Talk:The Andy Griffith Show

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 16:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Where are the Darlin's?

How cum there are no references to the several appearances of the Dillards as the Darlin's? Mark Sublette (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody apparently made a decision to only list recurring characters who appeared in 10 or more episodes. The Darlings are mentioned in List of The Andy Griffith Show cast members. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

According to The Darlings article, they appeared in six episodes. --rogerd (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay - I guess it is reasonable to establish a minimum for inclusion. Mark Sublette (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

But that also disqualifies Ernest T. - Sub* Mark Sublette (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion(s)

1. We were wondering if certain info in The Andy Griffith Show is appropriate, in either its original form or its current toned-down version. The discussion is here. 18:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Taken from WP:3O#Active disagreements - I'd prefer to answer on the article talk page rather than individual users' pages. From what I can see, information on the number or percentage of married characters would fall squarely under original research, and should not be included. The current version also appears to be non-neutral, it talks of "only 2 characters" being married, and implies this is contrary to the show's family values. A NPOV version would at least draw comparison with other shows with family values, but then this would involve even more OR. If there are interviews, articles, books, DVD commentaries that discuss the proportion of married characters and it's relevance then the information could be included. I'd also like to re-iterate that while many of the 'policies' people link to in debates are indeed guidelines, WP:OR is a policy and should as such is "considered a standard that all users should follow" Paulbrock (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Cut the flab

In an effort to cut some of the flab in this article, I've removed the individual bios for Opie, Aunt Bee, and Barney as they all have individual articles that are linked to this article. If necessary, their bios can be incorporated into that of Andy. I've removed the "guest stars" as they too have a separate article linked to this article. ReverendLogos (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to trimming flab (you should see what some overzealous editors have done to Leave It to Beaver despite my best efforts). However, more than passing mention should be made of the other three main characters. Just because they have their own articles doesn't mean their roles can't be summarized here. In fact, it's recommended to leave a condensed version when a subarticle is split off from its too-lengthy parent. As it stands now, Opie, Barney and Aunt Bee are lost among the listing of all the other characters, some of whom aren't all that important, e.g. Andy's transient girlfriends (but good riddance to the guest stars).

The other major objection I have is the production section going first. Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines states "The above three sections (plot, background, and cast) do not have a set order, and, as with every article on Wikipedia, the order should be set to what is best for the article." IMO, a casual reader would like to know what the show is about before going into the production details. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

ReverendLogos appears hellbent on cutting this article down to almost nothing. Despite the above objections to reducing the Barney, Opie, and Aunt Bee characters down to the point that they are lost among the other minor characters. And that's after I repeatedly restored a few tidbits about Barney. That's just one of the "cut-to-the-bone" ReverendLogos's meat cleaver has inflicted on the article. This clearly is one editor assuming ownership of an article. This article did have problems with excessive detail in the past. Now it has gone to the other extreme, and worse. When I have more time I plan to restore a substantial portion of the article. In the meantime, I am curious what other editors feel about this situation. I don't plan to get into a shouting match with ReverendLogos because I can already see that my pleas will fall on deaf ears. If this problem continues, I plan to post an RfC to get a broader opinion of what the Wikipedia community thinks. Ward3001 (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This article does not need character and performer links endlessly repeated in various sections. The main cast is defined and linked in the lead per Ward3001's and Clarityfiends's editing. Those links do not need to be repeated repeated repeated elsewhere in the article. Cutsey pie, downhome descriptions and analysis of Barney and Opie are not necessary because those characters have separate articles. It's enough to say Barney is "a comically inept depuaty" and Opie is Andy's "young son". The article really needs no more than that because those characters have separate articles. I think it is sad that this article is being rummaged day after day by a few "fans" who feel every minute detail of the show needs to be recorded in this article. This is an encyclopedia article not a blog nor a gushy blurb at a fan site. Terse prose works best. ReverendLogos (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not getting into an argument with you. I just happen to disagree with about 98% of what you are saying and what you have done. It's your opinion as to what is "downhome", "gushy blurb", and what "works best". You don't seem to grasp the difference between academic papers, paper encyclopedias, and online encyclopedias (which have much fewer space restrictions than the paper versions). This is my last comment on the matter unless you continue on your current trajectory, in which case my next comments will be in an RfC. In the meantime, may I suggest that you read WP:OWN and WP:CON, although I doubt that you will. Ward3001 (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The intro is supposed to be a rehash of the rest of the article, so there is redundancy in any good article of a good length. As I stated before, it is generally acknowledged that it is a bad idea to delete all the information just because there are subarticles. And what was wrong with my new Plot section? It was concise and described the series to a newcomer. It is in the position recommended by the TV style guidelines and the right length (200-500 words). As I stated in the comment, I intended to remove the duplication from the following sections; I was just having trouble figuring out what to leave in the Characters section afterwards.

After thinking about it some more, I see the Plot section going back in, the Characters section reverting to a list, with a very brief description for each character and transferring over the info from the BW and Color Seasons, i.e. all the comings and goings. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Clarityfiend. And thanks for helping the Wikipedia community take back ownership of this article. When I have time I may try to flesh out some more information that was unnecessarily removed. Ward3001 (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Please discontinue the excessive and constant reverts which serve absolutely no purpose in improving this article. There's a kind of unreasonable stubbornness to what you're doing. It's as if you're trying to establish who has the right to edit this article. I've reformatted the Recurring characters section with debuts and last dates removed because such information is more useful in the spinoff article about cast members. Here, such info only makes the article unnecessarily lengthy and tiresome. Such information is "technical" and works better elsewhere. Cease and desist with your irrational and unnecessary reverts! EatNoPig (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If that comment is addressed to me, that's the pot calling the kettle black. You have reverted and edit warred as much or more than anyone in the last couple of days. Look at the edit history. You were asked to discuss on talk, but you reverted after the request. You didn't write the above until after I asked you to stop edit warring. So let's set the record straight. Your comments above apply to yourself. "Cease and desist with your irrational and unnecessary reverts!" Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the few comments about each major character make the article unnecessarily lengthy and tiresome. Until that info was added the article had been slashed down too much. And what you mean by "technical" and works better elsewhere I have no idea. Ward3001 (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)