This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Television Low‑importance The Wedge (Australian TV series) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Archives

Archive 1

First of all I'd like to say sorry for removing the criticsm part of the article. I just thought it was too bias on the show but anyhow, I'd like to change the title of the article to 'The Wedge (Sketch Show). I just think it would be better for us to have a more specific title for this. If you, go to IMDB it will have heaps of suggestions for 'The Wedge' so I just think it will be easier to find if we change. Who's with me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaggy9872004 (talk • contribs) 09:55, November 18, 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:TV-NC, I think the article's current name is fine. _JD^talk 09:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about if we change it to TV series, afterall, it is a series. =] -talk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaggy9872004 (talk • contribs) 10:09, November 18, 2006 (UTC)

There's already something at The Wedge (TV series); and capitals aren't used in article titles unless they're meant to be there. _JD^talk 10:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a clearer disambiguation than "Show" vs "Series"? The Wedge (Australian TV show) and The Wedge (Canadian TV show) is well within WP:TV-NC guidelines. (Incidentally, my opinion leans to "show" over "series" because neither is continuously episodic.) Lainagier 02:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about The Wedge (Australian TV show) when this discussion was started, so I don't have a problem with the idea now. _JD^talk 02:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, now frantically linkfixing. :-) Lainagier 03:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has too much trivia. The {{toomuchtrivia}} template should stay. The article also has criticisms in the Reaction section, so "and crticism" should be put in the section heading. _JD^talk 10:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you get it J Di, Criticism is a much harsher way to say Reaction.

If you look at the Wiktionary definitions for reaction and criticism, you'll see that they're very different words. The Wiktionary entry for critical would make me think that "Reactions and criticism" is the more appropriate title for this section heading. _JD^talk 22:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are entitled to your opinion but that's what you think. We've had harmony before this title was changed but sometimes things don't go your way and I'm afraid you'll have to accept that.Shaggy9872004 23:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but one person a consensus does not make. This may be my opinion, but I didn't originally make the change. Somebody else added the two words in the first place, and one other person reverted to the revision with the words in it. That means that at least two people think that "and criticism" should be there. _JD^talk 23:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I encourage the person who made that change to discuss it first. Shaggy9872004 00:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit late for that, and not everything needs to be discussed before it is done. Editors are encouraged to be bold in making changes to articles. _JD^talk 00:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry, that's what you ALWAYS tell me. Shaggy9872004 00:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not what I ALWAYS tell you. It's what I tell you when you remove merge tags from articles because you feel the merge is inappropriate. This situation is a bit different to that one. _JD^talk 00:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is what you ALWAYS tell me, I can easily quote from you. Just give me 5 miutes and I will find at least five for you.Shaggy9872004 00:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one of them, more to come:

"If you are opposed to the proposed merge, please discuss it by clicking on the Discuss link on the merge tags..."- quoted from shaggy9872004's talk page. section is called 'Australian Idol Merges".

A few more:

"Sign your comments with four tildes. The section includes criticism, so the section heading should include this. If you have a problem with this, discuss it on the talk page; don't revert it." "I know how Wikipedia works. You've just said yourself that the section has criticism in it, so the section heading should be left to show this. Leave it as it is or discuss it on the talk page." "I've already told you why. Discuss it on the talk page if you disagree." -All these are from J Di's talk page. Section is called "The Wedge(TV show)".

Last One:

"you were asked to discuss this, not just move it"- from the history of 'The Wedge (Tv Show)'.

The last four are about this matter right here. Quoting all the times I've tried to get you to discuss something isn't going to help fix the current problem. I've told you why I think the words should be in the section heading, you've told me why they shouldn't. Until there's another opinion, we can't really do anything otherwise we'd start an endless revert war. _JD^talk 00:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there appears at least an acceptance that you both have differing views and wont be able to reolve this without input from another editor here is MHO. I've seen many articles on similar subjects, visual entertainment I thought that deferring to those two categories there'd be some articles which would give you an answer. Based on what I've seen I think the current "Reaction and Critism" is the most Neutral of the alternatives. It covers a broad subject and has the ability to include subsection with statistical information like "ratings". Gnangarra 01:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<--

Can I suggest that you take five minutes and look at similar articles and see what they do. Gnangarra 00:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who, me? _JD^talk 00:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry have said "you all" or "both", you'll find plenty of article for comparison in these categories Category:Television sketch shows and Category:Australian television comedy series Gnangarra

The articles I looked at in those categories don't even have criticism sections, and a lot of them are stubs. _JD^talk 00:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editor please stop reverting the section headings, I notice that User:Shaggy9872004 has already made three reverts to this information and placed the following warnings: on talk page

Hi shaggy I notice have becom involved in an edit on the section headings, I wish to make you aware of WP:3RR policy and that further reverts to the section headings could result in you recieving a 24 hour block. PLease stop the waring and discuss the issue civilly on the article talk page Gnangarra 10:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I now checking the other editors and also warn them directly of WP:3RR Gnangarra 10:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Also warned User:J Di Gnangarra 11:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLease stop the edit war on the section headings and discuss the matter on the talk page. You have also reached the WP:3RR limit and could be blocked for 24hours. Gnangarra

This is getting messier... It needs to be sorted now. I removed the sentence that Sfacets says is sourced because the linked article says that the show was popular enough for a second season; it doesn't mention the apparent decline in popularity or just how popular the show was. I'd also like to know why Sfacets has re-added two things that I removed from the "trivia" section; they were unsourced, and were tagged by somebody else that wanted references for them. If references can be found and added, the "trivia" can be re-added at the same time, but it does not need to be there while there is no source for it. _JD^talk 07:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You had removed the sentence without providing an edit summary. Also, according to wiki gudelines, unsourced content can remain in articles if they do not interfere with the article as a whole, which was the case with the unsourced content. If a user needs a little more time to find sources, then why not give him/her that time? Sfacets 08:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've used an edit summary every time I've removed text. The verifiability policy page says that "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references.". A chance was given. As I have said before, if a source is later found, the text can be re-added. _JD^talk 08:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's something coherent on the article, I think the average viewers thing should go. The linked article was published in July, and there's nothing to suggest that the page has been updated since then. The information is most likely out of date. _JD^talk 10:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you asked for it J Di so why don't you write down what you imagine your Wedge page to be?Shaggy9872004 23:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page isn't mine, and I'm trying to be civil. Things would be much easier if you did the same thing. Though the page could still be improved, I think at the moment it's as good as it's going to get without making major changes to it. I wanted talk page discussion to take place so that you could point out any problems you had with my edit, since you were the one that reverted my last one. _JD^talk 23:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, um- here we go:

I think a little bit bias- so if you could include a small sentence reassuring people that not all people hate it or something like that.

Another thing is still to be said because, when you put down the quote, 'Despite initial popularity with sudiences', some people might love The Wedge, it's popular to them. Some people might hate The Wedge, it's not popular to them so what I think is most fair is that we change that quote into 'Despite Network Ten giving the show a commission' leaving it's popularity up to Network Ten. I will write some more soon but I'm in a hurry to do something else.Shaggy9872004 00:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that there were 681,000 viewers on the last episode; is this not enough to show that the show was still popular with some? I also cannot find anything like "Despite Network Ten giving the show a commission" in the article or what was originally there. I may have removed that, for the same reason that you want to change it... _JD^talk 00:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "In contrast to this result, " should be removed from the Reaction and criticism section. It suggests that there is normally a link or pattern of some sort between the success of the show with viewers at home and with television critics, when this isn't the case. _JD^talk 09:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this since there was no discussion. _JD^talk 08:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, the "contrast to this result"/ "however"/ linking phrases proposed made sense when the show was consistantly strong in the ratings. This is no longer the case. The current ratings of 680,000 viewers at an 8pm timeslot is a poor result and is more akin to a cult audience rather than a popular one. Therefore there is no contrast between the ratings and the critical reception. I also believe that there needn't even be a linking phrase between the two paragraphs. The section is about reaction and criticism, one of the paragraphs deals with audience reaction, the other deals with criticism.Eadsmasha 01:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The words that I thought we had agreed upon using are being reverted by Shaggy9872004 again, and I'd like to know why. _JD^talk 08:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now we're back to this again, which is unencyclopaedic and incorrect as it speaks in present tense when the show's more than over. _JD^talk 08:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The DVD section still sounds like advertising, and I agree that all it does it repeat information that is already in the characters' section. I see no point in keeping it. _JD^talk 08:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point in keeping it is that it actually tells users what is in the first 6 episodes. What is in the next 7. For example, the character Fat Mandi, to those unfamiliar with the show and may want to see what happens, they have a timeline to see which DVDs they may want to watch and with all this info gone people might be wondering where can I find Fat Mandi. Unless we make an episode guide or timeline- I say that this stays. Shaggy9872004 06:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a television guide. The encyclopaedia isn't here to tell people in which DVD they can find Fat Mandi; other websites can do that. _JD^talk 11:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, these descriptions add nothing to the page that isn't already covered in the characters section. There's no need to include minutia such as the contents of the DVD, the amount of content on this page is already overwhelming. Furthermore the language used in these descriptions is not of an encyclopedia standard. It is in the fashion of a catchy advertising blurb (like the one you would find on the back of a DVD box). If there is insistance to list the contents of each DVD, or the points in which characters are introduced then it should be done in an objective manner. Wikipedia is not an advertising agency. But I still hold that this page is not for in depth DVD and episode guides.Eadsmasha 14:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is like an Episode Guide, that was the type of thing I was suggesting.Shaggy9872004 08:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not in that much detail, and it sounds much more encyclopaedic than what you wrote. _JD^talk 08:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, I hate to burst your bubble but I can easily rebutt that, see Futurama DVD releases [1], then click on the Volume numbers and see. This even has episode by episode guide!Shaggy9872004 05:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at it properly and compared it to what you had written? Futurama#DVD releases speaks about everything that is available on the DVDs, including special features. It doesn't go into excessive detail about the episodes; only one sentence is in each box for that. And the episode guides for individual episodes read more like encyclopaedia entries. They aren't written like advertisements, they're neutral, and they include things like cultural references. Nothing like what you had written. _JD^talk 07:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the descriptions/ advertising and added the, arguably, relevant material to the DVD factbox. Although I think Shaggy has got his/her facts wrong. Characters mentioned as having been introduced on some of the later DVDs so appear in earlier episodes. If someone wants to write a full episode guide with a tone appropriate to an encyclopedia I suggest it be set up in a different entry (just like the futurama one) 124.189.80.184 12:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaggy please stop replacing the DVD descriptions. The descriptions are vague. misleading and in the wrong tone for an encycolpedia article. If you want to write a PROPER synopsis rather than copying the blurb from the back of the DVD box.

Please sign your comments in future reference. Anyhow, these synopsis aren't copied from tyhe DVD box, only similar. I am now going to make an extensivce and long edit to the DVD section, stay tuned.Shaggy9872004 23:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like what's there now; I count seven sentences in the whole thing. Some of them are too long, and it still isn't encyclopaedic enough as it is giving people information without explaining it enough. _JD^talk 00:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And in the last three tables, I see one sentence per cell. It is not encyclopaedic, and if there is no opposition, I will remove the tables if they aren't tidied up. _JD^talk 13:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J Di, you can't rush things. You can't give users overdoses of info if:

a)You expect to be short

b)Another point I'd like to make is that this is a sketch show, not a drama where you just have one plot per episode. The summaries must be long and sharp, keeping to the point each time. I see that in the tables, maybe you don't and that's fair enough but you must allow me quite a bit of time tidy these things up.

Agreed?Shaggy9872004 03:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be tidy when you stop editing. Even after your tidy up, the "DVD synopsis" section still doesn't sound encyclopaedic, and it still sounds like advertising. _JD^talk 10:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask how does it sound like advertising? Please gives some proof. It doesn't sound catchy like the DVD box at the back. And as I said before, sketch shows need to provide long but sharp information, you can't rush these things.Shaggy9872004 22:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give you proof, but I can give you a few examples. Things like "National Partying Championships take place", "Spelling bee championships take place", and mentions of the WedgeTel call center don't explain anything. The article is written for people that already know the show when it's meant to be written for people that don't know the first thing about The Wedge. The synopses are too short and uninformative to be of any use to a person that has never watched the show before. _JD^talk 23:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two paragraphs in the Reaction and criticism section should not be linked because using the word however means we're trying to say that the show remained popular with home viewers during its entire run. The show got less viewers near the end of the season, so it must have already been "not well-received" by at least some of those viewers that stopped watching. _JD^talk 09:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point and agree with you.Shaggy9872004 06:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaggy9872004 seems to have found some solution to the TV critics problem... Apparently, "The Wedge was never well received by with TV critics" is a bad statement that includes all television critics in Australia, while "The Wedge wasn't popular with TV critics" doesn't. Neither statement mentions a definite number of critics, and it's to be assumed that the above statements only involves those that commented on the show. As we're getting nowhere with this, I would like to propose that "The Wedge was never well received by with TV critics" or something similar be used in the article. _JD^talk 09:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying 'never' is very dramatic and it includes all of the TV critics in Australia and that's why I'm proposing 'The Wedge hasn't been popular with TV critics' since this neither states how many critics there are and is not half as dramatic.Shaggy9872004 09:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're going by what's in the text, not what's in Australia or how dramatic it sounds. Your proposed statement is no different to mine in that it doesn't give a definite number of critics. Yours could also be seen as referring to all television critics in Australia. The only other solution I can think of is "The Wedge was never well received by some TV critics", as it is correct and can't be misinterpreted. _JD^talk 09:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dramatic words that can inscript a message into a tombstone is bias. 'Never' should not be included in the small quote because it's over dramatic 'wasn't popular' doesn't mean it was NEVER popular with Tv critics, it only means a majority of TV critics disliked the show. Shaggy9872004 09:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the paragraph we're arguing over here? The only positive thing in it is eight words commenting on what one of the writers said to a newspaper. Never is correct in the paragraph it is being used in. And what makes using the word never worse than using your statement when, in your own words, "it only means a majority of TV critics disliked the show"? _JD^talk 10:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind speaking in English? The paragraph we're arguing about isn't meant to be bias as you clearly stated "Have you actually read the paragraph we're arguing over here? The only positive thing in it is eight words commenting on what one of the writers said to a newspaper. Never is correct in the paragraph it is being used in." It's meant to tell the truth and only the truth, nothing else. And as a fact it is true that:

1.Not all critics have commented on the show.

2.The percentage of critics who have commented on the show is very little.

3.Using the word 'never' is very harsh and undermining.

4.Only a majority of critics have commented on the show so therefor only a majority of TV critics disliked the show.

Thank you!Shaggy9872004 10:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There's no need for incivility; be glad I'm speaking at all. You've just contradicted yourself with that last comment; was the percentage of critics that commented on the show very little, or did only a majority of critics comment on it? Either way, a source is needed. My revised statement leaves room for the critics that did like the show, whereas yours does not. _JD^talk 10:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me where you left any room for positive talking. I now have two new proposals anyway, 'A majority of television critics who commented thought that the show was...' OR 'The Wedge wasn't well-received by some TV critics' similar to yours. Shaggy9872004 10:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My use of the word some is where the "room for positive talking" is. Your second proposal isn't similar to mine; it is mine, but with the word never changed to not. Changing that word changes the whole sentence, as the first half doesn't go with the second. I'm sticking with my revised proposal. _JD^talk 10:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J Di mate, you need to put on your reading glasses, never wrote not into my second proposal, I only took out the 'never'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaggy9872004 (talk • contribs) 10:41, November 30, 2006 (UTC)

You replaced "was never" with "wasn't". "Wasn't" is a contraction of "was not". _JD^talk 10:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can was not change everything then?Shaggy9872004 00:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In contrast to its initially high ratings, The Wedge was never well received by some TV critics." This sentence compares the show's initial popularity with home viewers to the show's popularity with some of the television critics. "In contrast to its initially high ratings, The Wedge was not well received by some TV critics" doesn't, because it's not comparing the two things. If "was never" were changed to "was not", the whole first half of that half of the sentence may as well go as well. That's why the word shouldn't be changed. _JD^talk 00:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was not' still puts some negative into it so the first comment can stay. By the way, how do you think of the DVD section I cleared up? Shaggy9872004 00:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about how much negative it may put into it, it's the fact that by changing never to not, the direct comparison is gone completely. This has gone on long enough; more opinions are needed. _JD^talk 00:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to a plea on Wikipedia:Third opinion.

I have no problem with the first paragraph about popularity in terms of number of viewers. The second paragraph, however, begins: "In contrast to its initially high ratings, The Wedge was never well received by some TV critics, who took issue with...." I would shorten this to "Despite its initially high ratings, some TV critics took issue with..." and leave the rest as is. This revision avoids use of the word "never" and simply explains the criticisms of the show. -Amatulic 01:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like that, it sounds better. _JD^talk 01:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also responding. According to the source cited for the statement in question,

The Wedge (Tuesdays, 8.30pm, Ten) has been deemed funny and popular enough for a second season. Filming will begin in September. And Ten's improvisation sketch show Thank God You're Here is also back for a second run. The first comedians to step up on Wednesday at 7.30pm are Anh Do, Tony Martin, Cal Wilson and Hamish Blake.

This source has nothing to do with criticism. Therefore, the entire statement is a violation of WP:V. I suggest changing the sentence to: "...initially high ratings, some TV critics took issue with what they perceived to be The Wedge's over-use..." Srose (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that too. I just modified the sentence accordingly. -Amatulic 02:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has said that WedgeTel is not in India, but this and this both say that it is. I'm hoping that somebody else can give a definite answer. _JD^talk 02:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J Di, do you believe Network Ten, who hosts the show or Australia Television. The site calls the chainsaw guy, hard luck murderer and Mark Wary 'Mark Warey',which I can explicitly tell you is spelt like this, 'Mark Wary', from The Wedge's Official Site.Shaggy9872004 07:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything on the Ten website that says where WedgeTel is. I don't have a clue what the rest of your post is supposed to mean. _JD^talk 19:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J Di, the subheading says 'Call centre'. Shaggy9872004 08:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said before, the website doesn't say where WedgeTel is. _JD^talk 08:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that's why it should be left alone.Shaggy9872004 09:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where on this page have I said anything about adding back that they are from India? _JD^talk 10:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you guys actually watched the show? Firstly, everyone in the call centre is Indian. Secondly there's a device at the start of the sketch which is a satellite-like shot of Earth which zooms in on India (this device is used on other sketches too, like the farmer whose farm is on the outskirts of Wedgedale). You're arguing over finding website verification when all you have to do is actually watch the show you are discussing. Amazing. To point out the obvious, the whole point of the sketch is the amount of cold calls Australians (in this case people in Wedgedale) get from Indian call centres, and the resultant communication difficulties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.151.28 (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe now that I found some positive comments about the show in it's first paragraph from the critics, we should change the title into either 'Success and criticsm' or 'Success, reaction and criticism' because with the new found info I got, some of the critics applauded the show for the success it had. Shaggy9872004 12:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section's title is fine; as I pointed out before, reaction and criticism are not both negative words and they aren't synonymous. Could you also change "famous magazine" to the name of a magazine? J Di 13:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the magazine is called 'Famous magazine'. My point to change the title is that: The section talks about the mixed success of the show, right? And it also talks about critics criticising the show, right? So why not the title to 'Success, reaction and criticism' or 'Success and criticism. It meets all the detail in that section.Shaggy9872004 22:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the "and criticism" then. J Di 22:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we keep it as 'Reaction'? Shaggy9872004 23:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what would be left after the words and and criticism are removed... J Di 23:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice discussing with you. *scurries off to change*Shaggy9872004 23:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much bloat in this article - we do not need a section for every single skit in each season. --Tzler 12:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. The amount of information here is just ridiculous. Popular sketch shows don't warrant this level of detail, so why should an also-ran that nobody besides Shaggystringofnumbers cares about? 124.180.158.245 12:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea. =)Shaggy9872004 07:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:That's Valid.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:We're Moving.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]