Talk:The Andy Griffith Show

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 16:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Where are the Darlin's?

How cum there are no references to the several appearances of the Dillards as the Darlin's? Mark Sublette (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody apparently made a decision to only list recurring characters who appeared in 10 or more episodes. The Darlings are mentioned in List of The Andy Griffith Show cast members. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

According to The Darlings article, they appeared in six episodes. --rogerd (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay - I guess it is reasonable to establish a minimum for inclusion. Mark Sublette (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

But that also disqualifies Ernest T. - Sub* Mark Sublette (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion(s)

1. We were wondering if certain info in The Andy Griffith Show is appropriate, in either its original form or its current toned-down version. The discussion is here. 18:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Taken from WP:3O#Active disagreements - I'd prefer to answer on the article talk page rather than individual users' pages. From what I can see, information on the number or percentage of married characters would fall squarely under original research, and should not be included. The current version also appears to be non-neutral, it talks of "only 2 characters" being married, and implies this is contrary to the show's family values. A NPOV version would at least draw comparison with other shows with family values, but then this would involve even more OR. If there are interviews, articles, books, DVD commentaries that discuss the proportion of married characters and it's relevance then the information could be included. I'd also like to re-iterate that while many of the 'policies' people link to in debates are indeed guidelines, WP:OR is a policy and should as such is "considered a standard that all users should follow" Paulbrock (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Cut the flab

In an effort to cut some of the flab in this article, I've removed the individual bios for Opie, Aunt Bee, and Barney as they all have individual articles that are linked to this article. If necessary, their bios can be incorporated into that of Andy. I've removed the "guest stars" as they too have a separate article linked to this article. ReverendLogos (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to trimming flab (you should see what some overzealous editors have done to Leave It to Beaver despite my best efforts). However, more than passing mention should be made of the other three main characters. Just because they have their own articles doesn't mean their roles can't be summarized here. In fact, it's recommended to leave a condensed version when a subarticle is split off from its too-lengthy parent. As it stands now, Opie, Barney and Aunt Bee are lost among the listing of all the other characters, some of whom aren't all that important, e.g. Andy's transient girlfriends (but good riddance to the guest stars).

The other major objection I have is the production section going first. Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines states "The above three sections (plot, background, and cast) do not have a set order, and, as with every article on Wikipedia, the order should be set to what is best for the article." IMO, a casual reader would like to know what the show is about before going into the production details. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

ReverendLogos appears hellbent on cutting this article down to almost nothing. Despite the above objections to reducing the Barney, Opie, and Aunt Bee characters down to the point that they are lost among the other minor characters. And that's after I repeatedly restored a few tidbits about Barney. That's just one of the "cut-to-the-bone" ReverendLogos's meat cleaver has inflicted on the article. This clearly is one editor assuming ownership of an article. This article did have problems with excessive detail in the past. Now it has gone to the other extreme, and worse. When I have more time I plan to restore a substantial portion of the article. In the meantime, I am curious what other editors feel about this situation. I don't plan to get into a shouting match with ReverendLogos because I can already see that my pleas will fall on deaf ears. If this problem continues, I plan to post an RfC to get a broader opinion of what the Wikipedia community thinks. Ward3001 (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This article does not need character and performer links endlessly repeated in various sections. The main cast is defined and linked in the lead per Ward3001's and Clarityfiends's editing. Those links do not need to be repeated repeated repeated elsewhere in the article. Cutsey pie, downhome descriptions and analysis of Barney and Opie are not necessary because those characters have separate articles. It's enough to say Barney is "a comically inept depuaty" and Opie is Andy's "young son". The article really needs no more than that because those characters have separate articles. I think it is sad that this article is being rummaged day after day by a few "fans" who feel every minute detail of the show needs to be recorded in this article. This is an encyclopedia article not a blog nor a gushy blurb at a fan site. Terse prose works best. ReverendLogos (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not getting into an argument with you. I just happen to disagree with about 98% of what you are saying and what you have done. It's your opinion as to what is "downhome", "gushy blurb", and what "works best". You don't seem to grasp the difference between academic papers, paper encyclopedias, and online encyclopedias (which have much fewer space restrictions than the paper versions). This is my last comment on the matter unless you continue on your current trajectory, in which case my next comments will be in an RfC. In the meantime, may I suggest that you read WP:OWN and WP:CON, although I doubt that you will. Ward3001 (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The intro is supposed to be a rehash of the rest of the article, so there is redundancy in any good article of a good length. As I stated before, it is generally acknowledged that it is a bad idea to delete all the information just because there are subarticles. And what was wrong with my new Plot section? It was concise and described the series to a newcomer. It is in the position recommended by the TV style guidelines and the right length (200-500 words). As I stated in the comment, I intended to remove the duplication from the following sections; I was just having trouble figuring out what to leave in the Characters section afterwards.

After thinking about it some more, I see the Plot section going back in, the Characters section reverting to a list, with a very brief description for each character and transferring over the info from the BW and Color Seasons, i.e. all the comings and goings. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Clarityfiend. And thanks for helping the Wikipedia community take back ownership of this article. When I have time I may try to flesh out some more information that was unnecessarily removed. Ward3001 (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please discontinue the excessive and constant reverts which serve absolutely no purpose in improving this article. There's a kind of unreasonable stubbornness to what you're doing. It's as if you're trying to establish who has the right to edit this article. I've reformatted the Recurring characters section with debuts and last dates removed because such information is more useful in the spinoff article about cast members. Here, such info only makes the article unnecessarily lengthy and tiresome. Such information is "technical" and works better elsewhere. Cease and desist with your irrational and unnecessary reverts! EatNoPig (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If that comment is addressed to me, that's the pot calling the kettle black. You have reverted and edit warred as much or more than anyone in the last couple of days. Look at the edit history. You were asked to discuss on talk, but you reverted after the request. You didn't write the above until after I asked you to stop edit warring. So let's set the record straight. Your comments above apply to yourself. "Cease and desist with your irrational and unnecessary reverts!" Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the few comments about each major character make the article unnecessarily lengthy and tiresome. Until that info was added the article had been slashed down too much. And what you mean by "technical" and works better elsewhere I have no idea. Ward3001 (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Cease and desist

Please STOP the continual childish reverts to inferior editions of this article. ReverendLogos (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ReverendLogos, please stop defying WP:CON, WP:OWN, and WP:NPA. Ward3001 (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the references to how the role of Barney Fife came about, and the point that, contrary to urban myth, Barney was not Andy's cousin. Both Griffith and Knotts agreed that the reference to "cousin Andy" in the first regular episode was not only meant as a "joke" line for the audience, but that they also treated it between their characters as such. Mickproper (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. Give us a source that "Both Griffith and Knotts agreed that the reference to "cousin Andy" in the first regular episode was not only meant as a "joke" line for the audience, but that they also treated it between their characters as such", then you can add it back to the article. Ward3001 (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you do it?

I hate to plead ignorance, as most people do, so I'm writing this reluctantly. On The Andy Griffith Show main page, there is a reference to Bob Ross as a producer of the show, but when I click on it, I'm steered to Bob Ross the painter on PBS. It's not the same guy because I know that the producer died in the late 60s or early 70s. I don't know how to fix the link or change it because I can't find a page about the producer. Help!

I'm not sure how you saw a link because "Bob Ross" was not linked in the article when you posted your request. In any event, there does not appear to be an article on Bob Ross the producer. But if there were an article titled "Bob Ross (producer)", you would use a pipe link like this: [[Bob Ross (producer)|Bob Ross]]. Cresix (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

North Carolina connection

As a native North Carolinian, I was a little surprised that there is almost nothing in the article about the setting being there. There are several references in the show to real places in North Carolina – Frances Bavier surprisingly retired to one of those places, Siler City, North Carolina, and Mayberry itself is a takeoff on Andy Griffith's hometown of Mount Airy, North Carolina (and that connection is played up to this day in multiple tourist attractions), as just two examples. There are numerous online resources that spell out the fictional and real names. Shocking Blue (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

superior programming

I remember this show as a child, but didn't have the experience or education to properly judge it. Seeing it more than a half-century later, I can appreciate its quality.

I detest sentimentality, and hearing people talk about "family values" makes me want to throw up, but TAGS avoids the former and refuses to shove the latter down the audience's throat. TAGS comes across as a comic version of The Rifleman with a widower trying to keep his son on the straight-and-narrow.

Somewhere there must be a serious article about the show's actual values, rather than mindless adulation of its "wholesomeness". (I hate wholesomeness.) WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

wrong on cousins

You write: “In a few early episodes in the first season, Andy and Barney comment that they are cousins….but this relationship is rarely mentioned later.”

The first part of this statement is correct: they are called cousins in episodes 1, 2, and 6. The second part of this statement is incorrect: after episode 6, and for the remaining 243 episodes, they are NEVER referred to as cousins. “Rarely” does not mean "never." 71.162.113.226 (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)