Talk:Dewey, Cheetham, and Howe

I was going to add something about the old three stooges skit on this page, but then I found this.
[[1]]
It is word for word, I don't know if this was copied from them or they copied from this article, but it should be noted.

-Fuzzy

If you read the bottom it states:

This article was derived fully or in part from an article on Wikipedia.org - the free encyclopedia created and edited by online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of the wikipedia encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License.

There are alot of mirror sites like this on the web, that copy from wikipedia for profit. [[User:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 23:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

Oh, come on! It's the same joke! (And no matter how much that Klik (or Klak) guy laughs whenever they say it they didn't invent it.) Searching google might indicate that "dewey cheetham howe" is canonical (with 84,200 pages; "dewey cheatham howe" has 17,200; "dewey cheetem howe" with 1,030; "dewey cheatem howe" with 730). Ewlyahoocom 11:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they are different, surprisingly. The Car Talk version actually exists, as their company. So: Dewey, Cheatem, & Howe=joke; Dewey, Cheetham, and Howe=real life company based on the joke. Lockesdonkey 01:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It will make for an interesting anecdote on the combined page. Or maybe it should just be merged into the Car Talk page? Also, I think it's just a "production company" which in my (admittedly limited) experience is usually little more than a way to segregate the finances of one production from another e.g. getting a corporate credit card, separating investors, etc. (the money end of the entertainment business get really complex). Ewlyahoocom 07:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe make a disambiguation page that both pages rd to, then make two separate pages that are clearly different subjects. The "and" vs. "&" difference is not enough. Jesuschex 22:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for a merge. EEMeltonIV 00:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but not on the Car Talk page - the joke has been used in widely unrelated contexts, and precedes Car Talk by a good while. bd2412 T 22:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing would be to merge the production company (this article) into a section in Car Talk and make this a redirect to the other one about the recurring joke, with a link and/or prominent mention of it's real-life counterpart.--TexasDex 18:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another vote for: "Merge, but not on the Car Talk page." Seems pretty self-evident, imo. No disambig page (nothing to disambig; as mentioned, it's the same joke).... and have the Car Talk page include as much as it wants on the real / fictional / dissolved Car Talk production / whatever company. The merged DC&H page should include the "joke", it's history, various incarnations, as well as any & all real / dissolved / fictional companies deriving from the joke, including a bit on and a link to Car Talk.

...The only remaining question would be: What to name the merged page? That's a tough one, as it's mostly a verbal joke; if transcribed, the "names" should resemble real names. Personally (not that my opinion matters -- just elaborating on the problem), & I find Cheetham a bit "better" than Cheetem (Cheetham is more of a name (funny), vs. a mere phonetic transcription (not funny)). As far as punctuation, "D, C, and H" should probably be "D, C and H" or "D, C & H". An inventory of actual (transcribed) use may have to be undertaken -- as actually seen in tv, movies, ...registered companies... etc; google counts would be questionable sourcing, since "creative" (obfuscated) spelling is part of the (written) joke. Rather than a dismabiguation page, just have a section on "Various spellings / transciptions" included in the merged article; at the very least this would allow "searches" w/ various spellings to produce the correct page. But all this presupposes the merger. Michael (talk|contrib) 00:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge under the earliest written name for which a source can be provided. That should settle all bets. bd2412 T 01:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Car Talk website has both "Dewey, Cheetham & Howe" and "Dewey, Cheetham and Howe", both with only one comma. Merge this content with the older, more general usage and delete this incorrectly titled page.--Rfsmit 22:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to bet that more people have heard the joke than are aware of (or care about) the company. I'm also assuming that if someone is looking the term up, they're doing so in reference to the joke, not the company. As such, I'm going to suggest either merging this article into the joke article, or merging this article into Car Talk, with a linked reference to the joke. Hossenfeffer 06:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a real company?

Hey! Here's the DEWEY, CHEATUM & HOWE INC. corporate registration... wait a sec... "Date of Involuntary Dissolution: 08/31/1998"... that can't be right. OK, here's CLICK AND CLACK INCORPORATED..."Date of Involuntary Dissolution: 12/31/1990". What's going on here? It's in Massachusetts, right? Ewlyahoocom 07:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]