Talk:List of film spoofs in Mad

This list needs to be redone

it badly needs to be redone into decades lists sorted primarily by date. I might do this sometime next week.. if I forget by the next couple of week please remind me. Acidburn24m (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

missing

I dimly recall Sin Doll Ella the Tennessee Williams version of Cinderella and Night of the Living Bra "the supporting cast gives an up-lifting performance" (ok, NOTLB may have been a movie poster parody). I suspect the list is incomplete. Ah, altavista saved my sanity: Sin-Doll Ella by Tennessee Williamsburg appeared in Mad #35 - October 1957. Not quite the Disney version. I was nine. Naaman Brown (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Five Year Plan

Hi, TCGnome. Dividing into half-decades accomplishes a couple of things. It gives a fuller sense of the magazine's historical timeline and progress. MAD's format was different in 1960 than it was in 1969, particularly as far as emphasis on TV/movie parodies goes. Noting the 1960s' prodigious first-half/second-half jump from 10 spoofs to 38 is more informative about the extent and timing of that change than does the full decade's total of 48. Half-decades also give a more detailed picture of the contributors' roles; e.g. Mort Drucker's pace of output, and its changing ratio within the overall numbers. Other contributors' percentages are also enlightening. So is the magazine's more recent "slowdown" from 59 spoofs in five years to 48, to 20, to a number that is looking as if it will be fewer than that. Finally, a half-decade format also allows for the next update to occur in 2014 instead of 2019.

The effort is very much intended to augment your good work here. Hope that answers your concerns.Potter Zebby (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I object dividing the tables into half-decades. I think that there is no real justification to split into half decades. The half-decades at the top table is also not compatible with the tables that appear in the rest of the article in which there are no such divisions, and therefore I believe the splitting at the top alone causes some confusion too. In any case I suggest that we wait and allow more Wikipedians to participate in this discussion and to indicate what they think should be done. In the meantime, please refrain from edit warring unless a consensus is reached in this discussion which would favor splitting the tables to half decades. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Instead of splitting the decades in the overview table, I think it would be better to add an elaborated text segment below that table which would add extended information on this topic and would help emphasis the major contribution and influence of the most prominent artists and writers over the years or in specific time periods.

If the rest of the participants in this discussion would choose to split the table in the overview section than I think we would need to split all the rest of the tables in the article as well (As aforesaid, I oppose this sort of change unless the majority of the participants in this discussion would decide that this is the best way to go). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The edit warring admonition is unnecessary. I hope that you'll notice the gap between my above message and the accompanying edit, which didn't occur until it was certain you'd been back on the site. I'd also left a head's-up note on your Talk page.

To my mind, the main problem with the decade approach is that its effectiveness in conveying valuable information varies by decade. For the 1960s, it obscures the magazine's major shift towards regular TV/movie parodies. For the 2000s and 2010s, it obscures the deemphasis on same. In between, it works well for the magazine, but is less illuminating than it could be for the writers and illustrators.

As an example, it's informative to show Mort Drucker's incredibly steady output contextually, for what it represented within the overall arc of MAD's production. Your preferred chart shows Drucker producing 75% of all movie spoofs for the 1970s and 74% for the 1980s. Over the same period, the half-decade chart reveals 77%, 72%, 66%, 51% of the magazine's movie spoofs by half-decade increments, which provides a fuller understanding of both Drucker and MAD. Similar percentage-based observations can be gleaned by seeing Siegel's' steady output and DeBartolo's increasing totals, or Torres, Devlin or Mejia being able to take recent slots with their smaller numbers.

It would be a simple matter to split the larger lists into half-decades if the seeming incompatibility or confusion between the tables troubles you. Doing so makes a bigger and more useful difference with the contributors' list, IMO. But I would happily agree to that additional change if it eases your primary concern. There are certainly other Wikipages that are broken into half-decade segments, from Saturday Night Live to R-7 satellite launches.

One snag: before this chat, the most recent message on this page was more than 3 years ago. I don't think sitting back and waiting for an influx of participants is feasible. There's only the two of us. If you had an extra finger, you'd BE the majority of participants in this discussion! So let's work this out amenably. It was your work and your chart that made me think to add the additional context, and I'm entirely appreciative of it!Potter Zebby (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of the following compromise proposal - creating another table which would appear in the Overview section that would contain statistics for the entire life span of the magazine without splitting it to decades or to any other periods of time. This way the readers would be able to see more clearly Mort Drucker's impact for example. What do you think? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I just added an example of what I meant to the article. What do you think? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:OVERTAG

The excessive and malicious tagging of the article by User:TenPoundHammer breaches the WP:OVERTAG guidelines and has been reversed. The article is presently under discussion elsewhere and this kind of disruptive behaviour outside it is deprecated. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of film spoofs in Mad. 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://archive.is/20120713124625/http://madcoversite.com/mad404.html to http://madcoversite.com/mad404.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120904033533/http://www.madcoversite.com/mad501.html to http://www.madcoversite.com/mad501.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003180706/http://www.tomrichmond.com/blog/2010/08/03/ to http://www.tomrichmond.com/blog/2010/08/03/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150610202308/http://www.tomrichmond.com/blog/tag/harry-potter-special/ to http://www.tomrichmond.com/blog/tag/harry-potter-special/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Including the name of artists and writers

Procedurally closing the RfC. The RfC was opened 10 March 2019 and the wording was modified 6 April 2019 and 8 April 2019 after feedback from Mathglot. There is no prejudice against starting a new discussion or RfC.

Cunard (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This comment applies to both List of television show spoofs in Mad and List of film spoofs in Mad. Is the inclusion of the artist and writer running afoul of WP:IINFO? Especially since there are many occasions from the mid-1980s onward where the artist and/or writer worked under a pseudonym (for instance, thanks to inside contacts on a Facebook group, I have been told that several names on the TV list are actually pseudonyms of Arnie Kogen, who used the pen names because of his additional prolificacy as a television script writer). A couple other names on the list are pseudonyms of someone, but there is no clear information as to whom these pen names belong, nor have they been verified in any reliable sources. So should the artist/writer section be done away with entirely? Should the artist/writer credits be done away with? Many of the artists and writers don't seem to pass WP:GNG, and there are multiple instances of pen names -- however, I know of the pen names only through personal contact, and cannot directly verify any pen names without violating WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: (Summoned by bot) Your question isn't clear to me, and there seem to be (at least) two of them. Since there are no !votes yet, you are free per WP:REDACT to modify or rewrite the Rfc as you wish. If it were up to me, I'd start right off at the top with the question you want answered in a single sentence, I'd put it in boldface, and I'd make it a yes-no question if possible (or at worst, a question with a small number of multiple-choice options). Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Mathglot: amended. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ambiguous – The Rfc is tainted by inclusion of two questions, where answering yes to the first one is equivalent to answering no to the second one, making it difficult for a closer to assess the results with confidence. Recommend withdrawal of this Rfc and either creating a new one, or perhaps better, simply opening a non-Rfc section for discussion of the topic. Per WP:RFCBEFORE, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Only when that fails to achieve consensus, is an Rfc one of the secondary methods of Dispute resolution, and even then, it's not the only one (see WP:3O, for example). Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Mathglot: Does that read better? "Should we do away with the artist/writer credits, since there are many non-notable names attached and some names on the lists are pen names that I cannot reputably verify as such?" Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.