This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fargo (TV series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
It also premiered on Channel 4 in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:5F00:AB:34:7C2C:6768:222D:9756 ( talk) 23:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
It also premiered in Israel on HOT3 at April 19th, see reference: http://www.midnighteast.com/mag/?p=29189 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.179.136 ( talk) 12:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
& when we find out let's include that info in the article. kthx. skak E L 18:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
At the beginning of the TV series they say the story is based on true events. They continue to say they follow the events exactly despite name changes to protect the dead and the victims. Can anyone include more information on this in the article? Does it accurately follow the true story? How about a link from the article to the true account of the events? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinheacock ( talk • contribs) 19:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Let's make this clear in the lede. DougHill ( talk) 05:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding a recent edit, a TV series could easily be based on a true story, as this one purports to be. DougHill ( talk) 02:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Just how naive do you have to be to believe this series is based on true events? Game of Thrones is also based on true events. And Star Wars did happen, in a galaxy far far away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.172.42 ( talk) 02:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
In this edit, I added prose to the episode "Buridan's Ass", linking to Buridan's ass, with a reliably-sourced citation.
My edit was reverted by @ CAWylie: with the edit summary: "Most titles are from parables, which is WP:TRIVIA. Create episode articles for this."
I restored my edit, with the edit summary: "Episode articles haven't yet been created. This allusion is not that well-known & exists in WP. How would it be trivia here, but not in a standalone?"
CAWylie neither replied to my question nor re-reverted, but @ Drmargi: did re-revert, with the edit summary: "we don't add trivia to the edit summary box".
As this response made no sense to me, I again restored: "The added content isn't part of the edit summary." (If Drmargi had meant that "trivia" was not permitted in the "ShortSummary" parameter, which is part of the episode template, she did not provide any support for that contention.)
Drmargi neither replied nor re-reverted, but @ Drovethrughosts: did re-revert: "per the other reverts. maybe a separate section devoted to the episode title allusions w/ notable refs?"
I was just about to start a discussion on this talk page, but I immediately found that Drmargi had left, IMHO, an uncivil and threatening Edit war message on my user talk page. Her message reminded me that three reverts w/i 24 hours would be charged against me, ignoring the fact that three separate editors were ganging up and reverting my edits and thus would only be charged with one revert each. And of course she added that three reverts were not required to block me. She then ended, again IMHO, most condescendingly: "You've now been reverted by three editors. That should tell you that the content is inappropriate where you've placed it. The last editor made a good suggestion regarding title allusions. You might want to pay attention to it rather than continuing to edit war. Moreover, please discuss on the talk page, not via edit summary; see WP:BRD". She ignored the fact that the three editors in question had all replied via edit summary as well, and up until the rather nasty Edit war notice, only Drovethrughosts had actually made a constructive, responsive comment.
So I again would like to know:
Obviously, if Fargo episodes are ever broken out into standalone articles, any allusion prose would move into the standalones. The proposed state of affairs is just a placeholding measure to last until and if standalones are created. IMO, inline prose, as per the Note at Degrassi, would be much more readable, and by being a direct part of the episode prose, will move with it much more cleanly when a standalone is created. -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 22:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
An article talk page is not the place to discuss editor conduct. This is not improving the article, and IP who never edited here before this week trying to play teacher.. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This discussion is hilarious, and a perfect example of why Wikipedia drives away editors. You have an editor with a clean block record and almost five thousand edits who is trying to add content to the page, and three other editors who just revert him to the point of 3RR, and then slap a template on his page to warn him like some newbie vandal. If protecting the article to your preferred state is so important, one of you should have gone to his talk page and explained why his edit was being reverted so he'd understand. Teach, don't template. And yes, he should have opened a discussion on the talk page, certainly. But it would have been far more friendly and professional of one of you to begin some kind of discussion somewhere to try and explain things to a productive editor. Obviously just explaining things in an edit summary wasn't working, the next step should have been explaining before blocking, but no one is interested in talking. Nobody's being helpful here. This talk page is just a shrine to passive-aggressiveness. 2607:FCC8:B886:7200:A010:11BF:B579:520A ( talk) 16:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't look like Drmargi or CAWylie actually had any kind of policy-based reasons for their reversions above, as both editors have refused to discuss this matter here, or on their own talk pages. I doubt we'll actually get any actual answers based in policy here. It's obvious it was just a case of blind piling-on an editor who was trying to help, which is the kind of thing that drives away good faith productive editors. Wikipedia has a reputation for that, and it's sad to see such a perfect example of it in a situation that should have been handled in a more civil, collaborative manner. If any of the other editors on this page actually have a link to a policy that prohibits what Chaswmsday was trying to do, please post it because I'd still love to see it. It would clear up a lot of things. 2607:FCC8:B886:7200:A010:11BF:B579:520A ( talk) 19:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
|
ShortSummary
field which say that the field is supposed to contain "a short 100–200 word summary of the episode". Since the content that Chaswmsday added was not part of the plot, it doesn't belong in the field. Most TV series include episode titles that are allusions to one thing or another; it's nothing out of the ordinary and constitutes non-notable trivia. We try to avoid adding non-notable trivia anywhere on Wikipedia and so it should not be included here. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
21:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
ShortSummary
as being for the plot because that's the purpose of the field and it always has been. The specification of 100–200 words comes from
WP:TVPLOT. Note that
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Episode listing, which you referred to, also says "a brief summary of the plot (100–200 words; upwards of 350 words for complex storylines) is applicable". If individual episode articles are created we don't remove content from the ShortSummary
field as that forces readers to look for plot information in other articles, which they shouldn't have to do. If a reader starts at the main series article, they generally look first in the main episode list, then the individual season article and finally the individual episode articles. Episode articles should be the exception rather than the rule - episodes are generally not notable, although notability is often manufactured, and leaving some episode summaries while removing others doesn't make sense, which is why it doesn't get support. The season list generally has a short 100–200 word summary, while episode articles usually have more detailed summaries, up to 500 words long per
WP:TVPLOT. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
02:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
ShortSummary
is reasonable. But, in general, there is just too much guidance in all of WP, with the result that there are many reasonable, yet internally contradictory readings, within all of WP. Reading the MOS in question, I don't think that the guidance really anticipates standalone episode articles. The same guidance does defer to
Featured lists, which have been ranked as among the best in WP. Some of these do include guest stars and notes as part of ShortSummary
. Perhaps this is an indication that {{
episode list}} should include optional "guest stars" and "notes" parameters. But perhaps the Community, in Featuring lists containing non-plot prose within ShortSummary
, has indicated that is another reasonable reading of guidance in such matters.ShortSummary
as "This is the first episode of the series in which David and Maddie break the
fourth wall, welcoming the audience back for the second season at the start of the episode." and "The episode ends with an extended sequence in which the characters wander right off the show's set into other parts of the studio, and several members of the show's production crew appear on camera as part of the plot resolution." Clearly the Community feels these inclusions are OK, to the point of Featuring the article.ShortSummary
contained the prose "Cybill Shepherd performs the
big band songs "
Blue Moon" and "I Told You I Love Ya, Now Get Out!"
Orson Welles introduces the episode, his last performance before his death." when Featured list status was granted. Later edits were likely seen as just more of the same. --
Chaswmsday (
talk)
13:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Should be 10 episodes in the info box rather than 9, shouldn't it? Zero talk 02:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
"Gus surprises Malvo and fatally shoots him. " Shouldn't this be "and execute him"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.2.29 ( talk) 20:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Could Gus get away with just shooting Malvo like that? You can't murder someone just because they're evil, and he could have apprehended him. Malvo didn't have his gun on him, and he was already physically incapacitated. I know Gus wanted him dead to protect his family, but this seemed pretty unbelievable, plot-wise, that he would not be brought up on charges or at least an inquiry. I guess it helps if your wife is taking over as chief. PNW Raven ( talk)
Per recent edits to character names within episode summaries, made in this article and in standalone articles, and mentioned at User talk:Jimmypopeyedoyle#July 2014:
Rather than just deciding to use the last names of the characters, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#How to use character names and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2012/August#How to handle names of fictional characters seem to offer the best guidance - refer to the characters as they are most often referred to in the series.
This is borne out in featured list articles such as Desperate Housewives (season 1), Lost (season 1), Seinfeld (season 2) and The Office (U.S. season 1). The characters' names seem most often to be mentioned in full at first reference in the summaries, then follow series convention. Thus, Malvo, Molly, Gus, Lester. -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 01:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh and this from Chaswmsday caught my eye: "Also, I find its edits such as [[home invasion|home invasion]] and [[ice fishing|ice fishing]] to be quite questionable." I was the one who linked those at the time, and correctly, I might add. What should also be taken into consideration is that episode summaries, per Template:Episode list suggestions are optional. The only item needing listed is the title; other data is optional, some are "suggested". Summaries, lengthy or short, give readers a way to decide on seeing the episode or checking for something they missed (if it can be detailed while being concise). Some readers might know what "home invasion" and "ice fishing" are, others might not. The latter are those for whom I wikilink and will continue to do so. The links in question come from what was suggested by the episode. Why else would Lester knock himself out; why else would someone cut a hole in the ice???— Wylie pedia 14:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Froid, in response to your points 1 and 2, I was referencing Drmargi's comments about Jimmypopeyedoyle's "long history" of edits and its lack of "editing with care". Your own edit history, while not negating any valid edits you may have made, is suggestive of overly-rushed, and thus not careful, editing. Thus my initial impression per point 2.
In response to your point 3, perhaps I could have been clearer. I do not inherently object to policies. What concerns me throughout Wikipedia is the apparent belief that all edits are subject to some highly prescriptive set of rules. These "rules" are many, they are convoluted, and they are self-contradictory. But they are held to be inviolate nonetheless. And these alleged rules are directly antithetical to the Ignore all rules policy.
Yes, the general guidance for living persons throughout WP probably is to use surnames, keeping in mind BLP, WP:COMMONNAME as well as the usage in subject-matter reliable sources. I do not find any such convention or guidance for fictional persons. The guidance I do find for fictional persons, both via Talk pages and via what is apparent by looking at Featured articles, is to use whatever form of the name is used most in the fictional work itself and by reliable sources. I would ask that you please look back at my Seinfeld, Friends and Gilligan's Island examples, explain what you would or would not do differently, and explain why. Thanks. -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 00:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
For those with some spare time or are bored TV series hardcore editors, may I suggest a separate character page? Normally, I would jump at the chance to do such a page, and most likely will if this series lasts past two seasons, but, currently my major editing time is limited by my real life. If anyone wishes, I could start a skeletal one, and those Fargoans could fill it out. I'm waiting on a casual visitor to only skim the page and wonder why two actors are playing Lou. Or maybe I'm just selling people short? — Wylie pedia 05:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
How come Shawn Doyle's character and the actor himself are not mentioned anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.50.254 ( talk) 07:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I created one for the show, if you would like to add it to your userpage. You may also request another with a different saying on my talkpage. Thanks! — Wylie pedia 10:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The metacritic graph on this page is one of the ugliest I've ever seen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.24.3.76 ( talk) 14:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Do we need such a long table here when there is an article listing them? I reverted this edit, thinking it looked like vandalism, but on investigation it is a good faith edit. Still, I think it needs to be discussed. -- Pete ( talk) 11:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Fargo (TV series). 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
23 June 2017 an American author of horror, supernatural fiction Stephen King said in his Twitter account:
Most TV is cafeteria food. FARGO's three seasons have been gourmet meals. I'd love one more.
— Stephen King (@StephenKing)
"Acclaimed" is one of the specific examples of peacock words in WP:PEACOCK. Critical acclaim is vague and peacocky. The source that backed up this phrase was metacritic. The information that I replaced was 100% based on sources and not a vague expression. This is an encyclopedia where editorialising should be avoided and source based information preferred. Dom from Paris ( talk) 23:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
On every other page dedicated to a specific episode of Fargo, there is an image that appears on the info-box. In both season 1 and 3, every episode that has its own separate wikipedia page has an image for the info-box. Season 2 has 5/10 episodes with its own wikipedia page, but of those 5, only ONE has an image to accompany its info-box. Either each episode that has its own wikipedia page has an image for its info-box or none at all. (I would add it myself, but I am relatively new to wikipedia and unsure of how to find appropriate images that satisfy the guidelines). 98.113.156.38 ( talk) 00:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello to all the fans! In the InfoBox near the top, I rather do like how the "Starring" section is divided with interspersed lines that say, Season 1 and then a list of actors, Season 2 and then another list of actors... Question: For the next table cell or box or field or what have you below that, Executive producers, and then, Producers, is there any growing support to do the same separating out by Season inline? [Same question for, Written by...] I think it would be fitting. Has anyone seen other similar Wikipedia articles that have adopted this practice? Thanks for your time. -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid ( talk | contribs)} 16:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC).
A separate character page for Fargo is currently being developed at Draft:List of Fargo characters. Everyone is free to contribute to the page, and is also welcome to do so. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 16:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
This table might once have seemed like a good idea, but feels less and less relevant as seasons go by.
I suggest we find it (the table of shared S1/S2 characters, that is) a new home. Perhaps duplicating it in the season 1 and 2 articles?
Other than this the obvious connections between S1 and S2 we're left with basically a couple of scattered trivia/cameo mentions. No table is needed to note that Mr Wrench from S1 reappears in S3 or that a couple of minor characters are revisited in S4. And more than "not needed" - it feels incredibly overwrought to use a table for what is fringe/trivia.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fargo (TV series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
It also premiered on Channel 4 in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:5F00:AB:34:7C2C:6768:222D:9756 ( talk) 23:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
It also premiered in Israel on HOT3 at April 19th, see reference: http://www.midnighteast.com/mag/?p=29189 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.179.136 ( talk) 12:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
& when we find out let's include that info in the article. kthx. skak E L 18:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
At the beginning of the TV series they say the story is based on true events. They continue to say they follow the events exactly despite name changes to protect the dead and the victims. Can anyone include more information on this in the article? Does it accurately follow the true story? How about a link from the article to the true account of the events? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinheacock ( talk • contribs) 19:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Let's make this clear in the lede. DougHill ( talk) 05:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding a recent edit, a TV series could easily be based on a true story, as this one purports to be. DougHill ( talk) 02:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Just how naive do you have to be to believe this series is based on true events? Game of Thrones is also based on true events. And Star Wars did happen, in a galaxy far far away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.172.42 ( talk) 02:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
In this edit, I added prose to the episode "Buridan's Ass", linking to Buridan's ass, with a reliably-sourced citation.
My edit was reverted by @ CAWylie: with the edit summary: "Most titles are from parables, which is WP:TRIVIA. Create episode articles for this."
I restored my edit, with the edit summary: "Episode articles haven't yet been created. This allusion is not that well-known & exists in WP. How would it be trivia here, but not in a standalone?"
CAWylie neither replied to my question nor re-reverted, but @ Drmargi: did re-revert, with the edit summary: "we don't add trivia to the edit summary box".
As this response made no sense to me, I again restored: "The added content isn't part of the edit summary." (If Drmargi had meant that "trivia" was not permitted in the "ShortSummary" parameter, which is part of the episode template, she did not provide any support for that contention.)
Drmargi neither replied nor re-reverted, but @ Drovethrughosts: did re-revert: "per the other reverts. maybe a separate section devoted to the episode title allusions w/ notable refs?"
I was just about to start a discussion on this talk page, but I immediately found that Drmargi had left, IMHO, an uncivil and threatening Edit war message on my user talk page. Her message reminded me that three reverts w/i 24 hours would be charged against me, ignoring the fact that three separate editors were ganging up and reverting my edits and thus would only be charged with one revert each. And of course she added that three reverts were not required to block me. She then ended, again IMHO, most condescendingly: "You've now been reverted by three editors. That should tell you that the content is inappropriate where you've placed it. The last editor made a good suggestion regarding title allusions. You might want to pay attention to it rather than continuing to edit war. Moreover, please discuss on the talk page, not via edit summary; see WP:BRD". She ignored the fact that the three editors in question had all replied via edit summary as well, and up until the rather nasty Edit war notice, only Drovethrughosts had actually made a constructive, responsive comment.
So I again would like to know:
Obviously, if Fargo episodes are ever broken out into standalone articles, any allusion prose would move into the standalones. The proposed state of affairs is just a placeholding measure to last until and if standalones are created. IMO, inline prose, as per the Note at Degrassi, would be much more readable, and by being a direct part of the episode prose, will move with it much more cleanly when a standalone is created. -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 22:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
An article talk page is not the place to discuss editor conduct. This is not improving the article, and IP who never edited here before this week trying to play teacher.. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This discussion is hilarious, and a perfect example of why Wikipedia drives away editors. You have an editor with a clean block record and almost five thousand edits who is trying to add content to the page, and three other editors who just revert him to the point of 3RR, and then slap a template on his page to warn him like some newbie vandal. If protecting the article to your preferred state is so important, one of you should have gone to his talk page and explained why his edit was being reverted so he'd understand. Teach, don't template. And yes, he should have opened a discussion on the talk page, certainly. But it would have been far more friendly and professional of one of you to begin some kind of discussion somewhere to try and explain things to a productive editor. Obviously just explaining things in an edit summary wasn't working, the next step should have been explaining before blocking, but no one is interested in talking. Nobody's being helpful here. This talk page is just a shrine to passive-aggressiveness. 2607:FCC8:B886:7200:A010:11BF:B579:520A ( talk) 16:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't look like Drmargi or CAWylie actually had any kind of policy-based reasons for their reversions above, as both editors have refused to discuss this matter here, or on their own talk pages. I doubt we'll actually get any actual answers based in policy here. It's obvious it was just a case of blind piling-on an editor who was trying to help, which is the kind of thing that drives away good faith productive editors. Wikipedia has a reputation for that, and it's sad to see such a perfect example of it in a situation that should have been handled in a more civil, collaborative manner. If any of the other editors on this page actually have a link to a policy that prohibits what Chaswmsday was trying to do, please post it because I'd still love to see it. It would clear up a lot of things. 2607:FCC8:B886:7200:A010:11BF:B579:520A ( talk) 19:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
|
ShortSummary
field which say that the field is supposed to contain "a short 100–200 word summary of the episode". Since the content that Chaswmsday added was not part of the plot, it doesn't belong in the field. Most TV series include episode titles that are allusions to one thing or another; it's nothing out of the ordinary and constitutes non-notable trivia. We try to avoid adding non-notable trivia anywhere on Wikipedia and so it should not be included here. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
21:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
ShortSummary
as being for the plot because that's the purpose of the field and it always has been. The specification of 100–200 words comes from
WP:TVPLOT. Note that
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Episode listing, which you referred to, also says "a brief summary of the plot (100–200 words; upwards of 350 words for complex storylines) is applicable". If individual episode articles are created we don't remove content from the ShortSummary
field as that forces readers to look for plot information in other articles, which they shouldn't have to do. If a reader starts at the main series article, they generally look first in the main episode list, then the individual season article and finally the individual episode articles. Episode articles should be the exception rather than the rule - episodes are generally not notable, although notability is often manufactured, and leaving some episode summaries while removing others doesn't make sense, which is why it doesn't get support. The season list generally has a short 100–200 word summary, while episode articles usually have more detailed summaries, up to 500 words long per
WP:TVPLOT. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
02:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
ShortSummary
is reasonable. But, in general, there is just too much guidance in all of WP, with the result that there are many reasonable, yet internally contradictory readings, within all of WP. Reading the MOS in question, I don't think that the guidance really anticipates standalone episode articles. The same guidance does defer to
Featured lists, which have been ranked as among the best in WP. Some of these do include guest stars and notes as part of ShortSummary
. Perhaps this is an indication that {{
episode list}} should include optional "guest stars" and "notes" parameters. But perhaps the Community, in Featuring lists containing non-plot prose within ShortSummary
, has indicated that is another reasonable reading of guidance in such matters.ShortSummary
as "This is the first episode of the series in which David and Maddie break the
fourth wall, welcoming the audience back for the second season at the start of the episode." and "The episode ends with an extended sequence in which the characters wander right off the show's set into other parts of the studio, and several members of the show's production crew appear on camera as part of the plot resolution." Clearly the Community feels these inclusions are OK, to the point of Featuring the article.ShortSummary
contained the prose "Cybill Shepherd performs the
big band songs "
Blue Moon" and "I Told You I Love Ya, Now Get Out!"
Orson Welles introduces the episode, his last performance before his death." when Featured list status was granted. Later edits were likely seen as just more of the same. --
Chaswmsday (
talk)
13:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Should be 10 episodes in the info box rather than 9, shouldn't it? Zero talk 02:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
"Gus surprises Malvo and fatally shoots him. " Shouldn't this be "and execute him"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.2.29 ( talk) 20:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Could Gus get away with just shooting Malvo like that? You can't murder someone just because they're evil, and he could have apprehended him. Malvo didn't have his gun on him, and he was already physically incapacitated. I know Gus wanted him dead to protect his family, but this seemed pretty unbelievable, plot-wise, that he would not be brought up on charges or at least an inquiry. I guess it helps if your wife is taking over as chief. PNW Raven ( talk)
Per recent edits to character names within episode summaries, made in this article and in standalone articles, and mentioned at User talk:Jimmypopeyedoyle#July 2014:
Rather than just deciding to use the last names of the characters, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#How to use character names and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2012/August#How to handle names of fictional characters seem to offer the best guidance - refer to the characters as they are most often referred to in the series.
This is borne out in featured list articles such as Desperate Housewives (season 1), Lost (season 1), Seinfeld (season 2) and The Office (U.S. season 1). The characters' names seem most often to be mentioned in full at first reference in the summaries, then follow series convention. Thus, Malvo, Molly, Gus, Lester. -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 01:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh and this from Chaswmsday caught my eye: "Also, I find its edits such as [[home invasion|home invasion]] and [[ice fishing|ice fishing]] to be quite questionable." I was the one who linked those at the time, and correctly, I might add. What should also be taken into consideration is that episode summaries, per Template:Episode list suggestions are optional. The only item needing listed is the title; other data is optional, some are "suggested". Summaries, lengthy or short, give readers a way to decide on seeing the episode or checking for something they missed (if it can be detailed while being concise). Some readers might know what "home invasion" and "ice fishing" are, others might not. The latter are those for whom I wikilink and will continue to do so. The links in question come from what was suggested by the episode. Why else would Lester knock himself out; why else would someone cut a hole in the ice???— Wylie pedia 14:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Froid, in response to your points 1 and 2, I was referencing Drmargi's comments about Jimmypopeyedoyle's "long history" of edits and its lack of "editing with care". Your own edit history, while not negating any valid edits you may have made, is suggestive of overly-rushed, and thus not careful, editing. Thus my initial impression per point 2.
In response to your point 3, perhaps I could have been clearer. I do not inherently object to policies. What concerns me throughout Wikipedia is the apparent belief that all edits are subject to some highly prescriptive set of rules. These "rules" are many, they are convoluted, and they are self-contradictory. But they are held to be inviolate nonetheless. And these alleged rules are directly antithetical to the Ignore all rules policy.
Yes, the general guidance for living persons throughout WP probably is to use surnames, keeping in mind BLP, WP:COMMONNAME as well as the usage in subject-matter reliable sources. I do not find any such convention or guidance for fictional persons. The guidance I do find for fictional persons, both via Talk pages and via what is apparent by looking at Featured articles, is to use whatever form of the name is used most in the fictional work itself and by reliable sources. I would ask that you please look back at my Seinfeld, Friends and Gilligan's Island examples, explain what you would or would not do differently, and explain why. Thanks. -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 00:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
For those with some spare time or are bored TV series hardcore editors, may I suggest a separate character page? Normally, I would jump at the chance to do such a page, and most likely will if this series lasts past two seasons, but, currently my major editing time is limited by my real life. If anyone wishes, I could start a skeletal one, and those Fargoans could fill it out. I'm waiting on a casual visitor to only skim the page and wonder why two actors are playing Lou. Or maybe I'm just selling people short? — Wylie pedia 05:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
How come Shawn Doyle's character and the actor himself are not mentioned anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.50.254 ( talk) 07:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I created one for the show, if you would like to add it to your userpage. You may also request another with a different saying on my talkpage. Thanks! — Wylie pedia 10:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The metacritic graph on this page is one of the ugliest I've ever seen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.24.3.76 ( talk) 14:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Do we need such a long table here when there is an article listing them? I reverted this edit, thinking it looked like vandalism, but on investigation it is a good faith edit. Still, I think it needs to be discussed. -- Pete ( talk) 11:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Fargo (TV series). 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
23 June 2017 an American author of horror, supernatural fiction Stephen King said in his Twitter account:
Most TV is cafeteria food. FARGO's three seasons have been gourmet meals. I'd love one more.
— Stephen King (@StephenKing)
"Acclaimed" is one of the specific examples of peacock words in WP:PEACOCK. Critical acclaim is vague and peacocky. The source that backed up this phrase was metacritic. The information that I replaced was 100% based on sources and not a vague expression. This is an encyclopedia where editorialising should be avoided and source based information preferred. Dom from Paris ( talk) 23:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
On every other page dedicated to a specific episode of Fargo, there is an image that appears on the info-box. In both season 1 and 3, every episode that has its own separate wikipedia page has an image for the info-box. Season 2 has 5/10 episodes with its own wikipedia page, but of those 5, only ONE has an image to accompany its info-box. Either each episode that has its own wikipedia page has an image for its info-box or none at all. (I would add it myself, but I am relatively new to wikipedia and unsure of how to find appropriate images that satisfy the guidelines). 98.113.156.38 ( talk) 00:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello to all the fans! In the InfoBox near the top, I rather do like how the "Starring" section is divided with interspersed lines that say, Season 1 and then a list of actors, Season 2 and then another list of actors... Question: For the next table cell or box or field or what have you below that, Executive producers, and then, Producers, is there any growing support to do the same separating out by Season inline? [Same question for, Written by...] I think it would be fitting. Has anyone seen other similar Wikipedia articles that have adopted this practice? Thanks for your time. -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid ( talk | contribs)} 16:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC).
A separate character page for Fargo is currently being developed at Draft:List of Fargo characters. Everyone is free to contribute to the page, and is also welcome to do so. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 16:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
This table might once have seemed like a good idea, but feels less and less relevant as seasons go by.
I suggest we find it (the table of shared S1/S2 characters, that is) a new home. Perhaps duplicating it in the season 1 and 2 articles?
Other than this the obvious connections between S1 and S2 we're left with basically a couple of scattered trivia/cameo mentions. No table is needed to note that Mr Wrench from S1 reappears in S3 or that a couple of minor characters are revisited in S4. And more than "not needed" - it feels incredibly overwrought to use a table for what is fringe/trivia.