Talk:The Tenderloins

Also, The Tenderloins have recently signed with CAA and will be producing a body of work that will soon be represented on Wikipedia.

You have asserted the notability of Brian Quinn. However, you have not asserted that The Tenderloins are notable independently of Quinn. Please see WP:NOTINHERITED.

Additionally, merely having "signed" is not an assertion of notability until the projects they have signed for become either reality or the subject of a major hype outside the business. See WP:CRYSTAL. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's Your Show

I'm looking for a reliable source to use as a reference to the win. So far, I've found this on the NBC website. It basically says that "JamesSMurray" won which looks like a typo or the username of the name James Murray which is one of the members of this troupe. That would prove that James Murray is notable (in my opinion) but not necessarily that The Tenderloins are. I'll update with more info as I find it. OlYeller^Talktome 17:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC

Carson Daly's official blog (at least at the time). Note the NBC copyright and symbol at the bottom of the page. It can be used to verify that The Tenderloins created a video called Time Thugs in 2007 and NBC (It's Your Show owner) knew about it. OlYeller^Talktome 17:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's proof that James Murray of the Tenderloins is the same JamesSMurray (see web address). OlYeller^Talktome 17:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

coi tag

Aside from the removal of some vandalism, page history doesn't bear out the validity of the tag. Explain here if there's reason to restore it. Removing. Bustter (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think it's warranted anymore. I have added an {{unreferenced}} and {{fansite}} tags. There are no references and sentences like "The group’s irreverent style attracted a following that led to years of sold out shows" are not exactly encyclopedic.

On a side note, please make sure that you create new talk page sections below the others and not in the middle of other comments. I'm sure it was a mistake but it looked like you were refactoring my comments. OlYeller21^Talktome 01:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Another serious flaw w/Wikipedia - 4 members not have their own pages?!

Sigh. The Tenderloins main page is fine. I get it. But under the sub-section for "Current Members," seriously, why not list in four (4) separate lines a bulleted list, one member per line, with their name being a link to their *own* individual Wikipedia page??! I see no good reasons for keeping everything inline. It only panders to those who might copy and paste the entire page to say, I don't know, plaigarize. The pro's of splitting off each of the four (4) tv show members to their own individual pages are that you would have a more accurate hit count (web page accesses or views). Also it just reads better and keeps the web hierarchical. (Gets off soap box.) Vid2vid (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• screw it, i'm making wikipedia pages for each of the guys tonight! Lilydog945 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Lilydog945: - You rock!!! This is hilarious. Are you serious? Actually, my post above should say, These Guys Have LAAAAZYYYYYY Managers!! Hugs from Peter a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC).
    • (see also this discussion on the Joe Gatto article's Talk Page) -- Partially implemented Agree Awaiting administrative action ..I originally wrote on Tenderloins/Talk that I saw a need for individual articles about each Tenderloin player; however, after all I guess that I'm ok with the Tenderloins comedy troupe article *or* the article for TRUTV's Impractical Jokers to have a sub section, The Players, then four (4) or more subsections ABOUT each comedian in DETAIL.. e.g. bio, detailed personal life sections, education, specials they have done, books written, etc. What say you all? EDIT: Copying this comment to the Tenderloin/Talk page; hope that isn't vs WP culture! Hugs. From Peter a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline chart does not show up on mobile (at least for me), the section just shows up as blank, does anyone know how to fix this, if possible? AfricanChristmas (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Aha @AfricanChristmas:. I figured it out! I reproduced the same bug and was seeing the same blank area you are, instead of this screenshot here via imgBB. (Strange, if you view-source, the code is very strange and looks like HTML that won't work, like: <timeline> stuff stuff some-spacing br spacing and color=code_here etc (then) </timeline>) .. So using my self-taught trick, here is how to view the timeline regularly in Android Google Chrome browser!

• [1] Click the menu at top-right,
• [2] choose "[ ]Desktop mode,"
• [3] lastly, edit the url from https://en.m.wikipedia..etc by taking out the "m" for mobile = https://en.wikipedia.etc....

Hope this helps you, and iPhone iOS has a similar browser hack to view as a Desktop Computer would. -Peter aka Vid2vid (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I was about the same thing that @AfricanChristmas: had! Zeeshan7tfInd (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Was about to ask why there was no timeline* sorry haha Zeeshan7tfInd (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Was about to ask why there was no timeline* sorry haha Zeeshan7tfInd (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Glad I could help. (Urrgh lol I see I spent a LOT of time on above instructions.) Btw @Zeeshan7tfInd:, you know you didn't need to triply comment, you could've edited your previous one comment. You're allowed lol! :-p .. -Peter aka Vid2vid (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Joseph Gatto (comedian) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Disagree - This is " bad " direction/advice. The page that you are instructing everyone focus upon (Joseph Gatto's) is merely about one (1) of the four (4) players; ..whereas this page is about the concept as it affects the entire/whole comedy troupe. I urge others reading this to continue to contribute here with their informed opinions about whether to break out/off the four (4) players to have each their own WP article about them. Each. Spirited best regards, in the vein of healthy debate, from Peter a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC).