Talk:The Andy Griffith Show/Archive 1

message: According to BarneyFife.com
George Lindsay, who played Goober in the series said, "One of the incredible things about every single episode is that Andy insisted each show have a moral point, something good, lofty and moral. It’s a shame current shows on TV don’t adopt that high road."
Also from BarneyFife.com
The show becomes a source of common ground to attract people from all religious backgrounds and walks of life. Basically, it offers a casual, non threatening atmosphere for people to get together, have fun, and think about how we handle certain situations in life.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~thefanns/class3.htm
points out Mr. Jackson's disrespect for Andy's authority, but the site seems oblivious to Barney's constant disrespect for Andy's authority, and their disrespect for the authority of others.
Other Relevant links.
http://www.moderndrunkardmagazine.com/issues/06_04/06-04-mayberry-bender.htm
http://www.needcoffee.com/html/dvd/agshow1.htm
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/010/15.27.html
<B>HACKWRENCH</B> -- This "controversy" does not meet the Wiki NPOV "Undue Weight" test:<P>
*If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
*If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia</P>
When an arts subject's controversy is at all noteworthy, articles will cite notable sources.  Compare your effort with the Harry Potter article.  Note that the opinions that are documented all have <I>prominent adherents</I>.  That's why they're noteworthy.
If every possible subjective opinion on every possible subject was touched on, Wikipedia wouldn't resemble an encyclopedia at all -- it would be more like the Yahoo! forums.  Either agree (and learn) to write like an encyclopedist or just stop it. 24.85.49.66
So a POV can only be presented if a famous person has it? Sounds ridiculous to me. Yahoo! forums is a completely different format. POVs aren't summarized and collated. That is all I ask from an Encyclopedia. Not my fault if there is a handful of others wanting something different. First you are going to have to convince me that what you expect an encyclopedia to be is best, Mr. 24.85.49.66. Hackwrench 22:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: pooopppppppppppppppp

message: Wasn't Goober Pyle Gomer's cousin, rather than his brother?
Rlquall 02:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goober 

message: Ee60640 and 65.42.89.35 have their own ideas of what belong in a encyclopedia article. What they do not seem to realize is that they are not authorities on what belongs in an encyclopedia article. 65.42.89.35 seems to think portions are incoherent. Just because you don't understand something doesn't automatically make it incoherent. Hackwrench 18:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Encyclopedic and Incoherent

message: I hope that I can help you to understand what's happening. The folks who keep redacting your contributions to this article have good reason to:  Your writing is objectively inappropriate for an encyclopaedia entry.  Not only is it subjective opinion, but it's extremely eccentric subjective opinion.  You clearly have strong personal feelings about this forty-year-old sitcom.  You have made more than half of the entry a rant about how you feel that it represents bad morality. This is not information, it's opinion.  If you wish to disseminate your opinion or frame a debate about whether or not this light entertainment series represents a solid and consistent system of values, you ought to create a personal webpage to do so.  The author of an encyclopaedia article should be invisible.  The Neutral Point of View should not be difficult to maintain in an article about a light entertainment program.  A couple of lines about how many people consider the program to be "wholesome" entertainment, followed by a "but..." that takes up more space than all of the factual information about the show itself is not a neutral point of view.
In addition to the basic unsuitablity of your contribution to the article in the context of an encyclopaedia entry (due to its pronounced and peculiar bias,)the writing itself is incoherent to the point of incomprehensibility.  It is loaded with spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors.  Even if we ignore the fact that an encyclopaedia article is not the place for a debate about the morality of a spectacularly uncontroversial TV show, your capsule synopsis of several episodes under the "Morally Questionable" subheading are rambling and often pointless.  For example:
<BLOCKQUOTE>'In "High Noon At Mayberry", Lou Comstock sends Andy a letter saying that he's coming to Mayberry "to set things straight." Barney manipulates Andy into thinking that Lou's coming to shoot Andy because of the time that Andy shot him in the leg during a hold-up.'</BLOCKQUOTE>
How do you consider that this indicates a moral weakness of the program?  The overriding quality that Barney Fife possesses is that he is an incompetent simpleton. This is a source of comedic tension.  It drives the plot in each episode.  Nobody is asked to emulate Barney's behaviour -- he is a figure to be pitied, and of course to laugh at.
The subsections "Attitude towards weapons" and "Attitude towards women," are particularly bad.  Of course Aunt Bea doesn't like weapons.  She's a remarkably nervous old woman. Barney's enthusiasm for his gun doesn't frame weapons in a bad light -- it frames <I>Barney</I> in a bad light.  It's not guns in-and-of-themselves that attract him -- it's the associated authority -- which he is manifestly unfit to represent. The show doesn't have a pertinent philosophy with regard to firearms.  Your section seems to imply that you believe that guns should, of necessity, be portrayed in a positive light.  As for the "attitudes about women," what are you trying to say?  You mention one episode in which a character encourages another character to be more feminine, "against her father's wishes."  What is the attitude toward women that this represents?  That they should all be girly-girls?  That they should be tomboys?  That they should submit to patriarchal authority?  That they should resist patriarchal authority?  That they should do what feels right?  What?  Never mind, because <I>it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia article about a light entertainment program.</I>  
If you want to write a thesis about the values of 1960s middle-America, or Hollywood, or whatever, and their relative worth measured against your own philosophy, do it somewhere else -- and you might want to hire an editor, if you want anyone to be able to make out what you're trying to communicate.
Your contribution <I>is</I> incoherent in the most objective sense.  Your english is difficult to parse -- not because the concepts are high, but because your use of the language is very poor. If your contribution contained useful information that was germane to the article at all, then I'm sure that people would be happy to spruce up your spelling, grammar, and punctuation.  As it stands, the only thing to do is to remove it altogether.  As long as you keep reinserting it, people are going to continue to "clean up the page" by removing it -- not because of any ideological opposition, mind, but because it's simply out of place. Don't single out the people who've removed it so far -- it's the natural decision for anyone who's trying to edit the page to conform to standards.
Larry Mudd 22:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hackwrench

message: You don't seem to have read wikipedia's NPOV article. Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias. By deleting the point of view I have presented, a view is not represented. Hackwrench 00:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: What have I misspelled? What is wrong with my grammar? As for puncuation, the rhetorical question could stand to have a question mark, but what else is wrong. Just saying I have poor spelling, grammar and punctuation doesn't make it so. Hackwrench 00:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: The fact that you think that the section seems to imply a belief that guns should, of necessity, be portrayed in a positive light, says more about you than the section. It doesn't. However the show consistently portrays guns in a negative light.
Further telling your warped sense of reality is that you think that any remarkably nervous old woman wouldn't like weapons. A remarkably nervous old woman is just as likely to keep a gun for comfort as to dislike them. Hackwrench 00:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Attitude towards guns

message: Maybe this will help you - from the NPOV page.  Try to read it and see if you can understand it.
"A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.
Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so.  If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken.  What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view."
--Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder
Did that penetrate your skull or not? ee60640 11:57 AM 10/08/05
Yes, and I am writing about what people believe about the show, while you are writing about what is so about the show. Hackwrench 15:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hackwrench

message: This discussion has ended up being about personal opinion of Wikipedia editors. The "Morally Questionable" section is unsustainable if it can't be changed to report real-world discussions of these issues - X said Y about this aspect or episode. (And of course X would need to be someone reasonably notable.) There's a reason these types of article on Wikipedia are usually short (and factual) - because otherwise it ends up in this sort of situation, which isn't terribly productive, never mind encyclopedic. Rd232 20:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC comment 

message: A bit silly, but this is clearly not going to be solved one way or the other until we ask for an authoritative opinion, and a month of reverts is probably enough. Larry Mudd 06:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for mediation made. 

message: The following comments by Larry Mudd and Ee60640 were first posted at the top of this talk page.  I moved them because I understood most recent remarks should be posted at the end of the page.  Ee60640 07:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Important Note

message: Here's an idea that might resolve this conflict to everyone's satisfaction:
For most people, <I>The Andy Griffith Show</I> is simply light entertainment, not an ethical outlook.  Therefore, it seems inappropriate to devote any discussion to its morality in a general article about the show.  How about creating a seperate article that addresses the topic of the minority view that the show is a model of ethics, and including a link to it?  Maybe a single line noting the existence of books like The Way Back to Mayberry and The Mayberry Bible Study Guide, linking to an article which would represent this POV and whatever criticisms there are of it? Larry Mudd 17:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for Hackwrench

message: I agree with Larry Mudd and thought I had made a suggestion along these lines earlier.  However, my main reason for coming in to post this is to suggest that since this has been submitted to the Mediation Cabal we all take a cooling off period.  Personally there are many other things here in Wikipedia that I am interested in working on and this has already become much more elaborate and involved than I ever thought possible.Ee60640 23:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cooling off period

message: Ideally, the characters of a show should each have their own individual pages, or at least the major ones. The Sheriff Andy Taylor page was an attempt at such a page for the character Andy Taylor of this show. {{User:CantStandYa|CantStandYa]] made it redirect here. What are people's opinions on the subject. Hackwrench 20:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character pages 

message: added comments at [ Mediation Cabal#Comments from an outsider-Steven McCrary]
Steven McCrary 16:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Mediation 

message: Major resturcturing of this article was long overdue.  The article was almost entirely one long, long section, ironically called "Overview".  I completely restructured this article to be more in line with the common Wikipedia structure used for other television programs.  Most notably The Simpsons and M*A*S*H (TV series) were used as examples of shows that were very popular and well organized.  I attempted to use logic in the categries and their order.  This reorganization was definitely needed, but it meant a lot of the content had to be moved around but I did not remove any content (yet) (except for correcting the episode of The Danny Thomas Show as being the pilot.  It was the basis for the a new show, possibly categoried as a spin-off, but it wasn't a pilot episode of TAGS).
I added some new content but I did not remove existing content because I figured this restructuring was such a major change that I figured to take one step at a time.   Please note that I did not move everything.  All content that was not moved (most of it) was left where it was but the section was renamed "Commentary".  I did not want to change too much all at once.  Much of that content is indeed commentary (not strictly factual) but some of it is still needs to be moved to more appropriate sections or deleted if duplicate information. Fife Club 04:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the hard work.  I wanted to work on this some time ago, but because of the situation recounted above that went to the Mediation Cabal and the "truce" proposed I have been reluctant to make any changes here.  Nice to see others are of the same mind.  Ee60640 09:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it looks a lot better.  Just prior to its restructuring, I added a bunch of stuff to fill out the article, because it seemed a little light (for as popular a show as it is), and also simply because the Sheriff Andy Taylor link redirects here, but there was very little content about the character on this page.  But I didn't know where to put anything, so I just kind of stuck stuff here and there.  I hope I didn't add any duplicate information. Please feel free to move it around or take it out if it isn't necessary. Wavy G 23:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Restructuring 

message: Nothing major really, but removed duplicate information, and moved a lot of stuff around.
I consolidated the "Synopsis" and "Overview" sections, since they both basically said the same thing, with a few variations.  I took the left over info and moved some to the introductory segment at the beginning of the article (seems to fit better there, than in an "overview" description of the show) and moved remaining info to Synopsis section. Also, gave a brief sentence describing the show in the introductory paragraph.
Moved some chunks of the "Commentary" to their own sections: "Reaction" -- a paragraph following the Synopsis and Origins, which goes into a little detail about the show's reception and fan reaction.  Also there was about three paragraphs that described the color seasons, the exit of Don Knotts, and eventual leaving of Andy Griffith, that seemed to fit better towards the end of the "beef" of the article, so I put them together into a section I called "The later years."  Moved the remaining commentary (basically in-depth details about the characters and plotline of the series) in between the two.  Enjoy. Wavy G 05:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made some changes. 

message: is an episode where the script seems self-contradictory about whether various cities are in other counties.
list of The Andy Griffith Show episodes
January 18, 1965
The Rehabilitation of Otis
Otis rides into Mayberry on a cow under the impression it is a horse. Barney takes on the task of curing Otis' moonshine habit.
On what map is it West Los Angeles?  A century or so old?  How about Hollywood District {Despite this page that claims Portland, I'm referring to neither Oregon nor Maine.}?
I am very familiar w/ a lot in Hollywood, near Hollywood Park Cemetery; there may be another in Culver{?}.  {Hollywood Forever Cemetery, Hollywood Memorial Park Cemetery, Hollywood Forever Memorial Park Cemetery.}
The TV show itself was filmed entirely in Hollywood, at Desilu Productions on the former RKO Pictures lot (now merged with the Paramount Pictures lot in West Los Angeles)."
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta  | [[ %c2%a1 %c2%bf  %7e%7e%7e%7e  -]] 09:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rehabilitation of Otis" 

message: Why is the short list of the regular cast put into a separate article, while the long list of guest stars is kept here? It should be the other way round. Any objections to doing this? Clarityfiend 08:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing what?  The character article can be (and needs to be) expanded.  Character lists generally have the chracter, the actor, and a brief description.  For some reason (myself included) nobody has taken the dive and expanded it.  On the other hand, the long list of guest stars needs to be trimmed down, as in its current form, it is extraordinarily unencyclopedic, and indiscriminate (We could list every single person who ever appeared on the show, but why?.  This is not IMDB).  As far as I know, the "guest stars" is a recent addition that has expanded like wildfire in the past few months.  If anything, the guest stars could be moved as a subsection of the characters list.  Wavy G 01:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Nevermind, I see a guest stars article has already been created.  I don't know how long something like that will last though.  We'll see... Wavy G
I don't know exactly where this needs to go, so please excuse me if I add it in the wrong place.  But shouldn't the list of "Recurring Characters" include Ernest T. Bass and the Darlings?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.33.83 (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I guess whoever made the list used a cutoff of 10+ episodes. (I've removed Ken Berry, who is nowhere close to qualifying.) Ernest T. and the others are in List of The Andy Griffith Show cast members. They strike me as people who drop by now and then rather than permanent residents anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sub article

message: :Category:The Andy Griffith Show is being proposed for deletion.  You may comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 7#Category:The Andy Griffith Show --rogerd 15:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:The Andy Griffith Show 

message: :Image:Andy Griffith Show1.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 insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 14:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Andy Griffith Show1.jpg

message: Since the debate about trivia and pop culture sections is still highly debated, I decided to remove the cultural references section from this article. As interesting as the facts may be, they don't add anything more to the article and since they are unsourced, it makes more sense to get rid of the section until the statements can be properly sourced. By that time, I hope the trivia debate will be resolved. Leaving it in as it was only leaves the article tagged for no references and having a trivia section, two tags that no article needs. Pinkadelica (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural References 

message: Is this of any real importance in an article about TAGS? Should this sort of info be carried over into every article about a television show? Shouldn't these accomplishments be noted on individual pages for each person rather than in a section of TAGS? Just a thought.TimmyTruck (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable crew members: Delete?

message: User:TimmyTruck and I disagree on his 6:26, November 26 addition to the section, specifically the layout of the town, so I would like to get other editors' opinions. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure which change you are referring to.  Since he has made so many changes, it is hard to keep track.  Please include a link to the diff --rogerd (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, it's more than one edit. I feel that most of the Mayberry section is fancruft, with the worst offenders being The Andy Griffith Show#Panorama and The Andy Griffith Show#Principal settings; per WP:NOT#TRAVEL, Wikipedia should not be a travel guide for Mayberry, Andy's house and Floyd's barbershop. For someone who is unfamiliar with the show, the locations are essentially meaningless, and the level of detail excessive. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mayberry change 

message: These apparently come from IMDb. Does anybody know how accurate they are? Clarityfiend (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode count

message: -->This whole discussion about TAGS and culture (race, gender, etc) teeters on the line of original research as well as NPOV. If it's notable, then cite it's notability. Don't cite random nuggets of info and facts from the show and draw conclusions about their relevance to contemporary culture. That's what blog are for, not wikipedia. Bwilder1998 (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This isn't the place 

message: I was fine with a section on minorities, but I think the article's detailed description of every conceivable aspect of the show, the characters, Mayberry, and the architecture is getting out of control. Someone commented above that "WP wants detailed articles". That may be true, but WP wants quality articles that say a lot in a few words more than WP wants endless detail. If we stay on the current trajectory, soon we'll have sections on "Squad car models", "Civic organizations in Mayberry", "Miss Crump's lesson plans", "Opie's fashion sense", and "Floor plans of the jail cells". I'm not entirely opposed to additions to the article, but can we please start tightening up, condensing, and integrating before we add any more? Ward3001 (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Delete, merging a sentence or two in Mayberry and vicinity. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Delete --rogerd (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Delete 74.131.22.99 (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Delete as WP:POV. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Delete --rogerd (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Delete 74.131.22.99 (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Trim down to the two sentences with references. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Trim --rogerd (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Delete as non-notable, unless someone can find contemporary references complaining about their portrayal, or rather lack thereof. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Delete --rogerd (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Delete 74.131.22.99 (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Delete for the same reason as African Americans. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Delete --rogerd (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Delete 74.131.22.99 (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Delete for the same reason as African Americans. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Delete with a possible short sentence, not under a separate header --rogerd (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Delete 74.131.22.99 (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Delete as above. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Delete --rogerd (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Delete 74.131.22.99 (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Strong delete. Fancruft that is more appropriate in IMDb. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Delete --rogerd (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Delete Ward3001 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Delete entire Miscellanea section. Trivia. Jollyoldelf (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Delete Fancruft. EatNoPig (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Delete --rogerd (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Condense and Merge with "Recurring characters" Ward3001 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Condense and Merge with "Recurring characters" Forallthytendermercies (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Condense and Merge per Ward. Jollyoldelf (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Condense and Merge as suggested. EatNoPig (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Comment How can you be a recurring character if you've never recurred, or even "curred"?  Clarityfiend (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment Well ... Opie's mother is mentioned in the pilot and one episode so she qualifies as a recurring character. She is an "unseen" character just as Sarah, the telephone operator, and many others on the show are "unseen" characters. TimmyTruck (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment - If necessary, the section can be retitled, such as "Recurring and unseen characters", or something similar. Ward3001 (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Condense and Merge "Mayberry and vicinity" and "Crime in Mayberry" Forallthytendermercies (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Condense and Merge "Minorities in Mayberry", "Ethnicities in Mayberry", "African Americans in Mayberry", "Women in Mayberry", "Religion in Mayberry", and "Teenagers in Mayberry".  Forallthytendermercies (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Condense and Merge per Ward Jollyoldelf (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Condense and Merge as suggested. EatNoPig (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Never-ending expansion

message: Please do not use this article to make claims about Mayberry or other fictional sites on the show being based on actual locations. No evidence exists in the show or in real life to support such claims. They are speculation and do not belong in this article.  TimmyTruck (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm ... I thought Andy Griffith based Mayberry on Mt. Airy, his home town, and Mt. Pilot on Pilot Mountain? EatNoPig (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Griffith has denied basing Mayberry on his home town of Mt. Airy.  TimmyTruck (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims about locations

message: Comments are solicited. The second section in particular is a little underdeveloped.
; Portrayal of minorities
thumb|right|Rockne Tarkington.
Minorities rarely appeared on the show, and, when they did, were generally treated briefly and in a stereotypical manner somewhat atypical of 1960s television. Although the program was produced during the civil rights era, African Americans were, with one exception, seen only in the background as part of the crowd. Only Rockne Tarkington had a speaking role, as Opie's football coach in a seventh season episode. Other minorities were equally scarce. A Japanese actor appeared as a martial arts instructor in one episode and two Chinese men join Aunt Bee in opening her "Canton Palace" restaurant.
; Portrayal of women and children
Women play a subordinate role in Mayberry, unlike contemporary programs such as The Donna Reed Show. For example, when Ellie Walker and Aunt Bee run for the town council, they are not taken seriously.
Teenagers are for the most part strangely absent from the show. None are seen on the streets of Mayberry or get in trouble with the law. Nor are there any teen "hang outs" in town, like malt shops and hamburger joints. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree with Ward3001, but could live with Clarityfiend's proposal --rogerd (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have no objection to putting it all in one section. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * Very good! EatNoPig (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed condensation

message: Please add info to this section. Thanks! TimmyTruck (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TimmyTruck, I'm thinking of deleting this section as Non-Notable. There's nothing notable about two comic books. Although merchandise is being produced today like Mayberry-opoly it can hardly be included in this section without appearing to be SPAM. EatNoPig (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, it is notable when you consider other tv shows of the period had considerably more comic books published based on the show. Bewitched had 14 books, for example, while Lassie had just as many. In TAGS case, it's the lack of many comic books that is notable.  TimmyTruck (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merchandise section

message: Update for "Unseen characters".
Awaiting feedback before adding to article.
; Unseen characters 
The Andy Griffith Show is peopled with countless unseen characters who add color and depth to the show. Three are notable:
*Sarah, the telephone operator. Sarah (with Andy, Opie, Bee, Barney, and Clara) remained with the show for its entire run.
*Juanita Beasley, a diner waitress. Barney reports dating Juanita and often speaks with her over the courthouse telephone.
*Opie's "Maw". Little is known about her; even her name is unknown. In the backdoor pilot, Andy says he lost her when Opie was "the least little speck of a baby." While "lost" is sometimes employed euphemistically for death, the word may suggest other possibilities. It is not definitely established that Opie's mother is dead. Opie's mother is mentioned again in the second season episode, "Wedding Bells for Aunt Bee" when Andy says he had the kind of love for her that leads to marriage. Andy never says he was married to Opie's mother nor does any other character refer to her as Andy's wife. There are no souvenirs (like photos or portraits) of Opie's mother in Andy's house nor does anyone mention or visit a grave. Opie apparently has no maternal relatives; only paternal relatives appear on the show.
EatNoPig (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks good and is notable because these unseen characters "appear" frequently in the show, especially the phone operator Sarah.  Clinevol98 (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In season 3 episode 28 ("The Rivals"), Andy mentions that he was married and the context of the conversation suggests that he is speaking of Opie's mother though it isn't stated definitively. At any rate it does say definitively that he was married to someone. Bgrooster (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give us a quote? Does he say it definitively, such as "I was married" or "When I was married ..."? I'm not denying what you say; I just want to be sure it's crystal clear and not something that requires inference, such as "We set up housekeeping..." or "She was my true love...". Ward3001 (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Opie's Maw Rewrite