Talk:Lucy Does a TV Commercial

Propose "Unredirect"

This is an extraordinarily famous episode. See the number of Google News hits for "vitameatavegamin" as well as Google Books for corroboration. The New York Times refers to it as "a classic routine". Here is a book referring to it as "probably the most classic" episode of the first season. Here is a lengthy description of the episode in a book entitled "American Culture in the 1950s". Here, the scene is used as an example of a particular sitcom technique. Here is a lengthy passage in a scholarly work. People Magazine referred to this segment as "perhaps the single greatest comic soliloquy in TV history". JavaTenor (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as you provide a basic level of sources, I'm fine with it. It's nice to see the rare person actually wanting to improve something. TTN (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "basic level of sources"? Be more specific please! Have you even read the above comment by JavaTenor? @pple complain 13:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please incorporate the sources provided by JavaTenor rather than just reverting to the previous version. Pairadox (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no deadline for improvement. Article's state is not a reason to recklessly redirect. As long as the topic submits notability, it is qualified as an article. @pple complain 13:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I haven't yet gotten around to rewriting the article to incorporate the sources (in "Critical Reception" and "Influence" sections) yet, and I have no objection to the article remaining as a redirect until that task is complete (either by me, or by someone else who may have the time to do it before I do). JavaTenor (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you couldn't take the bold hand to redirect article for mere reason that it is under construction. It stands a high chance that you are not the only editor who wants improve it, so let the article open for anyone's interest. Once its notability is justified, leave the article as it is until it becomes well-developed. @pple complain 13:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is over a year old, hardly a new article 'under construction'. being confrontational towards the editor who did the legwork of finding a half-dozen sources is really untoward. He did the work, and now you're sitting here complaining, even though JavaTenor agrees that until he can write it up, the article DOES lack notability assertions. Why don't you do sit down, read the sources, and do the work, instead of fighting about the redirects here? If it weren't such an obvious POINTy edit, I'd revert to redirect myself because I believe it's right to be a redirect till it's written up. ThuranX (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Under construction" is not applied only to new articles. An article could stand 2 years, 3 years or so as a stub but it is not far from our imagination that one day such stub may be upgraded to a FA. What should be taken into consideration is the potential to expand expressed through the notability of certain subject. I don't confront anyone, I just want to point out impropriety in redirecting an article that has already passed WP:N. As I already stated: article's current state is NOT an indicator of notability, i.e. notability assertions don't depend on the exterior interface of how the article is demonstrated. Television is not among my specialties of editing, therefore I left it to other editors who have interest in, like I said "It stands a high chance that you are not the only editor who wants improve it, so let the article open for anyone's interest." I also suggest that instead of senselessly placing the code #REDIRECT [[]] which is the easiest action that can be performed by a 3 year-old child, "sit down, read the sources, and do the work" together with others. At the same time, I was really surprise when you interpret my words in such a negative demeanor. @pple complain 03:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And yet you don't find a problem with comparing editors to 3 year-olds. Sorry, kettle, the pot is calling. Pairadox (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I'm not the only one who finds your words unkind. As for why I'm not doing it, have you ever considered that I'm working on other parts of the project, and taking time from my own interests already to offer support and guidance here? That such actions might be seen by many others as the very helping you're challenging me to do? Get off your high horse beforeyou beat it to death, and do the work, or step aside and let JavaTenor work it as his own pace. Despite all your hostile rhetoric, no one has re-Redir'd it, so give that up and move on to writing. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, your so-called "support and guidance" play no part here except for ungracefully interrupting our conversation by giving unappreciated impertinent remarks. Your distorted understanding of notability and the appropriateness of redirection, going together with fallacious misinterpretation of my comment as "confrontational" not only spontaneously bring storm to a serene discussion but also make other editors waste time for a storm in the teacup. While producing uncivil remark self-labeled "support and guidance" like "Get off your high horse beforeyou beat it to death", you give me a characterization of "hostile rhetoric", which filled me with astonishment. However, after doing a research on you talk page archives and history of behavior that is rhetorically recorded in your block log, I come to a conclusion that it is really a waste of time arguing with a person whom it is better for me not to cross path. @pple complain 14:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

JavaTenor, whenever you need my help, message me. I'm going to redirect the page, since you're the editor actively working on the article, and you're more familiar with the sources, and you've said you'er ok with that, as is Pairadox, and myself, so we have consensus for redirect until incorporation. ThuranX (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears some don't understand that Pariadox, JavaTenor, and I all agree that without the realworld content, the redirect should stand. THis is based on all the policies and reasons usually given for redirecting episodes without RWC. Please stop trying to create an edit /revert war here. If you want the article, do the legwork. ThuranX (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

@pple cannot stop reverting out of hand. Although he is going against guidelines and consensus, he is choosing to edit war here. Rather than fight this further, I'm going to bring this to 3RR if it continues. ThuranX (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just one question: what guideline I go against? Unsubstantiated accusation carries no weight here. @pple complain 17:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS. Three editors agree that redirect until substantiated is acceptable, including the one who went out and found the raw material with which to assert said notability in the article. The only person opposing is you, and you have no reasons other than 'i don't like redirects.' that's it. We've got WP:NOTE, CONSENSUS, PLOT And WP:EPISODE, controversial though it is, hasn't had much argument on the 'overlong plot summaries alone don't make an article' point. You need to sit down and fix the article, or walk away. You're being petulant and childish, reverting over and over and wikilawyering. First you wanted consensus showed, now you want guidelines. Next, you'll assert taht all of the above are guidelines, and demand policy. OR you'll canvas. Stop reverting the article to an unacceptable state, and either improve it or move on. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Another case of "citing mere links without explaining why" I have encountered numerous times. "i don't like redirects"? Don't put words into my mouth, hot-headed gentleman. It seems that mo matter how hard I tried to explain to you why this episode is notable and when it shouldn't be redirected, everything ends like water off a duck's back. @pple complain 17:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You're a wikilawyer, and you are being a WP:DICK. I showed you consernsus, consensus based in guidelines and policies. You demanded the policy links, got them, and now you're upset about getting them, claiming you want OTHER policies and OTHER explanations. Do I really have to repost everything that's been said already yet again, all in one message for you to follow it? Here: Per the guidelines established at WP:NOT#PLOT, an official policy, and WP:EPISODE a widely known, although admittedly controversial guideline, both of which support the idea that a page which is only a plot summary (and infobox) is not a page worth having. Such pages should be redirected. This page does not have anything but a plot summary. The article does nothing to assert nor establish notability using WP:RS. As such, three editors here have made statements that they think it should be a redirect until that notability establishing content is provided. Those three editors are myself, JavaTenor, and Pairadox. This is your last warning. I will next bring this over to the appropriate noticeboards, because you have pushed past the limits of WP:AGF at this point. ThuranX (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lucy Does a TV Commercial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309211026/http://www.lucylibrary.com/Pages/photo-of-the-week.011899.html to http://www.lucylibrary.com/Pages/photo-of-the-week.011899.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)