Talk:Glee (TV series)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Broadcast

Since January 2009 it also airs in Germany -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDAl_i22fsI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.31.55 (talk) 10:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you find us a non youtube source? CTJF83 11:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

MOS:TV recently changed broadcast guidelines, so articles should only detail English-speaking countries programs air in. Other international broadcasts should only be mentioned if the show does something noteworthy there. Frickative 16:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Plot

Shouldn't there be something about the plot here? Mrld (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Episode number

In the infobox the number of episodes is wrong, can someone fix it? 84.198.27.232 (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

How so? CTJF83 19:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Bryan Adams

Shouldn't it be described as an alleged refusal? Murphy says Adams refused to allow them to use his music; Adams insists he was NEVER contacted by anyone from Glee. With no proof being provided by either side (although the onus should be on Murphy to prove Adams turned them down), it's nothing but an alleged refusal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwazimoto69 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Creator?

Who should be listed in the infobox as the series creator? Yes, Murphy is routinely called the creator in interviews and articles, but he's the one that does the most press, and that's really an easy shorthand for what the article details with sources - that Ian Brennan is the one who came up with the concept, and took it to Falchuk and Murphy, via Novick, for development. I think it should say either Brennan, or all three, or none, but singling out Murphy to me seems incorrect. Frickative 23:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

ETA: Just checked the title credits, and all three are given 'Created by' credit on-screen. Frickative 23:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

From reading the article it seems that Brennan created the original concept for a film, but if was Falchuk and Murphy who pushed for a television version. Therefore, all three had a part in the creation of the television series. This seems to be supported by the credits. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

S01E22 - Journey

The episode title of S01E22 is "Journey" and not "Journey to Regionals" as mentioned on the episode list. Please, someone correct this one. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narfall (talk • contribs) 14:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source that confirms that Fox has no idea what the episode is called?[1] --AussieLegend (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism from LGBT community - New Section needed

There should be a section created, which is dedicated to criticism of Glee from the LGBT community itself. Over the last couple of seasons, there have been a lot of Transphobic references made by the characters & writers alike. If a show can be condemned for calling a character a "Fag" or making a homophobic reference, then the same must be done when the term porn-terms "She-male" and "Tranny". Both of these terms have been freely used within the show by numerous characters, while songs with Trans references (such as those from "Rocky Horror" & Lady Gaga's "Born This Way") have been purposefully edited to get rid of verses that have transgender references.

It'd probably also be worthwhile putting a reference to this in the Wiki of Glee's creator, Ryan Murphy (who's openly gay & was transphobic in his previous show "Nip/Tuck") as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.234.6 (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

High School - Information Needed

The name of the high school, which is the setting for Glee, should be discussed. PlaysInPeoria (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussed in what way? CTJF83 17:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

VANDILISM

The vandilism on this page is outrageous. If you don't like the show don't come to the page.

Also can I make a suggestion that if we get someone to lock the page so only certain users can edit the page.Liam74656 (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You can request it be semi-protected at WP:RPP CTJF83 20:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I requested it. CTJF83 20:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There ya go! 6 months! CTJF83 20:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Who writes this stuff?

lea michele never sang what a girl wants on glee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.231.128 (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, she did, very briefly in "Mash-Up". Frickative 05:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Character missed

Did anyone notice that Darren Criss is missing from the character list? He takes place as Blaine Anderson, unforgottable character, and he appears in Characters of Glee. I think He should appear here, too.

Gotenks33 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Regulars

It's been confirmed that Harry Shum, Jr. and Darren Criss have been promoted to cast regulars. Also Jessalyn Gilsig needs to be listed as a former cast member. This shouldn't be a problem as this is how these three are listed in the section for Glee (season 3). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.228.49 (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This brings up the interesting question of when someone ought to be moved into the main cast list. I would have thought a Fox press release or some similar level of official announcement would be in order, not an Ausiello post. He's been wrong before. Also, while Gilsig won't be a member of the main cast any more, there is no guarantee that she won't be showing up at all...and she is still a cast member in the first two seasons. It seems to me that how we handle Gilsig should be a model for handling those many main cast members who will be leaving at the end of season three. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

MOS:TV#Cast information is clear on how departing cast are handled: "When organizing the cast section, please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time. Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series." Splitting them into a "former" main cast section is inappropriate as fiction is always treated in the present. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And with regard to adding newly promoted cast members to the ibox etc, last year I'm pretty sure we waited until "Audition" aired and credited Rivera, Morris and O'Malley as regulars. I assume it's a WP:CRYSTAL issue, the same reason we don't update the 'number of episodes' count until after a new one airs. Frickative 12:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like that was true on this page, for the ibox, etc. However, the Characters of Glee page was different; all three new main characters had moved up to the "Main Characters" section beforehand (August 28, 2010 was the first edit in that direction, three and a half weeks out, and it stuck). We're two and a half months away from the season three premiere; what should be the criteria for the Characters page? In short, should Mike Chang should be moved back into recurring characters, or left where he is and Blaine Anderson moved up with him? It seems odd to base the move solely on reports from TVLine and Entertainment Weekly (E! references reports by Ausiello and Andreeva, though from another website) and any others without confirmation from anyone at Fox or production (e.g., Murphy or Falchuk). However, if we do move Mike back to recurring, we'll probably need some comment on both Mike and Blaine saying not to move them until there's better confirmation (or whatever). BlueMoonset (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: Blaine got moved up to Characters of Glee's "Main Characters" section from the supporting section today by another eager beaver. Since Mike and Blaine are now both there, I added Darren's photo to the Blaine entry, added a ref to the Ausiello article in the header and at the end of the Blaine and Mike paragraphs, and characterized this as "reported" rather than "announced" (which implies to me that it's official, rather than a leaky source). It's a temporary measure that could become permanent. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC) (clarification added at 04:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC))

Chord Overstreet?

I would like to edit the page to say Chord Overstreet is one of the characters. You could say he is one of the characters, but his contract is not continued for season 3, which it isn't. He is actually a character, he plays Sam.

Musicfreak13 (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. FREYWA 08:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ragettii, 24 July 2011

Darren Criss and Harry Shum Jr as regulars

Ragettii (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: If I am reading the above discussion right, and remember, we are waiting until the first episode airs that has them as regulars before adding them to the infobox. Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Emma

People, STOP editing Emma Pillsbury's page to say that Carl Howell is her significate other. They're divorced... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.214.22 (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Writers list in Infobox

For season three, we need to decide how we're going to treat the list of writers. In the first two seasons, it was just Ian, Ryan, and Brad. For the third season, they have added six writers to the staff. All of them work as writers, yet appear in episode credits under their seniormost title, from co-executive producer down to staff writer. They are:

• Ali Adler, co-executive producer
• Michael Hitchcock, consulting producer
• Marti Noxon, consulting producer
• Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, co-producer
• Matthew Hodgson, staff writer
• Ross Maxwell, staff writer

The question is when these six should be added to the list: only once they actual receive the sole credit as the episode's writer, or at once. If at once, then what order should be used? (Adler has written the fourth episode, so we'll see a sole credit beyond the original trio fairly soon.)

However, it should be all six or one at a time. We shouldn't list the credited staff writers separately, because all six are staff writers. Does anyone know what infoboxes typically do? Or if there isn't a standard, which approach we should take. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Add GA link

Add GA link for russian article.--178.234.177.227 (talk) 05:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Amber Riley

Amber Riley is listed as a "black diva." None of the white actors are listed as "white cheerleader" or "Jewish singer." Leave race/ethnicity out of it. It's ignorant. Cindasmommy (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done—thank you for flagging it up. Frickative 02:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The tv program's glee club fails to sing any glees.

should it not be mentioned in the intro that despite the programs name, no glees are sung in the show? In fact the cast appear to have no understanding of what a glee is?

Doktordoris (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You're joking, right? The dictionary definition of "glee club" mentions "a chorus" and "short choral pieces", but the original three-male-voice glee is long ago and far away, at least in the United States where the program is set. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia's glee club article which, come to think of it, is linked to from the article here. Nothing more is needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"Conception" section

I attempted adding a template saying that the information was out of date this morning, and was thoroughly rebuffed for doing so by another editor. I believe that the information is irrelevant by this point, namely: "Brennan, Falchuk and Murphy have written all of the show's episodes for its first two seasons," and, "...he has mapped out plans for the series covering three years of broadcast." Both of these things are obvious, as the show is now in its third season. Does anyone agree, or am I alone in this? ShandraShazam (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The lead section shouldn't contain any references (as everything should be referenced later in the article), so this edit is rightly reverted. Also, you are giving WP:UNDUE weight to one episode with a longer airtime. The definition of conception is "the capacity, function, or process of forming or understanding ideas", so it should be about how the show was formed if you will. So therefore I think you were rightly reverted. CTJF83 01:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the sentence on the plans for the series to note that Murphy had done so by October 2009; it's germane to the conception that the initial three seasons had been planned when the first season was barely a third aired (if not sooner).

The points you are raising aren't worthy of a template. Both are minor. If you believe the "written all the show's episodes for the first two seasons" is irrelevant—and it's covered in greater detail in the "Writing" section anyway—you could easily have deleted the text you felt was inappropriate instead. (I think I'll leave the "two seasons" detail for the later section, and say something about them also being responsible for the writing duties.)

I should certainly point out that this article has been through the Good Article review process—which included the lede—and the reviewer was fine with the absence of references there. Many writers and reviewers prefer that unnecessary references do not appear in an article's introduction, to make it easier for readers to get into the material. As the intro only contains material that also appears later in the article, generally in greater depth, the references will be available there. (I originally thought I had to reference things in the lede, and did so reluctantly in my initial articles; I'm happy that it is not generally necessary, unless you include quotes there.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Understood! I think in the future, I'll just stick to fixing grammar errors, heh. ShandraShazam (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh no! Don't shy away from editing what you want to improve the article! We are happy to help you! CTJF83 15:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Reception: homophobia

Can there be sources found that people who watch the program are bullied as "gay" in schools? ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You're joking right? -Jer ^{Hit me up} 20:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, unfortunately. ♆ CUSH ♆ 21:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to go with Jer on this one... CTJF83 13:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have read several comments to Glee videos on YouTube written by kids who get called "gay" for watching Glee. So I wonder if there is a more reliable source for that sort of negative reaction and whether something like that should be mentioned. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, this is the internet, when a person doesn't like something, they instantly write it off as "gay" and consider anyone who is a fan "gay". This isn't just Glee, this is anything and everything that people don't like. -Jer ^{Hit me up} 18:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What does one kid in school call another kid "gay" for watching Glee have to do with the internet? ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone here actually looked around for sources backing this up? It seems plausible to me, but as we all know, Wikipedia only takes verafiable facts, regardless of how true they are. I suggest that's where you start instead of this pointless bickering--Coin945 (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay so after 5 second of scrounging around, : found this Harvey And LaBarbera Accuse LGBT Community And Glee Of Using "Demonic Manipulation" To Make Kids Gay. That is pretty much it.--Coin945 (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a Glee expert, but this someone is a tad subjective?

This sentence feels pasted in and is obviously not at all objective. It doesn't belong in a wikipedia entry, in my opinion. Judgement-laden, to say the least. What does "lame" mean? We need evidence. Why we need to know what he enjoys staring at, outside a court of law, is a mystery to me. Someone please take this sentence out! As a person who knows little about Glee, and not knowing much about how wikipedia works, I can't do it myself:

Glee features on-screen performance of lame arts-based musical numbers that are selected by Murphy, who is a very creepy man who enjoys staring at strange pictures of children with strange soliders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.93.18.21 (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It was removed while you made the comments --Jnorton7558 (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Starring?

Since there seems to be some question as to which actors get added to the "starring" billing, what qualifies one actor over another to get added? I'm confused with the edits and reverts, and I just want to be clear so if I revert something, I know I'm doing so in compliance of the Wikipedia rules. 67.82.184.211 (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)ShadowHunterKurohyou

It is how the producers list the cast in the episode that determines if they are "starring" or not. For instance in the most recent episode of Glee if you watch after the first commercial break it starts listing off the names until it gets to the "Guest Starring" section. Although once someone was a regular at one point in the series they should remain in the infobox as such. Hope this answers the question. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

People who refuse to be on Glee

You should add Damon Albarn of Gorillaz and Blur to the list of people who don't want their songs on Glee, in the end of section 5.2. I would have done that myself but I'm not sure how to add the source of that information, which is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AXO6qH04fA 109.186.78.163 (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The idea is not to have a comprehensive list, but to name a few representative groups and artists. Citing a YouTube video is a bit problematic; for this kind of information, it's best to have a secondary, verifiable source, like a news article. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Lipsynching

Are all routines recorded in a music studio and lipsynched during choreographed routines? Ricky Martin definitely looked that way yesterday.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all songs are lip-synced to studio recordings, as is Hollywood tradition. But don't worry, they are lip-syncing to their own pre-recorded voices. - Jasonbres (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Cast are also a musical act/group.

They go on tours to perform and release musical material. Together they have broken some records already. Don't they also qualify as a "musical act" or a group as well? After all they are all recording artists right? They're not just actors. Bleubeatle (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Glee song sales

Is there an article that lists which Glee songs have sold the most on iTunes?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't run across anything like that lately. You might want to try a specific search, as that data might well exist in a specialized article. However, by definition, first week sales of Glee Cast singles are iTunes sales, since iTunes has exclusive one-week release of singles starting the day an episode is broadcast. The only exception to this is if a song is released on an album the same days as the single, or even prior to—some albums or EPs have been released a week before the episode airs. Off the top of my head, "Teenage Dream" is first at 214,000 (actually, it's a Tuesday through Sunday total starting the day of broadcast and going through the end of the Billboard week), followed by "Loser Like Me" at 210,000, and then the original "Don't Stop Believin'" in the 180s; these are, not coincidentally, the three songs that have made the top 10 on the Billboard Hot 100. All three did even better on the Billboard Digital Songs list, since their Hot 100 rating was based almost entirely on digital sales. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there like a fan page to submit song themes. Suppose I would like to see a show of James Bond theme songs when the movie comes out in the fall. Could I suggest that somewhere?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No idea. You might have luck somewhere in the corners of the official Fox Glee site. They have pages for fans there, and one might include suggestions. I gather that Ryan Murphy makes the ultimate decisions about what songs are used, and he and Falchuk and Brennan decide about special theme shows. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Google Scholar sources

I haven't had a chance to sift through these entries just yet, but in case anyone wanted a bunch of great sources to help flesh out the article, heres the page of reults for Glee - not as easy as it looks by the way, as the search had to be narrowed down to only relate to the Fox TV show. It's still not perfect, but I was okay with keeping false positives if it meant keeping all the useful sources :)--Coin945 (talk) 09:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Jonathan Coulton

Glee performed a cover of Baby Got Back that many have claimed is just a rip-off of Jonathan Coulton's cover of the same song. It's not just a few people. Much of the internet (and Coulton himself) are abuzz with claims. I understand the situation is still in the early stages of development, but even if it turns out to be bogus, shouldn't the accusation of the similarities between the two songs be in the article? Riffraff913 (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

A section called controversies should be added to include both Jonathan Coulton and Pedra Haden who Glee may have also ripped off in their pilot episode. 69.43.88.2 (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the reception section of the article and that is perfectly fine. We don't need to create a controversy section.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Having repeated issues of the same controversial practice represented by a single throwaway line about a single event, clipped on at the end of "Music" section, could be viewed as an attempt to hide and misrepresent such practices.

Jonathan Coulton incident is not the first time this show was criticized for its "liberal understanding of copyright".

Or should we call it stealing, piracy, intellectual murder or whatever the buzzword is today?

Besides Jonathan Coulton there had AT THE VERY LEAST been two more cases of controversial use of other people's intellectual property by the producers of the show. The above mentioned Pedra Haden's case and the case of Greg Laswell.

http://www.pleasewelcomeyourjudges.com/2011/11/greg-laswell-not-glee-ful-about.html

http://www.avclub.com/articles/jonathan-coulton-says-glee-ripped-off-his-cover-of,91305/

None of those are mentioned in the wiki article, when clearly they should be.

Also, the number of repeated controversial cases, along with the other kind of controversies already mentioned in the article, clearly warrants the need for a separate section for controversies.--92.36.134.212 (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 05:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

---

• Glee (TV series) → Glee
• Glee → Glee (disambiguation)

– Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 700,000 hits clearly dwarfs anything else on the dab page. Glee which is currently the dab page receives 88,000 hits and judging by the stats most of those are looking for info about the TV series - there is no reason to make it harder for those people to find what they are looking for. 82.132.229.118 (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose WP:RECENTISM. WP:BIAS, Further, the TV show is named after the music type, and the show documents a fictional glee club, so clearly, the primary topic is the music form. Also US-centric, since glee music and clubs exist outside the primary market for the TV show. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment this proposal has been discussed twice before (see /Archive 1 and talk:glee (disambiguation) ) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Wikipedia survived with the current article naming back when this article was in the top ten (or was it top twenty) of all articles in terms of page hits; now that the show is less popular and its article is getting fewer hits, it hardly seems appropriate to change given that the previous consensus was not to. Anyone typing "Glee" in the Search box will see the TV series right there. In a few years, after the show has run its course, the change would just have to be reversed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The outcome of the last discussion is not particularly relevant now. WP:CCC and this was last discussed in April 2009 when there had only been 1 series. Since then another 3 series have been released and it has won numerous awards. Not everyone uses the search box on the website - if using a search directly from a browser for example there are no search suggestions. There are currently 88,000 people per month who go to Glee and the stats suggest that about 90% of those are looking for info about the show. Why should we make them have to make another click to find what they are looking for? 82.132.221.156 (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I googled Glee -wikipedia and went through four pages of results. It was 40 results about the TV show. This article currently ranks No. 21 on Wiki with 1,972,879 page views in the last 90 days. That compares to 15,986 for Glee (music), 3,222 for Glee (Bran Van 3000 album), and 339 for Glee (Logan Lynn album). Kauffner (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Luckily Wikipedia is not a compendium of web search results for February 2013. —  AjaxSmack  22:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for now: The main subject is the music type with the show named after it. I don't see anyone looking for the show having a hard time finding it. Insomesia (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support; In my opinion, the show will always be the most prominent subject in regard to the articles listed on the Glee disambiguation page. After the show has run its course, it will still be the most prominent subject. — Robin (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:RECENTISM and WP:GEOBIAS. Glee music has more historical weight and its encyclopedic notability as least as great as the TV programme. —  AjaxSmack  22:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per page views and WP:GOOGLETEST. Recentism is for temporary news spikes, not for multi-year trends. No other use of "Glee" on WP will come close to challenging this primacy for years to come. --B2C 20:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Short words with dictionary meanings should be avoided as simple titles. This is especially so for a commercial product. This commercial product should not be allowed to take de facto ownership of a word, no matter what overwhelming fraction of current US teenagers have the associate permanent imprinted. The concept of cultural hegemony comes to mind here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ratings error

Hello. Although it is cited to a reliable source, the ratings average for season 4 is incorrect. The page states that season 4 avereaged 8.26 million viewers. But not a single episode had over 8 million, so mathematically, it is impossible that it's average can be that high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.41.10.207 (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

That is not incorrect. They have averaged in other viewing possibilities. Like DVR. Or HD. Those also count. Ijoshiexo (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: Does not mention Glee's blat...

75.160.12.155 posted this comment on 18 May 2013 (view all feedback).

Does not mention Glee's blatant musical thievery of various cover arrangements from artists, for use in Glee without said artists' permission. See - [2]

Any thoughts?

Ijoshiexo (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This right here means nothing. Thievery? Last time I checked, he didn't copyright it or is he signed to any label. He made an arrangement to the song. Anyone can cover it. So there is no need for that to be on the page.Ijoshiexo (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Cast List Update

I understand that for each article on the Wikipedia you guys do something different. For the upcoming season of Glee, 4 cast members have been dropped from regular and 5 have been added. I believe, we should do a "Current Cast" list on the main Glee article page with the current names under it and have a link directed to all the cast where it can show the ones who will no longer be regular and the current ones. Right now as it stands, when we do add those 5 new regulars, the list will be pretty huge for that side bar. So please consider my suggestion. Thanks. Ijoshiexo (talk) 7:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Since the article about the series is about the series as a whole—the run of the series—having a list only of current names would not be sufficient. The article's long enough to support a long sidebar; we don't need to drop the eight names of former starring cast members. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well alright then. I suggested that because I saw other shows doing it and I've always wondered why the Glee page was the exception to these other shows. Sorry. Ijoshiexo (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: You need a list of characters

98.113.13.225 posted this comment on 10 July 2013 (view all feedback).

You need a list of characters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_of_Glee

Erpbridge (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Past consensus has been that we do not, in fact, need a separate table of characters. The main characters are all given in the article; and there is a link to the Characters of Glee article which, in addition to the main characters, lists all significant other characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Holy Lede, Batman

I understand a lot of people are interested in the show, and are very enthusiastic about the article. I don't want to step on any toes. But the lede seems excessively long and detailed. I realize any article attached to a fanbase is likely to go nuts at changes, so I thought I'd bring it here for discussion before editing. It seems like there's a lot of very specific information and detail that would be better off in the main body, and summarized here. I mean, in terms of TV shows, many of the most famous of all time have ledes half this length. The lede isn't poorly written, it's just a bit over-written. I'd highly recommend it be pared down and detail moved to the body. A lede should be a summary, giving a broad overview of the topic in a brief manner. 204.65.34.238 (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• In the spirit of WP:BOLD, I have made some paring of the Lead Paragraph. Items such as the cast rotation are not common... see articles such as Andy Griffith Show, Knight Rider, Saved By the Bell, the original 90210 for examples. Also, the Cast list, in particular the Main vs Recurring cast transitions per season, is demonstrated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_of_Glee#Main_Cast. The Accolades (awards and recognitions) were moved down as-is to the Accolades section (which itself should be pared down with regards to any duplications and the fact it is expanded on in a page of its own. The air dates for each season can be retrieved from the episodes page. The pilot date... that can be significant, and should stay. The fact it was renewed for upcoming seasons... is also significant, and should stay until said season is airing. (So, since it said fifth and sixth... should probably be modified to just say sixth once the sixth season is airing, and if/when a seventh renewal comes up, should replace that statement.)Erpbridge (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• My attempts to pare the lede down have been reverted, twice. I will step down these attempts. Someone SHOULD take some attention to this issue and BE BOLD, or perhaps escalate this issue to an editors panel. Erpbridge (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: New cast members from 2012/2013 season

98.81.102.51 posted this comment on 10 February 2013 (view all feedback).

New cast members from 2012/2013 season

This feedback has a point, I realized that the "Cast and Characters" section lack of information of casts and characters of the recent season(s) especially season 4. I suggest that the section should have sub-sections under "Cast and Characters" like "First Season", "Second Season", "Third Season", "Fourth Season" and put the different casts and characters under each sub-sections OR make a table like used in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation OR can also simplify it by using a more "point-form" manner like used in Switched at Birth (TV series). Also the "Cast and Characters" section for this article seems to be too long. Any suggestions? I will start doing these changes to the section tomorrow, feel free to post any suggestions. This is a bold and big move and is better for the understanding of the article (the "Cast and Characters" section) anyway. Looking forward for any suggestions.

Concerning about adding the above suggestions to make the section clearer even though there is a "Main Article" Characters of Glee linked to it, well, it is better to still add a table (or any other format suggested above) of Cast and Characters in the "Cast and Characters" section but this serves as the shorter, more simplified version while the Characters of Glee serves as the more detailed one like what they did with the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation article where they have both the list and also the main article on List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. Looking forward for any suggestions.

Nicholance (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Nicholance, past consensus here on the Glee articles has been that tables of characters are unnecessary and take up a lot of space (and also frequently involve original research, which is a significant problem). Further, a look at a large sampling of Featured articles and Good articles for television series reveals that these tables are almost never used; adding them to a Good article would seem to be inappropriate under the circumstances. I also don't understand the logic of why, if you feel that "Cast and Characters" section here is too long, that it should be made longer by dividing it into individual season sections. It could probably be shrunk with judicious editing; some of the information is no longer relevant, or doesn't need to be presented at such length (e.g., some first season material, and the end-of-third-season graduation). Once the fifth season starts, much of the new information about it can also be condensed—the dates of when changes in casting were revealed tend to be relevant for very short periods of time.

It looks like the comment that started this was made because the section discusses the main cast only, not recurring cast members (unless they are promoted to the main cast). Are you proposing that significant recurring cast members be included: not just the season 4 "new kids" (Marley, Jake, Kitty, Ryder, plus late-third-season Unique), but characters like Jesse and Shelby, Karofsky and Becky, Principal Figgins and Holly, Carole Hudson and Lauren Zizes, Coaches Tanaka and Beiste, Rory and Joe, Sugar and Coach Roz, Carmen and Brody, Cassandra and Isabel, et alia? That's almost two dozen additions right there, off the top of my head; I'm sure there are more that could be justified (April? Kendra?). The section would grow significantly larger, if so; one reason the Characters of Glee article exists is to offload that level of detail into another article, and the individual character articles offload still more detail. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hi BlueMoonset, thanks for your reply. I see your point there and I have to agree with you with some point. Perhaps "Long" is not the correct word, instead its actually that there are just too much things in that section. I find that the Casting information in the "Cast and Characters" section should be under "production" section with a new sub-section with the title "Casting". Alright I have to agree with you, adding a full cast list or table would be extremely long, I suggest if it is possible to put the link of the main article of the "characters of glee" under "Cast and Characters" section after moving the casting information that is in that section to the new sub-section "Casting" under "production", because almost all information in the current "Cast and Characters" section (except the 3rd paragraph) is about the casting of the show instead of who's playing which character. Here's the example of what I've suggested, referring to the featured article House (TV series). Nicholance (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead section revisions

Any changes to the lead needs to adhere to the WP:LEAD guidelines. Since the lead is supposed to summarize the rest of the article, taking out all the information about the cast and characters, reception, etc., is not appropriate. Each section within the article should be touched on in the lead, even if only in a sentence; if it isn't in the body of the article, it definitely doesn't belong in the lead.

Also, I feel I need to point out that Glee is one of the most frequently accessed articles on Wikipedia. As such, new text needs to be in good shape. The changes made so far are problematic, including unsourced quoting, grammatical issues, etc.: in fact, I'm going to revert to its previous state: there's far too much plot, and one person's opinion on what that is. This is a long-established Good Article, and the changes need to reflect that level of quality. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Cutting the lead to a single paragraph is contrary to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. As WP:LEADLENGTH points out, articles of longer than 30,000 characters should have three or four paragraphs (four is the maximum for a lead section); Glee has over 100,000 characters. I have restored the second and third paragraphs accordingly; under the circumstances, the lead isn't hugely overlong. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with BlueMoonset. Robin (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section needs work re: "anti-Christian" criticism

The Criticism section's current means of dealing with the criticism of Glee as anti-Christian (read:portraying Christians and Christianity in a negative light?) could use some work. The article is currently using a quote from Time's Nancy Gibbs, who wrote that the show could be perceived as anti-Christian because "all of the Ten Commandments" get violated at some point during the series. This is like saying a show is anti-Muslim because the characters do not all eat halal and pray five times a day. By Gibbs' same logic, the show is also antisemitic in a religious sense.

There are better quotes from the Gibbs article that actually address the question of whether Christianity itself is portrayed in a negative light; can we use one of those? I'd be glad to offer one or two myself, but I'm not a Time subscriber. Christianity Today's blog (http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctentertainment/2009/12/is-glee-antichristian-1.html) cites the article a couple of times. Recommend something involving the quote from Gibbs: "The point lies in the surprises that jostle us out of our smug little certainties and invite us to weigh what we value, whatever our faith tradition.”16:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.144.234 (talk)

The show's treatment of sexuality involving teenagers also needs to be explored. For example, S02E04 was widely criticized for its having two female characters refer to the sexual act "scissoring" (possibly the first mainstream network series to reference tribadism in dialogue). On the whole the article is weighted perhaps a bit too much to the positive, which is fair enough except for the fair amount of published criticism regarding various aspects of the show that for a balanced article should be included. The tribadism article I just linked to (caution: adult imagery if you click the link) includes two sources of criticism for that episode. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Genre: supernatural

What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.238.228 (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on making it to today's listing on the "Did You Know..." section of Wikipedia Main Page. The process of making it the listing takes a bit of effort and involves the quick cooperation of many editors. All involved deserve recognition, appreciation, thanks and applause.

Best Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  21:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)