# Talk:The Rocky Horror Glee Show

I just wanted to bring something to people's attention. The names for the tracks for the EP The Rocky Horror Glee Show are currently correct. Yes, it does say "Dang It, Janet" and "Sweet Trans", but those are just track names; the names of the songs are at the links if you click on them, and also above in the article's prose, and also above in the episode's infobox. Please do not change these track names to "Dammit, Janet" or "Sweet Transvestite", respectively, unless you have a reliable source. It is yet unknown, but these tracks may be censored, altered, or arranged in a different manner than the originals; or even retitled. Please leave them as is. If you have something to discuss, please do so below, and not on the article space. Yvesnimmo (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: track listing reference now available. Yves (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the Rocky characters should be sorted by the Glee characters and not the actors. JDDJS (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that: that paragraph has now become a huge blue linkfest. It's complicated, though: we have actors playing characters who also happen to be actors playing characters. For example, "John Stamos as Carl Howell as Eddie" or "Chord Overstreet as Sam Evans as Rocky". And the characters the actors playing the characters who are actors are playing don't necessarily correspond to the songs, either: Jayma Mays as Emma Pillsbury is singing "Touch-a, Touch-a, Touch-a, Touch Me", a song sung in the musical by Janet Weiss (played by Lea Michele as Rachel Berry in the episode). I think we should only stick to only one? Other options include a bulleted list (which I don't really want to do) or a table. Any others I'm missing? Thoughts? Yves (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Well if you only want one, I'm fine with just having the characters. I feel it should be the characters over the actors because many readers do not know the name of the actors. JDDJS (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Would that not be WP:IN-UNIVERSE, though? Yves (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe but rules are meant to be broken. JDDJS (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Only if it prevents improvement or maintenance, which I'm not sure whether this is or not. :S Yves (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it would probably make sense to go with the characters over the actors - not because readers may not be familiar with the actors, but technically/contextually it is the characters assuming the roles. That said, as that paragraph is the first time most of the characters are mentioned, it is standard practice to denote the actor names beside them. I'm in favour of leaving it as it is for the time being - it should be a non-issue after the episode airs, when it can be better explained in a plot section anyway. Frickative 03:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone keeps adding incorrect info to the list of who is playing who. Two people cannot play eddie.204.38.56.202 (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Says who? Yves (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Eddie has only one number, unless they plan on performing "Hot Patootie" twice, he can't be played by two people. Agent Chieftain (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe they will. And Eddie has more speaking lines, as well, in addition to "Whatever Happened to Saturday Night?". Keep in mind this is not the musical, nor the film adaptation. Yves (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
They can sing as a duet or something can happen to one of the glee characters causing the other to replace him. JDDJS (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This source quotes Mark as saying he/Puck will play the talking lips, but Ausiello has more recently said he won't be in the episode. Should we go with one source over the other, or just report both and see how it pans out? Frickative 03:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Put in the article there is a conflict in who Puck will play, and wait for the airdate? CTJF83 chat 13:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Just remove him altogether; no verification can be made at this point. Yves (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Stack, Tim (October 26, 2010). "'Glee' recap: 'Rocky Horror' and Roll". Entertainment Weekly. Time Inc. Retrieved October 27, 2010.
Flandez, Raymund (October 26, 2010). "'Glee,' Season 2, Episode 5, 'Rocky Horror Glee Show': TV Recap". The Wall Street Journal. News Corporation. Retrieved October 27, 2010.
de Moraes, Lisa; Yarr, Emily (October 26, 2010). "'Glee's' 'Rocky Horror' week: We watch so you don't have to". The Washington Post. Katharine Weymouth. Retrieved October 27, 2010.
Vena, Jocelyn; Cantiello, Jim (October 26, 2010). "'Glee' 'Rocky Horror Picture Show' Episode Wins Fans". MTV. MTV Networks. Retrieved October 27, 2010. (not too great: has an incorrect episode title, but good for reception?)
Hensel, Amanda (October 26, 2010). "'Glee,' 'The Rocky Horror Glee Show' Recap -- Season 2, Episode 5". AOL. Retrieved October 27, 2010.
Mullins, Jenna (October 26, 2010). "Glee-Dux: Oh, the Rocky Horror! Find Out What Went Down and What's Coming Up". E! Online. E!. Retrieved October 27, 2010. Yves (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks good...and the MTV episode is saying it is the "Rocky Horror Picture Show" episode, not titling it that. CTJF83 chat 05:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Penultimate paragraph lol. Yves (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for compiling these, Yves. It'll probably be early next week before I can do any serious work on this one, but having the refs handy on the talk page makes it so much easier. Wrt MTV, I usually use Aly Semigran's reviews, and she does manage to get the title right, haha. Frickative 13:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, added some of the reviews to the page. One was mostly fan reviews, and some didn't really have reviews, mostly just plot commentary. Please feel free to add/change/delete anything I've added. CTJF83 chat 19:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
This one's interesting: Itzkoff, Dave; Milzoff, Rebecca (October 27, 2010). "Late-Night Double Feature: The 'Rocky Horror Glee Show' Reconsidered". The New York Times. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. Retrieved October 27, 2010. Yves (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Richard O'Brien doesn't particular like it:

"Rocky Horror creator slams Glee". Stuff.co.nz. Fairfax New Zealand. December 3, 2010. Retrieved December 3, 2010.
—Yves (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why it's taken me so long to get around to finishing this off, but hopefully I'm going to work on it over the next couple of days. Question, though - Susan Sarandon attacked GLAAD and defended the episode's use of a pejorative, but I can't decide whether this is worth including or not, as technically she had nothing to do with the episode and admits to not watching Glee. Idk. Thoughts? Frickative 19:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, she doesn't watch Glee, but she was a main character of RHPS. I'm not sure it really adds anything to the article, she is just saying they should use the word "tranny". She isn't reviewing the episode or anything. CTJF83 chat 20:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Cheers Ctjf. I was in two minds about it because I'm definitely going to include Richard O'Brien's thoughts, but then I guess the creator has more direct relevance than a previous performer anyway. Frickative 17:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The reception section has a lot of misrepresentations. Three of the four sources used are mostly negative, yet two of them (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/tvblog/2010/10/glee-week-5-we-watch-so-you-do.html and http://hollywoodcrush.mtv.com/2010/10/27/glee-recap-the-rocky-horror-glee-show/) have quotes taken out of context and are presented as being positive. The mostly positive review (http://tvrecaps.ew.com/recap/glee-season-2-episode-5-rocky-horror/) is cited repeatedly to make it appear as though many more sources are being cited, yet the completely negative review (http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-rocky-horror-glee-show,46736/) is only given one sentence. In addition, the section's claim that the episode received mostly positive review cites a ratings website that has no mention of critical reception. Any chance we could get a rewrite? --Hisak (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a work in progress, as my above post says, feel free to add/delete/change whatever in the reception section. CTJF83 chat 20:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
As ever with the 'Glee' episode articles the reception section is overly long and deliberately written to play up the positive reviews and play down the negative reviews. The fact remains Reception sections shouldn't be this long it's not necessary and it's not Wiki. For examples of appropriate phrasing and length of a Rception section take a look at those on episodes of 'The Simpsons', 'Family Guy' and 'House'. The editors of that page are not made up of overzealous fanboys and, as such, are capable of rational thought and meeting Wiki guidelines. 92.15.3.203 (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
92.15.3.203, please refrain from calling editors "overzealous fanboys", as that is both prejudicial and sexist. As mentioned multiple times above, the article is still very much a work in progress. Feel free to contribute if you wish. And the section is not "overly long": guidelines tell us that two to three sentences per critic review is recommended. Yves (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Please do mention any particular articles you feel have 'biased' reception sections, I'm sure that can be remedied very easily. I believe we've had this same discussion several times before, but to reiterate, most individual episodes of The Simpsons, Family Guy and House don't receive anywhere near the same amount of media coverage as Glee, hence an immediate difference in the length of "Reception" sections. I'd again suggest you read some of the more easily comparable Lost FAs - featured content with "Reception" sections that run much longer. As Yves says, MOSTV recommends 2-3 sentences per critic, and simply doesn't support the assertion that such sections should be any particular length. Frickative 14:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Why was Aly Semigran's review moved to the music section? Her review was a good positive one. Right now it says reviews were mixed , but I only see negative ones. JDDJS (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming it is because MTV deals primarily with music, so it makes more sense to have it there. Yves (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Semigran is still mentioned under crit. resp., but the meatiest parts of her review focused on the songs, so I moved the music-centric bits up to "Music". She actually wasn't particularly favourable overall - as she says in her opening paragraph, "the episode, much like Brad and Janet, got rather lost along the way." The first review from Tim Stack is positive, and I have a couple of positive ones from E! and the NY Daily News to add later. Frickative 21:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The Rocky Horror Glee Show. 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:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130113222519/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-10 to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-10
Added archive https://archive.is/20130113222519/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-10 to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-10
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chartstats.com/artistinfo.php?id=12473
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) 00:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)