Talk:Cheers/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Appeared" dates in cast

I originally thought about (and I believe I actually did include it, for a bit) including a set of "appeared" dates for the characters. This has 2 problems, however. First, guest appearances make the dates incorrect for people such as Shelley Long (who goes so far as to appear in the finale). Secondly, the cast section is purposefully vague to remain spoiler-less. Also, with the way you did it, even if included the dates should probably be by season and not by year, IMO. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

cast issue

Robin Colcord was not on the show till the 8th season. Therefore the image should say cast after the 8th season not the 5th Master shepherd 17:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

was and is

As discussed on the West Wing article, there's a real debate between whether it is more correct to refer to a tv show in the past or present tense. To see arguments as to why it should be in the present, see the West Wing discussion. Otherwise, basically: any reference to the show as a literary work, or references to the plot and other fictional elements really should be done in the present. External things outside the show's universe, like production, etc. are right to be referred to in past tense. M fic 07:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"dead last in the ratings"/intro

Does anyone know of a better/informative source to be given that the show started "dead last in the ratings"? On the weblinked one, it just mentions it in passing and doesn't really back it up, and the other book isn't available to me. Is there some year-end Neilsen ratings chart that can be found (maybe in an old Broadcasting magazine?) to back this up? I am aware that the show's ratings were poor when it started, but I think we need better evidence. Booshakla 05:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the blog, but Toasting 'Cheers' is a perfectly legitimate source. Perhaps something better could be found, but the book is sound for the time being.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good source, and I know that the ratings were pretty bad in its first year, but I'd like to know of maybe a source outside of a cheers reference that could give year-end Neilsen ratings and that would give me more proof. And if one can be found (I'm sure a university library would have them) I would love to see it personally anyway. Booshakla 06:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Spin-offs and crossovers

I think maybe this section should be divided into subsections, like the Tortellis are one, maybe Wings are one & then crossovers is one... Anybody have any opinions? 24.124.29.130 08:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

---

This section is becoming a trivia section. Shall we add the trivia template? and to think this article was once a FA... -- Lyverbe (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ted Danson's Movie Career

Ted Danson "has had few starring film roles"? What? Made in America, Loch Ness, Three Men and a Baby, Three Men and a Little Lady... You may not like them, but they are not 'few'. 199.71.183.2 17:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

DVD Release

Are they still releasing the DVDs in region two, or is it just region one now? - .:. Jigsy .:. (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cheers intro logo.jpg

Image:Cheers intro logo.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 21:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Season ratings

The seasons ratings are wrong; the show began in 1982 and went on for 11 years. There are only 9 shown, from '84 onwards, and so the numbering is completely thrown out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.200.34 (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

They've just been removed (correctly, imho) by Staxringold. I'll archive them here in case someone wants to integrate them. Orpheus (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• 1982-1983
• 1983-1984
• 1984-1985:#13
• 1985-1986:#5
• 1986-1987:#3
• 1987-1988:#3
• 1988-1989:#4
• 1989-1990:#3
• 1990-1991:#1
• 1991-1992:#4
• 1992-1993:#9

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 16:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Recurring characters / Supporting players

I have added a section entitled called 'Recurring characters' about the barflies. If you can dig up any info on Paul (whose mention I have moved from the 'Cast' section, down to the new section), Phil (Perlman's brother), the guy who can't pass the bar exam, and any others that I am forgetting, then that would be wonderful. Today I made a new page on "Al". Quite a character. There is little info on this guy, so anyone who can help edit his page, please do. [Al] I wrote to one of the writers for an "Al" pic, sources, or anything else. I hope he writes back. Any ideas? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget about Alan (Koss), Tim (Cunningham), and Steve (Giannelli) who each appeared in a number of episodes throughout the series. --Wolfer68 (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

IMDB not a reliable source

"Since IMDB is not a reliable source..." ... says who? That's a first for me. IMDB is used everywhere in Wikipedia, including many templates. Cheers is a featured article and was named so when it had IMDB references. Why would IMDB suddenly become unreliable? -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

IMDB's info is provided mostly by users like us, and is unsourced. It should be used as a secondary source, like in "External links" sections, but very rarely, if ever, a primary source. Belasted (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Cheers. The Cheers article is under review to see whether it will retain its FA rating. It sounds like the rating will drop signficantly. Use of IMDB as a source is one of many complaints that this article is not close to following the current FA standards. Apparently, the standards have become much stricter since the Cheers article obtained its FA rating. JTSchreiber (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledged and the FAR/Cheers read is interesting. I didn't know they had the intention to delist it from FA. Lets get to work :) -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Main article thingy

I changed the one for list of episodes because it seemed more in keeping with other Wiki articles, and because the previous edit seemed to state the same info twice (sort of). I hope that's okay. Also, I don't understand why the 'recurring characters' main page link thingy is that way. It is a catmore, instead of a main, whatever that is, but the article it links to is just that, an article. So why not stick to the convention of zillions of other wiki articles and just have the usual 'main article' format? Tell me if I am out of line. I am still learning how things go. Cheers ...matey, ... aye, rum, ...grumble grumble,...talley ho.! Damn parrot! And such....--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Company

Could we please settle this "CBS Television Studios" vs. "Paramount Television" war in the discussion page? Find some way to explain your reason to use one or the other. I don't know which one should be used, but it's getting annoying to see this change in the page history. -- Lyverbe (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Impressively wrong

I just wanted to nix the "...begs..." part. I believe you about Robin. Can we change it to "...asks for his job back..."? Also, "impressively" is a remark I don't quite understand. Cheers!--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Just checked out the episode in question, (Home Is the Sailor), Drake is the man, and yes, Sam did "...beg..." ...a little. But that would be splitting hairs and not worth the debate. Let 'er stand.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Live Studio Audience

At the beginning of every episode, a different member of the cast would say, "Cheers is filmed before a live studio audience". A lot of shows at the time did this and I've always wondered why. Was it just pride that they weren't using a laugh track or was there another reason? This might be for another topic, but I would really like to know. Does anyone out there have an answer?

[1] Orpheus (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Producer/Restaurant Info

I added information about the selection of the Bull & Finch Pub by the producers from cited information from a Cheers menu and Cheers employees, it was soon taken down with out any reasoning....was there a problem with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexa palladino (talk • contribs) 04:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oringial research

there are sections upon section with no sources that list the stories out. 1. this is not encylopaedic, 2. there is no credibility when its back by perhaps one person's reading of the show. Sources don't have to be internet based. One can even cite the specific show/tv, and then the reader can see it should he need to verify. If sources are missing for a while then the section has to go, because the onus is on the editor who put it in in the first placeLihaas (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It might help if you tag specific objections with {{Citation needed}}. The tags at the top of the article aren't much help. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will do.

As an aside, is Cheers that popular internationally? Surprised its followed in Aus ;)(Lihaas (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)).

Proposal new column

For who gave the voiceover at the beginning of each episode? Seems interesting enough. (this would be for the list of cheers episodes article) Lihaas (talk) 04:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, it seems a bit trivial. Getting the episode summaries all completed seems a higher priority. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AussieLegend. It wouldn't be useful at all to have this information written in the article. I don't see how it can be interesting. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Like the simpsons episodes that mention the "couch gag"Lihaas (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

see also

Cheers/seinfeld link is because both sitcom were about "nothing," no real running tale from episode to episode as such. Its common knowledge for seinfeld, but even cheers. What is it about?(Lihaas (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)).

Most programs about fictional characters are like this. It's not a reason or justification to add links to other programs. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Most are not, its uniquely known as such. specifically being "about nothing" Unliek friends or somethign where the story continues on and is not wholly independent episode-to-episode.(Lihaas (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)).

Cheers is not known as being about nothing, uniquely or otherwise, and even if it was, this does not justify including a link to Seinfeld. Cheers is about a bar, but we don't provide links to every bar article, do we? --AussieLegend (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

on the contrary, in america at least, cheers is known as such. The similarity wasnt drawn my (heck i dont watch seinfeld). But the statement is not cited in the article as some sort of fact/motivation for the creationg of seinfeld (only for frasier, and soem otehr show i beleive), it is a "see also." a section that by definition is not exactly parralel but soem sort of "vague" similiarity. (as in the ROKS Cheonon sinking, where the added the USS Maine. perfect parralel that)

And likewise every shot is "just about something", theres an overarching background to everything. Even seinfeld is "about 4 friends," but it stops there, the rest is independent of each other from episode-to-episodeLihaas (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

To the claim that "in america at least, cheers is known as such" I say . --AussieLegend (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have never considered Cheers to be "about nothing". (The Burns and Allen TV show would come much closer to that definition.) The episodes have clear story lines -- note especially the multi-episode story arcs. What is remarkable about Cheers is that the writers weren't concerned with tying up each story in a "neat" way -- they were more-interested in ending each episode with a solid joke. Few episodes have any sort of a concluding "epilogue". WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to say that I also agree with Aussie on this one. I don't see why we shouldn't mention every existing sitcom if we have to mention Seinfeld. Seinfeld has no direct relation with Cheers. -- Lyverbe (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This is silly. You might as well say that the shows were connected because both were set in large American metropolises, or that they were filmed on sound stages in Hollywood, California. At least those two facts are demonstrable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, i guess im going against the grain of consensus. But at least we followed the WP:BRD cycle in WP:Civil a manner.Lihaas (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

First season ratings?

In the beginning of the article the initial season ratings are given as 77th out of 77. later in the article, it is 74th out of 74. Which is it? MichaelCaricofe (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it says "...it ranked last in ratings for its premiere (77th out of 77 shows)". That's the rank of the very first episode only, not the entire season. The rank for the entire season is 71th. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

71th or 74th? -- WunderbAru (talk) 9:10, 1st April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WunderbAru (talk • contribs)

Kirstie Alley not on Frasier

the article currently says it's because she's a Scientologist and thur rejects Psychiatry

This source says different and I haven't seen anything to support the Scientology aspect. http://www.moviemistakes.com/tv3267/questions Every cast member of Cheers has been on Frasier at one time or another except Kirstie Alley (Rebecca). Does anyone know why she did not appear? [She did not see herself reprising that role unless Rebecca had made a huge change like becoming a psychiatrist.] - Ramdomwolf 198.96.35.166 (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Copy-edit and final sections

I have done what I can in regards to a copy-edit. My major concern is that the final sections, particularly the spin-offs and post-Cheers sections seem a bit choppy. Any thoughts on this?

Also, the post-Cheers section seems out of place, but I could not quite figure out where to move it, so I thought I would try to get input here... -Pax85 (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Cold Openings

I just watched Season 6 episode 2 and the cold open was connected to the rest of the episode. I can provide I link to the actual episode, but I'm not familiar enough with posting rules to do that.HighPriest15 (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad somebody else referenced this. In fact, I recently started watching Cheers from the very beginning on Netflix, and I would say well over half of the cold opens are connected to the remainder of the episode (I'm currently towards the end of season 3).

I don't want to make the change for the whole page, but whatever the reference is tied to that 'fact', was either misread, or just incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.71.30 (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Continuing from my previous posting the other day, I have removed the section on the page that discusses the cold open as I just watched episode 3.15. In episode 3.15, the cold open is a joke about Coach having bought a ping-pong table top for the pool table (him buying junk from sales people is a running gag throughout his time on the show). Not only is the ping-pong table used throughout the episode for various jokes, it in fact is used to showcase the characteristics of Sam and Diane's relationship upon the conclusion of the episode (they have a ping-pong match that illustrates their respective stubbornness and competitiveness). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.71.30 (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the section - considering that it was sourced to Ken Levine, who was one of the main writer/director/producers on the show, I believe he would have a good handle on the specifics. Do not remove it again. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can cite at least 25 episodes now where this is factually incorrect. So regardless of the citation, the information is incorrect. You're welcome to research it for yourself as the show is readily available on Netflix. =] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.71.30 (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I changed the page to read 'not every cold open was directly connected...' instead of 'each cold open was not directly connected...' since there are dozens upon dozens of examples countering the statement. The citation is being very loosely interpreted as it is a friendly response from Ken Levine to a fan's question. Having been studying the show very closely now, it seems to me Mr. Levine is simply stating that the cold open was not necessarily the introduction of the episode (and in many cases not even tied to it) as some sitcoms have done. But the point still stands that MANY of the episodes have a continuity from the cold open (the ping-pong episode I previously cited being the most relevant one I have seen). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.71.30 (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

To continue my rant on this point (having now made it into season 5), I honestly do not know why Mr. Levine wrote what he did. Unless it was just very carelessly written, MOST of the episodes (at least as of mid-season 5) ARE connected to the cold open - some even having essential plot points in them. Sam actually proposes to Diane IN the cold-open of season 5, episode 1! I'd appreciate wanting to stick to Mr. Levine's blog comment, but his comment, or at least the interpretation of it, is simply not true. All one has to do is watch the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.71.30 (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The A. V. Club scheduled to write about Cheers two episodes at a time

Beginning November 10. If you're not familiar with The A.V. Club, they feature some of the best and most thoughtful commentary on pop culture, with production information and historical context, as well as reviews. So that should be helpful in expanding this and writing more about individual episodes. postdlf (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Cheerscast1982fullcastwendtratz.jpg vs. File:Cheers cast 1982 bw.jpg

Which images do you prefer? I prefer what I uploaded: the pre-"series premiere" cast for something seemingly "trivia" that is actually relevant to history; Oanabay04 prefers the other for an overview. --George Ho (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Cheers Boston 2005.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cheers Boston 2005.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Cheers Boston 2005.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This article needs a major overhaul

The "Cast" section is a total mess. Look at Friends; it's everything that this article isn't. Also, the Plot section is too analytical and needs a major overhaul, as well. Also, what about the rest of this article? --George Ho (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and wouldn't object if you decided to make some major changes to the cast section.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Remove that ugly table?

This version has an ugly table, but it may be visually helpful. Nevertheless, I've done all prose for characters, and, if table cannot be removed, which ones must I remove? --George Ho (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Merging Frasier Crane and Lilith Sternin?

I have proposed a merger of two articles. Please click Talk:Frasier Crane for discussion. --George Ho (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 October 2012 (norms tab reference)

Under the Other Reoccuring themes section "In one episode Rebecca reveals his tab as being nearly $300." should be "In one episode Rebecca reveals his tab as being $837 over his credit limit." Because this is what she states in the 1st 4 minutes in Season 6 Episode 6 "Paint your office". 71.194.200.107 (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Administrator, this theme is too trivial and too fanatic to be included. This request is nothing more than just a trivial inclusion without point and merit. This request is not what general readers need to know significant. Also, this request has no significance; calling this a theme may be original research. --George Ho (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I don't see that the information you want added is notable to the extent that it should be included in the article. However if a consensus is achieved here feel free to add it. On another note I'm not an admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)