![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I think the Plot synopsis and episode list sections needs to be overhauled for this article to keep its FA status.– FunkyVoltron talk 23:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
On Thursday, at 11 am EST (15:00 UTC Wikipedia time), there will be a podcast discussion on Skype with television scholar Jason Mittell, who has written extensively about The Wire. If any editors of this article would like to participate, please sign up: Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly/Episode76. -- ragesoss ( talk) 05:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Where should something like this be mentioned? http://www.thebmi.org/index.cfm/cID/674 71.232.29.160 ( talk) 16:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 60 days.-- Oneiros ( talk) 00:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps this could be added somewhere? [1]
"With his party having won 6 of the City Council’s 15 seats, Mr. Gnarr needed a coalition partner, but ruled out any party whose members had not seen all five seasons of “The Wire.” "
Esn ( talk) 12:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The plot section has recently been tagged as too long. I think the plot overviews for the first three seasons are fine, but season 4 may need to be trimmed a little, while season 5 definitely needs to be cut down quite a bit. If an experienced copy-editor could help out, that would be great. Thanks. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The plot of season 2 is pretty similar to the film 'On the Waterfront' featuring Marlon Brando, maybe some mention of this could be made. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
188.221.200.61 (
talk) 20:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm speaking more as a reader here than as an editor: I've found the episode-by-episode plot summaries extremely useful as I've watched the series. Reading the plot summary after watching each episode has really helped me keep track of the events and people in this very complex story. I recognize that these articles may violate notability policies and style guidelines about the lengths of plot summaries. But they've been useful to me, and I assume to a lot of other readers. It's also obvious that one or more Wikipedians put a lot of work into writing these summaries. I would hate to see it all disappear into the ether. It's my opinion that each episode of The Wire is individually significant as a work of art. In any case I hope there will be a full discussion before any action is taken. Leoniceno ( talk) 07:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
In the intro, it is stated that The Wire "never enjoy[ed] large commercial success." My question is, how can the commercial success of an HBO show be measured? HBO is paid for by subscription, and there is presumably no way of knowing which shows make people subscribe. Since HBO shows generate no immediate profit for the company, I think it is wrong to say anything about The Wire and commercial success - unless we're talking about DVD sales. I feel that a clarification or reformulation is in order. Wouldn't it be better to say that The Wire never attained large mainstream popularity, or something like that? 130.238.66.78 ( talk) 17:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
In June 2011 Eric Holder ordered (as United States Attorney General) the authors to write one more season or at least a movie. [1] They responded they will do it if the United States Department of Justice will rework their "misguided, destructive and dehumanising drug prohibition". [2]
I found that in the German wiki including those two references, but nothing here. May not relevant enough? 84.227.38.7 ( talk) 22:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
You could just add it and wait, if someone complains. That's how I work at the german article. --
88.70.228.22 (
talk) 13:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=
, |day=
, |month=
, and |deadurl=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=
, |day=
, |month=
, and |deadurl=
(
help)
According to the definition of police procedural (quote: attempts to convincingly depict the activities of a police force as they investigate crimes) with the argument described in the article (especially if you watched this extraordinary series) I think we should add the corresponding category.-- Galazan ( talk) 10:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This is about the line in the lead that says many critics consider this the greatest drama of all time. The first source doesn't lead any where and the second and third sources are just links to metacritic, which is original research. That leaves the last 3 sources, which do say The Wire is the greatest show of all time, but should the line be there because of 3 sources? Me5000 ( talk) 04:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed it. I don't think it should be there because of 3 or even 4 sources. Here's the line if you want to examine it:
"Despite only receiving modest ratings and never winning major television awards, The Wire has been described by many critics as the greatest TV drama of all time. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]" Me5000 ( talk) 04:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
This should definitely be added back. The Wire is considered to be one of the greatest shows of all time by several television critics, so this should be noted. Here's a working link to the Salon article. The Metacritic links are valid because they link to over 40 unanimously positive reviews for the shows, including these quotes:
More articles: Empire Online, Slate Magazine, Vulture, HitFix. The question is, how many sources do we actually need? I'm fine with it saying "one of the the greatest", but it should definitely be included. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 14:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I essentially agree with Drovethrughosts, i.e. the informations belongs into the article. However I also think that "one of the greatest" is more appropriate than "the greatest". The latter formulation tends to be almost always problematic anyhow unless there is an universally accepted objective measure available.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 02:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm extremely surprised that this article doesn't reference the fact that "cop" is never - and I mean never - used in show titles or script. They use "police" instead. That's obviously not a coincidence. Anyone care to comment? Anyone care to find a way to integrate that into the article? Anything that's not coincidence should most certainly be pertinent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.85.110 ( talk) 05:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
They do use the term "cops." Example: in the first season when they are in the pit and Bodie hits one of the officers. Greggs goes after him and chastises him for "hit[ting] a cop." -- 96.242.158.14 ( talk) 06:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
On Nov. 19, Hartley1000 wrote the following paragraphs. It was immediately reverted by a bot for "possible vandalism". I don't think that is true. I think it was a good faith edit. The material seems very thought out and productive, but there are obvious problems with its form, as, in its current state, it is not fit for an encyclopedia, and closer resembles an academic essay. However, I do believe that the material in question could very easily be worked on to make it appropriate for an encyclopedia and thus to use it here in this article. Please let us know what you think and any ideas you have to incorporate it. Here are the paragraphs:
The style of The Wire is something very, very special. Way special. Mainly because it more than probably has something for everyone to relate to or that they feel they can immerse with in detail. Whether it is because the viewer may have lived the life already in line with one of the characters ' story lives' and they are 'seeing' themselves in real life operation may result in a likable or unlikable feeling depending on whether that lifestyle was a happy previous one or not. (Depending on whether or not your own character was different before and you have changed since). Call it 'De Ja Vu' if you will. Yet the beauty of running along with a particular Wire character is that you relate too them in this way is because the viewer is then urged to wait and see what the outcome is of their actions.
Most of the characters in The Wire are dependable in a way that their actions and lifestyles are stable and you more or less can run along with them pretty much resulting in a feeling at the end of 'ah, that didn't surprise me'. Yet the power of the quality realism within the episodes has yet again sucked you right in before your very eyes and you largely feel the need to at least start to watch the beginning of the next episode before your mind can decidedly put that drawn in feeling to rest until the next time you are full on ready to watch that episode or two more. Obviously defendant on if you are watching it with DVD seasons. The way the series shoots off in different directions keep the viewers on their toes. Yes we have seen this style sort of before, but not this way.
Everything about The Wire is possible in real life. In fact most of the things contained within The Wire package probably has happened. In real life for example, if you don't believe a Gay person can complete all of the 'tasks' that Omar Little has in The Wire, then you need to live. You need to get out. If you don't believe that some Cops like Jimmy can actually speak the street language in real life, can see through mis-leading activities and do have the sense and power to spring a bad guy free after smashing up a real life Police Radio car because he understood the real situation and just wasn't prepared to turn a blind eye, then you need to get with it.
If you watch the series intensely, then you should realize that the writers are so blob on with realism, and it is easy to see that the areas of Baltimore portrayed are crime and drug ridden so seriously that it is basically a War-Zone and some of the people in The Wire are most likely candidates for symptoms of what we know as PTSD.
If I was ever asked to write a character reference for each regular individual shown in a TV Series, I would choose The Wire to do it with. Such is the captivation. The last TV series that I can remember had the same level of captivation where by every actor in the shows did their utmost to be believed with such huge levels of immersion is Rich Man Poor Man. This is because it contained a residual character right through the base line that made the show. Tommy Jordache. A lovable rogue. A lovable rogue is not a person that is born this way. A lovable rogue will break the law at the drop of a hat if he sees a benefit that either helps other people, or himself, or both. Enter Omar Little ..... Gary Boocock ....
Charles35 ( talk) 06:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Hartley1000 - let us know if you need anything or if you want to contribute to the article in any way. I'm glad to help. Charles35 ( talk) 06:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Qworty maintains that amazon references are WP:SPAM and is proceeding to delete all such especially on articles he wishes to delete. Wheras I do not agree with him, it seems an edit war on a featured page is required to prove who is right. see Talk:The Vampire Diaries (novel series) as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.25.140 ( talk) 11:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
So does the series takes place in the 1980s? and if so why isn't it mentioned in the article?-- 84.94.120.42 ( talk) 11:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The first episode makes reference to the twin towers falling. Good enough? 66.240.10.170 ( talk) 23:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
In season 1, episode three, the FBI guy shows McNutty and Greggs a tape of a bust in his "career case", but says the bosses don't care because, as McNutty puts it, "not one of them's named Osama". Charles35 ( talk) 05:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
In season 1, episode 13, when Rhonda Pearlman is charging the Barksdales in court, in reference to the arrest of Deangelo for transporting drugs from NJ to MD, she says "on or about the date of September 17, 2002..." Charles35 ( talk) 03:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Obama's opinion about the series is irrelevant and should not be included. Obama is not a TV critic and as far as I know has nothing to do with TV or police or drugs or any other topic of the series. (He probably would be able to tell something interesting about corruption, e.g. his Solindra scam, or Benghasi betrayal, but it has nothing to do with The Wire). Are we now going to include opinions of every former US President about every TV series? (In several years Obama is going to become just another former US President, doubtfully the best at that, while The Wire will remain unique for a long time). Opinion of Iceland capital's mayor is of course also irrelevant, but at least it has some merit due to being unusually strong. Rozmysl ( talk) 14:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Categorizing this show by race is not only wildly inaccurate, but it obscures as much as it reveals. My argument now is the same as when the category was called Black television shows: this is not an encyclopedic definition and it does not help with an understanding of the show's complexity. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 14:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Having just included the writing credits in the info box (about time) we've run into a little snag here. When listing the numbers of episodes worked on by a particular writer, one wiki editor favors crediting the initial "story" writer solely (not to be confused with the teleplay writer, but more on that in a second). I favor listing the total number of episodes a writer was officially credited with. This amounts to about 2 - 4 people per episode, thus upping each writer's episode count even if they only ever came up with the kernel for one story or, alternately, one teleplay. Being somewhat familiar with the way television shows are written I can tell you that once the story is pitched and the initial teleplay submitted there is still a lot of writing, editing and rewriting to be completed. Scenes change, dialogue is added or subtracted, characters added or reconfigured, continuity corrected. Ideas are exchanged. It's not the work of one person and while this may sound like conjecture, it is in fact standard practice and officially noted in the end credits of individual episodes. Thus while David Simon is credited with writing or co-writing 21 of the 60 teleplays, he is likewise given a whopping 50 "story by" credits. There is a third credit, however, which I think is fairer and more accurate in ascertaining what we mean when we say someone "wrote" an episode of a television series - and that is the screen credit which lists Simon as a writer on all 60 of the episodes. This is how it's done on the show, and unless we are to disbelieve the producers of the series (a primary source if ever there was one) we must assume that Mr. Simon did do some writing on all 60 episodes. Before you go and say that these are vanity credits for the creator and exec. producer of the show (and before I respond with "Citation needed") I would point out that Ed Burns, Simon's collaborator and the second most credited writer on the series was also co-exec on 10 episodes, some of which he received NO writing credit for. George Pelacanos produced 12 but received writing credit for only 8.
This is also how it's listed on IMDB. An example: the IMDB page for the episode "Hot Shots" credits 4 writers. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0749432/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_wr#writers Rafael Alvarez and Joy Lusco Kecken are listed as writers on the episode, but neither of them received "story by" or "teleplay by" credit. The fact that this episode required the assistance of two additional staff writers besides Simon and Burns gives credence to the suspicion that the initial teleplay was not a "finished product." A suspicion which, according to the accounting department at Time-Warner at least, is veritable fact - they have to justify paying those people somehow. This doesn't seem to be a staff courtesy either since not every episode credits staff writers even during the time those same writers were otherwise credited as script supervisors or with various other duties (or none at all).
Now, granted the IMDB page for the series mistakenly omits Shamit Choksey and David H. Melnick (who together wrote one teleplay) and Kia Corthron (who also wrote one), but as they say, two (or three) wrongs don't make a right, and if we have to choose between: 1) giving credit to a writer based on how many stories they pitched (or in Simon's case, envisioned) vs. 2) how many teleplays they wrote the first draft of vs 3) how many they actually worked on and received credit (and pay) for from the show's producers, then I'd elect that third option. Wellesradio ( talk) 01:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on that. You're simply using another wikipedia page as a source for this one. I went back and looked at the DVD screen credits on a number of these episodes and they don't all list staff writers even when those staff writers were concurrently employed by the production crew. At other times these writers instead got credits for doing things other than writing. In other words, you get screen credit when you do actual writing on an episode. It is NOT the same thing as being script editor any more than being film editor is the same thing as being a writer or a director of photography. A list of "Other writers" means exactly what it says. It's other writers who have worked on the show and the numbers list exactly the number of episodes they wrote for. Wellesradio ( talk) 22:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
But really, thanks for pointing out the faulty wikilinks. I do have to wonder though, why does Pelecanos get credit above the fold? Despite having drafted more teleplays (but not by that many) he wrote for less episodes than a lot of the others. Wellesradio ( talk) 23:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm going by the END credits of the episodes. You're going by what another wikipedia page says. That's not an outside source. And you STILL haven't explained why Pelecanos gets above the fold credit as a writer. Wellesradio ( talk) 18:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course it's a writing credit. Despite how neat and easy and convenient it is to fantasize an "auteur" creation, if a writer is hired as part of a writing staff it is customary to receive this credit for any episode they work on. The staff do not get credit on every episode simply being "on staff." If this were the case they'd receive screen credit on a lot more episodes than they do. This is pretty standard industry practice on television dramas. I think you misconstrue these credits as being some sort of token achievement - a "hey, look ma, my name is on TV!" It's what the rights managers uses to pay people. As it is, these staff writer credits appear on less episodes than you think and then it's hardly the same names as may have appeared earlier. I don't know what you think we do, but writers write: whether drafts of scripts, outlines or scene structure - you are paid to write for that episode. Unless Drovethrughosts has a reference where it is explicitly stated that the teleplay drafters were the sole writers on every episode, I consider this point moot and your case groundless. As it is, I've provided at least one creditable source, regardless of what you think of it. Wellesradio ( talk) 01:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Again - they were always "on staff" but don't (and didn't) get staff writing credit unless they wrote for the episode. Wellesradio ( talk) 06:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the WGA credits as I've been a member for six years. And yes, to answer the question posed by Drovethrughosts, I'm saying there are episodes within those seasons where they are not listed as staff writers. Wellesradio ( talk) 02:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I want to make the suggestion that the cast list in the infobox be trimmed to include only actors who are credited in all five seasons. At this point, it seems the list is too exhaustive, listing every actor, including those who appeared in only one season, or part of one season. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 12:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The critical response has a paragraph for each of seasons 1-4, and then nothing about season 5. Having just finished season five, and curious how it was received, I thought this was an unfortunate oversight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C08C:A6F0:21C:B3FF:FEC3:2572 ( talk) 05:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The name on the Russian passport in Season 2 Main Credits reads: Family name: Федоровскал; Given name: Dовлащ; Patronimic: Лщтвкфыршт. Tranliterated into Latin, it will look like: Family name: Fedorovskal; Given name: Dovlashch; Patronimic: Lshchtvkfyrsht (meaningless mess of letters). Family name was meant to read Федоровская (Fedorovskaya), Given name probably Довлат (Dovlat); Patronimic if decifered will be Кондрашин (Kondrashin). Лщтвкфыршт turns to be Kondrashin if you type it in Latin keyboard layour, but hitting places where corresponding Cyrillic letters would be. Together, the deciphered name will be Dovlat Kondrashin Fedorovskaya. This is messed up too, because on the photo, the passport owner is a woman. Dovlat is a masculin Russian name, a very rare at that; Kondrashin which is supposed to be a woman's patronimic, is not a patronimic at all, but another masculin family name instead. Fedorovskaya for a change is a somewhat valid feminine family name, however it is spelled wrongly. Altogether, it is a pity that the creators of such an amazing show did not asked a Russian-speaking guy to verify the spelling of the documents in the main titles (one needs at most 5 or 6 grades of Russian school to figure this out). I would have done it for free. Rozmysl ( talk) 03:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Some information is incorrect regarding Season 4 synopsis. Bodie is actually shot by Michael Lee, not another member of Marlo's crew named O'Dog. C Chris02188 ( talk) 21:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Wire. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 15:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The Themes section and last paragraph of the Academia subsection seem thin to me. Many published articles have been written about the themes of the show. Possible sources to supplement these, and other sections of the page include the (five) articles on the show in the Autumn 2011 issue of UChicago's Critical Inquiry (These do not require a subscription).
Patrick Jagoda's and Linda Williams' articles in particular discuss and analyze the themes of the show. Neuroxic ( talk) 00:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Wire. 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) 06:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Wire. 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) 20:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The Wire. 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) 20:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on The Wire. 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) 05:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The Wire. 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) 05:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Wire. 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) 15:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I think the Plot synopsis and episode list sections needs to be overhauled for this article to keep its FA status.– FunkyVoltron talk 23:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
On Thursday, at 11 am EST (15:00 UTC Wikipedia time), there will be a podcast discussion on Skype with television scholar Jason Mittell, who has written extensively about The Wire. If any editors of this article would like to participate, please sign up: Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly/Episode76. -- ragesoss ( talk) 05:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Where should something like this be mentioned? http://www.thebmi.org/index.cfm/cID/674 71.232.29.160 ( talk) 16:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 60 days.-- Oneiros ( talk) 00:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps this could be added somewhere? [1]
"With his party having won 6 of the City Council’s 15 seats, Mr. Gnarr needed a coalition partner, but ruled out any party whose members had not seen all five seasons of “The Wire.” "
Esn ( talk) 12:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The plot section has recently been tagged as too long. I think the plot overviews for the first three seasons are fine, but season 4 may need to be trimmed a little, while season 5 definitely needs to be cut down quite a bit. If an experienced copy-editor could help out, that would be great. Thanks. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The plot of season 2 is pretty similar to the film 'On the Waterfront' featuring Marlon Brando, maybe some mention of this could be made. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
188.221.200.61 (
talk) 20:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm speaking more as a reader here than as an editor: I've found the episode-by-episode plot summaries extremely useful as I've watched the series. Reading the plot summary after watching each episode has really helped me keep track of the events and people in this very complex story. I recognize that these articles may violate notability policies and style guidelines about the lengths of plot summaries. But they've been useful to me, and I assume to a lot of other readers. It's also obvious that one or more Wikipedians put a lot of work into writing these summaries. I would hate to see it all disappear into the ether. It's my opinion that each episode of The Wire is individually significant as a work of art. In any case I hope there will be a full discussion before any action is taken. Leoniceno ( talk) 07:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
In the intro, it is stated that The Wire "never enjoy[ed] large commercial success." My question is, how can the commercial success of an HBO show be measured? HBO is paid for by subscription, and there is presumably no way of knowing which shows make people subscribe. Since HBO shows generate no immediate profit for the company, I think it is wrong to say anything about The Wire and commercial success - unless we're talking about DVD sales. I feel that a clarification or reformulation is in order. Wouldn't it be better to say that The Wire never attained large mainstream popularity, or something like that? 130.238.66.78 ( talk) 17:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
In June 2011 Eric Holder ordered (as United States Attorney General) the authors to write one more season or at least a movie. [1] They responded they will do it if the United States Department of Justice will rework their "misguided, destructive and dehumanising drug prohibition". [2]
I found that in the German wiki including those two references, but nothing here. May not relevant enough? 84.227.38.7 ( talk) 22:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
You could just add it and wait, if someone complains. That's how I work at the german article. --
88.70.228.22 (
talk) 13:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=
, |day=
, |month=
, and |deadurl=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=
, |day=
, |month=
, and |deadurl=
(
help)
According to the definition of police procedural (quote: attempts to convincingly depict the activities of a police force as they investigate crimes) with the argument described in the article (especially if you watched this extraordinary series) I think we should add the corresponding category.-- Galazan ( talk) 10:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This is about the line in the lead that says many critics consider this the greatest drama of all time. The first source doesn't lead any where and the second and third sources are just links to metacritic, which is original research. That leaves the last 3 sources, which do say The Wire is the greatest show of all time, but should the line be there because of 3 sources? Me5000 ( talk) 04:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed it. I don't think it should be there because of 3 or even 4 sources. Here's the line if you want to examine it:
"Despite only receiving modest ratings and never winning major television awards, The Wire has been described by many critics as the greatest TV drama of all time. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]" Me5000 ( talk) 04:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
This should definitely be added back. The Wire is considered to be one of the greatest shows of all time by several television critics, so this should be noted. Here's a working link to the Salon article. The Metacritic links are valid because they link to over 40 unanimously positive reviews for the shows, including these quotes:
More articles: Empire Online, Slate Magazine, Vulture, HitFix. The question is, how many sources do we actually need? I'm fine with it saying "one of the the greatest", but it should definitely be included. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 14:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I essentially agree with Drovethrughosts, i.e. the informations belongs into the article. However I also think that "one of the greatest" is more appropriate than "the greatest". The latter formulation tends to be almost always problematic anyhow unless there is an universally accepted objective measure available.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 02:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm extremely surprised that this article doesn't reference the fact that "cop" is never - and I mean never - used in show titles or script. They use "police" instead. That's obviously not a coincidence. Anyone care to comment? Anyone care to find a way to integrate that into the article? Anything that's not coincidence should most certainly be pertinent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.85.110 ( talk) 05:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
They do use the term "cops." Example: in the first season when they are in the pit and Bodie hits one of the officers. Greggs goes after him and chastises him for "hit[ting] a cop." -- 96.242.158.14 ( talk) 06:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
On Nov. 19, Hartley1000 wrote the following paragraphs. It was immediately reverted by a bot for "possible vandalism". I don't think that is true. I think it was a good faith edit. The material seems very thought out and productive, but there are obvious problems with its form, as, in its current state, it is not fit for an encyclopedia, and closer resembles an academic essay. However, I do believe that the material in question could very easily be worked on to make it appropriate for an encyclopedia and thus to use it here in this article. Please let us know what you think and any ideas you have to incorporate it. Here are the paragraphs:
The style of The Wire is something very, very special. Way special. Mainly because it more than probably has something for everyone to relate to or that they feel they can immerse with in detail. Whether it is because the viewer may have lived the life already in line with one of the characters ' story lives' and they are 'seeing' themselves in real life operation may result in a likable or unlikable feeling depending on whether that lifestyle was a happy previous one or not. (Depending on whether or not your own character was different before and you have changed since). Call it 'De Ja Vu' if you will. Yet the beauty of running along with a particular Wire character is that you relate too them in this way is because the viewer is then urged to wait and see what the outcome is of their actions.
Most of the characters in The Wire are dependable in a way that their actions and lifestyles are stable and you more or less can run along with them pretty much resulting in a feeling at the end of 'ah, that didn't surprise me'. Yet the power of the quality realism within the episodes has yet again sucked you right in before your very eyes and you largely feel the need to at least start to watch the beginning of the next episode before your mind can decidedly put that drawn in feeling to rest until the next time you are full on ready to watch that episode or two more. Obviously defendant on if you are watching it with DVD seasons. The way the series shoots off in different directions keep the viewers on their toes. Yes we have seen this style sort of before, but not this way.
Everything about The Wire is possible in real life. In fact most of the things contained within The Wire package probably has happened. In real life for example, if you don't believe a Gay person can complete all of the 'tasks' that Omar Little has in The Wire, then you need to live. You need to get out. If you don't believe that some Cops like Jimmy can actually speak the street language in real life, can see through mis-leading activities and do have the sense and power to spring a bad guy free after smashing up a real life Police Radio car because he understood the real situation and just wasn't prepared to turn a blind eye, then you need to get with it.
If you watch the series intensely, then you should realize that the writers are so blob on with realism, and it is easy to see that the areas of Baltimore portrayed are crime and drug ridden so seriously that it is basically a War-Zone and some of the people in The Wire are most likely candidates for symptoms of what we know as PTSD.
If I was ever asked to write a character reference for each regular individual shown in a TV Series, I would choose The Wire to do it with. Such is the captivation. The last TV series that I can remember had the same level of captivation where by every actor in the shows did their utmost to be believed with such huge levels of immersion is Rich Man Poor Man. This is because it contained a residual character right through the base line that made the show. Tommy Jordache. A lovable rogue. A lovable rogue is not a person that is born this way. A lovable rogue will break the law at the drop of a hat if he sees a benefit that either helps other people, or himself, or both. Enter Omar Little ..... Gary Boocock ....
Charles35 ( talk) 06:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Hartley1000 - let us know if you need anything or if you want to contribute to the article in any way. I'm glad to help. Charles35 ( talk) 06:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Qworty maintains that amazon references are WP:SPAM and is proceeding to delete all such especially on articles he wishes to delete. Wheras I do not agree with him, it seems an edit war on a featured page is required to prove who is right. see Talk:The Vampire Diaries (novel series) as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.25.140 ( talk) 11:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
So does the series takes place in the 1980s? and if so why isn't it mentioned in the article?-- 84.94.120.42 ( talk) 11:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The first episode makes reference to the twin towers falling. Good enough? 66.240.10.170 ( talk) 23:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
In season 1, episode three, the FBI guy shows McNutty and Greggs a tape of a bust in his "career case", but says the bosses don't care because, as McNutty puts it, "not one of them's named Osama". Charles35 ( talk) 05:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
In season 1, episode 13, when Rhonda Pearlman is charging the Barksdales in court, in reference to the arrest of Deangelo for transporting drugs from NJ to MD, she says "on or about the date of September 17, 2002..." Charles35 ( talk) 03:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Obama's opinion about the series is irrelevant and should not be included. Obama is not a TV critic and as far as I know has nothing to do with TV or police or drugs or any other topic of the series. (He probably would be able to tell something interesting about corruption, e.g. his Solindra scam, or Benghasi betrayal, but it has nothing to do with The Wire). Are we now going to include opinions of every former US President about every TV series? (In several years Obama is going to become just another former US President, doubtfully the best at that, while The Wire will remain unique for a long time). Opinion of Iceland capital's mayor is of course also irrelevant, but at least it has some merit due to being unusually strong. Rozmysl ( talk) 14:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Categorizing this show by race is not only wildly inaccurate, but it obscures as much as it reveals. My argument now is the same as when the category was called Black television shows: this is not an encyclopedic definition and it does not help with an understanding of the show's complexity. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 14:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Having just included the writing credits in the info box (about time) we've run into a little snag here. When listing the numbers of episodes worked on by a particular writer, one wiki editor favors crediting the initial "story" writer solely (not to be confused with the teleplay writer, but more on that in a second). I favor listing the total number of episodes a writer was officially credited with. This amounts to about 2 - 4 people per episode, thus upping each writer's episode count even if they only ever came up with the kernel for one story or, alternately, one teleplay. Being somewhat familiar with the way television shows are written I can tell you that once the story is pitched and the initial teleplay submitted there is still a lot of writing, editing and rewriting to be completed. Scenes change, dialogue is added or subtracted, characters added or reconfigured, continuity corrected. Ideas are exchanged. It's not the work of one person and while this may sound like conjecture, it is in fact standard practice and officially noted in the end credits of individual episodes. Thus while David Simon is credited with writing or co-writing 21 of the 60 teleplays, he is likewise given a whopping 50 "story by" credits. There is a third credit, however, which I think is fairer and more accurate in ascertaining what we mean when we say someone "wrote" an episode of a television series - and that is the screen credit which lists Simon as a writer on all 60 of the episodes. This is how it's done on the show, and unless we are to disbelieve the producers of the series (a primary source if ever there was one) we must assume that Mr. Simon did do some writing on all 60 episodes. Before you go and say that these are vanity credits for the creator and exec. producer of the show (and before I respond with "Citation needed") I would point out that Ed Burns, Simon's collaborator and the second most credited writer on the series was also co-exec on 10 episodes, some of which he received NO writing credit for. George Pelacanos produced 12 but received writing credit for only 8.
This is also how it's listed on IMDB. An example: the IMDB page for the episode "Hot Shots" credits 4 writers. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0749432/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_wr#writers Rafael Alvarez and Joy Lusco Kecken are listed as writers on the episode, but neither of them received "story by" or "teleplay by" credit. The fact that this episode required the assistance of two additional staff writers besides Simon and Burns gives credence to the suspicion that the initial teleplay was not a "finished product." A suspicion which, according to the accounting department at Time-Warner at least, is veritable fact - they have to justify paying those people somehow. This doesn't seem to be a staff courtesy either since not every episode credits staff writers even during the time those same writers were otherwise credited as script supervisors or with various other duties (or none at all).
Now, granted the IMDB page for the series mistakenly omits Shamit Choksey and David H. Melnick (who together wrote one teleplay) and Kia Corthron (who also wrote one), but as they say, two (or three) wrongs don't make a right, and if we have to choose between: 1) giving credit to a writer based on how many stories they pitched (or in Simon's case, envisioned) vs. 2) how many teleplays they wrote the first draft of vs 3) how many they actually worked on and received credit (and pay) for from the show's producers, then I'd elect that third option. Wellesradio ( talk) 01:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on that. You're simply using another wikipedia page as a source for this one. I went back and looked at the DVD screen credits on a number of these episodes and they don't all list staff writers even when those staff writers were concurrently employed by the production crew. At other times these writers instead got credits for doing things other than writing. In other words, you get screen credit when you do actual writing on an episode. It is NOT the same thing as being script editor any more than being film editor is the same thing as being a writer or a director of photography. A list of "Other writers" means exactly what it says. It's other writers who have worked on the show and the numbers list exactly the number of episodes they wrote for. Wellesradio ( talk) 22:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
But really, thanks for pointing out the faulty wikilinks. I do have to wonder though, why does Pelecanos get credit above the fold? Despite having drafted more teleplays (but not by that many) he wrote for less episodes than a lot of the others. Wellesradio ( talk) 23:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm going by the END credits of the episodes. You're going by what another wikipedia page says. That's not an outside source. And you STILL haven't explained why Pelecanos gets above the fold credit as a writer. Wellesradio ( talk) 18:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course it's a writing credit. Despite how neat and easy and convenient it is to fantasize an "auteur" creation, if a writer is hired as part of a writing staff it is customary to receive this credit for any episode they work on. The staff do not get credit on every episode simply being "on staff." If this were the case they'd receive screen credit on a lot more episodes than they do. This is pretty standard industry practice on television dramas. I think you misconstrue these credits as being some sort of token achievement - a "hey, look ma, my name is on TV!" It's what the rights managers uses to pay people. As it is, these staff writer credits appear on less episodes than you think and then it's hardly the same names as may have appeared earlier. I don't know what you think we do, but writers write: whether drafts of scripts, outlines or scene structure - you are paid to write for that episode. Unless Drovethrughosts has a reference where it is explicitly stated that the teleplay drafters were the sole writers on every episode, I consider this point moot and your case groundless. As it is, I've provided at least one creditable source, regardless of what you think of it. Wellesradio ( talk) 01:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Again - they were always "on staff" but don't (and didn't) get staff writing credit unless they wrote for the episode. Wellesradio ( talk) 06:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the WGA credits as I've been a member for six years. And yes, to answer the question posed by Drovethrughosts, I'm saying there are episodes within those seasons where they are not listed as staff writers. Wellesradio ( talk) 02:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I want to make the suggestion that the cast list in the infobox be trimmed to include only actors who are credited in all five seasons. At this point, it seems the list is too exhaustive, listing every actor, including those who appeared in only one season, or part of one season. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 12:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The critical response has a paragraph for each of seasons 1-4, and then nothing about season 5. Having just finished season five, and curious how it was received, I thought this was an unfortunate oversight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C08C:A6F0:21C:B3FF:FEC3:2572 ( talk) 05:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The name on the Russian passport in Season 2 Main Credits reads: Family name: Федоровскал; Given name: Dовлащ; Patronimic: Лщтвкфыршт. Tranliterated into Latin, it will look like: Family name: Fedorovskal; Given name: Dovlashch; Patronimic: Lshchtvkfyrsht (meaningless mess of letters). Family name was meant to read Федоровская (Fedorovskaya), Given name probably Довлат (Dovlat); Patronimic if decifered will be Кондрашин (Kondrashin). Лщтвкфыршт turns to be Kondrashin if you type it in Latin keyboard layour, but hitting places where corresponding Cyrillic letters would be. Together, the deciphered name will be Dovlat Kondrashin Fedorovskaya. This is messed up too, because on the photo, the passport owner is a woman. Dovlat is a masculin Russian name, a very rare at that; Kondrashin which is supposed to be a woman's patronimic, is not a patronimic at all, but another masculin family name instead. Fedorovskaya for a change is a somewhat valid feminine family name, however it is spelled wrongly. Altogether, it is a pity that the creators of such an amazing show did not asked a Russian-speaking guy to verify the spelling of the documents in the main titles (one needs at most 5 or 6 grades of Russian school to figure this out). I would have done it for free. Rozmysl ( talk) 03:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Some information is incorrect regarding Season 4 synopsis. Bodie is actually shot by Michael Lee, not another member of Marlo's crew named O'Dog. C Chris02188 ( talk) 21:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Wire. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 15:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The Themes section and last paragraph of the Academia subsection seem thin to me. Many published articles have been written about the themes of the show. Possible sources to supplement these, and other sections of the page include the (five) articles on the show in the Autumn 2011 issue of UChicago's Critical Inquiry (These do not require a subscription).
Patrick Jagoda's and Linda Williams' articles in particular discuss and analyze the themes of the show. Neuroxic ( talk) 00:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Wire. 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) 06:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Wire. 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) 20:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The Wire. 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) 20:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on The Wire. 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) 05:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The Wire. 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) 05:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Wire. 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) 15:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)