Talk:Saturday Night Live season 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cofirmed On Air[edit]

The Confirmed on air section is the strongest source give. [1] is show produced. I do not understand why is not being taken as serious. Water78 (talk • contribs) 24 September 2010 (UTC)

See my talk page. Journalistic sources are generally preferred to advertising. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]

Sources for episodes that already aired.[edit]

Why do episodes that already aired need sources. They aired already why do we need a source, it sounds redundant. "Sources never expire". Okay then what about the other episodes that aired? Should we add sources to them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.137.166 (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because someone thinks that if this stuff is not referenced, no one will believe it's true. But everyone watched the show saw it. That's enough evidence. - Jasonbres (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those episodes do not need sources for simple statements of fact about what happened (no interpretation). The episode is the source. See WP:PLOTSUM. That being said, editors do sometimes make statements that require sourcing, such as "This is first time Actor X was not in a sketch since Season 34", or something similar. That is going beyond the facts of the particular episode, not to mention that it might be a trivial detail not worth mentioning. Cresix (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to remove sources after the fact. Wikipedia isn't hurting for space, it's certainly not a problem to leave proper references in place. [User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for sources, they are outdated reminders of info we already know. Why do people keep re-adding them saying "Sources Don't Expire". We know what happened, it was on the show, it happened. If you still will take action then add sources to the shows last season and beyond.

Water78 (talk • contribs) 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally I agree with Dayewalker, although sometimes the sources that have been placed before the episode airs are in future tense. I don't think it's a serious problem to remove such sources (although I don't feel strongly enough to remove them, or for that matter to restore them if they have been removed). Sometimes unexpected things occur, such as a host or musical guest being replaced after the source is added. Cresix (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Sorry, but "There is no need for sources" isn't supported by any Wikipedia policy. You seem to be doing good work on other SNL articles, but please don't remove proper sources from articles. There's no need to remove them. Why bother to make a big deal out of proper sources? Dayewalker (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Dayewalker, I must respectfully say you're wrong. Sources are not required for plot summaries, and a description of what happens in an episode is a plot summary. From WP:PLOTSUM: "Citations about the plot summary itself, however, may refer to the primary source - the work of fiction itself". Look around. Plot summaries for films and TV episodes almost never have a source. Now, as I said above, if something other than simple facts about what happened in an episode are added, then a source is needed. But not for the simple facts themselves. That's extremely common on Wikipedia. But let me also repeat myself: I don't think it's worth a huge edit war to remove sources that are already there. Cresix (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Dayewalker's position is generally more appropriate. The "plot summary" exception is intended only to cover in-universe fictionally-based information; otherwise, it would override BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SNL episodes are in-universe and fictional (with the exception of the segments in which musical guests perform), just as episodes of Seinfeld or House are in-universe and ficitonal. WP:PLOTSUM applies quite well, although there is nothing wrong with having sources. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "override BLP" if you mean WP:BLP, as the SNL articles have nothing to do with a biography of a living person. Cresix (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I have a solution. We'll add this source [1] to the Listings Section on the page. And take off all the sources given in the Episodes section. The source above is credible. Can we all agree to go along with this solution? Water78 (talk • contribs) 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I see what you're saying, but there's still no policy I can find that supports the posthumous removal of reliable sources. If no source already exists, WP:PLOTSUM certainly applies. If sources exist, there's no need to remove them. We don't need to worry about Wikipedia's performance, and those source might contain other relevant information that could be useful. If we have a reliable secondary source, we don't need to throw it out for a primary one. Wikipedia gains nothing from that.
I agree fully that it's not worth edit warring over, by the way. Hopefully we can keep this on the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree, Dayewalker. And keep in mind that in the absence of a specific policy, a guideline that was developed through consensus and is widely used is certainly a sound basis for editing.
Water78, I don't have a problem with adding it, although I don't think it's necessary for past episodes. Also keep in mind that things can change and the citation may become inaccurate. But I don't think adding this citation addresses the issue of whether a source is required for the plot summary of past episodes. Cresix (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [2]

Stop removing this.[edit]

Who keeps removing the bit about Kanye saying "assholes" without being censored? If Slate's "fuck" from last year was notable, then this is. 76.219.170.8 (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bot removed it as possible vandalism. The edit is not vandalism, but it does require a source. Cresix (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

President - Cast Addition[edit]

I was thinking of showing importance the cast portraying the president to the same aspect of cast doing weekend update. Bold is to seth because he anchors update, maybe we could italicize fred's name to show that he plays the president. Thoughts.

Water78 (talk) 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that is appropriate. The WU anchor is consistent for every show of every season, which is why it is noted for informational purposes. Many shows don't portray the President, and there is no reason to single out that particular role. Cresix (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah good point, thanks for the explanation. Water78 (talk) 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Twitter as a source[edit]

How is this not a valid source? It is Seth Meyers himself who said it... --Tucayo (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your evidence that Seth Myers tweeted it? I can set up a Twitter account, call it SethMyers999, and sign his name. That doesn't mean Seth Myers did it. Cresix (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The account is confirmed by Twitter to be authentic, therefore confirming that it is Seth Meyers' official account, and that he did it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.9.118.241 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide your evidence from Twitter. We need a link to someone at Twitter corporate to confirm it, not just your statement that "the account is confirmed by Twitter." I could claim that it was confirmed by Twitter that the account was set up by John Seth Myers Doe, but that does not mean it's true. Cresix (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listings[edit]

There are two things I think need to be mentioned about the Listings section. First of all is that somebody keeps adding Taio Cruz as the musical guest for Tina Fey's episode, and also adding Seth Green as the host and Big Time Rush as the musical guest for the May 14 episode. Whoever is doing this needs to stop, and only add these if they have a source. Secondly, the Elton John episode keeps being listed as Elton John/Elton John and Leon Russell (36.18, live). As Leon Russell isn't officially credited, i think it should just be listed as Elton John (36.18, live). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.9.87.200 (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention, but even though sources list Leon Russell as the musical guest with Elton John, Leon Russell isn't officially credited in the episode. If he was, he would have been mentioned in the opening credits and at the end of the monologue. If we list Leon Russell, it would mean we would have to list every performer who appears, like listing Swizz Beats in the Robert DeNiro episode or B.o.B. in the Zach Galifianakis episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.9.87.200 (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He was on the show. Do you deny that? He is named in the source. Do you deny that? That is more than sufficient to include him. Stop removing this. Cresix (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cresix, Russel was not billed as the musical guest, only Elton was. Now if you read the source given on the Saturday Night Live (season 36) page, source 10, it should belong to the hollywoodreporter. It reads and I quote "Sir Elton John will play double duty on April 2 when he hosts Saturday Night Live and appears as the show's musical guest with Leon Russell." It does not say Russell is the musical guest, it says Elton is. It says Russell will join Elton during his musical performances. Meaning only Elton John should be listed.

Water78 (talk • contribs) 11:29 ,22 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a matter that I wish to edit war over, but it is simply wrong not to include Russell when Elton John was the "musical guest with Leon Russell". "Elton John with Leon Russell" means that both were the musical guests, just as Akon was listed with Gwen Stefani for December 9, 2006 and Sum 41 was listed with Ludacris for January 22, 2005. Cresix (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but from the Annette Benning show, both Gwen and Akon were listed as musical guests. Like like how Eminem and Lil Wayne were listed as dual musical guests for Jeff Bridges's show last year. For the Paul Giamatti show, the musical guest was Luacris featuring Sum 41. I have no problem having Russell's name next to Elton's, it's just that he was not billed as a musical guest or a special guest. Water78 (talk • contribs) 12:12 ,22 April 2011 (UTC)

That's splitting hairs, to say the least. I'm not even sure your facts are accurate. Cresix (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 100% sure my facts are accurate, I checked the SNL Transcripts, archives, http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/recaps/#cat=36 and I watched the episodes on netflix. Water78 (talk • contribs) 12:34 ,22 April 2011 (UTC)

Stole the words right out of my mouth. It's not to say that Russell did not appear in the episode, but it was that he was not billed as a musical guest, only Elton John was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.9.87.200 (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who's confirmed can update the May 7 the episode as Tina Fey/Ellie Goulding and May 14 as Ed Helms/Paul Simon. Here's the source> http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/blogs/2011/saturday-night-live/its-official-justin-timberlake-tina-fey-and-ed-helms-will-end-snls-season/?cmpid=FCST_tvnews — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbondsmvp (talk • contribs) 05:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Live from New York, it's Saturday Night!"[edit]

I think it would be a fun trivia to add who ends the cold open with the "Live from New York, it's Saturday Night!"-phrase in the episode info. I could even do the work, just wondered what other people thought about the idea, I think it's kinda fun to see who has gotten to say the phrase and all that. Thanks. --Karolinelien (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia. When trivia is added to an article, the goal is to integrate it into the body of the article, not in a separate trivia section. Trivia should be added sparingly, and its cultural significance should be backed up by a reliable source. You'll probably have more success (and fun) at IMDb.com. Their articles have trivia sections, and they have user-created message boards with people who enjoy discussing or playing with trivia. Cresix (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that if lays on the grounds of being a trivia source. But I could see it alright if a special guest opens the show. Not somebody in the cast, a few seasons ago the presidential candidates of the 2008 election all said Live from...

Thoughts? Water78 (talk) 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A mention once every several seasons might be OK, but what concerns me is that we add a few here and there, and before long half of the episode descriptions begin with "John Doe ended the cold open with 'Live from New York ...'". These season articles tend to attract useless trivia. Add one, and a week or two later there will be 10 more, then it will increase every week thereafter. Cresix (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of Season 37 page.[edit]

I believe that the official page for the 37th season of SNL should be created soon, particularly at the end of the season finale of the 36 season. This to be done to hold speculation on which cast members are staying, leaving etc.

I would like to hear people's thoughts on this suggestion and on what grounds can the page be created to make all parties happy.

Water78 (talk) 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source indicating repertory cast, featured cast, and start date. If so, I say go for it. If not, per WP:CRYSTAL we can't put anything in the article that is not certain to happen. If the only thing we know basically is that there will be season 37, that's not enough to start an article. Cresix (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we know somebody in the cast is not returning to the show next season, does that count? Water78 (talk) 18 May 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that if the article only consists of "There will be a 37th season of the NBC sketch comedy series Saturday Night Live. John Doe is not returning to the cast", that's not enough. Cresix (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It'll probably be worthwhile when a start date for the season is confirmed and at least a couple of the cast have been confirmed as returning. I remember the Season 36 page was created with fairly minimal info this time last year. (121.73.75.243 (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, and it had an error/misinformation rate of over 50%. It confirmed Will Forte's return for the 2010-11 season and described an "anniversary special" that never aired. Maintaining the page was a debacle, as all sorts of rumors, predictions, wild guesses, etc were posted throughout the summer. And if anybody has RS-confirmation about contract renewals/nonrenewals, they can go into the performer articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter Source for Seth Meyers sketch[edit]

In this case, Twitter is a valid source, as Twitter only authenticates, or as it's officially called, verifies accounts for major companies and celebrities/public figures (people who would be prone to having fake accounts made in their names). And, as I understand it, account verification is NOT open to the public.

The account in question, @sethmeyers21, is a Verified Account. As @sethmeyers21 is followed by people associated with SNL, and frequently mentions Weekend Update and SNL while it's in season, and is linked here on SNL's official website as an authentic, official Twitter account, and it's linked on Seth Meyers' Wikipedia article, there is little doubt that @sethmeyers21 is really Seth Meyer's of SNL. Therefore, the tweet in question from this account can be cited as a source in this case. (Here is Twitter's official page explaining verified accounts.)
With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article of SNL's 36th season premiere[edit]

I've created a new article of SNL's 681st episode.--AllAllLLllEE (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed 'Listings' section[edit]

I have begun removing the "Listings" sections from SNL Seasons articles because they consistently fail WP:NOTDIR policy concerns. You can find the main discussion here: Talk:List of Saturday Night Live episodes#.27Listings.27 sections on Seasons pages. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colour contrast problems[edit]

It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.

To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.

To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.

Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Saturday Night Live (season 36). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saturday_Night_Live_season_36&oldid=1216318915"