Talk:The Strike (Seinfeld)

Television: Episode coverage / Seinfeld Mid‑importance

	Television portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article is supported by the Seinfeld task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Holidays

	Holidays portal 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

166th Episode?[edit]

This article says that The Strike is the 166th episode of Seinfeld, the 10th episode of the 9th season. It also says that there is a callback to a previous episode, The Slicer. The article for that episode says that it is the 7th episode of the same season, but it also says it's the 169th episode. I don't understand how the 166th episode can call _back_ to the 169th episode. Is it just me, or does this not add up? AyAn4m1 15:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Slicer was the 163rd episode. It's been fixed. ~ InkQuill 22:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of The Human Fund[edit]

merge - not a valid article by itself. The Seinfeld Human Fund doesn't exist outside this episode as far as I know --Zr2d2 15:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Furthermore, the current Human Fund article needs an overhaul and should reference the real organization. Tigerhawkvok 01:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for MErging as well. Human Fund should be added to this article.

I also vote to merge because it is not notable enough for its own article. *Mystic* ^(talk) 04:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this needs to be merged. Johp78 02:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger seems appropriate Subwayguy 21:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for a merge as well. --DearPrudence 16:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think there should be a merge. I believe George's Human fund is notable and deserves an article. I do however think the "Human Fund" article should be about the real organization and George's Human fund should be moved to a new title like "The Human Fund (Seinfeld)" Ben1283 18:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge. if it was mentioned more than once, i could see it standing on its own.The undertow 06:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be standalone. I hear it referenced by itself in popular culture. It exists as a concept outside the particular episode that it was introduced in. 22 April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.54.197 (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Human Fund absolutely deserves its own page. It is referenced in pop culture frequently and the human fund is very notableFrank Anchor 15:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Eastwood[edit]

According to this episode the line "It has a certain understated stupidity to it" is related to the film The Outlaw Josey Wales. Anybody know how ? (Can't find the line in the movie.) That's the joke, it's not in the movie. The fact that George thought it was is funny.

Fun fact: Uncle Leo played in The Outlaw Josey Wales.

Fair use rationale for Image:Seinfeld s9e10.jpg[edit]

Image:Seinfeld s9e10.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Black[edit]

Is Jack Black one of the two guys that Kramer brings from the betting shop? Shouldn't he be credited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.48.2 (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that’s not him. Topdownjimmy (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]