Wikipedia

Talk:Parks and Recreation/Archive 1

< Talk:Parks and Recreation
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Source of title

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Where does it say that the name of this show is "Public Service"? - Jasonbres (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, found source. -Jasonbres (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, sorry. I moved the page late at night with the intention of digging up the citation the next day.Bjones (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It was just identified in an NBC ad (during the post-Super Bowl episode of The Office) as Parks and Recreation... though I suppose that's not really a source. TheContralto (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Reaction

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I know the show hasn't aired yet, but as a Hoosier, I for one am excited about the prospect of a show based in Indiana. I wonder, though, if there have been any notable reactions to the show from anyone in Indiana (like from politicians, any famous folk from Indiana, something)? It would be something if Gov. Daniels had a cameo or something, that'd be awesome! Also, I wonder how they'll play the whole 'Red State' thing. I hope it's funny, but not in a way that makes everybody in Indiana look like an idiot... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.26.10 (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It went blue last year. -- [User]Jamie JCA[Talk] 23:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
So did a lot of 'Red' states. Come 2012, Indiana will probably vote Republican again(unless Obama does a super job). ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masternachos (talk • contribs) 01:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep, we came back to our senses in 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.131.187 (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

ratings

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

source for ratings? use this instead: please update the previous episodes. [1]IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

ratings were way worse than my name is earl, which got cancelled, while this survives. bleck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.86.49 (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to share your opinion of this awful show. I myself was confused how it got a second season and who is watching this show, but I am not going to sit here and bash the show, that is not the point of the discussion page. Please find a blog or some other place for your opinions, thanksMantion (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well done y'all

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I have not seen this series cos, well, I don't watch TV at all, and I am not sure it is available in the UK (it may be worth checking).

I just wanted to say in my opinion this is such a well written and greatly researched article. Everyone who has contributed to it is an asset to Wikipedia. The criticism, for example, is balanced, and the infoboxes and everything are right, and it has subsidiary articles for the episodes, it is just so well written.

Two minor points, no doubt discussed before. A few of the episodes stand on their own titles, not (Parks and Recreation) after. Of course they can since nothing else occupies that topic, but on the other hand it would create consistency if all the articles had that suffix, and perhaps would prevent problems later with "squatting". One of the episodes got vandalised by an anonymous IP saying it was not worth mentioning, another well respected editor (User:Rich Farmbrough) reverted it. I think y'all would admit that the subsidiary articles are not interesting to everyone in the world, nevertheless they are well written and they stand, the only difficulty I can see there is WP:N, but as an inclusionist I can't see why they should not stand. Nobody has to find those articles, and as I say, they are well written and nicely documented etc. It is absolutely right that the main information is given in the general topic, and more is then given in subsidiary topics. What more could one want?

I templated the episodes and whacked it into the article. No surface change, but if you follow that form for other episodes, it wil just work. It makes it simpler in the table, and if someone decides with consensus that it moves, you only have to move it once (in the template) not in every article.
I hope this helps, but fell free to refvert it if you dislike it.
My best wishes Si Trew (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

So, basically saying thanks with that one minor constructive criticism. If all the episodes had the same form of title, you could then use a template to construct the title: see User:SimonTrew/Parks and recreation episode. This is not useful in itself of course, but kinda protects you against page moves since you simply change one template rather than tens of articles. See for example {{stnlnk}} which again is not a complicated template, just puts "railway station" at the end of the name, but it protects thousands of articles from needing t o be changed if later it is decided that it should be, say, "rail station" or "train station".

My very best wishes and thanks to everyone who has worked on this set of articles. They are really good. Si Trew (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Episode Airs at 4am

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

When ratings are announced for the episode "Fourth Floor" it should be noted that this episode aired at 4am eastern time, meaning obviously there were fewer viewers. 68.40.174.101 (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Disproportionate Emphasis

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I hope you'll excuse the observance of a random non-editor to this article and to Wikipedia in general... but seriously', what is going on with Parks and Recreation's grossly disproportionate publicity on the Wikipedia front page? It seems like every time I visit Wikipedia, a "Did You Know" about some faux-interesting factoid from the latest P&R episode is sat there in the box "From Wikipedia's Newest articles".

What is happening here? I am disinclined to believe that the general interests of netziens are well served by being told ... that the fate of an opossum in the Parks and Recreation episode "The Possum" has been described as an allegory for capital punishment?, nor previously by all the other P&R snippets that have wormed their way onto the front page. I am also disinclined to believe that there are so few well-written new articles every week that Wikipedia has to rely on the P&R contributers for the "Did You Know" box.

All in all, the use of the Wikipedia front page as some sort of P&R Twitter shoutbox is profoundly disturbing to me regarding the legitimacy and reliability of Wikipedia as a serious encyclopaedic resource; rather it is looking more and more like a trivia-dump for twee overanalysis of tawdry little TV shows.

Please stop it.

86.31.227.24 (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, when did this become "Parks and Recreationapedia"? It's really out of hand, is no one monitoring this? Who is getting paid to shill for this crap? Who is paying? I am sick of reading about this show, but it is a constant presence on "Did You Know?" Please for the love of god stop the promos!!! Anyone? 71.201.40.29 (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

(to 71.201.40.29)--And this explains why vandalising the Parks and Recreation article is a perfectly reasonable solution? Kiranerys-talk 04:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
(to Kiranerys) In a word, yes. This blatant commercialization is seriously undermining Wikipedia's credibility, it's been going on for months and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. I am foremost a user, and a reluctant editor only when errors are so glaring that they detract from the experience. Gimelgort (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)gimelgort
No, that is where you are mistaken. There is no justification for outright vandalism on Wikipedia-ever. Parks and Recreation's 'publicity' on the main page has absolutely nothing to do with the article. Raise the perceived 'issue' with the people who maintain the main page? Kiranerys-talk 17:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

season four premiere

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

the first episode will be called "im Leslie knope. There should a new article about season 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caringtype1 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

STOP CHANGING THE STARRING SECTION!!!

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

It was right the first time. Pratt o'heir and retta were with the series since the pilot and were promoted to regulars. It isn't fair to right off everything they did before that. Lowe and scoot were credited as starring in the 2 episodes they appeared in in season 2. Leave it alone this is the way it should be.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Eh, this still is wrong. Yes, Pratt, O'Heir, and Retta have been in it the whole time, but weren't starring. This is the same thing that happened with Bitty Schram on Monk. She wasn't credited as starring in season 8, so she doesn't get the starring designation. Same for every other TV show on Wikipedia. The best thing to do now would be just to remove the designations altogether, since that's where other shows are heading anyway (see Lost and The Office). Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

the cast and characters section is too hard to understand, unlike lost or the office, so is should be left alone. And your monk example doesn't work since schram was only a guest star, not recurring.Caringtype1 (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like the Monk example, I could easily find dozens of others for you, such as In Plain Sight. If you don't like the Lost or The Office examples, here are some others in favor of that solution, almost none of which are as complicated as Lost or The Office: White Collar, Psych, 30 Rock, Community, Lie to Me, The Closer, Harry's Law, Chuck, Life, NCIS, and Heroes. Whichever solution you prefer, neither include what you are currently trying to do. I could go back and forth on this all day, but it wouldn't do any good and would just get both of us blocked. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Edit: Monk and In Plain Sight do not use designations at all any longer. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

harry's law should have never been changed!!! but at least put paul scheinder back where he belongs!Caringtype1 (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. I would have done that earlier but didn't notice it. Kevinbrogers (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks now we agree.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mixed, not negative

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am going to change the status of the reviews during the first season from negative to mixed. During the first season, the show was criticized for a number of reasons, but Metacritic gives it a 59/100, which is nowhere near negative at all. In fact, it's two points away from positive. Mixed reviews, not negative reviews. Please, nobody change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewOne (talk • contribs) 05:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 176 external links on Parks and Recreation. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Type of show?

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is this a sitcom or a sketch show or a drama or what? I've never seen the show but heard it was popular and came here hoping to find out what kind of show it is. The intro doesn't say though. Grand Dizzy (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is a sitcom, although I cannot say too much as I have never seen the show, either. Vorbee (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Parks and Recreation. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parks_and_Recreation/Archive_1&oldid=1170624010"