Talk:Jenkins (How I Met Your Mother)

Directing stats
I removed the reference to broadwayworld.com and the info from it because it is out of date (both at the time it was published and as of the broadcast of this episode). It says that there have been 97 episodes of the show, but there have been 100 (before this one). It also says that Pamela Fryman has directed 92 episodes. While she did direct 92 of the first 97 episodes, as of the broadcast of "Jenkins" she had directed 95 (see the episode list). Since there only has been one other director (Rob Greenberg directing "The Scorpion and the Toad", "Columns", and "Monday Night Football", "Little Boys", "The Front Porch") I added a specific mention of him. 99.192.69.136 (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The section must have a reference. Many editors will delete the section completely with out a reference. The reference by reporting that Harris directed shows that it is somehow notable. An imperfect reference is far better than no reference at all.
 * The article text that Pamela Fryman has directed most of the episodes gives a specific case of how it is more notable. It is important to note she directed "most" of the episodes, and the numbers are only specified to avoid any claims of weasel words by a simple example, I'd prefer to avoid the specific numbers. I tried to be very careful about the phrasing because the phrase was knowingly dated when I wrote it and when BroadwayWorld.com wrote it.
 * Without another source to replace the one I provided we risk claims of original research. The wording you suggested suffers the same problem of being dated as soon as another episode airs.
 * I've restored the section because it cannot be there without references. Feel free to change it again but do not remove the references. -- Horkana (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (I hit an editing conflict, but this is what I wrote) - Horkana, there is no need to update the information I changed every week, but to say that Fryman has directed 92 of 97 episodes on the page that discusses episode #101 does not make sense. The page discussing episode #101 should refer to the 100 past episodes. Also, the change is not original research, since the episode list contains all the information about who directed which episodes. One need only look there to see the very information I added. 99.192.80.62 (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've rephrased. You can replace with an alternative reference but do not remove. I've moved the specific figures out of the text and into a citation quote, so any flaw is as with the source.
 * I'd be inclined to agree with you on original research but I don't think others will (there are some who wanted to have no individual articles for these episodes and delete mercilessly) and I don't think the section will survive without references. It should probably have more than one reference. I encourage you to expand or provide alternative references. -- Horkana (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to re-add the information I posted before and use the list of episodes page as a reference. This way it is more likely to survive a particularly anal editor who might come along and if it does not, at least the first part that you wrote will survive, since even the most anal editor would have to allow that it is well sourced. 99.192.80.62 (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"Good faith would be to ask for a better citation"
Horkana, I did assume good faith when I made the edit. There were two citations given and the statement said that reviewers (plural) made the suggestion. I assumed that this was a good faith error, not noticing that one reviewer merely cites the other, so there are not more than one. Then I read the one reviewer's comment and could see how someone might misconstrue it as a claim that there was an intended reference to Julie Chen, but if you read it again I think you will see that the claim is not actually made. It is a reasonable assumption that these two sources were the basis for the claim made, and since they don't support the claim, it makes sense to remove it. The same is true whenever someone misreads a source, and does not have anything to do with assumptions about good or bad faith. If there really is a source that claims that Julie Chen is being referenced, then by all means cite it and re-add the claim. But without it, all we have is good evidence of a (good faith) mistake, and so the claim should stay out. 142.177.29.110 (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

But Um, But First

 * * Reviewers have suggested Robins verbal crutch "But um" is a reference to Julie Chen frequently saying "But first" in her work also on CBS.


 * You can still ask for a citation and give some time to see if a better source comes up if you want to give the section a chance to improve. I reverted a deletion of cited material. You simply deleted it again. Working to improve a section is a lot more difficult than a quick delete, and even if do mark it as citation needed you might still get the chance to delete it later after others have had a chance to improve things even if you don't. There are so many IP Address users who delete without explanation and add little or nothing. You showed a bit more good faith than the average IP Address user by bothering to provide an edit summary and more now by following up on your edits so I'll make the good faith effort to explain it better and see if we can't rephrase what we have instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
 * One source includes video, the other includes text. Cinemablend is the primary source. Other sources go to notability. Many others picked up on it and referenced it, but TVSquad was the source of the link which helps substantiate that the verbal tick "but first" of Julie Chen is notable of itself and it presents enough information for readers to make their own conclusions. I was already thinking about including the TVGasm video link as a nicely formatted youtube link
 * The article does not make definitive assertions it makes a claim that there is a connection like other reviewers might do and as I result of such cautious wording it is predictible but unfortunate that editors would rush to delete the section. There are plenty of works of fiction where critics and reviewers speculate on the intent on of the creators, this isn't really any different but it is easier to dismiss the suggestion because the Cinemablend article was (poorly) written in the form of a rhetorical question instead of a more assertive tone. I do see it would be less ambiguous to phrase it as "Reviewers at Cinemablend" or simply say "Cinemablend claims". -- Horkana (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article does not make definitive assertions it makes a claim that there is a connection like other reviewers might do and as I result of such cautious wording it is predictible but unfortunate that editors would rush to delete the section. There are plenty of works of fiction where critics and reviewers speculate on the intent on of the creators, this isn't really any different but it is easier to dismiss the suggestion because the Cinemablend article was (poorly) written in the form of a rhetorical question instead of a more assertive tone. I do see it would be less ambiguous to phrase it as "Reviewers at Cinemablend" or simply say "Cinemablend claims". -- Horkana (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First, at best, the claim should be that only one reviewer claimed there was a connection. Kelly West wrote the item at Cinemablend. All others who "picked up on it" merely noted that the Cinemablend column said something about a comparison, but they don't assert any agreement with the comparison, thus there is still, at most, just a singular reviewer. "Reviewers at Cinemablend" would be misleading as it suggests that there is more than one person saying anything.


 * Second, you say that the article "does not make definitive assertions', which is true, and "it makes a claim that there is a connection" which is not. West asks the question: "Was tonight’s episode of How I Met Your Mother a subtle jab at Chen’s repetitive phrase?" The question is not rhetorical, because right away she answers the question. She says: "Perhaps." She repeatedly resists claiming anything when she says "Whether or not the writers decided to poke a little fun at Chen" and later says "if this was some kind of internetwork joke .... And if not?...." Again, she makes no claim either way and even suggests she is only suggesting the possibility of there being one because it givers her an excuse to repost the Chen clip ("Whether or not ... I felt inspired to revisit the ... Youtube video..."). So at the very VERY best the claim would be that one reviewer merely speculated about the possibility that there might be a connection without saying she thought there was one. That's pretty weak to include, especially, as you note, "the Cinemablend article was (poorly) written...." One poorly written item that does not even make a claim one way or the other is not much of a source. Without a source where someone says "I think HIMYM was referencing Chen" no one has made the claim at all, and it should be left out. 142.68.48.242 (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

In Continuity section:

 * "Coincidentally, "Jenkins" is also the name of a drinking game."
 * "Ted is surprised when Barney says he wants to have sex with Jenkins (still believing 'him' to be a man at this point), saying that all Barney's other partners have been women."

Are these really necessary, or even suitable in the section?? --Jocateme (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In the episode "Showdown," Marshall references how his late grandfather would stop haunting the barn for one day to watch his favorite grandson get married. In this episode, Marshall says that his grandfather is haunting a barn in Minnesota. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.168.210 (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)