Talk:The Good Place/Archive 1

Confusion
"After she is struck and killed by a tractor-trailer carrying erectile dysfunction products..." Who's she? Kevon kevono (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 09:07 (PDT)

The sentence goes on with "woman named Eleanor wakes up to discover she has entered the afterlife. " Always read full sentences before asking useless questions.....--Robberey1705 (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Season 2 Premiere is an hourlong one-episode show
Hello, everyone! Every source I have seen on "The Good Place" relating to the season two premiere has said that the first episode will air on September 20 as an hour-long episode. Unless I am misunderstanding the sources I read, it is one episode that lasts twice as long, not two different episodes. How can we fix this? --Jgstokes (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am confused on the somewhat ambiguous nature of this matter. It appears from some cited sources, like the Futon Critic, that the premiere of this show's second season will indeed constitute two episodes. But then, on the other hand, I have read some other sources that talk about how the hour-long premiere of this show will just be one complete episode, meaning that the entire hour will be devoted to Chapter 1, and that there will be 12 other episodes (aka chapters) of this show. I don't know what to believe about this. Do any of you have any thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Development
Here are some sources for expanding the shows development: Mike Schur on How Following the Rules Led Him to The Good Place and ‘The Good Place’ Boss Mike Schur: The Model in My Head is ‘Lost’. Anyone should feel free to use them in the article or I'll add them when I have a chance at some later date. Knope7 (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

hiatus in the broadcast
Why is there a two-month (Nov-Dec 2016) hiatus in the broadcast schedule? Have all 13 episodes already been filmed? Will this show continue, despite the decline in viewership?-71.174.187.182 (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ever heared something about the thanksgiving/christmas-break in.the US, where nearly all TV series on the big 5 networks take a break of about 2 months (mid november to about end of january)? Thats what it is here, too. Btw: this is no forum for asking questions about TV series.--Robberey1705 (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * they do nothing of the sort. they usually go off for 3-4 weeks.
 * 9 weeks (2 months) is exceptional, and ruined the whole show! i was so into this, but by the time it came back, i was like...MEH.
 * is a season 2 really in the works? i think they've lost too many people with that weird hiatus.  209.172.23.178 (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Btw: this is no forum for asking questions about TV series" Haha, why on earth not? What an absurd statement. Waidawut (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Spoilers
There's a difference between spoilers and plain old bad writing. The most obvious example is telling things out of order. There are many details that should be included in this article so that someone who has never watched the show might be able to fully describe it but those details should be presented in chronological order (more or less). That way readers should have the choice to get an overview of season 1 without learing about season 2 unless they choose to read the full page. -- 109.79.156.34 (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no problem whatsoever with the fact that you may have concerns about some of the content on this page. What is a problem for me is that, as with many other users editing Wikipedia with an IP address instead of an official account, there has been a tendency to for such concerns to take the form of generalities rather than speaking of specific concerns. What in particular do you have a problem with, and what in particular are you suggesting should be done to address this issue? I do not see anything that reflects whatever you are concerned about. And in terms of general application of the spoiler policy, such spoilers are permissible to add as they occur in the series. Part of creating good Wikipedia articles include providing important plot details as they are presented. The season 2 information could be simplified and condensed, but the details in the lede are also clearly outlined on the page where the episodes of this show are described. Without knowing specifically what concerns you, these are just some initial thoughts. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I thought I replied to this but I guess I only previewed my comment and never submitted it.
 * The character descriptions were describing things like "Vicky" a character we only know about in Season 2, and several other descriptions were front loaded with season 2 information, and that's just bad writing structure. I made changes to the character descriptions so that character descriptions were more or less chronological and revealed information in roughly the order the show gives it to us. It is fairly basic good writing to present things in order and I'm disappointed it was added in the first place and more disappointed that it survived in the article for so long. The character descriptions still need more work.
 * The article does a decent job otherwise, and it is good that the twist isn't explained the intro (and I've seen the edit history, in earlier versions it was explained badly in way too much detail right in the intro). -- 109.79.179.4 (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "as with many other users editing Wikipedia with an IP address instead of an official account, there has been a tendency to for such concerns to take the form of generalities" Lol talking about generalities.. :-) Waidawut (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't mean to be disagreeable, but you're wrong. Vicki was introduced in Season 1. She played the role of the "Real Eleanor" who had been sent to The Bad Place by mistake because she and "Fake Eleanor" had died in the same accident and had the same name. When Michael's ruse was exposed, "Real Eleanor" was unmasked in her actual role as the demon Vicki. So, at least in that regard, the "problem" you had with the content was because, for whatever reason, you failed to notice that the Vicki of this season was the "Real Eleanor: of last season. As for your general comment that "the character descriptions need more work", again, you are being more general than specific. I think you will find that many of the "problems" you see in this article will be as easily dealt with as this one was. But I don't mean to sound as if I know that everything you see as a problem might not be. What else concerns you? Hope you take no offense at this. Just trying to be helpful. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * She wasn't introduced as Vicky, she was introduced as Elanor. She wasn't revealed as Vicky until later. Her character description should first say that she was Elanor, then after that explain that it was a disguise and she was actually someone else. All the information is included but it should be presented in the same order it was revealed to audiences.
 * My point would be the same if Michael or Shawn or another character turned out later to have another name of some sort. Sure mention it, but don't front load it in the character description.
 * Frankly I don't think the character descriptions should be anything more than an introduction (no need for any season 2 details at all) but I'm showing a good faith effort to keep what others have added. -- 109.79.168.244 (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This isn't as big a deal as explaining who Kaiser Soze is in the character description but you wouldn't do that either unless you were being a troll and the same logic applies. The rules are there so information is not excluded, but they aren't a license to include it any place or in any order whatsoever either. -- 109.79.168.244 (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Also WP:TVCAST which says: Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that belongs in the plot summary -- 109.79.168.244 (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I stand by my comments that there is too much plot in the cast section already and that information about season 2 should (if included at in the cast section at all) should definitely not be front loaded, but the anonymous editor is at it again and not making any effort to discuss or explain the edits, not even an edit summary. -- 109.76.241.81 (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Categorizing this show as philosophical
In order to avoid a potential edit war on this subject, and in response to the gracious invitation to discuss this here, this article points to the valid categorization of this show as based on philosophy. This page itself, which describes how the show represents the philosophical notion that "hell is other people", should be enough evidence. If more evidence is needed, I can look for it. But that should do for starters. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If it had been a Category at the bottom of the page I wouldn't have challenged it at all, in that case I'm fine with tagging any genre that broadly applies but we are specifically talking about a Genre added to the Infobox and I think more restraint is recommended. There is a tendency among editors to add more and more genres to the Infobox but it was my understanding (IIRC) that only the main genres were intended to be included in the Infobox (Template:Infobox_television says that genres should be reliably sourced). I'm not even convinced the genre Fantasy should be listed in the Infobox, I think it is more likely to confuse than to inform readers to label this show as Fantasy. I understand Fantasy is not limited to dragons and mythology but the fantastical elements of this show are more related to metaphysics (and philosophical fiction). Anyone want to argue this genre is necessary? (Do any of the references already included in the article actually call this anything other than a Comedy series?)
 * Ideally I would have the Infobox say this is a comedy.
 * Add many page categories if you want, it seems to be fine if those are not very specific at all. -- 109.76.143.59 (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Anyone who has watched the show knows that it has quite a lot to do with popular philosophical concepts, and it is the philosophical conundrums each of the characters face that results in the comedic events of each episode. So, far from being "not specific at all", this category is perfectly relevant. And I get not wanting to clog the infobox. But if a category fits, it should be included, and this category is very relevant to what happens on the show every week. But it is obvious that you are not in favor of it being added, and until a consensus can be formed one way or the other, I won't add it. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If Joeyconnick agrees with you or there is anything to indicate a small local consensus I'm not going to belabor the point, I just didn't think adding more genres was a good idea. After having thought about it I do think Fantasy should be removed from the Infobox, irrespective of any other genres being added or removed. -- 109.79.184.125 (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Joeyconnick definitely does not agree LOL. I don't think one source (and a blog, at that) that implies a genre is sufficient to add that to the overall infobox for the show. I agree with in that I'm fine with it having a similar category added but no, not in the infobox without significant coverage of it as philosophical fiction. Its obvious genre is comedy; I don't care either way about the fantasy label... I see arguments for or against and will not object either way on that one. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed Fantasy from the Infobox genre parameter, and added a note emphasising that genres should be reliably sourced.
 * I'm going to try not to think about the dubious Categories this article has been filed under (a few flashbacks and someone claims it is "set in Jersey"? Damn, was trying not to think about it. Nevermind.) -- 109.79.184.125 (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It doesn't make much sense to remove fantasy from the infobox, but leave fantasy in the categories and more importantly, the lede ("...is an American fantasy comedy"); it either stays or gets removed completely. I believe fantasy should stay, I'm sure I can dig up some reliable sources for it later. I've removed the "set in New Jersey" category, it doesn't really seem appropriate. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't want to think about categories too much because Wikipedia seems to have many articles with categories that it is very difficult to know for sure if they actually apply, and it is a rabbit hole I don't want to fall into. (I don't think Category:Parallel universes in fiction is applicable. Janet is an artificial being but from what we've seen so far it seems inelegant to use the category Category:Robots in television although I suppose broadly speaking Janet is sort of a robot. That's just this article and even after watching 20 episodes I have my doubts about the categories, so I wont bother telling you about the article that made me not want to even think about Categories.)
 * The difference between "Fantasy" and has some fantastical elements is what makes me think fantasy does not belong as the genre. From my admittedly brief search the few mentions of this being Fantasy seem to be from early in season 1 before people had a clear idea what the show was going to be about. (I don't think this show is a sitcom, I don't think it is a comedy-drama either, but I think I saw reviews which did think that.) But if you can come up with sources that seem reliable enough ... give it a shot. -- 109.79.184.125 (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I still think including Philosophical fiction as a genre is pedantic and unnecessary but at least it is sourced. -- 109.79.143.220 (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Images
Can someone who understand the rules on images please help improve this article? An image of text is underwhelming, and at the moment the article only include the title card. The Good Place (season 1) and The Good Place (season 2) each inculde a DVD cover image showing Dansen and Bell, maybe one or both of those images could be included in this article, would be better than nothing. -- 109.78.225.166 (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy is to only use images that are both free and eligible for use according to the "fair use guidelines", at least in the US. This does create a problem for TV shows such as this, where the images falling within that criteria may not represent the show. But hopefully this explanation will enable you in your search to find such images that may do a better job for this article. It's tricky, but it can be done. Also, if I may make another suggestion not related to this matter, your requests for input and your work on Wikipedia would likely be seen as more seriously intended to improve articles such as this if you are able to sign up for an official editing account for Wikipedia. Being a registered editor leaves far less questions than would editing anonymously. Feel free to send me a message on my talk page with any additional questions, and thanks for raising this issue. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I've tried to understand the image policy before but it doesn't make any sense to me. Images that are okay to use in one place are not okay in another and images that would be okay to be used get deleted because people don't know enough about the rules to write long explanations why it would be fair to reuse an image that was already fair to use in another part of Wikipedia. Help improve the article or don't but the rules are difficult to understand this article would be better with images. The rules and confusing and are applied inconsistently. If it was easy to add an image you'd have done it already.
 * Wikipedia claims to be free and open to edit. Why not create an account?. There is no requirement and no need to create an account. There are many reasons to not have an account I wont repeat them here. -- 109.78.231.243 (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It's simpler than you think it is. Any image protected by an active copyright notice (which remains in force until roughly 100 years after the copyright is issued) is not eligible for use here on Wikipedia. Any image not clearly protected by such a copyright are eligible to include here, because they qualify under Wikipedia's policies about free and fair use. As to your explanation why you are not creating an account, I have been a registered regular Wikipedia editor for over the last decade. Within that time, it has been my experience that issues raised and edit summaries given by users editing anonymously (under just an IP address) are more likely than not to be challenged, and their intent called into question, since having an official account here removes most doubts as to all of that. So that was the motivation behind my inquiry to you about why you have not created such an account. If you still do not wish to do so, that shouldn't be a problem, but with every contribution you make here, be sure to fill out the edit summary for them so that no one can call your changes into question. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Nice improvement. The two main cast members and creator now have photos included, they're older photos already clearly acceptable to use (not the vaguely confusingly accepted in limited circumstances like DVD covers seem to be). I'd have put Danson and Bell together but that's just my preference, but definitely an improvement.
 * I usually follow the simple rules and provide an edit summary but so many others don't bother following the even those simple rules and the considering how often edits are reverted and called into question no matter what you put in the edit summary I gradually became less and less bothered but I recognize your point, an edit summary can sometimes help avoid at least some of the hassle of Wikipedia. -- 109.77.239.52 (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Gen, short for "Hydrogen"
Hello again, everyone! While I appreciate the good faith efforts on this page in terms of not including the reference of how the Eternal Judge Gen's name is short for Hydrogen, that is hardly a trivial point, as has been implied in the edit summary. I can verify that with the following links: this one, where it says as much right in the opening paragraph; this one, which has been cited in several other Wikipedia articles and is therefore a very reliable source; this one, with the explanation again verified in the first paragraph. Those are just the three most relevant sources I could find on the topic during my initial research. If other sources are needed, I can look for others. But for now, three reliable sources, one of which (IMDB) is cited on most (if not all) pages here on Wikipedia that cover content about TV shows or movies. So I think it is safe to conclude that the name of the judge and what it relates to is not trivial at all. In the episode, she herself says that the reason she was given the name Hydrogen is because that was the only element in existence when she came into being. I welcome further dialogue on this subject, but for now, I propose that the change removing this information needs to be reverted. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think people place too much importance on her name anyway. She is officially credited just as "Judge" (imdb has it wrong) - her name is mentioned only once, and entirely for the sake of that throwaway gag. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Season 2 Ending
I don't think they are on Earth, I think they are in fact in a medium place. In the first episode of season 1, when Eleanor and Chidi meet he says he's speaking French, but he can understand English because he's in the Good Place. So what is he doing in Australia lecturing in English?Vincent (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The exchange in episode 1 is... Eleanor: Your English is amazing. Chidi: Oh! I'm actually speaking French. This place just translates whatever you say into a language the other person can understand. There's nothing to say Chidi can't speak English, but in that situation he doesn't have to. He can speak his preferred language, French, and it will be automatically translated for Eleanor's benefit. The scene tells us about Eleanor's ability with language, not Chidi's. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Michael and Judge Jen say they are going to send each of the humans to their own Medium Place. Then, they disregard that idea. We see Eleanor pick up right from where she died in what looks exactly like the life she left behind. We can't see the future to know if this is a ruse or not, it is clearly being presented as Eleanor and Chidi are back on Earth. If we later get information that contradicts that, the article can be updated at that time. Knope7 (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's clearly presented to them as though they're back on Earth. But we generally avoid an in-universe POV. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is presented that way to us as well. We see Eleanor pick up from where she was when she died, only this time it was a near death experience. It is not just in universe, it is how it is being portrayed to the audience. We shouldn't try to guess twists that have not been revealed yet to the audience. Knope7 (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the ending was deliberately ambiguous and easily open to interpretation. Because of this I think plot rewrites will be a possibility when season 3 premieres. I thought that the group are undergoing their Good Place test as they have little reason to revive characters deemed to be bad enough to be placed in the Bad Place. That and they showed Michael and Janet in a room with machines logging the actions of Eleanor and the group which to me suggests that they are building a case for these characters to gain entry to The Good Place. Esuka323 (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not as ambiguous as it would seem to be. Several sources, including this one contain quotes from Mike Schur, categorically and unequivocally stating that this is not another simulation, and that, since eternal beings have power over time and space, Gen and Michael were able to bring the four humans back to earth at the moments of their deaths, and that they were saved from that fate. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There was a season three preview, which was shown at two in the morning the other day (it's on my DVR right now) that shows the first six minutes and yeah, they're alive now. I tried to put it in the article, but someone immediately took it down as "unnecessary" I'll try to put it back up as it is.Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 October 9
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 October 9. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Categories on this page
Hello again, everyone! I wanted to open up a discussion about the categories that have been and are currently on this page. I recently removed the "parallel universe" category because it did not seem to fit. The only possible references to a parallel universe in this show are the explanation of the "Jeremy Bearimy" concept, and a brief snippet of a scene in which Chidi is in shock and said he saw multiple realities folding upon each other to form a blade (that episode is called "Chidi Sees the Time-Knife", which may be a misnomer, since we did not get to see what he said he saw). So in my opinion, that category did not fit. That said, I am in full accord with the addition of the separate categories of Heaven and Hell in popular culture, since the Good Place and the Bad Place have been rightly compared to Heaven and Hell. Just some thoughts from me, for what they may be worth to you all. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Who is Doug Forcett??
I came to this page knowing nothing at all about The Good Place. Section 'Season 3' tells us, out of the blue, that Michael and Janet track down Doug Forcett in Canada, and he's not as perfect as they expect... He (Doug) and this piece of information seem to be important to the plot. So it seems to me that telling readers who he is and why he's important ought to be in here somewhere.Niccast (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello. First, this talk page is not a forum in which to discuss details of the show itself, but rather serves to give an overview of important information about the show. That said, Doug Forcett is the one person on Earth who managed to figure out the point system used by the Good Place and Bad Place and thus deliberately devoted his life to doing all he could to secure his spot in The Good Place. But doing so made him miserable in the process, and when Michael and Janet figured that out, and subsequently learned that Doug wouldn't get into the Good Place either, that drove them to their plan to fix the flaws in the points system, which in turn affected the course of events for the rest of season 3. With all of that noted, I see that is not included in the season 3 description, which does need to be addressed. Anyone who can figure out a more concise and clear way to include that information is welcome to use the basic elements of this comment to do so. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it should be included in Season 1, when it is explained for the first time what The Good Place is. Its probably the most logical place. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  12:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, he was mentioned in season 1 but had no further role until season 3, so it makes no sense in having the info in season 1. I now added it to season 3's plot summary., I hope it's clear now? If not, please tell me and I'll try to clarify further. Regards So  Why  13:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Season 4 overview
Hello again, everyone! It has been a time-honored tradition on this page for as long as I have been editing it for crucial plot points to be detailed in the seasonal overviews. I attempted to add the latest crucial details from the most recent episodes to the season 4 summary, but those efforts were reverted. If things are too lengthy and need to be concise, my suggestion would be to find a way to trim down the less-crucial previously-added elements of the season 4 summary to provide more space for the details from the latest episodes. And including those elements in these summaries was determined by prior consensus, so there is that to consider as well. I would welcome any dialogue on this issue in this topic, but wanted to lay out my reasoning for adding more detail on the events of recent episodes. Unless and until a new consensus overrules the previously-determined one, then, according to the regulations Wikipedia has established about consensus decisions, the addition of new and relevant details needs to remain the status quo. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * That wasn't just "crucial details" from the most recent episodes; that was 140 words about one and a half episodes—longer than the entire synopsis of the first seven episodes of the season. Wikipedia is not a newspaper: we're not supposed to give more detailed synopses of recent episodes than of earlier episodes in the season. Moreover, per MOS:TVPLOT, the synopsis for each season on this page should be no more than 100 words! Obviously we're a long way from that; but we can start by not bloating the season 4 summary with extraneous details about the most recent episode. AJD (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Trolley problem
There is a Wikipedia article, Trolley problem. The Good Place episode dealing with the trolley problem deals with the same subject as the Wikipedia article, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWb_svTrcOg. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the issue. The problem is that Trolley problem is not an article about The Good Place episode but the thought experiment itself. The link in this instance should be to an episode article (but that does not exist). Trolley problem is also linked later in the article, correctly. That linkage is probably in violation of WP:EGG, as a reader would assume "The Trolley Problem" would take them to an article about the episode itself as the sentence is referring to the episode not the thought experiment. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Creating an awards/nominations page
Given that the list of awards has grown quite lengthy (and will likely expand with more awards for season 4), I'd like to propose creating a new article for this information at List of awards and nominations received by The Good Place. Many similar shows already have such a page. This page could also provide a home for the list of top-10 lists, which takes up a lot of space on the page currently. Thoughts? RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: For all reasons cited above. Makes sense to me, as doing so would be consistent with previous Wikipedia policies on other articles. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that this talk page seems relatively inactive and per WP:BOLD, I've decided to make the page. Please feel free to make any necessary changes. I'll be updating the main article with the link and removing the awards table there soon. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Time to recreate a series navbox?
I've been working on articles for the series for a little bit, raising the number of articles in the category. Right now, I count 11 valid articles that directly pertain to the show (1 main article, 4 season articles, 5 episode articles, 1 accolades list). I also think there are several episodes, such as "Janet(s)", with no current article that have the potential for their own pages in the future.

I know the show used to have a series navbox, but it was deleted for lack of content (see this discussion). I think there is now enough on the show to justify its recreation. As a result, I've created a mock-up of a navbox for potential use; you can preview it here. Let me know if you like the template, if you think it needs to be arranged differently, or if you disagree on the necessity of a navbox. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Season 4 episode count
There seems to be a dispute as to how many episodes there are in season 4; I'd like to express my opinions here. As best as I can tell, the issue is that the DVD lists 13 episodes – however, many shows will run a double-length episode that is listed as one episode but counts as two episodes for production purposes. This has even happened in this show; see "Everything Is Great!" and "Everything Is Bonzer!". Given this, I think we should leave the count at 53 unless another source specifically states that the finale (which I'm assuming is the cause of the discrepancy, as it is the only hour-long episode) counts as one episode for production purposes. I think this is especially valid given that a reliable source states there are 14 episodes in season 4. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This issue has been hashed, rehashed, and agreed upon by consensus previously. The fact of the matter is, regardless of what other outlets or sources say, and no matter how they may group or number the episodes, Mike Schur's statement is that there are 14 episodes in season 4, bringing the total number of episodes aired to 53. A creator of the show should know the total number of epsidoes of his show that have aired, and his is the ulitimate and final word on this matter. Full stop, period, end of sentence. Now if a statement was subsequently released by Schur that noted another number, and that his previous count was in error, we could debate this further. But if a creator of a show can't definitively note the number of episodes aired, who can? That's as far as this argument needs to go, IMHO. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Despite the IP having no desire to use the talk page, I thought I'd oblige them when they previously asked for the image of Blu-ray set stating 53 episodes. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's another source: the WGA lists 53 episodes. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

FINALLY SOME EVIDENT PROOF OF THE NUMBER 53 EXISTING AND I PERSONALLY AM HAPPY TO AGREE WITH THE ARTICLE STATING AS SUCH, BUT CAN'T SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE; however, the note still needs to be stated on the finale page for people to understand it is NOT a 2-part episode with ending credits in the middle like the other hour episodes and rather a full 1-hour episode split into 2 to fill the TV scheduling block based on ad placement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1303:CB7:831:8B94:F00A:C792 (talk) 08:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

edit request
Micheal's description contains a MAJOR SPOILER. Please edit and remove the spoiler. 2603:9001:3C03:5400:B873:AB50:22B1:47CC (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not hide spoilers – see WP:SPOIL. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Genre
I'm wondering if the genre should be changed to comedy-drama instead of just comedy. Although the show is very funny throughout, it gets pretty heavy in the final season. Do other people agree or should it stay as is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonmaxras (talk • contribs) 02:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that we should generally describe the show as a comedy, for two reasons: (1) it's generally marketed as a comedy (for example, its award nominations always came in comedy categories, not drama), and (2) comedies are allowed to have dramatic plot points without necessarily being a comedy-drama. However, if you can find sources that describe the show as a comedy-drama, feel free to add those to the infobox. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:35, 29 vember 2020 (UTC)
 * IMHO, there wasn't much drama having to do with the plot. Most of what could classify as "dramatic" moments of the show were either played off as tragically comedicc, not serious, melodramatic, or farcial. So I think that unless a list of truly dramatic plot points related to the show is published by a reliable source, it's best classified as a comedy. --Jgstokes (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)