Talk:Community (TV series)

Filming Location

Does anyone know where this series is film? like what community college it is filmed at ?Pwordisony (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

looks like they do some of it at Los Angeles Pierce College, sure they might do some other scenes at other LA schools Sirevil (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

@Sirevil 175.100.78.187 (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I also want to know about this . Baloshie Khan (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Anyone else delighted/amused by the meta coinkydink of this name? Did it inspire the character's name or was it, if correct, selected deliberately? Or just simply a neat coincidence, from a suitable filming location? Hm. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 04:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

links

Why doesn't Alison Brie have a page? it said it had been deleted. According to IMDB she has a lengthy resume, including the hit show Mad Men. An editor needs to bring her page back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.71.137 (talk • contribs) 02:01, September 18, 2009

She does have an article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Picked up

If anyone needs a ref on the series getting picked up, here you go. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Winger

FYI. Ikip (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fancruft

I wanted to post here to explain why I reverted Tikopowii's edits. Adding that much fancrufty text on the main Community article would turn it into a fansite, which is both unneeded and unwarranted. If anything, that stuff should be moved into a List of Community characters article, but even that's unnecessary. All of that text is just rewritten from the Greendale promotional site, and it doesn't add to the article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Episode summaries/article merge

Just drawing attention to a comment that I made at Talk:List of Community episodes#Episode summaries about consolidating the episode information/summaries and potentially merging the Community (TV series) and Community (season 1) articles. —sroc (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Annie's crush

Annie's crush on Troy was dissolved in season 1 and now she seems to like Jeff Winger instead. The summary should add this info or edit out that since it's not an essential storyline. It should just say something like: Community centers around the friends in the study group following their relationships and lives as they attend Greendale. 97.117.193.46 (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

School's Location

Out of curiosity, when was it established that Greendale was in Colorado? The tropical warmth shown in the episodes set in October to January suggests elsewhere. 24.202.251.225 (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

From the official in-universe site: "Welcome to Greendale Community College, located right in the heart of Greendale, Colorado." This source also says it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Must be in those tropical Colorado lowlands everyone talks about. 24.202.251.225 (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Premise and Cast and Characters edit being reverted

I made (without logging in, apologies) some adjustments to the Premise and Chast and Characters sections, because there were some issues there. My changes have been reverted by user HelloAnnyong with this motivation: "great deal of speculation, OR and fancruft". The fact is, I was actually just trying to remove speculations, correct mistakes, and provide better quick, basic informations on the characters. For instance:

• the current version says that Chang has been accepted in the study group. This happened very recently (2x12, and just as a background event which hasn't been fully explored yet as of the last aired episode), and it doesn't seem useful to spoiler it in the general description
• the current version, for some reason, forgets to list Pierce among the characters in the Cast and Characters section
• the current version is a bad mix up of speculations/spoilers (e.g. Chang losing its status as a teacher, who only happened in Season 2) and old plot points that ceased to be relevant in the first few episodes (e.g. Annie having a crush on Troy: that's not a useful basic information on the character, it was just a plot device for a couple of episodes. Annie's crush on Jeff, who I didn't intend to mention here anyway, has been the subject of many more episodes, btw)

So I will revert to the modified version as soon as I don't read an aswer here telling a reason to not correct these mistakes by providing more complete, updated and reliable data. Kumagoro-42 17:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumagoro-42 (talk • contribs)

I reverted it because I disagreed with a great deal of the text in there. "a borderline Asperger pop culture-obsessed film student"? Do you have any source for that aside from your own speculation? And adjectives like "snarky and self-centered" are generally inappropriate for Wikipedia. It was better the way it was before (or is now) - just listing their names and leaving it at that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Abed having Asperger has been established in the pilot actually. Jeff said it loud (after some previous clues about "a disorder I might want to look up"). Abed didn't deny it. Following episodes confirmed Abed having a mental condition of some sort (his father said it, the autobiographic film Abed shot shows him being treated with drugs as his parents saying he's not normal, he's often called "Rain Man" or seen performng "savant" feats, etc.). We never got an in-world confirmation about the Asperger specifically. That's why I wrote "borderline". It could also be "suspected to have", or something like that. The source would just be the episodes' numbers. But it's too major and too defining a trait for the character to ignore it altogether. Also, about "snarky and self-centered", I didn't realize there are inappropriate adjectives for Wikipedia. I don't feel "self-centered" is slang or something, and it's probably used in thousands of articles, but never mind. I could use actual short quotations from the pilot or the first few episodes describing the characters' basic traits instead, since it's something they constantly do. The fact is that the section still contains mistakes (Pierce missing, Ken Jeong defined as a recurring - he's billed as a regular from episode 2 on, even if he's not in every episode), and it both duplicates things from the premise section (which I think should just describe the general setting, not mentioning characters and actors since there's a specific section for that right below), devolves too much space to secondary characters like Duncan, and fails to provide a quick, adequate portrait for each regular character. And seriously, Annie having a crush on Troy is the definition of fancruft, and it's an irrelevant information in this section (moreso, defining a woman's character through the man she has a crush on is very sexist!). Please, just tell me what you want me to do, and I'll do, since I'm willing to improve this page as much as I can. Thanks. Kumagoro-42 15:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

On Dean Pelton: the character bio states that his sexual orientation is ambiguous, but I have strong issues with this characterization. Between Harmon's AMA and Biology 101 it wouldn't be correct to say his orientation is ambiguous; it isn't. This is bisexual/pansexual erasure. (Vice Dean: "And you never had to Dean. You could have lived the rest of your life in blissful ignorance and died a happy pan-sexual imp, but you wanted to feel power this year. Well now you’re going to feel my power as it surges downward from me straight through you from nostril to rectum now until the end of time. And that’s, wazzup.") Thoughts? -Exteric (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

He's not openly gay (think Modern Family), and I think just mentioning the fact that his orientation is ambiguous accurately conveys how his sexual orientation is portrayed in the show. I don't think there's any more intent to censor the fact that he's bisexual more than there is to state Abed has Aspergers. Naapple (Talk) 03:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It now says 'Although he never explicitly admits to his sexual orientation', but the word 'admits' isn't correct: it is never mentioned explicitly by himself, but there is no need to, and it is not something to 'admit'. So I'll change that, hope that's alright. Laurier (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Jeff page

I started to create a page for jeff. The show is in its third season and he should have a page. But it needs a lot of work, so I would appreciate help. you can find it by typing in Jeff Winger (Community).Caringtype1 (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Fan campaigns

The lead is not the place to add campaigns by fans to have the series renewed. If you'd like this to be added, it would be acceptable to do so in the format that Chuck uses on its page. Please note, however, the language must be neutral and cannot contain speculative comments. Thanks. Kevinbrogers (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

fine, but does it have to be that big??? do we really want to destroy the reputation of the show???Caringtype1 (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We should include all the relevant information available that contributes to the understanding of the situation. In my opinion, the fact that the series has been held back but has sparked these strong campaigns makes the show look even better. Either way, we shouldn't remove information even if it does destroy the show's reputation. Similar situations can be found at Chuck (TV series)#Campaign for series renewal, 2009 and Sexual misconduct allegations against Bill Clinton. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right. i guess I was just mad about how dumb these fans are being. Since the hiatus was announced last may, there is no indication that it might be canceled, i just feel like its disrupting NBC. Either way, acted out of anger and was wrong. Its true(unfortunately), but should be included in some way. I apologize.Caringtype1 (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

cast and characters

Listing all the characters is really redundant since we have an entire page dedicated to that. It also doesn't help explain the set-up of the show, which is why I liked the paragraph form. Is there really a reason to realist all of the characters here? I suggest we go back to the paragraph.Caringtype1 (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Cluebot

I am not an official user on Wikipedia, but I was trying to make a reasonable edit to improve the quality of the article and it was automatically undone by Cluebot. Is there any way I can get past this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.251.142 (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Cluebot is an incredibly advanced AI for what it does. But like anything with a brain, artificial or otherwise, it makes mistakes. If it happens again just revert the edit, and cluebot shouldn't bother you again. Also it tends to pick on people who make edits without an account more than those with one. So you should probably make an account.Toxic Ninja (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Showrunner?

The intro paragraph says the show is returning as a showrunner - but that article says a showrunner is a person, not a television program. I don't understand what it is trying to say. 24.4.197.241 (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The intro states, "with Harmon returning as showrunner after a season-long absence". Nowhere does it say "the show is returning as a showrunner". Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Cancelled

Show is cancelled, and it has not been posted yet. Majinsnake (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 05:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, NBC cancelled it, but a last minute renewal is keeping it in production. Funny how these things work. 38.75.61.49 (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Filming

Removed the line which says "Perhaps because of the cinematic nature of the show, several directors of episodes on the show have gone on to direct major feature films including Justin Lin, Jay Chandrasekhar, Richard Ayoade, and the Russo brothers." as all of those people had already made feature films prior to directing episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.98.210 (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

That's fair. Especially Chandrasekhar and Ayoade. 38.75.61.49 (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Six seasons and a movie"

I'm deleting this section again.

There is no evidence that the line "six seasons and a movie" has had any serious impact on studio executives' decision-making process. It in no way explains the process by which Community was canceled and recommissioned. It is completely irrelevant. To suggest that the sixth season was, in current article's wording, "predestined", or even reference fans apparently believing this, is absurd. Popcornduff (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm deleting this section for a third time. I'd appreciate it if the person who keeps restoring it would use this Talk page, as they originally suggested.

I have read the three citations provided for the section. To suggest that the line of dialogue "six seasons and a movie" is "self-fulfilling" is bizarre and confusing. It's not technically a prophecy of any sort; it is a line of dialogue read by a fictional character in a television sitcom, said about a fictional TV show. Yes, it's been adopted by the fan base to refer to community, but from our perspective the only encyclopedic information here would be something like: "the line 'six seasons and a movie' became the slogan of fans campaigning to have the series recommissioned".

And you know that? I still don't think it's relevant. It certainly isn't significant enough to give it its own section, which gives it huge undue weight. The current wording is borderline superstitious, as if the mantra actually saved the show rather than the financial interests of entertainment companies. Popcornduff (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the season six section back to its original state, keeping some your copyedits and the removal of the "Six seasons and a movie" section as that is already covered there and does not warrant its own section. Doing so, it tracks the entire process of the renewal, instead of just saying it was canceled then renewed. The section can be trimmed back to basics (in the main article) when a season 6 article is created, because most of that expanded content can be relocated there, but for now it should remain, so it's not lost. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone able to see the original entry?

I for one just see an empty entry...

same... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomash (talk • contribs) 23:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

As of 2015-08-26 14:14 UTC it's visible again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:4E0:8221:49D2:FA35:9DFA:9350 (talk)

Harmon's "story circle" template

The intro of this article mentions Harmon's "story circle" template without explaining what that is or what it means. Is it the same as the "story embryo" technique?

signed, R2-71.121.143.95 (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Images in episode articles

Jmiclash has uploaded 26 images that all depict an extra named "BJ" that has appeared in a number of episodes of the series. The images have been modified so that the extra is denoted with a red arrow, and the files are being used in the plot sections of the episode articles, with the caption: "BJ (who appears in over 60 episodes but never speaks) denoted with red arrow." I think these files are completely redundant and they do not meet the non-free content criteria #8. Below, you can see a complete list of these files, which i suggest that should be removed from the articles and deleted, unless a reason for keeping them can be provided here. -- Radiphus 08:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

They should all be deleted. If there only purpose is to pinpoint some random extra in the background, then I don't understand their existence. These images are completely trivial and unnotable. TV shows feature extras, and most of the time it's the same people throughout the years; this is nothing special. Delete. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I will remove the images and tag them for deletion right away. I will also direct users to this discussion, where they can argue in favor of keeping the images. -- Radiphus 13:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Semiotics section

I removed the last half of the "Semiotics and Community" because the material violates WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Fiske wrote decades before Community aired; if another scholar applied Fiske's lens to the show, showing how Harmon employs each of these "levels of codes" (reality, representation, and ideology), then that scholar could be cited/attributed and the section would be fine, but no source cited in the section references Fiske or his three codes, so the application of Fiske to Community appears to be an original claim, as does each example that follows it. Similarly, Harmon's story circle is discussed in the Wired article cited; the word semiotics is mentioned, but the article does not claim that Harmon following this template amounts to adding any extra layer of meaning or intentionally encoding as the claim at the end of the section states. It appears, in fact, that the "layers" come from the pop-culture shorthand piled on top it all, not the circle, making the "story circle" not relevant to this section.--MattMauler (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The semiotic interest in Community seems to overstated. 3 of the 5 sources cited are non-academic.Emily St. James' Vox article makes zero mention of semiotics and the Mordecai Knode's Reactor article uses the word "semiotics" once apparently in an attempt to make the thesis appear much more sophisticated than the actual thesis which is "I like pop culture references". Zero discussion of semiotic theory happens here. (Atlantic article is paywalled, but it seems improbable that it actually contains semiotic arguments).

As for the journal articles: Wells-Lassagne article directly contradicts the claim that Community is often cited, instead claiming that it is overlooked, no discuss of semiotics happens, and Detmering's article is essentially a summary of Community's fanbase and how it appeals to them it also does not discuss semiotics.

I suspect that TV is simply not interesting in semiotics, any ideas employed have almost certainly been employed in a much more rigourous fashion elsewhere (like actual papers on semiotics). Claiming that Community is of interest in semiotics is like claiming that Arrival is of interest in linguistics, or that the Matrix is of interest to computer science. They may employ some ideas of the field, to a greater degree than normal, but they have zero actual application to the field itself, and not surprisingly academic interest reflects that. JSory (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

This section has been somewhat problematic since it was introduced. Do you suggest removing it completely, or is there elements that can be moved to to other sections? Drovethrughosts (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the Atlantic article specifically about the show's innovative aspects, metahumor, etc. could be cited/incorporated in the Critical Reception section. I haven't yet gone back and reread the Detmering article (breaking the "fourth wall," etc.) since it was first added, but it could perhaps receive the same treatment. These could be preserved elsewhere; I agree that a separate "semiotics" section doesn't make sense.--MattMauler (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Potential "Awards and nominations" page

I've decided to start work on a page entitled "List of awards and nominations received by Community". I noticed that the section covering this in the article is quite cluttered in a prose format, and I think there are enough awards to justify a separate page instead of listing them in the main article (which is already fairly long). Moreover, comparable sitcoms in terms of length, reception, and dates of airing, such as The Office and Parks and Recreation, have such pages. However, I won't start linking the page to this article unless other people think it's a good idea and the list is up to snuff. Any thoughts on this? --RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: I think this is a great idea, yeah. Such pages are usually about how many awards there are—a recent WikiProject Television discussion had some contrasting views about what number that should be, values between 30 and 70 floated about—but in this case with 86 wins/nominations listed at IMDb (not all of which are necessarily major enough awards for us to list, but most are), I think we're hugely overdue for such a page for Community. Thanks for starting the list (link) and I'll see if I can make some time over the next few weeks to help working on it. — Bilorv (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Advanced D&D / Blackface

the episode was pulled in June 2020 due to mistakenly perceiving Chang as dressing up in blackface. blackface is defined by Wikipedia and websters to "represent a caricature of a black person". Chang was not doing that - he was dressed as an elf. I see why sony / nflx / hulu pulled it as blackface itself is reprehensible. I am not arguing with the corporate decision - I AM arguing that it should not be incorrectly characterized as blackface on this page. Wiki strives for accuracy and saying Chang did blackface is inaccurate. Thehornet (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the version before your edit misstated the case, so thanks for your edit. The current version "perceived as blackface" seems like an acceptable compromise to me.
I am also unsure if the incident warrants inclusion at all or if it's an example of recentism.--MattMauler (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I also like the new version — it aligns well with how the episode page describes the situation. In regard to the idea that it may be recentism, I think it merits inclusion, given that similar instances of controversial episodes being removed have been included on main series pages (see 30 Rock and South Park) and that the removal received fairly widespread coverage. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thehornet, the issue is that you are reasoning based on your opinion and not on the sources. My opinion is that the scene is not offensive in context and this is a cynical attempt by Netflix/Hulu to pay lipservice to a cause they don't believe in, but that's not what drives my actions on Wikipedia. No reliable secondary source (that I have read) says anything like: Chang playing a dark elf by wearing dark make-up some have mistaken for blackface. So we won't either.

I don't think the incident is recentism because this episode removal has garnered a fair amount of coverage ([1][2] in addition to the two sources in the article). I previously hadn't seen a source which says that this wasn't blackface (see Variety and Deadline in particular) but I notice that Den of Geek says This seems like one of the odder pieces of media to get “cancelled” considering it is intentionally vague whether it counts as blackface ... so I agree that the change to which was perceived as blackface is an improvement.

However, I think we can do better: that description doesn't make it clear who perceived it as blackface, and there's no evidence this move was "controversial" (as opposed to universally supported, or universally opposed). I suggest we go with On June 26, 2020, Netflix and Hulu removed the season 2 episode "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" from their platforms, saying that a scene in which Chang dressed as a black elf constituted blackface. Several other live-action comedies had episodes featuring blackface removed as well. Perhaps we can improve upon this wording further as well. — Bilorv (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Source for production codes

I've started a discussion over at Talk:List of Community episodes regarding where production code information comes from. Since I'm not sure how much visibility it will get there, I'm adding a link here for a wider audience to see. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW. There is consensus that long-term significance is a relevant primary topic factor here, and the TV series does not have as much long-term significance as the concept. No prejudice against a discussion about moving Community (disambiguation) to Community. (non-admin closure) — Bilorv (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Community (TV series) → Community – Similarly to Friends, it's the main topic, and the current Community page can be merged. Ireadbooks12 (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Disclaimer: I love Community and I think it's one of the best shows there was in the last decades. However, I am also aware that there are not that many people who share my enthusiasm and thus it's highly unlikely that most people searching for "community" mean this show. Also, unlike Friends (which is far more popular as well), this move would displace the article currently at the same name (while the primary topic for friends remains at Friendship and "friend" redirects there). Regards SoWhy 07:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose move. Not a long-term primary topic. O.N.R. ^(talk) 08:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Long-term significance pales in contrast to community. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The social unit is clearly the primary topic. The case with Friends is different as the other primary topic (human social concept) is at friendship, which is spelled differently. JIP | Talk 11:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for Snow. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons explained by SoWhy. Also, in the future, remember that a move to an existing page requires a proposal for where the displaced page would go. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I suggest OP be trouted for learning nothing from the RM at Transparent (TV series). Nohomersryan (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per PT#2/WP:ASTONISH but I would be fine with moving the DAB to the basename instead as a compromise. The TV series gets 121,787 views, Community gets 23,718 and Community (ecology) gets 5,302[[3]] and the ecology meaning also has long-term significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Crouch, Swale: Not a bad idea. In the mean time, I expanded the current hatnote at Community to address the fact that this page gets the most views by far. Regards SoWhy 18:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  @SoWhy: We could file a RM straight after this closes which it will probably will be soon per WP:SNOW. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per SoWhy.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Giant Antarctic blizzard WP:SNOW oppose next editor please close. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2021 (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.

Linking to characters without their own articles

I recently undid an edit here where an IP user had added a link to Ben Chang, which currently redirects to List of Community characters. The IP user then un-undid my edit, claiming that the link is useful (my original edit summary said the link was not useful).

I think my edit summary was unclear: I removed the link because linking to a page already linked in the existing article one section lower seems like overlinking. Moreover, if we add a link for Ben Chang, it would be unreasonable to not add links for every main character, which definitely feels like overlinking when all but one character would redirect to List of Community characters. Finally, given that the links had not been added even though the redirects had existed for a while (the added redirect has existed for over 10 years), it seemed that consensus was to not include them. Thoughts? RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft of film article

With the recent announcement about the film, I found a draft version of an article on the topic at Draft:Community: The Movie and started improving it, but then realized there is another draft (seemingly in better shape) at Draft:Untitled Community film. Where should we consolidate any draft work? RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

"On November 21, 2012, after allegedly using a racial slur on set, it was announced that Chevy Chase left the show by mutual agreement between the actor and network. "

This is misleading. He was complaining that his character would be made to use the word, and left the show for essentially the opposite reason of what is implied. Drsruli (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Drsruli: the content you quote isn't fully verifiable to any of the sources in the same paragraph, which is worrying. Some of it is verified by Deadline: Chevy Chase and the producers of NBC‘s cult comedy Community are parting ways by mutual agreement ... on-set ... Chase used the N-word ... reportedly prompted by lines of dialogue he found offensive. This doesn't say that this is the reason that Chase left the show. I'm not reassured by the weasel word "reportedly" in the source, or "allegedly" in our article.

What text do you propose this be replaced with and on the basis of what reliable sources? — Bilorv (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Until better information is available, I suggest eliminating the clause "after allegedly using a racial slur on set ". In the bigger picture, sources indicate that he was frustrated playing a racist character that didn't demonstrate significant growth over 4 years (despite the occasional episode to the contrary). Drsruli (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the incident merits mentioning, but I wouldn't be opposed to adding other factors that may have led to his departure. Here's what different sources mention as reasons – most are from the time of his departure:

Coverage of the story

The A.V. Club: He'd publicly feuded with Community creator and former showrunner Dan Harmon, told a reporter he believed sitcoms "are the lowest form of television," and caused a stir last month by uttering the N-word on-set while complaining about the increasingly bigoted attitude of his character. HuffPost: Back in March, Chase told us at HuffPost TV that he had "creative issues with this show. I always have" ... Chase hasn't been shy about hinting that he might be leaving "Community" and has made his issues with the show abundantly clear, including that he doesn't think it's funny. The Hollywood Reporter: The news doesn't come as a surprise as Chase has had a roller-coaster relationship with the NBC series as he grew frustrated with the direction his character was taking. Most recently in October, the actor used an N-word on-set when questioning dialogue in a scene, then "immediately" apologized to the cast. Chase also clashed with Community creator Dan Harmon ... Rolling Stone: ... the former Saturday Night Live star has had a rocky relationship with the show for a while now, once saying, "It's just a fucking mediocre sitcom! I want people to laugh, and this isn’t funny." His relationship with recently ousted creator and show-runner Dan Harmon was also rather tumultuous, particularly after Harmon leaked an angry voicemail Chase left him at a live show that found its way online. USA Today: Chase has had a tumultuous history with the low-rated Community. He has clashed with creator Dan Harmon, who left day-to-day oversight of the show after the third season. BBC: Messages Chase left on Harmon's voicemail surfaced online this year, revealing the actor's dissatisfaction with the direction he felt the show was taking. In one message the actor is heard saying Community was a "mediocre sitcom" and accusing Harmon of not understanding "what it is I do that's funny". Evening Standard (2023): However, Chevy Chase recently revealed that the real reason he left the show as a main character after four seasons was because the show wasn’t funny enough. ScreenRant (2023): The actor would publicly complain about the show and his clashes with Dan Harmon led to Harmon being fired ... The actor was frustrated with the direction of his character and used a racial slur during an angry rant.

Based on the stories I found, I would include Chase using a slur and his general dissatisfaction with the direction of his character and the show as factors. It might also be worth mentioning his feud with Harmon (which is currently nowhere in the article) but maybe not as a direct factor, just a contributing factor to his dissatisfaction. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Drsruli: it's an incident from 10 years ago discussed to no end in reliable sources. I agree the current text is bad. It needs someone to improve the referencing and then rewrite the text to what the references verify. You don't need anybody's permission to do so. I notice you've dropped similar messages on other talk pages. I've handled a couple but you'll be waiting a hell of a long time on some of these talk pages for somebody else to fix it. Wikipedia only works when we make changes first and have discussions only when there's disagreement.

Thanks for collecting some sources, RunningTiger123. I'd want to phrase the text to be careful to avoid "X caused Y" as I think there's unreliability coming in from all directions. I don't trust 2023 Chevy Chase to give the "real" reason he left, for instance. I think we should describe that he has (at the time and since) expressed unhappiness with the show's direction and his character's direction. If the sourcing is strong enough then I believe we should say that he was angry about Pierce's bigotry and (unbowdlerised) that he used the racist slur nigger on set while criticising the dialogue of a scene. The dispute with Harmon should be mentioned somewhere, too, though we need to be careful as some sources get it wrong: Harmon was not working on the show when Chase left. — Bilorv (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

All well said. So the use of the slur was in the context of complaining about the characteristics of Pierce Hawthorne, a rhetorical usage perhaps--but sorta adding a cringe cherry atop the tension sundae his friction had created. (Between Harmon's firing as a result of their feuding, and vocal complaining about the show.) --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 22:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)