl lets get this article to GA or FA status...Gprince007 (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  • IMO, changing this redirect and clearing out the awards on the main page would be the best way to go, Seinfeld awards. RabidWolf (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I have created an article Seinfeld awards and nominations and moved all the awards there. I've given a brief description of awards won by the show in this article and provided a link to its main article. I hope its ok...Gprince007 (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership

I am a little confused on who holds ownership of Seinfeld. Here it says that Warner Bros. owns it and sony holds distribution rights, but than why is the official site say sony pictures television and why is it not mentioned on Warner Bros. sites. It seems to me that sony owns the rights, not Warner Bros? Could someone answer this?

76.167.228.35 (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

My Season 7 DVD set has Sony Pictures Home Entertainment all over it, and no mention of Warner Bros. InkQuill (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I was looking at a website that lets me view old cache's of websites. I typed in Seinfeld.com and discovered that in February 2003 the show changed websites from Warner Bros. to Sony so maybe the show changed owner's from Warner Bros. to Sony, because why else would the website change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.228.35 (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There is one flaw with the page.

Although you did an excellent job with the page Gprince007, I was wondering if anyone in this page would believe that all Seinfeld episodes are identical? You think that "The Chinese Restaraunt" has Jerry's apartment in it? What about "The Boyfriend"? Even in syndication, do they refer that as a half hour show? What I put in already address that issue but it was taken out because they believe it's irrelevant. So Gprince007, if you are reading this, can you resolve that one flaw? If you can address that issue then I don't have to worry anymore. If you think about it, you should put it in already. The rest of the page is fine. Test it in the sandbox and see if it works on the page but keep it simple. Thank you.

Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

well certainly not all episodes are identical...every episode is different but i think we dont need to add the "special features" in this article. maybe we can add stuff about "the chinese restaurant" and "the boyfriend" in their own respective articles. But i doubt that it might sound like original reasearch and pov. actually a long time back there was a section about "notable episodes" in this article but i guess it was removed...maybe that was the reason why. anyways, coming back to the article, if anyone can help with citing sources it wud be great help....thanx...Gprince007 (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Music

"These short riffs were composed by Jonathan Wolff and are considered groundbreaking in their use as sitcom music."

What does this even mean? It's unsourced. It's just some guys opinion. The use of hyperbole belies opinion and fan-colored prose. This should be deleted. All music is either groundbreaking or plagiristic -- to specify this as being ground breaking is just plain dumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.129.123 (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, basically every sitcom must have music or it make no sense that the show is lost without it. My few suggestions is to make another page for that section or simplify the music summary (but not the music list). If you delete that section, then the editors work would be wasted. Don't worry I just wanted to answer your question. That's all.

Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just finished editing the Music table. I just wanted to correct a few mistakes. The opera song that Elaine signs with the Maestro conducting ys Funniculi Funnicula, and Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings is used in the episode where Frank remembers his days as a cook in the Korean War as a reference to Platoon, which features the same music in a similar scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surten (talk • contribs) 23:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number of episodes

"No. of episodes 180 (including two-part episodes and clip shows)"

I find this confusing. "The Bottle Deposit" and The Finale aired as hourlong special episodes. In The Bottle Deposit, Part 1, it says "This was originally an hour-long episode, but split into two parts for syndication." I really don't think these shows should be counted as two. It would also help to say how many clip shows there were so we know how many original episodes there were vs. how many total episodes. InkQuill (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable guest appearances.

The notable guest appearances is a good idea but it's very shallow. That leads to one question: What episodes are they in? If you think about it, many other people think it's just a list. My only suggestion should be very simple and you have no trouble over it. How about simple putting episodes besides their name and maybe put it in a table like you did with the music list. Although I'm not editing right now until February, the best is to give you suggestions about that page. Well it's nearly Christmas and I hope you can finish with your last minute edits. As you know every editor needs a break from time to time.

Well I'm not forcing you to make changes, these are just suggestions. That's all. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Merry Christmas! InkQuill (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to know that is a "Table" a better idea or should we convert the whole thing into prose. Also we need to get to a consensus about who are the "notable" guest stars ....becos if we dont, then everyone will keep on adding names to the list and it will just grow bigger and bigger in the future. for now, i wud like to know whether a table or prose is a good idea. any suggestions?? Gprince007 (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I vote for a table. Since the celebrities each have their own page (or should), there's no real need to describe them. A table with their name and episode title, perhaps divided by season, would be fine, I think. As for who should be there, I think people who played themselves because they were well-known is one good critierion (Marisa Tomei, various New York Yankees and Mets). I think the iffy ones are those who became famous later (Kristen Davis, Teri Hatcher), but I would vote to include them because people reading the page might be curious about what episode they were in. The table would then serve as a reference to the individual episode articles. This could raise questions, though, about who is eligible. For example, I had not heard of Jane Leeves, who played Marla and is better known for playing Daphne Moon on Frasier. InkQuill (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you guys think of this?

Celebrity Reason for fame Episode Season Notes
Keith Hernandez New York Mets first baseman "The Boyfriend, Part 1" and "Part 2" 3 One-hour episode
Mary Hart Entertainment Tonight host "The Good Samaritan" 3 Voice only
Candice Bergen Actress "The Keys" 3

Well that's a good way to start it off. It's not just me. What do the others think? Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well i also vote in favor of the table...but we need to be careful abt who we add in the list.Gprince007 (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I decided to brainstorm and did check ups on episodes to really add extra notable celebrities and guest stars and also did some minor adjustments to get the maximum value over a page. Although I'm still concerned about the overview but for now, those people I added should've been honoured 'cause after all, they are such memorable characters. Anyway Happy New Year!

Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree that all the characters you added should be there. Neither Kevin Dunn's nor James Hong's Wikipedia articles mark them as notable, and I fear we're going down a road that will mean any appearance by a non-recurring character will be added or the entire table will be deleted. Your edit summarys almost admit to adding them just to have Season 1 and 2 represented, which isn't a reason to add special appearances. Neither is that they were "memorable characters." I tried to set out the parameters of the table, either "household names" or "well-known for later work." I don't think either of these fit and I think Jane Leeves and Lawrence Tierney are questionable. I won't revert so that others may weigh in, but I think that again you're looking at this as a fan site and not an objective article. InkQuill (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that's life. If everyone disagrees with my idea of a table for those people then they should do it themselves. It will be bad that if I didn't add those people, I know for certain there will be some in your face complaints. Now that it's 2008, you can delete it yourself and no-one really cares. That's the world of editing. Like everyone else, we expect something new that'll fit the page. If we miss a beat, it will show up on the discussion page. Anyway, like they said in contesting edits that we shouldn't go into war.

I don't care if you don't like my ideas, I'm only interested in making the page special. Next time if I had an idea, I'll put it on the page. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I did do it myself! But this is not about who does it. It's a community. I don't know why you can't hold a civil discussion, but it's really not helpful to throw out challenges when people are trying to explain to you what this project is about. It's not my opinion or your opinion. It's Wikipedia guidelines that matter. InkQuill (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well lets not fight over this ...after lots of seemingly contesting and disruptive edits we all have started workin towards bettering the article. Although i created the notable guest appearance section i would not shy from suggesting the deletion of same if it creates problems or "edit warring". I guess we need to reach a consensus on who to include and who not to. The idea of segregating the list into "Actors appearing as themselves" and "Actors who became famous later" was a good idea. Although i dont know how Russ Leatherman can be "notable" person appearing on the show ..becos as far as i know his name is not in the credits at the end of show. Also Jane Wells...is she so notable as a reporter???....but then i'm not from US so i dont know abt many ppl in the list....apart from these, i guess the "actors appearing as themselves" section is OK. But the other section is the problematic one and we may need to evolve a list which is agreeable with everyone....Gprince007 (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, and I'm glad you like how I split the table. I agree with you. I would remove Leatherman, Kevin Dunn and James Hong, at least. Jane Wells is not as noteworthy as other TV news people, but she did appear as herself so I thought her worth adding. If others disagree, I'm fine with taking her out. InkQuill (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why not do it? What's stopping you? I did after all check on the actors film and TV credits and Moviephone shouldn't be dis so easily. I never jump to conclusion. It's so simple. A table is a great idea by me, Inkquill created it but at the same time disagrees with my addition. That's a double standard. Keep one thing in mind at least that you cannot have it both ways. Yes, not all characters are notable but you can't delete them without knowing them first. That's life. If you think that life is better without challenges then what's the point? Without challenges, then what are your goals then? It's funny that this is a double standard. Well, I don't mind the disagreements. I just don't want you to take it so personally because your standards are higher then mine. I'll address the Moviephone guy and you worry about those notable stars. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Inkquill, you shouldn't have agreed to my suggestion in the first place. Sooner or later you'll also delete the notable guest stars in favour of the link to the page with minor characters. Even worse, if you decide to delete the minor characters and leave the link to it, then look how much time every editor has wasted over this one deal. I'd think twice instead of jumping to conclusions. That goes for all other pages. Cluebot knows what to do. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The WikiProject.

Here's my final post before New Years Day. The work on Seinfeld is good. Like my last message and a definite plus although if you can finish with your last minute edits, you can also encourage other editors to join the Wikiproject. You can be sure that if it weren't for Wikipedia, we wouldn't know how to make a page look good even from a neutral point of view. I can only step in if something is wrong with the page but otherwise I'll let them do the honours until February.

So in other words, if you're getting ready for the countdown to New Years Day, please finish with this page before you get really burned out or for a total loss of sleep. I wanna know that you'll have a great time to relax and see the fireworks before you get back to editing.

Well, have a great edit day. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the page looks good enough now....the only thing left to do is citing sources. I'm requesting again that ppl please help in citing certain claims in the article....thankx for the wishes Johny. Gprince007 (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Highlights of 100 and The Chronicles (The Clip Shows)

Forgive me for going off topic but I hope you can help me on these episodes as they remain empty for so long. If you already own a Seinfeld DVD, maybe you could help me in compiling all the episodes with their production numbers and take the guessing game out of what clips have been used including creating sections etc. I want to do it but I can't do it on my own so if you're willing to help I'll be glad that those episodes have been resolved. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Language barrier.

I'm curious about Seinfeld in different languages. If you are not too busy, I want you to translate three languages. French, German and Spanish. I'd be interested in there reception and I'm always curious in who does the dubbing. Thank you.

Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm from Argentina and I don't think that there're dubbed versions. I only saw it with subtitles... And Seinfeld is very popular here among people who usually watch sitcoms, since it was shown only in cable (it still runs in Sony Entertainment Television) unlike sitcoms like Friends or similar shows.--201.252.102.27 (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DVD release.

I was thinking that maybe you can expand the table to include Australian release dates and I don't know the other region but I feel it needs something more to expand it. Like my table idea for the notable stars, I can't force changes. These are just suggestions. If the community agrees with the idea then go for it. If not then what's next? Respond to this as soon as you made up your mind. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Filming place

Where was Seinfeld filmed? New York or Los Angeles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.90.51 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Primarily in Los Angeles. The exception with New York is with three episodes. The Today Show in "The Puffy Shirt", A press conference with Rudy Guilani in "The Non-fat Yoghurt" and "The Opposite" with Regis and Kathie. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should we remove minor characters section?

Given the contention over which characters should be included here, the length of the article and the fact that it is redundant to the List of Seinfeld minor characters, I propose that we delete this section, replacing it with one paragraph that would name a few of the most often recurring characters. From the table at the list article, we could briefly identify those appearing in 15 or more episodes: Newman, Susan, Jerry's and George's parents, Peterman, Steinbrenner and Uncle Leo. The next one, Puddy, seems clearly to drop to a lower level of importance on the show anyway. What do you think? — InkQuill 21:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC) It's a good idea if we can balance the minor characters and maybe add a new level by the type of people they hang around like bosses etc. But not just me, what does anyone else think? Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We should work on the other sections.

My main concern is the overview, the plot and the summary of season 9. If I remember correctly about a year ago, I put on the discussion page that the summary of season 8 and 9 is aiming at the critics instead of establishing those seasons. Today the summary of season 9 is simply nothing. I don't know what it's suppose to be. The plot and the summary isn't making any sense and although it's still good, it's still not cohesive enough. I don't have any ideas now but if you have suggestions to resolve those three, do not hesitate to put in your ideas and your concerns as well. It's also good if newcomers who have some experience with editing should also come to the Seinfeld discussion page to discuss about it. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the "season 8-9 :Without Larry david" section looks ok to me...the problem is all the season infos are evenly matched. If we expand season 9 info, then other season infos will look small and less in comparison to season 9. We can expand all season infos but i guess we need to source and cite the quotes in the article first. Without that a GA or an FA nomination is difficult. A few examples which need to backed by valid reliable sources are:-
  • In "Seasons 6 to 7: Maintaining the top" section, "According to the cast, crew, and many critics, Season 7 was when the show reached its creative peak"....This needs to be cited.
  • "Garnering its highest ratings yet, Seinfeld went on to produce some of its most famous episodes..."...Did any media reports suggest that the said episodes were "Famous" ???..."Highest ratings" also needs to backed up by sources...
  • In "Seasons 8 to 9: Without Larry David" section, "...under the direction of a new writing staff, Seinfeld became more of a fast-paced, absurdist show."...absurdist show?? according to who??? did any critic say so?? if he did then it needs to be cited..

The above statements are just a few observations....there are tons of statements in the article which need to be cited. If we want to get this article to GA/FA level then we need to address these issues. Content-wise i think the article is ok. I dont think more content is needed. But the problem is we need to find sources and cite them in the article. Gprince007 (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No offence but what websites can we look up for those info? If you think about it, it will take a week to find all those info. We just need a good starting point. I also was hoping to have a fresh start on this page but no can do. That'll be impossible. The only thing possible is to check other websites like TV.com for example and try to find all these notes that'll work on the page. As for the seasons, we should really focus away on the critics (unless it's backed up by source) and establishing about those seasons. Long story short, where do we start? Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture

What does everyone think about adding a "Seinfeld in popular culture" section? Some of the phrases from the show are being used today like: "...not that there's anything wrong with that"; "yadda, yadda, yadda"; "regifter" etc. 156.34.237.51 (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV in "Ratings and Time Slot History" section

I feel that the entire info added by the anon user is not needed. It sounds like blatant POV and OR. Also some issues raised in the para have been mentioned before. I suggest we delete the whole para and let only the table remain. I would have done it myself but still i thought of discussing it here first. Gprince007 (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's sourced, I agree it should be deleted. Even with sources, it should be tightened up.  ~ InkQuill  18:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast about it! Bring me up to date about it. I know I'm getting tired of it but one step at a time. The first thing is to double check it then maybe I'll agree with you Gprince007. Since there is no way to get evidence here, I need at least your opinion after you proof read it so that we're not jumping to conclusions here. Then you can delete it. The other alternative is to simplify it so that it is more direct and up to the point. I'll give you my response after you give me at least a second opinion. I'll check on the page tomorrow. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Johnny but I have to disagree with you. The section is pretty biased. Delete the paragraph and keep the table. That's what I think anyway. If the article is ever going to reach Good Article status we're going to have to remove stuff like that. It's good that we're discussion things as a team anyway. Joelster (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well. Sorry about it. I just wanted a second opinion but since your answer is so clear than I have no objections. Anytime you want, you can delete just the paragraph. Next time I won't ask for a second opinion. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't feel sorry. Expressing your opinion is part of what Wikipedia is. In any case, the consensus seems to be delete the paragraph or at least give it a good re-write. Does everyone agree? Joelster (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
there are plenty of stuff in the article which would classify as original research and pov. We need to cite the claims made in the article so that it becomes verifiable and encyclopaedic. Regarding the paragraph, i guess i made my views clear on it in the previous threads.Gprince007 (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking about cites, does anyone think that every sentence has to be cited to death or can we balance out? I mean for example like if I'm going to write about a pencil, do you think that every has to come from every source? Or is this normal? I'm just trying to figure if we're going for the record of the most cites ever produced for one page. The reason I couldn't cite it is because there is no starting point. Well if you're going to make it like an encyclopaedia full of cites, you're going to need to find more websites over this. I presume your thinking power is better than mine so I'll let you decide. I already have one idea I presume that no one is willing to do that I left in WikiSeinfeld discussion page. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Every sentence need not be cited....but "important claims" made in the article need to be proved by a reliable cite. For example, Earth revolves around the sun....we believe the statement becos it is based on facts and has been proved. Similarly, In "Seasons 6 to 7: Maintaining the top" section, "According to the cast, crew, and many critics, Season 7 was when the show reached its creative peak".....Which cast,which critics??? do we know the names of these "Critics"???....did any critics or crew member really say that the show reached its peak in the said season??? if so, then we need to find a cite and put it there so that the "claim" is based on facts and is verifiable. Similarly, in "Seasons 8 to 9: Without Larry David" section it states,"...under the direction of a new writing staff, Seinfeld became more of a fast-paced, absurdist show"....absurdist?? fast-paced??? according to who??? Did any critics say so?? if so then cite it otherwise remove the sentence. It might seem like fast-paced and absurdist to one editor but others might disagree. So we need a reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I know that at times it gets frustrating but we are building an encyclopedia here....not a blog or a opinion poll. So i guess Johnny u'll understand and come to terms with it.

Regarding Johnny's query on wikiproject page, i didnt get what u were trying to say....if u meant writin Seinfeld article in foreign language, then it already exists in many languages on wikipedia. Gprince007 (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor characters

I have one more thing to worry about. You know people like George Steinbrenner, Mr Pitt, J. Peterman and David Puddy, it should or shouldn't be hard to figure out what episodes these people are in. Call it trivial but I don't want to have a difficult time keeping tabs on what episodes in detail are they really in. An example is simply the pages like Newman and Susan which is truly well down. If you think it's too much, then I'll have to think of another way until well, it could be the craziest experience ever. Well, like all my other ideas, it's simply just suggestions. That's all. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overview section contains plagiarized text

I am concerned that a large subsection of the Overview section contains text copied almost verbatim from http://www.jerryseinfeldclub.com/seinfeld-the-show/about/. I was going to add a block quote, but there is so much copied text that I think this section needs to be rewritten. There is of course a possibility that JerrySeinfeldClub.com copied the text from this article although it claims to have copyrighted the text. Thoughts? Dheppens (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • That's a good point. We should rewrite the overview section so that there is little chance of people plagiarizing the text. It will be good to refresh the subject more closely but it's way beyond what I intended to be after people voted to have the recurring gags be removed. Hopefully if anyone else has thoughts in regards to Dheppens, please do not hesitate to answer his thoughts. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well the content does seem identical. But as Dheppens said it is quite possible that JerrySeinfeldClub.com copied the text from this article. The website has article on jerry seinfeld and it cites wikipedia as its source. In its references section also it cites wikipedia as its source. But on this page it doesnt mention any source....so either way its possible that the site copied from wiki or some editor plagiarized the text from site. But my benefit of doubt goes to wikipedia. In any case, i dont object to a rewrite. Gprince007 (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update required on new TV High Definition 16:9 (widescreen) release?

Because Seinfeld was actually shot on 35mm film as opposed to videotape it has been possible for Sony to remaster a new widescreen (16:9) HD version (1080i) which is currently being broadcast here in Australia and I'm sure in the USA and elsewhere. Compared to the previous Standard Definition NTSC 4:3 version that we are used to, it breathes a whole new life into the series. I don't feel I'm technically knowledgeable enough to put in a section on this, but someone might like to take this up. Of course with a HD version available, one would speculate that it would eventually be available on Blu-Ray as well. --MichaelGG (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well i dont know the difference on my TV...but if anyone has the technical know-how and can put it in easy-to-understand language then i guess it could be added. In the above discussion thread, you said, "Of course with a HD version available, one would speculate that it would eventually be available on Blu-Ray as well..." ....pls dont add speculations and ur own conclusions. If something is based on facts then feel free to add it....otherwise pls refrain from adding speculative rumors. Gprince007 (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
No, GPrince, you would not notice any difference on your TV as you don't have High Definition TV in India yet, unlike USA, Europe or Australia. I can write a paragraph but might have difficulty in referencing it properly, but will have a go. As for the speculation, I thought this was a talk page for people actually interested in this subject. Obviously I wouldn't consider putting speculation on the main article page. --MichaelGG (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, how can u say that India doesnt have high-def tv???.... it is definitely available in India....the point is that i dont own a high def tv....anyways u can add an info but try to cite it..Gprince007 (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I can say this because India does not yet have broadcast HDTV but are calling for proposals. In India of course, as in the rest of the world, you can certainly import a HDTV set but have to connect it to your private high definition source such as your own Blu-Ray player. However this does not constitute a HD Television SERVICE. If you are looking for a reference, not that I need to provide a reference in a TALK page, nonetheless try this one: http://www.broadcastpapers.com/NewsItem.cfm?objid=405 In the past India has been behind in adopting all the latest technology, especially in the high-tech sectors including entertainment. Now as the world progresses to HDTV, we do not have a word from any of the Indian television companies on HDTV. This session will discuss the advent of HDTV into Indian Television. Panellists will discuss plans for HDTV by Indian TV channels and the technology and cost implications. The Panel will present the audience potential and growth of HDTV ready homes in India. HDTV screen CE players and content producers and delivery system suppliers will form the panel to discuss India’s progress. How much of TV content in India is on HD? Are the Indian TV broadcasters preparing for HD and is there a business model for HDTV rollout?. I'm not indulging in speculation here, just telling it like it is. And not knocking India either, it's to be expected that a third world country aspires to the services available in countries such as the USA and Australia. No problems with that and good on ya. --MichaelGG (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Is that right? All I know is now, there's only 4:3 clean, sharp, standard DVD version in Australia and maybe around the world. There's really no sign that today, we're going to watch it in widescreen and up to the top in 1080i. Plus I'm not certain you can play it on HD-DVD or in Blu-Ray. My point is nothing is happening yet. Why not update me with what you do have. This is nothing more than "The Merv Griffin Show". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyauau2000 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Watching Seinfeld today.

In Australia, Seinfeld which used to be on Ten is also on Nine and been shown less frequency ever since. I suppose its the same thing around the world. Depending what country you live in, maybe you can update whether its on TV or cable that the show would go on. The reason I brought it up is when I look at Friends page, they still have the show around the world. Maybe you could make one more link to see if the show is still on either original or syndication. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the Friends page has info from britain, US ,Australia and NZ. If Seinfeld airs around the world, then maybe we can add it. But the thing is that if we dont have enough material then i dont see the point in adding it. If we have enough details then i guess it can be added. I can say about my country India. Seinfeld has been airing for the past 3 yrs-5 days a week. And i have watched each episode atleast 2-3 times...and i still watch it :-) Gprince007 (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)