Great Movie ClassicsEdit
I propose to change the column we are now calling "Earliest Known Appearance" in all of the sketch listings, to simple "Appearances." Regarding the most recent discussion ay SSNews, it's become clear to me that there's some confusion over how that operator works and how we use it.
Just as much as I think it's sketchy (ha, no pun intended) to "cite" a season as the first appearance of a sketch (for reasons that have been expressed there), I think we could do better than to provide pretense for our intentions regarding how early we've so far been able to find a real liive actual source for a sketch appearance. That is to say, I see now that it's confusing to someone who hasn't read our talk page discussions about the criteria for which we support the claims being made for such citations. I think it would serve us more clearly to instead list all the episodes in which a sketch has appeared. Providing episode numbers allows regular contributors to fact-check the claims being made. It also doesn't make the wiki look like we're trying to say something we're not, or that we don't know what we're doing. It's justa plain and simple list, and having them chronologically allows for the reader to see for themselves what the earliest known appearance is. — Scott (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to see how that would work, since I'm not sure how it would fit within the current table format if you had, say, 6 to 8 different episode links for the same sketch. That said, it makes sense to me, but would we do the same for those, like the sketches from Episode 0001 and so forth, where there's absolutely no question of when the first appearance was? Such cases are few and far between, sure, but if there's definite sources and proof beyond "guessing" that a sketch not only appeared in an episode but debuted on it, that seems worth making a distinction for. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's very, very simple:
Known Appearances Episode 0021
- Yeah, but I'd like to see that in an actual context, as I'm wondering about how it would potentially stretch out the space. And now I'm confused again. Is the point specifically to show an "earliest" appearance or "earliest known?" By that I mean, if the purpose is to avoid being misleading, what does this do in those cases when an episode is indeed the very first appearance and not just the earliest one in our database? Or is that just quibbling? Plus, I'm not so sure it solves the problem raised in the earlier discussion. The whole "guessing game" bit seemed to apply to skits which, as of now, aren't included in any actual episode listings. Unless that was merely the springboard for this proposal, and it's not actually intended to answer that issue. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't object to it. In theory (if someday we actually could document every SS episode) this could show how popular a sketch was, and when it first appeared (and even last appeared). But a sketch could have, you know, 30 lines of "episodes xxxx", that could get cumberson and streach the table out to get all messy and ugly (especially if there is not much text or pictures to balance out). That's my only concern. -- Brad D. (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)