Talk:Tommy Westphall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment comments
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 11 May 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] What Were They Thinking?

The actual concept is an interesting piece of cultural commentary. But the content of this article seems to be ripped-off entirely from a chapter in the book "What Were They Thinking?" which is all about television's greatest mistakes. I can't remember the author, but I remember reading a chapter devoted to this very incident.

This is one of the most hillariously idiotic concepts I have ever encountered in my life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.11.69 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • The idea is discussed in What Were They Thinking?, but there's no plagiarism involved, and the idea of the hypothesis predates the book by several years. --Metropolitan90 23:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm not sure that this article should exist

It seems to me that the basic premise of the "Tommy Westphall Universe" is far too shaky to even be writing about. There is no evidence supplied that demonstrates that any writers or producers beyond those from _St. Elsewhere_ intended for their entire show to exist in Tommy Westphall's mind. The article just says things like, "Certain TV producers even enjoy viewers spotting in-jokes that link their series within a fictional sphere" and, "The two series arguably exist within the same fictional universe." Nobody from _Law and Order_ or _The X-Files_ is quoted saying that their shows take place in Westphall's mind.

The claim that "[I]f St. Elsewhere is a figment of [Tommy Westphall's] imagination, then by extension every series that exists within that fictional sphere is also a part of his mind" is quite problematic. "Six Objections to the Westphall Hypothesis" mentions that Michael Bloomberg plays the mayor of New York both on _Law and Order_ and in the real world. Following this line of argument, our lives are merely figments of Tommy Westphall's imagination.

Indeed, the counterarguments are convincing in ways that the positive argument doesn't even come close to being. This article needs to be reworked in a way that indicates that this is just a theory that is supported only by some simple assumptions and not by a weight of evidence or particularly sound logical proof. As it stands now, it is far too matter-of-fact when it has no particular claim on being.

I agree as well. The biggest problem with some of their assumptions are that they are VERY flimsy. They make connections with shows either because they don't know much about the subject, or because they are "playing" ignorant so they can add as many 'connections' as possible. They take references (which in themselves are references to other work) such as "Yoyodyne" (apparently from a Thomas Pynchon novel, not to mention the cult film Buckaroo Banzai) which was referenced in The John Larroquette Show which they claim is the "same" Yoyodyne as in Angel AND Star Trek. Not to mention made up companies (for leagal reasons only for the most part) like Oceanic Airlines. This would mean that ANY connection to real life books/movies/tv shows/companies/events would all be in Tommy's mind. Some serious work needs to be done, keeping in NPOV of course (as much as it's possible with such an 'out there' topic such as this). Radagast83 06:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. Proponents of this "hypothesis" are overlooking the fact that the endings of both "St. Elsewhere" and "Newhart" were themselves joking references to "Dallas", where an entire season was revealed to be one character's dream, in order to bring back a character previously killed. Skyraider 23:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I doesn't matter what the intent of the writers was. If their shows and movies can be placed within the same ficitional multiverse as St. Elsewhere then that makes that they are all just a dream of Tommy Westphall.
There are plenty of other interpretations, as the article now indicates (it did not back in March). The article is in a lot better shape now. My initial concerns had been that WIkipedia, by way of this article, was serving to publicize a concept that just did not deserve to be publicized, and that most people who knew about the Hypothesis knew about it from reading this article. I still believe all that to a degree, but I think the article is a lot more balanced now. Based on Weatherson's objections, though, it seems clear to me that the Hypothesis is nonsense, but enough people believe or talk about it outside of Wikipedia that I can understand the reasons for keeping the article. Croctotheface 17:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Although the deletion controversy has long since passed, I'll add my two cents in the event that someone wants to bring it back: I stumbled on the concept of the Tommy Westphall multiverse elsewhere on the internet. The first thing I did was head here to see what it was about. I was satisfied when I saw the subject addressed. Maybe it did originate here, but it's spread enough that it needs to remain. Tprdave 00:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think deletion is the proper course of action now, either, and I was very much in favor of it back in early 2006 when this first came around. The article then (for instance, this version) looked very different. Though I'm concerned that, at the time, Wikipedia was used to promote a concept that was OR and not notable, by this point, it has most likely been covered in enough secondary material that it has become notable. Croctotheface 01:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved section of original research

This section, while interesting, strikes me as a violation of the no original research policy unless there is a source somewhere else. I've reverted to the previous paragraph.

Another good example of a crossover being insufficient to prove a concrete link between series is the case of the programs Family Matters, Step By Step, and Full House. Steve Urkel, character from the former, guest stars on the latter two programs. This of itself does not create a contradiction; a later crossover does. John Stamos (not the character of Uncle Jesse) also guest stars on Step By Step. During his brief cameo, he mentions his role on Full House. A strange paradox is evident; Urkel's presence seems to indicate that all the three shows are in the same continuity, but Stamos's appearance as himself makes that impossible. Clearly, Step By Step and Full House cannot coexist in the same universe (since the latter is a television show in the also-fictional world of the former). This means that at least one (or possibly both) of the Steve Urkels that we see visit the programs is not from the "real" Family Matters universe, but rather an "alternate Urkel" very similar to yet distinct from his canon counterpart.

How about if I delete the final two sentences, where I draw the conclusion about "alternate Urkels"? I would call my conclusion the only thing that's actually "original research"; the rest is merely facts, or very basic logic to say "something's not right here". Where I could be said to have stepped over the line is afterwards trying to provide a hypothesis to explain the situation.
The very fact that the Westphall Universe is a dream proves there is no continuity problem since all three shows take place in Westphall's dream.
I don't see how this addresses the issue. Unless you believe that "it was all a dream" explains any and every paradox by itself. Croctotheface 02:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion Candidate?

Wikipedia has four criteria for article deletion:

Aside from the fundamentally flawed logic of the premise, it appears to me that portions dealing with the "Tommy Westphall Universe" hypothesis violate at least two of four policies. As for the factual elements included at the beginning, is article devoted to such a minor character worth including in Wikipedia?

I'll content myself with watching the article for now. Sangrito

As much work as I've put in trying to round out the article, I support deletion. This whole concept was legitimized BECAUSE it received a Wikipedia article, despite the lack of evidence and logic to support it. It never should've been here in the first place. croctotheface 10 May 2006

It was my impression that this scene and the controversy surrounding it were pretty famous even before I read Wikipedia. I'd like to point out that Newsradio had a reference to this scene, complete with snow globe. Jztinfinity 18:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
About five sentences of the article are about the scene you mention. The rest of the article is about the "Westphall Universe," which is a logical fallacy. Croctotheface 20:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominated for Deletion

I've nominated this article for deletion. Please make sure to discuss deletion by returning to the article page and clicking the link to the deletion page. Sangrito 15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it survived deletion, which makes me happy, but it did not survive by much of a margin. Now we need to clean up and improve the article. Otherwise, I predict another afd in the not-too-distant future. --Charles 17:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for Improvement

While this article didn't so much "survive" an AfD so much as fail to generate enough discussion to push the vote one way or another, I'll offer that any article that can generate any reasonable number of adherents should stay. Such are the wages of democracy, protection of the minority, yadda yadda. A couple of points:

1) This article is less about Tommy Westphall than a) a 1980s television fad involving "dream episodes" and trick endings; and b) a pop culture meme. It might be a good idea to retitle the article to reflect the direction of the vast bulk of its material.

2) Stylistically, the article needs serious polishing. The informal tone is reminiscent of the scene in Animal House where two characters get stoned and start contemplating the nature of the Universe. Sangrito

[edit] Improve this article

It needs to reach Featured Article status so it can go on the front page. People's ears will bleed when they try to comprehend this.Sockatume 13:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] is that "nanoo" or "nanu"?

Considering the whole John Stamos/Urkel thing, this might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article: Robin Williams (as himself) once had a cameo on the show Mork & Mindy. Figure that one out. - Ugliness Man 09:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Emerson put it pretty well: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Pjrich 20:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dallas and Seven Days

Shouldn't this article mention the Dallas (TV series) episode("Blast From The Past") when Pam saw Bobby in the shower and the Seven Days episode("Déjà Vu All Over Again") where Frank sees himself back in the mental facility. I don't have any more information on these and would like it if someone more familiar with the two added them. A mention in the see also section is probably best. (IRMacGuyver (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] No, this article should NOT add...

So... here's what I was getting at nearly two years ago when I first criticized and then nominated for deletion this undergraduate, stoner, "whoa duuuude!" conversation which is masquerading as an article: The article is entitled "Tommy Westphall." Tommy Westphall is a minor character in a 1980s television show who would normally be folded into the main St. Elsewhere article. In two years, the writing was cleaned up a bit, but the content is only getting worse.

In spite of the title, the bulk, and I mean like 98% of this article is about a stunt-ending that generated a little bit of buzz, and now we have tons of people clamoring to add this odd cameo or that strange occurrence. Seriously, folks, enough is enough. If this article is about Tommy Westphall, let it be so. If it's about jokes by television writers that are mistaken as attempts at serious philosophy by some of the more earnest Wikipedians, then let's drive a stake through the heart of this article and create a new one where we can dump all the multiverse theories.

The fact that people keep adding "hey what about this..." kind of junk to the article and/or discussion makes it fairly plain that this article is not about Tommy Westphall. It's time. Let's get rid of this article, move Tommy where he belongs and make a new article for breaches in the imaginary space-time continuum. Sangrito (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to add one more thing: Go take a look at the actual article for St. Elsewhere, which includes a large section on in-jokes and crossovers where a brief summary of the contents of this article belongs. Why is this joke, just one among many, singled out for a stand-alone article? Sangrito (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like you're proposing a merger or cleanup here. I suspect that you'd agree that there would be no article without the content you're discussing. If this is indeed the case and you want to make a deletion argument, you should nominate it again. No matter what we decide here, it couldn't get the article deleted. Croctotheface (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
What I suggest is this: 1) Tommy Westphall merges into St. Elsewhere main article; 2) this current article goes bye-bye; and 3) something like "Keyzer Soze's list of 1980s TV Crossovers, Jokes and other Mindfucks" be created where all of this fun stuff can go live. I'm trying to see what people think about trying to impose a little bit of discipline on the article at this point, because, as we are plainly seeing, the subject matter lends itself handily to... getting out of hand. Making a case for deletion in the discussion is just part of the process. Sangrito (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think that all amounts to a deletion discussion, not a merger discussion. The coverage that you seem to want for what's currently here would be so minimal that I really think AfD would be the place to explore it. In truth, my primary opposition to this article in May 2006 was that the concept was not notable and that WP was being used to publicize it. Now, I acutally think that the concept is notable because in the interim it has received significant coverage. We could move the article to something like Tommy Westphall Universe Hypothesis if your issue is that the article isn't really about the character. Croctotheface (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the article should be split into two: put a general Tommy character reference on the St. Elsewhere page and create the Tommy Westphall Universe Hypothesis. Dave 00:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tprdave (talk • contribs)
I would agree to a continuation of this article under a more fitting name, but not "Keyzer Soze's list of 1980s TV Crossovers, Jokes and other Mindfucks". A full deletion would not be satisfactory though.(IRMacGuyver (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC))