Article milestones Date Process Result November 8, 2008 Articles for deletion No consensus December 5, 2008 Articles for deletion No consensus September 12, 2016 Articles for deletion Redirected

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Media This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Comedy This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles Websites: Computing This redirect is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles This redirect is supported by WikiProject Computing. Internet culture This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

This whole thing needs to be shrunk. This isn't a place to document every single episode of a webTV series. I've cut some useless stuff out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.141.186 (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is a very large article for a very minor website. CaelumArisen (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor website? Yeah. Right. I think you meant "the single largest collection of online amateur critics on the entire web". It's become THE central hub for all online critique and original content web series that there is. Minor website, my ass. Try a huge website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.11.246 (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA --Roman Dog Bird (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with CaelumArisen about the length of this article as it is a minor website whet ever you like it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.142.134 (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a minor website whether you like it or not. Fladoodle (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this article needs to be vastly improved, it just doesn't feel professional, also it hasn't been updated in a long time.

Does anyone think that a note should be made about the PBS commercial that Doug recently made? Here is the link.[1]--Brad M. (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This definitely establishes Walker as a notable person. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Huray we won! *donates to PBS* xD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.165.203 (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what happened to Riz? He's part of the other comedians on the site too! He reviewed "Crocodile Dundee" and made many a clip, not to mention Transmission Awesome... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallaussiebloke (talk • contribs) 16:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's what Jason Pullura a.k.a. LordKat said about Riz's unjustified firing from the site on the Kiwi Farms forum circa August 22nd 2016, and how Lindsay Ellis, better known as the Nostalgia Chick, was responsible:

"As far as the Rizzo thing is concerned, I only know a little bit of information and most of it is second hand, since I wasn't actually at TGWTG for the first year. The story I know goes as follows:

For whatever reason, Riz and Lindsay hated each other. Even prior to the 1 year, they never got along. At the 1 year anniversary special, Lindsay hated that Riz was put in charge of certain things related to production (where he actually went to school to learn that shit). Either because she hated him or it legit happened (and I think the former is more likely, we'll see why in a second), Lindsay decided she needed to tell everyone about how creepy Rizzo was, eventually leading to him being kicked off the site.

I don't really know the whole story because, again, I wasn't there. Here's the thing though: I believe it. This is how that site works, it's how they "manage" their talent: someone upsets someone else, but that someone else happens to be Lindsay, Spoony, Rob, Doug, or Michael. Soon after that, rumors start circulating internally that X did a bad thing, and that X is a bad person (see also The Amazing Atheist). Eventually the rumor leaks to the fans, and the person is kicked off the site (or are disassociated with it).

If you want to see someone that was unfairly put through that bullshit, look up Coldguy. I've worked with him extensively on other projects and he's been a reliable, if quirky, friend. Why was he put through the fucking ringer? I really couldn't tell you - I do know he fought with Rob and Doug over how to actually produce something that wouldn't look like cheap shit. More importantly, when I first joined the site, everyone was super busy telling me how weird Coldguy is, and how I should stay away from him.

As a footnote to CA history: I was told that Rizzo was "jealous" that I "stole" his idea for Until We Win, and that we should make fun of him because of it. Years later, I would talk to the guy and he told me that the only thing he ever said about UWW was that he wish he made it.

Also the last time I even remotely heard about him, Rizzo was working for a production studio in Australia. Coldguy also works full time at a tech support center and is working closer with MAGFest every year.

Even more "disgraced" TGWTG contributors turning out to be hard-working, decent human beings. Amazing that." FlapjackStantz (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need that section on lori prince live since that was just 2 sketches and there hasn't been a new episode since september?--Supertony14 (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is a good point. Really though, the whole thing needs to be cut down a bit; I did some editing myself but there really should be more. Lord Seth (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it deserve a section? It doesn't even have its own page at the website. 76.229.150.103 (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it taking forever for someone to add the website's logo to this page? It's a little jarring to be treated to zero images when you first enter only to come across four images while you scroll down. 76.229.171.152 (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that creators and series Press Start Adventures, Little Miss Gamer, The Game Heroes, and Film Brain are missing... was this intentional? I'd write details on them, but I don't know enough about their series. 66.253.230.52 (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. This is Cferra from the TGWTG Wikia. I've been authorized to remove any and all mention of Dan Rizzo aka ThatAussieGuy for reasons I can not divulge. There is an update on TGWTG.com if you wish to see confirmation of the release. Info regarding him has been removed. That and myself and Film Brain have updated the entry to include the article writers of TGWTG.com.

We've also updated the "Bored Shitless" section under the orders of Mike Michaud to create a Blistered Thumbs section. Bored Shitless is no longer a part of the TGWTG family. All talent under it moved to Blistered Thumbs once Aussie left. That and people will need to be on the look out later when more channels are created.

--Cferra of the TGWTG Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.95.146 (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's a lot of outdated/false information here that needed to be cleaned up. --Film Brain of TGWTG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.9.61 (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. This is Cferra from the Channel Awesome/TGWTG wikia. I am posting in regards to this blurb:

A post by Mike Michaud revealed a talent contest taking place in September 2009. Rumors around the internet have hinted an appearance by the members of TGWTG in New York where the contest may be hold, Though this fact seems very unlikely. There will also be future auctions for props and other items used in the videos.

I recently deleted it and I've been sent by TGWTG personnel to inform you that no such event will take place. Seriously. It's pretty funny. And sad when you think of people making asinine rumors like this.

-Cferra from the TGWTG Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.95.146 (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainers don't need TV break to hit it big

This has plenty of info that could be integrated into the article. It also acts as garlic & a cross against deletionists. 75.64.247.79 (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more from the Chicago Tribune

• Growing breed of accidental entrepreneur has recession to thank for business creation 75.64.247.79 (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also added. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a third that showed up in my Google News results. I am only posting this story in case seasoned editors see any information that can be used to expand the TGWTG article or back up current information with citations. IT IS NOT SPAM. A disclaimer appears to be required for me posting this link, due to User:Megaman en m's scathing accusation that my link was spam, deleting the link while completely ignoring the posts above that were properly integrated by User:AdamBMorgan. The publication has been active since 1930 and has its own Wikipedia article at Advertising Age. There is nothing that leads me to believe this is just some blog and "spam". This is a news story from a reliable source. If an article I find is on the google news search and wikipedia article, I will post it here for reference for veteran editors. I don't care if it's the New York Times or the St. Catharines Standard, if it meets those conditions it is a RELIABLE SOURCE. IT IS NOT SPAM.

• Blip.tv Brings Programs to YouTube, Ads to Channel Awesome
  • Google News Search
  • Wikipedia article Advertising Age

I will quit this site if vets and administrators show up on this article and actively try to stifle its growth by censoring reliable sources. That is completely unacceptable and I don't have time to have to prove 10 times over that a news story for article expansion and/or citations is not spam just because somebody knows not a damn thing about the source. I want to help expand this article, but not if it's a bullshit uphill battle like it's turning out to be. 75.64.247.79 (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much to User:AdamBMorgan and no thanks to User:Megaman en m 75.64.247.79 (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ever so recently Theamazingathiest of Youtube has made a video for This website. Hopefully it'll be an ongoing series. This needs to be in the article if so. --Olifromsolly (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary and/or possible for someone to stop others from adding extraneous detail to that paragraph all the freakin' time? Since the Critic's episode guide is being tagged for going into detail that would only interest a small audience, I think similar policies should be applied here. 134.48.244.63 (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the List of Bum Reviews with Chester A. Bum episodes has been nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bum Reviews with Chester A. Bum episodes - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell was it deleted, other than to piss people off? Not to mention, I don't see anyone trying to delete the list of Nostalgia Chick episodes - or are you only dogging bums and not hot chicks? Bring Chester back! 87.207.49.165 (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nostalgia Chick episodes, not to mention Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Atop the Fourth Wall Episodes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ask That Guy with the Glasses episodes. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why don't you delete every list of episodes of whatever show, while you're at it? Surely there's no reason to have more information in an encyclopaedia when you can have less, right? 87.207.49.165 (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But some information is irrelevant, if someone truely cared about a list of tgwtg episodes than they would get it from his site. Sorry but his fanbase is far too small to warrant a list of reviews, hell their not even reviews but rather plot summaries. - meh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.35.70 (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else think that a better picture for the article would be a screencap of the shot near the end of the "TGWTG Team Brawl" video where it shows everyone together posing? Lord Seth (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. VmKid (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is way too much unsourced detail on this article, mostly in the NC/AVGN feud and the list of other TGwtG episodes. I don't want to take a sledgehammer to it just yet, though. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Entrepreneur Economy - While the corporate world struggles to find its footing, entrepreneurs are stepping up with new ideas.

An article relating to Doug, Mike Ellis, Mike Michaud, and Channel Awesome/That Guy With The Glasses was published in the December 2008 issue of Entrepreneur Magazine. If any important new information can be found in this article, please integrate it into the That Guy With The Glasses article with proper references. I am avoiding editing it myself due to a potential Conflict of Interest.

I will request that User:Megaman en m once again refrains from trying to actively stifle progression of this article with reliable sources by labeling my links to third-party news coverage from reliable sources as spam. As this user refused to respond to my inquiries several times over his last attempt to purge suggested references for the Chicago Sun Times, the Chicago Tribune, and Advertising Age magazine, I feel it necessary to request that this user not interfere without merit again. I also request that User:TenPoundHammer does not go to the extreme of nominating a well-sourced article that satisfies WP:N and WP:V several times over for deletion. Thank you. 75.64.172.186 (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accusatory much? I don't have any question whatsoever about his notability, and I don't appreciate being called out for my deletionist nature. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whats to discuss? The content I removed was complete crap, just a list of web videos/series and writers for a just barely notable website. Discussion for the sake of discussion is ridiculous, if you disagree with my edit you revert it and we discuss, if you don't then leave it. That's the whole point of WP:BRD--Jac16888^Talk 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that these ARE contributors for a site whose notability has been previously established, each with their own currently-running series, the list should be there. Perhaps it would be better as a separate article (i.e. "List of contributors for That Guy With The Glasses" or something like that), but getting rid of the list entirely seems...well, silly. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the section could be trimmed up a bit (like getting rid of Emo Jones and other one-off sketches), but simply deleting a large amount of content without discretion seems excessive. Andy120290 (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The notability of the site is just barely established, that doesn't mean every single thing on the site is notable, notability is not inherited. I think having the list at all is the silly thing. If we look at CollegeHumor, a much more well known site, the article only briefly describes some of the major features, even though there are many videos/contributors/etc. If there are series/videos on this site that are notable on their own (i.e. not just for being on this site), that are covered in reliable 3rd party sources they should be mentioned, anything else should be removed. As it stands this article is a mess, it needs drastic edits to make it slightly more encyclopedic--Jac16888^Talk 01:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to andy)None of the content I removed had any sources except for a couple from the site itself, Its removal is well within policy--Jac16888^Talk 01:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Some of the ones you removed DID have established notability, but did so in their own separate articles, i.e. Happy Harry, Guru Larry and Wez. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So A), why doesn't it say it here then? and B) why should we include it here? Neither of you have yet to give any valid reason this content should be kept - either fix it or its gonna go--Jac16888^Talk 11:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the CollegeHumor article seems less well referenced than this article, with fewer notable sources. Nor do I think the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument is any better here than in AfD (especially considering CollegeHumor is unassessed, making it a weak basis of comparison). Additionally, the "Other sections of the site" section can be referenced with primary references to the website per WP:SELFPUB and WP:PRIMARY as they are statements of fact. I think referencing basic facts (rather than contentious claims, see WP:CITE) is a bit silly but it should be easy to do so. While notability is not inherited, this is information about the content of the site itself, which has established notability and is the subject of this article. The content of the site is the site; there would be nothing else without it. The "Other sketches and series" is less defensible. While I think a section covering these other series should remain to completely cover the subject of the article, it does not need as much detail as presently exists. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes primary references can be used to show they exist, I'm not disputing that, the point is we don't need to document them, you say theres nothing without the content, the only content we should be listing is the stuff thats notable, i.e. they need to have 3rd party references. The simple fact that the content is on the website does not mean we should write about it, their should be things we can write about the site itself - its history, the reception it recieves, impact, all that kind of stuff, and only the major/important sketches need to be included. If we can't include anything of that before we start on the cruft, then perhaps there shouldn't be an article on it at all--Jac16888^Talk 17:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No response? Does that mean I can go ahead and remove this rubbish again?--Jac16888^Talk 02:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the only one arguing for its removal; find someone else to support it first so the decision bears at least some semblance of democracy... -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Your arguments for keeping it are invalid, the content is bad, its unsourced, and fancrufty, and suggests no notability. --Jac16888^Talk 12:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since none of are you are bothering to reply anymore, I've gone ahead and removed the "Other sketches and series", since as Adam admits above, it is far too excessive. Hopefully you will take this as a hint that perhaps you should try and cleanup the rest of the article, rather than just blindly reverting me simply because you like the website--Jac16888^Talk 14:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never really got the point of people like you. I know power corrupts and all, but are you really the type who goes apewire because he has the "power" to edit a website that he doesn't own?24.228.54.78 (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. When I see an article filled with guff about a bunch of vidoes on some barely important website, I feel its embarassing to leave it as such, just because the "fans" like it--Jac16888^Talk 02:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that. People like something you don't and so you take scissors to it for no adequately-established reason than it's, like, a stupid website, and it's not important, 'n', like, there's too many words about it, 'n' stuff, so you have to unilaterally start deleting things despite being summarily ignored by people of both opinions. So it's pretty much what I said. 24.228.54.78 (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Know something funny, I've only ever visited the website after seeing this article, I don't dislike it at all, but what I think of the website is irrelevant. However, I don't have to justify myself to you, because I don't care--Jac16888^Talk 02:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've yet to justify yourself to anyone in any sense, and your candor in editing/talking about editing already shows how little you care. Your anecdote is cute, but I've not-visited many sites and not monkeyed with the article after visiting them, so I'm not sure of its relevance. 24.228.54.78 (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been busy with some other things. I still think the bulleted list of other producers is justified. Without them, the article becomes just about Douglas Walker. Now, he is the most important person on the site and it is named after him but that is an inaccurate portrayal of the site. A lot of sources focus on Walker but some just mention the site as a whole, which includes these additional people. Most cannot (at the moment, at least) support their own articles but they are relevant to this one to give complete coverage of the subject. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I suggest you find some sources for them, we can't include every damn person with something on the site, if they've done anything important/notable then there will be sources, if there aren't, then the article is better off without them--Jac16888^Talk 14:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is Cferra from the Channel Awesome Wiki. I have to disagree with the sentiment here about the deletion of the staff mention as they are part of Channel Awesome/TGWTG. Each current contributor has worked with Doug in many cameos, the Brawl and other projects. That makes them all notable as they are all Channel Awesome. If anything, you should make a page about the staff just like there's a page about the main company, Channel Awesome. It'd be called "Channel Awesome Staff" and there you could list what their contributions are and what subsite, too. For example, Angry Joe would go in Blistered Thumbs.

We at the CA Wiki have done something similar and it works well for us. We also have individual pages as well, showing each contributor because they are all important to the company. So, it'd behoove this page to greatly update it and make a new page. Why? Because the Barfiesta people are missing. Blistered Thumbs will launch soon. They are all important to TGWTG and should be archived here as everyone is in the same company.

If you want sources, you could always link the wikia articles or their pages at the site. Each person hired by the higher ups is a part of the company and deserves to be mentioned as everyone is part of a greater whole. The site isn't just about Doug any more. It's about everyone. Even the twitter, the wikia and the Youtube channel. So, make a sub page in the template listing all the Channel Awesome staff. What they do. AND what section of the site they are in. I.E. Blistered Thumbs, Inked Reality, Team TGWTG and Barfiesta. Cferra (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude, but you don't make a single valid argument there. This is wikipedia, an encyclopedia, whereas your wikia is just a fansite, we actually have standards, and a list of all the article writers is not something that belongs here.--Jac16888^Talk 18:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to basics[edit]

• Ok, heres the thing, I'm trying to be more selective about my removals, since I've realised that all the people watching this page are fans of the show. However, no website article needs a list of every single person involved - this is insanity, most of these people have just posted a few videos, a look at google shows that there are no sources for these people. However, some of you are saying the article is incomplete without them, perhaps if you made efforts to improve the article. Take this "Team TGWTG" section which I just removed for example. No sources, and I couldn't find any. The article doesn't even say what the team is, or how its related. A section with those details would be great if it were sourced, and it wouldn't need to list every single member. for example:

Team TGWTG is a group on the site who ....{{citation needed}}, notable for their .... {{citation needed}}. They were mentioned in (3rd party reliable source) as being/for doing ......{{citation needed}}. Notable members include x, who ....{{citation needed}}, and y, who {{citation needed}}.

Does this not seem much better than a list of names? I'm not trying to be destructive here, I only found this article by accident and I saw that it was a mess, and needs improving, if the site is truly notable, whats to stop it being a GA or FA one day? Right now its the entire article--Jac16888^Talk 19:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see the need for this. I can find no policy that applies notability requirements to lists. Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content, except for lists of people which leads to WP:NLIST and WP:Source list. However, these don't really help as this isn't trivia and you don't seem to be contesting the fact that these people belong to the groups stated. The closest is in WP:NLIST: "entries [in the list] must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines" but that doesn't really help as I can't find any content guideline covering this. This isn't even covered by the WP:LISTCRUFT essay. I see the list as approximately the same as cast and crew lists in film articles, which do not require notability to be established separate to the films in question. The lists can be changed to prose as you suggest but that still won't solve this issue over the requirement for individual notability.

For what it's worth, I don't think you are trying to be destructive but I'm still confused why this should be necessary. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never could get this why does any one ever wont to delete any thing that’s not biased or offensive or a lie its not like wikipedia’s gone run out of room how can you have too much information

I agree with AdamBMorgan. The site recently divided itself into subdivision. While Inked Reality and Blistered Thumbs has representation and lists of personnel in this article, Team TGWTG does not. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.202.94 (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The website isn't working for me! It keeps telling me that the server isn't responding. I know this might not be the right place to ask about this, but I don't know where else to turn. PS: Thatguywiththeglasses' twitter said "ending program, bye" recently. Does that have something to do with it? I want anyone reading this to try to go to the website and see if it works for them, because I haven't been able to go there for three days now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.110.17 (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Aug 19th, and it's still down. 216.65.182.66 (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's back up again. There were hard drive issues on the server. 216.65.182.66 (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

There's been a bit of an edit war here as I've been working with various members of the Channel Awesome wiki to clean up this page as per the request of the management of Channel Awesome. There is a lot of inaccurate information. One such fact is that "Aussie created Transmission Awesome". That statement is false and was deleted. A user on this wiki named Daskool reverted the edit. It should be noted that Aussie didn't create the podcast. I have evidence in the form of this interview: Some Bloke interviews Rollo T. I am also in constant contact with the staff of Channel Awesome and on their behalf, I have deleted the erroneous information. If there is more false information, I will delete it. This page needs a lot of work.

Thanks for your time.

Cferra (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to keep the staff of Wikipedia as well as the Channel Awesome Wikia satisfied, I am removing some of the more needless information from the contributors sections. In theory, this Wikipedia page should only contain the most basic and relevant information regarding the contributors, their shows and their involvement with the site. Things such as Cameos, Running Jokes, one-note catch-phrases and Personal Relationships (actual or fake) should not be included in these descriptions. If one wishes to know more about a specified contributor, please visit the official Channel Awesome Wikia, and please do not clutter this page with such trivial information. There's been too much administrative attention placed upon this article as is, and I'd like for it to be remain a decent resource, rather than a well of controversy.

ChaosD1 (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so why was the article that listed the Nostalgia Critic episodes deleted? 69.211.158.186 (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Blistered Thumbs has become its own website independent of TGWTG.com, I thought it would be a good idea to split the Blistered Thumbs section into its own page on Wikipedia, cleaning it up and adding to it on the way. Any thoughts on this? LoremIpsumDolorSitAsmet (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting it into a new article risks deletion. The new Blistered Thumbs article would need to prove it's notability and relevance to Wikipedia. If you have some reliable references, that will help (I don't know if there was any media attention for the site's launch; I'm not much of a gamer). Notability, however, cannot be inherited from this article or the Channel Awesome article (which both have their own notability and references). A new article would have to stand or fall on its own. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your concern with starting a "Blistered Thumbs" article, but the site does seem to have notable personalities such as AngryJoe, Spoony, and others. It also has some media attention (e.g. AngryJoe at VGA 2010, contacts with big gaming corps., etc.). It could be one of those "wait-and-see" things. LoremIpsumDolorSitAsmet (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So an entire article has been deleted with no explination as far as I can tell. So go on then, whodunnit? Personally that was the only Nostalgia Critic article I used. Every week to be precise, it even showed upcoming episodes so was definately valuable to me personally. I'm guessing it's archived and therefore possible to put back up? Please do, as that article had more of a point than this one, and most of the other major web series' have one. If it's not going back up I at least want to know why. ElectricWizard 0 (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also use that list to look up the next episode. To delete that without a good reason is highly vandalism. I didn't even see a delete template the last time I read it. SeanWheeler (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A number of search terms matching TGWTG contributors or their series (that lack their own article) direct to this page, but after the many edits the page no longer makes reference to them.

For example, searches for "Linkara" or "Atop the Fourth Wall" will display this article, but you'd have to go back to it's more monstrously sized days for even a passing mention of either.

Should a "List of TGWTG contributors" page be made to contain the dead end search terms if they are unfit for mention in the main article or an article of their very own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.43.3 (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have recovered the "Events" and "Major Series" sections from earlier versions. I see no good reason for them not to appear here. From the edit summaries of the deletions, there seems to have been some inadvertant confusion over notability and referencing. There's more about notabilty at Wikipedia:Notability but essentially it only applies to the article as a whole, it does not apply to the content of the article itself (the sections). Content is mostly covered by referencing, which is explained at Wikipedia:References. This requires a reference for sentences that are contentious, such as opinions or analysis. They are not required for undisputed facts, although they can be helpful if provided. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having noticed that the trailer for the Dark Nella arc is licensed as CC-BY-2.0, I have converted it to Ogg Theora format, uploaded it to Commons and added it to the article. Aside from the fact that it's the only video I've found with a compatible licence (there may be more but I haven't noticed them), this trailer gives an idea of the style and quality of That Guy with the Glasses videos along with the story elements. As the arc is almost entirely over at time of writing, there should not be any commercial concerns and adding trailers is mentioned in Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Multimedia (see also Wikipedia:Videos). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I typed in Team Four Star(The name of the unofficial fan-dub parody of the anime 'Dragon Ball Z') I get redirected to TGWTG's page. Last time I checked this site is not involved with them nor does this article make any mention of TFS. In lue of their own article this could lead to some misunderstandings and should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.106.197.26 (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• They are affiliated with them, and several individual members produce videos for the site. Bakazuki (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet there is absolutely no mention of them (Team Four Star), or their primary series Dragon Ball Z Abridged. So...why does it get redirected here considering there is literally no relevant information on that subject in this entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.250.137 (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it really doesn't make sense. Seeing as I search "Team Four Star" and get redirected here. Which would be fine, if there was any information on them here at all. Affiliation and sharing members is not enough to warrant that. 173.67.250.55 (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hit the talk page wondering this, and since it's been a year and TFS has only gotten bigger, I'm just gonna go ahead and take initiative and make a separate page. --Manic Oppressive (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, that one paragraph explaining Disneycember is enough. Why describe it in full detail? Why not just create a seperate page about Disneycember? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.160.56 (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The episodes list would be a better place than the main article. Jarkeld (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should do an AT4W page. AmericanLeMans (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that some of the material from That Guy with the Glasses be split into a separate article titled Doug Walker (entertainer). The rational for this proposal can be summed up in one point:

Why does this non-BLP article contain BLP information in which it is the ONLY and PRIMARY source for this BLP information? (This should never be done since BLPs have their own set of guidelines that need to be followed.) For that reason, I believe that this Split needs to be done as soon as possible. Steel1943 (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the split tag. To get an article about Doug Walker would not require a split, but rather a disection. If you wand to write an article on Doug Walker then you can go ahead and do it (if he is notable). This article appears to be coherent so there would only be snippets here and there that need to be removed. Hope that helps. Op47 (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've split the previous "Major series" section into "Notable former series" and "Current long-running series". I think this will help to solve the problem of trying to list every single series, sub-series and special featured on the website. "Major" was bordering on non-neutral point of view and original research anyway; everyone had their own view about what counted as a mjor series. Limiting them to (1) current and (2) long-running is at least straight forward and objective. I have not defined how long "long-running" is at the moment. We might need to come up with some figure for minimum age. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, only Cinema Snob, Nostalgia Chick, and Nostalgia Critic are mentioned as notable long-running shows for the website. Would it not be prudent to also include Atop the Fourth Wall and The Angry Joe Show, if for no other reason than that they are the most prominent shows for Inked Reality and Blistered Thumbs, respectively? I think that this would be a good move, seeing as both shows have been running for quite some time and neither Inked Reality nor Blistered Thumbs have their own pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.106.64 (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the website will be closed, should we create a new page for the new website?--DanZC (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Channel_Awesome the new website? I just stumbled on this page and did my best to improve the readability, so I ask from a position of ignorance, not rhetorically. Millionmice (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]