Talk:Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (TV special)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

If anyone brings up the "Hermey" vs. "Herbie" name thing again for the misfit, here is a more or less definitive answer from Rankin/Bass. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Another Trivia and Goof

Another goof that was not talked about already was that when Santa was leaving Christmas Town, their are only 7 reindeer, not the 9 that there would have been. 205.200.41.19 21:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.200.41.19 (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Another Parody

The Manitoba Telecommunication Service's (MTS) 2006 Christmas commercials feature an elf, an abombdible snowman and a bison (Manitoba's provincial animal) in the "Valley of Unwanted Gifts." They even go as far as doing the ads in stop-motion animation. You get the idea. 205.200.41.19 21:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Misfit Doll

I thought the doll's problem was that she said "How do you do?" instead of "mama". Morgan695 23:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sexism

I watched this film with my wife the other day and we were both taken aback by the dated views put forward in the movie, especially where a male character tells a female character that she can't help with something because "this is a man's job." Would it be appropriate to make mention of this in the article? Andrewdoane 19:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think so. I certainly wouldn't condemn the program for this, but it is an important point to make about the culture and how it has changed. --Jcbutler (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. In context, the fact that Donner had said "this is man's work" (which is related by the Snowman's narration) is presented as a silly statement typical of Donner's thickheadedness, and is undercut by the women immediately proving him wrong by going out themselves. It is true to Donner's character and is presented as wrong in context. This would make Donner sexist, but not the show.

Dubious Statements

About the following... (The part in question is bold, what follows is something I added and is italicized):

"Her presence on the island is never explained. however, an early script for the show had her singing the verse, "Who would want to play with this toy, "cause underneath this dress I'm a boy" [1]. A more commonly accepted reason is that the problem is somewhat psychological."

When I went to the website cited, I couldn't find anything to confirm the bolded part. Any resolution? WAVY 10 17:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it was removed as vandalism. WAVY 10 19:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time with some of the voice castings noted in this article. They don't make a lot of sense. Unless anyone has citations, I'd have to presume that there's vandalism involved. Claude 19:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Also removed as vandalism. Thanks! Claude (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the voice of Donner was done by Paul Kligman, as he sounds a lot like J. Jonah Jameson from the early Spider-man cartoons. Also, Kligman, like Paul Soles and Bernard Cowan, were part of the Wayne and Shuster CBC TV show. Actually, I don't think Paul Frees was at all involved in this special. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.249.250 (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I just watched the Blu-ray, and Paul Frees' name appears nowhere in the credits. Nor do any of the characters' voices sound remotely like Frees. (Most of his voices are recognizable.) The statement that he voices Donner and several other characters is almost certainly wrong. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No images

There are no images on this page. Anyone wanna upload one? 67.160.87.2 (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hermey

Not sure if I should place this in the article. But, it's possible Hermey was not an Elf. His ears were not pointed (like the others). GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I note however, his round ears may symbolise his mis-fit status. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

His nose also differs from all the other elves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.48.157 (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

12/02/09 CBS broadcast

The audio of the "Misfits" reprise accompanied edited footage of the "Fame and Fortune" song, with very awkward results.

If thats so there should be some source out there that could be used to reference it Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A christmas merge?

What are thoughts out there on merging the article Clarice into this one? My thoughts are the article Clarice seems to be nothing more than a plot summary and could just be placed in this article itself. Any thoughts out there??Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. It is hard to imagine how the Clarice article has been missed by the wikiP deletionistas. Unless you hear from more editors in the next week or so, saying no, I would say go ahead and do the merge. MarnetteD | Talk 17:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Glaring omission in the advertising section

I find a fairly major omission in the advertising section. As I remember it, during the 1960's (and perhaps into the early 70's), the showing of this special were sponsered by Norelco. There were at least two characters - the very tall elf and a shorter elf (maybe the one with the goatee but I am not sure about this) - from this special that were featured in Norelco's ads. Most notably they were seen riding a Norelco three head shaver through the woods as though it were a sleigh. There were other ads but I can't remember the details. These ads were shown during the breaks in various programs not just this one. Unfortunately, I don't have any sources for this other then my memory. If any of you wikieditors can confirm these memories with an outside source it would be much appreciated if you could add the info to this article. My thanks ahead of time to anyone who can help with this. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 20:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Didnt have much luck myself, but on youtube there are some stop motion ads featuring santa going through the woods on a shaver from the time period [2]. Any other luck out there?Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, so much, Ottawa4ever for taking the time to research this - and on Christmas too!! Santa on the shaver rings a bell. First off let me say that the wikieditor that invents a time machine and goes back and videos everything from our past will be worth their weight in gold in their ability to cite sources! :-) Now, the info you found brings a couple of other memories up. First, it is possible that Santa replaced an earlier commercial wth the elves but I think that is iffy. Second, the Norelco ad might have always used Santa and the elves were in another companies ad. For some reason General Electric ads are coming to mind - as in the tall elf is able to change light bulbs - but this could be my memory playing tricks. In any event is the Santa in the ad that you found on youtube the one from this special? If so wouldn't we be able to ad that info to this article with a link to youtube as a reference? Let me know what you think and thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 17:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Im not aware if Norelco actually sponsored the show. Or if the commericals were perhaps done by the company that made rudulph. Any source that could link those two facts (commerical with the special) would be worthy (in my own opinion) of inclusion in the article considering they were both stop motion. But i think its still a stretch to include at that point depending on the companies involvement. Also their are other ads going back to the early 1960s and even 1990s from Norelco using the santa on the shaver. More likely general electric probably did do a comercial, but im not aware of one as of yet, but the tall elf rings a bell too. They were a sponsor so to me it would make sense. My best suggestion if you have a time and want to look into commercials would be to expand [[Christmas_in_the_media]} which as of now says nothing about chritsmas in the media relating to commercials. and could be expanded there. Probably requires a bit more thought and thats just off the top of my head. At any rate happy holidays. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Subliminal gay messages?

I don't know about this, but this article (http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/12/25/is-rudolph-gay/) seems to shine a light on Rudolph. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC) (but I wrote the comment earlier than I signed it. At 21:22 of December 25, 2009 according to the history of this page.)

Note: the response is in part responding to an adminhelp left on the above IP's talk page) Hello. I agree with you that your comment was improperly removed from this page and was restoring it but another user already did so. I also agree with MarnetteD that the material in the link has no place in the article. The EW article is an opinion piece. Generally, we write articles based first on hard facts, and only include opinion when the opinion is so prevalent that its absence would make the treatment of the subject incomplete for broad coverage. For opinion material such as this to be included we look for multiple, disparate, reliable sources, all reaching the same conclusion. But the piece is not from a reliable source as to the material it speaks about. We don't just ask whether the publishing source is reliable, but whether the material in the source is reliable as to the topic even when the imprimatur of the publisher is reliable. Here we have rank speculation. Additionally, though the article appears on EW's website, it is from a blog from that site. If the author of the piece was a noted authority on such matters that would go some way toward meeting the reliability aspect, which is absent here, but even then we would need more for such conjecture to warrant inclusion. All this is to say that to my mind inclusion of such material would patently be undue weight in the article. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, see, I have no problem with someone telling me it can't go in an article and specifically why. That's all I wanted, someone saying if this was a good idea or not. Apparently it's not. I could have worded my comment better to make my intentions clearer, then maybe this would've been avoided in the first place, but it's all kosher now. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly worth the trouble to point out that whenever a character is portrayed as "misfit" or different in some way, this difference can be interpreted as a metaphor for being black, a Jew, homosexual, etc. One might have an article discussing the use of such metaphors in the context of TV, literature, movies, etc, but there would be no point in bringing it up, except as a cross-reference to that article. Note, however, that nothing is said about Yukon Cornelius being sexually "misfit" -- hinted at by the fact that one of his sled dogs is a French poodle. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sex vs Gender

The proper term for this article in the section "Additional Characters" referring to Clarice is "...of both sexes" not "...of both genders". Sex refers to the physiological makeup of animals based on their gonads; gender refers to one's perception of self as male or female. Since we are talking about a physiological trait of the animals (antler growth), sex, as opposed to gender, is the correct term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.141.101 (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Reception

Would be good to include this into the article some ratings per [3] and [4]. Apparently even the the show is decades old it still registered 12 million+ viewers this year and over 10 million last year. I think a section highlighting the longevity of the show would fit nicely in the article and help incorporate some of the trivia throughout (if someone beats me to it) ;) Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

additionally ill post notes here, no time to add though with holiday stuff in the way; The New york times December 7th 1964 posted a review titled "Red-Nosed Rudolph A Figure of Charm"; in the review it notes particular praise for the characters of Sam and Clarice; For Sam the voice of Burl Ives "was a host who made the adventure seem warm and real", for Clarice "the doe who does not mind if a buck does have a red nose" was "an enchanting ingenue up near the North Pole, particularly as her offscreen voice, Janet Orenstein, put into song her words of encouragement, "There's Always Tomorrow." " Excellent additions if someone has the time to piece together a reception section and is in the Rudolphy christmas spirit. Any thoughts out there what this reception section could include? Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you have some good thoughts regarding a reception section. The high numbers this year are interesting especially when you consider the fact that VHS and DVD means that a viewer does not have to watch the CBS transmission. Are DVR recordings a part of the viewing figures? A few sections of the NYT could certainly be included. When you have time, after the holidays, why don't you work on something and we will see how others view it. cheers and have a very Happy Holidays. MarnetteD | Talk 18:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

13 million this year. [5] Man i really need to get on this reception section. If im tardy anyone who builds one up (with included references) will receive a nice barnstar for their christmasy efforts.Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Live-action blizzard newsreels

Nothing on the opening sequence of live-action footage of blizzards and newspaper headlines in this article?(http://www.imcdb.org/movie.php?id=58536) Why is this? ----DanTD (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Archive of older posts on the talk page

As several of the posts on this page are rather old, it would be good to move them to an archive page. Everything would still be available for viewing but it would "clean up" the talk page for current topics. Mtminchi08 (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I added the MiszaBot/Archive to this page as it has been over a month with no objections to the archiving suggestion. Mtminchi08 (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Date discrepancy

Thought I would post this as it is likely to come up a time or two this month. The show was originally broadcast on Sunday Dec 6th 1964. However there is a TV ad for the show that we link to as reference #6 (and I think this is on one of the DVD releases as well) that says that it is airing on Sunday Dec 4th. This ad does not give a year. The 6th of Dec in 64 was indeed on a Sunday so I can only speculate (WP:OR I know) that the ad is for the showing in 1966 when the 4th fell on a Sunday. We are pretty solid as to the sources for the 64 broadcast. I don't remember this being a problem the last few years but I am posting this so that we can direct anyone who wants to change the article to this discussion. MarnetteD | Talk 06:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for raising the discrepancy! Ckruschke (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Death of Rudolph's Mother

I am 64 years old. In the mid-70's, I remember watching the Rudolph broadcast with our, then, 3 year-old daughter. There was a segment in the show where Rudolph's mother dies and is a very sad part of the show. The Wiki article does not mention this. Questions: Does anyone else remember this? Is there anywhere you can purchase a version of the special with this segment still in it? Thank you. Steveorinosteve (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Steveorinosteve

Wow... I've been watching this special since pre-grade school (mid-70's) and I don't remember anything like that. I also own the show on DVD and although in contains notes about previous versions and both "Fame and Fortune" and "We're A Couple of Misfits" songs, it doesn't mention anything like you describe. Is it possible you are thinking of another Christmas special or show (Bambi immediately leaps to mind as having a scene like this). Hope that helps! Ckruschke (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

I am old enough to have seen the show since its original airing back in 64 and can state that there was never a scene such as you describe in it. As Ckruschke mentions your memory might be splicing Bambi and this show together. I just checked Rudolph's Shiny New Year in case it contained that plot element but it makes no mention of it. Memory is a fun and funny thing sometimes. Cheers and happy holidays. MarnetteD | Talk 21:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Rumors

IMO the rumor that the IP keeps adding about Don Adams does not have a place in this article. Having grown up with this production I do not a) remember this ever being stated in print and b) ever reaching any sort of "critical mass" where we should include it in the article. MarnetteD | Talk 01:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This pages and others like it is full of, and are always targets for additional, OR and fancruft. I wouldn't get too upset about it - just revert it with the tag of "no original research" or the like... Ckruschke (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Copyright question

I am fairly confident that the section pertaining to copyright is inaccurate. My understanding is that the film itself has fallen into the public domain because of the invalid copyright stamp, but that the soundtrack has not. Therefore, as long as the original songs are not included (and that the title of the film is changed), the film is considered public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.42.41 (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

To make any changes please provide a WP:RS to support your assertions. MarnetteD | Talk 16:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo!!!

It is not true that there are only five '60's specials being aired. You have forgotten "Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol." Pittsburgh Poet (talk) 12:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out PP. Be aware that this was the first year in a looong time that the Magoo Xmas Carol aired on TV so the info had been correct. OTOH the sentence was WP:OR and, since it is subject to change, it didn't belong in the article. MarnetteD|Talk 15:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Bolding

Do we really need the character's names bolded in the plot section? MB298 (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Good eye MB298. The answer is absolutely not - it is an incorrect use of bolding. As you noticed it and took the time to post about it here I think you should do the honors and remove it at your convenience. Thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 04:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Completed. MB298 (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Children's Book source

Can you explain why the officially licensed children's book based on the "children's special" is not up to verifiability guidelines? The psychological indicator stuff may have been extraneous, I'll give you that. Eldeenjohnson (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Admittedly I'm not a WP:Verifiable expert and I've put in ref's that I later understood went against this guideline, but I was wondering the same thing if it is really an officially licensed book. I suggest you put a message on MarnetteD's Talk page if he/she doesn't respond to this thread. No reason for an edit war - might simply be a misunderstanding. Ckruschke (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks for the ping Ckruschke. The way the source was added there is no way to verify that the book exists. If it is official it should at least have an ISBN as well as a date that it was published. On another note the descriptions in the cast section are full of POV descriptions that could use some pruning back. They are an extension of the plot section and the two together are beyond the recommended length of WP:TVPLOT. On yet another note I would suggest that, if Eldeenjohnson and Waffletaxi are the same person (since the first has no previous edits and the second has only edited two articles) that they chose one of their accounts and only edit from that one. If they are two people then fine. One of them should provide a source that the book exists. MarnetteD|Talk 21:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Ckruschke Another concern is that the book is not a WP:SELFPUB source. Those can't be used so that is another reason more info about the book is needed. MarnetteD|Talk 21:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Ahh - thanks MarnetteD. Since I don't know anything about the book, I was just trying to help since Eldeenjohnson says the book is "officially licensed". Looks like someone is mistaken. Your suggestion on the character sketches is agreed. Maybe I'll do some haircutting... Cheers - Ckruschke (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Ckruschke

Anything that you can do would be appreciated Ckruschke. Cheers of the season to you as well :-) MarnetteD|Talk 18:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I made some hopefully useful edits. What's frustrating is coming back to Wiki after being away for about 18 months and seeing how quickly pages that I was watching in order to keep the trivia/non-neutral POV "wolves" at bay gathered nonsense...  ;-) Take care - Ckruschke (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Ckruschke

Edit Request

Hi - probably doing this completely wrong but this is my first time participating in Wikipedia. I wanted to add an observation about the animation itself, sort of a goof, that happens toward the beginning of the show. If this would be an appropriate edit, could you let me know what form of citation would be needed, if any. As far as I have researched this is a previously undocumented goof. Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citylimit (talk • contribs) 22:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

How amazingly polite of a new editor - I like it!

What is that goof? Usually "trivia" of this type is not what goes on Wikipedia (or at least it shouldn't). Let us know what it is and we'll help you along. Ckruschke (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke

OK thanks! The goof is that Rudolph's dad's antlers can be seen to melt and curl noticeably over the course of the scene in their home cave. Dumb, right? This is the knowledge I must share with the world. Might be better addressed on the IMDB page for this show - see what you think. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citylimit (talk • contribs) 20:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Linking Abominable Snowman to yeti

I have attempted to create a Wikilink to yeti from the "Abominable Snow Monster" but it has been reverted twice by MarnetteD, the first time citing WP:EGG (which isn't applicable, since it's a common connection found in reliable sources) and secondly for the reason "yeti legends are Himalayan not the north pole" (also irrelevant for a fanciful work of fiction, as reindeer don't inhabit the north pole either).

• "Abomidable Snowman" is a synonym for yeti, as discussed in the yeti article. The show (and this article) also refers to the monster as "Abominable Snowman". There really isn't any other conclusion to draw that the link is a logical one.
• Several reliable sources refer to Bumble as a yeti, or yeti-like: Science News, Santa Barbara Independent, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, among others.

Interestingly, the yeti in Monsters Inc was inspired by the yeti in Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer according to the executive producer of Monsters Inc. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The Bumble is never once referred to as a yeti. Also, nothing about the "Bumble" has any connection to the yeti of legend - with the possible exception of cold climes. If you can find something that mentions that the writers of this special were trying to connect it to the Himalayan legend that would help. MarnetteD|Talk 21:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

As to the links Science News makes no mention of this Xmas special or the Bumble. Yeti is only used in the sub-headline which will have been written by an editor and not the author of the article. This is evidenced by the fact that the rest of the article refers only to Bigfoot. SBI makes the claim that they are the same but provides no evidence. Same goes for FWI. All they are doing nothing more that speculating about this fictional item. MarnetteD|Talk 21:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Having said all this there are far more misleading and absurd links than this in WikiP articles so feel free to restore this one. MarnetteD|Talk 21:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Um, perhaps you should read the Science News article more closely. It says plainly in the article body: "The idea of a white 'abominable snowman' came from TV shows like Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer." The point is that reliable sources make the connection, therefore we are not engaging in synthesis by linking this article to yeti. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The quote is interesting, but I wonder what the basis of this statement is? Seems like either speculation or original research on the part of the author since he doesn't state his source and the sentence isn't a quote.

That being said, since the first part of that paragraph says "If there is a previously unknown bear species living in the Himalayas, it may be what people there have seen and reported as a yeti. Coleman says that would be consistent with those reports. “They’re always brown,” he says." then the connection on this page of the Bumble with the Yeti is completely false and should be dropped. Right? Ckruschke (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke

All I'm saying is, the connection is being made by reliable sources. It is not up to us to speculate on whether those sources are themselves engaging in original research. The fact remains that reliable sources make the connection. Furthermore, this article uses the term "Abominable Snowman", which is a synonym for yeti. This whole discussion is about whether or not to provide a wikilink from that to the yeti article so that readers can learn more about what an "Abmonimable Snowman" or "Abominable Snow Monster" actually is. I don't see the harm in providing such a link. Doing so doesn't violate WP:OVERLINKING and actually enlightens readers who may choose to click on it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:  Not done (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (TV special) → Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (1964 film) – WP:NCTV doesn't support this disambiguation style. This is an animated short film, shown as a TV special but not strictly so because its available on several home media formats, etc. Per WP:NCTV, television films use (film) and follow WP:NCFILM. It's already categorized as a film and appears on lists as such also. Netoholic @ 05:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This is not a film. It isn't even a made-for-TV-film. It is an animated TV special so the current DAB is sufficient. MarnetteD|Talk 06:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You're not citing any current guideline or precedent to support this vote. WP:NCFILM covers short films, animated films, television films. IMDb categorizes it under their "TV movie" designation. Yes, its a holiday tradition, but there is no WP:NCTV disambiguation called (TV special). -- Netoholic @ 06:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:RS/IMDB that site cannot be used as a reference. I will repeat this is not - in any way shape or form - a film so that term should not be used in the DAB of the article. MarnetteD|Talk 06:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: In what sense is this not a film? How would you define the difference between a TV movie and a TV special? --Jpcase (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

First, in every sense this is not a film. As to the second part of the question it does not matter what my distinction between the two is - what matters is what WP:RSs state. Lastly, the term "film" refers to theatrical releases. At the very least "television" needs to be added to the DAB. MarnetteD|Talk 01:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's far more recognizable under it's current title. WP:NCTV recommends "(TV program)" for cases like this, which would be acceptable, although "special" is also often used and works better in this case. Station1 (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Station1: Are you referring to the "Non-series television" section of WP:NCTV? That section seems to be about game shows, talk shows, and news programs, so I'm not sure that it would apply to Rudolph. --Jpcase (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  Yes. That section refers to game shows, talk shows, and "all other programs". Station1 (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Station1: Yes, but it seems to be specifically referring to non-narrative programs. --Jpcase (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  I don't see that, but in any case I think far more readers will recognize this as a TV show or program or special than as a film. Station1 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Station1: To quote the "Non-series television" section of WP:NCTV: "These shows generally lack on-going narrative or story elements." Admittedly, it's a little vague as to whether that statement is referring to all non-series television or just multi-episode non-series television, but it seems to me that it's referring to the former - especially considering that the only examples listed under the "Non-series television" section are all articles about non-narrative programs.

As to whether this is a "special" or a "film"...can't it be both? Christmas-themed episodes from TV shows are arguably "Christmas specials", but they're also TV show episodes. I can't see why Rudolph can't be a Christmas special that's also a film. --Jpcase (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure it could be both. But we have to pick one for the title and one for the redirect. And I think more people will recognize the article as being about what they are looking for with the current title, especially since there are other films with the title, and the current title is consistent with other TV specials. Station1 (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Station1: Fair enough. Personally though, I feel that we should follow the disambiguation styles outlined in WP:NCTV, which doesn't include (TV special) as an option. Looking at how the other Rankin / Bass "Christmas specials" are titled, most of them use the (film) disambiguation style - see The Little Drummer Boy (film), Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town (film), Jack Frost (1979 film), The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus (1985 film), and Frosty the Snowman (film). Rudolph and 'Twas the Night Before Christmas (1974 TV special) seem to be the only two Rankin / Bass specials that use the (TV special) style. In fact, I just noticed that WP:NCTV uses Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town (film) as an example of a "TV film". If that's being described as a film, then Rudolph probably should be as well. --Jpcase (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, all of the links you cite were moved from "(TV special)", or in one case "(TV program)", one as recently as yesterday. In my opinion, they should all be moved back, but we should wait until we see how this RM turns out. Station1 (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Station1: Ah, I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for pointing it out. I just looked through the histories for those articles; most of the articles were moved over a year ago. The one that was moved from (TV special) to (film) yesterday - Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town - had previously been moved from (film) to (TV special) last month. It seems to have gone back and forth a few times.

I also am only now realizing that Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town wasn't added to WP:NCTV as an example of a TV film until quite recently. So the matter is certainly open to debate. But I still feel that (film) would be the better disambiguation style.

A comparison could be made to how we title articles about short films. Most people wouldn't recognize For the Birds (film) or Feast (2014 film) as being about films, they would recognize those articles as being about short films - yet it's accepted practice on Wikipedia to use (film) for disambiguation purposes, instead of (short film), because ultimately a short film is really just a type of film - much like a feature length Christmas special is really just another type of film. --Jpcase (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe this all stems from the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)#Horton_Hears_a_Who!_(TV_special). I'm beginning to think that "(TV special)" should be added as an option at WP:NCTV. Guidelines are supposed to reflect consensus after all, not prescribe rules. I really think most editors and readers think of these first as TV programs/specials, whether or not they qualify technically as films. Station1 (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Station1. All of the (mislabeled) programs are recognized as television programs not films. BTW "short films" still have a screening in theaters - even if it is only at a film festival - all of the programs listed above were shown on "television" and I still say that term needs to be in the DAB. MarnetteD|Talk 01:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Station1: It seems that WP:NCTV has gone through some recent changes - and starting a larger conversation about this at that article's talk page would likely be a good idea. --Jpcase (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Whether or not a "film" is screened in theaters doesn't determine whether or not it's considered a "film". It's common practice on Wikipedia to disambiguate articles about TV movies with (film) - see Game Change (film) and Killing Kennedy (film). --Jpcase (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. IMO those examples should be changed. This seems to have changed over the years as there was a time when "television" was included in the DAB. The use of the word "film" by itself does indicate a theatrical release to the reader. MarnetteD|Talk 01:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: You think that Killing Kennedy (film) should be moved to Killing Kennedy (Television film)? --Jpcase (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Clearly the answer is yes. There are numerous differences in the way films and television films are made - in the 60's that was even more apparent - but that is off topic for this discussion. Also I ask that you please stop pinging me. I have this page on my watchlist and I would prefer to not see that little red dot every time I log back on to the 'pedia. Please do not take offense - I know that you are trying to be thorough and I appreciate that fact. MarnetteD|Talk 01:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

If you want to push for having the disambiguation style for articles about television films changed from (Film) to (Television film), then you're welcome to do so. Heck, it might even be a pretty good idea. But unless such a change is made, I don't see why we would treat Rudolph any differently from other made-for-TV films. --Jpcase (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support This a typical television film and should follow the WP:NCFILM guidelines. Dimadick (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support I can appreciate the argument that "TV special" may, at least for some readers, be a more recognizable description of Rudolph than the word "film" is. And I would support continuing to describe Rudolph as a "Christmas special" in the article's lead. But for article titling purposes, "TV special" seems like an overly vague and subjective term. (Film) seems like the better disambiguation style to me. --Jpcase (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

How in the world is TV special vague? That smacks of sophistry. MarnetteD|Talk 01:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

For what it is worth a Google search shows 1,360,000 hits for TV special and 234,000 for 1964 film. TV special doesn't seem vague to this search engine MarnetteD|Talk 02:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Rudolph is a Christmas special - hence why I would support continuing to describe it as such in the article's lead. But not every case seems so clear-cut to me. Is A Christmas Carol (1999 film) a "Christmas special"? Or The Ultimate Christmas Present? --Jpcase (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that NCFILM makes no mention of television projects whatsoever. So I wonder why it is being used in this thread. I do see that NCTV links to NCFILM but that may be a mistake considering the current state of both guidelines. MarnetteD|Talk 02:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• couple comments/responses - The distinction is one of format vs venue. A television special is similar in nature to a midnight movie or other type of special screening - a special presentation (some of which develop into a tradition) that describes when and where the content is shown... its venue. Its mostly an advertising term. Format is different, Rudolph is a stop motion animated short film, but a film nonetheless. And so, once something fits the format of a film, rather than any sort television program, WP:NCTV defers to WP:NCFILM for all naming. Even if you disagree, neither of those naming conventions describe (TV special) as a method of disambig... and I doubt we could because few would agree on a way to define that for inclusion in a naming convention. After all, what makes something a (TV special) vs. the standard disambig of (TV program)? Is it only a "Special" because it airs once, or once a year? If so, then isn't that only a distinction of venue (when and where), not format? It would feel very awkward describing this as a TV special if you're watching it via a different venue, like DVD or Netflix. -- Netoholic @ 06:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

  Like everything else, we need to go by what reliable sources call things, not our own definitions. I see sources that call Rudolph a film, but it seems like significantly more call it a TV special. Station1 (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

  You need to distinguish further. Ensure the sources aren't mentioning it in the context of an "event", rather than a format. For example, this top search result is talking about it as a special and gives specific network, date and time. Its the same sort of announcement one might see for a special screening of a film (theater, date and time). -- Netoholic @ 09:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

A "TV special" broadcast nationwide and seen by millions is not comparable to a midnight film screened locally and seen by an audience limited to the theaters seating capacity. I will mention again for those who've missed it the NCFILM guidelines make no mention of TV productions - nor should it since it since they are designed strictly for theatrical films. Why the TV project defers to it is a mystery. I don't remember any discussion at the film project about this. IMO it is misguided at best. I would suggest that this RFM be put on hold and a RFC be started at the TV project about their current naming guidelines and any changes that could be made to make them less confusing. MarnetteD|Talk 05:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that a wider discussion at WP:NCTV would be beneficial. --Jpcase (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons described by Staton1 above. Most people don't know off the top of their head what year that Rankin/Bass Rudolph special was made. They'd be able to recognize "TV special" in the title and be like, "Yes, that's the one" instantly. Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

Resolved

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Request to verify "longest continuously running Christmas TV special in history"

This article states in the first paragraph that this 1964 Rudolph TV special is "the longest continuously running Christmas TV special in history", yet, "Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol" first aired in 1962. Hasn't this latter program aired on some TV channel every year since? If it has, shouldn't "Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol" be given the "longest running Christmas special" distinction? Can it be verified or assumed that "Mr. Magoo" and NOT "Rudolph" be designated as "longest running", and so the descriptive claim above be removed from the "Rudolph" article and inserted into the "Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol" article?

Thank you for considering. 108.69.217.193 (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Mike P.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2019

Rudolph and Frosty will also air on CBS. I guess the contract with CBS got renewed for another year or so. 2601:547:1203:2460:4067:6A75:E01A:EF2C (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC) 2601:547:1203:2460:4067:6A75:E01A:EF2C (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make; please make a precise request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2019

In the "Reception" section please change "concensus" to "consensus". Thank you. 82.39.96.55 (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! 82.39.96.55 (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Voices of the other elves

Who voices all the other elves besides Hermey the misfit elf and the head eld? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 01:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request

In case someone experienced and knowledgeable is monitoring: The last sentences of the two sections "2005–present telecasts" and "2019–present Freeform broadcast" are inscrutable - apparently trying to convey something related to various "playback speeds" but there seems to be more of a problem than a simple typographic fix. 74.77.94.193 (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice catch - done. Ckruschke (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke