Talk:Very special episode

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Comment

Spoofs:

  • Beavis & Butthead had an episode called 'a very special episode' which spoofed this idea.
  • "Family Guy" spoofed the "Diffrent Strokes" episode in which Arnold and Dudley are molested by Mr. Horton. It was only one scene though.[1]

Overlooked "Very Special Episodes"]When did they do this? What episode? I don't remember them ever spoofing it. Bkissin 01:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC) "Boy Meets World":

  • The episode where Cory and Shawn befriend a girl (played by Ariana Richards) who's being phyically abused

by her father.

  • The episode where Shawn and Jack's dad dies.
  • The episode where Cory's little brother has a difficult birth.
  • The episode where Cory assults a teacher (played by Ben Savage's real-life brother Fred) for having the hots for Topanga.

-I don't think you can really list very special episodes for Boy Meets World because there are so damn many of them, especially later in the show's run.

"Blossom":

  • The episode where Blossom is assulted by James Marsden (AKA Cyclops) for not wanting to have sex with him.
  • The episode where Joey and Mr. T try to stop Joey's friend from using steroids.

"Family Ties":

  • The episode with the Keaton's new black neighbors being presucuted.
  • The episode where Alex is on caffeine pills.
  • The episode with Tom Hanks as Mrs. Keaton's alcohlic brother Ned.

"The Simpsons":

"WKRP in Cincinnati":

  • The episode that concerned the real-life stampede at a Who concert in Cincinnati.

"Saved by the Bell":

  • The "No Hope for Dope" episode that featured the late NBC entertainment chief Brandon Tartikoff.
  • The episode where oil is discovered on Bayside's football field.
  • The episode wherein overachiever Jessie Spano becomes addicted to caffeine pills. "I'm so excited! I'm so excited! I'm...! So...! Scared...!"

"8 Simple Rules":

  • The episode where John Ritter's character dies and subsequent episodes.

"The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air":

  • The episode where Will's long lost, deadbeat father (played by Ben Vereen) shows up.
  • The episode where Carlton accidentally take's Will's caffine pills.
  • The episode focusing on art, particularly poetry that spoofs Very Special Episodes in the end.

"Happy Days":

  • The anti-smoking episode.
  • The episode where Al takes part in the Civil Rights Movement.
  • The episode where Richie, Ralph, and Potsie has a black drummer in their band.

"The Facts of Life":

  • The episode where Tootie befriends a prostitute.
  • The episode where Natalie loses her virginity.

"Full House":

  • The episode where Stephanie befriends a boy who's being physically abused by his father.
  • The episode where DJ berates Kimmy for drinking because DJ's mother got killed by a drunk driver.

"Punky Brewster":

  • The episode where Henry gets an ulcer.
  • The episode where a woman tells Henry and Punky that Brandon should be put to sleep after he bit her.
  • The CPR episode where Cherri gets accidentally locks herself in a refrigerator.
  • The episode where Punky befriends a homeless boy (played by Soleil Moon Frye's real-life brother).

"Roc":

  • The episode where Kim Fields' little sister's friend gets killed in a drive-by shooting.
  • The episode (which I believed featured Kelsey Grammer) where Roc is a victim of racial profiling and gets arrested.

"Growing Pains":

  • The episode where Kristy Swanson tries to get Mike to do cocaine at a party.
  • The episode where Maggie's father (played by Gordon Jump) dies.
  • The episode where Mike works for Dick Van Patten, who turns out to be a bigot.

"Moesha":

  • The episode where Moesha's little brother smokes pot.
  • Any of the latter episodes involving Ray J (Brandy Norwood's brother) as Moesha's troublemaking illegitament brother Dorian.

"MASH":

  • Any of the latter episodes where Alan Alda got creative control and used the show as a soapbox for his liberal politics.

"Gimmie a Break":

  • The episode where Joey Lawrence wears black face.

"The Wayans Bros.":

  • The episode where Marlon smokes pot before an important job interview.
  • The episode that featured a spoof of "Good Times."

"Good Times":

  • The episode where John Amos' character dies ("Damn, Damn, Damn!!!")
  • The episode where JJ gets shot.
  • The episode or episodes involving Janet Jackson's abusive mother ("No mama! No!!!").

"The Hogan Family":

  • The episode where Jason Bateman finds out that his friend as AIDS.
  • The post-Valerie Harper episode where there's a fire at the Hogan's house.

"All in the Family":

  • The episode where Edith dies.
  • The episode where Edith got raped.
  • The episode where Gloria got raped.

"Family Matters":

  • The episode where Urkel's old school bully tells him that he has leukemia.
  • The gun control episode.

"Maude":

  • The infamous "abortion" episode.

"The Parkers":

  • The episode guest-starring Chilli of TLC, who is HIV-positive.

I think you mean Chili's character was HIV-positive? NickBurns 19:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very Special Buffy

I would dispute the notion that Buffy ever had episodes that fit into this genre/mould. In fact, creator Joss Whedon is credited as saying "There will never be a Very Special episode of Buffy." The examples listed on the main page weren't advertised using these "very special" themes nor were they handled in the melodramatic or pat way that most "Very Special" episodes do on other series. Episodes of Buffy rarely had a hard and fast message - in fact much of its later episodes played on the fact that there are no moral absolutes... or at least the characters had trouble defining them.

Very Special Episodes are remembered because a lesson is learned. Buffy was never that didactic.

Here here! The point of Buffy is that the whole thing is made up of Very Special Episodes! I mean, they'll kill off a character in the title sequence! Maianess 02:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
You could argue that 'The Body' was a VSE; since that episode did deal with major character death, and how the other characters reacted to that death, rather than just showing someone being stabbed by a demon and being done with it. But you didn't 'learn and grow' from it. --Stevefarrell 10:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fires and tornadoes

My memory is a bit fuzzy on this, but I seem to recall a lot of sitcoms/dramas in the '80s having "very special" episodes during Fire Safety Week or Tornado Safety Week. IIRC, both Punky Brewster and Our House had episodes where the house caught fire, and they made a point about having a smoke detector and a plan to escape the building. I'm pretty sure Our House had a similar one about tornadoes as well. Or is my mind just making this up? --Birdhombre 01:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism - yes!

While I neither support nor condone vandalism, this page has the best vandals in the world. Something I just reverted:

  • Golden Girls - Blanche's vagina is declared a National Historic Landmark and to celebrate, Rose spends her entire Social Security check on cocaine.
Haha. Added to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. Cheers Natgoo 12:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Look at Family Matters and Happy Days. I don't think those rapes happened.
The Happy Days episode did happen. You can find out about the episode here. As for Family Matters, um...where did you see a rape listed? Anthony Rupert 04:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List

I think this massive list should be trimmed, because the vandalism on this page has become higher and higher, and some of it goes unnoticed because the list is so long, and it can "blend in." Mike H. That's hot 22:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; I've got the page on my watchlist, and changes don't occur so often. It's easy enough to check up, and plausibility is a good guide. Wally 04:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
So you think this list should have near 100 examples of a very special episode? Mike H. That's hot 04:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be complete and informative insofar as that's possible. Wally 04:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it can be informative without giving a billion examples. Topics of very special episodes are already covered; so many examples just become redundant. Mike H. That's hot 09:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This page is awesome, keep the examples. --Crouchingturbo 11:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
i think it would help if the list was organized alphabetically and by show. i cannot believe i watched this much bad television, by the way. i remember the "collapse" on Full House. she literally walks on a treadmill for like five minutes and is then told not to worry about herself, or her shape - i blame this episode for America's poor showing in the Winter Olympics. -Nod 01:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I actually agree this list needs trimmed. It's exhaustive and unencyclopedic. A handful of examples are appropriate in this case. The title of the article is not "A list of Very Special Episodes". It could be forked to such a thing if someone wanted, but a list that long does not belong in an article. A small amount of examples are appropriate to this article, the dozens and dozens that are there do not add anything to the value of this article in giving someone information on Very Special Episodes.--Crossmr 15:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I wonder how many of the examples listed were actually "very special episodes?" [[Briguy52748 16:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)]]
I'm not sure that you'd even be able to verify that. I think I'll give some interested person 48 hours to pick a handful of appropriate examples (especially if they can be verified as being advertised as very special episodes), then I will be trimming the list. --Crossmr 18:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
And if this disclaimer needs to be put at the top of the list "not all examples listed here were explicitly referred to as a "Very Special Episode" by the station or network when broadcast" Then we know not all of the episodes should be there. This list needs to only include a handful of shows that can be verified as being referred to as a "very special episode".--Crossmr 18:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

After looking at this list a 3rd time, I've removed it entirely. This article is about "Very Special Episodes" In the context that an episode was advertised as that and what that means. This is not a place for an exhaustive list of any episode of a series that didn't follow the style of the other episodes of a series. None of the episodes listed have any citations noting that they were advertised as "very special episodes". If someone can provide a small amount of examples (examples are used to illustrate a point, not beat a point a point home over and over and endlessly over and over and over again.) of the nature of these. The examples will require a citation showing that the episode was advertised as a "Very special episode". If someone wants to create a separate list of Very special episodes of various series they can, but the same burden of proof would exist there and there would need to be a citation or other proof to indicate the episode was "a very special episode". It could then be linked here under examples as a "for a complete list see xxxx"--Crossmr 18:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, this should be a no-brainer. When a large number of people have collaborated to collect a large volume of information, even if it is of dubious value, thou shalt not delete it unilaterally. Your original idea of making a List of Very Special Episodes article was a good one. Your follow-up idea of being a jackass was not. If you don't have the time/energy to improve the page, then leave it as it is. This is how wikipedia works. Perhaps it will always be of low quality, or perhaps someone who *does* have time will improve it. In the meantime, deleting it is not the answer. We resume our regularly scheduled programming. 74.129.234.170

Yes, it is a no-brainer. See WP:V, WP:OR, WP:BOLD, and while you're at it, read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It lacks citation, its not encyclopedic, and it also lacks relevance to the article. It degrades the article and removing it is the proper thing to do. the content is still available via the history. If someone wants to take the time to find a small number of proper examples from that they can. Whether someone does that or not, the list doesn't belong in the article.--Crossmr 02:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I still operate in that bizarre subset of the world where actions speak stronger than words. Deleting content is the work of a true asshole. Calling someone an asshole in a talk page is just an observation. Further, 99% of wikipedia lacks citation and is not encyclopedic. Saying that it is not relevant to the article is grand, but you yourself admitted that there would be an article where it would be appropriate. Therefore, move it to that article, or accept the status quo. You don't go around deleting stuff just because you're too lazy to do what you have already admitted the right thing is unless you are, you guessed it, an asshole. 74.129.234.170
Guess what? WP:V is a non-negotiable policy. If its not cited, and you can't provide one (the burden is on you to provide the citation since you want to keep it) it can be removed. Also I suggest you stop with the personal attacks or you're going to find your ability to edit wikipedia extremely limited.--Crossmr 13:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
But now there are four examples of very special episodes and 20 examples of parodies of very special episodes. I appreciate your being bold. But maybe some type of consensus is needed. MrBlondNYC 09:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
And the parody list can be trimmed as well. The list of "examples" was written in such a way to indicate that it was incorrect by providing no sources and stating not all examples were actually very special episodes. The list was several times the length of the parody list. --Crossmr 13:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
OK but none of the examples are cited. If your reason for deleting the list was lack of citations proving they were advertised as "very special", who's to say that four non-cited examples can't just as well be deleted? This is why I am uncomfortable with one person taking it upon themselves to delete a huge portion of an article and why I feel a consensus would be better. MrBlondNYC 17:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The concensus from many many past articles dictates that massive lists like that are not appropriate to the article. Anytime I've seen an article put up for peer review, good article, featured article, if they contain huge lists like that, the first recommendation is always to trim them. There is no need to form a new concensus on that here. There is also a difference between the parodies and the list of examples. The parodies are obvious by their very usage of the fact that they are comedies and they use the words "Very special episode" in a comedic manner. All I did was keep the top 4. If you think there are 4 there that demonstrate parody better, feel free to substitute them. I think though that Clone High is one of the more obvious ones as they parodied it on a regular basis. Where the examples failed was that they clearly stated not every example given was actually advertised as a "Very special episode". thats a problem because that is what this article is about. Its not a generic article about series that change their tone for an episode or two. The only reason I asked for a cite on those was simply that it was such a massive list, I would have no way of going throuhg it and figuring out which ones were actually advertised as a very special episode. If someone happens to remember 4 specific ones that were, they can easily insert them. I'm sure there is someone here who's seen some of those episodes and may remember ones that were advertised as such. --Crossmr 18:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the parodies anymore. I'm talking about the four examples of very special episodes under the heading "Early examples of special episodes". Those are now the only examples listed. If the only way to prove that they were advertised as "very special episodes" is "someone here...may remember ones that were advertised as such" well, anyone can say that. I can say that all the examples I added I remember were advertised as such. There's no real way to prove whether an episode was advertised that way unless someone happened to save the ad on an old VHS and uploaded it. As I said before, if that is the criteria, then all we can do is trust each other that the examples are real. MrBlondNYC 22:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and i'm saying in this context, I'm willing to trust someone until proven otherwise. However, as far as the amount goes, I think 4 provides a suitable amount of example. We don't need hundreds of examples. There do need to 4 examples from the list I removed, however I couldn't for my part pick 4 that were advertised as "very special episodes". Which is why I removed the list, because whoever included it, indicated that the list was not built solely on shows that advertised the episode as being "Very special". If someone can find 4 examples from that, that they know to be very special episodes I'm happy to let them stand. It may be possible to perhaps find DVD extras or information on the show from the network that aired it regarding what was aired as a "very special episode".--Crossmr 23:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've listed this on RFC here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Media,_art_and_literature and created a section for further discussion as per the RFC below.--Crossmr 05:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If the list of examples has to be moved to its own separate article or something of the sort, then fine, but I just don't think it's right that you just deleted a large bulk of hard work that several Wikipedians contributed to. Anthony Rupert 14:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers?

Maybe it's obvious from the very nature of the section, but this page should have a spoiler warning. I'm only up to the end of the fourth season of Buffy, and I stumbled across this page and got a whole bunch of plot blown for me because I didn't realize there were spoiler-y descriptions. I mean, an episode summary has a spoiler warning, and it's pretty darn obvious that it would have spoilers, so I think there should be a warning on this page. Maianess 02:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] perhaps a move to a list?

This is getting long, and there seems to be a precedent for long lists relative to the content of articles to get their own pages.

The list as it currently appears is not too long; no warning about the page's length comes up when you click edit.

[edit] School showings?

Was anyone shown any of these VSE in school? I remember being shown that Different Strokes episode in elementary school. If their use in school could be documented through references, that would be worth adding. Шизомби 07:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Night Court VSEs

How about adding a few of the "very special" Night Court episodes? I started and added one for the episode 'Dan's Operation' where Dan Fielding goes into a coma after refusing to follow his doctor's orders and having sex with the reccuring character Sheila (whom always seemed to seduce him when he was in a bind). There were a few other "very special" episodes I can't think of now, but this one really stands out. Someone can expand or fix the 'Dan's Operation' one if they'd like.

The episode introducing Yakov probably counts as well. And of course Roz coming to terms with her diabetes. And the episode where the gang goes to group counseling and a kid who just committed a robbery takes them hostage, only to learn a very valuable lesson from Roz.

[edit] Star Trek VSEs

here's an interesting thing to think about, do certain star trek episodes qualify as VSEs? Gene Roddenbery made comments about how his show was like a morality play, and in fact, many of the episodes were quite allegorical. This trend continued somewhat into The Next Generation until after Roddenbery died, when the series started to become more nuanced in dealing with issues. in fact, in DS9, there are no real morality plays, no totally good decisions, or totally wrong decisions, and the characters have to deal with the moral and ethical consequences of their actions. not so in TOS or early TNG, when Kirk's decisions were almost always the right thing to do, no questions asked, and Picard was basically a preacher to the aliens that they encountered that week.--Image:jsonitsacsig.giftalk to me crimes against humanity18:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move examples to list.

The idea seems to have been brought up a while ago, and the list of examples is even longer now. I favor putting in 4 or 5 representative examples, and move the others to a list. If no one objects within the next week or so, I'll put them on a list. JoshuaZ 02:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • JoshuaZ – Provide a link and – given that nobody wants to afd it – you'll be OK. [[Briguy52748 12:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)]]

[edit] Years

Whoever added the years to the VSEs in question had some of them wrong, and I'm wondering what their source is. I corrected a lot of the really wrong years for Good Times, as well as Saved By the Bell. Mike H. That's hot 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too Close for Comfort

I'm telling you, as crazy as it sounds this was a real episode! MrBlondNYC 08:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't believe it at first, but I did the internet searches and there are many print sources to back it up. Sigh. Mike H. That's hot 09:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simpsons Episode?

I'm not entirely sure if this applies, but one of the recent Simpsons episodes deals with Bart learning about "the birds and the bees" and Lisa falling into a bout of anorexia. It ends with them still traumatized by their experiences and such. It felt very out of place with the rest of the series--even moreso than the "Dad thinks you're gay" episode--and seemed to sacrifice all comedy by the very nature of what they were discussing. But I don't know the name of the episode. Kilyle 09:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organization

Might it be better to organize these not by series but by topic? All the episodes that deal with anorexia would be one topic, all those that deal with character death another, etc. Besides just being easier to read (or skim) and easier for the reader to compare, the relative relevance of the episodes can be judged against each other and the less relevant examples cut.

I do think that including every instance of character death is overboard--even when it steps outside the normal tone of the series (e.g. for a comedy). It would seem that major, front-line characters being killed and/or replaced is natural to any story, and need not be considered abnormally preachy. However, when a character enters the spotlight long enough to die and be mourned, and that character is a minor character, a never-before-seen family member, or an old boyfriend, etc., then that's more of the deliberately Very Special episode, right? Kilyle 09:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Diff'rent Strokes episode

Wasn't there an episode where Arnold lied and said he knew CPR then someone needed it and he couldn't do it and the person could have died? Does that warrant a mention? MrBlondNYC 08:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Television dramas?

Why do dramas even count? Very special episodes generally deal with dramatic or serious themes in shows that are otherwise sitcoms, and dramas aren't supposed to be funny anyway. In fact, every episode of a drama could be considered a very special episode. Anthony Rupert 14:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering about Degrassi as it's kind of the point of the series (at least the original one; it was created by a teacher) to talk about sensitive issues. (And though I like it, I have to say that a disproportionate number of bad things happen to the characters.) --Galaxiaad 00:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That 70s Show

Seriously - can you consider any episode of That 70s Show to be a "Very Special Episode"? Not once did any of those episodes listed there break away from the style of the show - they were treated just as any of the other episodes were. None of them belong in there.

[edit] Request for Comment: List

This is a request for comment on the extensive list of examples that is currently being disputed. 05:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

  • Peer reviews consistently indicate that lists of this size are not appropriate to the article. The list is written in a way to indicate not all examples given are actually "Very special episodes" and having that many examples does not benefit this article. Examples are to be used to provide a real world example of a topic of discussion or to further explain a point. If someone feels a list of all these very special episodes should be created, they can do so in a separate article, but they have no place here.--Crossmr 05:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • I entirely agree with Crossmr. There is no reason a long list shoudl be included in the article. If someone feels it is an important article, make a seperate one and let other judge it. Don't lower the quality of this article.--Connor K. 19:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest branching the list into its own list page. As a side comment, I don't think any episode of All in the Family or Maude fits the derisive use of very special episode. The comedy in those two series was consistently political and issues-oriented.

Durova 15:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I think your problem here is one of sourcing. In spite of the talk about "lowering the quality" of this article, my view is that the page is nothing - just an extended dicdef - without a list of appropriate examples to back it up. However what the editors here absolutely must do is establish a set of criteria for inclusion on the list, and require approprate sourcing for each item. The trouble with the existing list is that it contains all kinds of stuff, some near-to and some far-from the point of the article. I know that this sounds like it requires some thought and some work, but the other quick-fix solutions being offered above either (a) keep the crap (b) reduce the page to extended dicdef status or (c) move the problem to another page, where it will still be the same problem. That's an outsider's view. I came here from RfC and I am not watching this page. AndyJones 17:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    Sourcing is certainly an issue, and I'm not sure how one could source whether or not a particular episode was advertised as a "very special episode". It seems like its much easier to source the parodies than it is the genuine things. But sourcing is only a secondary issue to the main issue, whether an example list, properly sourced or not, of that size is appropriate to the article. I'm contending that properly sourced or not it doesn't belong here with that sort of mass attached to it. Properly sourced, it could potentially be a useful and interesting list.--Crossmr 06:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Personally, I agree with Durova's comment above. I think that a compromise in this conflict would be to move it to another page, and that way, those who want to source the specific episodes can do so without wrecking the rest of the page. Either that, or: move the examples to a specific page and explain that not all were VSE's, but had an important lesson contained within. That would unfortunately open the floodgates to everybody who thinks that their particular episode is important. I'm just trying to offer a solution to this problem. Get back to me on whether or not this works. Bkissin 22:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    Which highlights an issue here. This is an article about a marketing term, or more abstractly a specific subject. It doesn't really benefit the article to include examples of shows that were not referred to by this marketing term. It would be like including examples of the usage of "Oh snap!" in the "Where's the beef" article. Sure they may be examples of the usage of a popular phrase, but they don't really add anythign to the article. My issue here certainly isn't with providing examples, its with providing actual examples and an appropriate amount of them. Forking that list is certainly something that may be useful, but we have a serious WP:V issue, as the list can't just be forked. Whoever wrote it has admitted that not everything on that list was a VSE, which means the entire list is in doubt and nothing can be used from it without a source. Some of those episodes may be in the same vein as a VSE, but the article isn't about series who decided to buck their style for an episode or two to address an important issue. While every VSE (non-parody) was like that, not every episode that did that was a VSE. It isn't a two way street. --Crossmr 04:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, I don't know who added the examples back to the list, but I'm going to take them off and create Television Episodes that have a certain lesson that needs to be learned at the end of it regarding to a current issue! Does that work for everybody? Can we put this whole stupid issue behind us? Feel free to delete the wikipage mentioned above, but please don't put the examples back on! We've reached an agreement! Bkissin 19:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, now you should know that when some of us suggested that the examples be moved to a list, that kind of title is not what we meant. I'm not trying to start an argument here, but...what's with you? Anthony Rupert 21:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry about that outburst earlier. I thought that an agreement had been made to delete the examples from the article, and so this morning, when I saw that someone had put them back up, I thought that I would fix the situation of people wanting them on the list, or at least make an effort. It was a spur of the moment decision, done in a state of extreme pissed-off-ness, and I apologize. I hope this doesn't label me as a vandal, or get me blocked from wikipedia. Bkissin 02:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
          • The list of episodes was extremely interesting, useful and relevant, despite the lack of veriafibility. This lack, however, is in all likelihood never going to be surmountable in this context, and thus the list certainly doesn't belong on this page (about an advertising term). However, a page that contains a list of episodes that deviate significantly from the normal pattern of the show and involve a serious moral issue being resolved can and should exist, on the merit of official episode synopses (citation of the episode itself and synopsis from a credible source should satisfy verifiability); this page, in turn, could be guiltlessly linked to in "See Also" from this page, as it has logical relevance (links between Wikipedia pages don't need verifiable backing at this point, do they?). This would provide good information (that I was looking for when I came back to this page today and discovered this crisis :P) and let the hard work of many wikipedians survie, toeing the line of policy and all. No need to shoot ourselves in the foot. That said, Television Episodes that have a certain lesson that needs to be learned at the end of it regarding to a current issue is obviously not the right name for the page and it needs definite edits, specifically the removing of the "while others are just examples of what wikipedia users believe to be important episodes" bit and serious shaving of non-notable episodes. I plead for the list not to end up in the pit of oblivion!-Hawkian 02:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced tag

Most of this article is indeed unsourced. Rather than removing the tag without explanation, perhaps providing some sources would be in order.--Crossmr 18:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Um...did you look at the usage section?
Also, when I removed the tag, I provided an explanation in the edit summary. Anthony Rupert 01:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I looked at it. I don't see any sources. Your explanation was only an explanation of what you did, not your reasoning for actually removing it.--Crossmr 05:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
And the difference between explanation and reasoning is...? Anthony Rupert 15:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You explained what you did "I removed the tag" You didn't provide a reason for actually removing the tag. I.e. "tag removed, several sources added" In fact you didn't add any sources or provide any sort of justification for removing the tag in this case. If someone puts an unsourced tag on the article and you want to remove it, you should either add the required sources, or demonstrate that the sources are indeed there. Unless its an obviously spurious placement.--Crossmr 18:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More examples, less commentary and parodies

The section of actual 'very special episodes' is 1000 times more valuable than the much larger list of parodies of the concept. Article should expand the former and eliminate the latter. Tempshill 04:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why the long list of parodies has not been addressed. In the effort to eliminate the list of actual VSEs, the fact that the list of parodies now far outweighs the actual examples has been ignored. MrBlondNYC 08:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely, and I'm a bold guy. Don't mean to start any fights, just making something happen. I've wound up hacking about 75% of it out, by deciding on a principle of only listing shows that are "full-on" parodies of VSE, where the VSE motif is a primary element of the entire episode. Unfortunately, that didn't leave much. However, I think the remaining entries are very exemplary and I don't feel that the incredibly numerous one-off jokes that refer to VSE could possibly all be listed anyways, I think this is an effective solution. Feel free to disagree by completely reverting me, if you like (always the proper bold response to boldness). Eaglizard 17:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I also think that more examples or an expanded example section are needed, but the problem is (I think) with the focus: to begin with, editors should decide if they agree that "being billed as a VSE" is in fact a requirement for actually being one (I think it is). In that case, there needs to be a bit of research on when the term first appeared (be nice to know the actual first use of it, but good luck with that :) and some more focus on the earliest examples of it, perhaps demonstrating more clearly exactly why they were so lame if possible. As I recall, the term first appeared in conjuction with either "Facts of Life", "Gimme a Break" or that damned show with Arnold saying "watchoo talkin bout Willis" (which name I've apparently blocked from memory). At the very least, those were the shows where it gained prominence, IIRC, and should probably be (somewhat) the focii of this article. I definitely think there's too much side-discussion about shows that are similar to the VSE concept, but really weren't. For instance, the All In The Family and Maude stuff was never billed in that particular fashion, I don't think; rather, the marketing was more subtle, allowing the built-in controversy of the shows to work for them. In contrast, the previously mentioned sitcoms beat us over the head with the VSE tagline. Anyways, enough of my commentary. Have fun, ya'll. Eaglizard 18:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Can we put the long list back, it was actually quite helpful! McDanger 12:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Is anything in this article actually referenced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.120.178 (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clueless (TV Spinoff) VSE

I can remember from when I was a kid that there was an Episode of the film-spinoff Clueless about drink driving, where, as far as I can remember, a character was introduced at the start of the episode, only to be killed in a drink-driving accident. The episode ended with the cast talking directly at the screen about the dangers of drink driving! Anyone else remember this episode? Gdkh (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)