Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Seinfeld

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Seinfeld WikiProject, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Seinfeld-related articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page and add your name to the members list.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Parentage to Comedy WikiProject?

I was wondering if the Comedy WikiProject is a parent to this WikiProject rather than just related? Is it so and it should be noted on the WikiProject? ISD 12:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say so. But wouldn't WikiProject Television be a parent as well? Joelster 03:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Probably. It would be best to contact them and make sure. ISD 08:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seinfeld discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

Description 
Covering at least 200 articles (a rough estimate, bearing in mind that there are 180 episodes, many if not all with their own article), this WikiProject would be focused towards improving all Seinfeld-related articles, especially the episode articles, which need expanding and cleaning up, and also some of the secondary character articles, which also need expanding.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Joelster
  2. Jennica
  3. luckymustard
  4. StormXor
  5. VolatileChemical
  6. Gprince007
  7. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments

Before I get this WikiProject started I would need some help from a more experienced Wikipedian with setting it up (templates, infoboxes etc). Thanks, Joelster

Your first decision should be whether to put the Table of Contents on the left or on the right. (SEWilco 22:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC))
What are you referring to? Joelster 23:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I'd like to thank everyone who expressed their interest in this project. I now feel that the time is right to begin starting up the project, and a draft of it can be found here. I would greatly appreciate help with creating templates and a shortcut to the project page. Again, thankyou so much. Joelster 06:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories on template

I'm confused by the category in Template:WikiProject Seinfeld. The category, I believe, should list the articles, but because this template is put on the Discussion page, the pages listed are all Talk pages. Shouldn't this category, if it exists at all, be on Template:seinfeld instead? (I've tried to raise this point on the template page without an answer. I'd like someone to reply, though I apologize if I'm not explaining my point clearly.) InkQuill (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of ordinal numbers

SO MANY of the episode pages misuse ordinal numbers, at least as far as I understand the rules:

"The Non-Fat Yogurt" is the seventy-first episode of the NBC sitcom Seinfeld. It was the 7th episode for the 5th season.

Shouldn't it be:

"The Non-Fat Yogurt" is the 71st episode of the NBC sitcom Seinfeld. It was the seventh episode for the fifth season.

?

While I'm at it, for consistency's sake, shouldn't it be Season 5, not season five or Season Five or some such? InkQuill (talk) 22:04, 8 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) 03:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Episode Screen Shots

Any reason these are so utterly crap? They look like someone pointed a picture at a TV and took them. They're out of focus, stretched and just generally crap. I know we can't upload high res screen shots but surely we can put up decent quality 500x500 (give or take) images? Scmods (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines

[edit] WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [2] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)

There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Which articles get WikiProject Seinfeld template?

To do:

  • Add {{seinfeld}} to all articles related to Seinfeld and {{WikiProject Seinfeld}} to their talk pages.
I believe I've finished this for the vast majority of articles. Should the WikiProject Seinfeld template go on actors' pages (Jerry Seinfeld, George Costanza, Heidi Swedberg, Patrick Warburton) who did other things? How about writers, producers, etc?
Thanks for doing that. I would say that you could add the template to actors and production staff whose names and/or characters are actually mentioned on the template. But that may seem a little too specific. Joelster (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subproject finished

An item on the To Do list is "Improve articles on secondary and minor characters." I've improved a number of such articles, which were stubs or little more than that, by redirecting them to the List of Seinfeld minor characters. There are two steps to go: 1. Re-editing the list article to avoid duplication--many characters are listed in two or more places. 2. Removing most minor characters from Seinfeld, with a reference to the main article on minor characters.  ~ InkQuill  00:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay well I guess when those things are done then we can classify it as finished. What about secondary character articles like Frank Costanza and Jacopo Peterman? Also, any ideas on what we can do to improve the project itself? Anyone's opinions are welcome. For example, how about starting up a project newsletter? Joelster (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Improving the articles about "major minor" characters, like the Costanzas and Peterman, is another subproject that needs doing. As for a newsletter, I'm not sure how that would work; can't this talk page be used for that purpose?  ~ InkQuill  03:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I have adjusted the 'To Do List' accordingly. Yeah, I guess your right about the newsletter. The only thing is I'm involved in the creation of the newsletter for the U2 WikiProject and I wouldn't mind doing one up for our project. But there's probably not much to report I guess :) Joelster (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seinfeld teamwork.

I'm beginning to have second thoughts about this project. There is far too much overzealous political correctness and I'm starting to realize this project could've worked better had there been more transperancy and less robotic about it. You may disagree with what I'm writing but its the truth. I'll still work on it if we could at least minimise the need to be perfect every step of the way. I'm sorry I'm like this because I still don't know you guys well enough to get along. I presume you have no moral fibre so delete this message if you are offended by this paragraph. If you have something positive to tell me then it's settled. If not and you decide that this is not important than all my work has been wasted since I tried so hard to be faithful to the things which I wanted to add, change or deleted.

To sum it up, I really need something positive if I want to keep going. It may not make sense to you but this is how I feel. Thank you. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 11:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, The Contest is currently up for GA. If it gets promoted, that will be something. ISD (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Johnny, I can understand how you feel. It may seem that way somethimes but you have to remember that what we're doing here is important and so therefore we need to at least try to not make any mistakes ("the need to be perfect", as you put it). Also we need to be careful not to offend anyone ("political correctness", as you put it). Wikipedia is the 8th biggest website in the world and more importantly, it is a encyclopedia, not (for example) a Seinfeld fanclub. It is read by millions every day, so we need to make sure that articles are correct and properly sourced. It is serious work. Regarding "transperancy" and being "robotic", I'm sorry if you weren't informed of every little change we made to the articles but you shouldn't have to be. If you disagree with an edit you can raise your concerns on the talk page. If you really feel that bad you can take a wikibreak, and you can leave the project at any time if you wish. And one last thing: stop insulting us in your messages. It doesn't help. But you're doing a good job. You're one of the most zealous editors that I know of. So please stay. Joelster (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Joelster. As a promise, none of our work should be wasted from now on. Sorry for the insults. I just wish you could point me in the right direction. That's all. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Point you in the right direction? How do you mean? Joelster (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Think of alternative ways I could've done right. If I write "George hates Kramer" I would've know I made a mistake. If I write "George gets along with Kramer" I've done partially right but a suggestion from Inkquill suggests I find source to back up my claim. You get what I mean. Both of them are examples. So if I come and write "Elaine's a misanthrope" I could've either change it or delete the mistake. To sum it up, I should've thought of a better ways of putting in my material instead of going down the same path all the time.

I understand that this is not a fanclub but you got to be faithful to the show and respect the material and learn to resolve unanswered questions. I mean if I ask you "Does George hate Kramer?" an you have no answer to it, then what's George doing with Kramer? It's hard not to be a jerk around you but that's kind of thing that worries me. Again, I'm sorry about that. It's hard to answer but this is what I do.

Sorry for this long speech. I hope I can make it up someday. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] People who signed in to WikiProject Seinfeld.

So far today I thought people who edit in different times are actually doing something together. I hope that Joelster, InkQuill and Gprince007 will double check people who is signing in 'cause I'm not sure if they are really there to help or is just walking in and disappear without a trace. I'm going to leave a response to people I don't know and see if they respond in less than a week. I know you don't like task but I have a suspicion they're not really honest as they claim to be. They're answers should be positive. If not, then we should decide if someone should stay. My doubts would disappear if their message is the truth and not a lie. Well check on them anyway. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well we can't just go and 'evict' someone from the project because they don't have an active input. It is up to the person whether they want to be a member or not. Joelster (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's life Joelster. I wouldn't sign my name and disappear without a trace. For now I won't evict anyone as long as they send me a positive honest message. ISD already told me he still likes to work on it which is a positive sign. I already send out almost identical messages except for ours. I won't evict if they ALL like to particapate on this. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's my point. You can't evict anyone. It's against Wikipedia guidelines. No one is above anyone else and no one has the authority to remove someone from a WikiProject. As I keep on emphasizing, it is up to the person themselves. Joelster (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am really tired of these attempts to intimidate other Wikipedia editors to get permission to edit, to commit to do doing things and other inappropriate actions. I have tried to be diplomatic and not respond to most of these insulting and controlling comments, but it's getting really annoying. Edit or don't edit, but focus on what you're doing, not on what other people are doing.  ~ InkQuill  03:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

InkQuill, I'm sorry if any of my comments offended you but I'm merely trying to make sure no one is discriminated against because they may not be as active as we are in terms of the project. Joelster (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Joelster, none of your comments has offended me! I applaud your attempts to diplomatically keep this project on track.  ~ InkQuill  03:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry :) It seemed like you were replying to me. My bad. Joelster (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I just want their response. NOT kill them over it. Take it easy Joelster. It may be against regulations but there isn't enough interactions to hold my attention. Don't worry. If this is a living breathing editing centre than my job would've been easier. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I was overreacting, considering you said "For now I won't evict anyone as long as they send me a positive honest message". I'm just trying to teach you what's right and what's wrong so you don't get yourself into trouble. It is very unlikely that every member of a WikiProject is active. Some WikiProjects even have sections for semi-active and inactive participants (see the WikiProject The Simpsons participants list. But let's not argue here. This project is a living, breathing editing centre with a wonderful sense of comradery. As InkQuill said, focus on what you're doing rather than what others are doing. Joelster (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You can rest easy now. Everyone answered honestly and there will be no evictions period. For now, I will get back to work. I'll be hard at work with the Elaine page and I honesty feel George is friends with Kramer but is left unexplained. How does George get along with Kramer? I already did it to Jerry and Elaine and it make sense why they hang around with Kramer. Well think of something. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seinfeld awards and nominations

I think the Seinfeld awards and nominations page should be made into tables, sort of like Simpsons Award page. does anyone agree? any thoughts? and also i added my self at the Wikiproject Seinfeld members section.Gman124 (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. If The Simpsons can have it, Seinfeld can. ISD (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have created a table for Screen Actors Guild awards. the rest will be put the same way soon. anyone want to help. Gman124 (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully the presentation aspect will stand out on this. By the way Gman124, welcome aboard. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have put the awards into a table, any suggestions to improving the tables? Gman124 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow good work. It looks great. I know you have only just created it but perhaps you could think about improving the introduction sometime in the future. Well done! Joelster (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a great list. However, I would advise that you also include some kind of image. Eventually, you may be able to promote it to featured list. ISD (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I went on imdb.com] and they have way more awards for Seinfeld, so do we list every single one of the nominations and awards, because it will just make the article too long.Gman124 (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you could just include all the awards that were won, not the ones they were nominated for. I'm sure that would reduce the size of the list. Joelster (talk) 06:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd include all. There are some very long lists with are of featured list standard - see List of The Simpsons episodes for example. ISD (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I will add all the awards but i can't find refernces for them and imdb isn't really considered a good source, so do we list the awards that we can't verify, or should we remove them from the list. so far i've only found refernces for the Emmy's, Screen Writers, and Directors Guild awards. Gman124 (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I found the references to the awards here. Now is that a reliable source (although it is created by LA Times) or should it be considered a fan site and ignored like tv.com and IMDB.com. Gman124 (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "The Stakeout" Episode Title

I noticed that the article title is "The Stakeout" while the name of the episode on the DVD box is "The Stake Out". I was wondering if someone could change the name of the article to match what I am assuming is the official name. RedPen72 (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • It's easy to do. Click the "Move" button on the top of the page. Type in the new name. It fixes it in the system and creates a re-direct page for any old links. DO NOT cut & paste it to the different title. Be bold. Doctorindy (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good work

Thanks to everyone who helped make The Contest a Good Article. It's nice to know that the project is making some progress and that our hard work doesn't go unnoticed. Hopefully Seinfeld will eventually become a Good Article. But well done everyone, and keep up the good work. Joelster (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Easter Break.

From tomorrow, I won't be editing until Tuesday next week. The editors around here can take a break too. If you still like to keep working, than do me three things, change "The Clip Shows" to "The Chronicles" in season 9, merge two episodes and fill in the gaps like someone did in "The Highlights of 100". Whoever did that makes me happy. So Happy Easter! Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the official Seinfeld website lists the episodes as "The Clip Show", (see here), and several other websites also list it as "The Clip Show" (see here, here and here. Two of those websites list it as "The Clip Show (a.k.a The Chronicle)". My DVD lists it as "The Chronicle", but I think that "The Clip Show" is the official term. Also note that a Google search for The Clip Show Seinfeld Episode gives more results than a search for The Chronicle Seinfeld Episode. So it's probably not a good idea to rename the articles. Joelster (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok Joelster. Stick to "The Clip Show". Just do the way someone did in "The Highlights of 100". My wish has been granted long ago so don't disappoint me again. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

On the Seinfeld official website in season six, instead of "The highlights of one hundred", which was the 100th episode, it is also listed at "The Clip Show" see here and here. but it doesn't stat on that that it is also known as The Chronicles of 100 so shouldn't it be changed back to "The Clip Show", but then there also the season nine episode of the same name. Gman124 (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
epguides.com writes it as "Highlights of a hundered". "The Clip Show" is also written as "The Chronicle". ISD (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I say to avoid confusion, the season six clip show should remain "The Highlights of 100" and the season nine episode should remain "The Clip Show". That's what I think anyway. Joelster (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for that. Now if it's not too much trouble, get yourself a pen and paper and spend over an hour listing the episodes with production numbers the way someone did in "The Highlights of 100". It shouldn't be difficult. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Sacamano

Bob Sacamano article is being considered for deletion, just thought to let everyone know.Gman124 (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

One question. Why? Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it apparently fails notability guidlines (in other words the subject isn't notable enough to have it's own article). Joelster (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It's been redirected to List of Seinfeld minor characters#Unseen characters  ~ InkQuill  18:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] episode summaries

I want to move episode summaries for List of Seinfeld episodes to the individual season pages because the page is too large and should be split and make it like Simpsons episodes. does anyone disagree with this or should I move the summaries.Gman124 (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it could work. It would eventually add more value and make it easier to navigate. Gman124, the best thing I could say about you is that you really have brain power. I think to get them really interested, why not get them to look at The Simpsons and see what makes it benefit to Seinfeld. I already have one that really works for international audience which is as simple as dubbing. Anyway, go for it. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] George getting along with Kramer.

Since Joelster believes it doesn't fit in, I was thinking of a replacement but I need a brainstorm on this. If you can figure a way to add in to the characteristics, then it will resolve one question which continues to eat me alive. What makes George compatible with Kramer? In my case, it wouldn't be George if someone comes in to do something that is too in common with Jerry and Elaine. I already how important Kramer is in the group and I want to ensure that all the main cast have something in common with each other. As I like to put it, I always like to answer unanswered questions. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I did't disagree with the idea itself. I removed the statement because I felt the writing style and its location in the text wasn't cohesive. Joelster (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, try to find something that works on the page. I always now believe that anything works. So if you have a solution over that problem, it should've been easily solved. I can now clearly see the editors working together. I'll expect more interaction from everyone. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Names for actors and actress.

The most troubling thing I see the most is who are these people? What are their names? I manage to fill in the major character's girlfriends/boyfriends. I find it very hard that every episode fails to mention guest characters who are part of the show yet its not been mentioned at all. If you understand my concern, then it's going to take a long time to know who are these people. Hopefully next time I go on the net, maybe they'll decide to add the names that wasn't mentioned before. By the way, what's a cache? On the Yahoo! search engine, there's cache follow by kilobytes. Maybe you know what that is 'cause I don't and the funny thing is it keeps on growing. Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

See the cache article. Joelster (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SeinfeldVision

There is an article currently up for GA but I'm not sure if it should be tagged by this WikiProject or not. It is about an episode of 30 Rock which references Seinfeld quite heavily and features Jerry Seinfeld as a guest star. I'm unsure if it should be tagged because of the Seinfeld references, or not because it is an episode from a different TV programme. What does everyone else think? ISD (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem adding it--it's related to the show. It's not as if Jerry Seinfeld is guest-starring as himself.  ~ InkQuill  18:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Contest FAC

"The Contest" is currently a candidate for featured article status. At the moment, three people have commented on the article, but no-one has given yet supported or objected to the article's promotion. As no-one from this WikiProject (as far as I know) has given their view on it, is it possible for some people from here to give their comments please. You can give your judgement here. Thanks. ISD (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I would support but I'm not familiar with FA criteria. Joelster (talk)
Don't worry. It's too late anyway. ISD (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Clip Show

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I think The Clip Show, Part 1 and The Clip Show, Part 2 should be merged together.Gman124 (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree (à la The Finale). Joelster (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then how do we merge the histories of both of these pages into the new page? Gman124 (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...have a look at WP:MERGE. It sounds awfully complicated to a newbie like me :( Joelster (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

One more question: Should we merge all the two parters together or not? Gman124 (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

For now, I'd say no. I think that normal two-part episodes are different to clip shows in that each part is an episode in itself, if you get what I mean. That's what I think anyway. Do any others have an opinion? Joelster (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added merge tags to all the two part episodes. Gman124 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is safe to do so 'cause it is so long that at some point you really need a new direction to take. I did say back then to merge the two episodes full of clips. Just out of absurd curiosity, I hope this is not the only show with a great amount of episode clips within two episodes like "The Highlights of 100" for example. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Merged the two articles into The Clip Show. Gman124 talk 15:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] The Elaine's line in The Finale "Jerry, I've always..." vs "Jerry, I've always loved y..."

Right now, I'm having difficulty convincing Mezaco that Elaine's line "Jerry, I've always..." is the official line. I did watch it straight off the DVD and it would be impossible for the "loved y..." to be heard through the plane noise. Also the plane moved after the line then edits to George. Mezaco claim it was off the script. I wish there is a way to resolve it because I'm dead honest that this is the line that she truly said. The only way to prove me wrong is simply watch the show. On DVD with subtitles on English and compare it to the script. I need Joelster to be the judge ok? Let me know as soon as you can. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay well firstly, it's nice to see you value my opinion, but I'm not a judge. Just because I founded the project doesn't mean I have the final say on what's right and what's wrong. What I say doesn't overrule what others may say. So what I'm going to say now is just my opinion. So here goes:
I think the problem is that there are obviously two versions of the episode. The version Johnny and myself have on DVD here in Australia seems to be the version that omits "loved you..." from the line. I have double-checked this and I imagine that Johnny has too. There is no "loved you" audible. Now I recall seeing a version a while ago that had the line in its supposedly full state. I can only suggest that I saw this on TV, as a few years ago they had Seinfeld reruns on Channel 10. I would say that this is another (perhaps American) vesion. This would seem to be the case, as numerous IP editors and Mezaco have changed it to include the "loved you..." line. This would also seem to be the version in the online episode scripts, as pointed out by Mezaco.
So the question remains: Which version do we mention in the article? (to my memory, this line is mentioned in three Seinfeld-related articles: Jerry's article, Elaine's article and The Finale episode article (can't be bothered to wiki-link them, sorry)). If it were up to me, I would just delete the whole reference to it, but I don't think that would satisfy Mezaco or Johnny. Putting that aside, I am slightly in favour of including the extended version of the line. As Mezaco has pointed out, omitting the "loved you..." makes no sense and defeats the purpose of the joke. But then why delete the line in the first place? It's a funny joke. So why did they delete it? There must be some reason. So I just don't know. I seem to have rebutted my own arguments so now I'm not so sure what to do :) In any case, what do others think? You are welcome to voice your opinion. And by the way, can we try to refrain from calling one version the "official version"? At the moment we're not sure if there is an offical version and it doesn't help. Joelster (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Very well, for the time being, I will allow the punch line to be added on one condition. Please mention it as the US version to avoid confusion. I don't want to jump to conclusion and adding that will help. If there's going to be anymore "extra lines", then please mention that as the US version ok? I thank you for your judgement. To show you are in charge, put your edit in Elaine, Jerry and The Finale. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 07:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Whoa. Hold on for a second. This isn't my "judgement", and I'm not "in charge". Please try to remember that. I'm still not sure about adding the extra line, and we're yet to determine if the version with the extra line is in fact the US version. I just want to see what others think before a descision is made. Joelster (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Take your time. We'll get the final verdict after the others response. By the way, I'm a Vietnamese-Australian and I only speak english. I hope I'll get to know you as soon as you can. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I just think it's best to reach a consensus before making any descisions, especially when there is a dispute between editors. And, sure, I'd like to get to know you. Drop me an email sometime ;) Joelster (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, guys. I also don't want to be caught in an edit war, but omitting the "loved y- " part of the line seemed so ridiculous to me that I had to step in. I don't actually have the show on DVD and due to copywright reasons it doesn't seem to be on Youtube, so I can't prove it this very minute, but I have seen the North American version of the episode many times. And as I said, it's the entire punchline of the joke and removing it makes no sense so I would be shocked if it proved to be true that the line stops as "always".
However, I would be in favour of either : (1) keeping the extended version with proof if someone can find it (although I don't know if you can add TV show clips to Wikipedia articles due to copywright); or (2) removing it all together to satisfy the Australians who seem to be viewing a strangely unfunny edited version of the Finale and replacing it with something along the lines of "the only other mention of Jerry and Elaine still having feelings for each other came in the finale when their plane was about to crash" without actually referencing the line. I would be okay without actually mentioning the line if it bothers people. --Mezaco (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Mezaco. If I can sum it up in a logical way, it would at least add a few seconds on a "75 minute" episode. Seinfeld's logic seems almost right as Larry Charles pointed out in "Notes about nothing" in "The fix up", they don't throw in punch lines to get laughs, instead they write how people talk in real life. So to me, it does make sense. If I was an american and I hear Elaine's extended line then my reaction is dim. With that trend, the best I can say is only Seinfeld can make situation comedy with physical comedy as oppose to simply dialogue and awkward moments to the resolution. I think I'm done giving my thoughts. If I missed the outcome, put it on my talk page. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Debate on Individual Character Articles

The character pages contain nothing but plot and barely any references. So are they notable with just plot. I think maybe merge them with the character list. Gman124 talk 13:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean Gman124? Is there something wrong with the page? Try to answer as soon as you can. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I just Think these articles contains only in-universe plot information, a violation of the Wikipedia Manual of Style., so they should be merged with character list, just like most of the episodes of television series were merged into episode lists because they did not have enough real world information. Gman124 talk 15:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Everybody Loves Raymond characters have already been merged for this. Gman124 talk 15:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I totally disagree. People in the past have come along and chopped off almost all of the character articles for Seinfeld and I disagree with it. Part of what makes Seinfeld unique is the incredible detail and minutiae that have become pop-culture phenomena in their own regard. I think that the four characters on Seinfeld deserve their own articles that describe the characters in detail. There's such a universe of information with regards to this show. Obviously some articles are getting a bit long as people add things, but I don't see any reason for people to disagree with the current format (other than to spoil everyone else's fun maybe). --Mezaco (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Then how about just adding Production and cultural figure sections to the articles, like Darth Vader for example. Then it should be fine. Currently, I just don't think that these articles are notable enough on just the plot. Gman124 talk 21:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an article that shows that example? I still need to know what you mean about merging with character list? Which articles has that kind of thing you're talking about? Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info. Many fan wikis and fan websites take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles. An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading, gives undue weight to unimportant information and invites unverifiable original research. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be or become.

so based on that the articles should be merged. --Gman124 talk 01:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. The plus side is if we merge the characters it will give a different level of article degree. What I'm not happy prior to the recurring gags being totally deleted is the way they compensate the material. I don't know what the others think but to do this is to find a way to place the materials into certain episodes and delete other material that bares no reference and then you can merge it. So far the main stars stay until I can figure it out how to make it work without wasting all the material we work so hard on. Think about it. You can't benefit anything that is deleted unless it doesn't work on the article. Plus it's going to take some time before it works but I need to know what Joelster thinks. He is after all signed himself as number one on the list. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay once again I have to intervene here. Johnny, please stop referring to me as the authority over this project. Yes, I may have founded the project but I do not have any authority over the other members. My name is at the top of the members list simply because, being the founder, I was the first to join the project. Please, please try to remember that in future. Joelster (talk) 03:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just saying that we should put some reception, character development info, etc. into the article, if not then merge them, I added some stuff to Jerry Seinfeld character by adding the Reception section (but it's still just three lines). I just think we should expand the articles with real-world info. Becasue right now they just look like fan pages. --Gman124 talk 19:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. You point out the Everybody Loves Raymond as an example. However, I should also point out that shows such as Desperate Housewives and Ugly Betty have full pages devoted to each individual character. See Susan Meyer or Betty Suarez as examples. Or the show CSI is another example (see Gil Grissom). Or how about the show Lost? They have individual biographical articles of each character (see Jack Shephard). There are many examples of shows having individuals stand-alone articles of each character, and Seinfeld is a pop culture phenomenon so if the above shows have it so should Seinfeld. If you want an examples from a sitcom, see The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Every character has their own in-depth article. I could go on and on and on with more examples.
Again, I don't agree with your allegation that having a stand-alone article devoted to the biography of a character is not valid. How can a fictional character from a TV show have "real world" info? Articles about a TV character should be a biography of the details of their life. See the above examples. They are biographical articles of a fictional character. Maybe you think that the Elaine, Jerry, Kramer articles are too long. That's your opinion. But to ask for all of the characters to be merged into one "Characters of Seinfeld" article is not called for given the above examples I have cited.
I value your opinion, but I don't see a massive swell of opposition to the status quo - given the examples I've cited of other shows that do the same. --Mezaco (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want to merge them, then add some real world info to them. You said that "How can a fictional character from a TV show have "real world" info?". Well the pages Homer Simpson and Bart Simpson do have some information on reception, character creation, and awards(on Homer Simpson), and cultural influence, even Maggie Simpson has more info on the character creation, than the plot. So it is possible for TV characters to have real world info. I don't ask that you remove all info, just add some real-world stuff, an if the page gets too long, then trim out some of the unwanted plot details. Other articles that have real world info are Kang and Kodos, Darth Vader --Gman124 talk 00:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well just don't do the way they do when they nominated that recurring gags should be deleted when they could've took the material out and put it in the main characters article. When you're merging characters, try to find some way to compensate the material so that any missing info can still be found. If you're not merging them, then at least find some way to be able to resolve unanswered questions like how George gets along with Kramer and the relationships between each character. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Story-driven vs character driven.

Call it an off topic subject but there is no way I'm going to ask everyone in their talk page what's the difference between these two terms. So if you can help me with my curiosity then maybe you can help figure out if this show is driven between these two. Hopefully there is examples especially for Seinfeld which is hard to define. It shouldn't be too hard to answer. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)