Talk:Morley (cigarette)

message: Are we positive that she is smoking Morley's? I'm pretty sure the ciagrettes in this episode of Weeds were the 'More' brand. More are a real life cigarette known for being very long (120mm) and having a brown paper instead of white. I think she even mentions in the episode something along the lines of "I used to be thin and long and brown just like these cigarettes." Worth checking into for someone that has the DVD's if not I can probably find out on Netflix.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Washbrook45 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Weeds

message: Wasn't there a persistent rumour that one of the major tobacco companies registered Marley (after reggae musician and famous pot-smoker Bob Marley) as a trademark for cigarettes, for use in the event of marijuana being legalised?  Acb 01:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aside: Marleys 

message: The important thing that the article currently lacks is: where was the fictional brand _first_ used? Was it the X-Files? Or were the X-Files copying an earlier show?
:I agree. There's no real mention of its origins in fiction. The X-Files seems to be the earliest piece to use them, so if they were the first and originators, it needs to be more specific on this, as the article currently does little more than just list its onscreen use. --Bacteria 10:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Doubly agree.  I'd never heard of it before X-Files, and there seem not to be any references here that predate X-Files, so I would tend to assume that all references to Morley cigarettes are either a nod to X-Files or unsurprising serendipity. --Alfoor 21:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Morleys first appeared in The Twilight Zone episode "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet." The design on that cigarette carton was seen again on a pack on Mission: Impossible in episode "Operation 'Heart'". The second image in this article also shows that design. I don't know where the red pack started, but it could be The X-files. - LA @ 20:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin? 

message: Is the quote "We smoke Morleys. We both smoke the same brand. We're the only two characters on TV that do," from Spike as Spike or James Marsters as the actor?  The entry is a bit vague on this.
:MSTCrow 13:32, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
:Well, considering how I don't recall Spike ever saying that in the approximate seven years he's appeared onscreen, I'm going to have to assume that it was Marsters. --Bacteria 10:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Did Spike ever describe himself as a character on TV?  —Tamfang 06:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spike or James Marsters? 

message: Who created this brand? Why is it used in all of these shows? --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 23:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, not the oldest. See my comment under Origin. - LA @ 20:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context? 

message: There are two pack designs. The "white pack" has a blocky horse on it. The "red pack" looks similar to Marlboros. LA
===Sightings===
These are confirmed sightings.
====White Pack====
*Twilight Zone, "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet"
*Mission: Impossible "Operation 'Heart'"
*200 Cigarettes
====Red Pack====
*The X-files
*Buffy the Vampire Slayer
*Criminal Minds "North Mammon"
*Law & Order "The Fire This Time" 2001. While being arrested, a pack of Morleys is pulled from the pocket of a suspect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.236.106 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pack designs 

message: These are confirmed sightings.
====White Pack====
*Twilight Zone, "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet"
*Mission: Impossible "Operation 'Heart'"
*200 Cigarettes
====Red Pack====
*The X-files
*Buffy the Vampire Slayer
*Criminal Minds "North Mammon"
*Law & Order "The Fire This Time" 2001. While being arrested, a pack of Morleys is pulled from the pocket of a suspect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.236.106 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sightings

message: *The X-files
*Buffy the Vampire Slayer
*Criminal Minds "North Mammon"
*Law & Order "The Fire This Time" 2001. While being arrested, a pack of Morleys is pulled from the pocket of a suspect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.236.106 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Red Pack

message: :Image:Csm01.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) 21:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Csm01.jpg

message: I've added a mention of Morley Cigarettes on the Nightmare at 20,000 Feet page. Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nightmare at 20,000 Feet]] 

message: Given the aparent number of primary source appearances and lack of secondary sources that actually discuss the topic, is there any opposition to renaming the article something along the lines of List of Morley cigarette appearances in popular culture? -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the same thing about the article the other day.  I don't object, unless someone can find some non-list content to add. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do strongly object given that this article need not be purely a list and that "List of Morley cigarette appearances in popular culture" is a dramatically less likely search term than "Morley (cigarette)" I can't see how that name change could benefit the encyclopedia.  I do see it as a way to get this renominated as a "non-notable list" as an end-around to the recent failed AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we certainly need it to be more than a non-notable list then. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Morley (cigarette)" becomes a re-direct until there is actual thrid party/secodnary source material found and written up. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus of the AfD that closed just 2 days ago was that this article meets the notability standards, as is. Renaming to change the standards by which this would be judged and including red-meat code words in the name stretches my assumption of good faith that you're not pushing this change to accomplish the eventual deletion your "red pen of doom" failed to accomplish with the original AfD nomination. - Dravecky (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The easy way for you to prevent any potential deletion is to find any of the claimed reliable sources that discuss the actual topic of the article in a substantial way and include that information. My request for deletion was based on Wikipedia article guidelines that article topics should be about notabale subjects. People claimed that this topic was notable but have yet to present actual evidence in the article. When I attempted to add the information from the one source that was provided, you have vociferously claimed that that information is inaccurate or not actually about the subject. It is hard for me to see good faith in your actions. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I started this article over 3 and a half years ago and I can't believe how much time has been spent on trying to get this article removed from Wikipedia. It's been determined that the article should be kept as it is. I see no positive that can come from reclassifying it as a list, and if it meets the standard required to keep it as an article then there's no reason to suggest it. Surely all of this time could be much more productively spent on articles that do not meet the requirements. StuartGilbert (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you have a passion for this article, but back to the question that i have been repeatedly asking: Do you have reliable sources that provide substantive coverage of the topic? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no real passion for the article at all. I've not really touched it in the 3 and a half years since I created it. I just don't think there's any advantage to be gained from classifying it as a list now, to have to change it back at a later date. What sort of coverage would you call substantive? StuartGilbert (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Substantial coverage would be more than one line saying "such and such a character picked up a Morley cigarette" - it would comment on the fact that that this fictional brand is used by multiple media franchises across production studios. It would interpret that the packaging and name are take-offs of Marlboro. It would discuss discuss the fictional Morley brand in the context of other fictional companies. Any ofthe things that wikipedia editors have done through their original research but have not brought in pubished sources to verify. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, so you think more information should be added to the Wikipedia article. Just a quick thought, the text you've written in your previous comment is pretty close to being substantive content. All it would take is a little padding out. Then rather than getting a potentially helpful (for someone) article removed you would have contributed in a non-destructive way. If you're opposed to contributing to the article directly then I'll go ahead and fill it out myself in a little while. StuartGilbert (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Continuing to pound on this referenced article which just passed an AfD as "keep" less than four days ago is surely not the most pressing problem in the whole of Wikipedia. If the intent is truly the betterment of the project, divert your energies into adding a properly formatted  tags to some of the thousands of bio talk pages that lack one—then revisit this article in six months.  Another AfD before then would be improper at best and it would free up the rest of us to return to our own gnomish work. Just a thought. - Dravecky (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is NOT a well referenced article and you are not my mommy to tell me what I should be doing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see this discussion is remaining so civil and mature. - Dravecky (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to List article 

message: I know alphabetical makes appearences easier to find, but I think that chronological works better for the page.  It gives context to the appearence, the growth and the influences of the various appearences.
Opinions? Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: a sortable table? I dont know how exactly to set one up, but a table would help bring consistency to the data. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Took much information for a table, I think.  I just think that chronologically makes more sense. Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabetical vs Chronological 

message: underneath the Left folded up shirt sleeve of the character that drives the red sports car.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.36.13 (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's visible in S Darko, at the end 

message: On the April 7th, 2011 epidode,the hosts were speaking on heartburn causes, and the camera panned across an assortment of products. There on the table was a Morley pack.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.103.149 (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Doctors is a non-fiction show, right?  That seems very funny to me that they would use a fictional brand of cigarettes to illustrate a point.  (Not that I am doubting you.) Shadzane (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The Doctors

message: The infamous brand showed up in the just aired episode (October 30, 2011).  If I forget to come back when I know the name of the episode, someone may wish to add it.  Wickedjacob (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Walking Dead 

message: Hi! Noticed your newly added "laundry list" tag on the article (this page is on my watchlist from previous edits). Can you explain in more detail what specific issues you find, so they can possibly be addressed?
RECENT EDIT: I just now changed the title of the section listing appearances from "List of appearances" to just "Appearances," which seems more descriptive in line with common headings for listed items, like Filmography, Bibliography, and so forth. I also added a brief lead to the section.
Thanks! --Tsavage (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE: In light of the changes made after the tagging (renaming the section containing the list, and providing a section lead to put the items following in clear context, as noted in Recent Edit, above), and two months passing with no reply as to a more detailed description of the problem per the tagging editor, I've removed the umbrella "laundry list" tag. --Tsavage (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed for "laundry list" clean-up need tag on article 

message: What happened to differentiating the appearances by pack/carton design? There are at least 3 different pack designs. There is the 20,000 Feet design, The X-files design, and one other I have seen so far. Wouldn't the pack design be important to see the evolution of this fictional brand? The image on the article shows only The X-Files design. LA (T) @ 21:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pack designs 2 

message: There was a carton of Morley's in the cupboard . 
S9/Ep16 2003 called  Song for my Father.  Just saw it on Decades.  Jynxxed (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Touched by an Angel 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Morley (cigarette). 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/19991011212836/http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/oct/10-02-98/arts/arts6.html to http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/oct/10-02-98/arts/arts6.html
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) 18:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I have removed the word "iconic" from the introduction. I know just about everything is iconic these days, but this is a particularly absurd use of it, well below what should be Wikipedia's standards. Soulnus (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Iconic"