Talk:Better Call Saul/Archive 1

f

Tentative? Odenkirk confirmed?
According to Variety, Odenkirk will reprise the role. According to Digital Spy, no decision has been made yet. As for "tentative"... not a word anywhere. I don't think we should force this into the article until something concrete can be cited. Chunk5Darth (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Odenkirk Has stated in previous interviews before the news broke that he would love a prequel plus why do the prequel without Odenkirk? Encmetalhead (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You said nothing that proves me wrong. Please don't reinsert the info unless you can back it up with verifiable information. I'll humor you anyway:
 * Odenkirk stated in previous interviews that he would love to do a spin-off. That doesn't mean that it actually happened with him. No logic here whatsoever.
 * Why do the prequel without him? Because the series might portray a much younger Saul Goodman, and according to the two sources I provided, there are conflicting reports. Therefore, we need to wait until something concrete comes along, and only then insert it into the article. After all, this is an encyclopedia. Chunk5Darth (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's another article reporting that casting has not been confirmed yet. Chunk5Darth (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Prequel?
„Maybe it's prequel? Maybe it's sequel? Maybe it's both? They're talking about mixing it up.“ article


 * Can't see how a single show could be both, given the fate of Saul in BB. A prequel in Albuquerque would work, a sequel in Nebraska less so - it could provide more of a clean slate to work with but loses any other connection with BB, which would make it less attractive to the network. Pjaymes (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Jonathan Banks just got cast as Mike Ehrmantraut, who was killed by Walter White in Breaking Bad, so I'm betting it's a prequel. —  Wylie pedia  15:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Genres
Comedy and drama? Is this just an assumption. Should it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.176.136.30 (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Black comedy would be more like it, a la Breaking Bad, which was the same.. —  Wylie pedia  15:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Renewed For 2nd Season, Wait, What?
How can the show be renewed for a second season when the series won't even premiere until 2015? Is this something someone put in as a joke or is a confirmed fact? I find it hard to believe that AMC would renew a series that hasn't even premiered on their network yet. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The renewal is legitimate. They've ordered 23 episodes (10 for season one, and a second season of 13) based on the success of Breaking Bad. It's unusual, but becoming more and more common for cable networks to renew series before their premiere dates. Starz has done it with almost every original series since Spartacus. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Writing team and episode directors
The directors of each season 1 episode and the writing team is publicly known, so I'm guessing that'd be pretty relevant to put somewhere, don't you guys think?

It follows:

Episode 1 - directed by Vince Gilligan, written by Gilligan and Peter Gould Episode 2 - directed by Michelle MacLaren, written by Gould Episode 3 - directed by Terry McDonough, written by Thomas Schnauz Episode 4 - directed by Colin Bucksey, written by Gennifer Hutchison Episode 5 - directed by Nicole Kassell, Episode 6 - directed by Adam Bernstein Episode 7 - directed by Larysa Kondracki, written by Hutchison Episode 8 - directed by Colin Bucksey Episode 9 - written and directed by Schnauz Episode 10 - written and directed by Gould

For episodes 5, 6, and 8, Gordon Smith is also confirmed to have written 2 episodes, and Bradley Paul has 1, so its between them.


 * If they are "publicly known," all we need is a reliable source to cite. WP:V Barte (talk) 09:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Opening theme song (Request help)
I'm not great at formatting and sourcing, but I've added credits to the band that was hired to create the opening theme to the show. Source: http://littlebarrie.com/little-barrie-write-and-perform-main-title-theme-to-breaking-bad-prequel/ Thanks. ErdoS (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Good topic
It might be nice to have a goal of making articles related to Better Call Saul a Good topic:

Feel free to update along the way! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

US vs U.S. – per MOS:ABBR
"use "US" in articles with other national abbreviations, e.g. "UK" or "UAE"." -- see current talk here Talk:24 (TV series). Jimthing (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * U.S. should be used, per WP:NOTUSA. As Drovethrughosts pointed out, you intentionally created this problem here when you incorrectly decided to abbreviate United Kingdom. -- Calidum  19:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. A manufactured problem in order to force an edit in pursuit of a personal agenda doesn't allow for the change made.  --Drmargi (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * U.S. is a more broadly used term for the United States in media. I've seen the term used on quite a lot of Wikipedia show pages too. Also It's typically favorable to go along with the consensus for an article, if you don't agree with the consensus, walk away. Getting into an edit war like you have done on the main article solves nothing. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Partially outdated
Some parts of this article - particularly "Casting" - as well as some sources are outdated. They make it look like the series has not yet aired, mostly pointing to future plans that have been since fulfilled, while some information even changed since those sources were published. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If no one contests the lack of relevance, I will go ahead and blank the section. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, do not blank the content. That is not helpful in any way. It details the casting of all the major actors, I fail to see how that's not worthy of inclusion. Improve it, don't just delete it. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't exactly detail the casting, it states that "this actor was cast for this role". There is virtually no information in that section that cannot be found in the cast list, and most sources are dated from before the pilot episode air date. It is redundant and outdated. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course the sources are from the before the pilot episode aired, because the article was created way before that. This is an encyclopedia, we detail the entire history of a subject, not just what's current. Again, blanking it is not helpful. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Too much duplicated content
Someone went ahead and created Better Call Saul (season 1). The gigantic table with episode summaries was copied onto that article. There is absolutely no need to keep it here anymore, as it just keeps the article bloated and puts WP:UNDUE weight on that particular section. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is already a discussion about the split, which was not done correctly, there. --Drmargi (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Quick note about plot summaries in this article
Hey all, a quick note for those who are watchlisting this article: per WP:TVPLOT the target wordcount for the episode synopses is 150-200 100-200 words. That gives everyone flexibility to go beyond a basic logline, but also some guidance to reel it in before it gets too long. A few of the summaries are too long. "Pimento" is 368. "RICO" is 296. "Bingo" is 270. "Five-O" is 323. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I've trimmed "Uno" from 284 words down to 215. I think this is OK since we *do* have to get out some of the pipe. I cut a lot of stuff, most of it irrelevant to our understanding of that episode's plot. We don't need to mention Mike, we don't need to know where exactly in Nebraska Jimmy is, or what format the old videos are in. There were many wordy redundancies "low on money from a lack of lucrative cases", "Jimmy unsuccessfully tries to convince potential clients ... to hire him to defend their case ... the Kettlemans are later seen at HHM", etc. (Obviously he's unsuccessful if they wind up at HHM, obviously they're potential clients if he's trying to get their business, and so forth.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I've trimmed "Mijo" from 295 words to 199. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a sequel & prequel...Saul's fate & transformation is key...Peace is contagious (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah. Vague. Please use indents so the threads can be read more easily. The issue is about overly-detailed plot summaries. There was enough detail in this version of the pilot episode to communicate that Jimmy has a crappy job, and is sitting at home reminiscing. You still haven't explained with any clarity why we need details about his mustache, the tape format his commercials are recorded on, that the opening is in black and white, etc. (And for the casual reader sitting at home, much of this has been rasied on Peace's talk page, to no successful explanation). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

So I get it now, the concise summry goes here & the detailed sum. under the individual ep. entry. ...so now I"m trimming it & these 2 goof-balls want it a cookie-recipe type summary ...LOL Sartre couldn't write this type of absurd melodrama :P Peace is contagious (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You need tone it down, you've been warned about your uncivil comments. I also suggest writing with proper grammar and spelling, it just makes you look immature. I simply reinstated the summary the article has always had, it's perfectly fine as it summarizes the episode in an acceptable length (198 words). Your version is not an improvement. You also need to stop acting like you're the one enforcing guidelines, when you were told multiple times yesterday regarding how to write plot summaries and the correct length and all you did was ignore it. Stop being disruptive. Also, this is completely inappropriate, please use talk pages, not edit summaries for discussion (or "your" version of discussion, which is talking like a 12-year-old while hurling insults). Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So I'm a l'il slow ...sue me, but now I'm doing it correctly...and still a bunch of 25 y/os who think The Walking Dead is Shakespeare & never worked in TV (or film)... Peace is contagious (talk)


 * If the summaries r thematically concise, which they r 'sposed to be, then less spoilers r divulged.Peace is contagious (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Block break
Look at how thematically concise this page is, which is given as an example by Wikipedia on TV Plot summaries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallville_%28season_1%29#Episodes

...now look at the "meatloaf recipe" style 'summaries' on BCS page. Peace is contagious (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yet again, your point is lost, perhaps through another mixed or fabricated metaphor. I don't see any references to mustaches, VHS tapes, color change, musical score, or unsourced analysis of thematic meaning in the Smallville article. So if you have a point, please make it plain. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Aaaaand, here we go again. I guess I'm not reading the same summaries as you are PIC, because I see a concise summation of a rather fanciful (and frankly ridiculous) course of events in each episode.  Maybe I need ex-ray glasses or something similar to see the thematic analysis you do, but to my eyes, it's just not there.


 * There's a fine old adage around these parts, PIC: drop the stick and stop beating a dead horse (WP:STICK).  It might be time for you do to just that.  --Drmargi (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "a bunch of 25 y/os who think The Walking Dead is Shakespeare & never worked in TV (or film)"... haven't learned much, have you? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 02:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That appears to be a comment written before his block: . Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was indeed... this, though: EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 04:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I gladly yield. I'm definitely not going to go to the grave fighting people who are on my side in this pointless matter. ;) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Wise decision, Cyphoidbomb. Time to close the book on all of this. --Drmargi (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This is my proposal for ep 3 "Nacho", it is (thematically) concise, in an encyclopedic style w/o many spoilers. If some1 wants to click on the full review, which should be chock full of details & 'trivia', they can do so


 * 'During a flashback, Jimmy faces a litany of charges and being branded a sex offender. Back in 2002, Jimmy anonymously tips-off the Kettlemns of an impending robbery. They disappear and the police suspect foul play. Nacho Varga, previously spotted casing their home, is arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and/or murder. (Nacho) suspects Jimmy of foiling his nefarious scheme and vehemently demands his freedom. Jimmy is in a precarious situation, needing to placate both the criminals and the police, while protecting his own secrets and interests. Thanks to Mike's sage advice, Jimmy locates the Kettlemans along with the $1.6 million. However, a new moral and fiscal dilemma arises for Jimmy...'Peace is contagious (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not concerned about spoilers in plot synopses. See WP:SPOILER. Nefarious is implied in "scheme", the "sage"-ness of Mike's advice is interpretive. I don't understand why Nacho is in parens, or why you've trailed off with ellipses at the end—we're not writing promotional copy or trying to tease viewership, we're describing what happens in an episode. The current synopsis works fine for me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cyphoidbomb, and all the points he raises. I don't see this "new" summary as an improvement. Besides the problems Cyphoidbomb pointed it, it leaves out important details such as that Chuck meets with Jimmy in prison, and that Jimmy suspects that the Kettlemans have kidnapped themselves. Also, "However, a new moral and fiscal dilemma arises for Jimmy..." is inappropriate in tone, and sounds like a "promo" as it doesn't even explain what happens. There's too much purple prose and not enough actual summarizing of events. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. The language in the proposed wording is overly promotional, and would work fine for a TV station website, but not for an encyclopedia. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 04:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ne
né is the past participle of a popular encyclopedic abrev. from the French naitre (to be born)Peace is contagious (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I not sure what it is that you are trying to convey, but I believe you are looking for Given name. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 09:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * that's what I was trying to explain... Peace is contagious (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Context might be helpful. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 04:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Concise themeatic plot summaries
You are goddamned right, we are not doing this again: Read the example here: The correct plot summary formula is clearly shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallville_%28season_1%29#Episodes Peace is contagious (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Return to disruptive episode summaries
Peace is contagious has begun restoring what are substantively the same edit summaries that lead to all manner of grief back in the spring. I reverted and requested he discuss, but as per usual, he summarily reverted and went on his merry way. I see no need for the changes, especially with no consensus and after the work that went into tightening them up. Hopefully we can avoid another round of edit warring and discuss reasonably. --Drmargi (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Problem solved. PIC is on a two-week vacay, so we needn't worry any further.  --Drmargi (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is just another chapter, others are sure to follow unless PIC is indef'd (and even then he'll probably just vandalize as numerous sockpuppets just for fun). EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Sourced season 2 teasers
Assuming that those are sourced from interviews with Gilligan, Gould etc. - would they belong in the article? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Images of bobble head and others
There's a bit of an edit war brewing over two images that have been in and out of the article: an artsy rendering of Odenkirk in character, and the image of a bobble head doll of Saul. Nothing ads anything to the reader's understanding of the show, I've seen no rationale for their inclusion, and they're just silly fan junk. There's no reason for them to be there. --Drmargi (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * With no disrespect intended to EauZen, I don't particularly see the need for them. If there was a section on merchandising or something, I could see an argument for the bobble being included. The fan sketch isn't particularly useful. Also, I don't know what it looks like to you, but the addition of the images here just add to the massive gap between the end of the lead and the Production section. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a respect issue, really, just one of common sense. An artsy image of Odenkirk (allegedly as Saul) isn't encyclopedic on any level.  It's just fancruft.  And an image of a bobble-head as a representation of real-world popularity?  By what metric?  I can buy a bobble-head of the icon representing the place that invented the french dip sandwich.  That's no sort of indicator of its popularity.  We don't see this sort of thing in other articles; why here?  I'm hoping we're at an end now.  --Drmargi (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Any of these two would be more relevant than an unrelated image of Odenkirk at a press conference. Anything that is show related is more relevant. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why does the article need three images of Odenkirk/Saul? I feel the person who added the other two images, did it with no thought or purpose, but just because he uploaded them and wants to display them. One image is fan art and the other a bobble head, neither enhance the article or the understanding of the text in the article or are discussed within the article. The image of Odenkirk in the cast section is a common one: placing free licensed images of the actors in a cast section. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What? A bobble head and fan art is more relevant than the star at SDCC, THE big promotional event.  By whose standard? --Drmargi (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We can remove two images, but the most show-relevant image needs to stay. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No one suggested they all be removed, just the silly fancruft. --Drmargi (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't you get your biased descriptions off this discussion? The "fancruft" is actually more pertinent to the show than just a random image of the actor in a completely unrelated environment. The show is about Saul/Jimmy, and his image is more helpful. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's constructive. An image of the character?  That would be fine.  An image of the actor discussing the show at a major event less relevant than a bobble head or a piece of fan art? I think not.  And then we're to imagine these pieces of fancruft are in a "more related environment" (what environment?) than Odenkirk discussing the show with the cast and producers alongside him?  Pull the other one.  It's got bells on it.  --Drmargi (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh I get it, if you lean real close you can actually hear Odenkirk talk relevant stuff with important people. As for constructive, repeatedly calling valid images "fancruft" just because YOU think are "beneath encyclopedic" - now that's constructive, right? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 08:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that "fancruft" strikes a pejorative tone (especially if you add "silly" to it), but it's a useful word for things that a fan might deem important beyond what a general audience has an interest in. These two photos fit that description. They don't illustrate or enhance anything described in the article. Willondon (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Better Call Saul
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Better Call Saul's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "s2": From Glee (TV series):  From List of Better Call Saul episodes:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for merging the article with the episode Witness (Better Call Saul)
What's your rational for merging the article with this episode in particular? There is already a list of all the episodes that are linked to articles about individual episodes. --My-wiki-photos (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't even see that page! Would it make more sense to merge the episode with a list of all the episodes? Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 00:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * On that page there is already a link pointing to Witness (Better Call Saul), as you can see it here. There's no need for merging. --My-wiki-photos (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No point to merging; as with other episodes, plenty of RS reviewing: google  { review "better call saul" witness } --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • COI) 12:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Procedural close, since the main TV series is not the place individual episodes should be merged into. --  Wikipedical (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Better Call Saul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140811184258/http://arts.nationalpost.com/2014/07/03/dean-norris-says-appearance-on-better-call-saul-unlikely-cbs-exec-les-moonves-wont-let-me-do-it/ to http://arts.nationalpost.com/2014/07/03/dean-norris-says-appearance-on-better-call-saul-unlikely-cbs-exec-les-moonves-wont-let-me-do-it/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Summer, Not September
I saw a teaser add on amc yesterday for Better Call Saul's fourth season during the Breaking Bad marathon, saying the series will premiere in the summer. But on this page I'm literally seeing sources claiming the show will premiere in September. From what I've seen from a few of these articles used as sources, I have a feeling these are just estimates for when the season will premiere, and that September is not the confirmed release month yet it spread to other articles with the belief that it might very well be the month. If anyone can find the commercial revealing the summer premiere tease, then maybe that should be enough to remove all these September claims from the page.

Also, I wouldn't take any sources citing this claim as credible, since they are older articles that go as far back as the fall of 2017. The Most recent article sharing this claim looks to be from about 2 weeks ago. I think that from then to now, they were able to settle on a summer release. - Theironminer (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It's best to avoid the use of seasons per WP:SEASON as its ambiguous. NJZombie (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That's a good point, and it'll work now that the sources saying "September" have been removed. Theironminer (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, if a source is provided for a specific month, such as September, then that's what it should be listed as. Seasons are to be avoided though, not specific months. NJZombie (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There's not necessarily a discrepancy, September is 73% summer. JesseRafe (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The reason seasons are avoided is because it's never universally the same season around the world. For example, summer in the USA is not summer in Australia. For this reason, specific dates, even if just a month, are preferred. NJZombie (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Better Call Saul
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Better Call Saul's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "S2ratings": From Homeland (TV series):  From Preacher (TV series):  

Reference named "S3ratings": From Preacher (TV series):  From Homeland (TV series): </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Rich or Rick
I get reverted by User:Some Dude From North Carolina for changing Rick Schweikart to Rich Schweikart, even though in most articles it's clearly Rich. So which one?? We need consistency here. Geanard (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * His name is Rich but he's credited as Rick in the closing credits. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sort of proposing that we need to pick one for the entire project, for consistency. Geanard (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:TV says we should go by credits or common name. I think it would be better to have "Rick" in the infobox and "Richard" everywhere else. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Good Topic – 2022
Feel free to update along the way. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Progress: 11 done out of 72.

This is conjecture
No offence to the editor, but the sentence, Kim's departure is too much for Jimmy to handle and he fully transforms into Saul Goodman is purely conjecture on behalf of the editor. We don't know her departure is what made him go full Saul Goodman. He was already being Saul Goodman. What actually happened in the episode, after the breakup, the show fast-forwards to an unspecified time where Jimmy has fully embraced being Saul Goodman, with the mansion, his famous Cadillac DeVille, custom license plate, women, new Breaking Bad style office, etc. Yes, after the time jump he is the Saul Goodman of the Breaking Bad era. Can we really decide if it was the breakup that made him go that extreme? There is a lot of time missing between the breakup and the mansion-owning Saul Goodman shown at the end. He had to get his hands on money. As far as we know, his portion of the Sandpiper settlement made him go greedy-hog-wild and he had no one, like Kim, to reign him in into stability. In closing, nothing in the episode confirms or even suggests it was the breakup that caused him to go full Saul. That is purely an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. I'm not going to edit that phrase as I think we should discuss it. I think it should be changed to reflect what it showed at the end without conjecture. Any thoughts? That is my two cents. P37307 (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Should add Neo Noir to the genre.
The show is neo noir similar to how Breaking Bad is neo western. Not only it has the characteristics and writing of the genre, but it also has the cinematography and direction. Not to mention a lot of episodes are literally in black and white.

Don’t know how to edit, so I’ll just suggest it here. 188.236.163.28 (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Got a reliable source for your suggestion? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2022
Add BCS under the category of neo noir TV series: Category:Neo-noir television series Antknee0 (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

timeline for the earlier Gene scenes
Do we know for SURE that the Gene scenes prior to the last few episodes took place after the Breaking Bad finale? We know they take place after Granite State. But the finale was several months later and they never really let on when the Gene events were taking place. How long he had been in Omaha. Only the Gene events in the final season suggest it was after Walt's death. But we don't know about the earlier parts. 69.112.239.6 (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Its likely the Gene events before Breaking Bad (the episode), took place during the months between Granite State and Felina but it might as well be said to be after the finale as otherwise it would be a bit of a mouthful. "The Gene scenes take place in a period of time between the penultimate and final episode of Breaking Bad" is a lot more effort than "They take place after the finale" FishandChipper 🐟🍟 08:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)