Talk:One for the Road (Cheers)

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 8, 2012	Peer review	Reviewed
April 14, 2015	Peer review	Not reviewed

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 20, 2014, and May 20, 2019.

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage High‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 25 August 2016..Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Image copyright problem with File:Cheers onefortheroad.jpg[edit]

The image File:Cheers onefortheroad.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

notability[edit]

how notable is this episode to have a page of its own? the synopsis can be merged into the list of cheers episodes page. (considering there is but 1 source)Lihaas (talk) 07:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah it's only the 2nd most watched TV episode of all time. How notable can THAT possibly be?! /snark. I find your comment, and especially, your entire existence, to be extremely non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.167.9 (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of ""———" in sources[edit]

George, this is a bad idea on Wikipedia. The reason is future editors might insert a new source before the "———" source .. same with "ibid's" .. you'd think people wouldn't do that, but they do I've seen it, fly-by editors don't think or don't understand what the ___ means. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Grammar" tag[edit]

Are there parts that indicate a need of copy editing? --George Ho (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were a couple of sections i noticed yesterday, so it seems a quick review of the whole thing should do well. Ill get to it if no one else does, but would have liked a nother set of eyesLihaas (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? --George Ho (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings[edit]

I think the Ratings section of this "One for the Road" article should be revised. It says the Cheers finale achieved a 45.5 rating; and was watched by 93 or 80 million people. The ratings share is also confusing, it reads it achieved a 64 or 62 share. Which of these is correct? On Wikipedia's Most-watched TV telecasts page, it says "One for the Read" was watched by 84.4 million people, received a 45.5 household percentage, and garnered a 64 share. The information is different everywhere. The most reliable information should be used. Just concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.35.36 (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The essay WP:Truth should help you. I use both numbers to give readers more thoughts about which number may or may not be true. --George Ho (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refimprove tag in Synopsis's subsection "Background"[edit]

@Mhhossein: I believe that using primary source, i.e. the series itself, would suffice. May you please explain why you added "refimprove"? Maybe you meant to use either {{primary sources}} or {{no footnotes}}, or you believe that secondary sources, like a newspaper or something, are needed. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho: Hi, sorry for the delay. The section is mostly unsourced, that's why the tag is there. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying, Mhhossein. I rely mostly on primary sources; must I use episodes as footnotes (inline refs) or secondary sources to confirm the info? George Ho (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome George Ho. I would go with the secondary sources. Note that primary sources need to be accompanied by the secondary ones. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added some secondary sources, Mhhossein. Is any more info needed to be cited? George Ho (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho: Things are much better now, thanks to your efforts. I think the tag can be safely removed now. However, please note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]