![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
where did you find that? It's not that correct one, used in promos and commercials. Did someone make that? because Im pretty sure that isn't allowed in Wikipedia. Caringtype1 ( talk) 17:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Well is there any way we can get the real one? Caringtype1 ( talk) 22:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
On commercials and promotional images they use a red and white one, but I guess it doesn't really matter until the show begins. Caringtype1 ( talk) 00:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
We can leave it, but that i have to disagree with. If you watch NBC, and see a commercial for Go On, you will see. Caringtype1 ( talk) 00:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
After reviewing the Overview of MOS:DTT, I have come to the conclusion that in certain case scenarios the "|+ [caption text]" might be needed, but in this article it seems incredibly redundant to place "Go On Episodes" right below the section titled "Episodes". LiamNolan24 ( talk) 07:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Caringtype1 ( talk) 13:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
<br />
line breaks in Infoboxes, etc. You will continue to see more of this going forward. You might as well get used to this "eye sore" [
sic] now. --
Logical Fuzz (
talk)
19:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
What's the difference? September 11th was the official premiere for the rest of the season. technically, the premiere was on August 8th, but that was only a preview. The rest of the episodes started airing a month later starting with the official premiere in the regular time lost. It just clarifies what the source says. Its confusing and misleading to call it the "premiere", when its the official premiere. Caringtype1 ( talk) 23:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Well its wrong to call it the premiere, so why is it even there at all? Caringtype1 ( talk) 18:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I've now had the label "The group", the correct American English syntax to describe a collective unit and the term used on the show as a name for Ryan's support group, relabeled "Group" because of what I'd argue is a mis-interpretation of the guideline about naming articles as applied to headings. In this case, the absence of "the" is grammatically incorrect. We cannot follow guidelines, which are recommendations so slavishly that we violate basic rules of American English syntax. That's idiotic. I'm hoping this discussion will head off what I predict will be yet another pointless set of edits that are less about common sense and more about lock-step adherence to guidelines that don't work in this applications. -- Drmargi ( talk) 00:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The way it looks now makes it seems like a fan site. The usual categories are fine, and only seem to not work for you, definitely not the reader. Caringtype1 ( talk) 01:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The separation of the section into "Main", "Group", and "Recurring" makes no sense in terms of categorising the "group" members, some of whom are main, and others recurring. It also bizarrely implies that those actors are neither main nor recurring; isn't the whole point of the cast section to objectively categorise the cast? If the show credits seven actors as "main" and a bunch of others as "recurring", then that's how they should be listed, regardless of a character's screentime or role in the show. In the current categorisation, Alison Miller who is credited as a guest star somehow ends up being listed as one of only three main cast members, which is preposterous. The sidebar listing the seven series regulars should be reflected in the actual article's content, in my opinion. I'm going to change it back to the widely-accepted structure for now. -- Tvwatchdog ( talk) 09:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
They way you are suggesting sounds like a fan site or a blog or something. That's not the way we do it on wikipedia(at least not on the show's main page). Caringtype1 ( talk) 22:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Folks, we need to stop adding Christine Woods as a recurring character until she appears in at least three episodes. A recurring character makes appearances in multiple episodes, not in multiple scenes in one episode. Neither source provided does any more than document her being cast. It may be that she will be recurring, but until we can verify that she is recurring, she cannot be added to the list. -- Drmargi ( talk) 20:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I took the liberty of putting the 18-49 rating into the episode table for this show alongside the viewership (as well as for The Mindy Project and Ben and Kate), but there seem to be a few anonymous users who have reverted these. Wanted to put this up for discussion; if there's going to be a "ratings" table featuring the ep number, name, airdate, total viewers, and *then* the sole new material of the 18-49 rating, would it not make more sense to just include that one piece of information in the table that already provides the rest? -- Tvwatchdog ( talk) 09:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I have to say that there doesn't seem to be a very strong argument for why we shouldn't include this information. It's valuable information for many readers, and a separate ratings is cleaner and just makes the most sense. Caringtype1 ( talk) 22:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree completely with Tvwatchdog and Caringtype1's points-of-view. This discussion/argument has been drug way out of proportion. That's consensus, move on. LiamNolan24 ( talk) 18:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, Drmargi, if you believe that the 18-49 rating is not notable enough by your standards, then why *is* it still on so many other similar television show articles? What makes this article, specifically, the one where you think it cannot be tolerated, when it continues to exist (and provide relevant, significant information) on so many others? -- Tvwatchdog ( talk) 07:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I am relatively new to Wikipedia and don't yet trust myself with changing information inside of the episode table that uses some confusing code. Earlier today, NBC released a press release on NBCUniversal's MediaVillage about what episode of Go On will be aired on the 13th of November. Right now this page lists the ninth episode as airing on the 13th, but according to NBC's press release episode 8 will be airing on the 13th which will likely push all future scheduled episodes back a week. This information is also on the official Go On website as listed in this Wikipedia article. Here is a link to the press release. This website is where all of NBC's pres releases are posted and might be a good place to follow for any news about any NBC shows. JeremiahWooten ( talk) 01:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)JeremiahWooten
Does anyone else feel like Carries character description contains a pretty huge spoiler? Ailaewow ( talk) 15:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Go On (TV series). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Go On (TV series). 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-london-olympics-nbc-previews-matthew-perry-sitcom-go-on-20120809,0,7921751.storyWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
where did you find that? It's not that correct one, used in promos and commercials. Did someone make that? because Im pretty sure that isn't allowed in Wikipedia. Caringtype1 ( talk) 17:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Well is there any way we can get the real one? Caringtype1 ( talk) 22:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
On commercials and promotional images they use a red and white one, but I guess it doesn't really matter until the show begins. Caringtype1 ( talk) 00:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
We can leave it, but that i have to disagree with. If you watch NBC, and see a commercial for Go On, you will see. Caringtype1 ( talk) 00:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
After reviewing the Overview of MOS:DTT, I have come to the conclusion that in certain case scenarios the "|+ [caption text]" might be needed, but in this article it seems incredibly redundant to place "Go On Episodes" right below the section titled "Episodes". LiamNolan24 ( talk) 07:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Caringtype1 ( talk) 13:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
<br />
line breaks in Infoboxes, etc. You will continue to see more of this going forward. You might as well get used to this "eye sore" [
sic] now. --
Logical Fuzz (
talk)
19:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
What's the difference? September 11th was the official premiere for the rest of the season. technically, the premiere was on August 8th, but that was only a preview. The rest of the episodes started airing a month later starting with the official premiere in the regular time lost. It just clarifies what the source says. Its confusing and misleading to call it the "premiere", when its the official premiere. Caringtype1 ( talk) 23:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Well its wrong to call it the premiere, so why is it even there at all? Caringtype1 ( talk) 18:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I've now had the label "The group", the correct American English syntax to describe a collective unit and the term used on the show as a name for Ryan's support group, relabeled "Group" because of what I'd argue is a mis-interpretation of the guideline about naming articles as applied to headings. In this case, the absence of "the" is grammatically incorrect. We cannot follow guidelines, which are recommendations so slavishly that we violate basic rules of American English syntax. That's idiotic. I'm hoping this discussion will head off what I predict will be yet another pointless set of edits that are less about common sense and more about lock-step adherence to guidelines that don't work in this applications. -- Drmargi ( talk) 00:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The way it looks now makes it seems like a fan site. The usual categories are fine, and only seem to not work for you, definitely not the reader. Caringtype1 ( talk) 01:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The separation of the section into "Main", "Group", and "Recurring" makes no sense in terms of categorising the "group" members, some of whom are main, and others recurring. It also bizarrely implies that those actors are neither main nor recurring; isn't the whole point of the cast section to objectively categorise the cast? If the show credits seven actors as "main" and a bunch of others as "recurring", then that's how they should be listed, regardless of a character's screentime or role in the show. In the current categorisation, Alison Miller who is credited as a guest star somehow ends up being listed as one of only three main cast members, which is preposterous. The sidebar listing the seven series regulars should be reflected in the actual article's content, in my opinion. I'm going to change it back to the widely-accepted structure for now. -- Tvwatchdog ( talk) 09:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
They way you are suggesting sounds like a fan site or a blog or something. That's not the way we do it on wikipedia(at least not on the show's main page). Caringtype1 ( talk) 22:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Folks, we need to stop adding Christine Woods as a recurring character until she appears in at least three episodes. A recurring character makes appearances in multiple episodes, not in multiple scenes in one episode. Neither source provided does any more than document her being cast. It may be that she will be recurring, but until we can verify that she is recurring, she cannot be added to the list. -- Drmargi ( talk) 20:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I took the liberty of putting the 18-49 rating into the episode table for this show alongside the viewership (as well as for The Mindy Project and Ben and Kate), but there seem to be a few anonymous users who have reverted these. Wanted to put this up for discussion; if there's going to be a "ratings" table featuring the ep number, name, airdate, total viewers, and *then* the sole new material of the 18-49 rating, would it not make more sense to just include that one piece of information in the table that already provides the rest? -- Tvwatchdog ( talk) 09:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I have to say that there doesn't seem to be a very strong argument for why we shouldn't include this information. It's valuable information for many readers, and a separate ratings is cleaner and just makes the most sense. Caringtype1 ( talk) 22:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree completely with Tvwatchdog and Caringtype1's points-of-view. This discussion/argument has been drug way out of proportion. That's consensus, move on. LiamNolan24 ( talk) 18:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, Drmargi, if you believe that the 18-49 rating is not notable enough by your standards, then why *is* it still on so many other similar television show articles? What makes this article, specifically, the one where you think it cannot be tolerated, when it continues to exist (and provide relevant, significant information) on so many others? -- Tvwatchdog ( talk) 07:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I am relatively new to Wikipedia and don't yet trust myself with changing information inside of the episode table that uses some confusing code. Earlier today, NBC released a press release on NBCUniversal's MediaVillage about what episode of Go On will be aired on the 13th of November. Right now this page lists the ninth episode as airing on the 13th, but according to NBC's press release episode 8 will be airing on the 13th which will likely push all future scheduled episodes back a week. This information is also on the official Go On website as listed in this Wikipedia article. Here is a link to the press release. This website is where all of NBC's pres releases are posted and might be a good place to follow for any news about any NBC shows. JeremiahWooten ( talk) 01:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)JeremiahWooten
Does anyone else feel like Carries character description contains a pretty huge spoiler? Ailaewow ( talk) 15:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Go On (TV series). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Go On (TV series). 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-london-olympics-nbc-previews-matthew-perry-sitcom-go-on-20120809,0,7921751.storyWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)