Talk:Woody Boyd/Archives/2013

This is an archive of past discussions about Woody Boyd. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Created

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I began the Woody Boyd page today, I couldn't stand to see it continue blank. I know there is lots to be fleshed out, but it's a start.

It says that his real name is Huckleberry, though this is not mentioned within the article...Billvoltage 02:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I just fixed it, after accidentally seeing the series-finale episode on Hallmark Channel. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as it is mentioned that Huckleberry is his name, let it be so. Though, I guess it should be mentioned that he is called Woodrow many times throughout the series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gusbenz (talk • contribs) 01:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

simple-minded?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The term "simple-minded" implies metal retardation. I've changed the description to "extremely naive and unsophisticated". (He does, however, seem to have some knowledge of French cinema.) WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Tiberius?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does anyone know why the writers gave him that middle name? It's reminiscent of James Tiberius Kirk. It might have been an intentional joke, especially as Star Trek, like Cheers, is a Paramount franchise. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal with Coach Ernie Pantusso

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus to merge. --George Ho (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have References for Coach:

You can analyze them, but I don't think they guarantee a stand-alone article for Coach. In fact, without sufficient amount of real-world coverage, such as reception and casting, an article of Coach should be merged either into "Woody Boyd" or together with this article as "Woody Boyd and Coach Ernie Pantusso" or "Woody Boyd and Coach." --George Ho (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. These are separate characters. So why would they be merged to the same article? - jc37 15:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:MOSTV. Plot and fictional background of each character are not as important as real-world coverage. In terms of real-world coverage, Coach is significantly covered mostly whenever sources discuss Woody Harrelson and/or Woody Boyd; stand-alone coverage of Coach is scarce, especially before the actor Colasanto's death. I found only one pre-1985 article about Colasanto and Coach himself. Per WP:N, even when notable, Coach could not guarantee a stand-alone article in terms of reality.

Also, I have plans to compare and contrast Woody and Coach in just one article. Even when separate characters, one merged article of two characters is stronger than two alone. --George Ho (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Kirk and Uhura shared an onscreen kiss that was notable to the time, and yet we wouldn't merge their individual articles. Similar things could be said about an innumerable set of any two characters from any fictional television show. And the same goes here.

What would be said about the proposed merge page is that this would be a "non-notable intersection", and such a page would be rather summarily deleted at AfD.

To bring this into a recent context - We wouldn't merge Clark Kent and Lois Lane, yet we do have a page called Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane. A separate article about their relationship.

If you want to try to create a referenced article about the two characters, feel free. But a merge nom isn't the way forward in this case.

The point that MOSTV is trying to make is better exemplified in articles like Spider-Man. Showing the background of the creation of the character, the whys and wherefores of development etc, which still conveying the fictional character's background inside the fictional world as well.- jc37 17:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are you bringing romance into this? Why mentioning onscreen kiss? And why Spider-Man? What does this have to do with this proposal? Per Talk:Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane#Move?, possibly Jonathan and Martha Kent are worth as one article because they probably don't have their own notability alone, although they are Clark's parents. Same goes for Coach; without Woody, although separate personality, he's not that notable enough for stand-alone.

How is Woody Boyd and Coach Ernie Pantusso not worth intersecting? Per WP:V, it doesn't matter if Woody and Ernie are two separate people, as long as sources verify whatever it is written. Look, I tried search terms "colasanto cheers", and there are 39 post-1993 articles about Colasanto. If I try "cheers coach", there would be over 10,000; I prefer "colasanto" over "coach" because it is more narrow and easier to browse.

If you believe that Coach is notable enough to have his own article, would inclusion of Colasanto's recovering alcoholism strengthen an article of Coach, or would this go to Woody Boyd? --George Ho (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't bringing "romance" into this. I was attempting to show different intersections of two things (in this case, two fictional characters).

As for Spider-Man. Please re-read my comments. It's a fairly decent example of "real world perspective".

Also, don't get so hung up on search terms. The internet has its own bias. Have you gone to the library and checked out some books on the topic?

And the notability of each article separate isn't the issue here. Merging them wouldn't necessarily change their notability.

Jonathan and Martha Kent are a "pair" of somethings. in this case: Parents. And part of their notability (or rather one of their defining things) - being the adopted parents of Clark Kent/Superman.

Coach and Woody aren't a pair of anything defining. Any more than George and Woody would be a pair of anything defining. You have to find the link that intersects these two characters to justify merging them together. Merely being 2 of many Cheers characters isn't enough to link them. - jc37 18:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - No reason whatsoever to merge these two completely different characters. I'm sure you acted in good faith George, but this is an ill-thought-out proposal, and I urge you to consider withdrawing it. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - there's no reason to merge 2 characters like this, even if you use the justification that one character could be seen to have "replaced" another. In reality, one guy left, another guy was cast, and the 2 characters are entirely different. Sure, they are both 'straight-guys' to Sam etc... to an extent, but I don't think you could wring an article out of that, or other comparisons between them. I would also oppose merging this anywhere else unless it was as a part of an effort to reorganise the way character pages are handled overall for Cheers, and I don't currently see much need for that - I like the way you can open up a character page from the "main cast" table in the main article. Begoon ^talk

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.