The article currently states: "one of the things that makes Raymond unique is that the writers have kept track of key moments and quirks in the lives of the characters and regularly make reference to them" - surely other shows such as Seinfeld and Friends were doing this before Raymond began? I make no claims to those shows being unique or original in maintaining long term continuity and I don't want to make any sort of negative point about Raymond, but surely this article shouldn't be claiming as unique an element also present in other equally popular earlier or contemporary programmes? ThomasHarte 19:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-yeah, i think every single show ever has recognised key moments or catchphrases or anything a character does and make a reference to it in the future! --Grimface 87 (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As soon as I see a section titled in that way I know it's POV-ridden. violet/riga (t) 14:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree and would not be opposed to removing the section altogether. The entire section suggests POV, and I don't think it could be rewritten from a NPOV. Jtrost 15:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't like people who erase loads and loads of sections in less their completely insane. They should be respectful and make only a couple of corrections. That can offend somebody else you know. If you were more polite you'd know that to the person above

It may be biased, but any section explaining why it is found to be so popular or so critically acclaimed would be most helpful. I can't be alone in finding no humour in the show, so a section explaining its popularity is useful. It's all very well the top of the article saying it is one of the most critically acclaimed shows, but why? Crispin Giles 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia wouldnt be able to improve itself if unappropriate sections arn't removed. Sometimes corrections don't cut it. I came here because i can't believe how much ray makes for that show, because i would never pay to be annoyed. Reasoning behind the success would be very helpful. I'll look into it. John The Fourth 22:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John The Fourth (talk • contribs)

Please could someone put the picture back or replace it in the near future because it spoils the look of the page. If replaced could it be something that nobody would delete.

Maybe a movie of ELR?-Takua X

Dear God, no.

I would have liked that, but i dont think it would have been any good, Now that peter boyle is dead i think its a definate NO!Daniel625 18:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A possible TV movie involves The Barones taking Franks ashes back to the old country. Although this looks like it'll just be a Clip and Bottle show. Djarra 09:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would probably get bad reviews too. The plot....maybe something like this: Act 1: Ray does something stupid

Act 2-3: Ray and Debra argue over something that makes no sense at all

Act 4: Marie comes in with Frank and something else happens

the end. --Cheeze Master 17:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have cleaned up the trivia section and removed the trivia tag. The entire article needs cleanup too but i dont think i can do much. please helpDaniel625 18:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Season 9.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was watching the first episode last night and the boys were called Geoffery and Matthew, and in later episodes it is changed to Micheal? anyone else notice this?

Originally, Ray Romano named the kids after his own twins (in the pilot). He decided to change the names for the series. --Grimface 87 (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that Amy Barone be merged into the everybody loves raymond article. EverybodyHatesChris 06:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why? She was a main character. Shouldn't she get her own page? --Grimface 87 (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page is way too long people. I have tried to take out some of the character information and removed it to their pages but I am sure it'll get reverted just because. So I am hoping someone will just go through all this and make out a separate page for certain sections. As it stands now, this article is a mess. EverybodyHatesChris (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've gone through and made a load of changes, because this article needed drastic work and corrections. It was far too long with loads of material that was unimportant and didn't belong. If anyone has an issue with this, which I wouldn't know why, please respond here. I mean, just as one example, going through and listing every country and place in which this show aired in is something I deleted. There had to be at least 30 place listed in a vertical way, making the article that much longer with Argentina, Australia, etc. EverybodyHatesChris (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree with the rationale here. This article has been chopped to nearly a third of it's length. Why? Because there was "way too much information"! Surely that's the point of an encyclopaedia - it's there as a source of information. If we took this to an extreme the article could be reduced to "there were 10 series and 210 episodes"....

The episode list and description of the intros made interesting reading to fans of Raymond, especially as this information doesn't appear to be readily available elsewhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadArnold (talk • contribs) 18:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Ray12.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) 06:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, at the end of the series run, the show did a poll of the viewers' top 5 episodes and I think it would be great if they could be listed here. I've come across them mentioned at TV.com (for example, for "Marie's Sculpture") but it's only by accident that I stumbled upon one of the top rated episodes. It would be great if there was one place they were all listed in order of preference. Nwjerseyliz (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Header logo.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 ensure 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) 23:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Cleaning up is one thing. Omitting other pertinent info is another. This is why wikipedia will NEVER be complete. People spend time adding factual and accurate information only to have others deem it unnecessary. Who decides what is and what isn't necessary. If it is factual and accurate it should be kept. For instance, The episode where Raymond receives an honory doctorate and is wearing a Hofstra cap/gown and holding an honorary degree is pertinent as Mr. Rosenthal, the shows creator must have gotten these items from the University. WHY omit it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.35.249 (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may want to read through WP:TRIVIA and Wikipedia:Handling trivia... it might help to address some of your questions. Basically, while there is certainly a lot that can be said about any particular subject, that does not necessarily mean that it should be said on Wikipedia. (For example, we could describe every last detail of a character's clothing, or how their home is laid out, but we don't because over time consensus has determined that such a level of detail is not appropriate for this project.) With respect to your text, it is worth noting that I didn't remove it outright; instead, I went through and condensed it. Based on your contribution history, it is apparent that Hofstra University is quite important to you, so any details about it that emerge in a television show will also seem important. To someone who has no ties with the university, however, the information may well be meaningless and irrelevant. The trick, then, is to find some balance between the "all or nothing" positions.

We also have to be careful not to incorporate our own subjective opinions into a presentation of objective facts. For example, you said that "Mr. Rosenthal, the shows creator must have gotten these items from the University." Without a verifiable reference from the series producers, how do we know that to be true? Did Rosenthal personally commission the choice of clothing and props, or was it a choice on the part of the actor, or the costume designer, or some other member of the crew? If so, did Rosenthal approve the choice; was he even aware of it? If this was a fan site, we could post assumptions and theories as to why things are done a certain way. However, that doesn't work under Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability.

I hope this helps to allay your concerns. Please keep in mind that the entire section is itself up for review, so don't take it personally if your information is once again removed. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the info. I understand people need to "check" other people's work. I work in financial services and this is done regularly. I also understand the need for being concise.

However, to remove items is another matter completely. Trivia is supposed include interesting tidbits about the show that a fan would find amusing. For instance; regarding Hofstra, why was an episode written about it? Why would Ray wear a Hofstra tee shirt? etc.. I find it interesting that trivia not even related to the show (IE- information regarding Brad Garretts show)wasn't deleted, but trivia about a particular episode was.

Yes, I received one of my master's (MS) from the university and I am a big fan of the show. It seemed odd to me that in the trivia section, there wasn't a single mention regarding the casts' "Hofstra connection." We're not writing about a minor character, but the shows creator, writer and exec producer. I thought that his loyalty to his alma-mater was interesting. The fact that he felt such a connection to his alma-mater that he would make veiled (and some unveild) references to it was worth expanding the trivia section (or so I thought).

I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Rosenthal at a University event. As far as the props and/or clothing comment, you are correct. However, my subjective opinion was written on the discussion page, not on the "article" section. What I wrote on the "article" section was fact.

I was at a lecture at the University (on 10/05) that he and he wife (and some cast members attended). He was asked about the numerous "hofstra" related tee-shirts, mugs, magnets, etc throughout the evening. He stated that they were added by him, his wife and Mr. Mcgowan, due to their Hofstra connection. However, I wrote this on the discussion page. I would not include heresay on the "article page".

What was omitted (and what I could not understand) was what I wrote on the Trivia section. Why would the info regarding season 8, episode 18 (The Ingrate), where I stated that Ray wore a Hofstra PhD cap and gown as well as an actual Hofstra Honorary degree) be deleted? Anybody who say the episode and went to Hofstra would easily recognize those two items as Hofstra related. There is no disputing this. The seal of the university is as clear as day! I simply thought it was another factual piece of trivia that was worth adding. Once again, I understand what you wrote and I understand the need for brevity. I just don't understand complete removal of a factual piece of trivia. When people add things and they are removed with no reasoning (or note on the discussion page), it tends to discourage others from wanting to spend time on wikipedia and making contributions. regards,--24.189.35.249 (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC) (Damian M)Reply[reply]

Image:Header logo.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 ensure 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) 06:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this article, it states "There were 6 different intros to the series. One for a specific episode, and 5 for the 5 different seasons." I would like to know - what is that one intro that was made for a specific episode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.0.109 (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the pilot episode it had the piano playing in the background with Ray introducing his family. My question is about the song "Jungle Love" being played randomly before episodes that I've seen with the piano intro on before. 96.240.190.105 (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC) RyanReply[reply]

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 16:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On a crossover episode of "Cosby", Frank Barone was having a dispute with Hilton Lucas (Bill Cosby) over who scored a winning basket in a 1955 high school basketball game. On "Everybody Loves Raymond", Frank often talked about his service in the Korean War. If he was still a high school student in 1955, he could not have fought in the Korean War, which ended in 1953.

I realize "Everybody Loves Raymond" is not the first show to contain a story error. They occur in almost all TV shows, especially situation comedies. In my opinion, they make for interesting trivia.97.73.64.175 (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Everybody Loves Raymond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090116175312/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/television/news/e3i989acc6090241ec6dbf4478eb21d4736 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3i989acc6090241ec6dbf4478eb21d4736
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100301061948/http://www.ctc-tv.ru:80/rus/projects/serials/voronini/series/index.phtml to http://ctc-tv.ru/rus/projects/serials/voronini/series/index.phtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What was the theme song for Season 9? Thanks.Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Everybody Loves Raymond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111015004338/http://www.ctc-tv.ru/rus/projects/serials/voronini/index.phtml to http://www.ctc-tv.ru/rus/projects/serials/voronini/index.phtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User CannedCurry has uploaded a vandalized version of the show's logo that reads, "Nobody Loves Raymond." He's titled it the same as the genuine logo, but changed "logo" to "Logo." He has twice inserted the vandalized logo into this article. I have twice reverted it to the correct logo. I think the vandalized logo should be nominated for speedy deletion, but I'm not sure how to do so. Also, CannedCurry has been warned about vandalism previously, as can be seen on his/her talk page. --Jeremy Butler (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• GeneralNotability or Deepfriedokra: Can you provide some protection for this article and its talk page? CannedCurry and their sock puppets have repeated vandalized it by inserting a doctored logo for Everybody Loves Raymond. They have also edited my request for discussion and have removed a request for discussion of the vandalized image on Wikimedia Commons (see above). Thank you. --Jeremy Butler (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everybody Loves Raymond is the name of a song by Lemon Demon that quite obviously references this show. I believe this should be added somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.148.196 (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2601:242:8203:AF40:4598:B287:24D0:656D (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]