This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays 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.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Seriously, everyone thinks it's bitch, and I can't remember the details, but it was on Barney's blog somewhere at the time, that it was a four letter word, and everything pointed to that word. He called her a cunt. 208.38.59.161 (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fan discussion is all over the place on this one, with either "bitch" or "cunt" being the word. (Example at IMDB discussion[1]) Either works for various reasons. Unless one of the writers stepped forward and there is a verifiable source, it is not worth an edit war. Group29 (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm pretty sure the word was "cunt" - it does say at your IMDB link "A now defunct section of the official CBS HIMYM website had a glossary ("Motherspeak") that defined "grinch" as "a four-letter word you can never call a woman." But we have no real evidence of what the word is (even if you're considering the CBS website fully canon, "four-letter word" isn't really that specific).
I think, per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, that the IMDB discussion would not count. The CBS website would be a valid source, but probably the article would then state the quote you typed above: "a four-letter word you can never call a woman." It needs a published statement from one of the HIMYM staff to be verifiable. As I state above, an argument could be made for either. It might not necessary to the article, since it was not necessary for the plot of the original show. Thanks, Group29 (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is another piece of music, while Ted is with his family, featuring a church organ. Anybody knows what song it is, because it should be also in the list of songs in the article. ---RF- (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced there is a good reason for going through the entire set of How I Met Your Mother articles and deleting sections. Is there a discussion about this somewhere? Thanks Group29 (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion between Koavf and Bilorv should have happened in the main article, or the episode that was in dispute (Duel Citizenship).
I think there was a valid point about interesting information being lost. It may have not needed to be dismissed as trivia. The episode itself is the source, and it would not be original research to remark on items within it. This kind of knowledge is often helpful, regardless of the label applied to it. In this example, the deleted section has inline citations. The loss of that information seems wasteful. I am quite aware of the WP:OR and WP:V policies. Their discussions also cover that content deletion is a negative motivator for developing helpful editors, fostering further content submission, and help for content cleanup.
Presumably, Wikipedia and the editor community is counting on the How I Met Your Mother Wiki or some other resource to accumulate that which is regarded as trivia in Wikipedia. Interestingly, arguments have been made in the past that Wikipedia should not be the repository for television episode information. That decision could be made in the future. In which case, this article ultimately may be deleted, along with this discussion. The more likely future scenario, in my opinion, is that since Wikipedia has adopted an official policy about Television shows and episodes, articles will accumulate as much information as possible, because they can.
I admire someone who is willing to edit boldly. One million edits is a lot. I am never going have that kind of time.
I think I might have tried to spark discussion on a talk page, but no-one joined in: user talk pages are more direct, and you're more likely to get a response. I agree that some of it is interesting information (to me, at least), but this isn't the place for interesting stuff. Copy it to Wikia if you like, but even if it is verifiable, it's not the content Wikipedia should contain. I'm sorry if it deters future editors, and I always try to be as generous as possibly when copyediting or adapting changes made by new editors, but if you're the type of user who likes contributing minutiae, there are fan wikis to go to (or, with other TV shows/media, you might even want to create a fan wiki yourself if one doesn't currently exist). Wikipedia is not a place to put information just because you can think of something else to say on a topic. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e)19:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
