Talk:Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: June 23, 2007
TV
Television Portal
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.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-Importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Critically Acclaimed/Observed

Would the people posting this edit please stop. It is against Wikipedia guidelines in the following ways:

1. Such statements should not be made in the opening sentance (see West Wing which was critically acclaimed but doesn't have such a reference). The WikiTV project says "The first sentence should explain the premise, genre, setting and significance of the show" Critically acclaimed does not fit that description

2. It isn't Critically Acclaimed, most TV critics are now panning the show (see TV Guide's Matt Roush, Zap2it and Eonline reviews). So it would be inaccurate even if it was acceptable.

3. It shows a Point of View which is the biggest Wikipedia no-no in the book.

So please, stop making this edit. It's just getting obnoxious at this point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.177.157 (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

I had to revert the change yet again. Whoever's doing it should PLEASE review the guidelines. Claude 15:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

While it isn't critically acclaimed i think it is fair to say, with a score of 75% on Metacritic, it should be referred to as having received, as Metacritic say, generally favourable reviews. Should this be inserted where it says mixed reviews because it give an inaccurate representation of the critical reception. 87.192.177.45 (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TV Ratings Rankings

The ratings section is interesting (and I'd love to see this be more of a standard feature for all wikipedia TV show pages), but it's meaningless without context. I've tried to dig up the actual ranking for each Stuido 60 episode, but could only find data for 3 of the 5 episodes. I mean, it's one thing to say that Episode 5 got a 5.3/8 rating, but another to say it was #51 of all prime-time TV shows. Unfortunately, very few sites actually sort the weekly ratings into a ranked list (the LA Times seems to be the only one that does it reliably).

I won't be able to keep this up week-to-week, however, but hopefully those adding new episodes to the chart will be able to find the ranking as well as the ratings.Dschuetz 12:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I found data for the premiere episode, and also added a column for total viewers, rough (and probably not super-helpful) explanation of rating/share/ranking, and source for the ranking/viewer numbers. I'm not sure where the other data was sourced from.Dschuetz 13:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ratings from the futton differs for the 1.07: 4.9 on the futton, 4.8 on zap2it.

[edit] Column for 18-49 Demo

Is the 18-49 demographic the rating, or the share, (or millions of viewers, for that matter) for viewers 18-49? We should probably explain that column in the key. and do we really want to start breaking out specific demographics, or is it acceptable to have the "key" demo for a particular show (in this case, is 18-49 even the right one? I thought NBC was aiming for the upper half of that range, and a particular income level, too...) Dschuetz 12:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ratings chart

I experimented a bit with the new Office 2007 charting engine and created a nicer looking chart updated with the ratings of the recent episodes. I'll probably monitor this article until the final episode airs, so if you have any suggestions for the chart (colors, layout, etc.), feel free to tell me. Is it even a good idea to have custom made visualizations in wiki articles? Titanium 19:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edinburgh TV Festival

I thought this might be of interest to someone experienced with successfuly editing a Wiki entry:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds35484.html

"West Wing creator Aaron Sorkin is to speak at this year's Edinburgh TV Festival.

Sorkin will appear via satellite-link to discuss his new drama series Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, along with fellow exec producer Thomas Schlamme.

The pilot episode will then be screened to delegates and - for the first time - to the general public on a giant screen outside the International Conference Centre"

- I went ahead and added the information myself. I apologise for any syntactic errors in advance.

[edit] Studio 60 News Blog

Why did someone delete the News Blog? It's the most informative of the links up there. I'm putting it back up.

I deleted it because I was under the impression that someone was trying to pass it off as official, when it's clearly a fan project. However, upon rethinking my actions, that was a conclusion I jumped to earlier than was called for. I've retitled the link now however, to clarify that it is unofficial.

[edit] "See also" is redundant

The "See also" section is redundant. All of these Sorkin related shows are wikilinked above, and we don't need to have all this detail (directors, actors, etc) in an article that is about "Studio 60..." I propose it be deleted. --mtz206 03:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I removed it. Feel free to be bold and take action yourself in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahameS (talk • contribs) 08:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also

GrahameS 08:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wilson White

Wilson White has been cast; he'll be played by Ed Asner.

[edit] Major Roles

Are we sure these should all be considered major roles? In reading the pilot... Wilson White doesn't seem like that big of a part. I think the only actual, title-sequence cast members are: Whitford, Perry, Peet, Paulson, Hughley, Corddry, Busfield and Weber. The rest should be supporting, shouldn't they?

[edit] Studio 60 Forums

Does anybody mind I keep taking the link down? Aside from our anonymous friend? -MBlume 20:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there are links to way too many "fan sites and forums". One or two (or none) should suffice. --Fred Bradstadt 20:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Now I look at the list...it's difficult. The fanbase hasn't crystalized because there's no show. Maybe just delete them all? I dunno, I'll look at this again after my final tomorrow morning =) -MBlume 06:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the fan sites should be deleted. Most are for self-promotion. -- Scjessey 17:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Not sure why *all* the fan sites need deletion, although I do think the amount should be thinned down. The West Wing, and plenty of other shows, have fan sites up. Maybe one of each type... news blog, website, forum?--152.163.101.9 03:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Done:

-MBlume 04:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

External links should conform to Wikipedia:External Links. I have removed several other improper links. Erechtheus 19:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Running Time

Running time had "60 min." listed, but upon checking The West Wing and Friends, I noticed that those pages included the actual running time of ONLY the show, not the duration of the timeslot. I clarified this in the infobox for now, but does anyone know what the actual running time of the show will be? West Wing was 42 minutes, but I'm not sure if that's standard. --Fumo7887 14:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

42 is standard, but I'm not sure if that's what Studio 60 specifically will run. Adding up the durations of the (removed) five parts of the pilot episode on YouTube gives a time of 46:54. skeeJay 01:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The run times on the first four episodes (based on the iTunes version) were 45:42, 42:59, 42:20, and 41:39. I propose "Run time: approximately 42 minutes per episode" based on that. --Kcarlin 00:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Show's Logo/Title Card

Although I haven't seen the pilot, from material that I have seen, the cirlce Studio 60 logo (currently featured on the article page) seems to be the logo for the fictional Studio 60 show. All of the promotional material I have seen from NBC (including the official site) seems to have the rectangle logo (with the 60 in a seperate box.) Is the wrong logo being featured here or am I misinterpreting things?

Yeah, I thought the same thing. Though the pilot that has made its way around the Internet had no titles I think it's safe to assume that the circular logo is not the logo for the show we will be watching this time in October, rather the show-within-a-show. It should be reverted to the rectangular logo (at least until the show goes on air when we can see for certain). 195.93.21.133 19:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
With all the pre-showings and that Netflix thing, I assumed that someone else must have seen it by now and put it up from the episode.--Attitude2000 20:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I just watched it on AOL and they do indeed use the circle logo as the title card. I guess the rectangle was promotional only. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The pilot has been aired in Canada, and the title card has changed to the rectangular logo: I've changed picture on the page to a screenshot of this, [1], and i've uploaded another one as well, [2]. Codam1 17:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I could see, the rectangular logo was first seen on a monitor in the control room when White is finally cut off, transitioning such that the opening for the show-within-the-show goes into the opening for the show itself which uses the same logo. I did see a circular logo used in the show on the exterior of the Studio 60 building. -- Hawaiian717 05:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the title card with a high-res logo. Hope no one minds. --NobleArc 23:32:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creators

Has it been confirmed that Thomas Schlamme is a co-creator? Just wondering, since everything I read states Aaron Sorkin as the creator/producer/writer and Schlamme as the executive producer and director. Sfufan2005 02:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Premiere date

I would like to point out that the premiere date for the show is wrong. It will actually premiere in Canada on CTV on September 17, one day before the American premiere. NorthernThunder 22:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Premiere on Sep 18?

Can anybody find an authoritative cite on the statement that the show premieres on Sep 18? My google-fu must be weak today: I've searched the net, including the show's official site, and can't find any authoritative info on when the show premieres. SnappingTurtle 17:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It was pretty hard to find, but I found it on the NBC media site (nbcmv.com). I'm adding a cite to the article now. GrahameS 23:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Good job! Thanks! SnappingTurtle 19:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction section

I started a new section for critical reviews and public reactoin (ie ratings) for the show and stuck in some stuff about anticipation for the show since it hasn't aired yet. If anyone can think of a more elegant way to do this that would be great. GrahameS 02:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

People keep saying "public reaction was mixed" due to "anti-Christian bias." There's no evidence for that at all, so unless you find some, don't add it to the article. GrahameS 05:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think some people might find the 700 Club Section Anti-Christian. I like to think of it as anti-idiot. (And I am Roman Catholic!) EnsRedShirt 09:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Did NBC cancel the show or not? Today (10.30.06) NBC's prime time schedule has Heroes from 9-10 PM, and then Friday Night Lights from 10-11pm (which is where Studio 60 was). I checked on NBC's website and there is still a section of the site devoted to this show, and I personally think it's a great show, much better than that other show with Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin. Xatticus 04:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not cancelled. The show's website says: "Studio 60 returns with an all-new episode in one week!" Schi 22:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character Images

Anyone up for the addition of promotional images of the main characters? I'm always one for their inclusion on television show wikis, makes them tie back to the original visual media. This is, er, if anyone is willing to do it quicker than me! I've only been an incidental contributor to Wikipedia for about three months now and I still haven't gotten round to learning how to upload images - I'm also incredibly scared of breaking copyright protocols and treading on everyone elses toes (hey, randomly wading in and re-typing stuff is one thing - as is often the case, everyone is more than willing to go in and edit as they feel. But pictures? That's a bit more substantial!) "...David, it's over to you." alliance14 00:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] In The Future?

During the beginning of the pilot it says that Studio 60 was in its 20th season and they said it started in 1996. So that means that they're in the year 2016. Am I missing something?--70.60.0.70 23:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Listen to it again...it sounds a bit like 1996 but he actually says 1986. GrahameS 01:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move Guest Hosts/Musical Guests

I suggest we move the guest host and musical guests to the pages for the episodes they appear on. The list is only going to grow each week and it seems silly to keep adding it to the main page about the show, especially for people and musicians that are only mention but didn't appear on the show.--Twintone 14:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

We really need to trim down the external links. There are definately more than needed.--Twintone 20:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

First pass taken care of. Take a look and delete at will some of the less notable ones. — Scm83x hook 'em 20:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks great so far! Thanks!--Twintone 21:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations Needed

There are several places that I added the "citation needed" or "verification needed" tags, mostly in the major roles section. I'm new at editing wikipedia entries so let me know if I did something wrong. Also, I wasn't sure but under Jordon's and Tom's description, the pilot script is mentioned. Does that need to be listed in the reference section? — Vudicarus 09:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a ref to Sorkin dating Dowd, if someone knows how to enter it: http://stylescenes.latimes.com/fashion/2005/11/move_over_spenc.html 128.119.240.144 18:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)DaveMB

That's fine, but what's really needed for that claim is a reliable source for the speculation that the character is based on Dowd, not that they dated. As it is, the speculation is possibly original research. Schi 19:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SNL History Similarities

Is it appropriate to include similarities of Studio 60 events to events from SNL history? In particular, "The West Coast Delay" revolves around plagiarised material making it to air. This seems to mirror Jay Mohr's being caught for stealing a monologue during his tenure on the show/writing staff. I believe there was also a Gilbert and Sullivan number right after Lorne Michaels returned to the show.

I vote yes. --Kcarlin 00:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is important and interesting material that is useful to the article, but it seems to qualify as original research, specifically the section "synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" — I've just added an original research warning tag to the section on SNL references. I bet there are some published sources that back up the same claims that are currently in the article, we just need to find them and cite them appropriately. Schi 06:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Skits, anyone?

Does anyone have a list of skits that have been show, mentioned, or tagged on the wall in Matt's office? I think a list of skits would be a good bit of information to have, along with episodes mentioned in. If nobody else knows of, or already has such a list, I guess I could rewatch the episodes carefully and freeze-frame, but knowing Sorkin fans, someone's already done this.--Trypsin 16:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ack NOOOOO!!!! Most skits are NN! The only skits I would deem notable at the moment are Crazy Christians and We are the model of a modern major network show. Any thing else would be crufty. EnsRedShirt 20:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
And the term is sketches. 8)--Twintone 20:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It wouldn't make a good separate article, but there's really nothing wrong with having at least a cursory list in this article. Bearcat 01:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CHANGING TIME SLOT?

My name is Nina.I'm from NJ and just love this show. I also have watched CSI since the beginning and as many others I made the choice to give Studio a chance.I will stay,but I do wish I could still see CSI. Any chance you'll move one or the other to keep a new super show on the air?

Unfortunately we have nothing to do with the show or NBC...if only. GrahameS 02:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] iTunes promotion?

I think it is strange that the second line of the entry concludes that "(Studio 60) is available on iTunes." If this information is relevant, then I also believe that it should be said that the previous episode is available (for free) on NBC's website. But I don't think that the show's availablability on iTunes is relevant information for the second line, as one would not say that episodes of 24 are available through Netflix or Blockbuster. I would suggest this information be moved to later in the article. Backstroke54 06:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The edit was mine. The second line discusses distribution channels for first run episodes of the show. Episodes are made available one day after US broadcast from iTunes. The iTunes episodes are of similar quality to HDTV without requiring HDTV broadcast reception or cable, and are unblemished by commercials, breaking news, and network/station insignia. For a significant segment of the audience, this is the significant first run distribution channel. It is hardly comparable to a later run DVD market will make episodes available in some future year, or to a pilot episode viewable as a stream from a web page. The edit has been deleted, I recommend it be restored to the second line. --Kcarlin 05:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the point was that this is unremarkable - most US network shows are available on iTunes. We don't list every international network that airs it in the opening paragraph; NBC is listed because they are the first run network and the network that pays for the show. Also, the number of people that buy the show on iTunes is not "significant" in comparison to other methods. GrahameS 12:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tunney Media Group - life imitates art?

In S01E04, Wilson White (Ed Asner) Chairman of TM Group mentions that he's preoccupied with gambling ventures in Macau. Is there any credence to suggest that Wilson White is based on the late media mogul Kerry Packer and his company PBL? Both appear to be very 'old-school', and both towards the end of their reign became more interested in their gambling assets specifically the desire to be in Macau. (note: I'm from Australia where the program has yet to air.) - Htra0497 18:14, 20 October 2006 (AET)

[edit] The White Stripes' replacement

I was under the impression that the LA Philharmonic Orchestra and the Something Choir technically became the "slated" musical guest. The dialogue when they actually ask the assistant to call up an orchestra and choir instead of an actual band, including "is this a joke," implied the ridiculousness of only having an orchestra and choir as a musical guest. -- Viewdrix 19:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character Page

Due to the increasing length of the Character section, I've been thinking of taking on a full reformat and splitting it off into a separate page (à la List of Rescue Me characters). Any overwhelming reasons not to? -Redreth 20:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a very good idea. Maybe the minor characters can all be moved to a page, but most shows have character abstracts for at least the stars. I think it should be changed back to bring the main eight, and leave the other article which includes all the more minor ones. In fact, I'm going to do that now. --Harlequin212121 18:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess our opinions differ on this. I will trim the character abstracts on the main page, leaving the full information to the secondary page... is there anything else you think could make this section better? I hope this meets both our ideas for the article. -Redreth 04:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Not) Cancelled

SO it's no longer on NBC's line-up. Looks like it's been cancelled. can we find a cite and post it? ThuranX 02:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the Studio 60 page on nbc.com, "Studio 60 returns with an all-new episode in one week! And on Monday, October 30, don't miss a special presentation of Friday Night Lights at 10/9c." Looks like it isn't cancelled. In fact, I just read somewhere that NBC ordered two more scripts, which is very promising. I'll try to find a cite for that. - seinman 03:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It was always planned to have a one week break last night right since before the pilot aired.. 13 episodes + 3 have been payed for and I'd guess it will get at least that. It certainly hasn't officially been canceled yet (tempting fate now) --Streaky 10:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
NBC has the option to cancel prematurely (not go through with the original signed episodes), but if they do they pay a hefty fee to Sorkin's production company. It also looks like the FOX article was erroneous. Worth mentioning in the wiki article? --Chomusik80 14:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if it would be better to completely remove the FOX article or mention that it was wrong but still include it to show how much speculation about the show being cancelled there is. --Twintone 15:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I've come to trust a few very reliable sources with regards to cancellations and schedule changes. The FOX writer isn't one of them. I'll let everybody know if one of those sources says anything. And as a further note: ratings for "Friday Night Lights" were even worse in that timeslot than hat S60 gets, so it won't be FNL that kills it. FNL had fewer TVs tuned in, but 570k more viewers, which fouls everything up. Lambertman 16:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Variety's one of my sources; they're saying "full season", so I believe it is so. Lambertman 01:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

One way or another, I think we need to do something about the lead paragraph on the main entry. It is misleading to say that Studio 60 "airs" at a given time when the show's weekly time slot is at best in-flux and, at worst, in jeopardy of vanishing. The FNL hit on 10/30 suggests outperform potential and that means the Peacock will likely either rotate Studio 60 in its lineup or, if the Fox News report pans out, drop it. So how should we handle this? The opening of the article is reading like an advertisement for something that may never happen. I tried to hedge it earlier but someone reverted on me and I can see why - it is a level of detail that belongs lower down. Still, we need a more honest introduction to the article. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor Emeritus (talk • contribs) 20:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of, "As of October 31, 2006, Studio 60 is scheduled to air on Mondays..." etc. I don't think that speculation about its changing timeslot belongs in the intro, but I don't feel terribly strongly about that if others disagree. Schi 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, the least important information in the intro from an encyclopedic standpoint is when and where (network) it airs; much more important is the premise, that it is a Sorkin/Schlamme production and who the featured actors are. At the point the timeslot is mentioned. "As of.." seems a reasonable construction. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 21:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to change it to the suggested "As of..." later this evening if that seems to be the fair concensus amongst everyone here. If you have any objections, please share them here -- I am sure there must be a decent way to keep this lede concise, accurate and simply scribed. Editor Emeritus 20:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Editor Emeritus
I think it's silly to include anything relating to it in the article, if you ask me. The article discusses the show and it's impact, but to dictate every simgle minor nuance of its publicity and scheduling is beyond superfluous. If it really needs mention, it's more appropriate (imho) to state that due to inaccurate reporting, it was rumoured that studio 60's fate was nearing, however was confirmed by the networkd that the production studio has been greenlit to air to the end of the season and has a strong option to extend. Something to that effect should be more than enough.
--lincalinca 12:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)!!!?!
I don't get it.. the schedule hasn't fluxed at all, the had a pre-planned 1 week hiatus and suddenly the sky is falling? CSI Miami wasn't on last week, does that mean it's getting canceled or that their slot is in a state of flux? --Streaky 10:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it's not uncommon that a show doesn't air for a week, so I don't think the word "normally" is appropriate. Also, looking at articles for other TV shows, there is nothing about timeslot in the introduction. Does it really have a place there? It seems that convention says no. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gilbert and Sullivan

The article has this to say about the Gilbert and Sullivan reference:

The opening sketch of the second episode was similar to one that was on Saturday Night Live insofar as both were reworkings of The Major General's Song by Gilbert and Sullivan. Mark McKinney, a former actor and writer on Saturday Night Live, worked as a story editor for this episode.

It then cites a blog that says that. I kind of want to disagree with that and question the reliability of that conjecture. References to Gilbert and Sullivan are a Sorkin hallmark. How often was it quoted in the first four years of The West Wing? I mean there's an entire episode pretty much dedicated to it. So basically, what I'm saying is, is it that the G&S reference comes from McKinney's experience on SNL or the fact that Sorkin graduated with a BFA from Syracuse in Musical Theatre? Metros232 06:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quality on Studio 60 Template

How do you people made this Studio 60 template, because it looks like it is the most professional template in wikipedia's history?--Jimmysal 01:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It is very nice indeed, good work! -- lucasbfr talk 02:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the accolades guys, and the barnstar on it. If you guys ever want me to fix up anything, just give me a yell. I'll pop by and see what I can do. Thanks again. I really appreciate the comments (although, I didn't compile the data in there, mostly, I mostly just colourised and adjusted the fonts)
--lincalinca 09:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Real Writers of Studio 60

How about a section about the actual writers of Sorkin's show. The story editors, the story idea creators, the writers, the originators of the show within a show's comedy sketches? Here's a list with possibly interesting tidbits to be added. They are the REAL writers and will lend their experiences to the story. COULD, could be interesting. Dana Calvo (formerly LAtimes writer, now story editor) Mark McKinney (kids in the hall, comedy sketches) Aaron Sorkin (of course) ...Others?

--HumanityLovesMe 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, as Sorkin writes the frame of the series and they're creating a story within that margin. I don't think it's essential, and most of the individual show's writers are not permanent fixtures. Other than the show's initial creators, I don't believe anybody has directed or written more than a single episode. Until there begins to be some more consistency with this (and I don't think there will be, if Sorkin's past work is any indication) I don't believe it's appropriate.
Sorry about that. If someone disagrees, I'm open to change my mind, but right now, that's my opinion.
--lincalinca 03:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, last night's show had Eli Attie sharing credit for the ep B-12 with Sorkin. If news reports would give tid bits that linked the episode to Eli Attie (or for other writers for previous eps) it could be an interesting look into some of Studio 60 story lines. Sorkin is already cannibalizing his own life for much of Studio 60 ( his drug habits, dating Kristin Chenoweth, possible Maureen Dowd columnist being similar to the Variety chick) If enough tid bits are drawn together this section could happen. After all, these writers are contributing to Studio 60, and since the show is about exactly that why not draw it in to this Wikipedia article, though in a professional, well referenced manner of course.
Example: Dana Calvo is the story editor for many episodes of Studio 60, but gets Writer (story) credit for the episode The Long Lead Story, which is apt because she was formerly a hispanic journalist for the LA Times. Now if she gets another Writer (story) credit for a heavily hispanic-pinged episode then that would be her drawing on her roots. I think this is important (obviously) especially given the nature of Studio 60.
--HumanityLovesMe 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, but I'm still not convinced. As I said, once we get some continual different writers, it may be appropriate. It might however be appropriate to include things like this in the "Influences" section.
--lincalinca 03:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Character from B-12

Hey, who's the new writer who (was an old writer) who sort of coached Darius and Lucy through B12? What was his character name? Really, he should be included in the minor characters list. We already know a fair bit about him:

  • He's really serious.
  • His wife and daughter were killed in a car accident.
  • He knows comedy and what works and doesn't.
  • He knows how to mentor (albeit, in an birdish "Push them out of the tree and hope they fly" kind of way).

Anyway, I think he should be included. I'm just no good with names. --lincalinca 03:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, IMDb seems more with it than we all are. Shame on us. We're now up to date with it all.
--lincalinca 04:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

There is rampant original research, in violation of Wikipedia policy, in this article, mostly in the sections on SNL references and Influences. Many of the items simply present a "synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". For example, the bit about Albie's baseball bat -- this needs to be appropriately cited. Cites about various people's turns playing Daniel Kaffee are fine (although IMDB doesn't count as a reliable source). But there are no cites to prove that Matt frequently brandishes a baseball bat (per WP:WAF, show us some examples of episodes in which he does it), or that Dick Ebersol, Daniel Kaffee, or Lionel Tribbey did it too. It shouldn't be difficult to find a reliable source that reports on the similarities discussed in the article. schi talk 20:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I put it back in, plus some citations. It's good enough to keep in, but the Dick Ebersol stuff should stay out unless some citation can prove it. LoyolaDude 13:29, 6December 2006 (UTC)
Those were the same citations that were in there before. And I was wrong to say IMDB in my initial comment, as they are from IBDB, which may be a reliable source. But they're only reliable sources that Busfield and Whitford played the role of Kaffee — which isn't what's relevant here. What's allegedly relevant, and needs a source, is that they all had the habit of brandishing a baseball bat. To my recollection, Matt has only ever brandished a baseball bat once (when it was given to him by Harriet, right?), so it's not notable or legitimately characterized as "frequent". Also, even if all these things are amended and addressed appropriately, this bit doesn't belong in "SNL references" as it appears to have nothing to do with SNL (now that the Ebersol bit is out). schi talk 21:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the OR template. The few notes of references to SNL are all in the show, and there's nothing OR in there as far as I can see. Many of those are just from quotes of the show. --MPD T / C 04:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is relevant regarding the whole baseball bat/original research thing, but Kaffee does have a habit of using the bat in the movie (not sure about the play). Referencing the movie would not qualify as original research, as the movie itself is the source. Furthermore, citing sources such as "Studio 60" and "West Wing" programs, which are easily verifiable on DVD, probably wouldn't count as original research. However, my issue is relevancy. Is a character's use of a baseball bat (for example) really relevant enough to warrant mention in an encyclopedia article, or is this just fanboy trivia? Minaker (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broadcast history section

I deleted the U.S. broadcast history section. I feel like it's redundant, given that the U.S. timeslot already shows up twice on the page, and there's also a comprehensive table showing the international broadcast status of the show in other countries. If anyone has objections, please post them here. --Cue the Strings 18:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martha O'Dell

From Notes in the article: I don't thin it's the NYT, but I could be wrong. does someone want to fact check that? In B-12 Danny says it: "Two times Purlitzer-winner for The New York freaking Times."

I am pretty sure she is Freelance, as her article in B-12 was for NYT, but in The Lead Story I though the piece she was writting was for Vanity Fair. EnsRedShirt 07:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

She's definitely writing the article for Vanity Fair; see this Entertainment Weekly article (which may be a good source for this article in general). schi talk 08:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genre

  • Am I alone in thinking that the genre should be changed to dramedy rather then just a drama? I didn't want to just change it because it is very much a drama, but I think that the amount of humor the show contains makes it fall under dramedy.Ganfon 00:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Easter Eggs

Is the easter egg section necessary? Is it really encyclopedic? Kyros 07:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It is. It may evolve into something more comprehensive or formal, but it is the beauty of Wikipedia that what is considered encyclopedic is being redefined. The easter eggs are not trivial, and are very revealing, especially the one about Aaron Sorkin's first play having the name of Matt and Danny's breakout screenplay.-BiancaOfHell 07:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The easter egg section seems like fancruft. Kyros 17:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The easter eggs are related to writing which is the overarching theme of the show.-BiancaOfHell 04:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critical and public reaction Discussion

This section is debated.

Roger Friedman of Fox News reported on October 30, 2006 that cancellation of the show was imminent.[1] This was denied the next day by an NBC representative who stated that the show "is profitable at this point" and that rather than a cancellation, it is more likely that the show's time slot will change.[2]

On November 9, 2006, NBC announced that the show had been picked up for a full season, citing its favorable demographics as the reason.[3] According to NBC's press release: "Studio 60 has consistently delivered some of the highest audience concentrations among all primetime network series in such key upscale categories as adults 18-49 living in homes with $75,000-plus and $100,000-plus incomes and in homes where the head of household has four or more years of college." Interestingly, this very concept was explored in "The Focus Group" as the theory of the "alpha consumer," who Jordan McDeere describes as "the first to know, the first to try and the first to buy," and who are said to be worth five regular viewers.

How could it be improved? cuz it's currently tagged as original research.

[edit] "Alpha Consumer" line

"Interestingly, this very concept was explored in "The Focus Group" as the theory of the "alpha consumer," who Jordan McDeere describes as "the first to know, the first to try and the first to buy," and who are said to be worth five regular viewers." I removed this above line and someone else readded it back in saying that: "comments on alpha viewers by McDeere not redundant because this show is all about "post modernity" so when TV reality works it's way into the show it's relevant."

I did not remove this line as being "redundant" - I removed it as problematic and misleading original research, and recommend that it be removed again:

1. Original research: Most shows on TV are "postmodern" in their sensibility and have been for a while, what's the sourced evidence that this particular show is especially "all about post modernity" (rather than say, how a comedy sketch show is produced?). Even we assume that the show is "all about post modernity", the "Interestingly" sentence is an original research claim unless it can be authoritatively sourced. In addition, note that the episode in question aired one month[3] before the NBC press release with the demographics statement[4].

2. Inaccurate/misleading: The demographic described in the NBC press release is "adults 18-49 living in homes with $75,000-plus and $100,000-plus incomes and in homes where the head of household has four or more years of college." The "alpha consumers" are described in the episode when discussing "most" of the readership of Vanity Fair (VF):"Alpha consumers are the first to know, the first to try, and the first to buy. They are influencers and pleasure-seekers." Separately, it is then asserted that "The typical VF reader is college-educated and lives in a household with a six-figure income."[5] Note the difference between the NBC press release demographic and that described in the episode quote. The typical Studio 60 viewer may well be a person without college education living in a home with a five figure income, and having little to do with being "the first to know, the first to try and the first to buy".

The definition of "alpha consumer" used in the episode corresponds with the term as defined by the agency who coined the term[6][7]: "We coined the phrase 'alpha consumer' to describe the influential consumer who was often the first to try, buy, and do and in the process set the trends for the mainstream.". This term is not defined by income or age, only by being trendsetting amongst peers. It's a totally different animal from the much broader income/age group demographic cited by NBC.

Even if there is a substantive source out there making the alpha consumer/NBC audience demographics for Studio 60 connection, it should be checked that they are not confusing these terms too. Bwithh 15:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Key upscale categories"

You left out the part where NBC says in their press release that Studio 60 "has consistently delivered some of the highest audience concentrations among all primetime network series in such key upscale categories as ..."

The "alpha consumer" is definitely a key upscale category. Now I see where you find the nuance... because it goes on to give an example of one "key upscale category" as a specific demographic that earns a lot and is highly educated, but not completely descriptive of an alpha consumer. I think perhaps the sentence should be reworded to say something like:

"In the episode "The Focus Group" a well known key upscale category called the "alpha consumer" was brought up by Jordan McDeere which she described as "the first to know, the first to try and the first to buy," and who are said to be worth five regular viewers."

Why bother? Because this article can be more than just plain facts, and should try to explain what this show is doing, which is tearing apart the workings of a live comedy show and reconstructing it as a drama. -BiancaOfHell 16:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've explained above, it's not clear at all that these are the same things. The definition of alpha consumer is not related to being "upscale" or in a high income cateogry.. It's related to being "cool". You're conducting original research as you yourself admit in your last comment. Please see WP:OR. "Trying to explain the show" off your own views is not acceptable as Wikipedia content.

If we can only agree to disagree and then are no conclusive third party debate on this, I'll be submitting this issue to WP:RFC Bwithh 18:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, although I think the sentence is correct now it really has nothing to do with Critical and public reaction anymore if ever at all so feel free to remove it.-BiancaOfHell 19:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent articles

  • Talks about Mark McKinney's involvement [8] -BiancaOfHell 23:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Talks about D.L. Hughley's involvement [9] -BiancaOfHell 01:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Aaron Sorkin

I have started a peer review of the Aaron Sorkin article. I would really appreciate any input to better the article! -BiancaOfHell 01:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese business partner character

Perhaps Kim and her father should be included in the character section? As fans will recall, the father is the Chinese businessman with whom NBS is trying to make a deal regarding Macau, and his daughter Kim is the Julliard student who is crazy about Tom Jeter. It is absolutely certain we'll see Kim in at least one more episode after "The Harriet Dinner", and extremely likely we'll see her father as well.

[edit] TfD of {{S60C}}

I've nominated {{S60C}} for deletion; discussion is welcome at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:S60C. æ² ✆ 2007‑02‑10t16:25z

[edit] Differences between main article and current revision in history

Am I missing something? In the main article (click the "article" tab at the top of the page), the "Guest musicians" section includes the item

Gina La Piana appears in "The Return" as the fill-in for The White Stripes.

But selecting the current revision (as I write this, it's the revision as of 16:56, 16 February 2007) by going to the "history" tab brings up a slightly different item

Gina La Piana appears in "The Friday Night Slaughter" as a fictional singer named Diana Valdes, another fill-in for The White Stripes.

Maybe my understanding is wrong, but shouldn't the history page's "current revision" match the main article?

If the version of that item that's stored in history is accurate, I'd vote to keep it since it's more complete, and since "The Return" isn't an episode listed on the "List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip episodes" page. 128.244.208.65 00:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Or I'm just crazy. (God forbid it was a cache issue.) As of right now, the main page now matches the current revision. 128.244.208.65 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove hiatus discussion

Once the show is canceled (which seems likely at this point), all the discussion of when it went on hiatus will be moot and should be removed. --Jeremy Butler 11:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There has been no announcement of cancellation, however; in fact there have been at least two press releases from NBC indicating a likely return to the airwaves. This would not be unprecedented (see Soap, Drew Carey Show, Titus, Futurama, and Whose Line Is It Anyway? for examples of series put on hiatus and then returned to the air for the purpose of "burning them off" in the summertime. Arrested Development went through a similar period of limbo before it returned to the air to finish its run). B.Wind 23:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Either way, whether they show is cancelled or is simply on hiatus, I think it's an important part of the history of the show to indicate that it was placed on hiatus, especially considering the time that it's been on hiatus. Another thing to note is that the show's been completed and the licencing fee was lowered with a contract to see out the season, meaning that they're contractually obliged to see out the season. If they play their cards right and re-run the few episodes preceding the new episodes and give it a decent timeslot, they could well pick the ratings up to at least about what the season middled out at in ratings. I'm aware of negotiations with the EPs, the studio and the network to begin broadcasting again soon and that they were recently at an impass as they couldn't decide the best course of action and the best slot based on the uniqueness of the show.
--lincalinca 01:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Timeslot

Any word on if and or when the show will resume broadcast in Canada? I'm assuming since this is a new timeslot for NBC that the "day before" rule won't apply. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Homecoming as an Influence?

How can the PBS incident be an influence on the show, when Operation Homecoming was aired in April, and the episode of Studio 60 where this storyline began was well before then? It doesn't seem like it could have been an influence in any way. Sanjay12 22:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sets Dismantled

I have removed the sentence in the main article from the introduction.

"It appears that those will be the last episodes of the series though as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on May 4 that NBC has dismantled the Studio 60 sets which makes cancellation a virtual certainty."

The first issue is that it is factually incorrect. NBC has absolutely no relevance. The show is produced by Warner Bros., and I believe is on a Warner Bros. (film) soundstage.

The second issue is that The PPG is the only one that has reported this occurrence and it was an extremely short (1.5 paragraphs) story. There are no other reports of this, besides people on the IMDB message boards.

I also am not a fan of the wording or its inclusion in an introduction, but my main issue is that in its current form it is factually incorrect. Farva09 10:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A few points I disagree with here:
NBC was an error on the wikipedia page itself and not in the link so it would have been more appropriate to just edit the sentance as opposed to full on deletion
Deciding, just based on your own feelings, that a mainstream media source is not valid is a mistake. Putting aside that many articles on wikipedia (incorrectly) site blogs and message boards the fact is a mainstream newspaper is a perfectly acceptable source. Further, the story was picked up by other sources such as eonline and tvsquad.com
If you aren't a fan of the wording, correct it. As far as its inclusion, I tend to agree with you but since scheduling is such a big part of the introduction already it makes sense for the sentance to be there.
I tried to create a compromise sentance that takes into account your concerns and still conveys the information (also keep in mind that this is only relevant for a few more days when NBC announces its new fall schedule.
ThomasC22

The screening dates in the graph are most likely incorrect, the last date should probably be 2007 rather than 2006, Someone should change this!!

[edit] Good article candidate

I believe this article is a candidate for becoming a good article. I'm going to nominate it on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates page. Zuracech lordum 15:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:


Most of the article is lists and there should be more to the production. I fail it. Bernstein2291 06:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The series is currently being shown in the UK – please could someone add a spoiler warning?

I'm afraid of doing it myself for what I might see, but the article really needs one. Well Drawn Charlie 11:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images for Speedy Deletion

On what grounds? One image is already gone, but the one left don't seem to break any rules, so why should it go? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.16.40.18 (talk) 02:49, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

I just saw that the logo was also under for Speedy Deletion. I'm removing the tag under the one pick, if anyone has the pic that has been deleted please return it. 64.16.40.18 02:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 30 Rock

I noticed that there was no mention on the article that Studio 60 was coming out at the same time on the same network as 30 Rock. I think it ought to be added, I just don't know where. --Fez2005 22:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for deletion

I've nominated News 60, Studio 60 (Studio 60 Location), Tunney Media Group and National Broadcasting System (Studio 60) for deletion because of concerns regarding notability. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Studio 60 (Studio 60 Location) for discussion. Brad 17:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (fictional show) Brad 01:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for addition of new subtopic under bullet 5 Influences

I have noted at least one similarity to a Sorkin cinematic work and an episode of Studio60. Because, I believe that section 5, Influences is a popular section, somewhat akin to the triva blurbs on sites such as imdb.com. As well it seems that loyal fans of Sorkin and many other writer/director/producer types enjoy these types of details, I would propose that we research or investigate adding a new sub-bullet under Influences.

To support my proposal, the coincidence I noticed is that in Sorkin's movie, "A Few Good Men", Tom Cruise's character has a baseball bat that he carries around. He appears to have some fixation with holding it while he's under pressure and needs to think. Matthew Perry's character in "Studio6 60 on the Sunset Strip", Matt Albi, recieves a baseball bat from the character Harriet--albeit under less than desirable circumstances for Matt. He still appears to have a similar fixation to carrying this bat (I'm assuming its the same bat) around his office while stressed or under a deadline.

I may be looking too hard now: but if I remember correctly, Cruise's character even defends his bat and tells Demi Moore's character in "A Few Good Men" not to make fun of his bat. Is this similar to Amanda Peet's character also telling Bradley Whitford's character during the "Harriet Dinner part 2" episode not to make fun of her magic? Please disregard this example if its not appropriate, my memory is poor, and I may be seeing coincidences that are not there.

If there is one similarity to Studio 60 and a Sorkin movie, perhaps there are others?

(apologies, for not listing every character and actor's name in detail, my online connection sucks almost as much as my damaged memory.)

Please consider my proposal, because i believe these similarities, especially if more are discovered, would be value added to the page. TY. nfrost (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Nfrost