Talk:The Chinese Restaurant

message: :Image:Chinese restaurant seinfeld.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Chinese restaurant seinfeld.JPG

message: In my opinion, you can create a small themes section for this article. The three themes that I see in the sources are the following:
*Representative episode of the show "about nothing" (this is already in the article and sourced in many newspaper articles)
*Relationship between the characters and food (see this essay in Seinfeld, master of its domain: revisiting television's greatest sitcom)
*Jewish comedy and the theme of entrapment (see this essay in Something ain't kosher here: the rise of the "Jewish" sitcom)
If you can't access all of the relevant pages of these chapters, let me know - I will get them from my library and email them to you. Awadewit (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, great, great! I can't access the second source and I am unsure how to describe how "show about nothing" as the episode's theme, without repeating what is already stated in the Reception section. Second, if you are willing to help write the section it would be nice (I'll give you co-credit if you wish). Thanks.--Music26/11 17:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Made a small start ;)--Music26/11 19:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, I can access the second source, and I've edited in the info. Are you happy with the section as it is now?--Music26/11 19:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can expand this a bit, but it is a good start. I'll try to add some material in the next few days. Awadewit (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.--Music26/11 15:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some more. I would suggest smoothing out my prose a bit before FAC, as it is a little choppy, but otherwise the section looks good to me. Awadewit (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what, I'll just nominate it. Since the section is rather small, flaws will be resolved in process. It would nice if you'd stick around during FAC though ;) Thanks for your help.--Music26/11 16:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly recommend against nominating an article you know still needs a little bit of work. That is a waste of reviewer time. Now, other people will have to take the time to read the article and point out something you already know needs to be fixed. Then, after you fix it, they will have to reread the article. You are taxing the FAC process unnecessarily. Awadewit (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Butting in: I have this article watched because Music2611 asked for a copyeditor and I'd hoped to get over here when I have time. In my view, the article still needs work. Specifically, the prose needs a good weeding through, and honestly I haven't had the chance to do so. But in my view, the article isn't yet ready for FAC. Strong agree with Awadewit's comment above! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but I have to disagree here. The previous FAC had no more complaints about the prose. If you think it's not good enough yet, there's enough time to fix it, I mean from my own experiences I've learned that it takes a long time for reviewers to come along and review these kind of articles. And the Themes section is only a few sentences long.--Music26/11 17:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes section 

message: The article says, "David explained that the reason for Kramer's absence was because, during Seinfeld's early seasons, the character never left his apartment and did not go out with the other three."  However, while watching seasons 1 and 2 again recently, I noticed several times where Kramer left the building.  In one episode, he had Elaine go with him to sit in a double-parked car while he picked up some birds.  In another, he invited Jerry to go with him to a store that was three blocks past the supermarket Jerry shopped at to get fresh cantaloupe.  
These episodes aired before The Chinese Restaurant, although I don't know the order they were created.  If anyone has a reference telling the full story, I think it would help this article to add it.  Raran75 (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kramer Absent From Episode 

message: all fine and dandy that james hong was in a newhart episode; how about the fact that he was in two BONANZAs????
a lot more significant, IMHO. 209.172.23.76 (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cartwright!