Talk:Good Times

message: "After its initial run in syndication, Good Times seemed to be mostly forgotten until Chicago's WCIU began rerunning the show in the late 1990s, with various cable networks subsequently adding the show to their schedules."
What?? I grew up in the 80s watching reruns of the show, having never watched it in the 70s. It was still an extremely well known show. In 1986, for example, I could have gone into my high school and everyone would have known what "dyn-o-mite!" came from, and could sing the theme song. And, we'd often see it on TV when home. This was in Texas City, TX.--70.240.118.52 (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccuracy

message: Can anyone identify the aged large municipal-like edifice viewers see from a birds-eye view at the beginning of the shows opening credits?  The large building right on the path of the water way.  I do not refer to the modern public housing project ones sees towards the middle and end of the opening credit, but the ery first image when the first musical notes are heard.  I am sure this building has a story to tell.67.86.199.239 05:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind.  I found the image on a Google Earth.  The fine edifice indeed tells a story: it is the famous Chicago Merchandise Mart Building. 24.44.93.71 18:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Building Opening of Show/Intro

message: Is there any information on who are the singers on the theme song? 4.231.56.177 04:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Theme song question

message: The article is way too long with its overabundance of trivia and minutiae. The "Catchphrases," "Two-parters," and "Songs" sections need to go completely (interesting though they may be, they are not encyclopedic); a strong argument can be made for the "Trivia" section's removal (or at least paring it back to no more than one-fourth its size) -- these sections alone occupy half the article space. While the write-up of the show's history is a pretty good introduction, a section describing each of the major characters (and also similar descriptions of the recurring ones) would add quite a bit to the understanding of the show itself. 147.70.242.40 01:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting... are you suggesting that the article should be deleted as unencyclopedic? This is an encyclopedia; if TV Shows are unencyclopedic topics then they don't belong here. I don't personally believe that, but I felt it neccessary to point out the error in your logic. I do think that TV Show and other pop culture articles can be written in a professional and encyclopedic manner- so long as editors are vigilant for the cruft that tends to be attracted to them. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 22:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much too loaded with unencyclopedic topics 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: :Moving this comment from within the article here to the talk page. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 20:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct projects? 

message: I think we've got the wrong actor listed. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actor who played Henry Evans 

message: I have removed the "Notable Points of Interests" section for the second time because, no matter what the section is titled, the majority of the content is trivia. Trivia sections should be avoided in articles which is why I removed it to begin with. I did, however, integrate the relevant points (notable guest stars, points about the theme song lyrics, etc.) into the article which is what editors are suppose to do instead of just up and removing it all. Things like the theme song being sung on SNL at some point or the show being mentioned in a movie is again trivia and should not be here. Pinkadelica♣ 16:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. An anon has just restored the material, saying there should be discussion on the talk page, but he or she hasn't bothered to participate. I'm going to delete the material again. If particular points can be well-sourced and are relevant then they can be integrated into the article.   Will Beback  talk   22:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Oops, I beat you to it :) Pinkadelica♣ 22:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable points of interest section 

message: I have added back a load of content that was removed supposedly under the reasoning that it was "original research". First, there was reliably sourced content that was removed. The "Changes in direction" section was already reliably sourced as were the quotes. How that falls under original research I'll never know. The show underwent some major changes and to omit that one of the main characters was killed off makes no sense whatsoever. The fact that two of the main stars, John Amos and Esther Rolle, publicly complained about the series and ultimately left because of it also doesn't fall under OR. This was covered by the media as evidenced by the sources that were present. If someone had a problem with Ebony and The LA Times being reliable sources, they should have dropped a note here instead of removing a shit ton of content that someone took the time to write (not me) and another person (me) took the time to source. Original research isn't including details about the work, it's drawing your own conclusions based on your own research. In television show articles, we can use the work itself as a source for the actual details of the show. Once the writing start veering off into overly detailed garbage, that's when the OR police can come out. Works of fiction should have some details about production, ratings, show changes, etc. If not, all we have is an article that says a show aired and some people were in it. It took me all of 20 minutes to find sources for the majority of the removed content - none of it was contentious nor was it OR which means it should not have been removed. Ironically, actual original research about the stupid opening titles was left in. Pinkadelica♣ 10:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged Original Research 

message: There is nothing significant about the character that cannot be detailed in the article. It is unlikely weight issues would ever require it to be split back out, so it should be contained within the main article. TTN (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[James Evans, Sr.]] 

message: As with the previous article, anything that can be said about the character can be summarized in the show article without much issue. There's no need for multiple paragraphs of in-universe information. TTN (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[J.J. Evans]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Good Times. 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://web.archive.org/web/20070206173341/http://www.tvland.com/shows/goodtimes/ to http://www.tvland.com/shows/goodtimes/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: When I first saw it on TV Land, they even reminded me of Homer Simpson's Medical Marijuana sticks.2601:447:4080:10:B0AC:847E:BC2F:603 (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You can clearly see syringes in that clip, which makes it pretty obvious what "dope" was referring to in that context. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, which I already referred too. However, the clip makes it obvious it was referring to a variety of drugs. There was also only one syringe-which was perhaps even presented like a weed stick until the cap was removed- and one hemp-like rope with no needle at the end. 2601:447:4080:10:A03F:A958:2221:8EE3 (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: The drugs sure looked like Marijuana sticks in J.J's Fiance