Talk:Sectionals (Glee)

Sectionals (Glee) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 1, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Television: Episode coverage / Glee Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Glee task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Last Christmas[edit]

When was it confirmed that it won't be airing. Neo136 (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just over a month ago. From Billboard: "In addition to the soundtracks, a cover of Wham's "Last Christmas" will be recorded by the cast, and although it won't air on the show, the song will be released as a single by mid-November." [1] Frickative 23:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, and the final ep. just aired. The song was not performed on the show. CycloneGU (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

I really think there's far too much in the 'Reception' section for each episode. We should just stick to a few quites from a few major television critics that reflects the general consensus and/or both positive and negative responses. A section larger than the episode summary is not necessary or encyclopaedic. If you need precedent please refer to the Reception sections for episodes of hsows such as 'South Park' and 'Family Guy'. A few quotes from significant critics is all we need, it is not necessary to take 5 or 6 quotes from a spectrum of different viewers. one quote from a few critics will do and if you make sure you cite it anyone interested in reading the rest of the review can follow the link. Wikipedia is NOT a review round-up website.

Oh and also if you use the word "opined" in a section more than 5 times it starts to lose all meaning! 84.13.161.252 (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Though I disagree that the sections should necessarily be less than 450 words (and in general think that the shows you mentioned probably receive fewer reviews from significant sources on an episode-by-episode basis anyway), I have been planning on reworking the Reception sections to group reviews into common themes, rather than just "Jane Doe said "X" and also "Y" while Joe Bloggs felt "Z" ad nauseum. I'll use this article as something of a test case to see how well it works, before going back to address the earlier episodes. And I promise I'm working on curing my bizarre 'opined' addiction, really I am :) Frickative 16:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ETA - with regard to length, if you look at the featured articles for Lost - a show more easily comparable to Glee both insofar as it being live action, and generating numerous reviews from significant sources - the Reception sections there are all in the region of 800-1000 words. So I don't feel there's necessarily any merit or consensus in suggesting the sections should be no longer than the episode summary. Frickative 17:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Michael Hitchcock.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

	An image used in this article, File:Michael Hitchcock.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Sectionals. 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:

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sectionals are a real thing...[edit]

Jean Ashworth Bartle Sound Advice: Becoming a Better Children's Choir Conductor (2003) "Although small sections are ideal pedagogically, there is no doubt that sometimes sectionals are necessary and save time, ..."
Robin Beauchamp Designing Sound for Animation 2013 p.127 "Sectionals are followed by a dress rehearsal where all of the instruments are brought together and placed (panned) in their respective string, woodwind, brass, or percussion sections."

The term "sectionals" should either redirect to the dab, or to Rehearsal#Music. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 September 2019[edit]

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move and redirect Sectionals to dab. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sectionals → Sectionals (Glee) – redirect to Rehearsal#Music. The Glee episode features and is named after the real practice before dress rehearsal. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the Glee episode is named after a level in a series of competitions for the fictional show choir in the television show: Sectionals, then Regionals, then Nationals. It is not named for the musical rehearsal method of dividing the musicians of the group into sections, whether by voice part (in choirs) or by instrumental type (in bands and orchestra), or some other division of the ensemble in question. There is currently a Sectional page which is a disambiguation page which hasn't been considered here; there could be a Sectionals (disambiguation) added that could redirect to the singular disambiguation page. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well if it is named for that, then that is odd. But doesn't change the fact that "sectionals" means "sectionals" not this TV episode. So you're basically agreeing with Paintspot Infeliz below it seems... In ictu oculi (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm really not. Please don't put words in my mouth. My oppose stands. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you accept the status quo that the WP:PT of "sectionals" per both criteria is a Glee episode? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support but Redirect to "Sectional" disambiguation page. No primary topic for the term (so Don't redirect it to Rehearsal#Music). Instead, redirect it to the dab page "Sectional". Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with that. Think the other plural uses of sectionals are rather rare. But fair enough. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposal of Paintspot Infez. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also Support proposal of Paintspot Infez. Colin M (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:PLURALPT and WP:NOTADICTIONARY. No evidence that the minor "sectional" subtopics for the rehearsal and sofa types outdraw the plural form of the Glee episode in usage or significance - they're not even redirects (i.e., sectional (couch), sectional (sofa) and sectional (rehearsal) are all redlinks). In addition, "being named after" is not a criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (And in any event, the meaning of "sectionals" which the episode references isn't even a subtopic in any WP article, let alone a redirect - it's a pure dictdef.) Dohn joe (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support this move 2601:541:4500:1760:F6:63FF:FBA4:FB0D (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support and redirect Sectionals to Sectional. PLURALPT doesn't apply here, as there's no way in heck that it's a primary topic even for "sectionals"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support original proposal. The musical term is a clear primary topic for the "sectionals" pluralisation - of the other entries on the dab page, it doesn't really apply to the sofa usage because "sectional" is an adjective there. And the episode is just that - one episode, and not close to the longterm significance. — Amakuru (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know it seems unusual and feels weird, but this is actually exactly the scenario pluralpt envisions. Sectional is a dab page which only includes the Glee article and two MOS:DABMENTIONs. As I mentioned above, the potential "sectional" topics aren't even bluelinks, which means they have zero pageviews, and seriously undermines their long-term significance arguments. The Sectionals article outdraws the dab page with 89% of pageviews. It feels odd, but the status quo actually serves our readers and editors better. Dohn joe (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That may because whoever has been at the pluralpt guideline actually wants the common-sense defying current situation. Only with WP:NAVEL would sectionals, which by definition are plural, you can't have only one, not mean sectionals but mean a TV episode about a less common meaning of sectionals. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am generally a strong believer in WP:PLURALPT, but I think context is important here. The whole concept of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is mostly for the benefit of readers using the search function. I have no way to back this up with data, but I believe that, in general, a smaller % of the pageviews of articles on TV episodes will originate from search. People are usually aware of the titles of books that they read, songs that they listen to (with some exceptions), or movies they watch. However, this is less true of TV episodes. Most shows don't have a title card showing the episode name - at best, you might glimpse the episode title in the TV guide, or in the DVD menu, or whatever. I suspect the lion's share of readers are getting to this article by clicking a link from Glee (season 1) or other articles, or by searching Google for "Glee season 1 episode 13" - not by typing "Sectionals" into the search bar. So I think that should colour our interpretation of pageview stats. Colin M (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replying generally to all these points, I think Colin's point is kind of the one I'm trying to make. It's always been understood per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, that long-term significance plays an important role in deciding what's primary. The page title isn't just about what readers type into the search bar... in fact, that's a fairly small part of it, because most readers don't go through our search bar, they go through Google, and that presents pages ranked according to its own algorithms. Long-term significance kind of speaks to the WP:ASTONISH concept - I find it bizarre that a single episode of a TV show is deemed of higher importance than the age-old concept of orchestra sections going off to rehearse in separate rooms. Presumably the former meaning is also derived from the latter. So really, although the page views give us a good insight into what a lot of readers are looking at, from a pop culture perspective, it doesn't really dictate how we title. — Amakuru (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. -- Netoholic @ 18:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support and redirect to dab. Red Slash 03:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.