The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series) was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
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 Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. 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.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
This page requires a good amount of editing. Phrases like "they were are made available through CBS All Access when watching the full episodes" make no grammatical sense at all ("were are"? and who is doing the watching?), which makes reading this page a labor. Someone with strong writing skills should really give this page a makeover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.74.7 (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The page looks a lot better. I added a small section at the beginning, and the season-by-season breakdown is solid. I think it meets the Good Article criteria. But maybe, maybe not, we'll see how it goes. - Zone4603:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first Shatner picture does not look like a screenshot of that episode. It looks like a staged publicity photo on the set of the episode. Image should be tagged accordingly. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On hold for: lead too short, fair use rationales are weak--see other FA/GA articles for examples, several unfootnoted quotes, and should have a notice at the top about the other Twilight Zone articles.Rlevse22:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GA awarded. Though I'm concerned with the breadth of the article. Could we see some more sections be added to this one so that critics and development be shown. Lincher01:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a development section a month or two ago, so I'm not sure how else to expand it. As for critics, there are quotes from several critics included in the article (from The Twilight Zone Companion), both positive and negative. - Zone4601:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, everyone, there is a second Wiki-article on The Twilight Zone (called The Twilight Zone). To me, it is signigicantly different from this article (it tells the Twilight Zone story more from a producer and writer point of view). Can we maybe RENAME this article (i.e. The Twilight Zone (Season by Season History)) or something like that? I don't think we should MERGE these two articles. I like them both as they are. User:ProfessorPaul19:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne03:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading various episode articles listed on List of The Twilight Zone episodes and I noticed some (minor) style errors common to most of them -
1. They have an unusual section at the bottom that is redundant because these articles are already accessed in the Infobox on the right. Back to:The Twilight Zone, Episode List, Season 1
This is sometimes listed under "Twilight Zone links", but is still not needed when the infobox has all the relevant links. This appears to date back to 2002, before the infobox was added.
2. The "External link" section is often placed in the middle of the article, but it should always be placed at the end (and called "External links", even if there is only 1 link)
4. Another point: regarding the Themes section in many of the articles; most of these consist of mini reviews which are POV, or theories of what the underlying meaning/message/moral of each story is, which violates WP:NOR. Any type of analasys like this must cite a reliable source. The same goes for statements such as "this episode is similar to another episode called... etc". Magiclite21:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someday, in a perfect world, we'll have something like Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Style guide for the Twilight Zone episodes. Like many (most?) Wikipedia TV episode pages, they're all over the map today in terms of consistency between pages. It's going to be a monumental task to fix them, but it would be nice if someone who knows how could get the ball rolling. Travisl21:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that both this article and the episode list mentions that six episodes of season 2 were done on videotape. Does anyone which episodes and do the videotapes still exist? Davhorn17:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the quality of these episodes currently in rotation on SciFi and on the new DVD releases, the videotapes do exist and were used as masters. The quality is noticeably different from that of the episodes in earlier syndication packages, which were barely distinguishable from film and were probably mastered from telecine copies of the original tapes. Sorry, I have no sources on this, but the difference in quality is noticeable. 12.22.250.4 (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:It's A Good Life.JPG[edit]
The image Image:It's A Good Life.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I believe the article currently has multiple issues that need to be addressed, and as a result, I have delisted the article. Although several references are listed, there are no inline citations for the article's content which is required under the criteria. Add additional citations from a variety of sources to provide a balanced representation of the information present. Perhaps sources can be pulled from the main articles linked to within the article. Look to books, magazines, newspaper articles, other websites, etc. Take a look at the non-free images in the article and determine if they are actually representing the text or if they are just being used for decoration. If its for decoration, remove them from the article. Although the article has been delisted, the article can be return to GA status by addressing the above points. Once sources are added and cleanup is done, I recommend renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you need assistance with any of these issues, please contact me on my talk page and I'll do my best to help you out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please add tech details about the video format. The shows must have been originally broadcast NTSC. Monochrome or color? But they were made on film? Do any of those film-based masters still exist? Are all remaining copies limited to old-school NTSC resolution? Do any HD versions of any episodes exist? -96.237.15.90 (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the show Futurama there is a quite obvious reference to The Twilight Zone. Which episode escapes me, but there was one with a show called "The Scary Door." It was extremely similar to The Twilight Zone, starting from intro to end. Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many if not most of the scripts were based on existing short stories. This was not unusual at the time, but obviously it is not the way TV writing works now.
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
We're talking primacy of "(TV series)". Yes, there are 1985 and 2002 versions. However, the 1959 one is the most associated, but think about Shameless and Psycho if you can. There is common sense. --George Ho (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you are considering common sense, is culturally biased. It is also a perspective of one's experience, and a generational point of view. I agree that the other two series of The Twilight Zone are based upon, some might say a continuation of the 1959 series, but not a clear primary topic. --Education does not equal common sense.我不在乎06:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think Psycho must be disambiguated by year, then please propose. I would rather wait for other people's responses than waste time to change your mind. --George Ho (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not "put words in my mouth", I do not recall ever stating anything about Psycho. But maybe you read something that I am not aware of. We are discussing the 1959 TV Series "The Twilight Zone", and in this case it does not eclipse either of the two other series to be the primary subject (at least not the 1985 series). If you think that there should be an article The Twilight Zone (TV Series), perhaps you should model one after Doctor Who, which encompasses both the original series, the TV movie and the revived series in one article, oh wait there is one already The Twilight Zone that does exactly that, and more!Education does not equal common sense.我不在乎06:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. Nor does it encourage it, except via redirects for variant punctuation and capitalization and such. WP:TITLE does, however, encourage precision in titles: "Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but not overly precise." Your proposed new title is not unambiguous. Dicklyon (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then is "Psycho (film)" ambiguous? Why or why not? Back on topic, why would anybody associate "(TV series)" with either revival series that have little or no chance of reruns other than in cable? --George Ho (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about a series that ran for over 20 years, and a revival of a couple of years, we are talking about a series run and a revival that had very similar length runs, and a second revival on top of that. So yes in this case we need to further disambiguate. --Education does not equal common sense.我不在乎03:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are you going on about? Why do you keep telling me what to do? If you feel strongly about that topic, do it your self. You are the one who keeps bringing up that movie. We are discussing The Twilight Zone here, pushing your obsession with that movie does nothing to advance the discussion about the subject at hand.--Education does not equal common sense.我不在乎04:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I would like to go along with it (because to me the original is the only true legitimate series with that name, and the others are copycats that were made to squeeze money from the name and legacy), the current title is correct -- just as the original Outer Limits. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...Well, Psycho aside, Outer Limits versions do not have the same level of phenonema as The Twilight Zone. In fact, Outer Limit is more ambiguous than (or not as unambiguous as ) The Twilight Zone. --George Ho (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I was under the impression that it was referring to the epilogue by Serling (which usually does contain a moral message). But, I'm glad you brought this up, because the lead section needed some improvements. Hopefully the changes I've made are satisfactory to all. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Someone undid a revision I made saying "headings can't have links". However, I notice they didn't make any changes with the heading, but removed a sentence at the bottom saying the first season openings have been restored--Robert Treat (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Hmm, don't know how that happened, but you could have (and should have) notified me on my user talk page. Then, I would have known sooner and could have fixed it sooner. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
July 2014 Compilation - The Twilight Zone: Essential Episodes[edit]
Each episode of this 1959 on series starts with: "There is a fifth dimension, etc". Two years earlier, the film: "Not of this Earth" (1957) has the beginning (words on the screen): "You are about to adventure into the Dimension of the Impossible! To enter this realm you must set your mind free from the Earthly fetters that bind it! If the events you are about to witness are unbelievable, it is only because your Imagination is chained! Sit back and believe that YOU may cross the brink of time and space.. into that land you sometimes visit in your dreams!"(84.236.152.71 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]
The source you added in this edit is a fansite message board and does not meet WP:V. Please stop adding this content without addressing the earlier linked guidelines. AldezD (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This book should satisfy even the most anal-retentive of pedants:
Discussing Serling's promotional spots in season one, the article says "a few are lost completely and some survive only as audio tracks; however, they are all available through CBS All Access when watching the full episodes." This makes no sense, if some are lost completely, how can they all be available? This needs to be clarified. CodeTalker (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this information should be added to the article about the series, or the articles about each episode. Anyway, here's the info and the archived sources.
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Done Added. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
